Sabbath-Keeping

[Phoneman777]

"By the law is the knowledge of sin". Surely those who love Jesus would want knowledge of that which made necessary His ignominious death on the Cross so that such could be avoided at all costs, right?

 

[mjrhealth]

Why dont you ask God, is it so hard.

Yes the law is the knowledge of sin that is why it is for the sinners, and not for those who are made righteous through Christ. I do not need teh law to know when I do wrong, those who are in Christ choose to do right with the knowledge that grace has allowed for us being human, but thos who choose to TRY keep the law will always fail because they somehow think there are better than Jesus. Keeping teh law will not make you righteous it just places a grievious burden , a yoke of bondage to those who try by the flesh to please God, We please God when we walk in faith, we please God when we believe Jesus did all the work and we just need to believe, we please God when we believe Him and stop trying to outhink Him, we please God because of what Jesus did. If we need to work at pleasing God than we havnt accepted the price that Christ paid, as if it was not enough and we must add to it. Jesus was and will be the only one who could keep the law and no matter what you try to do by the flesh you will never be found worthy to open the lambs book of Life.

As Jesus said, you wont go to Him so you can have life.

In all His Love

 

[Phoneman777]

Keeping teh law will not make you righteous it just places a grievious burden
In all His Love

I didn't say keeping the law made anyone righteous, I said it is the evidence that Jesus has made us righteous. And those who truly love Him do find obedience to be burdensome at all:

"Hereby we do know that we know Him if we keep His commandments."
"For this is the love of God: that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not grievous (a burden).

 

[mjrhealth]

And those who truly love Him do find obedience to be burdensome at all:

Amen.

And His commandment is to Love, as it is in love we choose to do good.

So we dont discuss the law(10 commandmenst)any more as it is of no consequence as we now walk in love. Yes?? We will leave that to the Jews and God as that is between Him and them.

In all His Love

Except for Christ, who could, show me one who keeps all teh commandmenst, even teh Jews continually break them.

 

[mjrhealth]

I dont understand i am a bit confused. 26 pages arguing over teh law just to be told we keeps His comanments, and what are the Lords(Jesus) comandmenst. To Love. This whole 26 pages seems a little futile and out of place. I guess the truth won through in the end.

Doesnt it.

 

[Phoneman777]

I dont understand i am a bit confused. 26 pages arguing over teh law just to be told we keeps His comanments, and what are the Lords(Jesus) comandmenst. To Love. This whole 26 pages seems a little futile and out of place. I guess the truth won through in the end.

Doesnt it.

If you love God, you will not break the first four of the Ten Commandments, INCLUDING THE SABBATH, and if you love your neighbor, you will not break the last six of them. Why don't you admit that you don't have a single problem with:

"Thou shalt have no other god before Me."
"Thou shalt not bow down to images."
"Thou shalt not blaspheme the name of God."
"Thou shalt honor father and mother."
"Thou shalt not kill."
"Thou shatl not commit adultery."
"Thou shalt not steal."
"Thou shalt not lie."
"Thou shalt not covet."

So, WHY do you have a problem with "Remember to keep the (seventh-day) Sabbath holy"???

 

[zeke25]

Romans 7:1-6 KJV,
“1Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.”
Thus saith YAH.



Romans 16:17-18 KJV,
“17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord [Yahoshua the] Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I'm not saying that we should interpret the word "carnal" in Hebrews 7: 16 KJV as "not holy, just, and good"- but we can't ignore that the verse refers to a "carnal commandment", and not "carnal people". A degree of separation from Paul's (contextual) description of the Ten Commandments as "holy, just, and good' in Romans 7:12 KJV is established by this.

Please excuse me for being completely confused...

Not only do most scholars give an interpretation of what a "carnal commandment" actually is referring to, you do nothing that even comes close to doing that!

As I have pointed out, their claim is that the commandment to appoint priests from the hereditary line of Levites was "carnal" in the sense that it points out a physical lineage, rather than a spiritual one. If you disagree with what they say then please explain why. But more imporantly, please explain what it has to do with the 10 commandments?

Neither Hebrews 7, let alone the REST of Hebrews, even mentions them..

A degree of separation from Paul's (contextual) description of the Ten Commandments as "holy, just, and good' in Romans 7:12 KJV is established by this.

No, it is not! That's like saying that since your left hand is good at peeling bananas then it is separate from the rest of your body. Please don't use faulty logic to make totally invalid points. No one benefits from that kind of easily refutable nonsense. Paul simply uses commandments every now and then, just as he does circumcision, to get certain points across. We ALL do things like that for the sake of simplicity.

And no one is arguing against the fact that the 10 commandments, just as circumcision, were central to the Mosiac law.

But they were NEVER described ANYWHERE in scripture as being "separate" from that law. Just as I have constantly pointed out - you are adding to scripture something that ISN'T there!

If they are distinctly separate from the Mosaic law, so that what Paul wrote concerning the Old Covenant does not apply to them, then just point out where scripture actually says this, and this discussion is over!

Neither the placement of the tablets in the ark, nor the medium apon which they were written, nor the fact that they were witten by the finger of God, nor the fact that they were described as "holy, just and good" does what you want it to. We ALL agree with these Biblical FACTS. But the conclusions that SDAs draw from this is 1) not found in scripture, and 2) contradict the gospel, something that should worry you EXTREMELY!

The 10 commandments exemplify, and were central to, the Mosaic covenant.

That covenant is now obsolete for believers because for them the purpose of the law - to bring us to Christ, has been fulfilled. That agrees entirely with what the NT declares. If you disagree, then you had better use scripture, rather than constantly referring to SDA theology.

The Bible refers to God's "perfect will" and His "acceptable will". His "perfect will" is that "all would be saved and all would come to a knowledge of the truth." His "acceptable will" can be described as the Deluge, which was necessary to preserve the holy line from which Jesus would come forth, lest the Antediluvians corrupt Noah and his family, thus cutting off that line. Would we argue that one "will" is any less according to God that the other? No, we wouldn't. In the same way, we can't make the claim that the use of "carnal" in this verse is to be interpreted in the strictest sense of the word nor can we redirect its focus, which is the commandment, toward that which is not the focus - people.

Um...Que??

 

[Phoneman777]

Please excuse me for being completely confused...

Not only do most scholars give an interpretation of what a "carnal commandment" actually is referring to, you do nothing that even comes close to doing that!

As I have pointed out, their claim is that the commandment to appoint priests from the hereditary line of Levites was "carnal" in the sense that it points out a physical lineage, rather than a spiritual one. If you disagree with what they say then please explain why. But more imporantly, please explain what it has to do with the 10 commandments?

Neither Hebrews 7, let alone the REST of Hebrews, even mentions them..


No, it is not! That's like saying that since your left hand is good at peeling bananas then it is separate from the rest of your body. Please don't use faulty logic to make totally invalid points. No one benefits from that kind of easily refutable nonsense. Paul simply uses commandments every now and then, just as he does circumcision, to get certain points across. We ALL do things like that for the sake of simplicity.

And no one is arguing against the fact that the 10 commandments, just as circumcision, were central to the Mosiac law.

But they were NEVER described ANYWHERE in scripture as being "separate" from that law. Just as I have constantly pointed out - you are adding to scripture something that ISN'T there!

If they are distinctly separate from the Mosaic law, so that what Paul wrote concerning the Old Covenant does not apply to them, then just point out where scripture actually says this, and this discussion is over!

Neither the placement of the tablets in the ark, nor the medium apon which they were written, nor the fact that they were witten by the finger of God, nor the fact that they were described as "holy, just and good" does what you want it to. We ALL agree with these Biblical FACTS. But the conclusions that SDAs draw from this is 1) not found in scripture, and 2) contradict the gospel, something that should worry you EXTREMELY!

The 10 commandments exemplify, and were central to, the Mosaic covenant.

That covenant is now obsolete for believers because for them the purpose of the law - to bring us to Christ, has been fulfilled. That agrees entirely with what the NT declares. If you disagree, then you had better use scripture, rather than constantly referring to SDA theology.


Um...Que??

You are free to disagree, but you are not free to deny the clear Biblical distinction between the Mosaic Law that was temporary and the Ten Commandments that have always been wrong to break and are to this day wrong to break.

It has been and always will be wrong to have other gods before God, worship idols, blaspheme His name, and disregard the only day that He has blessed forever and ever. It was only temporarily wrong to not sacrifice the Passover, not get circumcised, not make the yearly pilgrimages to Jerusalem, etc. You still don't see the distinction? Again, I ask the question: If we are not obligated to keep the Ten Commandments, then please tell me which ones I may freely go out and break?

 

[mjrhealth]

It has been and always will be wrong to have other gods before God

The problem is as I have said before you are doing the very thing you are telling us we shouldnt do. you have put the law before God, the hGrace of Jesus and Love.

Back to teh OP.

If you choose to keep teh Sabbath Holy and Unto God, do it because you love Him, the moment you do it because it is teh "LAW", it goes from Love to the flesh from Grace and love and life to the Law sin and death. That is the very fine line you are walking.. But if you need a review, go back to page one. it wont take long for the wheel to go around and you will be right back where you started.

Go, give Jesus and Love ago, until you do, death will always be your companion.

1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

In Allhis Love

 

[UppsalaDragby]

You are free to disagree, but you are not free to deny the clear Biblical distinction between the Mosaic Law that was temporary and the Ten Commandments that have always been wrong to break and are to this day wrong to break.


It has been and always will be wrong to have other gods before God, worship idols, blaspheme His name, and disregard the only day that He has blessed forever and ever. It was only temporarily wrong to not sacrifice the Passover, not get circumcised, not make the yearly pilgrimages to Jerusalem, etc. You still don't see the distinction? Again, I ask the question: If we are not obligated to keep the Ten Commandments, then please tell me which ones I may freely go out and break?

Well you are quite free to explain how you think the "distinction" you are referring to supports your theology and stands in opposition to mine. But before you do, (and while keeping in mind that you have now learnt how to use the quote boxes) please point out exactly where I have made the claim that it is not wrong to break the 10 commandments.

Have i ever said it wasn't wrong?

If I haven't said that then you are twisting my words and once again breaking the 9th commandment!

Any commandment that God has given us is wrong to break!

The 10 commandments are fine in a perfect world. But neither me nor you live in such a world. They were they never given with the expectation that any of us would be able to keep them, but rather to serve as a indication of how badly we need grace!

Please be my guest and answer these questions:

* Was it right or wrong for Moses to disobey the commandment concerning circumcision?

* Was it right or wrong for the prostitute Rahab to lie about the spies she was protecting?

* Was it right or wrong for Abraham to decieve Pharaoh?

* Was it right or wrong for Jacob to deceive his father?

And of course, I could go on and on and on about this...

Obviously, these are things that are WRONG to do in a completely perfect world - a world where MERCY is totally unnecessary, but RIGHT to do in an IMPERFECT world where the Law of Christ fulfils the demands of perfect righteousness.

Now try to get this through your head!

No one is claiming that it is "OK" to break the 10 commandments. That isn't, and has never been, my point. Referring to mercy is not equivalent to saying that it is OK to sin. Referring to mercy is nothing more than making an admission or a confession, that what the Word of God is TRUE - that we have a carnal nature that doesn't allow us to keep the perfect standard that God requires, but that what is lacking is covered by the offer lamb he has provided.

 

[face2face]

Well you are quite free to explain how you think the "distinction" you are referring to supports your theology and stands in opposition to mine. But before you do, (and while keeping in mind that you have now learnt how to use the quote boxes) please point out exactly where I have made the claim that it is not wrong to break the 10 commandments.

Have i ever said it wasn't wrong?

If I haven't said that then you are twisting my words and once again breaking the 9th commandment!

Any commandment that God has given us is wrong to break!

The 10 commandments are fine in a perfect world. But neither me nor you live in such a world. They were they never given with the expectation that any of us would be able to keep them, but rather to serve as a indication of how badly we need grace!

Please be my guest and answer these questions:

* Was it right or wrong for Moses to disobey the commandment concerning circumcision?

* Was it right or wrong for the prostitute Rahab to lie about the spies she was protecting?

* Was it right or wrong for Abraham to decieve Pharaoh?

* Was it right or wrong for Jacob to deceive his father?

And of course, I could go on and on and on about this...

Obviously, these are things that are WRONG to do in a completely perfect world - a world where MERCY is totally unnecessary, but RIGHT to do in an IMPERFECT world where the Law of Christ fulfils the demands of perfect righteousness.

Now try to get this through your head!

No one is claiming that it is "OK" to break the 10 commandments. That isn't, and has never been, my point. Referring to mercy is not equivalent to saying that it is OK to sin. Referring to mercy is nothing more than making an admission or a confession, that what the Word of God is TRUE - that we have a carnal nature that doesn't allow us to keep the perfect standard that God requires, but that what is lacking is covered by the offer lamb he has provided.

[SIZE=10.5pt]The above reminds me of the Garden of Eden where God provided the perfect situation for obedience. He gave the first pair a home, tasks to perform a single law to uphold but they failed and suffered a single consequence – slavery and death. The lesson was never about the Law itself, but rather what it communicated to those with understanding. God was saying to His children, "If you want to come to Me it won’t be on the basis of my law and works, but on grace". [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10.5pt]Thousands of years later His children are arguing over the Law rather than accepting the work of Grace in the Lord of the Sabbath, the one who fulfilled all the Sabbath requirements and more. [/SIZE]



[SIZE=10.5pt]F2F[/SIZE]

 

[Phoneman777]

Well you are quite free to explain how you think the "distinction" you are referring to supports your theology and stands in opposition to mine. But before you do, (and while keeping in mind that you have now learnt how to use the quote boxes) please point out exactly where I have made the claim that it is not wrong to break the 10 commandments.

Have i ever said it wasn't wrong?

If I haven't said that then you are twisting my words and once again breaking the 9th commandment!

Any commandment that God has given us is wrong to break!

The 10 commandments are fine in a perfect world. But neither me nor you live in such a world. They were they never given with the expectation that any of us would be able to keep them, but rather to serve as a indication of how badly we need grace!

Please be my guest and answer these questions:

* Was it right or wrong for Moses to disobey the commandment concerning circumcision?

* Was it right or wrong for the prostitute Rahab to lie about the spies she was protecting?

* Was it right or wrong for Abraham to decieve Pharaoh?

* Was it right or wrong for Jacob to deceive his father?

And of course, I could go on and on and on about this...

Obviously, these are things that are WRONG to do in a completely perfect world - a world where MERCY is totally unnecessary, but RIGHT to do in an IMPERFECT world where the Law of Christ fulfils the demands of perfect righteousness.

Now try to get this through your head!

No one is claiming that it is "OK" to break the 10 commandments. That isn't, and has never been, my point. Referring to mercy is not equivalent to saying that it is OK to sin. Referring to mercy is nothing more than making an admission or a confession, that what the Word of God is TRUE - that we have a carnal nature that doesn't allow us to keep the perfect standard that God requires, but that what is lacking is covered by the offer lamb he has provided.

You haven't made the claim that it is not wrong to break the Ten Commandments. What you claim is that Christians are not obligated to keep them. How can you not see that if you are not at liberty to disregard a thing, then you are indeed obligated to regard the thing?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

You haven't made the claim that it is not wrong to break the Ten Commandments. What you claim is that Christians are not obligated to keep them. How can you not see that if you are not at liberty to disregard a thing, then you are indeed obligated to regard the thing?

Again I have to point out yet another false conclusion you are making.

Not only am I saying that it is not wrong to "break" the 10 commandments (although of course it is impossible to break commandments that you are not under), I am also not saying that you are free to "disregard" them.

All you are doing here is clothing the same argument using different words.

Otherwise, what do you mean by "disregarding" the 10 commandments, unless you are implying that disregarding them is equivalent to breaking them.

What scripture teaches us is that we are under a different, and completely superiour covenant than the one given at Sinai. The new covenanat does not teach us that we are to "disregard" anything. It teaches us that we cannot keep the legalistic standards that the Old Covenant demanded and therefore have the opportunity to accept an offer of grace - a form of grace that fulfills whatever is lacking.

Now listen to this, because it is important. There are TWO scenarios where grace is nullified:

1) when we consider the law to be something we should "disregard" (somthing you imply that I am saying and yet won't find me saying anywhere).

It's like saying to your son "don't run across the street" and then saying that if you do I will forgive you and therefore you should totally disregard what I told you in the first place. Or..

2) when we deceive ourselves into thinking that we have the ability to keep the moral standard demanded by God.

The only stance we can take that completely harmonizes with scripture is the one where we acknowledge what it actually says: we have a sinful, carnal nature that prevents us from keeping the standard that God demands, but have been given the opportunity to be born again and therefore identify ourselves with that "new" nature through faith. Faith is what "justifies the wicked" and "calls things that are not as though they were".

You are looking at the surface of things, and judging superficially, for the sake of defending your doctrine.

 

[zeke25]

Well you are quite free to explain how you think the "distinction" you are referring to supports your theology and stands in opposition to mine. But before you do, (and while keeping in mind that you have now learnt how to use the quote boxes) please point out exactly where I have made the claim that it is not wrong to break the 10 commandments.

Have i ever said it wasn't wrong?

If I haven't said that then you are twisting my words and once again breaking the 9th commandment!

Any commandment that God has given us is wrong to break!

The 10 commandments are fine in a perfect world. But neither me nor you live in such a world. They were they never given with the expectation that any of us would be able to keep them, but rather to serve as a indication of how badly we need grace!

Please be my guest and answer these questions:

* Was it right or wrong for Moses to disobey the commandment concerning circumcision?

* Was it right or wrong for the prostitute Rahab to lie about the spies she was protecting?

* Was it right or wrong for Abraham to decieve Pharaoh?

* Was it right or wrong for Jacob to deceive his father?

And of course, I could go on and on and on about this...

Obviously, these are things that are WRONG to do in a completely perfect world - a world where MERCY is totally unnecessary, but RIGHT to do in an IMPERFECT world where the Law of Christ fulfils the demands of perfect righteousness.

Now try to get this through your head!

No one is claiming that it is "OK" to break the 10 commandments. That isn't, and has never been, my point. Referring to mercy is not equivalent to saying that it is OK to sin. Referring to mercy is nothing more than making an admission or a confession, that what the Word of God is TRUE - that we have a carnal nature that doesn't allow us to keep the perfect standard that God requires, but that what is lacking is covered by the offer lamb he has provided.

UppsalaDragby,

Excellent presentation. But it was predictable that Phony would not address your points. His god is the SDA. In order to address your points, he would have to abandon his god of choice. He, thus far, is unwilling to do so. Therefore, he cannot be honest and engage in open dialogue. He has two options, get saved, or succeed in dragging you down into his box. And of course you will not be drug down.

zeke25

 

[face2face]

By the way it's lovely to make all your acquaintance, even if its via an impersonal medium as this.

Over the years I have encountered many discussions and debates on this subject and every time I have been drawn to the wisdom of Romans 14:5-8. Though Solomon took his time in getting to the "conclusion of the whole matter", I find it better use of time in getting there as quickly as possible ;)

Today there is great diversity in churches as there was at the time of the Apostle Paul. Some believers regarded certain days as more sacred than others. Of course it is well known exegetes are divided about the specific kind of days to which Paul referred. Suggestions include (1) special days of OT ceremonial law (2) days of abstinence or (3) lucky and unlucky days taken over from pagan life. Old Testament law had declared that feast days were consecrated to God in a special way. The Sabbath, for instance, had its own set of regulations. Other believers, however regarded all days alike. After all, all life belongs to God, and every day offers unique opportunities for worship and service. This view is certainly shared and taught by the Lord Jesus Christ throughout his controversial ministry.

Sadly we do not have the Master here to ask us "teach us", or do we have Paul who said “these words are not from the Lord but mine”, but what we understand from their wisdom is each person must be fully persuaded in their own mind. What the other person does is a matter of that person’s conscience. Each believer must be convinced for himself or herself whether or not to regard some days as more sacred than others.

Phoneman, while desiring to uphold a law/command on a particular day may be seen as having a weaker conscience under Romans 14:5-8, whereas the believer who sees all days as Holy though possessing a stronger conscience needs to be respectful of Phoneman and their beliefs, after all both are endeavoring to uphold the divine teaching.

Those who observe special days do it to honor the Lord (Rom 14:6). Those who eat meat do it in honor of the Lord. They bless the Lord for the provisions he supplies. At the same time, those who abstain from eating meat also do it in honor of the Lord. They too give thanks to the Lord. There is no difference in their motivation. Both conduct themselves in such a way as to please their Master.

(I should add, the conscience being referred to here in Rom 14 is inferring varying levels of understanding - the day keeper has a limited understanding of the Spirit than those who live each day as though it were a Sabbath/High day)

I particularly like Pauls comment here “None of us lives to himself alone” (Rom 14:7) I believe he is saying that all believers live out their lives accountable to God. Decisions about such matters as special days and eating meat are not made in isolation but in accordance with the will of God as understood by the individual. Even in death believers maintain their relationship to God. To live means to honor the Lord. To die is no different. Whether we live or die we belong to the Lord as per 1 Thess 5:10 .

Since each believer belongs to God, it is out of place for any to question the decisions of another in matters not central to the faith.

I hope this made some sense

F2F

 

[mjrhealth]

Sadly we do not have the Master here to ask us "teach us"

Actually we do, but it seems we are too worldly to cosider the spiritual, but that is another story. And by the way this is not about one considering one day holy unto God as was in teh OP bur ended up being all aout rejecting grace and keeping the law, and that is a whole different matter.

 

[face2face]

Actually we do, but it seems we are too worldly to cosider the spiritual, but that is another story. And by the way this is not about one considering one day holy unto God as was in teh OP bur ended up being all aout rejecting grace and keeping the law, and that is a whole different matter.

Are you implying some here reject Grace?
Surely not - I know many SDA who know all to well the meaning of His Grace.
Here's what I think not the Lord...truth is rarely found in those who speak in absolutes.
Just saying.
F2F

 

[face2face]

UppsalaDragby,
But it was predictable that Phony

And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

Nothing torments a man when in pain more than mockery. When Jesus Christ most wanted words of pity and looks of kindness, they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads. Perhaps the most painful part of ridicule is to have one’s most solemn sayings turned to scorn, as were our Lord’s words about the temple of his body.

 

[mjrhealth]

Are you implying some here reject Grace?

Gal_5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Mat_6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Its either Grace or the Law. God gave us the choice. How can one be under grace when one is a servant of the law.

We see with our eyes yet we are blind.

In all His Love