Bob Debates Keeping the Sabbath
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Nimrod
Member
Before this debate, I seriously questioned Bob on his beliefs. After hearing Bob stating the Sabbath no longer needed to be observed, I have stopped listening to him. It has been a couple of months since the last time I heard him on the internet. I came back and decided to give Bob another try, I find it interesting that Bob's message is only a half hour long instead of an hour. What happened?
Anyhow, I do believe we should keep the Sabbath, not legalistic like the SDA.
Bob's wanted to put the Sabbath in a cubby hole, either symbolic or moral. I really don't think the Sabbath can be categorized this way. In some ways the Sabbath can be symbolic, ( we Christians will rest on the last day with Christ) and can be moral ( it is everlasting ).
I wish Bob would stick with government and how the Bible relates to it. This is the Bob I like, when he gets into dispensationalism and other theology stuff that is not related to governement I turn him off. BTW the "Plot" of his is terrible! I would NEVER give that piece of literature to a Christian.
Currently I no longer support Bob and have stopped listening to him.
Anyhow, I do believe we should keep the Sabbath, not legalistic like the SDA.
Bob's wanted to put the Sabbath in a cubby hole, either symbolic or moral. I really don't think the Sabbath can be categorized this way. In some ways the Sabbath can be symbolic, ( we Christians will rest on the last day with Christ) and can be moral ( it is everlasting ).
I wish Bob would stick with government and how the Bible relates to it. This is the Bob I like, when he gets into dispensationalism and other theology stuff that is not related to governement I turn him off. BTW the "Plot" of his is terrible! I would NEVER give that piece of literature to a Christian.
Currently I no longer support Bob and have stopped listening to him.
On the Denver station from which his show airs, the show moved from 7pm to 3pm. A much larger audience at 3pm costs a lot more money, hence the reduction to a 1/2 hour show.
So how do you reconcile the apparent contradiction between "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone," (James 2:24) and "for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law," (Rom. 3:28)?
How do you reconcile that obvious contradiction apart from the mid-Acts dispensational theology contained in The Plot?
add yasaf
New member
One thing to say on this show. If Bob's only argument is that the Sabbath is symbolic, then that is not good enough.
For we as Christians do symbolic things - communion and baptism
One could argue that since the Sabbath symbolizes the rest we are to have one day with Christ, that it i sstill okay to keep this as long as the symbolism is Christ and not about Israel
For we as Christians do symbolic things - communion and baptism
One could argue that since the Sabbath symbolizes the rest we are to have one day with Christ, that it i sstill okay to keep this as long as the symbolism is Christ and not about Israel
Christine
New member
You noticed something interesting there Add. If it is wrong to keep the Sabbath, would it not also be wrong to water baptise and partake of ritulistic communion? I believe so. For baptism, the Bible says in Eph. 4:5 that we as Body believers are to partake of "one baptism". If it's only one, then this had better be the right one, the one unto salvation, the Spirit baptism which comes at salvation. That would mean, that any baptisms besides the Spirit baptism is something additional, something besides the "one." So, those additional baptisms would be unscriptural for this dispensation.
I believe you should "keep" the Sabbath, and break it,--------- when it comes to the weightier matters of the Law. There are only three admonitions for the Sabbath. Do not work,, do not buy or sell, and do not seek your own pleasure, but delight in the Lord. Isaiah 58-12.
A doctor should be on call on the Sabbath, a salesman should not. You can watch pro football on Sunday, and you can watch "The Passion" on DVD? at home on Shabbat.
A doctor should be on call on the Sabbath, a salesman should not. You can watch pro football on Sunday, and you can watch "The Passion" on DVD? at home on Shabbat.
The Bible properly translated/interpreted does not contradict itself. They are alleged or apparent contradictions only. Luther thought James was a straw man gospel and rejected it in favor of Romans. James is reminding us of the relationship of genuine inner faith and outward works. The context elaborates on the type of faith that is efficacious. Mere head knowledge like Satan has (James 2:19) is not saving faith. We are justified in the sight of man, who cannot see heart faith, by works that flow out of saving faith. Faith is the root and works are the subsequent fruit. Romans deals with saving faith that justifies us in the eyes of God, not man. This is the same faith as in James. There are not 2 gospels in the NT.
Check out credible commentaries for ideas on reconciling these passages. Enyart is one of the few to superimpose Mid-Acts dispensationalism as the only way to reconcile the passages. It neuters much of the NT and its intended application for believers in the Church Age. It is as arbitrary construct that is not defensible.
We are saved by grace through faith apart from observing the Law. It is not a dead faith, but a faith that brings forth the fruit of good works. We are not saved by works (Eph. 2:8-10), nor were the Jews before Christ.
cf. Catholics and Protestants use salvation and faith in different ways. Catholics used salvation as the whole process, from the beginning in faith, through the whole Christian life of the works of love on earth, to completion in heaven. Luther used salvation as the initial step.
Catholics viewed faith as intellectual belief (one of 3 virtues with hope and love). Luther used faith as trusting Christ with your whole being.
Catholics used salvation in a bigger sense and faith in a smaller sense, and Luther used salvation in a smaller sense and faith in a bigger sense. Catholics rightly 'denied' and Luther rightly affirmed that we were saved by faith alone. Catholics taught salvation included more than faith, just as a plant includes more than roots. It needs a stem (hope) and fruits (love) as well as roots (faith).
Luther taught that good works can't buy salvation, that all you can do and need to do to be saved is to accept it, the Savior by faith. Both were right in a sense. (Catholic vs Protestant ideas from Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Kreeft and Tacelli).
Likewise, the NT (forget mid-acts for now...I think it realies on proof texts and a eisegesis more than being self-evident) teaches both points: that salvation is a free gift, not earned by works of obedience to the law; and that faith is only the beginning of the Christian life of good works; that 'justification' (being made right with God) must, if it is real, lead to 'sanctification' (being made holy, saintly, good), that 'faith without works is dead.'
To godrulz: :thumb:
A most excellent post. "The Plot" is a way to reconcile seemingly contradictory passages, but it is correct and brilliant if one excepts the premise. The premise being dispensational and incorrect. Your explanation is more difficult for the human mind to wrap itself around, however it is more correct.
A most excellent post. "The Plot" is a way to reconcile seemingly contradictory passages, but it is correct and brilliant if one excepts the premise. The premise being dispensational and incorrect. Your explanation is more difficult for the human mind to wrap itself around, however it is more correct.
add yasaf
New member
Christine quote - If it is wrong to keep the Sabbath, would it not also be wrong to water baptise and partake of ritulistic communion? I believe so. For baptism, the Bible says in Eph. 4:5 that we as Body believers are to partake of "one baptism". If it's only one, then this had better be the right one, the one unto salvation, the Spirit baptism which comes at salvation. That would mean, that any baptisms besides the Spirit baptism is something additional, something besides the "one." So, those additional baptisms would be unscriptural for this dispensation.
It really was Bob's only argument, but I think it is necessary to add to this something else. The other thing that he should have stressed is that symbolism as a means of analogy is still a good thing even in this age. I do think we should baptize and take part in communion because these are specific commands of Christ to the church.
We are in Christ and under his law of freedom. In some ways he made the requirements more stringent. He said that even the thought of lust was as sinful as actual adultery, and anger as bad as murder. In other things he relaxed the requirements, as in the dietary laws and circumcision.
Because we are still on this earth I don't think we will be able to go without symbolism in our lives. Plus in both baptism and in communion there is more substance than symbolism. Both take us back to major salvific events i.e. the Crossing of the Red Sea and the Passover. So both of these are more than symbols. They are also commemorations of Christ, who at the cross and resurrection event destroyed Leviathan (Death, Chaos) and was our Passover Lamb.
It really was Bob's only argument, but I think it is necessary to add to this something else. The other thing that he should have stressed is that symbolism as a means of analogy is still a good thing even in this age. I do think we should baptize and take part in communion because these are specific commands of Christ to the church.
We are in Christ and under his law of freedom. In some ways he made the requirements more stringent. He said that even the thought of lust was as sinful as actual adultery, and anger as bad as murder. In other things he relaxed the requirements, as in the dietary laws and circumcision.
Because we are still on this earth I don't think we will be able to go without symbolism in our lives. Plus in both baptism and in communion there is more substance than symbolism. Both take us back to major salvific events i.e. the Crossing of the Red Sea and the Passover. So both of these are more than symbols. They are also commemorations of Christ, who at the cross and resurrection event destroyed Leviathan (Death, Chaos) and was our Passover Lamb.
I find the Mid-Acts view less intuitive. My explanation needs to be more succinct and expanded on with more clarity. The point was that mid-acts is not the only way to reconcile the passages, nor is it a normative explanation. I probably hold to a form of eschatological dispensationalism, but not Mid-Acts. e.g. creation, fall, law, prophets, gospels, church age, millennium, etc.
I would welcome a new, younger brain that is pre-programed with all the answers.
In some cases, issues are resolved with a correct translation based on the original languages e.g. JW NWT vs NASB of John 1:1
There are supposed Bible discrepancies or alleged/apparent contradictions. We agree that the Bible is infallible and authoritative in the original autographs. We have very good translations today.
Our 'problem' is not a true contradiction. Mid-Acts is one template to solve the problem, but not the only one. Long before mid-Acts was taught by Hill, Enyart, Derby or whoever....a simpler, reasonable reconciliation was proposed. Further research is needed to defend or refute either position.
No, I stated that it is more difficult for the human mind to wrap itself around seemingly contradictory statements,without inserting special dispensations, to ease the tension. I accept the law stating that the temple grain was to be eaten only by the preists. I also accept the fact that the priest gave it to David and his men who were on the run, and starving, while being pursued by King Saul.
I do not need to put in a special dispensation, at this time, to allow for David to eat this bread. We are always to keep the laws that apply to us, and we are always to apply the weightier matters of the law, to the lighter matters of the law. When does one apply mercy, love, grace, forgiveness, and mitigate, or eliminate the required punishments for breaking the lesser commands? That is the "art" of living a Godly life!
The Pharisees seldom broke the written laws. Certain dispensationalists, simply go to the other extreme.
The Sabbath is an eternal command. It is for today, and it is for the Christian Church, the current unnatural branch of Israel.
God has applied His mercy, to those who break it in ignorance today!
Applying all of God's law, to all of our life experiences is not easy, and difficult decisions arise everyday.
Does this answer your question, Oh, sarcastic one!
- Status