The Sabbath Day

[Ronald David Bruno]

This is probably the most evasive and obstinate reply you've ever given me, Ron. You can say that the point is whatever you want it to be, thus avoiding addressing the answer that I gave for a common objection to the perpetuity of the 4th commandment, but it's not a good look.

"Or do you think it applies to you?"

Facetiousness? Have you read my signature line?

You're too smart to be pulling such stunts. If you refuse to reply to the defense given and just double down, I guess that's okay.

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings, just making a point. Actually I do not think YOU will be judged by the Law, because you live by faith in Christ, right?
Romans 10:4 says, "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes,". That statement means Christians are not under the law. Romans 2:12 states, "All who sin apart from the law will perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law." All men whether they are Jews or not, (have the Law of God or not) stand to be condemned. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
You stress the Sabbath as if it is a strict law to keep, yet I doubt you have ever kept it as the Jews tried to adhering to all the Sabbath laws. The Law was a schoolmaster pointing us to Christ, the solution. The Jews who lived under the Law invitably became heartless, cold, and arrogant, their brand of righteousness. They formulated some 613 laws to live by. Trying to keep these laws and many of them concerned the Sabbath was not only a failure but created spiritually disfunctional problems!
Here is list of problems it created:
[*New laws continually need to be invented for new situations.
*Accountability to God is replaced by accountability to men.
*It reduces a person’s ability to personally discern.
*It creates a judgmental spirit.
*The Pharisees confused personal preferences with divine law.
*It created a false standard of righteousness.
*It became a burden to the Jews.
*It was strictly external.
***It was rejected by Christ.
Outlined from Fan the Flame, J. Stowell, Moody, 1986, p. 52.]

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Well at least you're honest about not being able to or wanting to address my "interpretation." All scripture has to be structured in a person's mind in a way that they can store and practice it (interpreted). This is the way language works. Deny it all you like.

That is a vague and inaccurate answer. If such were teh case, then "It is raining today" can mean lots of things to lots of people and then words have lost their meaning! too many Christians do this with gods word.

How can it point out sin if it is "done away?"

How long have you been saved and still aks new believer questions like this?

The law strengthens conviction of sin in us.

The bible does not say that! You say that but trhat is not what God said and you know it!

Because when one passage of Scripture appears to contradict another, a process of reconciliation has to take place. Well, it doesn't actually have to take place. One can just ignore the verses they don't like—such as the ones that uphold the authority of God's law. That is always an option. But if one does that, then they dispute the principle that all Scripture is inspired, and is profitable for...

Well I don't know how you define reconciliation, but no, the bible does not need to be reconciled with itself. what needs reconciliation is our lack of understanding how words are defined!

Paul clearly said the law was done away with (fulfilled thus rendered moot) Jesus also said He fulfilled the law. If the demands of something are fulfilled then it is no longer in effect. The 613 commands of the Mosaic Law, have been replaced with the 1,008 commands of the Law of Christ. ( of the ten in stone were carried over, but for a different reason.

Question: Were you a Christian 40 or 50 years ago? And if so, at that time, did you know of anyone teaching that the ten commandments were "the ministration of death, done away?"

Because I can assure you that I was, and I didn't. And if I were a betting man, I'd bet you my next paycheck that you won't find anyone else who was and did, either. For the simple reason that it is an evil deception.

Well how far and wide did you search? for when I hit 2 cor. 3, in 26 English translations I found Paul saying they were a ministration of death! And also they were done away with though glorious!

The study of Scripture does not lend itself well to the empirical approach to knowledge. There are very few hypotheses to test by experience. The Bible is to be taken as it reads, not as our sensory experience dictates. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. I have searched the web to no avail for examples of empirical approaches to Bible study.

Then you need to understand what an empirical approach to bible study is. It is summed up in this definintion of how dispensational theology operates.

"Biblical Interpretation – Golden Rule of Interpretation. The “golden rule of interpretation” used by scholars over the centuries: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."

This is also called the literal, historical, grammatical method of understanding Scripture!

This takes in the symbolic language used in places, but also emphasizes understanding the culture of the time when written and how th e words were used.

Example:

I am debating that the New Covenant as spelled out in Jer. 31:31-34 has not gone onto effect yet. Many disagree. We both cite the Greek word: Diatheke which means either covenant or testament depending on context. A covenant is vastly different than a testament so we must endure we understand how the writers used the word for that is what god inspired. This is an empirical approach.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Proclamations, exclamations, assumptions, accusations, and evasions. I've had enough, Ron. You've worn me out with your hissy fits. I'm outta this sandbox. You refuse to discuss the subject of the thread and I'm not interested in fussing. And you refuse to address any and all evidence I've presented for the perpetuity of the royal law, including the 4th commandment.

wow and I am not even th eleast bit upset when I write to you! that is just you partaking in the sin of presumption. I write direct, blunt and plain, on a page it may seem harxh, but I am not even the least bit miffed at you!


Well Teh literal/historical/grammatical method of hermeneutic is not a modern concept. but a rebirth of how god established His word to be read. It was the synagogue movement that help birth the allegorical method of reinterpreting Scripture asnd then Augustine popularized it in christendom. Sadly there are numerous non romanist sects that practice this romanist way of reinterpreting Scripture.

It is modern scholarshbip that brought about teh Jesus seminar which erased approx. 80% of the words in red. All based on men, 1900 years removed from the time fo the words were written and think they can determine intent.

Sorry but maybe all here should practicve reinterpreting peoples written words. What a mess these threads would be.

but if you want a real understanding of the literal hermeneutic styudy up on the prinicples of dispensational theology. You will finbd it all there.