GE:
I think it is because Eric B's standpoint is the early Church regarded no days whatsoever, as were the Sabbath or any other 'special days' a non-entity.
It's NOT that they observed NO days, but that they were
optional; just like the diet.
Gerhard EbersoehnNow if it is decided Eric B is wrong, then Romans 14 must prove and leave no doubt the early (Apostolic) Church 'kept holy', 'days' - 'days' of all kinds Old Testament, including the Seventh Day Sabbath although it isn't mention in the passage.
Even if I was wrong, it wouldn't prove that the Early Church observed days. Paul is addressing practical conflicts where people were judging others over dong things differently. If he's telling people not to judge over days, then whether he mentions annual days, or pilgrimmages, or not, the point is not to judge each other over Days, which were assigned to the Old Covenant Israel, when we are all in Christ now, and "none of us lives unto himself or does unto himself...we are the Lord's...we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (v.7-10)
If you insist that proves the Church observed MANDATORY days, then
the pilgrimmages were mandatory, and are STILL mandatory! But neither of you are arguing for that! There is no way you can leave the weekly sabbath out by claiming "it was refferring to annual days with mandatory pilgrimmages only", but then say "it proves there were still mandatory days, but only the weekl day is madatory, not the annual ones".
But this can only be a deducement inevitable though it is, the fact remaining, that Paul does not deal on all or just any 'holy days' there, but specifically on the Passover, it being the only festival of 'holy days' that fits every specific indicated in Romans 14.
But again, the Passover is not even mentioned in this passage! I don't see how you can just by fiat add something that is not there!
In other words, EricB and his thesis stand or fall with Romans 14; this one text is pivotal for him.
No it is not; it is pivotal for
Bob, because he is the one trying to judge others over a day, and this one passage by itself floors his whole church's purpose of coming into existence. Don't you see what he's doing and the lengths he's going to protect his position? He's claiming over half of the Biblical feasts were "optional", just to fit his theory into this passage! I even gave him the original commands in Lev. and it clearly said that ALL SEVEN were "holy convocations" and "sabbaths" that had to be
OBSERVED by all! But no matter; he brushes it aside, and goes back to his commentaries that don't even say what he is saying! An I doing anything like that to any text? All I'm doing is taking it at what it says, and he is the one who keeps saying "no, that doesn't mean that, it means
this", and what he says is not even mentioned there!
But there are many other passages that we stand on as well, and Bob tries just as hard to rewrite and reinterpret them to justify his judgment of others. But this one is one of the clearest. It is too much for his doctrinal comfort zone to just do what it says. I once fell into that trap. "If the day is optional, and I can't judge others over it, then man; I can't go preaching how everyone else is wrong for not keeping it anymore. That's no fun! What's the point of it then? EGW and her "visions" about how this would become the Mark of the Beast were wrong. All of her writings, the premise of the founding of our church, and the entire Church's writings; all for naught!" He has a lot to lose, not me. He doesn't even believe that those who do not keep the sabbath will be judged over it, "until the issue is made clear" at the endtime "3rd Angel's message", as EGW said. (Which
right there is an admission that it is not "clearly taught" in the NT!) So none of us have anything to lose right now, like he does.
