Rallying Call of the Apostle Paul

[Phoneman777]

When it comes to preaching the truth, hardly anyone else covers all the bases like the apostle Paul. Whether having to do with Salvation, Law and Grace, Christian obligation, Prophecy, the Second Coming, the State of the Dead, Eternal Rewards, etc., he testifies of himself, “For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.”

Among the many wondrous things written by this divinely inspired prophet and theologian is one of the greatest rallying calls the world has ever known, magnificently outshining the famous words of Wallace, Washington, Reagan, etc. It carries the mind of any military veteran back to his days of service; it arouses the army of God to revival and reformation; it inspires the battle weary soul to fight on. It's found in Hebrews 12:1-4 KJV:

[1] Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,​

[2] Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.​

[3] For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.​

[4] Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.​

If the apostle Paul were alive today, no doubt he'd be as disgusted with what he'd see in our ranks as when General Patton encountered the uninjured coward sitting among battle wounded soldiers in that army hospital, "stinking up" that “place of honor” - revolted by battalions of Christian men and women of the Lord's army triumphantly claiming to be “more than conquerors” while suffering one defeat after the next in battles of temptation. And no doubt, after concluding his message might need a bit of retooling for 21st century ears, verses 3 and 4 might sound a bit like:

[3] Before any of you pathetic, cowardly 'Christians' even think about whining "nobody can't keep the Ten Commandments"​

[4] you better have sweat as it were great drops of blood fighting against temptation as did Jesus when He painted that sacred patch of Gethsemane ground red with His.​

Truth is, people give in to temptation long before they get even close to breaking out in a sweat, let alone a sweat comingled with great drops of blood - right or wrong? We need to revisit Paul's words in Hebrews 12:1-4 KJV. Words of profound encouragement. Words of solemn rebuke. Words that point us to our dear despised and persecuted Savior...our suffering Savior...our Savior Who was tempted beyond anything we can ever imagine or be called to bear.

"On your feet, ye soldiers! Stand fast, ye army of the Lord! Fight the good fight of faith, for victory is assured to those who will to win!"​

 

[Randy Kluth]

When it comes to preaching the truth, hardly anyone else covers all the bases like the apostle Paul. Whether having to do with Salvation, Law and Grace, Christian obligation, Prophecy, the Second Coming, the State of the Dead, Eternal Rewards, etc., he testifies of himself, “For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.”

Among the many wondrous things written by this divinely inspired prophet and theologian is one of the greatest rallying calls the world has ever known, magnificently outshining the famous words of Wallace, Washington, Reagan, etc. It carries the mind of any military veteran back to his days of service; it arouses the army of God to revival and reformation; it inspires the battle weary soul to fight on. It's found in Hebrews 12:1-4 KJV:

[1] Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,​

[2] Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.​

[3] For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.​

[4] Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.​

If the apostle Paul were alive today, no doubt he'd be as disgusted with what he'd see in our ranks as when General Patton encountered the uninjured coward sitting among battle wounded soldiers in that army hospital, "stinking up" that “place of honor” - revolted by battalions of Christian men and women of the Lord's army triumphantly claiming to be “more than conquerors” while suffering one defeat after the next in battles of temptation. And no doubt, after concluding his message might need a bit of retooling for 21st century ears, verses 3 and 4 might sound a bit like:

[3] Before any of you pathetic, cowardly 'Christians' even think about whining "nobody can't keep the Ten Commandments"​

[4] you better have sweat as it were great drops of blood fighting against temptation as did Jesus when He painted that sacred patch of Gethsemane ground red with His.​

Truth is, people give in to temptation long before they get even close to breaking out in a sweat, let alone a sweat comingled with great drops of blood - right or wrong? We need to revisit Paul's words in Hebrews 12:1-4 KJV. Words of profound encouragement. Words of solemn rebuke. Words that point us to our dear despised and persecuted Savior...our suffering Savior...our Savior Who was tempted beyond anything we can ever imagine or be called to bear.

"On your feet, ye soldiers! Stand fast, ye army of the Lord! Fight the good fight of faith, for victory is assured to those who will to win!"​

We don't keep the 10 Commandments as under the Law of Moses. The 10 Commandments were, in fact, a subset of the Law of Moses, and not distinct from it or separated from it.

I saw this because I hear this constant insistence that the 10 Commandment is God's eternal Law, and that we must therefore "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." We are *not* under any obligation to keep the Sabbath Law! It was for the ancient Jews, and not for today, in the NT era of Grace.

Christ is our Law--not the Law of Moses, not the 10 Commandments, not the Sabbath Law. Period!!

 

[BarneyFife]

We don't keep the 10 Commandments as under the Law of Moses. The 10 Commandments were, in fact, a subset of the Law of Moses, and not distinct from it or separated from it.

I saw this because I hear this constant insistence that the 10 Commandment is God's eternal Law, and that we must therefore "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." We are *not* under any obligation to keep the Sabbath Law! It was for the ancient Jews, and not for today, in the NT era of Grace.

Christ is our Law--not the Law of Moses, not the 10 Commandments, not the Sabbath Law. Period!!

Subset...

And so your insistence just cancels out the Bible, is that it?

Thing is, this is nonsense, and before the Internet, virtually no one believed it—no one. Period.

It's postmodern, neo-New Covenant, antinomianist, smoke-filled coffeehouse dung.

But if you'd like to produce a pre-1990 document of any kind to support this nonsense, I'd be glad to have a look at it—video, audio, written: Let's have it.

Otherwise, you have to believe that for nearly 1900 years, the church had it all wrong.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Christ is our Law

Christ is The Executive/Legislator/Judge—not the law.

A child could understand it.

.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Subset...

And so your insistence just cancels out the Bible, is that it?

No, my insistence that the 10 Commandments are a subset of the Law cancels out the Law, together with Sabbath Law, which was only for Israel under the Law.

Thing is, this is nonsense, and before the Internet, virtually no one believed it—no one. Period.

It's postmodern, neo-New Covenant, antinomianist, smoke-filled coffeehouse dung.

But if you'd like to produce a pre-1990 document of any kind to support this nonsense, I'd be glad to have a look at it—video, audio, written: Let's have it.

Otherwise, you have to believe that for nearly 1900 years, the church had it all wrong.

I don't have to produce anything. Paul anti-Law views is there for all to see, and we have 2000 years of Church doctrine to support that view.

Your sense that Christians embraced the 10 Commandments as "Moral Law" is correct, but not in the way you imply it was used. Sabbath Law was *never* observed as such, but only as a revised reference to worshiping God on Sunday, or as a symbol of our rest in Christ.

The 10 Commandments were therefore *never used* as a form of Legalism, which is what you're advocating for. Look all you like--the 10 Commandments were never viewed as a legalistic obligation as if we are under a system of Law with specific regulations, including the Sabbath requirement.

We are under Moral Law just like all of humanity has been since our creation. We were created "in God's image, after His likeness." And so, we've always been under Moral Law.

But Moral Law has always existed independent of the Law of Moses. It has always existed independent of Sabbath Law. Please provide for me proof that the Church, to any large extent, has accepted and taught that Christians are obligated to observe Sabbath Law? (Omit your own denomination.)

People sometimes consider it moral to worship God on Sunday, at least once a week. Those theologically trained most often do not see it this way. They see the 10 Commandments as a pattern of moral, Christian living without any specific requirement to observe the Jewish Sabbath.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Christ is The Executive/Legislator/Judge—not the law.

A child could understand it.

I don't. I'm not a child any longer.

Christ is my Law. An adult can understand that. If you can't go directly to God to learn from Him, to be guided by Him, then you're still living at an elementary level.

You don't need a piece of paper, notes, and instruction sheets to know Him and to know what He wants. You don't need Sabbath rules, etc. You just need to know Him well enough to know what He is *like!*

Living in His Spirit is living by His Moral Law. That's all you need to know, my friend.

 

[BarneyFife]

No, my insistence that the 10 Commandments are a subset of the Law cancels out the Law, together with Sabbath Law, which was only for Israel under the Law.

Nice work if you can get it, but it might be just a bit above your pay grade.

I don't have to produce anything. Paul anti-Law views is there for all to see, and we have 2000 years of Church doctrine to support that view.

You certainly don't. I'm no enforcer of any kind. But your objection arises from the fact that you know you can't produce any such evidence, so all you can appeal to is your twisted interpretations of Pauline expression that Peter makes plain is above many folks comprehension. It's not without conspicuous significance that so many avoid the plain sayings of Christ AND Paul regarding the law in favor of texts described by Peter as "things hard to be understood" to justify their rebellion against the government of God and that virtually no one admits to having any real trouble with any particular Pauline passage.

Your sense that Christians embraced the 10 Commandments as "Moral Law" is correct, but not in the way you imply it was used. Sabbath Law was *never* observed as such, but only as a revised reference to worshiping God on Sunday, or as a symbol of our rest in Christ.

It's not my "sense," and I don't mean to imply anything. I say exactly what I mean and you don't know what you're talking about. I was there. I witnessed the blue laws and there was a general sense that Sunday was different, and I was taught as a child in the mid 20th century that Sunday was the direct Christian counterpart of the "Jewish Sabbath" depicted in the Old Testament theocracy and a bonafide New Testament observance of the 4th commandment. It was never tied to the "spiritual" rest of grace in Hebrews 4:9-11—never.

The 10 Commandments were therefore *never used* as a form of Legalism, which is what you're advocating for. Look all you like--the 10 Commandments were never viewed as a legalistic obligation as if we are under a system of Law with specific regulations, including the Sabbath requirement.

And the Immortal Straw Man strikes again.

I was taught at the tender age of 7 years old that no amount of creature merit whether by penance, restitution, or self flagellation of any kind could atone for the depravity that caused me to sin before I even knew what sin was.

This is the great toothless tiger of the law-decrier.

I was born again as a Southern Baptist. As far as I know, you can't get much more forensic substitutionary atonement than that.

And yet, we were taught that sin is the transgression of the law which, in 1960s America meant, quite literally, the Ten Commandments, never once referred to by lay people and local church leadership as "a subset of the law of Moses," and was the very thing by which the Christian was to measure his new, repentant life in Christ.

I was a Navy brat and went to various Protestant churches and military chapels all over the world and never heard any of the fantasy about "law of/in Christ" that floods these threads.

I don't deny that these terms or concepts exist in Scripture in some form or another, but they were never meant to usurp the moral code for not only Israelites and Christians, but human beings, in general.

If you'd like to give your own eyewitness testimony as to the manner in which Christian doctrine was taught to folks 50 years ago, that'd be great.

And I already know you don't have to if you don't want to but, please, don't pawn your ignorance off on Paul. Because he knew the difference between the Ten Commandments and other law as he made very plain in 1 Corinthians 7:19.

We are under Moral Law just like all of humanity has been since our creation. We were created "in God's image, after His likeness." And so, we've always been under Moral Law

Nice double talk. "We're under the law, except that we're not." Folks who obey God (however often they slip and fall and get back up) are not "under the law" because the only way for Christians to be "under the law" is to disregard it or trust it as meritorious toward salvation.

So being made in God's image leaves us under law, I guess, because He is under His law—uh, no, wait, that's a lot of horse hockey.

But Moral Law has always existed independent of the Law of Moses.

No argument there, which is why I can't understand how anti-commandmentizers are always whining about "the law of Moses."

It has always existed independent of Sabbath Law.

You mean the law that is documented in Scripture even before the one to leave the middle tree alone? You can try to extricate Gen 2:2-3 from Exodus 20:8-11 if you think you have a shot, but I wish you luck at the bar of God.

Please provide for me proof that the Church, to any large extent, has accepted and taught that Christians are obligated to observe Sabbath Law? (Omit your own denomination.)

Are you sure you don't want to add a few more vague conditions to that request for evidence? I have no problem with the denominational thing, of course, since it's actually the Sabbath objectors that like to drum that stuff up, but are you sure you don't want me to stand on my left foot with my right one tied to my left hand behind my back or something?

People sometimes consider it moral to worship God on Sunday, at least once a week. Those theologically trained most often do not see it this way. They see the 10 Commandments as a pattern of moral, Christian living without any specific requirement to observe the Jewish Sabbath.

Moose Mittens!

Pseudo-elitist, postmodern, Internet-era twaddlespeak opinion that proves nothing. And there's no such thing as a "Jewish Sabbath."

I don't. I'm not a child any longer.

Maybe you should become more like one in some respects. (Matthew 18:3)

Christ is my Law. An adult can understand that.

No, he can't. He can only rationalize it. We've been over this. Executive/Legislator/Judge

If you can't go directly to God to learn from Him, to be guided by Him, then you're still living at an elementary level.

And you're still kidding yourself that you're at an advanced level when you actually can't count to 10 without skipping #4.

You don't need a piece of paper, notes, and instruction sheets to know Him and to know what He wants. You don't need Sabbath rules, etc. You just need to know Him well enough to know what He is *like!*

Which takes a book with approximately 3/4 million English words, every one of which we are told to live by. (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4, 2 Timothy 3:16)

Living in His Spirit is living by His Moral Law.

No, worshipping Him in Spirit and in TRUTH is what he seeks in a worshipper. (John 4:23)

That's all you need to know, my friend.

I'm not looking to retrograde, thanks.

.

 

[Phoneman777]

We don't keep the 10 Commandments as under the Law of Moses. The 10 Commandments were, in fact, a subset of the Law of Moses, and not distinct from it or separated from it.

I saw this because I hear this constant insistence that the 10 Commandment is God's eternal Law, and that we must therefore "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." We are *not* under any obligation to keep the Sabbath Law! It was for the ancient Jews, and not for today, in the NT era of Grace.

Christ is our Law--not the Law of Moses, not the 10 Commandments, not the Sabbath Law. Period!!

Look, anyone who insists the Christian is under no obligation to keep the Ten Commandments but won't publicly declare which of them we may freely break is as much a coward as that soldier General Patton slapped out of that army infirmary.

The very fact they refuse to do so proves beyond all doubt the entire thing is nothing more than a Theological Mass Delusion originated by those who really don't have a problem with the Ten Commandments at all except for the Sabbath commandment - so they invented a Logical Fallacy which says the Christian is under no obligation to keep, but is not at liberty to break, the Ten Commandments, repeated long enough and loud enough in order to establish it on it's familiarity alone - not reason and common sense Biblical interpretation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I witnessed the blue laws and there was a general sense that Sunday was different, and I was taught as a child in the mid 20th century that Sunday was the direct Christian counterpart of the "Jewish Sabbath" depicted in the Old Testament theocracy and a bonafide New Testament observance of the 4th commandment. It was never tied to the "spiritual" rest of grace in Hebrews 4:9-11—never.

That was my very point. It was that untrained non-theologians thought of the 10 Commandments as the Moral Code we are to live by, not giving a 2nd thought to whether it was part of the Law of Moses or not.

In reality, Protestant Reformers like Luther taught the 10 Commandments as applicable to our life but certainly not a means of Justification. And he did not teach Sabbath observance. Sorry if you didn't realize that. You would not know it from just your personal experiences.

I was taught at the tender age of 7 years old that no amount of creature merit whether by penance, restitution, or self flagellation of any kind could atone for the depravity that caused me to sin before I even knew what sin was.

That would be correct. You cannot earn Salvation, whether you realize it or not. That would include attempting to perform rituals such as Sunday attendance or Sabbath observance.

And yet, we were taught that sin is the transgression of the law which, in 1960s America meant, quite literally, the Ten Commandments, never once referred to by lay people and local church leadership as "a subset of the law of Moses," and was the very thing by which the Christian was to measure his new, repentant life in Christ.

Again, you are going by your personal experience, and not by any training in theology, apparently? Sin is the transgression of God's word, whether it is to you personally, under the Law as a Jew, or as a Gentile following his conscience.

Clearly, the Jew who was under the Law knew that "Sin" was violating the Law of Moses in any way, including disobedience to the 10 Commandments. Beyond that it was failing to do anything that God required him to do personally.

I don't deny that these terms or concepts exist in Scripture in some form or another, but they were never meant to usurp the moral code for not only Israelites and Christians, but human beings, in general.

The concepts I'm sharing with you are in the Bible yes, and you need to learn them. Perhaps your church failed to train you well? Perhaps you didn't self-educate yourself well enough? I don't mean to insult your intelligence--you're smart enough. You just don't treat things well enough from a theological pov.

Nice double talk. "We're under the law, except that we're not."

You obviously don't understand what I mean. I distinguish between "Moral Law" and the "Law of Moses." There is an intersection, but not an absolute correlation.

I'll say it again. We are under "Moral Law" but not under the "Law of Moses." However, it does no good, with respect to Salvation, if we follow Moral Law without simultaneously coming under the Covenant of Christ.

The Law of Moses was a distinct Covenant and had its own form of remedy for the guilt of sin. It accommodated sin in its own way, obtaining the temporary objective of maintaining a relationship with God, but did not produce Eternal Life.

On the other hand, the Covenant of Christ dealt with sin in an absolute and final way. It made the Law and its means superfluous and unnecessary. Once sin had been dealt with forever, it never needed dealing with again.

So we come under the Covenant of Christ to deal with sin, but we maintain the same Moral Law that has always been the attribute of Man, created in God's image.

So being made in God's image leaves us under law...

Yes. That was the original Law of God, to be like God and obey His word. It was the path to Eternal Life, the Tree of Life. Now that we can come under Christ's Covenant and his remedy for sin we can both follow moral virtue and have Eternal Life.

You can try to extricate Gen 2:2-3 from Exodus 20:8-11 if you think you have a shot, but I wish you luck at the bar of God.

Gen 2.2-3 is different from Exo 20.8-11. One is God resting from Creation. The other is God's mandate that Israel observe a Sabbath each week. To conflate them is to misuse them.

Are you sure you don't want to add a few more vague conditions to that request for evidence? I have no problem with the denominational thing, of course, since it's actually the Sabbath objectors that like to drum that stuff up, but are you sure you don't want me to stand on my left foot with my right one tied to my left hand behind my back or something?

I was simply pointing out that with the exception of the 7th Day Adventists the vast number of Christian denominations in history would not say that we are obligated to obey Sabbath Law, unless it is copied and pasted into Sunday observance. And Sunday observance was never a legal requirement for Salvation.

Have a nice day, Barney.

 

[BarneyFife]

That was my very point. It was that untrained non-theologians thought of the 10 Commandments as the Moral Code we are to live by, not giving a 2nd thought to whether it was part of the Law of Moses or not.

Which is precisely why postmodern, Sabbath-objecting, armchair theologians do, in fact, give it a second thought.

In reality, Protestant Reformers like Luther taught the 10 Commandments as applicable to our life but certainly not a means of Justification.

Of course, you're absolutely correct, which is why I and other Sabbath-keepers don't teach the Ten Commandments as a means of justification, either.

Why this is escaping your and so many others' attention is a source of g-r-e-a-t wonder to me.

You would not know it from just your personal experiences.

I have nothing else to go on, being a finite, mortal being.

That would be correct. You cannot earn Salvation, whether you realize it or not. That would include attempting to perform rituals such as Sunday attendance or Sabbath observance.

Oh, I realize it, all right, but Sabbath objectors can't seem to wrap their heads around that, which is unquestionably apparent from your reciprocal admonition to my literal affirmation thereof, as if we were playing ping pong or something.

Again, you are going by your personal experience, and not by any training in theology, apparently?

I have exceptional training in theology for a lay person. I have
preached, held church office, taught Bible study classes, gone on mission trips, and am well-read in the various disciplines of theology, none of which matters in the slightest since all of us must understand these things at least well enough to be a follower of Christ.

Clearly, the Jew who was under the Law knew that "Sin" was violating the Law of Moses in any way, including disobedience to the 10 Commandments. Beyond that it was failing to do anything that God required him to do personally.

The New Testament says clearly that sin IS (not "was") lawlessness/transgression of the law, so I'm not sure how this summary statement is relevant to the discussion.

The concepts I'm sharing with you are in the Bible yes, and you need to learn them. Perhaps your church failed to train you well? Perhaps you didn't self-educate yourself well enough? I don't mean to insult your intelligence--you're smart enough. You just don't treat things well enough from a theological pov.

My intelligence and/or training has nothing to do with this discussion.

I think what I just don't do is treat things well enough to concur with your opinions.

You obviously don't understand what I mean. I distinguish between "Moral Law" and the "Law of Moses." There is an intersection, but not an absolute correlation.

Except when it comes the 4th article of "Moral Law" which despite that which your initial invasion of the thread claimed, is the subject into which these conversations are ALWAYS reduced.

I'll say it again. We are under "Moral Law" but not under the "Law of Moses."

Say it all you like. It is meaningless as long as you're just hiding your real agenda of cutting the "Moral Law" down to 9/10 of it's original substance.

I'D SAY, ONCE AGAIN, that I don't believe works of law—including the tremendously strenuous work of "resting"—merits anything toward salvation, but of what use would it be to ears that are completely closed off to it?

If I said "I'm sure glad I didn't go so far as to murder that guy yesterday when I became so angry with him," no one here would suggest that I was somehow trying to secure salvation by means of keeping the 6th commandment, now, would they?

However, it does no good, with respect to Salvation, if we follow Moral Law without simultaneously coming under the Covenant of Christ.

Buffalo Bagels

All our righteousness are as filthy rags and no commandment keeping is acceptable to God as even a loving act of worship without a pure heart, which comes only from repentance, confession, and acceptance of Christ's atonement by His life, death, resurrection and intercession for us.

And "it does no good, with respect to Salvation" at all, in any case, except to exhibit that our hearts have been changed by the writing of HIS law upon them.

Why is this so hard for Sabbath objectors to understand?

The Law of Moses was a distinct Covenant and had its own form of remedy for the guilt of sin. It accommodated sin in its own way, obtaining the temporary objective of maintaining a relationship with God, but did not produce Eternal Life.

"Remedy for the guilt of sin?"

"Temporary objective of maintaining a relationship with God"—Busywork?

So, what DID produce "Eternal Life" in the time of "The Law of Moses?"

It was the New/Everlasting Covenant of "The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8)

"Accommodate sin?"

That's not a term that someone who is properly trained in theology would use.

On the other hand, the Covenant of Christ dealt with sin in an absolute and final way. It made the Law and its means superfluous and unnecessary. Once sin had been dealt with forever, it never needed dealing with again.

"Absolute and final way?"

There is only one Way that sin has ever been dealt with and that was at Calvary. It's how Adam and Eve, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Amos, Peter, John, Paul, and everyone since or before has been saved. Read Hebrews 11.

So we come under the Covenant of Christ to deal with sin, but we maintain the same Moral Law that has always been the attribute of Man, created in God's image.

Recycling the stuff the refutation of which you never fully responded to.

God was "under" His own law, right?

Yes. That was the original Law of God, to be like God and obey His word. It was the path to Eternal Life, the Tree of Life.

There was no PATH. They HAD eternal life. They FORFEITED it by failing a single test of loyalty.

Now that we can come under Christ's Covenant and his remedy for sin we can both follow moral virtue and have Eternal Life.

The Hebrews 11 folks couldn't do that stuff?

Gen 2.2-3 is different from Exo 20.8-11.

I never said they were identical. I said they were inextricable.

One is God resting from Creation. The other is God's mandate that Israel observe a Sabbath each week. To conflate them is to misuse them.

One is God SETTING AN EXAMPLE FOR MAN TO DO SOMETHING FOR WHICH HE HAD NO NEED, HIMSELF (HE has no circaseptan biological rhythm).

The other is COMMANDING THAT THEY DO SOMETHING HE KNEW THEY NEEDED, HAD FORGOTTEN, AND HE KNEW THEY WERE LIKELY TO FORGET AGAIN.

WHICH IS WHY HE SAID "R-E-M-E-M-B-E-R!!!"

I was simply pointing out that with the exception of the 7th Day Adventists the vast number of Christian denominations in history would not say that we are obligated to obey Sabbath Law, unless it is copied and pasted into Sunday observance. And Sunday observance was never a legal requirement for Salvation.

I mean, it's just the same stuff over and over—Ten Commandments Minus One.

I've tried starting threads about moral law and/or the Ten Commandments without any reference to the Sabbath. It can't be done. Someone will invariably get up in arms about the stipulation that there be no 4th commandment involved.

I heard an Adventist evangelist once telling a story about his first big campaign. After about a week of meetings, the head elder of the church walked up to him and said "I think you ought to know that there's a minister across town who's holding meetings every night directly refuting everything you said the night before."

To which the young preacher replied:

"Aw, that's all right. I don't have to make mine up or tailor it to someone else's."

This preacher's mother found the Sabbath truth just laying in her bed reading the Bible.

When some Adventist Bible workers finally came knocking at her door, she said " Oh, I've been waiting for you."

I can just read the Bible and get everything I need to know to please and obey the God who sent His Son to die for me.

But the Sabbath objector has to scrape and scour and hunt for loopholes to justify his rebellion against the PLAINEST STATEMENTS OF SCRIPTURE.

Jesus said more about the proper keeping of the 4th commandment than any other.

I didn't write the Bible or the Ten Commandments.

It's looking a lot like HE must have known there was a diabolical plan afoot.

.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Of course, you're absolutely correct, which is why I and other Sabbath-keepers don't teach the Ten Commandments as a means of justification, either.

You may not be teaching the 10 Commandments as a form of Justification, but just producing a regulation under the Law in effect is putting someone back under the OT way of dealing with sin. It is, in that case, attempting to find a remedy for sin that is 1) no longer available, and 2) does not bring final resolution to the problem of death.

I have nothing else to go on, being a finite, mortal being.

I was talking about your claiming things about what the historic Church believed based on your own personal experience today. That is insufficient. If you wish to claim things that were believed historically, you're going to have to look at theology in history, and not just your own experience or thought about what might have been.

The Church has historically viewed the 10 Commandments as Moral Law, yes. They are viewed as something that we in the NT do.

But it has *never* meant that we are *under* the Law of Moses, which is what the 10 Commandments were part of. And so, it was *rarely* thought that Christians have to obey the Sabbath Law regulation, except as the untrained might think of it, as somehow a call to worship God once a week.

I have exceptional training in theology for a lay person. I have
preached, held church office, taught Bible study classes, gone on mission trips, and am well-read in the various disciplines of theology, none of which matters in the slightest since all of us must understand these things at least well enough to be a follower of Christ.

I'm glad you have credentials. However, much of your argument has been about what you think, what you've experienced. Your knowledge of Justification by Faith in the light of your Sabbath requirement makes me wonder?

You claim that you keep the Sabbath Day holy not as a form of Justification, and I will accept that. You don't see the 4th commandment as being a part of the Law of Moses, and I don't agree, but ok--that's what you believe.

But you should understand my argument that I believe the 10 Commandments are part of the Law. So when we obey the commandment not to murder, we are indeed keeping that commandment, but not as under the Law. We are keeping the commandment as under Christ.

Keeping the commandment under the Law is self-Justification because 1) it is no longer accepted by God, and 2) it is a system that pleased God but always fell short of final redemption from death.

This is why I emphasize that my rejection of a Sabbath Law is due to *my belief* that it is attached to the Law of Moses. The other commandments are attached as well, but can be detached and re-attached to the New Covenant of Christ.

Christ never required Sabbath observance after the Cross. That indicated that Sabbath observance had been a part of the Law, which was swept away by the Cross.

I've tried to deal with some of your other later points. The posts are getting a bit long.

 

[BarneyFife]

You may not be teaching the 10 Commandments as a form of Justification, but just producing a regulation under the Law in effect is putting someone back under the OT way of dealing with sin. It is, in that case, attempting to find a remedy for sin that is 1) no longer available, and 2) does not bring final resolution to the problem of death.

I was talking about your claiming things about what the historic Church believed based on your own personal experience today. That is insufficient. If you wish to claim things that were believed historically, you're going to have to look at theology in history, and not just your own experience or thought about what might have been.

The Church has historically viewed the 10 Commandments as Moral Law, yes. They are viewed as something that we in the NT do.

But it has *never* meant that we are *under* the Law of Moses, which is what the 10 Commandments were part of. And so, it was *rarely* thought that Christians have to obey the Sabbath Law regulation, except as the untrained might think of it, as somehow a call to worship God once a week.

I'm glad you have credentials. However, much of your argument has been about what you think, what you've experienced. Your knowledge of Justification by Faith in the light of your Sabbath requirement makes me wonder?

You claim that you keep the Sabbath Day holy not as a form of Justification, and I will accept that. You don't see the 4th commandment as being a part of the Law of Moses, and I don't agree, but ok--that's what you believe.

But you should understand my argument that I believe the 10 Commandments are part of the Law. So when we obey the commandment not to murder, we are indeed keeping that commandment, but not as under the Law. We are keeping the commandment as under Christ.

Keeping the commandment under the Law is self-Justification because 1) it is no longer accepted by God, and 2) it is a system that pleased God but always fell short of final redemption from death.

This is why I emphasize that my rejection of a Sabbath Law is due to *my belief* that it is attached to the Law of Moses. The other commandments are attached as well, but can be detached and re-attached to the New Covenant of Christ.

Christ never required Sabbath observance after the Cross. That indicated that Sabbath observance had been a part of the Law, which was swept away by the Cross.

I've tried to deal with some of your other later points. The posts are getting a bit long.

To your credit, you seem to be listening and that's truly commendable in the setting we have here but, unfortunately when it comes to articulating your position you seem to be trying very hard to avoid double talk without actually managing to do so. There's an awful lot of distinction without difference and it still all boils down to "Ten Commandments? Sure! (Minus One)"


.

 

[quietthinker]

When it comes to preaching the truth, hardly anyone else covers all the bases like the apostle Paul. Whether having to do with Salvation, Law and Grace, Christian obligation, Prophecy, the Second Coming, the State of the Dead, Eternal Rewards, etc., he testifies of himself, “For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.”

Among the many wondrous things written by this divinely inspired prophet and theologian is one of the greatest rallying calls the world has ever known, magnificently outshining the famous words of Wallace, Washington, Reagan, etc. It carries the mind of any military veteran back to his days of service; it arouses the army of God to revival and reformation; it inspires the battle weary soul to fight on. It's found in Hebrews 12:1-4 KJV:

[1] Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,​

[2] Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.​

[3] For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.​

[4] Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.​

If the apostle Paul were alive today, no doubt he'd be as disgusted with what he'd see in our ranks as when General Patton encountered the uninjured coward sitting among battle wounded soldiers in that army hospital, "stinking up" that “place of honor” - revolted by battalions of Christian men and women of the Lord's army triumphantly claiming to be “more than conquerors” while suffering one defeat after the next in battles of temptation. And no doubt, after concluding his message might need a bit of retooling for 21st century ears, verses 3 and 4 might sound a bit like:

[3] Before any of you pathetic, cowardly 'Christians' even think about whining "nobody can't keep the Ten Commandments"​

[4] you better have sweat as it were great drops of blood fighting against temptation as did Jesus when He painted that sacred patch of Gethsemane ground red with His.​

Truth is, people give in to temptation long before they get even close to breaking out in a sweat, let alone a sweat comingled with great drops of blood - right or wrong? We need to revisit Paul's words in Hebrews 12:1-4 KJV. Words of profound encouragement. Words of solemn rebuke. Words that point us to our dear despised and persecuted Savior...our suffering Savior...our Savior Who was tempted beyond anything we can ever imagine or be called to bear.

"On your feet, ye soldiers! Stand fast, ye army of the Lord! Fight the good fight of faith, for victory is assured to those who will to win!"​

I think you are right however there is another factor to consider. There is a difference between talking about honouring the Law and actually keeping it. When it comes to the Sabbath which you so vigorously defend, do you actually keep it yourself without as much as doubt or even consciously knowing you are not up to speed?

So here we have a problem because he who offends in one offends in all.....and I would ask, is there sufficient self honesty and courage to admit this?

Having said this, I think there is another way of understanding this dilemma, one that eclipses human frailty, short-sightedness, pride and ignorance.

 

[BarneyFife]

I think you are right however there is another factor to consider. There is a difference between talking about honouring the Law and actually keeping it. When it comes to the Sabbath which you so vigorously defend, do you actually keep it yourself without as much as doubt or even consciously knowing you are not up to speed?

So here we have a problem because he who offends in one offends in all.....and I would ask, is there sufficient self honesty and courage to admit this?

Having said this, I think there is another way of understanding this dilemma, one that eclipses human frailty, short-sightedness, pride and ignorance.

The standard is higher than the standard keeper and, as with all the commandments, all have fallen short but Christ is our Substitute and Surety.

I will admit to falling short on all Ten, and the Two Great.


.

 

[BarneyFife]

Let the record show that no one has yet produced the evidence for which I have repeatedly asked that either the doctrine of the Ten Commandments being merely a subset of the law of Moses or of Hebrews 4:9-11 being the New Covenant fulfillment/replacement of the 4th commandment was taught or practiced to any substantial degree before the Internet was available to consumers.


.

 

[Randy Kluth]

To your credit, you seem to be listening and that's truly commendable in the setting we have here but, unfortunately when it comes to articulating your position you seem to be trying very hard to avoid double talk without actually managing to do so. There's an awful lot of distinction without difference and it still all boils down to "Ten Commandments? Sure! (Minus One)"


.

Yes, I've shown you that I understand *your arguments.* But you have not shown me that you understand *mine.* That is the only reason I continue to argue this, because you do not show that you understand my arguments. I'm not saying you have to agree. But if you want to debate something with someone, you have to understand what their argument is.

None of what I said is "double talk." It's straightforward. There are 10 Commandments. 9 of them may be Moral Commandments that can apply outside of the Law and in the New Covenant of Christ. 1 of them is not, for me, a Moral Commandment that can apply outside of the Law. And that's because the Sabbath Commandment is, for me, part of the Law, whereas the other 9 Commandments can apply equally under the Law or outside of the Law.

It should not confuse you to recognize that the Commandment, "Do not murder," can be applied in other religious systems other than the Law of Moses. For a Muslim, for example, to obey the Commandment "not to murder," it would be following that same Commandment not as under the Law of Moses but rather, under the Law of Islam. Muslims may even *claim* that they are following the Law of Moses, but clearly, they are not.

In the same way, Christians who obey the Commandment "not to murder" are following it not as under the Law of Moses, but only as under the New Covenant of Christ. As such, they are not paying homage to Moses, but only to Christ.

If they follow the Commandment to "keep the Sabbath Day holy," then this Commandment cannot be kept under the New Covenant of Christ because it was never made to be a Commandment under the New Covenant system. You claim it is. I claim it is not.

So our argument is really: Is the Commandment to "keep the Sabbath holy" present in the New Covenant system? And you have not proven that it is. You've made all kinds of claims around this, but have never given me a *theological, doctrinal statement from the Scriptures* indicating Christians must "keep the Sabbath day holy."

References to Jesus' sayings in the Gospels before the Cross applied to the Law of Moses, and not to the New Covenant system. References to the Apostles observing the Sabbath was never indicated to be more than an outreach to Jews. They never included with their Gospel message the need to "keep the Sabbath Law."

So please indulge me and show me that you understand *my argument,* just as I've showed you I understand yours?

 

[Phoneman777]

I think you are right however there is another factor to consider. There is a difference between talking about honouring the Law and actually keeping it. When it comes to the Sabbath which you so vigorously defend, do you actually keep it yourself without as much as doubt or even consciously knowing you are not up to speed?

So here we have a problem because he who offends in one offends in all.....and I would ask, is there sufficient self honesty and courage to admit this?

Having said this, I think there is another way of understanding this dilemma, one that eclipses human frailty, short-sightedness, pride and ignorance.

I seem to remember reading somewhere in the SOP about how the harshest criticism against those who preach the 3 Angels Messages won't come from without the SDA church, but from within...

 

[Phoneman777]

In reality, Protestant Reformers like Luther taught the 10 Commandments as applicable to our life but certainly not a means of Justification.

And, there it is...so predictable.

If only you guys were as anxious to publicly declare which commandments we're at liberty to break as you are anxious to resort to Straw Man argument.

Of course, the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with "Christian Origination" aka "salvation by grace through faith alone"...but rather "Christian Obligation" aka the saint's duty to keep the Ten Commandments.

"Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of M-A-N" not "J-E-W".

 

[Randy Kluth]

And, there it is...so predictable.

If only you guys were as anxious to publicly declare which commandments we're at liberty to break as you are anxious to resort to Straw Man argument.

It isn't a straw man argument. There is no indication it is one. And I have zero problem telling you which commandments we're at liberty to break. Since we are not under the 10 Commandments, which are part of the Law, we cannot "break them." They are not applicable.

It's like you're said to be under the rules of an Islamic State when you live in the West, and I ask you, "Which laws are you able to break--do not murder?" Well, you're not under the Islamic State. And even if Islam teaches "You shall not murder," their commandments are irrelevant for you. In principle you will follow the same idea that "you shall not murder." But you are doing it for Christ, and not for Islam.

So you completely misrepresent the argument, that Christians are not under the Law and the 10 Commandments. But if you ask if the same principle applied as "do not murder," I will easily and quickly tell you, "Yes, we follow that principle."

And I will also tell you quickly and directly, "We are under no obligation to keep the Sabbath Day." That commandment, also under the Law, was directed to the Israeli nation only.

Even Gentiles who sojourned in Israel were obligated to keep the Law in part. But because sojourners were not necessarily joining Israel, they did not have to keep the whole Law--they were not under the Law! Many aspects of the Law were not required of them because they were not part of Israel.

In the same way, Sabbath Law never applied outside of Israel, and it certainly does not apply to Christians in the NT era. The Law of Moses had good moral requirements that we also observe today. But we don't observe those principles under that covenant, but only under the Christian covenant.

Where is the "straw man?" But you ignore the main point here, don't you?

Of course, the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with "Christian Origination" aka "salvation by grace through faith alone"...but rather "Christian Obligation" aka the saint's duty to keep the Ten Commandments.

"Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of M-A-N" not "J-E-W".

All men are obligated to live in God's Moral Image. But not all men in the time of the Law of Moses were under that Law. Therefore, Moral Law and the Mosaic Law are distinct, and we should recognize that.

The 10 Commandments are not required of all men because all men are required to keep God's Moral Commandments. The 10 Commandments are Moral Commandments that were under the covenant of the Law, and as such, were not precisely the Moral Commandments that God applies to all men.

I will say it again. Only Israel was under the Law, and the 10 Commandments were a subset of the Law. The fact the 10 Commandments contained 9 Moral Commandments does not mean all men are under all 10 Commandments. The requirement to keep the Sabbath Day holy was a commandment directed only to Israel.

I'm not hedging about this. I'm being direct and clear about it.

 

[quietthinker]

I seem to remember reading somewhere in the SOP about how the harshest criticism against those who preach the 3 Angels Messages won't come from without the SDA church, but from within...

Ohhhhhh, how does this relate to what I've said?