Sabbath-Keeping

[Phoneman777]

‘In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away’ (Heb 8:13).

Don't you understand the meaning of 'obsolete' and 'to vanish away'?

The Old Covenant vanished away, and on that we agree. Now, where you and the rest of misguided Christianity go wrong is in thinking that "the Law is the Old Covenant". Let's check to see if that idea is Biblical by substituting "Old Covenant" for "law" in Romans 3:31 KJV, shall we?

"Do we then make void the (Old Covenant) through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the (Old Covenant)." Romans 3:31 KJV

Now that you see that the Old Covenant is not the law, the question we are left with is "what vanished away?" It was the agreement which was based in part on the "faulty promises" of the people that vanished away - the New Covenant is based on "better promises":

Old Covenant-
God: "Obey My laws and I'll bless you."
Us: All that the Lord hath spoken we shall do, and be obedient."
New Covenant-
God: Obey My laws and I'll bless you and btw, since your promises stink because you can't stick to them, I'm going to come into your heart and there write My laws and keep them for you and give you credit."
Us: "What manner of love is this that we should be called the sons and daughters of God???"

Do you have any evidence that placing oneself under the 10 commandments prevents anyone from breaking them?

Do you have any evidence that "remembering" a commandment is equivalent to keeping it?

Can you meet the challenge I gave to SDAs earlier on in this thread? If not, then please explain why you can't?




This is the kind of loose and weakly-supported theology that is typical of SDAs. Not only were the 10 commandments INCLUDED in the "book of the law" TWICE!, Paul gave absolutely no indication that the problems we were facing were confined to any so-called "ceremonial laws". He never used the term, and neither is it found anywhere in scripture! What Paul DOES say is that the ministry of the 10 commandments brought condemnation and death and was "fading" in contrast to a ministry of grace that was to "last". But I guess that since the word "against" does not appear in 2 Cor 3 then that proves that Deutronomy 31:26 is what he was referring to!

Don't mind the fact that it contradicts everything he taught concerning the law!!!

So once again, if you cannot meet the challenge I made earlier on in this thread (something NO SDA has ever been able to do) then please explain why.

Question 1: Why even entertain such a question when the Scriptures teach that only Jesus can keep us from disobedience? "Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling and present you faultless..." Jude 1:24 KJV

Question 2: Remember not in the sense of "acknowledge", but in the sense of "observance". "It is not the hearers of the law that are justified before God, but the doers of the law." Romans 2:13 KJV

Question 3: I'll meet any challenge that you have, if you would spare me the legwork and clue me into what that challenge is.

The Ten Commandments existed before Sinai and continue after the Cross, unlike the Law of Moses, so why do you lump them together when the Bible draws a clear distinction between the two? Erasing this Biblical distinction in order to characterize sound Biblical argument as "weakly supported theology" is hardly a noble defense of one's position.

I have a challenge for you: Others like you who argue that Christians are not obligated to obey the Ten Commandments have lacked the "intestinal fortitude" to publicly proclaim that we may freely break them as freely as they claim we may break the Sabbath - will you pluck up the courage and do so?

 

[OzSpen]

Phoneman777,

Don't you understand the meaning of 'obsolete' and 'to vanish away'?

obsolete = 'of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date' (dictionary.com)

vanish = 'to disappear by ceasing to exist; come to an end' (dictionary.com)

‘In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away’ (Heb 8:13).

 

[Phoneman777]

Phoneman777,

Don't you understand the meaning of 'obsolete' and 'to vanish away'?

obsolete = 'of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date' (dictionary.com)

vanish = 'to disappear by ceasing to exist; come to an end' (dictionary.com)

‘In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away’ (Heb 8:13).

Yes, the OC vanished away and the New Covenant, in which God writes His Ten Commandments on the hearts of those who partake of it (2 Corinthians 3:1-3 KJV) replaced it. (Hebrews 8:8-10 KJV)

If you still stubbornly hold to the idea that "the Law was the Old Covenant" then try replacing the word "law" with the words "Old Covenant" in Romans 3:31 KJV.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, the OC vanished away and the New Covenant, in which God writes His Ten Commandments on the hearts of those who partake of it (2 Corinthians 3:1-3 KJV) replaced it. (Hebrews 8:8-10 KJV)

If you still stubbornly hold to the idea that "the Law was the Old Covenant" then try replacing the word "law" with the words "Old Covenant" in Romans 3:31 KJV.

Phoneman777,

You demonstrate again that you don't understand the meaning of 'obsolete' and 'to vanish away'.

This is what 2 Cor 3:1-3 states:

Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. 3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts (ESV)

There is not a word here about the Ten Commandments - not a single word. You have imposed on the text what you want it to mean. Do you know what that is called? Eisegesis! You have added to the text something that is not there. Please quit your eisegesis and get back into the exegesis of the text.

This seems to be the technique you are using - add to the text to make it mean what you want it to mean.

I don't buy it. The requirement of keeping the Ten Commandments is your SDA pro-Sabbath eisegesis - adding to the text.

The Old Covenant and its legalistic requirements are OBSOLETE. Get it? OBSOLETE!!!

Now, exegete this text accurately:

‘In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away’ (Heb 8:13).

Oz

 

[Keeth]

Did I claim that they did? The only place in the NT where the decalogue is referred to is in 2 Cor 3, where Paul describes their ministry as something that brings death and condemnation and was fading away. Why are SDAs trying to reintroduce them into Christianity?


Again, did I make such a claim???? So before you speak about the "commandments of men", why don't you explain what they are, and why you think I am in favor of them?


I'm not.


What contradiction? The NT teaches us is that we are NOT under the mosaic law, but rather under the law of Christ. Whatever we are "admonisted" to do in the NT is acheivable through obeying the law of Christ. What we are not admonished to do is to follow the Mosaic law concerning the sabbath. You are forced to add to scripture in order to make that assertion.

Laws that were made to restrain evil, were not made for the righteous, but for lawbreakers. Rather than doing what you hope the 10 commandments will do for you, all it does is implicate you as a criminal. Someone who is not a child molester does not need an electronic device around his ankle in order to restrain him from molesting children. Removing such a device from someone who is not a child molester does not turn him into a child molester any more than removing a straitjacket from a sane person makes him go mad. Sure, we still have flesh that is evil, but we do not identify ourselves by our flesh, but by the new nature that God created when we were saved. Anyone who goes back and puts himself under the Mosaic law is denying God's grace - which tells us that we are the righteousness of God! Willingly placing yourself under a restraining law implicates you just as much as willingly putting a device around your ankle that was designed for a sex offender.

The law of Christ was not made for lawbreakers. It is not a "restraining" law in the same degree as the OT laws were. It is a law that gives freedom.

Now if you contention is that the 10 commandments did not belong to the Old Coventant then provide the scriptures that support that claim. I, on my part, am quite willing to meet you with scriptures that show you that the ARE a part of that covenant.

In the meantime, instead of dodging the issues, why don't you answer my question? Can you meet the challenge I made earlier on? If not, then why not?

Why do you keep calling God's commandments the Mosaic law? God calls them His commandments all throughuot scripture.

 

[brakelite]

To all those who maintain that the Ten Commandments were included in the "handwriting of ordinances" that were nailed to the cross, the early church strongly and staunchly disagrees with you. The early church kept and observed the Sabbath of the 4th commandment. History bears this as fact, with more than abundant evidence, as has been shown in previous posts.
The only churches which did not in those earlier years observe the Sabbath, were the fledgling Roman church which by then had been already penetrated and corrupted by paganism, and the Alexandrian church, corrupted by the heresies of Origen and co.

The "handwriting of ordinances" were what Paul referred to as being 'against' the people. God would require an explanation from you to justify your insistence that His commandments were 'against' His people. God does nothing 'against' His people. He is a loving merciful and gracious God...not one who places burdens on them. God frees His chosen ones from sin and slavery, then reveals to them His requirements, which John said 'are not grievous'. Israel was freed from bondage and slavery...God at Sinai did not place them under further bondage. Christians are freed from bondage and slavery to sin. God does not place them under further bondage by writing His laws on their hearts and minds, empowering them to obedience. So called followers of Christ will answer to Christ for their continuing slander and lies concerning the law of God which is holy, just, and good, and particularly the Sabbath of the 4th commandment which not only is holy, just, and good, but a blessing and a benefit to God's people. stop denigrating that which God established as a blessing. Stop calling something a burden which God gave as a remedy for those burdened. You slander God, and misrepresent His character.

 

[Phoneman777]

Phoneman777,

You demonstrate again that you don't understand the meaning of 'obsolete' and 'to vanish away'.

This is what 2 Cor 3:1-3 states:
There is not a word here about the Ten Commandments - not a single word. You have imposed on the text what you want it to mean. Do you know what that is called? Eisegesis! You have added to the text something that is not there. Please quit your eisegesis and get back into the exegesis of the text.

This seems to be the technique you are using - add to the text to make it mean what you want it to mean.

I don't buy it. The requirement of keeping the Ten Commandments is your SDA pro-Sabbath eisegesis - adding to the text.

The Old Covenant and its legalistic requirements are OBSOLETE. Get it? OBSOLETE!!!

Now, exegete this text accurately:

Oz

Uh, please...what was formerly written on tables of stone that Paul says is now written by the Holy Spirit on the heart and God says He wants to write on our heart?
So, do you continue to insist that "the Law was the Old Covenant", or have you disproved your idea by substituting "law" with "Old Covenant" in Romans 3:31 KJV?

To all those who maintain that the Ten Commandments were included in the "handwriting of ordinances" that were nailed to the cross, the early church strongly and staunchly disagrees with you. The early church kept and observed the Sabbath of the 4th commandment. History bears this as fact, with more than abundant evidence, as has been shown in previous posts.
The only churches which did not in those earlier years observe the Sabbath, were the fledgling Roman church which by then had been already penetrated and corrupted by paganism, and the Alexandrian church, corrupted by the heresies of Origen and co.

The "handwriting of ordinances" were what Paul referred to as being 'against' the people. God would require an explanation from you to justify your insistence that His commandments were 'against' His people. God does nothing 'against' His people. He is a loving merciful and gracious God...not one who places burdens on them. God frees His chosen ones from sin and slavery, then reveals to them His requirements, which John said 'are not grievous'. Israel was freed from bondage and slavery...God at Sinai did not place them under further bondage. Christians are freed from bondage and slavery to sin. God does not place them under further bondage by writing His laws on their hearts and minds, empowering them to obedience. So called followers of Christ will answer to Christ for their continuing slander and lies concerning the law of God which is holy, just, and good, and particularly the Sabbath of the 4th commandment which not only is holy, just, and good, but a blessing and a benefit to God's people. stop denigrating that which God established as a blessing. Stop calling something a burden which God gave as a remedy for those burdened. You slander God, and misrepresent His character.

Amen, bro. I really can't blame people for resisting truth because preachers have taught them for so long that "the law was the Old Covenant" and "the Ten Commandments were nailed to the Cross" that when you present a Biblical challenge to such firmly rooted beliefs, it's too much for people who've been conditioned otherwise. But, I always give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are sincere and will eventually accept the message of truth.

 

[justaname]

To all those who maintain that the Ten Commandments were included in the "handwriting of ordinances" that were nailed to the cross, the early church strongly and staunchly disagrees with you. The early church kept and observed the Sabbath of the 4th commandment. History bears this as fact, with more than abundant evidence, as has been shown in previous posts.
The only churches which did not in those earlier years observe the Sabbath, were the fledgling Roman church which by then had been already penetrated and corrupted by paganism, and the Alexandrian church, corrupted by the heresies of Origen and co.

The "handwriting of ordinances" were what Paul referred to as being 'against' the people. God would require an explanation from you to justify your insistence that His commandments were 'against' His people. God does nothing 'against' His people. He is a loving merciful and gracious God...not one who places burdens on them. God frees His chosen ones from sin and slavery, then reveals to them His requirements, which John said 'are not grievous'. Israel was freed from bondage and slavery...God at Sinai did not place them under further bondage. Christians are freed from bondage and slavery to sin. God does not place them under further bondage by writing His laws on their hearts and minds, empowering them to obedience. So called followers of Christ will answer to Christ for their continuing slander and lies concerning the law of God which is holy, just, and good, and particularly the Sabbath of the 4th commandment which not only is holy, just, and good, but a blessing and a benefit to God's people. stop denigrating that which God established as a blessing. Stop calling something a burden which God gave as a remedy for those burdened. You slander God, and misrepresent His character.

But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me [SIZE=.625em][h]coveting of every kind; for apart [i][/SIZE]from the Law sin is dead. 9 I was once alive apart [j]from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10 and this commandment, which was [k]to result in life, proved [SIZE=.625em][l][/SIZE]to result in death for me; 11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.
Romans 7

Pretty clear case this Law is against anyone who disobeys. The position Paul was making is all need a Savior, Jesus, because no one is able to keep the Law. Notice also Paul refers to this as the "Law" with the command being a part of it. Here he is stating this portion of the Law, thou shall not covet, is only one command within 613.

I have already proven in previous posts the Law includes the ten and this was added to the promise. The Old Covenant began before the Law was handed down from Sinai. The Law including the 10 was not given to humanity any time prior. The Law and the Old Covenant is intrinsic, and vanishing.

Now the point of conclusion. If the 10 commandments stand, then Jesus could not have fulfilled that portion of the Law. As your position states we are still obligated to the 10. Thus still under this portion of the Law and not under grace. Our obligation is to this and not to Christ. To be guilty of one portion of the Law, is to reap the penalty. Paul is clear, the penalty is death. This means one instance of coveting and you have no Savior, because you are obligated to the Law and not Christ. Any time you are not honoring your parents, and death. Look at a person with lust (as Jesus has given insight to the fullness of the command) and death. You can't serve two masters. Are we obligated to the 10 or to Christ?

My position is Jesus fulfilled the whole Law which includes the commands and ordinances. We as believers in Him are obligated to Him, not the Law.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Why do you keep calling God's commandments the Mosaic law? God calls them His commandments all throughuot scripture.

Why do SDA's insist that the Law of Moses are not God's commandments? Scripture teaches us that the "Law of Moses" was given by God!

So while you are still stalling and not addressing all the points I made, (and specifically the challenge I gave to all SDAs in this thread which NO SDA ever seems to address!), why don't you answer this question:

Was the law that God gave to the Jews, including Moses, to have each child circumsized on the eigth day "God's law" or "Moses law"?

When you have answered that question then I would appreciate if you could do me the courtesy of telling me why you, as well as every other SDA that I have given it, doesn't seem to be willing to accept my challenge.

Uh, please...what was formerly written on tables of stone that Paul says is now written by the Holy Spirit on the heart and God says He wants to write on our heart?
So, do you continue to insist that "the Law was the Old Covenant", or have you disproved your idea by substituting "law" with "Old Covenant" in Romans 3:31 KJV?

That's NOT what "Paul said", and neither can you find it anywhere in scripture. This is merely something what SDAs assume Paul said, even though it contradicts everything else Paul wrote in his letters to the church. Doctrine that is sound should harmonize with the rest of scripture, not just cherry-pick the verses that support it.

 

[Phoneman777]

Why do SDA's insist that the Law of Moses are not God's commandments? Scripture teaches us that the "Law of Moses" was given by God!

So while you are still stalling and not addressing all the points I made, (and specifically the challenge I gave to all SDAs in this thread which NO SDA ever seems to address!), why don't you answer this question:

Was the law that God gave to the Jews, including Moses, to have each child circumsized on the eigth day "God's law" or "Moses law"?

When you have answered that question then I would appreciate if you could do me the courtesy of telling me why you, as well as every other SDA that I have given it, doesn't seem to be willing to accept my challenge.



That's NOT what "Paul said", and neither can you find it anywhere in scripture. This is merely something what SDAs assume Paul said, even though it contradicts everything else Paul wrote in his letters to the church. Doctrine that is sound should harmonize with the rest of scripture, not just cherry-pick the verses that support it.

You fail to see that Paul plainly is referring to the Ten Commandments as what the Holy Spirit writes on our hearts in 2 Corinthians 3:1-3 KJV because your think Paul is condemning what was written in stone. Does Paul sound like he condemns the Ten Commandments when he says that the law is holy, just, and good, and that he delighted in the law of God, and that he wouldn't have known lust except the law hath said "thou shalt not covet", and that as Christians we establish the law, or that the doers of the law are who are justified?

You who preach a 1/2 Gospel fail to understand that Paul's apparent (yes apparent) disdain for the law, which is shown to be a false apprehension by these above verses, was simply a passionate warning appeal to those who sought their own justification through their vain attempt to obtain that through their attempt to keep the law in their own strength.

Do you understand? The law is a "minister of death" whenever a person attempts to attain salvation by it. Got it?

Using your logic, we should conclude that Insulin is a "minister of death" because the misuse of it will kill a Diabetic.

Was the law that God gave to the Jews, including Moses, to have each child circumsized on the eigth day "God's law" or "Moses law"?

1. Why do you care about the denominational affiliation of other people? There are many non-SDAs who hold to this same Biblical interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 KJV. And, do you hear me asking if you if you are a member of the Church of Satan, seeing that you teach exactly what Satanists teach about God's law? Let the Scriptures decide truth, not denominational affiliation.

2. Furthermore, I've not been "stalling" - I've just seen it for the first time and I am wasting no time answering it:
Circumcision was part of the Law of Moses because 1 Corinthians 7:19 KJV specifically says, "Circumcision is nothing, uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the Commandments of God (is what counts)." Got that? According to Paul, "circumcision" isn't counted as part of the Commandments of God that we are to keep - the Ten Commandments.

3. Now, that I have answered your "challenge", it is only fair that you accept my challenge that Zeke, Justaname, Ox, and everyone else has refused to accept. I challenge you to publicly declare that we may freely ignore Commandments 1-3 and 5-10 as freely as you all claim we may ignore the Fourth Commandment.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

You fail to see that Paul plainly is referring to the Ten Commandments as what the Holy Spirit writes on our hearts in 2 Corinthians 3:1-3 KJV because your think Paul is condemning what was written in stone. Does Paul sound like he condemns the Ten Commandments when he says that the law is holy, just, and good, and that he delighted in the law of God, and that he wouldn't have known lust except the law hath said "thou shalt not covet", and that as Christians we establish the law, or that the doers of the law are who are justified?

Why don't you let me say what I think instead of trying to distort it? If I thought that Paul was condemning the 10 commandments then you can be completely sure that that is exactlyl what I would have said. Paul condemned neither the 10 commandments, nor the Mosaic law. And neither do I, so get that straight.

What Paul wrote concerning the 10 commandments is that the EFFECT of them was death and condemnation. That no more condemns the commandments themselves any more than saying "no one can see God and live" condemns God. Both God and the 10 commandments are "holy, just and good", but that can be lethal to anyone who approaches him what are not "holy, just and good". We do not become any of these by trying to abide by the 10 commandments, or any other written set of laws. The Mosaic law was not given to us in order to turn us into moral beings. It was given to the Jews so that we might be wise enought to learn from their mistakes and realize that:

1. We were held prisoners by the law, locked up UNTIL faith should be revealed. (Gal 3:23)

2. The law made NOTHING perfect. (Hebrews 7:19)

3. The law made sin INCREASE, not DECREASE. (Rom 5:20)

4. There is NO law that can impart life. (Gal 3:21)

5. The law was made for lawbreakers, NOT the righteous. (1 Tim 1:8-11)

6. The law was POWERLESS to do what Christ did for us. (Rom 8:3)

7. It was called the law of sin and death. (Rom 8:2)

8. That APART from law - sin is death, (obviously meaning that WITH the law sin springs to life). (Rom 7:8)

So if you are going to talk about what "Paul wrote", then why not try to harmonize it with the above? You can pretend that they ALL refer to some "ceremonial" law that Paul nowhere even mentioned, but it that is the case then why don't you, or any other SDA here go through the above verses and demonstrate how that makes sense given the verses provided. Hint: it does not!

1. Why do you care about the denominational affiliation of other people?

I don't! I just refer to "SDAs" for the sake of convenience. The fact that there are others out there who are not SDAs but who also cling to faulty doctrines is not the concern here. What am I supposed to do? Name them all? What I "care about" is the truth presented in scripture, denominations don't concern me. I don't belong to any denomination and neither do I intend to join any.

So why don't you answer the question I asked instead of trying to divert this somewhere else? Let me repeat:

Was the law that God gave to the Jews, including Moses, to have each child circumsized on the eigth day "God's law" or "Moses law"?

Do you have an answer to this or not? Because your next comment does not do that as I will show you.

2. Furthermore, I've not been "stalling" - I've just seen it for the first time and I am wasting no time answering it:

Circumcision was part of the Law of Moses because 1 Corinthians 7:19 KJV specifically says, "Circumcision is nothing, uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the Commandments of God (is what counts)." Got that? According to Paul, "circumcision" isn't counted as part of the Commandments of God that we are to keep - the Ten Commandments.

Paul does not say anywhere here that 1) the "commandments of God" were the 10 commandments and 2) that circucision was NOT a commandment of God. A commandment of God is what God commands YOU to do. Circumcision was God's commandment given to the physical generations of the Hebrew people. Do you agree or not?

3. Now, that I have answered your "challenge"...

You haven't answered by challenge. The challenge I was referring to was given in post #88 of this thread. Do you accept it or not? If not then please explain why not.

it is only fair that you accept my challenge that Zeke, Justaname, Ox, and everyone else has refused to accept. I challenge you to publicly declare that we may freely ignore Commandments 1-3 and 5-10 as freely as you all claim we may ignore the Fourth Commandment.

I haven't made the point that we should "freely ignore" anything! Saying that we are not under the law, which Paul repeatedly pointed out, is not equivalent to saying that we should ignore it. The law was given for a purpose, and we should bear that purpose carefully in mind whenever we read the Mosaic law.

Now as far as the 4th commandment is concerned, both you and I are well aware that Paul considered it to be a shadow of what would come, rather than a reality. The only difference is that you need to add something to scripture in order to defend your theology, whereas I do not. That speaks volumes! If God commanded us not to add to scripture then my conclusion is that he had a very good reason for doing so.

 

[Phoneman777]

Why don't you let me say what I think instead of trying to distort it? If I thought that Paul was condemning the 10 commandments then you can be completely sure that that is exactlyl what I would have said. Paul condemned neither the 10 commandments, nor the Mosaic law. And neither do I, so get that straight.
What Paul wrote concerning the 10 commandments is that the EFFECT of them was death and condemnation. That no more condemns the commandments themselves any more than saying "no one can see God and live" condemns God. Both God and the 10 commandments are "holy, just and good", but that can be lethal to anyone who approaches him what are not "holy, just and good". We do not become any of these by trying to abide by the 10 commandments, or any other written set of laws. The Mosaic law was not given to us in order to turn us into moral beings. It was given to the Jews so that we might be wise enought to learn from their mistakes and realize that:
1. We were held prisoners by the law, locked up UNTIL faith should be revealed. (Gal 3:23)
2. The law made NOTHING perfect. (Hebrews 7:19)
3. The law made sin INCREASE, not DECREASE. (Rom 5:20)
4. There is NO law that can impart life. (Gal 3:21)
5. The law was made for lawbreakers, NOT the righteous. (1 Tim 1:8-11)
6. The law was POWERLESS to do what Christ did for us. (Rom 8:3)
7. It was called the law of sin and death. (Rom 8:2)
8. That APART from law - sin is death, (obviously meaning that WITH the law sin springs to life). (Rom 7:8)
So if you are going to talk about what "Paul wrote", then why not try to harmonize it with the above? You can pretend that they ALL refer to some "ceremonial" law that Paul nowhere even mentioned, but it that is the case then why don't you, or any other SDA here go through the above verses and demonstrate how that makes sense given the verses provided. Hint: it does not!


I don't! I just refer to "SDAs" for the sake of convenience. The fact that there are others out there who are not SDAs but who also cling to faulty doctrines is not the concern here. What am I supposed to do? Name them all? What I "care about" is the truth presented in scripture, denominations don't concern me. I don't belong to any denomination and neither do I intend to join any.
So why don't you answer the question I asked instead of trying to divert this somewhere else? Let me repeat:
Was the law that God gave to the Jews, including Moses, to have each child circumsized on the eigth day "God's law" or "Moses law"?
Do you have an answer to this or not? Because your next comment does not do that as I will show you.


Paul does not say anywhere here that 1) the "commandments of God" were the 10 commandments and 2) that circucision was NOT a commandment of God. A commandment of God is what God commands YOU to do. Circumcision was God's commandment given to the physical generations of the Hebrew people. Do you agree or not?


You haven't answered by challenge. The challenge I was referring to was given in post #88 of this thread. Do you accept it or not? If not then please explain why not.


I haven't made the point that we should "freely ignore" anything! Saying that we are not under the law, which Paul repeatedly pointed out, is not equivalent to saying that we should ignore it. The law was given for a purpose, and we should bear that purpose carefully in mind whenever we read the Mosaic law.
Now as far as the 4th commandment is concerned, both you and I are well aware that Paul considered it to be a shadow of what would come, rather than a reality. The only difference is that you need to add something to scripture in order to defend your theology, whereas I do not. That speaks volumes! If God commanded us not to add to scripture then my conclusion is that he had a very good reason for doing so.

I could answer each one of your above points to show that you are misinterpreting what they mean, but it would be in vain, for you refuse to listen to sound Biblical reasoning.

You're "challenge" first accuses your opposition of ignoring the laws of hermaneutics before asking whether truth can be obtained through such practices, which is the religionist equivalent of "Do you still beat your wife?" and is absurd.

Either admit that the Ten Commandments yet exist and we are obligated to obey them or publicly declare that they no longer apply to believers and may be wholly discarded, but don't sit on a fence of cowardice like the Israelites did at Mount Carmel. Will you continue to "halt between two opinions"?

 

[brakelite]

Allow me to simplify somewhat the seeming confusion over the law. Before I do, I would like to stress one thing. Grace is not opposed to obedience. Nor does obedience nullify grace. On the contrary, it is only by the grace of God that anyone can obey God. In anything, at any time. As Paul said..."shall we sin that grace may abound?" The answer a resounding no. So what does he recommend that would not abuse grace? Not sinning of course. How? By accepting the grace of God in the sense and way God intended. Grace being our empowerment to obey God's commandments. Now to the law.
“For I delight in

Law One: ……….The law of God after the inward man”…..(Romans 7:22)

Paul has nothing but love and respect for God’s law. He considers it ‘holy, just and good’. It is Paul’s earnest and deepest desire to honor that law, and to keep all the commandments,

"but I see another law in my members, warring against the law (of God) of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to….” (v23cont.)

Law Two:………..“The law of sin…which is in my members."

Paul delights in obedience, but finds that in the carnal nature resides a law which makes it impossible, the law of sin. Paul confesses his wretchedness and guilt. “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” he cries.
“I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin.” (vs 25)

But if Paul is bound by the law of sin, despite his best intentions to obey the law of God, how then can he overcome? The answer is just 2 verses later.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For…

Law Three:……….the law of the Spirit of life…in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Romans 8:1,2.

Three laws.

• The law of God which is holy, just, and good.
• The law of sin which binds the carnal man making it impossible to obey the law of God.
• The law of the Spirit of life which through the grace and power of God makes it possible for the reborn child of God to obey the law of God, if he relies on and walks after the Spirit and not after the flesh.

The law of sin has no power over them who are completely surrendered to Christ. That is why elsewhere Paul can assert that to those who walk in the Spirit they are transformed by the renewing of their minds, and are recreated into the image of the character of Christ. A character that is obedient and a mind (like Christ’s) which delights in the law of God and rejoices that by faith in the power and grace of God he may be obedient to all the commandments.

 

[Phoneman777]

A character that is obedient and a mind (like Christ’s) which delights in the law of God and rejoices that by faith in the power and grace of God he may be obedient to all the commandments.

You'll never convince those who hate the law because of their love of sin that what you have written is solid Biblical hermeneutics.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I could answer each one of your above points to show that you are misinterpreting what they mean, but it would be in vain, for you refuse to listen to sound Biblical reasoning.

Really? How is anyone supposed to reply to that? Why don't you try me, instead of making up excuses? If you are not prepared to defend your theology then what on earth are you doing here? This is the typical cop-out that all SDAs seem to fall back on whenever they cannot use scripture to prove their points. Anyone who doesn't agree with them simply "refuses to listen".

I have been "listening" to these kinds of responses from SDAs for years now. When am I going to encounter anyone of you who can actually prove their points with scripture rather than implying that anyone who opposes them isn't listening?

You're "challenge" first accuses your opposition of ignoring the laws of hermaneutics before asking whether truth can be obtained through such practices, which is the religionist equivalent of "Do you still beat your wife?" and is absurd.

If my method of "obtaining truth" is incorrect then please explain why you think it is. And if my challenge has anything at all with you wife-beating analogy then again, please explain why. Otherwise all I can conclude from this is that you are being evasive.

Either admit that the Ten Commandments yet exist and we are obligated to obey them or publicly declare that they no longer apply to believers and may be wholly discarded, but don't sit on a fence of cowardice like the Israelites did at Mount Carmel. Will you continue to "halt between two opinions"?

What???? I have already made it quite clear that the 10 commandments no longer apply to believers. So what "two opinions" are you talking about? The fact that I acknowledge that "the law is good if one uses it properly" does not mean that I multiple opinions.

Scripture teaches us that we are no longer under the law. How many opinions do you have about that?

Allow me to simplify somewhat the seeming confusion over the law. Before I do, I would like to stress one thing. Grace is not opposed to obedience. Nor does obedience nullify grace. On the contrary, it is only by the grace of God that anyone can obey God. In anything, at any time. As Paul said..."shall we sin that grace may abound?" The answer a resounding no. So what does he recommend that would not abuse grace? Not sinning of course. How? By accepting the grace of God in the sense and way God intended. Grace being our empowerment to obey God's commandments. Now to the law.
“For I delight in

Law One: ……….The law of God after the inward man”…..(Romans 7:22)

Paul has nothing but love and respect for God’s law. He considers it ‘holy, just and good’. It is Paul’s earnest and deepest desire to honor that law, and to keep all the commandments,

"but I see another law in my members, warring against the law (of God) of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to….” (v23cont.)

Law Two:………..“The law of sin…which is in my members."

Paul delights in obedience, but finds that in the carnal nature resides a law which makes it impossible, the law of sin. Paul confesses his wretchedness and guilt. “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” he cries.
“I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin.” (vs 25)

But if Paul is bound by the law of sin, despite his best intentions to obey the law of God, how then can he overcome? The answer is just 2 verses later.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For…

Law Three:……….the law of the Spirit of life…in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” Romans 8:1,2.

Three laws.

• The law of God which is holy, just, and good.
• The law of sin which binds the carnal man making it impossible to obey the law of God.
• The law of the Spirit of life which through the grace and power of God makes it possible for the reborn child of God to obey the law of God, if he relies on and walks after the Spirit and not after the flesh.

The law of sin has no power over them who are completely surrendered to Christ. That is why elsewhere Paul can assert that to those who walk in the Spirit they are transformed by the renewing of their minds, and are recreated into the image of the character of Christ. A character that is obedient and a mind (like Christ’s) which delights in the law of God and rejoices that by faith in the power and grace of God he may be obedient to all the commandments.

Breaklite, have you seen anyone here claiming that grace stands in opposition to obedience?

Or that Paul disrespected the law?

Otherwise.... what's your point????

 

[JimParker]

My dear brother, your post is full of inaccuracies. It is a well known, indisputable fact that Christians kept the seventh day Sabbath all over the Christian world for centuries after the close of the canon of Scripture, so to say that early Christian worship was "not on the seventh day of the week" is not correct.

The New Covenant is God's Ten Commandments written on our hearts, according to 2 Corinthians 3:1-3 KJV, not the cessation of them. If you really believe that Christians are no longer obligated to keep the Ten Commandments, then why don't you publicly state that Christians may have other gods before God, engage in idolatry, blaspheme Him, as well as kill, steal, lie, cheat on our spouses, covet, etc.? I challenged Zeke to publicly state that for the record, but he lacked the intestinal fortitude to do so. Would you be willing to do it?

<<It is a well known, indisputable fact that Christians kept the seventh day Sabbath all over the Christian world for centuries after the close of the canon of Scripture,>>

That is patently false.

You may prove me wrong by citing references to keeping the Sabbath from the writings of the church after the close of the canon in the 4th century.

What is DOCUMENTED is that, from the first century, the Church met on Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.

Ignatius (C. 50-117 AD, Bishop of Antioch) The Epistle to the Magnesians ; Chapter IX.—Let Us Live with Christ.

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day…[SIZE=1.5pt] [/SIZE]

…And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, “To the end, for the eighth day,” on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, …

…At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord’s Day contains the resurrection.

Note: the way a Jew "observes" the Sabbath is to do no work. The Pharisees and Sadducees were constantly angry with Jesus for healing ( which they considered a "work" ) on the Sabbath. Rest is not worship other than being an act of obedience to the Lord.

The reason the Jews met on the Sabbath is that they were forbidden to work that day. It was the only day when they COULD meet together.

<<to say that early Christian worship was "not on the seventh day of the week" is not correct.>>

That is confused. The Sabbath was not a day of worship. It was a day of rest which the Jews were commanded to keep. ( [SIZE=12pt]EX 16:29; EX 16:29; 31:14; 35:1; LEV 23:3; DT 5:12)[/SIZE]

Worship is supposed to go on constantly in every thing we do, every day, year after year.

Rom 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.

Are you saying we should only do that on Saturdays?

<<If you really believe that Christians are no longer obligated to keep the Ten Commandments, then why don't you publicly state that Christians may have other gods before God, engage in idolatry,...>>

Nonsense challenge. No one is suggesting that.

HOW one keeps the Sabbath is NOT part of the 10 commandments.

So, please, try to keep your argument straight. Either state that Christians have to keep all 316 commandments of the entire Law of Moses (which includes how to keep the Sabbath) or that they have to keep the 10 commandments. (Which says nothing about how to keep the Sabbath.)

You can't have it both ways but you insist on trying.

 

[Phoneman777]

What???? I have already made it quite clear that the 10 commandments no longer apply to believers. So what "two opinions" are you talking about? The fact that I acknowledge that "the law is good if one uses it properly" does not mean that I multiple opinions.

Of course you've admitted that "the Ten Commandments no longer apply to believers" - we've heard that all before.

Now publicly declare that a Christian believer may worship Buddha, sleep with your wife, steal your car, kill anyone he wishes, idolize NFL or Hollywood stars, etc., if you truly believe that "the Ten Commandments no longer apply to believers" and get stop trying to have it both ways: either we are free to break them or we are obligated to keep them. I won't call your doctrine a "doctrine of devils" because a more fitting opprobrium is "doctrine of cowards".

<<It is a well known, indisputable fact that Christians kept the seventh day Sabbath all over the Christian world for centuries after the close of the canon of Scripture,>>

That is patently false.

You may prove me wrong by citing references to keeping the Sabbath from the writings of the church after the close of the canon in the 4th century.

What is DOCUMENTED is that, from the first century, the Church met on Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.

Ignatius (C. 50-117 AD, Bishop of Antioch) The Epistle to the Magnesians ; Chapter IX.—Let Us Live with Christ.

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day…[SIZE=1.5pt] [/SIZE]

…And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, “To the end, for the eighth day,” on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, …

…At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord’s Day contains the resurrection.

Note: the way a Jew "observes" the Sabbath is to do no work. The Pharisees and Sadducees were constantly angry with Jesus for healing ( which they considered a "work" ) on the Sabbath. Rest is not worship other than being an act of obedience to the Lord.

The reason the Jews met on the Sabbath is that they were forbidden to work that day. It was the only day when they COULD meet together.

<<to say that early Christian worship was "not on the seventh day of the week" is not correct.>>

That is confused. The Sabbath was not a day of worship. It was a day of rest which the Jews were commanded to keep. ( [SIZE=12pt]EX 16:29; EX 16:29; 31:14; 35:1; LEV 23:3; DT 5:12)[/SIZE]

Worship is supposed to go on constantly in every thing we do, every day, year after year.

Rom 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.

Are you saying we should only do that on Saturdays?

<<If you really believe that Christians are no longer obligated to keep the Ten Commandments, then why don't you publicly state that Christians may have other gods before God, engage in idolatry,...>>

Nonsense challenge. No one is suggesting that.

HOW one keeps the Sabbath is NOT part of the 10 commandments.

So, please, try to keep your argument straight. Either state that Christians have to keep all 316 commandments of the entire Law of Moses (which includes how to keep the Sabbath) or that they have to keep the 10 commandments. (Which says nothing about how to keep the Sabbath.)

You can't have it both ways but you insist on trying.

Sorry, but Sabbath keeping well beyond the first century is historical fact, just not consider such in the libraries of the most infamous revisionist historians that have ever graced the topside of the earth - Roman Catholic libraries.

Read what Socrates Scholasticus and others had to say about Sabbath keeping among the early church.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." - Sherlock Holmes

 

[JimParker]

Of course you've admitted that "the Ten Commandments no longer apply to believers" - we've heard that all before.

Now publicly declare that a Christian believer may worship Buddha, sleep with your wife, steal your car, kill anyone he wishes, idolize NFL or Hollywood stars, etc., if you truly believe that "the Ten Commandments no longer apply to believers" and get stop trying to have it both ways: either we are free to break them or we are obligated to keep them. I won't call your doctrine a "doctrine of devils" because a more fitting opprobrium is "doctrine of cowards".

Sorry, but Sabbath keeping well beyond the first century is historical fact, just not consider such in the libraries of the most infamous revisionist historians that have ever graced the top-side of the earth - Roman Catholic libraries..

<<Sorry, but Sabbath keeping well beyond the first century is historical fact,>>

So give a citation which can be checked. So far, all you have done is say it's a fact but have offered absolutely nothing to substantiate your claim.

So prove it.

Also cite proof of revisions of historical data by "roman catholic libraries" by disinterested parties. (And, no, SDA "scholars" are not disinterested parties.)

 

[brakelite]

Breaklite, have you seen anyone here claiming that grace stands in opposition to obedience?

Or that Paul disrespected the law?

Otherwise.... what's your point????

Everyone Uppsala who maintains that the Ten Commandments are a part of the law that was nailed to the cross must invariably claim that grace is in opposition to obedience, because they use Ga 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. In all my experience of discussing these matters over the past ten or more years on the internet, I have yet to meet anyone who agrees with me that it is possible to obey God's commandments by the grace and power of God and at the same time not consider their obedience being a source of their justification. It appears to me that when anyone comes to this discussion, they are blinded to this completely Biblical paradigm. That

1. it is possible to obey all the Ten Commandments...Phil 4:13;
2. That it is God's will and purpose that we do so for it is only through His power that it can be done...John 14:15;Matt. 6:33; 1 John 2:3-5; John 15:5
3. That the commandment regarding the remembering to keep holy (how can we be expected to keep anything holy without the power of God in us ) the Sabbath (the one that is not a shadow of things to come as opposed to the Sabbaths that are shadows) is one of the ten....Exodus 20:8-11; Col. 2:17
4. And that all is by grace through faith...... Eph.1:15-23; 3:14-21; Romans 8:4,7-10; Gal. 2:16-21;Gal. 3:11; Romans 2:12-15; Hebrews 8:10;
5. And no amount of obedience, Sabbath keeping included, contributes one iota towards our justification, but if you do not have the faith to believe God has the power to change you into Christ's image (Christ was obedient to all God's commandments and never sinned) is what faith you do have sufficient?

I really don't see anything difficult in the above 5 points. This is my perspective on scripture and the Christian life when it comes to the relationship between grace and obedience. This is also the official position of my church. What is the problem with that? So simple. It is the gospel.
The laws of God have never changed. They stand forever, as they are transcripts of His character.
It is the manner in which obedience is effected that has changed. I, nor anyone else, can keep the law by following it to the letter. That is, by focusing upon the written law and attempting in my strength to obeying all the commandments. That is walking in the flesh. (See Romans 8:1-10) But if by the Spirit I do mortify the flesh and allow God to work in me His righteousness, and by His strength then I can find the power to obey all the commandments. It is by focusing upon Him; worshiping Him in Spirit and truth, that He then abides in me and I begin to take on the nature and character of God, my Father. Obedience to the commandments then becomes the natural thing for me to do, and it becomes my delight and greatest pleasure. Jesus said that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be filled. This righteousness expresses itself through obedience.

 

[Phoneman777]

<<Sorry, but Sabbath keeping well beyond the first century is historical fact,>>

So give a citation which can be checked. So far, all you have done is say it's a fact but have offered absolutely nothing to substantiate your claim.

So prove it.

Also cite proof of revisions of historical data by "roman catholic libraries" by disinterested parties. (And, no, SDA "scholars" are not disinterested parties.)

Friend, the info is at your fingertips. All you have to do is an Internet search.