You need to fix the hyperlink code in your signature.
Would you care to lay out for me upon what, exactly, you based your asinine comment?lain:
The Sabbath is a What?
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
genuineoriginal
New member
My guess is that you believe in an Acts 28 hyer-dispensationalism, reject the entire Old Testament, the gospels, the writings of John, Peter, James, and Jude, the book of Hebrews, and half of the contents of the letters written by Paul.
I believe in the eternal continuation of the Old Testament promises and covenants, and believe that the gospels and all the writings in the New Testament are for the people that believe in Jesus and follow Him.
Let's leave it at that.
And you are wrong.
They are good for us when used properly; in the manner Paul states we should.
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust
-1 Timothy 1:8-11
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
-2 Timothy 3:16-17
genuineoriginal
New member
And the words of Paul are so easy to misunderstand by the unlearned and unstable that the Holy Spirit led Peter to mention that so it could be included in the scriptures as a warning.
2 Peter 3:15-17 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; 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. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. |
genuineoriginal
New member
It depends on what you were studying.
From the looks of it, there are a few areas of study that were overlooked which would have proven helpful in understanding the words of Paul, and a few areas of study that were pursued that have allowed passages to be read in ways contrary to the points Paul was trying to make.
Choleric
New member
cant have a hyperlink as I am not a paid subscriber.
Choleric
New member
Define "free". Are we talking about going to hell or whether God will chasten a sinning Christian like the man caught in incest in 1 Cor 5?
Would a Christian working on the sabbath be damned to hell or would he be chastened as a son?
Obviously, Paul was basing his judgement against covetousness on the law of Moses. Paul states in Romans 7:7 that “I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, 'You shall not covet.'” (Ex. 20:17) However, this does not mean that no one knew it was wrong to covet before Moses was given the 10th commandment because we have the natural law, borne out as conscience and reason, as our guide, as Paul also states elsewhere (e.g., Rom 2:14-15).
For an example of Romans 2:14-15 in action, consider this quote from Buddha:
“The evils of the body are, murder, theft, and adultery; of the tongue, lying, slander, abuse, and idle talk; of the mind, covetousness, hatred, and error.” (Compare this statement with Gal 5:19-20!)
In that one statement, Buddha summarized the moral aspects of the Mosaic law with regard to man's relationship to man. And yet Buddha was raised as a Hindu in Nepal, and to my knowledge he never even heard of Moses or the Mosaic law.
The idea that covetousness is immoral was also well known to the most prominent ancient Greek philosophers. For example, Aristotle wrote in his Nicomachean Ethics that that all specifically unjust actions are motivated by covetousness. This is but one reason why many later Jewish authorities came to admire and respect certain Greek philosophers. As the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus wrote in Against Apion:
"I do not now explain how these notions of God are the sentiments of the wisest among the Grecians, and how they were taught them upon the principles that he afforded them. However, they testify, with great assurance, that these notions are just, and agreeable to the nature of God, and to his majesty; for Pythagoras, and Anaxagoras, and Plato, and the Stoic philosophers that succeeded them, and almost all the rest, are of the same sentiments, and had the same notions of the nature of God; yet durst not these men disclose those true notions to more than a few, because the body of the people were prejudiced with other opinions beforehand."
The moral aspects of the Mosaic law with regard to man's relationship to man is in accordance with natural law. These same laws have existed in all civilized societies, even prior to the time of Moses.
The moral aspects of the Mosaic law with regard to man's relationship to man, which are universal, can be distinguished from the ceremonial and ritual aspects of the Mosaic law, which are unique to the Jewish people. There is nothing within the conscience of a non-Jew that would have called him to observe a 7-day week and to regard the 7th day as holy. For starters, not all cultures have 7-day weeks. For example, the Javanese people of Indonesia a five-day week. They can't very easily honor the 7th day of the week when they only have five. Natural law does not demand a 7-day week. Sabbath observance is not natural law; it is an aspect of Jewish ritual and ceremonial law. Therefore, non-Jews are not morally obliged to observe the Jewish sabbath.
The only law that the Christian is under is what James termed "the law of liberty" (James 1:25, 2:12) and "the royal law" (James 2:8), namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (cf. Leviticus 19:18), as Jesus, Paul, and Peter also stated (Matthew 7:12, Romans 13:10, Galatians 5:14, 1 Peter 1:22).
Paul did not reference all 10 commandments in Ephesians 6:2. He simply noted that the commandment to honor one's parents is the first commandment with a promise (“so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth” -- Deut 5:16). Honoring one's parents is perfectly consistent with universal moral law, hence it is found in every civilized society in the world. It is not a code that is unique to the Mosaic law or to the Jewish people. For example, filial piety, meaning the virtue of respect for one's parents and ancestors, is an essential aspect of Confucian role ethics.
Paul addressed Jewish sabbath observance directly in the following verses:
"One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it...So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ" (Romans 14:5-6, Colossians 2:16-17).
So, if you still believe that you should observe the sabbath, by all means do so, "for whatever is not from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23).
I hope you will find that I have answered your questions directly in this post.
Last edited:
Doormat
New member
Then logically, if the covetous will not enter the kingdom, there is obviously a commandment still against coveting, and those who enter the kingdom necessarily do not violate the commandment against coveting (1Jo 3:9).
If you love your neighbor as yourself, will you compel him to work for you on the day God sanctified for his rest, contrary to God's immutable law?
Rather, he commanded them to obey their parents and then cited God's commandment and emphasized the promise. If you believe you are under the commandment to love you neighbor, every commandment in the Decalogue must be kept, i.e. you can't love your neighbor if you murder him, sleep with his wife, steal his car, covet his stuff, or make him work on the sabbath God gave him rest.
You shouldn't run those verses together like that. It's only your assumption the Romans verses have anything to do with the seventh day sabbath. In fact, the entire church kept the seventh day sabbath and also met on the first day for hundreds of years after the cross. I have cited two church histories that attest to that fact: the sacred mysteries were celebrated every sabbath throughout the world.
As for the Colossians verses, they prove the sabbath is still in effect, being called a shadow of things to come (future tense). One doesn't get rid of the shadow before it is fulfilled. Paul is telling them to not let others judge them in how they keep the sabbath. He is not telling them the sabbath is no longer in effect or not applicable to Christians.
Choleric
New member
depends on how you define "have to"
Doormat
New member
"Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes."
Are you free to murder with impunity?
The man caught in incest was excommunicated (1Co 5:2,5).
Regarding the punishment for murder, the wages of sin is still death (Ro 6:23). See also 1 John 3:6, Hebrews 10:26-29, 1 John 3:15, et al.
It's not working per se that is prohibited, so one born of God who keeps the sabbath can work as his Father works without violating it (Jn 5:7). What the sabbath commandment forbids is servitude. See Deuteronomy 5:15.
You claimed I threw out the majority of Scripture as inapplicable to the current dispensation. And I assume this post is based upon that same false assumption.
I thought registered plus could.
Well, all you need to do is add "url" to the beginning of the code.
| [[COLOR=Red]url[/COLOR]="http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3231383&postcount=1"]Satan, Inc. (TOL's heretic's list)[/url] |
It should work then...
The covenant with Israel is on hold; so none.
Now, how many should they follow because they're the right thing to do? The other nine.
Good point.
Is it related to salvation; or tied to a relationship with God?
That wasn't incest. If it had been it would have referred to his mother, not his father's wife; it was his stepmother.
Choleric
New member
why do you continue to dodge the question? Would a sinning Christian who commints incest or does not observe the sabbath be on his/her way to hell? Just say Yes or NO. It is not a difficult question.
Doormat
New member
Neither were mine, but that didn't stop you from trying to parse words instead of answering directly. And I didn't dodge the question, but answered it thoroughly in post #93 in way that should leave little question about my position.
You asked your question in the context of your understanding of sabbath observance, not mine. My answer using murder as an example should be clear enough; simply substitute "sabbath breaker" instead of murderer: Someone who is still a murderer is still dead in his sins (1 John 3:15) and has not believed the gospel; and he will perish in everlasting fire if he does not cease from sin (1Pt 4:1, Heb 10:26-29, Ro 11:22).
Also, I clearly told you that the man who committed incest was excommunicated. Do you understand the implications of being excommunicated? A person who is legitimately excommunicated is lost, not still saved. Such a person has never know Christ (1Jn 3:6; 1Jn 3:15).
Choleric
New member
thank you for clarifying your position. It is good to know that you don't believe the bible and what it says. You invented a term and then laid doctrine at its' door while rejecting Scripture that shows your error, a habit you seem to be repeating regularly. The bible, in terms of the man caught in incest tells us the man is to be saved still, while being "excommunicated" and assuming he would not repent. Here is the verse for you in case you have marked it out of your "bible"
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
The implications are clear:
1- The man was caught in incest
2- he was unrepentant
3- the church was told to hand him over to satan
4- he was turned over to be killed by the devil
5- the man was still going to be saved "in the day of The Lord Jesus"
Like your error in teaching adherence to the Mosaic law, including sabbath observance, you have substituted your opinion and your "broad road" works oriented thinking, in lieu of the clear teaching of the very Scripture you claim to believe.
You should stop cutting verses out of your bible and rest in Christ. It is not too late for you.
Doormat
New member
Which you did not address or refute, but instead are now focusing on the excommunication issue. This will be my last post to you.
You are bearing false witness and will be judged by the same measure you judge others.
Your sentence makes no sense.
Proving he was cut off and could be grafted in again, consistent with what Paul wrote in Romans 11:23.
Romans 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
A person committing incest, adultery, murder, etc., is in unbelief:
1Jo 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
1Jo 2:11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
1Jo 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jo 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
Proof he was an unbeliever. See the above verses from John's first epistle and Luke 6:43. Need more? See Ezekiel 18:24 to leave no doubt.
Proof he was an unbeliever.
Because he was an unbeliever.
Because he was an unbeliever.
If he repented per Romans 11:23.
You are bearing false witness. The Mosiac law was abrogated and I have never taught adherence the Mosiac ordinances.
You have conceded the seventh day is still sanctified. The argument was actually over when you conceded that.
You are bearing false witness. No flesh is justified by the works of the law. That you fail to understand my point of view is no excuse to make false accusations against me.
You should stop bearing false witness.