Saturday is Sabbath day...

[goodshepard55]

This is really a great study, gives people a lot of info and things to seek and pray about...Thanks guys for doing all the work for us all to soak in..You are the bestest bunch of posters..

Shep

 

[James Forthwright]

Then state in one sentence why you are so concerned with the 10 commandments.

It is an integral part of my rejuvenated born-again Christian (a follower of the footsteps of Christ) nature to love God therefore, I 'count it all joy' to endeavor, to the best of my ability, to be a faithful servant willing to obey my Heavenly Master's commandments.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

It is an integral part of my rejuvenated born-again Christian (a follower of the footsteps of Christ) nature to love God therefore, I 'count it all joy' to endeavor, to the best of my ability, to be a faithful servant willing to obey my Heavenly Master's commandments.

Thanks. It appears to me that what you have described is not a doctrinal matter, but a personal liturgical preference based on your own understanding.

 

[James Forthwright]

Thanks. It appears to me that what you have described is not a doctrinal matter, but a personal liturgical preference based on your own understanding.

You’re welcome! That’s a fairly accurate assessment of my views, HRFTD, but it could use some further clarification.

“Liturgical” IMO, implies some sort of formal written religious structure or following a codified decree of rules, laws and statutes. My personal ‘walk in the Spirit’ is considerably less rigid or regimented (there’s no catechism to follow) and incorporates much more flexibility in its vantage.

Yes, I firmly believe in following the Ten Commandments which were etched by the finger of God, and which does include ‘keeping the Sabbath holy’. However, I additionally believe that it is vitally important to include Christ’s general commandments to “love the brethren”. Also, Jesus’ and His disciples instructions to “pray to the Father in secret”, forgive our enemies as you would have them forgive you, walk the extra mile, be more righteous than the Pharisees, be hesitant in judgment to cast stones at our adversaries sins while ignoring our own transgressions, look after the poor and widows, gracious in our giving, etc.

There are, likewise many other OT laws that I personally find have much merit spiritually as well as physically, (though the apostle Paul and many/most of today’s Christians would likely object) , e.g., observing the divinely inspired food cleanliness laws, clinical benefits of circumcision, observing scriptural holy days instead of traditional church holidays, etc. It must be noted that I do NOT demand that others conform to my views on these kinds of subjects. There is a high degree of spiritual discernment required in such matters. I merely suggest that fellow believers in Christ be open to pray and faithfully consider their viability in their own Christian faith and daily walk with God. Don’t take such eternal matters of faith for granted. Search the entirety of the scriptures to show yourselves approved unto God and follow the dictates of your heart.

I’d also beg to disagree with your statement that my beliefs “are not a doctrinal matter”. Though I would never insist that everyone (or anyone) follow my exact ‘walk in the Spirit’ I am fully prepared to supply a firm scriptural foundation on any or all aspects on which my faith and principles are based. I try to encourage my fellow Christian brethren to openly question what they have been taught (or have been led to believe) especially regarding God’s “glorious” Law.

If you examine the various historical periods throughout the Bible, which encompasses over six thousand years of time, there were extremely few instances where the prophets of God were given soothing, serene messages of divine encouragement to deliver to their "faithful" flock.

Why should today be any different?

Luke 18:8 . . . Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? --Christ Jesus

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

“Liturgical” IMO, implies some sort of formal written religious structure or following a codified decree of rules, laws and statutes. My personal ‘walk in the Spirit’ is considerably less rigid or regimented (there’s no catechism to follow) and incorporates much more flexibility in its vantage.

Liturgical was not a good word to use.

Yes, I firmly believe in following the Ten Commandments which were etched by the finger of God, and which does include ‘keeping the Sabbath holy’. However, I additionally believe that it is vitally important to include Christ’s general commandments to “love the brethren”. Also, Jesus’ and His disciples instructions to “pray to the Father in secret”, forgive our enemies as you would have them forgive you, walk the extra mile, be more righteous than the Pharisees, be hesitant in judgment to cast stones at our adversaries sins while ignoring our own transgressions, look after the poor and widows, gracious in our giving, etc.

I, too, believe in keeping the 10 commandments. Where we differ is that I believe when a person walks in faith, he/she is being obedient to the spirit of all 10 commandments, which is far greater than the letter of the same. The points you mentioned are not discernible in the 10 commandments, but once the spirit writes God's law on the heart, they are; not through the 10 commandments, but through the spirit and the word discerned through faith.

I’d also beg to disagree with your statement that my beliefs “are not a doctrinal matter”. Though I would never insist that everyone (or anyone) follow my exact ‘walk in the Spirit’ I am fully prepared to supply a firm scriptural foundation on any or all aspects on which my faith and principles are based. I try to encourage my fellow Christian brethren to openly question what they have been taught (or have been led to believe) especially regarding God’s “glorious” Law.

Yes, but in your one sentence used to describe why you are so concerned with the 10 commandments, no mention was made of any doctrinal issue. It was all about your experience and preferences according to your understanding. Doctrinal issues require mandatory obedience from everyone. If you do not insist that people follow your example, what confidence can anyone have that your teaching is doctrinal truth, rather than just opinion and preference?

 

[James Forthwright]

Liturgical was not a good word to use.

Understood. It's often an elusive task to find that 'right word' to express our precise feelings and because of that, our true meaning and intent can sometimes become muddled. It's also tough to read someone's tone and inflection in a forum atmosphere with no evident cues from their body language or other verbal expressions.

I, too, believe in keeping the 10 commandments. Where we differ is that I believe when a person walks in faith, he/she is being obedient to the spirit of all 10 commandments, which is far greater than the letter of the same. The points you mentioned are not discernible in the 10 commandments, but once the spirit writes God's law on the heart, they are; not through the 10 commandments, but through the spirit and the word discerned through faith.

Yes, by 'walking in the Spirit of God' most of the Ten Commandments become a rather moot point because we begin to follow them as second (born again) nature. However, this thread concerns the Fourth Commandment, and there is considerably much more diversity in how many Christians perceive God's command to "Keep the Sabbath Holy". Now isn't there? There's not much controversy concerning the other nine. We're attempting to iron out the doctrinal wrinkles on this subject.

What exactly is the seventh day? How do we 'keep this day holy'? Can the Sabbath be any or every day? Jesus is "The Lord of the Sabbath" but does that mean His followers no longer have to observe the scriptural seventh day Sabbath as He and His disciples did?, etc. There are a multitude of questions regarding this matter and I'm only trying to share what I've learned on this fascinating topic.

Yes, but in your one sentence used to describe why you are so concerned with the 10 commandments, no mention was made of any doctrinal issue. It was all about your experience and preferences according to your understanding. Doctrinal issues require mandatory obedience from everyone. If you do not insist that people follow your example, what confidence can anyone have that your teaching is doctrinal truth, rather than just opinion and preference?

How does one encapsulate ALL their opinions and thoughts about such a intricate subject IN ONE SENTENCE? That was a overly-restrictive stipulation you placed on my single response. I attempted to summarize my views into one sentence but, probably, failed to meet your standards in that regard. I tried to extrapolate upon that one sentence definition in the following message and this post as well. I suppose one of my core motivations is that I have observed that there is an evident disregard bordering almost on hatred in modern Church teachings concerning God's Law. Lots of lip-service, far less patronage. Many Christian pastors seem to cavalierly dismiss and ignore their responsibility to instruct their flocks in the merits of God's Law in favor of ONLY preaching endlessly about grace, love, and 'resting in Jesus', etc.

It is NOT my prerogative to dictate "mandatory doctrine" to the Body of Christ. All I can do is, relate what I have learned in my Bible Studies regarding certain doctrinal issues and what has been impressed upon my heart by the Holy Spirit as to how I am to incorporate these findings or spiritual revelations into MY OWN CHRISTIAN WALK. How the reader interprets and chooses to act upon what I post or what they happen to conclude as "mandatory doctrine" . . . I leave TOTALLY up to the HOLY SPIRIT. God will judge us all on how we choose to respond to the individual divine spiritual proddings of our heart.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Yes, by 'walking in the Spirit of God' most of the Ten Commandments become a rather moot point because we begin to follow them as second (born again) nature. However, this thread concerns the Fourth Commandment, and there is considerably much more diversity in how many Christians perceive God's command to "Keep the Sabbath Holy". Now isn't there? There's not much controversy concerning the other nine. We're attempting to iron out the doctrinal wrinkles on this subject.

No, by walking by faith in the spirit we walk in all righteousness demanded by all the law. You can't pick and choose which commandments don't apply to all righteousness.

What exactly is the seventh day? How do we 'keep this day holy'? Can the Sabbath be any or every day? Jesus is "The Lord of the Sabbath" but does that mean His followers no longer have to observe the scriptural seventh day Sabbath as He and His disciples did?, etc.

Well here you are attempting to blur the line between choosing to do something and having to do something by saying, 'does that mean His followers no longer have to observe the scriptural seventh day Sabbath as He and His disciples did?' Through this statement you trying to make it appear that the apostles were required to keep the sabbaths.

How does one encapsulate ALL their opinions and thoughts about such a intricate subject IN ONE SENTENCE? That was a overly-restrictive stipulation you placed on my single response.

I don't think it's overly restrictive. The truth is simple, and can be stated simply. Falsehood is what requires a lot of words in order to create a package that looks like the truth. For example, I can answer the question why the ten commandments are not my focus in one sentence: We in Christ have died to the law (which only reigns over those alive in the flesh) and live through faith in his resurrection.

I requested one sentence on purpose because I think you employ a deceitful technique of pretexting your opinions with obvious but unrelated truths that people will readily agree with, and then subtly try to draw a correlation or equivalency between the two. It takes your multiple sentences to accomplish that.

It is NOT my prerogative to dictate "mandatory doctrine" to the Body of Christ. All I can do is, relate what I have learned in my Bible Studies regarding certain doctrinal issues and what has been impressed upon my heart by the Holy Spirit as to how I am to incorporate these findings or spiritual revelations into MY OWN CHRISTIAN WALK. How the reader interprets and chooses to act upon what I post or what they happen to conclude as "mandatory doctrine" . . . I leave TOTALLY up to the HOLY SPIRIT. God will judge us all on how we choose to respond to the individual divine spiritual proddings of our heart.

Great. Then lose the subtle guilt trips and veiled condemnations towards those who disagree with you. It is just your opinions and preferences after all.

 

[James Forthwright]

James Forthwright previously posted:
Yes, by 'walking in the Spirit of God' most of the Ten Commandments become a rather moot point because we begin to follow them as second (born again) nature. However, this thread concerns the Fourth Commandment, and there is considerably much more diversity in how many Christians perceive God's command to "Keep the Sabbath Holy". Now isn't there? There's not much controversy concerning the other nine. We're attempting to iron out the doctrinal wrinkles on this subject.

No, by walking by faith in the spirit we walk in all righteousness demanded by all the law.

I’m not referring about qualifications for righteousness. That’s a free gift from Christ. If we walk in Christ we won’t serve other god’s, fashion idols, steal, bear false witness, murder etc. , neither should we are we free to ignore our parents by not obeying their earthly commands or object to a simple tithe of our time to Our Heavenly Father each week as He has stipulated in the fourth commandment.

You can't pick and choose which commandments don't apply to all righteousness.

I have heard the “can't pick and choose” argument many times before and it just doesn’t wash. If you look at Jesus’ walk He continually walked in the Spirit, yet didn’t have difficulty excluding certain OT laws, e.g., Not washing hands, saying ‘pick up bed and walk”, not reprimanding his disciples for picking corn, saying it’s OK to pull your neighbor’s donkey out of a ditch, on the Sabbath not approving of stoning the woman in adultery . . . and again, it’s not MY decision which laws I’m excluding/including but paying attention to instructions as I walk the Holy Spirit (just like Jesus). And once, again, ALL righteousness has already been supplied by being ‘in Christ’. Our duty is to obey the Father’s commands because we love Him and rejoice to follow His commandments to the best of our abilities ‘in Christ’. It has NOTHING to do with maintaining righteousness but the natural manifestation of our regeneration in the Spirit.

Well here you are attempting to blur the line between choosing to do something and having to do something by saying, 'does that mean His followers no longer have to observe the scriptural seventh day Sabbath as He and His disciples did?' Through this statement you trying to make it appear that the apostles were required to keep the sabbaths.

No, you’re putting the onus of making these decisions on ME. What I’m attempting to convey is that each Christian must pray, and humbly and contritely seek God on these matters. Do you believe that all of the First Century churches (the Corinthians, Galatians, Roman, Ephesians, etc.) scattered around the Middle East and reaching unto parts of Europe and the Far East all worshipped identically and had a uniform doctrine? James epistle is markedly different than Paul’s regarding ‘works’ and there is a spiritual balance that is IMO way out of balance in the modern churches regarding God’s Law. There were variances of doctrinal opinion and worship practices then as there are now. However, there is liberty ‘in Christ’ and our faith and worship practices (like the Sabbath) can/should grow, evolve and transform as our knowledge and wisdom increases but they need not be identical in form.

The Gentiles were purposely given a simplified set of initial introductory statutes to guide them because they were nascent churches. They were instructed not to eat meat offered to idols, so that should give you a clue that the Second commandment (not to fashion or worship idols) was also known unto them but NOT specified in the Book of Acts. Give the babes milk first (1Cor 3:2), once they mature they will naturally yearn for the meat they see their parents ingesting and enjoying. Are your bible beliefs and understanding the exact same as they were, 10, 20, 30+ years ago? I certainly hope not!

I don't think it's overly restrictive. The truth is simple, and can be stated simply. Falsehood is what requires a lot of words in order to create a package that looks like the truth. For example, I can answer the question why the ten commandments are not my focus in one sentence: We in Christ have died to the law (which only reigns over those alive in the flesh) and live through faith in his resurrection.

<sarcasm mode on> Are you advocating that all responses should be in single sentences to ‘keep it simple’? Why do you use big multi-syllabic words like “resurrection” when you can simply say ‘He-Rose-From-The-Dead' ? <sarcasm mode off> Why should my way of explanation conform precisely to how you explain things? God made us all differently, HRFTD. There’s always room for further questions. What does it mean to be ‘in Christ’? Judas Iscariot walked with Jesus daily for three years, is he ‘in Christ’? Are Mormons ‘in Christ’?? “Died to the Law”? Exactly which “law(s)” are you referring to? Are those that willfully, repeatedly and unrepentantly sin (break God’s commandments) still ‘in Christ’? Falsehoods can also be simply stated, e.g., “God is dead.” The holy scriptures can be interpreted simply so a child can understand them while simultaneously providing the intellectual fodder for theological scholars writing voluminous tomes and never able to fully grasp the depths of all that’s contained therein.

I requested one sentence on purpose because I think you employ a deceitful technique of pretexting your opinions with obvious but unrelated truths that people will readily agree with, and then subtly try to draw a correlation or equivalency between the two. It takes your multiple sentences to accomplish that.

So, you don’t approve of my forensic tactics or exposition techniques? My one sentence explanation did supply you with the gist of my position.

Great. Then lose the subtle guilt trips and veiled condemnations towards those who disagree with you. It is just your opinions and preferences after all.

It has never been my intent to condemn or lay any guilt trips on a single soul, HRFTD? How do you know what’s in my heart? It’s far easier to categorize your opponent as a “legalist” or “judazier” or demonize them in your mind’s eye rather than take the time to scripturally confront their views with dispassionate objectivity. It’s not an easy task for someone to always convey their exact thoughts, especially to those who have already made up their minds. None of us has all the answers and therefore, we all should take care to cultivate ‘a teachable spirit’. Unfortunately, intent is often lost in written correspondence. I can't see your facial expressions and body language and you can't see mine.

Is your every solitary scriptural belief flawless and above correction? No one enjoys the process of correction but it is, nevertheless, good for the soul. We ALL have a tendency to pontificate in these Christian forums (and admittedly, I’m probably a greater transgressor in that regard than most). I will take heed to cease from such insinuations of guilt and I would appreciate it if you would kindly refrain from ratcheting up the rhetoric.

Keeping the Sabbath holy is a marvelously rich spiritual blessing and we all need spiritual as well as physical rest. Anyone who doesn’t want to partake of God’s blessing is not obligated to partake. I make no claim to knowing everything the Sabbath entails and learn something new with each weekly observance.

Peace be unto you, HeRoseFromTheDead!

 

[James Forthwright]

Mark, next time, (if there is to be a ‘next time’) do me a favor and break your response into manageable parts. I greatly appreciate the time and effort it takes for you to post a three page post but I can no longer promise to continue to respond to posts of such great length.

1. Exceptions to the Sabbath Law are allowed.

Your assertion – Carrying his bed, picking corn, demonstrate that exceptions were allowed. We look at Jesus as the guide to how to keep the Sabbath.

My reply – Jesus is not recorded as doing his carpentry on the Sabbath.

To be precise, Jesus is actually not recorded as doing ANY carpentry, whatsoever. All the gospels state is that “he was the son of a carpenter”. Now, it is very likely a good son like Jesus would aid his step-father in his work but it’s not stated that He did so, nor on what days Joseph (or Jesus) worked as a carpenter. As any observant Israelite family, they would NOT have worked on the Sabbath.

This is a different level of activity. Manna, the sabbatical year, these demonstrate God's supernatural provision to allow His law to be kept. It was the seventh day that was holy, not other days, and the exceptions did not include one's regular daily employment, excepting the priests.

I didn’t say other days could be ‘holy’ as the Sabbath, just that in the NT we have a greater degree of Liberty ‘in Christ’ and have also been commanded to provide for our families. If you sincerely desire to keep the Sabbath but your job conflicts with the Sabbath, God understands. . . When’s the last time your meals were supernaturally supplied as the saints in the wilderness? Or you received compensation for being a member of the priesthood of all believers? There were definitely exceptions in the OT besides priests and I’ve already mentioned them. Why should the New Covenant of Faith & Grace or ‘ministration of righteousness’ be more restrictive or just as restrictive in its regulations than the Old Covenant? You are making that stipulation, not the Spirit of God.

The sabbatical year concerned a rest of land after six years. All farming or work did not cease during the sabbatical year. All the farmer had to do was rotate which field was to be left dormant on the seventh year. He was free to work previously unplowed fields or ones that had only a few years of use. This commandment is for the restitution of the land and IMO explains why many of today’s foods are devoid essential nutrients and lack rich taste because farmers are not adhering to God’s divine plan in their quest for larger profits.

2. The Law was not clearly laid out.

Your assertion – Jesus was accused of violating the Sabbath, therefore the the Sabbath Law was not so cut and dried.

My reply – this is non-sequitor. Though the Pharisees mis-interpretted and added to the Law, that does not mean the original law was difficult to understand.

Nonsense. The Jews have an entire volume of the Talmud dedicated to the statutes of the Sabbath. This volume was only an Oral Tradition in the First Century but it demonstrates that many aspects of the Sabbath were not fully understood. We are not to travel on the Sabbath except for a certain distance called in the scriptures “a Sabbath’s days journey” exactly how far is that distance Mark? Do you own a furlong counter? We are not to work. Does that mean I can’t brush my teeth, turn on a light switch, tie my shoes, take a shower? The legalistic Jews went to great lengths determining such inane things. And it is precisely such myopic legalism that the NT frees us from. NOT the annulment of the Sabbath in its entirety but a freedom to ‘walk in the Spirit’ in such matters. In other words, “if you heart doesn’t condemn you, you are free to follow it’s dictates concerning the Law of God concerning these minor matters.”

Your citation:

Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Of course we need to look at the context, but even so, this is an example of how they added what God had not said.

But this does not give us license to treat the Sabbath as a regular Work Day.

I don’t. You’re preaching to the choir. Why do you so casually disregard this “simple” command, especially when there are so little NT scriptures that supposedly ‘abolish’ Sabbath observance? Do you resent/despise God’s Commandments? Don’t you desire to follow Jesus’ example? Is Sabbath observance too grievous for you? None of the Ten Commandment are all that difficult to obey, Mark.

The Word of God clearly states that you should not treat the Sabbath as a regular Work Day. Alright then, why do you choose ignore this commandment while intuitively following the other nine? Your faith is not very consistent.
Is not God the Father ‘merciful unto sinners’? Why should God not forgive Sabbath transgressors especially those who only and unwillingly transgress the Sabbath in order to provide for the welfare of their loved ones, just as He regularly forgives those who trespass His other commandments?

3. Jesus demonstrates “a degree of liberty” in exactly how we obey the Law without actually breaking it.

Your assertion – The Holy Spirit lets us know which “technical violations” of the Law are permissible. Also, Jesus changed parts of the Law.

My reply – The Bible itself tells us that the Law was a covenant between Israel and God, and as a Gentile, I was never a part of that covenant.

Fine then, follow the dictates of your heart. I’m not commanding you to do anything. However, if ever in your Biblical studies you come to the realization of exactly whom constitutes “Israel” you may find yourself making some changes to your spiritual walk, just as I did.

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Israel’s true identity is a very profound revelation and I don’t expect anyone to grasp it on the first hearing. There are other threads that delve into this teaching. Seek and ye shall find. . .

That aside, The Spirit tells me that keeping the Sabbath is not needed, because it is a shadow of Christ, but now, having Christ Himself, I no longer need the shadow. My actual sabbath rest is to rest from all of my works, since by works of Law I am not made righteous. I am made righteous in Christ. Now, whether or not you agree with this last part, how can you deny that the Spirit speaks to me as He speaks to you?

Fine. You are right in following what The Holy Spirit tells YOU, and I am right in following what the Holy Spirit tells ME. We don’t have to have identical walks in Christ, Mark. And I’ll say it for the umpteenth time and put it in caps for the hard of hearing:
I, JAMES FORTHWRIGHT, DO NOT FOLLOW GOD’S COMMANDMENTS TO BE MADE RIGHTEOUS NOR TO GAIN SALVATION. I FOLLOW GOD’S COMMANDMENTS SOLELY BECAUSE I LOVE HIM. MY RIGHTEOUSNESS HAS BEEN FULLY SUPPLIED BY CHRIST JESUS’ SACRIFICE ON THE CROSS!

4. Jesus' example supersedes Moses or Paul. Jesus removed the death penalty for adultery by not enforcing it upon the woman caught.

Your assertion – Jesus pardoned her sin instead of exacting the death penalty, therefore the death penalty for adultery under the Mosaic Covenant was abrogated, at least temporarily.

My reply – The death penalty for adultery under the Mosaic covenant never was given for the gentiles.

What/Who are Gentiles? Do you know who are ‘the lost tribes of Israel’? Hint: Ye shall know them by their fruits. (Mat. 7:20)

Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

Secondarily, Jesus did not say that the penalty for adultery under the Mosaic Covenant was no longer to be death. He said, “neither do I condemn you”. There is a difference. In one case, the Law is changed. In the other case, the Law is dismissed. He could have condemned her according to the Law, and the condemnation would have been written in the Book, He would not have to even say it. However, He simply did not condemn her.

This is in keeping with 2 Cor 5, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them.

Neither is God likely to condemn you for violating the Sabbath. However, once your eyes are opened to the Sabbath’s eternal nature you are likewise commanded to ‘go and sin no more’. (John 8:11)

Also, if we are correctly interpreting, the Scriptures will complement, not conflict. Jesus will always agree with both Moses and Paul if correctly understood.

That is true. Just how do you explain the apparent conflicts between the apostles Paul and James on the subject of works?

5. The Law is good if a man use it lawfully.

Your assertion – by Paul's statement, we should embrace the Mosaic Covenant Law.

My reply – is the rest of the passage:

1 Timothy 1:8-11 LITV
(8) And we know that the Law is good, if anyone uses it lawfully,
(9) knowing this, that Law is not laid down for a righteous one, but for lawless and undisciplined ones, for ungodly and sinful ones, for unholy and profane ones, for slayers of fathers and slayers of mothers, for murderers,
(10) for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and if any other thing opposes sound doctrine,
(11) according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I was entrusted.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. –Jesus Christ

Keep on making cleverly selected scripturally based Pauline excuses for not following a simple commandment, and I’ll continue to simply follow the LORD.

The Apostle’s Paul’s often misleading writings were causing considerable controversy in the First Century and they continue to this day.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Ephesians 4:24 LITV
(24) and to put on the new man, which according to (that is, patterned after) God was created in righteousness and true holiness.

The Law was not laid down for a righteous one. Our new creation – the new person we are, was created in God's pattern, in righteousness and true holiness.

Marvelous! So what part of your new creation nature causes you to rebel against ‘keeping the Sabbath holy’ and following Christ’s earthly pattern?

6. You and I are actually in nearer agreement than may appear.

Your assertion – Walking in the Spirit actually makes us want to please the Father, which leads us to want to keep the 10 commandments.

My reply – We are diametrically opposite.

Fine, be obstinate if you want to. I’m trying to find some common ground here, Mark.

The Law was a covenant between God and Israel.
Deuteronomy 4:13 LITV
(13) And He declared His covenant to you which He has commanded you to do, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

The ten commandments are specifically named as a covenant between God and Israel. We are under a different covenant.

Your view is a mixture of the Old and New Covenants, however, the New has replaced the Old.

Israel was/is the chosen people of God. Whether you relate to that Israel in a spiritual or genealogical sense, the eternal aspects of that covenant are still applicable today. And Jesus, Himself, fortified the Ten Commandments with his teachings never once annulling a single previous. Also, each one of the OT commandments were restated in the NT so your premise is unfounded. Why do you bother to read the Old Testament, if it's all yesterdays news?

#7 skipped for brevity purposes – (bring it up later if you feel slighted).

8. While parts of the Law were abrogated, we come under the remaining parts being grafted into Israel.

Your assertion – Many portions of the Law have been eliminated or modified. The 10 commandments remain as a benefit to us. Being grafted into Israel, we come under that remaining portion of the Old Covenant (I realize this is not exactly what you stated, however, I believe it is what is required if your words are to stand.)

My reply – We are grafted into Abraham, not Israel. Moreover, the Bible affirms in several places that the Law is a unit, you cannot subdivide it.

The Seventh Day Sabbath was instituted WAY before Abraham. The Heavenly Father even prefaces the Fourth Commandment with the word “Remember” to keep the Sabbath holy” as if He knew we’d be prone to forget/resist a commandment that actually demanded a weekly sacrifice of our precious weekends.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9. We are to study the Bible, observe Christ's example, and follow our heart for how exactly to keep the law.

Your assertion – While we are bound to keep the Law, we have a flexibility in exactly how. For you, the feasts seem preferable to the Catholic holidays. Eating Kosher is better for you. Other parts of the law simply don't apply to your particular lifestyle.

My reply – This is where I find the least disagreement between us. We are free to keep any of the Laws we want to. We have complete liberty in this. If you want to eat Kosher, just remind me if I ever have the pleasure of inviting you to my home for a meal.

My selectivity regarding God's Law has NOTHING to do with their applicability to my particular lifestyle. I merely study God’s Word. Those Laws which the Holy Spirit directs me to follow, I keep and vice versa. I try to maintain a teachable spirit and be open to be guided into a deeper understanding in these matters as; we all look through a glass darkly. (1Cor. 13:12)

10. I am of Paul, and you are of Christ.

Your assertion – I follow a misguided conception of Paul's writings, while Christ gave the true example in His life on earth.

My reply – Paul and Christ are not divided. They are in agreement, if correctly understood. Paul is considered to have possessed one of the finest minds of his time, being judged solely by his writings. Now, we know the Holy Spirit was the true Author, the point is, it is widely recognized that Paul's writings are very high level, high quality communication. Greek is a very precise language. Paul made very plain statements.

I’d welcome the opportunity to speak more on my views on the Apostle Paul, though it would likely lead the topic of the Sabbath astray and I did mention something earlier in this thread about Paul. Feel free to start another thread on the Pauline Epistles and I’ll see you over there. . .

But not just Paul. James, and Peter also. And the fact is, the New Covenant began at Christ's death. Jesus lived His earthly life under the Mosaic Covenant of Law, and fulfilled it. That covenant was replaced. That Jesus lived under, and kept the Mosaic Covenant Law does not mean that we are under that same covenant. It was the whole point of His death, to replace the Ministry of death with the ministry of righteousness.

I’ll repeat myself: Those OT commandments that were restated in the New Testament are still relevant to NT believers unless they are specifically annulled which requires multiple scriptures to accomplish. Though our righteousness no longer is dependent on following the Ten Commandments, we are still obligated to follow the Law written upon our hearts BECAUSE WE ARE GOD’S OBEDIENT SERVANTS AND LOVE TO SERVE HIM. There’s little dispute that the other nine Commandments are etched within. Why should we not, LIKEWISE, follow #4?

 

[mark s]

Mark, next time, (if there is to be a ‘next time’) do me a favor and break your response into manageable parts. I greatly appreciate the time and effort it takes for you to post a three page post but I can no longer promise to continue to respond to posts of such great length.

Hi James,

I too appreciate your time and efforts. I've not meant my posting to become burdensome to you. You are always free to respond to whatever parts you wish. I actually didn't post the three pages, you got to short form, believe it or not!

The truth is, though, I prefer more peacable discussions than I've been finding here, at least on the threads I've been interested in, with certain exceptions such as yourself. But there is such a tone of antagonism, division, and hostility, even if only seething just under the surface, it does not draw me to return.

But just to give some quick replies to your statements:

To be precise, Jesus is actually not recorded as doing ANY carpentry, whatsoever. All the gospels state is that “he was the son of a carpenter”. Now, it is very likely a good son like Jesus would aid his step-father in his work but it’s not stated that He did so, nor on what days Joseph (or Jesus) worked as a carpenter. As any observant Israelite family, they would NOT have worked on the Sabbath.

Be it carpentry, stone masonry (as some say), of whatever, I expect that Jesus worked, but not on the Sabbath.

I didn’t say other days could be ‘holy’ as the Sabbath, just that in the NT we have a greater degree of Liberty ‘in Christ’ and have also been commanded to provide for our families. If you sincerely desire to keep the Sabbath but your job conflicts with the Sabbath, God understands. . . When’s the last time your meals were supernaturally supplied as the saints in the wilderness? Or you received compensation for being a member of the priesthood of all believers? There were definitely exceptions in the OT besides priests and I’ve already mentioned them. Why should the New Covenant of Faith & Grace or ‘ministration of righteousness’ be more restrictive or just as restrictive in its regulations than the Old Covenant? You are making that stipulation, not the Spirit of God.

As we have liberty in Christ, I completely agree with you. We can decide for ourselves to keep a day of rest, and that can be any day we want. I simply say, if you are going to keep the Law, then it should be the Law that you keep. If you want to make changes, then recognize that you've changed it.

The sabbatical year concerned a rest of land after six years. All farming or work did not cease during the sabbatical year. All the farmer had to do was rotate which field was to be left dormant on the seventh year. He was free to work previously unplowed fields or ones that had only a few years of use. This commandment is for the restitution of the land and IMO explains why many of today’s foods are devoid essential nutrients and lack rich taste because farmers are not adhering to God’s divine plan in their quest for larger profits.

I don't think the Land Sabbath was about crop rotations. Consider the following:

Leviticus 25:18-22 NKJV
(18) "So you shall observe My statutes and keep My judgments, and perform them; and you will dwell in the land in safety.
(19) Then the land will yield its fruit, and you will eat your fill, and dwell there in safety.
(20) "And if you say, "What shall we eat in the seventh year, since we shall not sow nor gather in our produce?"
(21) Then I will command My blessing on you in the sixth year, and it will bring forth produce enough for three years.
(22) And you shall sow in the eighth year, and eat old produce until the ninth year; until its produce comes in, you shall eat of the old harvest.

No, this was taking a year off from farming.

Nonsense. The Jews have an entire volume of the Talmud dedicated to the statutes of the Sabbath. This volume was only an Oral Tradition in the First Century but it demonstrates that many aspects of the Sabbath were not fully understood. We are not to travel on the Sabbath except for a certain distance called in the scriptures “a Sabbath’s days journey” exactly how far is that distance Mark? Do you own a furlong counter? We are not to work. Does that mean I can’t brush my teeth, turn on a light switch, tie my shoes, take a shower? The legalistic Jews went to great lengths determining such inane things. And it is precisely such myopic legalism that the NT frees us from. NOT the annulment of the Sabbath in its entirety but a freedom to ‘walk in the Spirit’ in such matters. In other words, “if you heart doesn’t condemn you, you are free to follow it’s dictates concerning the Law of God concerning these minor matters.”

We are almost in agreement on this. Almost!

I don’t. You’re preaching to the choir. Why do you so casually disregard this “simple” command, especially when there are so little NT scriptures that supposedly ‘abolish’ Sabbath observance? Do you resent/despise God’s Commandments? Don’t you desire to follow Jesus’ example? Is Sabbath observance too grievous for you? None of the Ten Commandment are all that difficult to obey, Mark.

James, Casually Disregard is not a fair characterization here. But let me ask you . . . How many times must God speak to be true?

Do I resent or despise God's commands? Come on . . . Is that what I sound like???

Is going to Jerusalem for the three great feast too grievous for you? Do you despise keeping His feasts? Don't you want to follow Jesus' example? But let us not stop with a partial keeping of the Law . . . why do you not bring your tithes to the Levites? That was the command.

Do I not want to follow Jesus example? Of course not! Not in this regard! Jesus was attaining human righteousness by the perfect observance of God's covenant law with Israel. No way, my friend, that is not what I want to attempt. While of course Jesus was righteous from birth, it was by living a righteous human life that He established the righteousness that He would then impute to me.

But what you've done in this paragraph is to turn the debate away from the issue, and onto me. Not cool.

The Word of God clearly states that you should not treat the Sabbath as a regular Work Day. Alright then, why do you choose ignore this commandment while intuitively following the other nine? Your faith is not very consistent.

Again, you turn the debate to me.

But even so, and as I've prevously written, the 10 commandments, as well as the rest of the Mosaic Law, were a covenant made between God and Israel. I am a gentile. Even were I a Jew, that covenant was fulfilled on my behalf by Christ. I am under a New Covenant.

Is not God the Father ‘merciful unto sinners’? Why should God not forgive Sabbath transgressors especially those who only and unwillingly transgress the Sabbath in order to provide for the welfare of their loved ones, just as He regularly forgives those who trespass His other commandments?

Shall we sin so grace may abound? No never! If you want to keep the Law, hear what the Law says.

Fine then, follow the dictates of your heart. I’m not commanding you to do anything. However, if ever in your Biblical studies you come to the realization of exactly whom constitutes “Israel” you may find yourself making some changes to your spiritual walk, just as I did.

Ah, Spiritual Israel. "the Israel of God."

Israel’s true identity is a very profound revelation and I don’t expect anyone to grasp it on the first hearing. There are other threads that delve into this teaching. Seek and ye shall find. . .

There is much confusion over this, and goes far beyond this discussion. But consider . . .

The 12 disciples will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes. You know the referrence? This helps to identify the true Israel.

Fine. You are right in following what The Holy Spirit tells YOU, and I am right in following what the Holy Spirit tells ME. We don’t have to have identical walks in Christ, Mark. And I’ll say it for the umpteenth time and put it in caps for the hard of hearing:
I, JAMES FORTHWRIGHT, DO NOT FOLLOW GOD’S COMMANDMENTS TO BE MADE RIGHTEOUS NOR TO GAIN SALVATION. I FOLLOW GOD’S COMMANDMENTS SOLELY BECAUSE I LOVE HIM. MY RIGHTEOUSNESS HAS BEEN FULLY SUPPLIED BY CHRIST JESUS’ SACRIFICE ON THE CROSS!

We are agreed on this. You are free to keep the Law, or whichever portions you choose to, to what degree that you choose, as you wish. We have complete liberty in this regard.

What/Who are Gentiles? Do you know who are ‘the lost tribes of Israel’? Hint: Ye shall know them by their fruits. (Mat. 7:20)

There's a whole 'nother discussion! But as for the fruits, I'm not sure why we're suddenly talking about false prophets.

That is true. Just how do you explain the apparent conflicts between the apostles Paul and James on the subject of works?

Another whole 'nother discussion. But I don't see the conflict. Paul teaches that you're not saved by works. James teaches that if you're saved, you'll have works.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. –Jesus Christ

Keep on making cleverly selected scripturally based Pauline excuses for not following a simple commandment, and I’ll continue to simply follow the LORD.

OK, we're getting personal again, and I'm simply losing interest.

The Apostle’s Paul’s often misleading writings were causing considerable controversy in the First Century and they continue to this day.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Paul misleads? I must be misunderstanding you.

Or is it simply that I am unlearned and unstable, and I twist Scripture to my own destruction?

You need not answer.

Marvelous! So what part of your new creation nature causes you to rebel against ‘keeping the Sabbath holy’ and following Christ’s earthly pattern?

Alright James, I think I'm about done here.

Love in Christ,
Mark

 

[James Forthwright]

I too appreciate your time and efforts. I've not meant my posting to become burdensome to you. You are always free to respond to whatever parts you wish. I actually didn't post the three pages, you got to short form, believe it or not!

Thanks for your timely response, Mark. Sorry my post was so late. My supposed debate partner left the scene rather abruptly and hasn't been seen since.

The truth is, though, I prefer more peacable discussions than I've been finding here, at least on the threads I've been interested in, with certain exceptions such as yourself. But there is such a tone of antagonism, division, and hostility, even if only seething just under the surface, it does not draw me to return.

Well, this is the DEBATE section and in the course of a heated debate it sometimes gets frustrating and human passions can get the best of all of us. Even in the natural realm it’s difficult to generate light without the byproduct of heat. You’ve been very fair with me, Mark, oft-times repetitive, but fair. It was not my intent to rile you.

Be it carpentry, stone masonry (as some say), of whatever, I expect that Jesus worked, but not on the Sabbath.

See, Mark, we can agree on some things! (though I've never heard of the stone masonry bit)

As we have liberty in Christ, I completely agree with you. We can decide for ourselves to keep a day of rest, and that can be any day we want. I simply say, if you are going to keep the Law, then it should be the Law that you keep. If you want to make changes, then recognize that you've changed it.

OK, no real argument here either. Just want to point out that God is also free to change His Laws especially those concerning the priesthood and sacrifice. You claim I pick and choose which laws to obey yet, I just don’t see sufficient ‘changes’ in the NT regarding the Sabbath to segregate its observance from the other nine commandments. Jesus certainly gave no indication that ANY of the Ten Commandments were to be rescinded.

I don't think the Land Sabbath was about crop rotations. Consider the following:

Leviticus 25:18-22 NKJV
(18) "So you shall observe My statutes and keep My judgments, and perform them; and you will dwell in the land in safety.
(19) Then the land will yield its fruit, and you will eat your fill, and dwell there in safety.
(20) "And if you say, "What shall we eat in the seventh year, since we shall not sow nor gather in our produce?"
(21) Then I will command My blessing on you in the sixth year, and it will bring forth produce enough for three years.
(22) And you shall sow in the eighth year, and eat old produce until the ninth year; until its produce comes in, you shall eat of the old harvest.

No, this was taking a year off from farming.

Then, I humbly stand corrected. Even the great and noble James Forthwright makes mistakes. We’re ALL learning through this discussion and I hope it’s been mutually beneficial to all the readers as well. I’ll do some further study on this but as far I can see this sabbatical year was directed only at farmers. Carpenters or stone masons, merchants, fishermen etc., would still work in the seventh year. Since neither of us are farmers, it appears that you’re looking for convenient solutions/excuses for not observing the seventh day Sabbath. Try it sometime, you just might enjoy it as much as I do.

James Forthwright previously stated:
Nonsense. The Jews have an entire volume of the Talmud dedicated to the statutes of the Sabbath. This volume was only an Oral Tradition in the First Century but it demonstrates that many aspects of the Sabbath were not fully understood. We are not to travel on the Sabbath except for a certain distance called in the scriptures “a Sabbath’s days journey” exactly how far is that distance Mark? Do you own a furlong counter? We are not to work. Does that mean I can’t brush my teeth, turn on a light switch, tie my shoes, take a shower? The legalistic Jews went to great lengths determining such inane things. And it is precisely such myopic legalism that the NT frees us from. NOT the annulment of the Sabbath in its entirety but a freedom to ‘walk in the Spirit’ in such matters. In other words, “if you heart doesn’t condemn you, you are free to follow it’s dictates concerning the Law of God concerning these minor matters.”

We are almost in agreement on this. Almost!

That’s very encouraging! Would you care to elaborate on our minor differences?

James, Casually Disregard is not a fair characterization here.

I don't mean to be harsh but just how does one properly characterize a Christian who doesn’t feel obligated to obey one of God’s commands? Why should a NT Christian bother to read the Old Testament if none of it pertains to them?

How many times must God speak to be true?

As I’ve stated previously, there are dozens of NT scriptures concerning the removal of the mandate of circumcision. Do you believe I’m being irresponsible for thinking that one of the Ten Commandments would require more than a few ambiguous references from only one apostle (Paul) whose main ministry was to heathen nations?

Is going to Jerusalem for the three great feast too grievous for you? Do you despise keeping His feasts? Don't you want to follow Jesus' example? But let us not stop with a partial keeping of the Law . . . why do you not bring your tithes to the Levites? That was the command.

The command to attend feasts in Jerusalem was given when the Twelve Tribes of Israel were all within close proximity to the Temple. Furthermore, that temple no longer exists. Later, every observant Jew scattered throughout the known world did NOT attend every feast in Jerusalem. There were local synagogues where similar feasts were regularly scheduled. So why should I now be compelled to travel thousands of miles to an Edomite/Ashkenazi pseudo-jew (Rev. 2:9, Rev. 3:9) occupied “Israel”? And I’m having some difficulty finding observant Levite priests worthy of my tithes as they no longer have an altar in Jerusalem and their sacrifices would be utterly useless as well as highly blasphemous towards the Son of God’s sacrifice on Calvary.

The Sabbath, however, comes around every week, can be held anywhere on the planet and doesn’t cost a plug nickel, yet few Christians choose to keep it holy. Why?

Do I not want to follow Jesus example? Of course not! Not in this regard! Jesus was attaining human righteousness by the perfect observance of God's covenant law with Israel. No way, my friend, that is not what I want to attempt. While of course Jesus was righteous from birth, it was by living a righteous human life that He established the righteousness that He would then impute to me.

Once again, I’m not talking about attaining righteousness through Sabbath observance, just obeying the Fourth Commandment in the same manner as we instinctively do the other nine and as did the First Century disciples.

But even so, and as I've prevously written, the 10 commandments, as well as the rest of the Mosaic Law, were a covenant made between God and Israel. I am a gentile. Even were I a Jew, that covenant was fulfilled on my behalf by Christ. I am under a New Covenant.

All of the tenets of the Old Covenant were NOT made null and void by crucifixion and resurrection of Christ especially the Ten Commandments. Jesus affirmed the Ten Commandments and never hinted at their removal til heaven and earth are passed away.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Shall we sin so grace may abound? No never! If you want to keep the Law, hear what the Law says.

Since when is conscientiously obeying one of God’s commandments sinful?
Is not God the Father ‘merciful unto sinners’? Why should God not forgive Sabbath transgressors especially those who only and unwillingly transgress the Sabbath in order to provide for the welfare of their loved ones, just as He regularly forgives those who trespass His other nine commandments?

James earlier posted:
Fine then, follow the dictates of your heart. I’m not commanding you to do anything. However, if ever in your Biblical studies you come to the realization of exactly whom constitutes “Israel” you may find yourself making some changes to your spiritual walk, just as I did.

Ah, Spiritual Israel. "the Israel of God."

Whether spiritual or genetic in origin, Israel’s true identity is a very profound revelation and I don’t expect anyone to grasp it on the first hearing. There are other threads that delve into this teaching. Seek and ye shall find. . .

There is much confusion over this, and goes far beyond this discussion. But consider . . .

The 12 disciples will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes. You know the referrence? This helps to identify the true Israel.

Oh, I’m familiar with the reference (Matt. 19:28). It clearly describes whom are the judges but does NOTHING to identify whom constitutes Israel in modern times.

We are agreed on this. You are free to keep the Law, or whichever portions you choose to, to what degree that you choose, as you wish. We have complete liberty in this regard.

See, we can agree!

James earlier stated
What/Who are Gentiles? Do you know who are ‘the lost tribes of Israel’? Hint: Ye shall know them by their fruits. (Mat. 7:20)

There's a whole 'nother discussion! But as for the fruits, I'm not sure why we're suddenly talking about false prophets.

Fruit can either be bad or good. Why do you selectively associate bearing fruit with false prophets? Could it be that you’ve been psychologically programmed from the pulpit to correlate the two?

Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Mar 4:20 And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.

I find it difficult (though not impossible) to believe that a hundred fold yield can be accomplished by those who dismiss the relevancy of the Ten Commandments.


That is true. Just how do you explain the apparent conflicts between the apostles Paul and James on the subject of works?

Another whole 'nother discussion. But I don't see the conflict. Paul teaches that you're not saved by works. James teaches that if you're saved, you'll have works.

True. And are not Christians obeying God’s commandments crucial to such ‘works’?

James earlier stated:

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. –Jesus Christ

Keep on making cleverly selected scripturally based Pauline excuses for not following a simple commandment, and I’ll continue to simply follow the LORD.

The Apostle’s Paul’s often misleading writings were causing considerable controversy in the First Century and they continue to this day.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Paul misleads? I must be misunderstanding you.

No you got it right! The Apostle Paul’s writings were/are the source of many misunderstandings of theology. Quite a number of false doctrines are IMO directly attributable misconstruing the Pauline Epistles, e.g., Pre-trib Rapture, No works salvation, fixation upon Jews, rejection of circumcision, Antinomianism, dismissal of biblical food laws, blind obedience to authority, celibacy, all sins are equal, etc.

The apostle Peter was, probably, being rather circumspect with his analysis of Paul’s writings. Saul/Paul was always a contentious character before and after his conversion. Quarrels with Barnabas and John Mark (Acts. 15:36-40) are well documented. He was not above using guile (2Cor 12:16, Rom 3:7), duplicitous in the circumcision of Timothy in Jerusalem, paying no attention to prophetic warnings (Acts 21:4) and though his letters were weighty his physical persona was sometimes quite caustic (2Cor. 10:10, 2Cor. 11:6).

There were, undoubtedly, differences in certain doctrines in the various First Century Christian Churches as there remains in the Twenty-first.

 

[lawrance]

Anyone who rejects Sunday is not a true Christian as they are lost and from what i have seen they all reject Jesus Christ.
Now they do not say they reject but the fact is they do, as they are always trying to mislead, not straight out but Satan always works that way.
Sunday is the first day of the week because ?

 

[williemac]

OK, no real argument here either. Just want to point out that God is also free to change His Laws especially those concerning the priesthood and sacrifice. You claim I pick and choose which laws to obey yet, I just don’t see sufficient ‘changes’ in the NT regarding the Sabbath to segregate its observance from the other nine commandments. Jesus certainly gave no indication that ANY of the Ten Commandments were to be rescinded.

greetings. May I jump in and address this point? When Jesus came on the scene, His main agenda was not necessarily to teach new covenant principles, although this is very commonly assumed in Christianity. We find from Paul's letters that the law was given not to justify but to condemn. It was given to present a moral standard that is impossible to fulfill, thus revealing one's need for a Savior. This is what we find in many of Jesus' statements while on earth. The cart cannot go before the horse. They had to hear the truth, that they were sinners in need of salvation. The best way to deal with one who is wanting to be justified by law is to show that they are failing rather than succeeding. It is crucial that we know the difference in studying the words of Jesus. Therefore, we cannot disqualify Paul's letters by using the reasoning that they contradict Jesus' teachings, or that "Jesus never said". The new covenant did not begin until after the death of Jesus.In fact, not only did Paul have intimate contact with our Lord, His teachings were inspired by Him, through supernatural revelation.

I don't mean to be harsh but just how does one properly characterize a Christian who doesn’t feel obligated to obey one of God’s commands? Why should a NT Christian bother to read the Old Testament if none of it pertains to them?

This is not merely harsh. It involves millions. However, I propose that it is being fulfilled. Paul said that love is the fulfillment of the law. More on that later.

The Sabbath, however, comes around every week, can be held anywhere on the planet and doesn’t cost a plug nickel, yet few Christians choose to keep it holy. Why?

How does one keep it holy? By resting from one's works. But what works are we talking about? Was the fourth commandment really about merely taking a break from physical labor? Remember the words of Jesus, that the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. The law was revealed as being a mere shadow of what was to come. So maybe we need to consider what this means in regards to the fourth commandment.

In expounding on this subject, the author of Hebrews revealed that it is about entering into His rest (chapter 4). How? By faith. (vs.2&3).
Hear vs. 9& 10..." For there remains a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His." So what does this mean? I think that it is telling us that the exit from the old covenant of works and the entrance into the new covenant of faith is the spiriutal version of the fourth commandment, and the fulfillment of it. Ironically, those who are keeping that law are still working.

God rested from HIS work on the seventh day. What was that work? His creation. Whys is it called HIS work? Because He did it for His own purpose and benefit. Why do people keep law in old covenant context? For their own benefit. This speaks of motivation. So does God work today? Yes, He is now working for the benefit of His creation. This is a work of love. Love does not seek its own (benefit). His rest was not temporary. It is permanent. He did not go back to the work of creation on the eighth day. The real fulfillment of the fourth command therefore, is a permanent rest as well.

And now, our works are as His, for the benefit of others. This is true love. It can only have this pure a motive if our own needs are secure and assured. It is often argued that in keeping the fourth commandment, one is showing love for God. However, God's version is to tell us that we love Him by loving others. There are thus only two commandment in the new covenant. They are found in several places, but especially in 1John 3:22,23. They are 1:believe in Jesus..2:love one another.

The fact is that Jesus Himself is the only person whoever kept the law to its fulfillment. So how does our keeping this one law translate to fulfilling it? It doesn't. The law is not fulfilled in us by keeping it, but by virtue of our being in Christ, who fulfilled it. " For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" ( Rom.10:4) Thats a big 10-4. So how does a person regard a Christian who does not keep the sabbath in the old covnenant way? They are to be regarded as righteous. We are not to judge another Man's servant, as Paul advised in Col.2:16,17, Rom.14:4-6, in regards to festivals, new moons, sabbaths, and the observance of a day over another day.

Once again, I’m not talking about attaining righteousness through Sabbath observance, just obeying the Fourth Commandment in the same manner as we instinctively do the other nine and as did the First Century disciples.

see above

All of the tenets of the Old Covenant were NOT made null and void by crucifixion and resurrection of Christ especially the Ten Commandments. Jesus affirmed the Ten Commandments and never hinted at their removal til heaven and earth are passed away.

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Again, Jesus said that the law would be fulfilled, not that it would be obeyed. So just how is it fulfilled? It is still used to this day to reveal sin.

Just how do you explain the apparent conflicts between the apostles Paul and James on the subject of works?

Apparent is a good word. James did not promote law keeping. In fact when he stated that faith without works is dead, he gave some examples. One of them was a harlot who helped God's messengers. The other was Abraham, who was about to kill his own son. These simply were examples of the deeds of a person proving that he or she believes what God told them. His letter admonished and even rebuked the objects of it, for their lack of good deeds towards others. There was no mention of law. The royal law is the law of love. James did not contradict Paul in the least. Paul himslef promoted the bearing of fruit, not the least of which is love, ..." against such there is no law"

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. –Jesus Christ

refer again to 1John 3:23.... Thanks for considering my reply, Howie

 

[mjrhealth]

Honestly who cares. if you choose to keep this along with the rest of them, that is your choice, but we are not under the law, we are under grace, us gentiles where never under the law. As for keeping it,

Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Mat 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Mat 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Im free in Christ

In All His amazing grace

 

[James Forthwright]

greetings. May I jump in and address this point?

Sure Howie, jump in the water’s nice and warm (though apparently too warm for some members). Hopefully, you’ve read at least a few of the previous pages to familiarize yourself with what has recently transpired in the dialog.

When Jesus came on the scene, His main agenda was not necessarily to teach new covenant principles, although this is very commonly assumed in Christianity.

Are we just supposed to take ‘williemac’s aka Howie’s word as to what Jesus’ “main agenda” was? How about a few scriptures to fortify that, as yet, unsubstantiated assertion?

We find from Paul's letters that the law was given not to justify but to condemn.

That’s, namely, (only Paul’s epistles as a single source) has been one my major bones of contention with you anti-nomianists. None of the other apostle’s writings, nor Christ’s words recorded in the gospels were dismissive or critical concerning God’s Law.

It was given to present a moral standard that is impossible to fulfill, thus revealing one's need for a Savior.

This discussion revolves around the Ten Commandments, which is the foundation of the moral Law of God. Just what about Ten Commandments do you find that is “impossible”?

This is what we find in many of Jesus' statements while on earth. The cart cannot go before the horse. They had to hear the truth, that they were sinners in need of salvation. The best way to deal with one who is wanting to be justified by law is to show that they are failing rather than succeeding. It is crucial that we know the difference in studying the words of Jesus. Therefore, we cannot disqualify Paul's letters by using the reasoning that they contradict Jesus' teachings, or that "Jesus never said". The new covenant did not begin until after the death of Jesus. In fact, not only did Paul have intimate contact with our Lord, His teachings were inspired by Him, through supernatural revelation.

It is not my intention to disqualify Paul’s letters, nor to doubt the validity of their inspiration. My main point is that they were written to largely heathen audiences and nascent Christian churches which were, largely, NOT familiar with the Old Testament.
Do we follow Christ’s example or Paul’s teachings? I advocate the former and Christ faithfully honored the Sabbath.

1Jn 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

This is not merely harsh. It involves millions. However, I propose that it is being fulfilled. Paul said that love is the fulfillment of the law. More on that later.

Sounds like you’re promoting what I like to call the “Gospel of the Fab Four.” You know. . . the gospel according to John, Paul. . . (George & Ringo):

“All You Need Is Love! All together now! All you need is Love. . . Everybody! All you need is Love, love. Love is all you need.” (repeat ad nauseam).

Can’t you just smell the incense and patchouli, Howie? :)

How does one keep it holy? By resting from one's works. But what works are we talking about? Was the fourth commandment really about merely taking a break from physical labor?

Contrary to what you are advocating, the seventh day Sabbath entails MUCH MORE than simply resting or “taking a break from physical labor”. The Sabbath was instituted by Our Heavenly Father as a blessing for all His Creation. A consecrated 24 hour period of spiritual dedication and rejuvenation, which does include cessation from manual labor, however, its main focus is a type of spiritual tithe of our time. Instead of concerning ourselves with the multitudinous morass of mundane thoughts and menial tasks that daily besiege us, we are to spiritually direct our undivided attention to undistracted worship and meditation upon the Word of God and to contemplate the serene and sublime realm of the celestial of which we shall one day eternally abide with all the chosen saints of God.

Remember the words of Jesus, that the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. The law was revealed as being a mere shadow of what was to come. So maybe we need to consider what this means in regards to the fourth commandment.

Yes, Jesus is clearly reinforcing the fact that the Sabbath was intended as A BLESSING FOR MAN. And yes, maybe you do need to consider what THAT means? Wouldn’t you like a blessing from the Father?

In expounding on this subject, the author of Hebrews revealed that it is about entering into His rest (chapter 4). How? By faith. (vs.2&3).
Hear vs. 9& 10..." For there remains a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His." So what does this mean? I think that it is telling us that the exit from the old covenant of works and the entrance into the new covenant of faith is the spiriutal version of the fourth commandment, and the fulfillment of it. Ironically, those who are keeping that law are still working. (emphasis James F.)

You are, certainly, entitled to think what ye will, Howie. But that doesn’t necessarily mean what you think is correct and so far, you’ve provided precious little scriptural support for your position for scrapping or “spiritualizing” the Fourth Commandment of God.

God rested from HIS work on the seventh day. What was that work? His creation. Whys is it called HIS work? Because He did it for His own purpose and benefit. Why do people keep law in old covenant context? For their own benefit. This speaks of motivation. So does God work today? Yes, He is now working for the benefit of His creation. This is a work of love. Love does not seek its own (benefit). His rest was not temporary. It is permanent. He did not go back to the work of creation on the eighth day. The real fulfillment of the fourth command therefore, is a permanent rest as well.

You have no prerogative, whatsoever sir, to evaluate another Christian’s motivation in their walk and service to God! To make my position crystal clear, (in case you haven’t bothered to read my earlier posts), I DO NOT advocate keeping the Law of God to attain any degree of righteousness or salvation (nor is my motivation for my personal selfish“benefit”). Undoubtedly, it is in all believers benefit to obey Our Heavenly Father’s commands but that is merely an ancillary byproduct of our obedience NOT a source of our heart’s motivation. Christians, as faithful servants of God continue to keep God’s Laws contained in the Ten Commandments (and which is now written upon our hearts). . . BECAUSE WE LOVE HIM!

And now, our works are as His, for the benefit of others. This is true love. It can only have this pure a motive if our own needs are secure and assured. It is often argued that in keeping the fourth commandment, one is showing love for God. However, God's version is to tell us that we love Him by loving others. There are thus only two commandment in the new covenant. They are found in several places, but especially in 1John 3:22,23. They are 1:believe in Jesus..2:love one another.

No, it is YOU that have placed the cart before the horse. 1John 3:22, 23 is merely a summation of the Ten Commandments which were written in a hierarchal order. The first four concern our primary obligation to love God and the next six concern our secondary obligation to love our neighbor. Here’s what Jesus said:

Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Carefully notice the last verse. Jesus says that all the law and prophets “hang” or “depends” (as the NASB and ESV translate it) on these verses, NOT that you are now free to forget about all the other laws or what the prophets have previously stated.
Earlier in the same book of Matthew a young man runs up to Jesus and asks Him a very important question:

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. –KJV (emphasis mine)

Notice also, that Jesus mentions FIVE other commandments besides ‘loving thy neighbor as thyself’. Because Christ does not specifically mention the other commandments, do you think that that gives the young man a license to love and worship false gods, make idols, use the LORD’s name in vain, break the Sabbath or covet his neighbor’s wife or goods? (I think not.)

The fact is that Jesus Himself is the only person whoever kept the law to its fulfillment. So how does our keeping this one law translate to fulfilling it? It doesn't. The law is not fulfilled in us by keeping it, but by virtue of our being in Christ, who fulfilled it. " For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" ( Rom.10:4) Thats a big 10-4.

Once again: I DO NOT advocate keeping the Law of God to garner any degree of righteousness, “fulfill the law” or attain salvation. If someone is “in Christ” they will naturally be inclined to obey the Ten Commandments from their born-again nature.

So how does a person regard a Christian who does not keep the sabbath in the old covnenant way? They are to be regarded as righteous. We are not to judge another Man's servant, as Paul advised in Col.2:16,17, Rom.14:4-6, in regards to festivals, new moons, sabbaths, and the observance of a day over another day.

It is true that we are NOT to judge HOW our brethren go about their devotions but we are supposed to remind our children/brethren of their duty to honor the Father’s commandments.

Eph 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

And neither are we to pass over judgment:

Luk 11:42 But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.


And our righteousness is to exceed that of the hypocritical Pharisees.

Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I know full well, that ‘our righteousness’ is “in Christ” and His perfect fulfillment of the Law but Paul also warns that we are NOT to take our liberty as a license to sin (i.e., break God’s commandments)

1Pe 2:16 You are free, but still you are God's servants, and you must not use your freedom as an excuse for doing wrong. - CEV

Again, Jesus said that the law would be fulfilled, not that it would be obeyed. So just how is it fulfilled? It is still used to this day to reveal sin.

So how are those that willfully cast aside one of God’s commandments, not to be revealed as “sinners”?

Apparent is a good word. James did not promote law keeping. In fact when he stated that faith without works is dead, he gave some examples. One of them was a harlot who helped God's messengers. The other was Abraham, who was about to kill his own son. These simply were examples of the deeds of a person proving that he or she believes what God told them. His letter admonished and even rebuked the objects of it, for their lack of good deeds towards others. There was no mention of law. The royal law is the law of love. James did not contradict Paul in the least. Paul himslef promoted the bearing of fruit, not the least of which is love, ..." against such there is no law"

If you truly “love God” you’ll stop imagining and contriving Beatlesque excuses for refusing to obey a simple commandment and just begin to lovingly “keep the Sabbath holy” as you are directed by the Holy Spirit and to the best of your ability, just as Jesus and His disciples did. If you saw a Christian brother stealing would you be wrong, legalistic or judgmental to remind him of the Father’s Commandment “Thou shalt not steal”?

 

[williemac]

Sure Howie, jump in the water’s nice and warm (though apparently too warm for some members). Hopefully, you’ve read at least a few of the previous pages to familiarize yourself with what has recently transpired in the dialog.

I confess I have not

Are we just supposed to take ‘williemac’s aka Howie’s word as to what Jesus’ “main agenda” was? How about a few scriptures to fortify that, as yet, unsubstantiated assertion?

The scriptures are no problem. When I have time, I will share them. They include the passages where Jesus suggested that the law must be kept to recieve life, and they include the places where He revealed to certain people that they fall short. They include the place in Hebrews where we find that a testament does not commence until the death of the testator. They include Galatians, where Paul explained the purpose of the law, and that it was given "until" faith was to be revealed (3:23), and verse 21 which tells us that the law cannot bring life, contradicting Jesus (unless of course, the two teachings are from the two covenants).

That’s, namely, (only Paul’s epistles as a single source) has been one my major bones of contention with you anti-nomianists. None of the other apostle’s writings, nor Christ’s words recorded in the gospels were dismissive or critical concerning God’s Law.



This discussion revolves around the Ten Commandments, which is the foundation of the moral Law of God. Just what about Ten Commandments do you find that is “impossible”?

What is impossible is for a human being to be justified through the keeping of the ten commandments. And here is the rub. Though many seventh day-ers will agree to this, in the end, most of them will get around to condemning those who don't keep the law as they do. This reveals what is truly in their heart; that they feel more justified than those who do not do as they do. Can't say this applies to anyone here. Just saying.....

It is not my intention to disqualify Paul’s letters, nor to doubt the validity of their inspiration. My main point is that they were written to largely heathen audiences and nascent Christian churches which were, largely, NOT familiar with the Old Testament.
Do we follow Christ’s example or Paul’s teachings? I advocate the former and Christ faithfully honored the Sabbath.

O, but Paul was absolutely familiar with the old testament, being a teacher of it. As well, as Peter discovered through a dream and through the eye witness of Cornelius recieving the Holy Spirit, "what God calls clean, let no man call unclean". As you admit, Paul wrote his letter to Christians. And what are we? Do we NOT follow his teachings, therefore? Do we NOT follow the teachings of the new testament? Say it ain't so!!! Jesus was full of grace and truth. He was a friend of tax collectors and sinners. As Lord of the Sabbath, He violated typical Sabbath rules. He forgave all who came to Him in faith. Do we follow those examples? Why, of course. They do not contradict Paul's teachings as well. But what you didn't ask was whether we should follow Christ's teachings of the law, especially when they are in contradiction with Paul's teachings of the new covenenant. If Paul's letters were indeed inspired, it makes no sense to say that because they might have been written to someone else, the contents are not the truth. They were written to Christians, were inspired of God, and are doctrinially sound...Period...Sounds like someone is not willing to acknowledge the two time periods involved, andd the two covenants involved. As well, Paul Himself was Pharisee. The argument that whom he wrote to invalidates his writings for us, falls short in light of the fact that Paul himslef followed his own teachings. In Phil.3, he gave his credentials, claiming that in regards to the righteousness found in the law, he was blameless (3:6), and then he went on to say that he counted whatever gain this had for him as rubbish (dung), and counted it as loss for the righteousness in vs 9..." not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ...." .

Sounds like you’re promoting what I like to call the “Gospel of the Fab Four.” You know. . . the gospel according to John, Paul. . . (George & Ringo):

“All You Need Is Love! All together now! All you need is Love. . . Everybody! All you need is Love, love. Love is all you need.” (repeat ad nauseam).

Can’t you just smell the incense and patchouli, Howie? :)

Love is nausem, hmmmm? Care to retract that? :) Might want to review 1Cor.13. " if I have not love......" Without it, everything else is useless.

Contrary to what you are advocating, the seventh day Sabbath entails MUCH MORE than simply resting or “taking a break from physical labor”. The Sabbath was instituted by Our Heavenly Father as a blessing for all His Creation. A consecrated 24 hour period of spiritual dedication and rejuvenation, which does include cessation from manual labor, however, its main focus is a type of spiritual tithe of our time. Instead of concerning ourselves with the multitudinous morass of mundane thoughts and menial tasks that daily besiege us, we are to spiritually direct our undivided attention to undistracted worship and meditation upon the Word of God and to contemplate the serene and sublime realm of the celestial of which we shall one day eternally abide with all the chosen saints of God.

And we typically have a two day weekend. As well, I consider every day the same. But we are invalidated for going to church on Sunday. No one has ever asked me what I do on Saturday. This speaks to me as more of a day of worshipping the actual day itself. I am a God worshipper, not a Sunday worshipper. But as Paul said, let each one be convinced in his own mind. O, I forgot, that was not written to the new testament church. (tongue in cheek).

I have to quit here. I am off to work. More later, Howie

Just to add.... The suggestion I am getting is that those (we) who go to church on Sunday are not keeping the Sabbath. This is concluded by which day we attend church? That's odd, I don't see anything about that on the tablet. The command is about rest, not worship.

What about those who spend all week doing their own thing and only spending one day with God? Is it somehow all wonderful just because it is Saturday? Or Sunday? Excuse me, but my relationship with Him is permanent. It includes every waking moment of every day, and when I sleep as well. I rest in Him. He is my Sabbath.

If one reads carefully my original post, one will see that in my own understanding, I am not in violation of the Sabbath, but rather am keeping it. My heart does not condemn me. I have rested from my works. Blessings, Howie

 

[James Forthwright]

Take your time, Howie. Do your homework, meditate upon the Word of God and I'll get back to you.

 

[williemac]

Take your time, Howie. Do your homework, meditate upon the Word of God and I'll get back to you.

No need to patronize me, Bro. I have been at this a long time, have meditated on many subjects, and am quite familiar with the debate of the seventh day (the fourth commandment).

At this point, I have only touched on things. But honestly, the argument that Paul's letters do not apply to us is a new one on me. If there is contradiction between Paul and Jesus, then yes, we need to know why. But to disqualify the content based on who he was writing to, is not acceptable. It doesn't make his teaching any less true.

But if I were to pick someone familiar with the old testament to show me about our covenant with God, then who would I pick....? let's see, how about a teacher of the law from that time period; a Pharisee who was confronted by Jesus, was called as an Apostle, was caught up into the third heaven, spent 14 years in the wilderness learning, meditaing, and hearing from God concerning the Truth, and last but not least, who's letters were referred to by Peter as scripture (2Pet.3:16)?

Paul did an adequate job by the way, of explaining his revelation to the degree that we can understand why there is apparent contradiction with old covenant law. After all, he taught old covenant law himself at one time. He was a convert. Most of his disputes on this and other related subjects were with the religious leaders of that day. Most of his persecution came from the same. I'd say there was a good reason for that. It might well be the same reason that many law keepers of today are upset with his teachings.

I can see the intended humor of the mockery of love in the earlier post. However, Gal.5:14 says this: " For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this; You shall love your neighbour as yourself"'.... It makes no difference who Paul was writing to. It is either true or false. In fact, as I shared before, even John confirmed that Jesus gave two commandments; faith in Him, and love for one another (1John3:23).
Just because we see the word "commandments" in the bible, do we automaitcally assume it is referring to the original ten? According to John in that and the previous verse, if we do these two, we are keeping His commandments.
FYI: for what it's worth:
What I have experienced in past discussions is that many seventh day-ers are on a mission to convert the so called "Sunday worshippers", ignoring Paul's advice to let each one be convinced in his own mind. However, that is not so much a big deal I suppose, until we get into the nitty gritty of the "why". Then it gets interesting. I have seen from various people, a very wide range of motivation, all the way up to the suggestion that those who don't obey this commandment ( as others do), are in danger of eternal damnation. This suggestion usually comes as inuendo at first, but I have also seen it in plain language. And some of these same individuals at first insisted that they agree that we are not justified by works. So pardon me if I take that original assurance with a grain of salt when I see it. What I have seen is that what a person says is not always what they are really thinking.
So, I don't mind having this discussion as long as I am assured that we are not talking about a person's eternal destiny being on the line. That would qualify as another subject altogether.

So why don't we agree to give one another the benefit of the doubt as to our personal experience and sincerity, and merely discuss the topic at hand?

A thought occurs to me that if Paul suggested that all the law is fulfilled by love for one's neighbour, then how does that apply to the fourth commandment? It is a question you might want to be asking. How does my love for another manage to fulfill the Sabbath rest? Or does it? There are two approaches one could take; seek to invalidate the statement, or seek how it can be validated. I choose the latter.

Blessings in Christ, Howie

 

[James Forthwright]

No need to patronize me, Bro. I have been at this a long time, have meditated on many subjects, and am quite familiar with the debate of the seventh day (the fourth commandment).

I sincerely apologize if you thought my last post was patronizing. I assure you, that was not my intent. I asked you to validate your “Jesus’ main mission” point with some scriptures and your response indicated that it may take a short while for you to do that. I also stated that I would have hoped that before you jumped in a thread of over 270 posts (of which I’ve entered at post #3) that you may want to at least read a few of the previous pages both as a courtesy to your opponent you’re addressing in this thread (so I needn’t repeat myself over and over) and also so that you can quickly get up to speed , if you will, with what has recently transpired in this debate.

At this point, I have only touched on things. But honestly, the argument that Paul's letters do not apply to us is a new one on me. If there is contradiction between Paul and Jesus, then yes, we need to know why. But to disqualify the content based on who he was writing to, is not acceptable. It doesn't make his teaching any less true.

I hope to continue to bring a few “new ones” to this discussion as it will help to liven things up. And rarely, if ever, do I cut ‘n paste old hat talking points on an issue if I can possibly avoid it.

Understanding to whom a letter/scripture is addressed to is a basic principle of discernment. I don’t know why you/anyone should consider that as “unacceptable”?

But if I were to pick someone familiar with the old testament to show me about our covenant with God, then who would I pick....? let's see, how about a teacher of the law from that time period; a Pharisee who was confronted by Jesus, was called as an Apostle, was caught up into the third heaven, spent 14 years in the wilderness learning, meditaing (sic), and hearing from God concerning the Truth, and last but not least, who's letters were referred to by Peter as scripture (2Pet.3:16)?

I’m not doubting the Apostle Paul’s consummate spiritual credentials (that’s a given). I just don’t deify the man nor do I believe that everything he wrote he intended to be applicable for the whole of Christendom as “the final Word of God” on a number of subjects. Paul put his pants on, one leg at a time, just like you and I. He was also human, just like us, and made mistakes just like us, as well. Nor does Paul tells us everything concerning spiritual mysteries nor does he claim to know everything. Just what did Paul see in the third heaven?

Something tells me you don’t defend the same great Apostle Paul’s stance near as vehemently on women having their heads covered or shorn in church as you do his supposed stance on the Sabbath? If not, why not?

Co 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Paul did an adequate job by the way, of explaining his revelation to the degree that we can understand why there is apparent contradiction with old covenant law. After all, he taught old covenant law himself at one time. He was a convert. Most of his disputes on this and other related subjects were with the religious leaders of that day. Most of his persecution came from the same. I'd say there was a good reason for that. It might well be the same reason that many law keepers of today are upset with his teachings.

Converts are usually the most zealous of believers and in their glowing fervency they often don’t grasp the full spectrum of God’s entire plan for mankind. Paul’s focus was on establishing new Gentile churches NOT teaching to Israelite Christians.
I’m not “upset” with Paul’s teachings concerning the Sabbath in the slightest. It’s just that I’m convinced his teachings are best suited for nascent Gentile believers and not those Christian believers who understand the concepts of British Israelism or the true identity of Israel today or those who desire to delve into a deeper understanding of the God’s Law.

I can see the intended humor of the mockery of love in the earlier post.

I’m pleased to hear you found some humor in the song lyrics I posted, however, it seems you’ve totally missed my main point. I wasn’t “mocking” the purity of LOVE but only the cheap plastic counterfeit “love” that is so prevalent in today’s (Christian and secular) pop feel-good culture. Being a true Christian is quite a bit more that a momentary “accept Jesus as your personal savior” or endlessly reciting “let’s all love one another” as some sort of spiritual mantra. I hope this better explains my position.

However, Gal.5:14 says this: " For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even this; You shall love your neighbour as yourself"'.... It makes no difference who Paul was writing to. It is either true or false. In fact, as I shared before, even John confirmed that Jesus gave two commandments; faith in Him, and love for one another (1John3:23).

There is a real danger in basing a major doctrine or asking “true or false?” on ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE. And you’ve already majorly contradicted yourself in the above paragraph by saying, Paul says all the law is fulfilled in ONE word (or commandment) and then saying that “Jesus gave TWO commandments. So which is, Howie it one or two commandments? Or is it TEN? Maybe, 640 as the Jews believe?

The secondary command to love our neighbor is subordinate to our primary obligation to Love God and to obey Him. I also mentioned this in the previous post but you’ve chosen to respond in a quick and vague summary form rather than try to hear what I’ve already plainly stated.

Just because we see the word "commandments" in the bible, do we automaitcally assume it is referring to the original ten? According to John in that and the previous verse, if we do these two, we are keeping His commandments.

(Once again) I addressed this in the previous post but since you’re not responding in a point-by-point fashion or taking the time to quote what I write in your response we’re largely running around in circles. I don’t particularly enjoy debates consisting of exchanges of one another’s diatribes. It’s frustrating and monotonous!

FYI: for what it's worth:
What I have experienced in past discussions is that many seventh day-ers are on a mission to convert the so called "Sunday worshippers", ignoring Paul's advice to let each one be convinced in his own mind. However, that is not so much a big deal I suppose, until we get into the nitty gritty of the "why". Then it gets interesting. I have seen from various people, a very wide range of motivation, all the way up to the suggestion that those who don't obey this commandment ( as others do), are in danger of eternal damnation. This suggestion usually comes as inuendo at first, but I have also seen it in plain language. And some of these same individuals at first insisted that they agree that we are not justified by works. So pardon me if I take that original assurance with a grain of salt when I see it. What I have seen is that what a person says is not always what they are really thinking.
So, I don't mind having this discussion as long as I am assured that we are not talking about a person's eternal destiny being on the line. That would qualify as another subject altogether.

So why don't we agree to give one another the benefit of the doubt as to our personal experience and sincerity, and merely discuss the topic at hand?

Not a problem! I really don’t give two shekels whether you ever decide to “keep the Sabbath” holy or not. I’m only going to attempt to explain why I have chosen to do so and that anyone who doesn’t decide to honor the fourth commandment is missing out of a wonderful blessing. That’s all. Fair enough?

A thought occurs to me that if Paul suggested that all the law is fulfilled by love for one's neighbour, then how does that apply to the fourth commandment? It is a question you might want to be asking. How does my love for another manage to fulfill the Sabbath rest? Or does it? There are two approaches one could take; seek to invalidate the statement, or seek how it can be validated. I choose the latter.

Here again, you’ve taken Paul’s ‘one scripture generalization’ of the entire contents of Biblical Law and stretched it to outlandish and absurd proportions. Then. . ., you’ve gone and twisted into an overly-simplistic yes or no, “validate or invalidate” proposition. The gospel is not ‘rocket surgery’ (sic) but neither is it to be condensed to infantile dualism.
Here’s how I evaluate the Ten Commandments (and I already stated this in recent posts but you, obviously, haven’t bothered to read them. . .) Arrgh.

The Ten Commandments are arranged in a hierarchal order. The first four are the most important and revolve around our obligation to our Heavenly Father. The remaining six are subordinate in nature and deal with how we are to comport ourselves with our fellow man.

Paul’s SUMMARIZATION/GENERALIZATION in Gal. 5:14 and John’s SUMMARIZATION/GENERALIZATION in 1 Jn.3:23 are just that gross SUMMARIZATIONS/GENERALIZATIONS of our obligations to God and our duties to our fellow man.

Yes, if you truly love God and truly love your neighbor you will naturally obey all of God’s commandments. However, neither passage absolves faithful Christians of their responsibility to obey the other commandments to the best of their ability, namely, to not serve other gods, not use the Lord’s name in vain, not to fashion idols, keep the Sabbath holy, not to murder or commit adultery, honor our parents, not to steal, bear false witness or covet, etc.

May the Peace of God be with you, brother.

J.F.

 

[mjrhealth]

Putiing it simple, satan loves division, and christians make it s easy for him.

If you keep just one law, you must keep all the rest, this annuls the work Jesus did on the cross. The law that was given to the Jews, not the gentiles ( us ) was finished at the cross, Jesus fullfilled it all as He promised He would. To keep the law is to put ones self into bonadge to it, undoing the freedom given to us in Christ, Are you going to be the one to tell Jesus His work was not enough for you. Do you think you can keep all the laws as Jesus did, are you perfect as HE is to think that keeping the law can save you. You are under grace , till you choose the law, then it becomes the works of the flesh and you will fail.

So argue all you like , your reasoning may be sound to the human mind but it is by the spirit that we walk, not in bondage to the flesh.


In all His abundant love