-
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!
To Obey God rather than tradition is legalism? Really??
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I would not go out and chop wood on Sabbath.
Since I don't have a wood stove - it is not an issue - but that is the rough equivalent.
I also would not pour cold water on a fire or wood stove on Friday night and I am pretty sure that the Jews themselves (once they left the desert) were warm at night - even on Sabbath. But not having to run out in the woods and gather sticks on Sabbath to do so.
Curious that you have this level of interest - is it your claim that "God's laws are burdensome" and that is why you ignore it? John addresses that point in 1John 5:2-3.
Here is another example of my own practice - (not me sniping at a fellow Sabbath keeper to see what they are doing - just my own practice) - but if I am on vacation over the Sabbath - I will not go fill up my car with gas on Sabbath just as I would not do that when at home. That is another modern day equivalent of not "gathering sticks" on Sabbath in my personal opinion.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for this fresh perspective!
I must have gone over this text millions of times, but never dreamed to see it so clearly in so simple a way! That's the secret of course!
Thanks man! You made my day!
"cooks drinks"?
hmm? Veiled language perhaps?
Do you have a coffee maker or an electric kettle that does the work for you?
IOW, do you "make" coffee or tea on your "sabbath"?
The Mormons certainly wouldn't.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
No one has yet received the mark of the beast.—Evangelism, 234 (1899). {LDE 224.5}
Sundaykeeping is not yet the mark of the beast, and will not be until the decree goes forth causing men to worship this idol sabbath. The time will come when this day will be the test, but that time has not come yet. The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 7:977 (1899). {LDE 224.6}
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by DHK
But how rigidly do you keep it. You mentioned one thing I was wondering about. You cook your meals ahead of time. Does that include all drinks?
You are the one that asked about cooking drinks prior to Sabbath.
I don't drink coffee or tea (part of my religion to some extent) - so as I said - in general "I don't cook my drinks" - much less doing so on Sabbath.
in Christ,
Bob
But how rigidly do you keep it. You mentioned one thing I was wondering about. You cook your meals ahead of time. Does that include all drinks?
You are the one that asked about cooking drinks prior to Sabbath.
I don't drink coffee or tea (part of my religion to some extent) - so as I said - in general "I don't cook my drinks" - much less doing so on Sabbath.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
And wouldn't that have been a wonderful place to insert the very first statement, the one and only statement in all of scripture that went something like "AND on the FIRST day of the week - the LORDS' Day, they were all gathered..."
OR "AND on the FIRST day of the week - the LORDS' Day, let each one save by himself ..."
How sad that this perfect opportunity to have at least ONE Bible text in all of scripture that said "week day 1 is the LORD's Day" and yet... nothing!
in Christ,
Bob
sabbath given JUST to OT israel, Church not placed back under it, as we are a NEW CREATION of god in Chrsit...
NO Biblical revealtion states that the mark of the beast is what dhe claimed it to be...
bible states that NONE whose names arew ritten dwn in book of like will take the mark
the mark is one who worships the beast/Antichrist, NOT Sunday worship!
Her revelation contridicts the Bible revelations, so false prophecies from a false prophetess!
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Not according to the Bible.
Mark 2:27 "Sabbath MADE for MANKIND"
Is 66:23 from Sabbath to Sabbath "shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship"
Is 56 GENTILES blessed for keeping Sabbath even in Isaiah's day.
Acts 13, 17, 18 both Jews AND Gentiles attend Sabbath worship services.
Church is under the Jer 31:31-33 NEW Covenant with the LAW of God written on Heart and Mind - according to Hebrews 8.
So says the Bible in Heb 8.
So says Paul
"What matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19
"There REMAINS therefore a SABBATH rest for the people of God" Heb 4 - the same as in Ps 96 in David's day - REMAINS.
And of course those non-SDA sources like the Seventh-day Baptists, the "Baptist Confession of Faith", Westminster Confession of Faith, C.H. Spurgeon, D.L.Moody would agree with that point about the Sabbath given to mankind - not just Jews.
in Christ,
Bob
CONTEXT:
Paul is speaking specifically about circumcision in the general context of marriage. You sure know how to take Scripture out of context.
CONTEXT:
Christ is the believer's Sabbath. He is our rest. Note to the confused SDA.
Christ is a person and not a day. He is living; a real person, not an inanimate day.
There remains therefore Christ. We rest in Him. All who come to him shall find rest. He is our sabbath; our eternal rest. If you don't have Christ you will never have rest.
The wicked are like the troubled sea that casts up mire and dirt.
Peace! Peace! they say; But there is no peace.
Without Christ there is no peace; no rest.
Bob[/QUOTE]
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
In Heb 4 the "Same Sabbath" rest "Remains for the people of God" from what is clearly available in Psalms 96. The entire point of Heb 4 is undercut if the bias of the reader is "nope! Sabbath was abolished at the cross".
No wonder so many non-SDA groups, documents etc do not take the "Sabbath abolished" solution when going to Hebrew 4 -- it simply does not work.
in Christ,
Bob
No wonder so many non-SDA groups, documents etc do not take the "Sabbath abolished" solution when going to Hebrew 4 -- it simply does not work.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by BobRyan
So says Paul
"What matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19
"circumcision in the general context of marriage" whaaat!
You really think that the issue about circumcision in the NT is just within marriage?? What an extreme eisegesis!!
"You sure know how to take Scripture out of context. "
The "general theme" is remaining in the condition in which you were called, Married/single, slave/freee, circumcised/not-circumcised. You cannot wrench one of the contrasting conditions to make it host or limit all others -- obviously.
And when the issue of ceremonial laws like circumcision comes up - Paul is quick in that specific case to CONTRAST it with keeping the moral law - ceremonial vs moral law.
Perfect for all those SDA and non-SDA sources, documents, groups that affirm that the Commandments of God (including all ten) are still binding. Not so good for those who promote the idea that the Commandments of God "as a burden".
In the immediate context for 1Cor 7:19 Paul is talking about slaves vs free and about ceremonial law (circumcision) vs the moral law (commandments of God).
to see just how independent that teaching is from Marriage lets take a close look - and compare each statement with "no it is all about Marriage or within the context of those who are Married not singles"
==================================================================
1 Cor 7
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. (regardless if they are married or not DHK) And so I direct in all the churches.
18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. (regardless if they are married or not) Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. (regardless if they are married or not)
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, (regardless if they are married or not), but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.
20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
(in all these cases listed -- regardless if they are married or not)
21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. (regardless if they are married or not)
22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. (regardless if they are married or not)
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. (regardless if they are married or not DHK)
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.
(regardless if they are married or not)
=====================================================
There is an "any ol excuse will do" idea that tries it imagine that all that ceremonial law circumcision vs gentile, slave vs free discussion above is all about "marriage".
I guess then in their view marriage is slavery and bachelor is "free"?? what in the world are they thinking in this "anything but the actual Commandments of God vs ceremonial issues like circumcision mentioned in the actual text" solution that they use - ??
in Christ,
Bob
So says Paul
"What matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19
"circumcision in the general context of marriage" whaaat!
You really think that the issue about circumcision in the NT is just within marriage?? What an extreme eisegesis!!
"You sure know how to take Scripture out of context. "
The "general theme" is remaining in the condition in which you were called, Married/single, slave/freee, circumcised/not-circumcised. You cannot wrench one of the contrasting conditions to make it host or limit all others -- obviously.
And when the issue of ceremonial laws like circumcision comes up - Paul is quick in that specific case to CONTRAST it with keeping the moral law - ceremonial vs moral law.
Perfect for all those SDA and non-SDA sources, documents, groups that affirm that the Commandments of God (including all ten) are still binding. Not so good for those who promote the idea that the Commandments of God "as a burden".
In the immediate context for 1Cor 7:19 Paul is talking about slaves vs free and about ceremonial law (circumcision) vs the moral law (commandments of God).
to see just how independent that teaching is from Marriage lets take a close look - and compare each statement with "no it is all about Marriage or within the context of those who are Married not singles"
==================================================================
1 Cor 7
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. (regardless if they are married or not DHK) And so I direct in all the churches.
18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. (regardless if they are married or not) Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. (regardless if they are married or not)
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, (regardless if they are married or not), but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.
20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
(in all these cases listed -- regardless if they are married or not)
21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. (regardless if they are married or not)
22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. (regardless if they are married or not)
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. (regardless if they are married or not DHK)
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.
(regardless if they are married or not)
=====================================================
There is an "any ol excuse will do" idea that tries it imagine that all that ceremonial law circumcision vs gentile, slave vs free discussion above is all about "marriage".
I guess then in their view marriage is slavery and bachelor is "free"?? what in the world are they thinking in this "anything but the actual Commandments of God vs ceremonial issues like circumcision mentioned in the actual text" solution that they use - ??
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
So says Paul
"What matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19
"circumcision in the general context of marriage" whaaat!
You really think that the issue about circumcision in the NT is just within marriage?? What an extreme eisegesis!!
"You sure know how to take Scripture out of context. "
The "general theme" is remaining in the condition in which you were called, Married/single, slave/freee, circumcised/not-circumcised. You cannot wrench one of the contrasting conditions to make it host or limit all others -- obviously.
And when the issue of ceremonial laws like circumcision comes up - Paul is quick in that specific case to CONTRAST it with keeping the moral law - ceremonial vs moral law.
Perfect for all those SDA and non-SDA sources, documents, groups that affirm that the Commandments of God (including all ten) are still binding. Not so good for those who promote the idea that the Commandments of God "as a burden".
In the immediate context for 1Cor 7:19 Paul is talking about slaves vs free and about ceremonial law (circumcision) vs the moral law (commandments of God).
to see just how independent that teaching is from Marriage lets take a close look - and compare each statement with "no it is all about Marriage or within the context of those who are Married not singles"
==================================================================
1 Cor 7
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. (regardless if they are married or not DHK) And so I direct in all the churches.
18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. (regardless if they are married or not) Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. (regardless if they are married or not)
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, (regardless if they are married or not), but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.
20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
(in all these cases listed -- regardless if they are married or not)
21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. (regardless if they are married or not)
22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. (regardless if they are married or not)
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. (regardless if they are married or not DHK)
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.
(regardless if they are married or not)
=====================================================
There is an "any ol excuse will do" idea that tries it imagine that all that ceremonial law circumcision vs gentile, slave vs free discussion above is all about "marriage".
I guess then in their view marriage is slavery and bachelor is "free"?? what in the world are they thinking in this "anything but the actual Commandments of God vs ceremonial issues like circumcision mentioned in the actual text" solution that they use - ?
The entire context is marriage.
What was Paul teaching?
First, the context was "this present distress," which refers to a time of persecution which the early church was facing. At that time he was advising them to remain "as they were." Married if married, single if single--not to make any drastic changes to their life.
Then he gives a number of illustrations.
If one is called to celibacy then he should so remain (at least for this present time of distress--context)
If one is called to marriage then he should remain married.
The illustrations: A circumcised person doesn't try to become uncircumcised, and an uncircumcised doesn't try to become circumcised. They remain "in their own calling." We are one in Christ.
Slaves do not try to become free; and the free don't try and become slaves. We remain in our own calling.
All of these were examples having to do with "our own calling," "during this present time of distress," and especially directed to those thinking of marriage.
Thus you have pulled a verse dealing with marriage out of its context and foolishly tried to make it apply to the sabbath day which is not related to anything taught in this chapter.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
1 Cor 7
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. (regardless if they are married or not DHK) And so I direct in all the churches.
18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. (regardless if they are married or not) Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. (regardless if they are married or not)
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, (regardless if they are married or not), but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.
20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
(in all these cases listed -- regardless if they are married or not)
21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. (regardless if they are married or not)
22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. (regardless if they are married or not)
23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. (regardless if they are married or not DHK)
24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.
(regardless if they are married or not)
Your summation at the end of your post is all the more difficult to sustain given the facts in the actual text above.
The more obvious point - easily made from the chapter itself is
"The "general theme" is remaining in the condition in which you were called, Married/single, slave/freee, circumcised/not-circumcised. You cannot wrench the text by simply taking ONE of the contrasting conditions to make it limit all others -- obviously."
As an exercise for the reader- take out my parenthetical comment in each of the verses above and insert "only if you are married" in each case and see where that gets. The conclusion is inescapable.
I point to the "inconvenient detail" that the text appeals to the saints to KEEP the "Commandments of God" as if that "matters". You instinctively object because you know that the Commandments of God include the 4th commandment.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
My summation follows the context of the chapter. If you want the context, the introduction to the chapter gives it:
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
The chapter is about marriage as one can clearly see from the first verse. You don't get the sabbath out of this verse and the following. You are way off base, Bob.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
I do not deny the that first example of contrast is Married vs single.
But the other contrasts of states of mankind - slave vs free, Circumcised vs not ,ALSO "exist IN the chapter" and are fully independent of whether one is married or not.
AS with all books of the Bible - a number of issues, examples, cases are listed in the chapter. You can not shoe horn them all into one - as my prior post illustrated.
The COMMON element - common to all the cases of contrast - is that one who becomes saved remains in that state in which they were saved.
in Christ,
Bob
But the other contrasts of states of mankind - slave vs free, Circumcised vs not ,ALSO "exist IN the chapter" and are fully independent of whether one is married or not.
AS with all books of the Bible - a number of issues, examples, cases are listed in the chapter. You can not shoe horn them all into one - as my prior post illustrated.
The COMMON element - common to all the cases of contrast - is that one who becomes saved remains in that state in which they were saved.
in Christ,
Bob
O not?!
Hebrews 4:9 is one instance. Hebrews 4:4 boils down to another.
If with this verse the claim <<There is no place in Scripture where keeping the Sabbath is a command given to the Gentiles>> is challenged, the legalist will counter-claim that Hebrews 4:4 contains a quote from Genesis 2:2-3 where the word ‘Sabbath Day’ and any <command> to keep the Sabbath Day, supposedly do not occur.
Yes, the Commandment to keep the Sabbath Day does not occur directly, as I explained before. But for the eye of faith it poses no problem when a command concerning the Seventh Day is not formally expressed. God’s love is faith’s command. God’s Blessing, Sanctification, Completion and Rest of the Seventh Day demand and provide by faith that which He demands whether in the form of a commandment or not— because faith trusts and obeys and rests in God for its command.
The Context in Hebrews 4 is about God’s repeated offers of Salvation at great moments in man’s history since the creation until the time of Jesus, and man’s repeated rejection of and disobedience to God and his Salvation and Commandments. Verse 4 is no exception; it quotes from the Old Testament AS GOD’S LAW.
Hebrews 4:4 shows that it just as well as from Genesis 2, quotes from Exodus 20. Although there is no formal command in Hebrews 4:4 or Genesis 2:2,3, the ‘double wording’ in Hebrews 4:4, “God (in) the day (in) the Seventh Day rested”, comes from the literal Hebrew in Exodus 20:10,11; not from Genesis 2:2-3 where the words in the Hebrew are only “God the Seventh Day rested” and the words, “(in) the day” do not occur.
In verse 5 of Hebrews 4 it reads, “In this again [‘palin’] they shall not enter …”. “They shall not enter” being a formal command, “again” means there is a command before in verse 4.
“God said, As I have sworn in my wroth, they shall not enter into my rest although my works were finished from the foundation of the earth” suggests “God somewhere [‘pou’] concerning [‘peri’] the Seventh Day thus …” COMMANDED ---commanded as in the Fourth Commandment, “And God in the day the Seventh Day rested from all his works.”
The fact Hebrews 4:4 means that God as it were verbally quoting the Old Testament in the New Testament, is speaking to “us”, “the People of God”, “by the Son”, “in these last days”, proves the claim that <<There is no place in Scripture where keeping the Sabbath is a command given to the Gentiles>>, plainly inaccurate and untrue.
In the NEW Testament—the Scriptures <given to the Gentiles>—where it says, “GOD, thus concerning the Seventh Day spake: And God the day The Seventh Day from all his works, rested”, is given a Holy Commandment to them! If ever there is a direct and word for word <<command>> in the NT from ANY Scriptures in the OT, this one from the Fourth of the Ten Commandments, is it.
Therefore—for no other reason—Hebrews 4:4 gets corrupted right from the omission of the word, “God”, SUBJECT of the “speaking” quoted from the Old testament LAW in this text! The force of this text is that “God” is the One commanding!
But it must at all costs not be disclosed to ‘Gentiles’ that this text quotes God speaking to them on the Fourth Commandment in the New Testament!
So neutralise the power of God’s Command and make it say, Moses speaks (refer 3:16); not God. E.g., Living Bible, merely “… it is written …”. Or, NAB, “… somewhere in the Scriptures this is being said of the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” Remarkable is it this ‘Nuwe Afrikaanse Bybel’ had to change the 1933 Afrikaans Translation that used to say, “Because He [capital letter for ‘God’] somewhere spoke…”. It tries to assert it is not God speaking; not God who is commanding!
“For God somewhere spoke …” is as good as spoke God anywhere. And God speaking in the New Testament Scriptures, is God, COMMANDING ‘Gentiles’ in the New Testament whether about the Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD GOD or whatever, it is GOD commanding!
Then never forget, that when God spoke the day The Seventh Day Sabbath OF THE LORD GOD to Israel, Israel were GENTILES as much as any gentiles “in the day that they heared His Voice say, Do not harden your heart!”
No, Paul does not MEAN TO SAY <<that the Commandments of God include the 4th commandment>>. Why would he mean that but not say that? Everybody knows <that the Commandments of God include the 4th commandment>.
Nor does <<the text appeal to the saints to KEEP the "Commandments of God">>; it is no <<detail>> of <the text>, <inconvenient> or 'convenient'.
Paul has ONE 'detail' in mind the whole context full, that we are saved because of NOTHING we might do or not do or might be or not be.
Uncircumcision is nothing and circumcision is nothing. You are saved by grace according to God's will or you are not saved but damned because of what you are and what you do and have been and have done your whole life long.
JUST SO --- as a another example --- is to be baptised nothing and not to be baptised, nothing. Baptism does nothing and cannot do anything to save or to help save anyone. JUST SO is ‘Sabbath-keeping’. It’s USELESS for salvation.
WHY DOES NOTHING HELP NOBODY NOTHING UNTO SALVATION?
Because "all that matters --- unto salvation --- is the keeping of God's Law" WHICH N
NE IS ABLE TO or actually has ever done, be he lost and damned; or lost but saved. The saved are saved by all that matters, which is the keeping of the Law of God THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. Paul says no less; no more. If Christ is the Law for the saved who was lost, Christ is the keeping of God's Laws for the lost who was saved.
Mark you, Christ is the Law FOR THE LOST! For it is by "The Righteousness namely OF GOD”, that one is saved— not through our own righteousness. For Christ saves; not one's own keeping of the law of God; Christ the keeper of God's Laws keeps you. Everything else, "IS NOTHING"!