What do you do to keep the sabbath holy?

Well, I don't know exactly what you are referring to when you say I twisted your words. If it's "Please don't get into mixing up phrases", that was just in case you read Jesus words about all being fulfilled/heaven passing away that way, and was really not serious (basically a reference to the Gal.4 battle I have been having, where a similar tactic of reading the text has been used). If it is about the Nazirite vow and the sacrifice, well, you did mention that as proof Paul upheld "The Law", so I answered it accordingly. The rest of the post was quoting you verbatim and answering it. Sorry if you feel that way.
As for twisting the Bible, all I have done is take the texts your side offers in their contexts. It may look like twisting if one is used to a particular interpretation of a verse or two, without taking into consideration the broader context.
But I certainly know how it feels to have both my words, and Bible verses twisted, as that is what I have been battling for days now.

 

Well, you have to own up to the fact that are speaking of "the mind set on the flesh" and "keepeth not his commandments" makes one "a liar". This is what you are suggesting for us. We do not keep the sabbath, this is one of "His Commandments", so we are lying, and perhaps our mind is set on the flesh (natural, unregenerate). Your posting of these verses was in answer to your hypothetical question: With all these scriptures endorsing God’s Word, God’s Law – God’s Commandments --Why then would we find any Christian today kicking against the Commandments of God?? Hmmm lets think about that for a minute. Maybe God’s Word has something to say on that point." There is no "sincere heart" in these verses. He is talking about obstinate deception, and even you added "the principle of rebellion", so trying to mitigate it with "sincere heart yet confused ideas" contradicts the scriptures you have posted.

No, let's just use them properly. If it is true that we are not mandated to keep the sabbath, then these verses do not apply to us. Once again, no one has said "do whatever you want, there is absolutely no law". You have to prove that the Sabbath is in effect before you can charge us with this, not use this in itself to prove that the Sabbath is in effect when it hasn't otherwise been proven.

I didn't say "y'all HERE", I meant Sabbath keepers in general. The SDA, Armstrongism, Church of God 7th Day, Sacred Name groups, etc. In other words, just as I said; groups who keep "The Law" to a greater extent than you. Those who do think the feast days are still in effect. You would agree against us on the sabbath as "the sign" of God, 3 angels' message, etc. and "keeping the Law", but then have the same kind of argument we are having in regards to other practices of "The Law".

Well, it must be "amended", because you're not keeping every commandment if the Law. Its principle or intent must be ESTABLISHED even though you are not actually keeping all of them, as Paul is arguing.

You are taking something I posted in another thread altogether, ripping it right out of its context, and posting it here to try to "contradict" something else I have said. Unbelievable! I was talking about CRI and evangelical apologetics in general. Many of them see sabbathkeeping as a "compromise" of salvation by faith, (I have never said that) and a return to the Law. I was explaining why some apologists tend to go easier on the RCC and Church of Christ, and I felt the Sabbath-Sunday issue was one of the reasons, and I was actually critical of this as a double-standard.

Uh, the "faith" Paul is speaking of, is "in Christ Jesus"(v.26). Same difference.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Galatians 3 it is when "faith comes" not when Christ comes.

IF we could twist the text around to say "when Christ comes" THEN today sinners would not be condemned as such by the "Holy Just and true and Spiritual" LAw of God that was STILL Holy Just and true EVEN in Romans 7 long AFTER Christ came.

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

#1. Read the text carefully - when we come to faith we become members of the group containing "Abraham the Believer" according to Gal 3 the entire point was to join him and become heirs of the promise given to Abrahm.

In Heb 11 - the hall of "Faith" - faith had come.

In Gal 3 - the Faith of Abraham - who already expressed that faith and is already given the promise - is the "goal" of the NT saint.

#2. If "when faith comes" was a reference to a point in time 2000 years ago "instead" of the salvation event for a given believer - then Abraham would not be the model of someone who had it, then all the wicked would "no longer be under condemnation" even BEFORE coming to Christ in faith - since Christ has "already come". But Paul argues that the Law of God CONTINUES to place aLL MEN UNDER SIN. Not only in Gal 3 but in Romans 3. The idea that the wicked are no longer condemned as sinners - is absent from the text.

Your interpretation that this is a completed "one time event" 2000 years ago for every wicked person on earth today - does not work in the chapter.

The point at which the law stops condemning the wicked is not "When Christ dies on the cross" as you have supposed - it is in the life of each individual "when faith comes" -- which is what Paul actually says.

In Christ,

Bob

 

---------------------------------------------
Eric B responds: speaking of Romans 8 and 1John 2...
And once again, if you were consistent with those verses, then all of Christendom except for sabbatarianism is lost.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob said --
What do you propose for those texts? Or was that your way of "exegeting" Romans 8 and 1John 2? Did I miss it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again - I would ask is that your way of exegeting Romans 8 and 1John 2?

You have exerted a lot of energy trying to show that we should not be focused on obedience to the LAw of God - and in Romans 8 and 1John 2 you have the "need" to square what you have been saying wiht what the text says ..

Is this where you do that?

Fine - go to "sincere hearted people" notice that in Romans 8 and in 1John 2 the contrasting behavior of sincere hearted people is mentioned - are you going to show how your approach to God's Law is in harmony with what the text says in those two chapters?

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:God said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Romans 8
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the Law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

I Jn 2:3-4 3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.


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

Bob said --
And though we also know that many have a sincere heart yet confused ideas about the commandments of God – still the principle of rebellion seen above is identified in God’s Word as a basic motivator for mankind

Romans 8 and 1John 2 contrasts the inner human nature - the natural sinful nature of each one of us - with the born-again new-creation of the child of God. Notice the contrast in their attitude toward the Law of God.

As Romans 7 says "I AGREE with the LAW" but in the inner man ther is a struggle.

In Romans 8 we find that born-again New Covenant attitude is harmony with God's Law - in fact it is "Written on the tablets of the human heart" instead of merely external on "Tablets of stone".

In 1John 2- again we see the contrast.

In both cases which group is seen consistently arguing against actual obedience to the LAW of God?

The incentive, focus and tendance of human sinful nature is clearly spelled out in these two chapters as well as the contrast with the New Covenant life.

In Christ,

Bob

 

very few people before Christ had the faith that Abraham had. That's why he stood out so much. Christ, is what made it possible, even before the event of His death. Even Abraham was a sinner, who, like everyone else, can only be justified with the payment for sins that Christ made, even though it would be future to him. Without that, salvation would not be by faith, but by works, and nobody (including Abraham) would be able to do all the works necessary.

I have never said any such thing. The issue is whether certain points of the Law of Moses are still mandatory. If not, then the whole idea of "obedience" is NOT APPLICABLE, because God says you can do it in personal devotion to Him, but you do not have to. A person who does not then, is NOT "keeping NOT His commandments".

No, because "Do we make void the Law through faith? God forbid; yeah, we ESTABLISH the Law". Once again, "establishing" does not mean keeping every single law that was ever commanded, because none of us keeps all of them.

Precisely the point. No one is arguing against the Law that God has written on the heart. But literal Sabbath observance is not apart of that. There is no struggle where my NATURE doesn't want to keep it even though I do. I used to keep it, and never had that problem, as I did with anger, lust, covetousness, etc. It is not something that man would know was expected of him and be convicted in his heart (guilty conscience) for not keeping, apart from reading the Law of Moses, like the moral and spiritual laws. This is what we have been trying to tell you. There is a distinction between those commamdments "written on tablets of stone", and what God has written in the heart.

 

In Hebrews 11 "the very few" that you speak of are referenced as untold numbers with some specific highlights given. These are the "giants of faith" held up to the NT saints as "examples" of faith.

So Paul sets Abraham "the Believer" as the defining representation of that which the NT believer seeks to join to become "heirs WITH Abraham the Believer".

This context shows that "when faith comes" to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Davie, Noah, Enoch, Elijah, .... many others "of whom the world was not worthy" it was THEN that they were released from the condemnation of the Law that defines SIN and shows us all to be sinners.

Hence we find Moses and Elijah speaking WITH Christ in Matt 17, we see Enoch taken to heaven in Gen 5 we see the saints of the OT - born-again Spirit filled - giants of faith -

Having faith in Christ did not invalidate the Cross.

But the OT examples of "faith" proves the context of Gal 3 is not arguing "faith does not come to Abraham until 31 AD".

In Christ,

Bob

 

The point was, still, salvation by faith was made possible by Christ's payment, even for those before Christ. As you say, there were not two Gospels, two salvations, etc. That was the only point. Now we are after Christ, and not looking forward to Him through shadows, this was what Gal.3 was talking about.

 

I don't think that will hold up to a close review of Gal 3.

Paul is explicit - condmened. All condemned. All held under sin. There is no doubt - it is the condemnation of the lost - the wicked - in need of Christ.

Your rework above - trys to get that lost application to apply to saints before the Cross - in fact to "Abraham the believer" so that you can rework the phrase "When faith comes" to mean 31 AD.

But in fact the context makes it clear - no such rework is possible. Abraham the believer is not "condemned" until 31 AD.

In fact the Heb 11 list of the Giants of Faith includes those taken directly to heaven.

There is just no way to get your view of "Condemned until faith comes" to mean in Abraham's case "Condemned until 31 ad".

In Christ,

Bob

 

So what exactly are you saying? Were they not lost/condemned before Christ, and only now after Christ are we condemned, but saved by faith? Were they saved by "faith" in something else, or by works? Or is "faith" just some magical power, like the "faith" teachers use it today?

 

No. I am saying that mankind BEFORE and AFTER the cross is LOST - bound for hell and in need of a Savior. BOTH groups are condemned by the authoritative Law of God - the moral code - the Ten Commandments.

Convicted by the Holy Spirit of their need of a Savior. BOTH groups come to faith the SAME way under the ONE Gospel. BOTH get forgiveness the same way. BOTH are released from the condemnation from the LAW when they join with "Abraham the Believer" and accept the Gospel.

(IT is your argument that Abraham the Believer is really - truly - NOT a believer in Christ, and that those who would join in the OT COULD not be true believers in Christ either. You "need" a "bad gospel" in place in the OT where believers are "not really believers". I don't)

The ONE Gospel (Gal 1:6-11) was preached "beforehand to Abraham" Gal 3:7 who "Saw My day and was glad" according to Christ in John 8.

One Gospel. One Solution.

The OT saints were condemend by the same law that condemns us. They had to "come to faith" just as we must. This is why Christ could rebuke Nicodemus as a Bible teacher in Israel as Nicodemus pretended "not to know" these basic Bible truths.

In Christ,

Bob

 

And Abraham was before the Law of Moses, and that was the point of the discussion. You make the Law of Moses the end-all in the plan of salvation, and it is not. That is the point of Gal.3

 

No I don't make the "Law" the "plan of salvation".

Rather I argue the point of Gal 3 - that the Law (event at Sinai) that came 430 years LATER than the "Gospel preached beforehand to Abraham" (Gal 3:7) did not invalidate that Gospel promise. THEY both existed and the Law of God was not "Violating" the Gospel of God. Abraham "the believer" is the model for all saints - both OT and NT.

In fact the Law of God was in place in the Garden of Eden - mankind was already called to obey the Creator - even before the Gospel. But at the fall - Adam could not be "saved by the Law" - he needed the Gospel - the SAME Gospel proclaimed to Abraham "the believer".

The Gospel (the ONE Gospel preached beforehand to Abraham according to the book of Galatians) was not changed/negated/altered in any way by the Law given at Sinai 430 years LATER.

Faith had come to Abraham, to Noah, to Elijah, to David, to all the unidentified saints of the OT referenced in Heb 11 - but BEFORE faith came - they were condemned by the same Law of God that condemns us today as "sinners". BEFORE faith came - they were under the old covenant of "Obey and Live" just as we are today before we come to faith. And under those conditions - they were condemned as sinners.

Abraham before coming to faith -- was doomed by the Law of God - doomed to hell and condemned as a sinner - JUST as we are today before we come to faith in Christ.

But as in his case - when we come to faith - when we accept the gospel of the Messiah (Heb) - of Christ (greek)- we come to life and are no longer under the condemnation of the Law.

But we STILL obey the LAW of Christ the Creator and Love our neighbor as ourselves as He said in Lev 19:18

We still OBEY the LAW of Christ the Creator and Love God with all of our heart Deut 6:5.

We still OBEY the LAW of Christ regarding His own seventh-day memorial of His own creative act in making mankind - a blessing made "for mankind" by Christ the creator.

No change.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You still try to insist that there was "no change", but still, the Law added 430 years after Abraham meant a change in practice. God had basic principles since Creation, and the Law was "added because of sin". The issue is whether the Sabbath is apart of the original principles, or was aprt of what was added because of sin. It's mention in the Creation does not prove this. as DHK says in one of the other threads, you see nothing about not gather ing sticks, not doing this, not doing that, how far you can travel, etc., not judgments for breaking it. So you can not possibly assume that it was kept like the Israelites kept it, and the same with its future mention in Isaiah. Those restrictions defined in the Torah were added because of sin (and I'm talking about what God gave, not just what men added on later). Outside of that, we have no definition of what the sabbath entailed originally, or in the Kingdom, and it is neither reiterated nor redefined for us today in the church.

 

Excellent point.

God places its "making" in Gen 2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11 "confirms" that it was "made then" as do the Words of Christ the Creator speaking of the "making" of mankind and the "making" of His OWN Holy Seventh-day memorial of His creative act in Making mankind.

It is clear - and obvious.

So also is the reference to the Sabbath in the New Earth - placing it well beyond the time of "sin".


So "in scripture" we see it BEFORE sin - in Gen 2:3 and we see it AFTER sin is abolished in Isaiah 66.

And Christ the Creator says it was made as a blessing FOR mankind.

The only way mankind receives that blessing is to "participate" in Christ the Creator's holy Seventh-day memorial of His creative act in making mankind.

Eric said

I suppose to one fully opposed to Christ the Creator's own Seventh-day memorial of His own creative act in making mankind - the Gen 2:3 text is "easily ignored".

Indeed you do not. Just as in Genesis 6 when speaking of clean and unclean animals - you see nothing about "split hoof and chewing cud".

(And you see no mention of Adam and Eve "needing to gather sticks" on any other day of the week either and no mention of Adam drinking water).

"Still" any straw that is available will be clung to by those whose traditions reject Christ the Creator's own blessing made FOR mankind and clearly kept in the New Earth.

Moses did not have a case where his readers would only be "able to read" the Genesis reference to concepts more fully detailed in later books.

The sin of murder shows up in that same way as does the concept of clean and unclean meats in Genesis 6.

As you point out - if we choose to toss exegesis out the window in Isaiah 66 - (ignoring the context for the primary audience) We could easily imagine and entirely different concept other than rest and worship in Isaiah 66 since "no sticks are mentioned" as you say.

I see - the command to Love God with all your heart Deut 6:5, the command to Love your neighber Lev 19:18, the command to honor your parents Exodus 20:12, and the command to "remember" Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 holy day "added because of sin".

Hmm. Perhaps the sin of "forgetting" Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 holy day.

Perhaps the sin of "forgetting" to love God with all the heart.

Perhaps the sin of "forgetting" to love our neighbor.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Notice that in the discussion above - the "Commandment, statutes and laws" of Gen 26:5 are not "written down" but they are written later - in the time of Moses.

And the Gospel promise existing before Sinai is fully compatible with writing down the "Commandment, statutes and laws" of God. The Law is not given in codefied form as "another Gospel" but it is given as "the Word of God" binding on mankind - and rejected by those who do not walk according to the spirit as Paul said in Romans 8. In fact those who do not walk according to the Spirit are hostile to the Law of God - as Paul said.

In Christ,

Bob

 

One does not say anything about what to DO with this day that was made, and the other, Christ is telling us that it was made for us, rather than us being made for it. It is not "all of man" versus "some of man", but whom/what is made for whom! They way you are taking every biblical reference to it as some set of mandatory restrictions placed on us, you would think we were made for it.

And one who takes scripture for what it actually says, will read nothing else into it.

Exactly. God told Noah to take two of some kinds of animals and seven of others. Moses knew them as "clean" and "unclean", but we see no commands on which to eat, and after they got out of the ark, they were allowed to eat all.
Yes, Adam and Eve did not have to gather sticks. That sort of labor came after the fall, and the command to rest from it would also only have meaning after the fact. So you still can not define for us what the sabbath entailed to Adam and Eve. It was not not revealed to them.

And what do we see? Someone judged for it. It was obviously something God put on human conscience (a universal law), and needed no written command. Not so with the Sabbath.

One thing, I have no "tradition". I once did keep the sabbath. "have a case"? What does that mean? Moses wrote Genesis, and the books that followed. The readers knew the significance of the sabbath and clean and unclean.

As was said a long time ago, the whole experience of Heaven is one of rest and worship.

Still, you fail to recognize that the sabbath was aprt of the ten, which hung on those two. You place them next to each other as if they were three separate laws. But the sabbath was a way of "loving God", just as not murdering was a way of "loving your neighbor". Where murder is universal, the sabbath is not, so you can't assume that because one is still binding, the other must be also. But the two still stand, regardless of whichever of the principles that hang on them carry over or not.

 

You assume more "nonsense" in the Gen 2:3 statement of God regarding His own Holy Day - than is actually warranted.

It "had meaning" without the "problem of the sticks" believe it or not.

Notice that in Exodus 20:8-11 - no mention of "sticks".

The command to rest is "Evident" (according to God) by the example of rest that God gave mankind. Furthermore - you have no support for a claim that when God made the day holy in Gen 2:3 He was not allowed to speak with mankind about the day He made FOR mankind. You simply suppose it.

You claim that mankind would argue AGAINST the very "reasons" supplied in the Exodus 20:8-11 text for the basis of the Sabbath. The example God gave mankind - in rest.

This is "another" case where your view is in opposition to the Word.

And as we see with the Clean and unclean - though NO distinction is made as to HOW you would know which is which - YET they have the distinction. This is proof that the Lev 11 "information" was being conveyed and that the Gen text is not in fact "an exhaustive account of very word spoken for 1500 years".

In Gen 7 and 8 we find that Noah sacrifices from among the clean animals - "another" case where the Levitical laws explain the actions in Genesis - but no "details" are given in Genesis about "how they knew that" - we simply see the institutions as "fact" in Genesis - with detail explanation coming to the reader of the SAME author - in his other books.

In Isaiah 66 the day is one of "worship" in Lev 23 the 7th day Sabbath is one of "Worship" and in Exodus 20 and Gen 2:3 it is one of rest - but specifically and explicitly a "Holy Day" of rest.

Though your view "needs" Adam to spend his first Sabbath alone and in the dark - we have no reason to believe that mankind had that kind of relationship with the Creator before the fall.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Speaking to Born-again Christians---Paul says

Romans 14:5-6

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man br full
assured in his own mind.

He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it....

 

That's just an assumption drawn out of nowhere-- that the "commandments, statutes and laws" are the SAME as what was given to Moses and written down. I guess then, NOTHING was "added" 430 years after Abraham, as Gal.3:17, 19 says. Everything was always the same.
Back in Abraham's time, we see the things God expected from man (whether "commanded" or not; some things were built into man's conscience), and THESE are the "laws, statutes and commandments". We can't assume anything else.

And such people are not simply "honestly mistaken", but are on a path of "death" (v.6), and "cannot please God"(v.8) Are you sure you're not saying those who disagree on this are lost?

"sticks" was an example. But there is mention of son, daughter, manservant, cattle, stranger". Plus the original manna issue. None of this we see before that, so the 7th day of the week was not defined by these things at that time.

You're the one who believes God is not allowed to do things-- like rest on the creation sabbath, and not command it to man (Adam) immediately (which you refer to as "keeping them in the dark"). You have no support for this, ans simply suppose it.

Man "arguing" against something? When did I say that? An example can be followed long after it occurs. This is what I have been saying. Yes, it may have been an "example", as recorded by Moses, but that doesn't mean God told man to follow this example immediately after it occurred.

yes, the distinction was there, but telling man to eat one and avoid the other is something else altogether. No, every word is not spoken, but when man did things God didn't want him to do, that we see very clearly, and in a detailed fashion.

So clean and unclean were in regard to sacrifice. At that point, they were not yet eating any meat. Then God allows all meat to be eaten in the next chapter. So we see here, one restriction surfacing, (proving it was not about HEALTH!) but as time went on, more restrictions were added. Man still did not get God's point of holiness from the sacrifices, so let's add more rules. You shall not eat the animals that I declared unclean for sacrifice either. This is how "The law was added because of sin". Different things were added gradually, as we see. They were not always commanded. Of course, precisely the point God was teaching us through history, was that adding more rules was not the solution for man's problems. Now that that has been addressed through Christ and the Spirit, that is why many of those rules that had been added are now abolished.

What are you talking about? Who said anything about Adam being alone? God was with him the whole time until the Fall, but this has nothing to do with commanding a sabbath.