-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
For SDA's on Sunday worship
- Thread starter thessalonian
- Start date
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Eric said
A "practice of the unsaved in the OT that is abopted by the saved in the NT - would cause the loss of salvation" but is that really what you are trying to prove? Are you only trying to identify the "actions of the rebellious wicked Jews during OT times as they rebelled against God and refused His salvation"?
Surely your "target" is to get at the "God fearing practices" of the Giants of faith listed in Heb 11 - the SAVED of the OT as they faithfully were Led by the Spirit and obeyed God and His scripture. The argument you "were" trying to make (before posting what you did above) was that formerly ACCEPTED practices are now condemned in the NT.
If not - then your entire case against Christ the Creator's Holy 7th day "Made for mankind" is lost.
Eric said
In Isaiah 58 we are shown that the day "made for mankind" is a blessing to Jew and Gentile.
But you are arguing "now" that you only intend to target "rebellious" practices of the wicked - the lost of the OT - not the saved - giants of faith as seen in Heb 11 as they observed God's Word - obeyed His law and were found to be "Doers" of the Word not merely "hearers only". If you stay on that road - you will not be able to get a good shot at Christ the Creator's Holy day in the NT.
In Christ,
Bob
Once again - you destroy your own argument. IF this reference in Gal 4 can be made to apply to the practice of honoring God's Law in the OT - in such a way in the OT as to be lost and rebel against God - then it is "NO CHANGE" in the NT.
A "practice of the unsaved in the OT that is abopted by the saved in the NT - would cause the loss of salvation" but is that really what you are trying to prove? Are you only trying to identify the "actions of the rebellious wicked Jews during OT times as they rebelled against God and refused His salvation"?
Surely your "target" is to get at the "God fearing practices" of the Giants of faith listed in Heb 11 - the SAVED of the OT as they faithfully were Led by the Spirit and obeyed God and His scripture. The argument you "were" trying to make (before posting what you did above) was that formerly ACCEPTED practices are now condemned in the NT.
If not - then your entire case against Christ the Creator's Holy 7th day "Made for mankind" is lost.
Eric said
As already pointed out - if this is condemning NT Christian gentiles for practicing the wicked practices of the rebellious lost souls in the OT then - "wicked is still wicked" and you have "no argument in this" against Christ the Creator's Holy 7th day memorial of creation made for mankind in Gen 2:3.
In Isaiah 58 we are shown that the day "made for mankind" is a blessing to Jew and Gentile.
But you are arguing "now" that you only intend to target "rebellious" practices of the wicked - the lost of the OT - not the saved - giants of faith as seen in Heb 11 as they observed God's Word - obeyed His law and were found to be "Doers" of the Word not merely "hearers only". If you stay on that road - you will not be able to get a good shot at Christ the Creator's Holy day in the NT.
In Christ,
Bob
In the Old Testament, even though they went through the whole motion of keeping all the Law, "it did not profit them, because it was not mixed with faith". Paul himself would fall into this category, as he persecuted the church. Now, these same types of unconverted Jews would try to influence the church. You say, well, in the OT, they were condemned for [lack of faith] ("wickedness"), but were still required to keep all the laws. But in the New testament, it was revealed in several places that converts were no longer bound by any part of the [letter of the] Law, other than the universal principles (Noahide laws of Acts 15, moral and spiritual commands quoted from the Ten in a few places, etc). So the faithless Jews in either case were condemned. Lawkeeping was a shallow motion they went through, and when it was required of all of God's people (Israel), it did not save them in their rebellion as they thought it did (and was just as much "bondage to the elements" as the pagan religion), and now that it was not binding on God's new people (The Church) they used it to continue their rebelliousness. That does not mean they were still binding on all.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
This is true of those in rebellion as we see from Romans 9 at the end of that chapter.
But it is not true of the Giants of faith listed in Heb 11.
In fact - Paul classes himself as a Jew of whom this is ALSO not true.
But if you take that group of wicked people and say - well the Gal 4 practice is just the continuation of the same wicked practices of the "lost" among the Jews in the OT - then you have nothing to use against Christ the Creator's Seventh-day memorial of creation made for mankind and kept by the Heb 11 giants of faith.
I think you mean "Saul". Yes in his lost state persecuting God's people - he would be in the class "wicked". His "wicked" practices would not "be ok" in Romans 14 - but they also say nothing about abolishing the Levitial law about "loving your Neighbor" Lev 19:18 or abolishing Christ the Creator's seventh-day Holy day made for mankind.
Eric said
Fine. If you can show "From some other" place that "Love your neighbor" is now dead - if it is kept in the letter - exactly as it is stated in Lev 19:18 then do so.
But you can't use Gal 4 to do it.
Which has been the point all along.
Your attempt to point the Gal 4 condemnation at any gentile that would choose to honor Christ the Creator's holy day - (as long as He got that information form a Jew - like - oh say - Paul) has failed as you are now relegating Gal 4 to "just the continuation wicked practices of OT jews that were lost in the OT for those same practices"
,Eric said
Though the FaithFULL Jews of Heb 11 kept God's law and their faith "ESTABLISHED the LAW" Rom 3:31 - yet as you point out - there were others who were wicked and who were not saved. THE Law was never given as "A gospel" or as a "way of salvation" as Paul said in Gal 3.
The FAithFUL of Heb 11 did not use it that way - nor did Saul once he became Paul.
Eric
Something you have yet to show...
Certainly you have just disqualified Gal 4 from the list of candidate texts that you "might have used" for it only applies (by your statements here) to wicked practices in the OT continued in the NT.
And as we already learned - you can't use Romans 14 because that chapter only "defends" the observances.
You are running out of options.
In Christ,
Bob
A_Christian
New Member
BobRyan:
What I am saying with regard to Mrs. White, is that she speaks for the SDA church when in fact the NEW TESTAMENT commands women to remain silent in the congregation. I Corinthians 14:34-35,
I Timothy 2:11-14, and Ephesians 5:22-24 infers subordination to a Christian Husband (Miss Harmon claimed salvation at 13 in 1843). I would assume that she married a Christian and became Mrs. White. What happened to her husband? Why didn't she remain SILENT!
What I am saying with regard to Mrs. White, is that she speaks for the SDA church when in fact the NEW TESTAMENT commands women to remain silent in the congregation. I Corinthians 14:34-35,
I Timothy 2:11-14, and Ephesians 5:22-24 infers subordination to a Christian Husband (Miss Harmon claimed salvation at 13 in 1843). I would assume that she married a Christian and became Mrs. White. What happened to her husband? Why didn't she remain SILENT!
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
A-Christian,
As it turns out - her husband was not a prophet.
Kind of like the prophet Deborah judging in Israel instead of her father or husband or brother or son or ...
BTW - I assume women are not allowed to even speak in your church right? I know there are some churches like that - just wondering.
But that was not what I was asking about - I think you said something about Evangelistic programs always wanting to predict the day and hour of Christ's return.
You said
In Christ,
Bob
As it turns out - her husband was not a prophet.
Kind of like the prophet Deborah judging in Israel instead of her father or husband or brother or son or ...
BTW - I assume women are not allowed to even speak in your church right? I know there are some churches like that - just wondering.
But that was not what I was asking about - I think you said something about Evangelistic programs always wanting to predict the day and hour of Christ's return.
You said
Did I miss something there?
In Christ,
Bob
Uh, look at verse 3 again. Paul does include himself as being in the same boat as the gentiles "in bondage" (which you call "wicked").
You still don't get it. Paul was keeping all the days, but was not obeying god, because he had not accepted Christ. Once a person accepts Chrit, then they could still keep days unto the Lord, but not continue to persecute or harass other christians as other Jews were still doing. That is the difference between Gal.4 and Rom. 14. You are consistently ignoring this to maintain your argument that "the giants of the faith kept the days, they were good, so they are not what Paul was criticizing people for mandating in Gal.4"
OK, here are a couple if illustrations. God gives a set of universal laws since the Fall: prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual perversion, eating live meat/blood and the mandate to establish courts. These break down into 66 principles which cover man's relation to God (two of them) and to neighbor (four of the others) and there's even one that deals with animals. Man continues to break these, so then God raises the Nation of Israel, and gives them a covenant with a stricter set of laws, breaking down into 613. Five of the original laws are included in a 10 point summary of the laws. The one on courts is related to one of the new commandments, called "bearing false witness". Then one of the ones about God is split into two, to more clearly forbid both other gods, (even if no physical representation is used) and constructing idols, even if they supposedly "represent" the true God. The one on animals is covered in 613 and not included in the 10. There are also some other non-universal laws that had been added along the way, such as circumcision, that were in the 613. The last commandment sums up our desires, that can lead to violation of some of the other points of the 10. So now, a new commandment is added, that takes the day God rested in the creation, and makes a weekly memorial of it for the Isaraelites following the 10. So in both sets of laws, we still see the universal Two: Love for God and for neighbor.
Of course, the Israelites would continue to break these, and eventually, they decide to go to the opposite extreme, and try to make them stricter than they actually are. The sabbath had made into a burden. So Jesus reminds them that they have gone way overboard in their application of it. It was made for man, (whichever "man" who aims to keep it), rather than man being made for it.
The whole lesson being drawn through all of this is that even with all of these laws, man could not be made righteous. So God sets aside the covenant with Israel, and now turns to the whole world. In the process, the 10—> 613 point code given to Israel is set aside, and we go back to the original universal laws which God had always expected of all man. Only now, it's magnified to its spiritual intent; and the ceremonial commands from the 10—>613 code are fulfilled by Messiah. We are also told to set our minds on things above, because this old Creation is passing away, so naurally, a "memorial of creation" would not be mandated. The Law now is Love, and the Spirit teaches us what is right and wrong. So in this system, some of the 10 can be quoted from, because these were among the six commands that carried over from the original universal commands (plus the one that was split into two), and people remember them best from the 10 point summary. Still, the universal Two are maintained. These are what Christ said the whole Law were about, and the laws that hang on them can change, but the Two are always maintained, both before the Law of Moses was given, and after it, in the church age.
So that's why "whatever is not repeated is deleted". So when the NT says things like the Law being "abolished" or "nailed to the Cross", and us not being under the Law, etc. you can't say "no, those don't mean that, some of them are still quoted, so it's still the same unit", and still claim that no scriptures have been given to prove otherwise.
Further proof; while there is no explicit scripture that says either "the sabbath is still binding" or "the sabbath is not still binding", still, if it was, then like all the other commandments, people would be breaking it, and would be reprooved in the epistles, but we do not see this. We can see many other commands and principles in the letter and spirit people were reproved for breaking, including the so-called "other 9" of the 10 point code (in different places). This shows it was never an issue. Revelation is also silent on it, though you try to read it into the 3 angels message. The main endtime issue addressed in Revelation is the idolatry of worshipping the Beast, along with other idols, plus "murders, sorceries (drugs), fornication or thefts (11:21)-- precisely the issues we see in cociety today. Once again, yes, what is not repeated is deleted, because the NT and the spirit in our lieves is now the authority for practice, and whatever it carries over from older law codes is what is binding.
I know I'm asking for it by adding these points. When I finally got my responses down to a single paragraph, you still broke it down to several arguments, but keep in mind, this thread is past 10 pages, so they are probably going to close it soon. Please let's try to wrap this up, and keep it concise.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
In Romans 9:1-4 and 24 and in Romans 11 Paul classes himself as among the faithful jews wishing for the lost to come to Christ. He places Himself with the faithful - like those in Heb 11.
As Saul (as I already mentioned before) he is the faithless- wicked- lost Jew.
The point remains. Being faithLess, Wicked and Lost -was wrong in BOTH OT and NT (even for a Jew).
Eric said --
True enough. Being wicked and lost "possible inside the Church".
The defense of Paul is never - "Being wicked and lost was ok for getting you to heaven in the OT but not good anymore in the NT" - yet you seem destined to make that point.
"Again" - persecuting and harassing is not mentioned as a "practice" in Gal 4 for which they are condemned. RATHER it is the "obersvance" itself that is obviously and explicitly condemned.
"Again" - the act of Paul in conforming to those who wanted him to follow their practices (1Cor 8 - remember?) shows that EVEN in that extreme case - they were not lost and going to hell.
The Gal 4 practice is entirely different.
Your efforts to get it to apply to the "faithless, wicked and lost" practices - excludes the Heb 11 "FaithFULL" group of OT saints - making it WRONG in both OT and NT to be "faithless, wicked and lost".
We come back to that point repeatedly.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Please provide the quote from Genesis - (I assume that is where you are starting)
Agreed. Pre-Cross "abusing" God's Law was not "ok" then either.
None of the 10 commandments are framed that way as spoken by God "Whoever aims to keep this one".
Christ said it was "made for Mankind". Period.
We are still a long way out from "don't keep the letter of what the law actually says anymore". Are we going to get to that?
Yes the 10 commandments abolished by God. That's the part you were going to "show" rather than "assume".
Yes that's another part you never had a quote to backup.
In the New Earth - it "continues to be". The notion that it is contradicted by "setting our minds on things above" is not found in all of scripture and is fully refuted by the fact that we continue it EVEN in the New Earth. This point of yours has already been refuted and still you have no quote about the "letter being done away - abolished, made void, nullified".
Let me help you.
"Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31.
That is a good model for showing "Bible proof" for the doctrine that the Law of God is not abolished - it is established - enforce - highlighted - magnified - exaulted - and written on the tablets of the human heart.
So the Law of Love quoted in James 2 from Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 is dead? Is there a new one? Or did you mean to say "The LAw of Love has always been in force and like Christ the Creator's Seventh-day memorial of creation made for mankind - it continues"?
But you simply made up your starting point Eric. How can you than circle back on it as though you were proving something?
Interesting not a single text - it was all based on your made up idea that the only laws that were real at the start - is whatever we make up in our head - nothing that God said explicitly.
" So when the NT DOESN't say things like the Law being "abolished" or "nailed to the Cross",--- you simply make it up -- again".
When the NT DOES say things about our " not being under the Law" as in the "Condemnation of the LAW" (Romans 3) it is then free to expand the point in that SAME chapter with the logical and contiguous point "Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31."
People after the NT - for the NT saints were continuing to honor the Word of God.
Just as today we find most Christians using images in their worship - a problem that also arose after the NT saints of the first century - but which some might wish they were practicing at that time.
Rev 12 mentions the fact that the Saints continue to keep the Commandments of God.
Rev 14 uses the unique language of the 4th commandment -- "He who made the heavens and the earth the seas and the springs of water".
Just a fact.
Then Sabbath was "deleted" by Malachi -- and pre-cross by Matthew.
So also were all the other 10 commandment with Malachi - but brought back again (in part) in Matthew by that rule.
Further - they are all wiped out again in Jude only to have a few re-surface in James 2.
In any case - I obviously could not follow such a hit-or-miss method of Bible study as you are suggesting.
Suffice it to say - we know the Sabbath is kept in the New Earth. We know it was made for all mankind in Gen 2:3 and we know that even though you don't get a repeat of it in Malachi and Matthew - it was still fully in force.
Oh yes - and we know that those living in the new earth "Have their minds set on things above".
In any case - you have done well in fully explaining the strength of your position and exactly where it comes from in that last post. I just need something a bit more Bible-centered and provable.
My position has always been that I would gladly go from a good position to an even stronger Bible based position. But never to a weaker one. I think our cards have been on the table on this subject for a while. But I appreciate your being willing to respond to a few hard questions about where you actually come up with some of it. What the real "source" is.
In Christ,
Bob
I said no such thing. There you go sensationalizing what you think what I am saying leads to. If you look back over my statement, you'll see where I qualify why they were "wicked" in the OT, and in the NT. In both cases, they looked to the Law as justifying themselves. In the OT, days were mandated, and they kept them alright, but not with the right intent. In the NT, they continued this, even though the days were no longer mandated, and that was what was condemned.
Because the only reason they were doing it was because they were giving in to the legalists, not voluntarily keeping the days unto the Lord.
Because these people had genuine convictions. The Galatianizers didn't, but were seeking to bring the people back into bondage. It's like the people who oppose modern music and Bibles. Many people questioned the legitimacy of those teachings, and thus didn't yield to them.
Because you're not getting these simple distinctions, and keep posting the same objections about why was something "OK" in the OT and not the NT.
OK, well perhaps I'll have to go and try to gather them from Genesis. I drew this from Jewish scholars, who have compiles the 7-->66 "Noahide Laws", which were always expected of all men. As you have pointed out, Abel knew killing was wrong, as we see his act condemned. Therefore, we can say it was a law, even though it wasn't recorded as officially "commanded". You try to extend this principle to the Sabbath, but clearly, we neither see it commanded, NOR anyone condemned for not observing it until Moses, despite what you try to read into Gen.2. There is absolutely no evidence at all that man was expected to observe it.
But once again, "mad for man" does not mean "all men are commanded to partake of it". Once again, ou would have a stronger argument arguing that all individuals MUST get married, because God had commanded "MAN" to "Be fruitful and multiply", and the Jews did use to take it this way. (Some still may).
This is what we see in the whole New Testament. In Acts 15, only some of the Noahide Laws are imposed on Gentiles as "practice", and all through the epistles, we are instructed on what God expects from us.
Once again, you cannot say "see, it was commanded in the past, and there it is mentioned for the future" and jump all of this to this age. This is not how we build Church practice.
Regarding Isaiah, here's another one that I neglected to point out, besides the mention of priests and Levites and new moons. It says that "all flesh shall come to worship before Me...". This is a definite place on the earth, and in Rev. this is also mentioned in the Kingdom. Clearly this is not something we are expected to do now.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Again" - persecuting and harassing is not mentioned as a "practice" in Gal 4 for which they are condemned. RATHER it is the "obersvance" itself that is obviously and explicitly condemned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Again" - the act of Paul in conforming to those who wanted him to follow their practices (1Cor 8 - remember?) shows that EVEN in that extreme case - they were not lost and going to hell.
The Gal 4 practice is entirely different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
eric said
In the case above - you 'want' to say that the Gal 4 "return to weak elemental things that are not gods at all" is simply "gentiles being manipulated" into obeying the Law of God even though it is not their first preference.
But in 1Cor 8 we show that it is NOT Paul's idea to be vegetarian and avoid all meat offered to idols but he says that IF this is what the OTHER Christiand need him to do so they don't take offense - then fine he will do it.
In your rework of Gal 4 - the 1Cor 8 response should be for Paul to say to those Christians as He does to those in Gal 4 "I will never do as you ask because I don't think it is needed and I would go to hell if I did anything because someone else told me too".
Or "else" He should have told them "you are going to hell because you are tring to argue me into doing something I prefer not to do".
This 1Cor 8 example has been brought in about half a dozen times and you don't seem to be connecting the dots with Gal 4.
Your intepretation of Gal 4 creates a huge problem for you in 1Cor 8.
In Christ,
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Again" - persecuting and harassing is not mentioned as a "practice" in Gal 4 for which they are condemned. RATHER it is the "obersvance" itself that is obviously and explicitly condemned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric said
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Again" - the act of Paul in conforming to those who wanted him to follow their practices (1Cor 8 - remember?) shows that EVEN in that extreme case - they were not lost and going to hell.
The Gal 4 practice is entirely different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
eric said
Lets try to get at least one point - head on - where I say one thing and you answer it directly.
In the case above - you 'want' to say that the Gal 4 "return to weak elemental things that are not gods at all" is simply "gentiles being manipulated" into obeying the Law of God even though it is not their first preference.
But in 1Cor 8 we show that it is NOT Paul's idea to be vegetarian and avoid all meat offered to idols but he says that IF this is what the OTHER Christiand need him to do so they don't take offense - then fine he will do it.
In your rework of Gal 4 - the 1Cor 8 response should be for Paul to say to those Christians as He does to those in Gal 4 "I will never do as you ask because I don't think it is needed and I would go to hell if I did anything because someone else told me too".
Or "else" He should have told them "you are going to hell because you are tring to argue me into doing something I prefer not to do".
This 1Cor 8 example has been brought in about half a dozen times and you don't seem to be connecting the dots with Gal 4.
Your intepretation of Gal 4 creates a huge problem for you in 1Cor 8.
In Christ,
Bob
You're the one not getting it. I have explained the difference between Gal.4, 1Cor 8 (as well as Rom 14). I just said it again above: 1 Cor 8 and Rom 14 deal with legitimate personal convictions, Gal.4 is dealing with legalists trying to bring people into BONDAGE. To use the music issue; I can have a legitimate problem with rhytmic music because it arouses passions in me, or I can think it is demonic "jungle music" because of those barbaric pagan Africans who brought it over here. In either case, I am asking the Church to shun it. In one case it is an honest legitmate request that people should listen to, and perhaps defer to, and in the other, it is sinful racism, and those people are to be corrected, not heeded. (Unfortunately, the rebelling youth ignoring the older people's requests assumed it was all the latter, and forced churches to modernize, when some legitimately had a personal problem with it, and this has helped fuel the worship wars). When Paul says "But you are keeping days and months and seasons", it is obviously not keeping a day unto the Lord, as defended in Rom.14, even though it could be the same "days" involved. It is rigorously keeping them as if bound, when Rom.14 is telling the person who keeps them not to judge the person who does not keep them as well, (it is OK not to keep them). Here we plainly see, in one place, you can keep a day if you so choose, and not judge. In another place, people are keeping them out of compulsion, and for no legitimate reason; just the type of thing Romans 14 is teaching against. The passages work in harmony. You are fixing it so that I am setting them opposite one another, and yet again, you reverse the two verses in Galatians to suggest they were once again worshipping pagan gods. (and you talk about a "stronger, Bible-based position"?)
My last response was cut short, so here I continue:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric said --, and the Spirit teaches us what is right and wrong. So in this system, some of the 10 can be quoted from, because these were among the six commands that carried over from the original universal commands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the early church had no sin, and kept the Word perfectly, but only after time did they begin breaking God's Laws? Just look at Cortinthians, Galatians, the seven churches of Asia in Rev. etc. All through the NT is sin being corrected, reproved, condemned, but never the Sabbath or any other such Law from the OT. Once again, that shows that is was no issue of mandatory Christian practice, (except for those imposing it on others).
But then after I posted, I realized that needed clarification (after all, "not repeated is deleted" was really your paraphrase from the beginning anyway), but it was too late to edit.
Nothing is "deleted" simply BY the fact of it not being repeated, but THE FACT that is was not repeated (ANYWHERE in the NT) shows it was no longer mandatory. Every thing God expects of us is covered in the NT (no, not just one particular book by itself, but across the whole thing), as well as in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
My last response was cut short, so here I continue:
And this in a whole chapter where Paul contrasts "Law vs. faith". So anticipating that people will think he is teaching lawlessness, he asks "are we making void the Law through faith", and counters, that no, we are actually establishing it. This is what I have been saying all along, but you keep criticizing me for saying that magnifying the law is "ignoring" some of its precepts (while others become more restrictive). But it is Paul here who is teaching that.
I just did a whole explanation how the two (including love for God) are eternal, and that the rest hang on them and can change (such as the Sabbath), so why do you keep asking this?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric said --, and the Spirit teaches us what is right and wrong. So in this system, some of the 10 can be quoted from, because these were among the six commands that carried over from the original universal commands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did not "make this up", and it is not what we "make up" in our heads, it is what God has written in our hearts and consciences, and God has always expected of us.
What are you saying?
That the early church had no sin, and kept the Word perfectly, but only after time did they begin breaking God's Laws? Just look at Cortinthians, Galatians, the seven churches of Asia in Rev. etc. All through the NT is sin being corrected, reproved, condemned, but never the Sabbath or any other such Law from the OT. Once again, that shows that is was no issue of mandatory Christian practice, (except for those imposing it on others).No it is not fact. You read the sabbath into "commandments", when the Commandments obviously had changed from the OT. And Rev.14 is a very poor method of establishing a church practice. --"the same set of words are used". This is just like what one of the RC's said elsewhere (who you dispute) because we see heavenly temple ceremony mentioned in conjunction with "worship" and "God's throne" in Rev. then that proves we are to have elaborate ritual in the Church where we worship and "come before the throne". God is much more clear than that on what He expects of us. It says nothing about "Sabbath", or is even telling us to do anything other than worship the right Being. That has nothing to do with a day of the week. If people worshipped Saturn on the 7th day, they would still be violating this, as do Jews who keep the day, but reject Jesus. The day itself is not the Creator, and not the focus or even definition of "worship", that is the type of point this verse is teaching us.
Here we go with the "it is not repeated in every book" again.
But then after I posted, I realized that needed clarification (after all, "not repeated is deleted" was really your paraphrase from the beginning anyway), but it was too late to edit. Nothing is "deleted" simply BY the fact of it not being repeated, but THE FACT that is was not repeated (ANYWHERE in the NT) shows it was no longer mandatory. Every thing God expects of us is covered in the NT (no, not just one particular book by itself, but across the whole thing), as well as in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
Your arguments are not as strong and Biblical as you think they are (as shown above). Just think of Calvinism. They make the same claims, and it looks Biblical, but when you cut to the heart of it, it's all inference pasted onto proof-texts.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Wrong again.
Those in at Galatia were "not" saying "please be in bondage - oh we insist". Both the Christians in 1Cor 8 and the ones in Galatia were insisting that "others" conform to their practices.
Paul is not saying in 1Cor 8 "I just so happen to FEEL like being vegetarian". Please read the text again. Paul is claiming that HE will do this - if this is what it takes to please those who are observing his practice and being offended by it.
You simply ignore that. The problem is that instead of saying in 1Cor 8 "hey that is paganism" -- he actually accomodates.
In Acts 21 - we see Paul "do it again". He goes so far as to take an oath in the temple to please those who are criticizing his practice and his doctrine.
You have not been able to respond to this point - your arguments have been refuted in this case - and you just ignore the fact.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Eric said
IF the condemnation was of the PEOPLE that were practicing error then your case would be "logical" And "consistent" but you seek to use "SIN in the Person" to condemn the Law of God as "a weak and elemental thing" pertaining to that "which is not god at all".
The illustration you have provided does not justify such an abuse of the text.
In Christ,
Bob
I like that illustration. Unfortunately in the case of Galatians this is not a case of racism. And we have no examples in all of scripture where "any" abuse or prejudice would "justfiy" calling the "perfect, holy and just Law of God that is Established by our faith" Romans 7, Romans 3:31 -- "Paganism" or "The weak and elemental things that pertain to that which is NOT God"
IF the condemnation was of the PEOPLE that were practicing error then your case would be "logical" And "consistent" but you seek to use "SIN in the Person" to condemn the Law of God as "a weak and elemental thing" pertaining to that "which is not god at all".
The illustration you have provided does not justify such an abuse of the text.
In Christ,
Bob
1 Cor.8 does not say they were "insisting that everyone conform to their practices". Paul starts with himself, showing that he has that attitude as soon as he sees it offends others (v.13), even if they never even raise their objection. That IS the difference between 1Cor. and Gal. In the former, we are taught to have the attitude of deferrence to our brethren. In the latter, People are criticized for allowing themselves to be brought under bondage-- not simply deferring to others out of service to the Lord, but being convinced by them to do something in a compulsory fashion as if it gained them some merit, and the people they are yielding to are NOT other "brethren", but rather apostates resisting the true Gospel! That is the important difference between the two passages you have not realized.
But it's the same type of bad, hidden motive ("insidious intent"
Answered in the "10 Commandments" thread (though it was answered dozens of times here). We might as well begin moving these arguments over there.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Eric said --
In 1Corinthians - Paul addresses many issues in the church in one letter.
In Galatians - he also addresses several different problems in one letter.
In 1 Cor 8 - Paul addresses those that are KNOWN to have issues with eating meat offerred to idols. (In fact Acts 15 commands that they "have a problem with it").
But Paul argues that this command from Acts 15 - and the strong feelings of those in Corinth regarding that subject "in harmony with the ACts 15 command" - are enough to compell him to conform to their practices simply to please them.
Your "notion" that IF your view "right and wrong" in such a way that you think "others should do the right thing as well" then you make "those others go to hell" - is wrong.
It did not work in 1Cor 8, it did not work in Acts 21, it did not work in Acts 15 and you can use that in Gal 04 to apply to the Word of God as "The weak and beggerly things" that pertain to that "which is not god at all" - are "return again" to that which the Gentiles in Galatia where at one time enslaved by the explicit statment of the text.
Here again - a distinction without a difference IF we are really talking about observances that are NOT evil - but are of the holy just and true Law of God that "is Spiritual" as Romans 7 claims.
Your claim is that that which was "approved in the OT" will "trick you into hell" in the NT.
Your claim is that what WAS "Holy Just and true Scripture" is become "the Weak and Beggerly things pertaining to that which is not god at all".
As long as you hold to those conflicted views - your suggestion remains compromised.
Eric said
It simply doesn't work. IF the problem is that racism is being condemned in Gal 04 or something like it - then you are claiming that racism is in the OT and it was "honorable" but now is "weak and beggerly". Such was never the case. EVil was never "honorable".But it's the same type of bad, hidden motive ("insidious intent").
This is again showing that no amount of "bad practices" on the part of a few results in "God's Word being bad" it only results in the "sinner being bad".
This is plain to see - I am at a loss as to why you do not accept it.
Done.
In Christ,
Bob
What are you saying? You're losing me here. On one hand, if someone has a problem with an issue, we should conform. Does this mean any time someone rasises an objection to something we should make a church-wide "command" out of it for all times, and assume God commanded it? But then you keep talking about "making others go to hell" if I don't agree with them. I never said any such thing; those are you're words. You seem to be having a conversation with yourself, because you keep changing what I say, and forcing it into your own straw men.
And you keep ignoring my explanation of why lawkeeping was approved in the OT (and Rom.14), but not in the NT (unless it was personal devotion.) You keep twisting the text of Gal.4:8,9 to make it say exactly what you want (bondage is ONLY to "things that are not gods", so that is the only thing they could possibly be "returning" to), while flatly ignoring verse 3 where Paul included his old life in the same "bondage to the elements", even though he kept the Law of the true God.
If this is how you have to prove your doctrine--twist one verse, ignore another, mix words around (both of the scripture, and your opponent), and continue as if all of this was never answered, then it is clear whose position is not only "compromised", but totally bankrupt. You have no real biblical proof to stand on, but must pull strings to dismiss the other view, (which in itself does not even prove your view), and then force in your own by "default".
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Eric said
#1. You "define" the Gal 04 unique problem - as simply "obeying the Word of God when someone else tells you to - even if you don't feel like it". The problem is that Gal 04 says that those who practice those pagan arts "pertaining to the weak and beggerly things of this world of that which is no god at all" - they they are "labored for in vain" they are lost. So you make them "lost" simply because they "obey" God and "don't feel like it". You claim the condemnation applies to the Christian in Galatia for the error of "obeying God's Word" because someone else told them to.
#2. I am pointing out that the 1Cor 8 example devestates your speculation for a prinicple in Gal 04. It shows in reference to a clear command in Acts 15 and the clear preference of "some" in Corinth that all should conform to the Acts 15 command regarding meat offered to idols - that Paul did not agree. Paul said however that he would practice an extreme form of "Conformity" to please the group. In Acts 21 you see him do it again. This is the "very thing" which you claim is the "problem being addressed in Gal 04" which buys them the condemnation of that chapter.
It could not be any easier to see this application.
I think you simply don't like what it points out about the speculative principle you are trying to build in Gal 4.
Eric said
Please hang on to that point. It exposes the weakness in your position. Your argument is that that which IS faithful obedient submission in the OT - now gets you to hell.
You have just defined it above as "approved" by God in the OT and then in the NT you assign that which you admit to be approved in the Word of God - Approved in the Law of God as "the weak and beggerly things - pertaining to that which is not god at all".
But instead of that approach Paul says "DO we then abolish the Law of God with our NT faith? God Forbid! In Fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 3:31.
You simply deny your own doctrines here again.
We BOTH agree that in the lost state - Paul (Saul) was just as lost as a pagan that practiced the "weak and beggerly things of this world". Paul says that as a lost person before coming to faith - he himself was "In bondage under the weak and elemental things of this WORLD".
Your "idea" that this is a reference to the Word of God - to Scripture (as Paul calls it in Gal 3) or to the "LAW that is Spiritual" as he says in Romans 7 - falls flat.
You simply "assume it". But that is not Paul's point. His argument is not that God's Word, Scripture, His Law that "is ESTABLISHED even by our faith" is in fact "the weak and elemental thing of this world" - your attempt to turn his Gal 4:3 statement in that direction directly opposes his statement in Gal 3 to the contrary and also his statement in Romans 7 that the Law of God is in fact "NOT the weak and elemental thing of this world" does not work - how then can you ask me to defend your doing so?
In Christ,
Bob
The issue WAS NOT "OBEYING GOD" They were not obeying God. They were obeying APOSTATES! 1 Cor. 8 is saying that we should defer to BRETHREN who have a conviction. Ity saysnothing about following apostates trying to bring you back into bondage (whether in the Law, orwithout the Law) You think you have suh an impressive rebuttal, but all you are doing is forcing your idea of what one is teaching if they don't take your position on the Law.
You left out where I said "(UNLESS it was personal devotion", and of course added your twisted butchery of v.8,9.
Because this "return" was manifested by "observing days and months and seasons (appointed times)" of ancient Israel, when they were not mandatory, and they were not observing them for the REASONS either Rom 14. OR 1 Cor. 8 stipulate. It was purely at the behest of apostate judaizers; NOT conscientious "brethren", and these are the only people influenceing the Galatians and they would not be influencing them with pagan days, that the Jews wouldn't be keeping themselves. It is so crucial for you to reverse v.8 and 9, to make this "paganism" and accuse me of contradicting those other scriptures, because it is the whole downfall of your theory otherwise. I do not have to shuffle verses and words around to prove my point, but you do. So how do you think your position is so strong and mine so "contradictory"?