The two LOVE commands vs. the DECALOGUE (Ten Commands)

[Iconoclast]

robert derrick,

[But teaching it for law of Christ today as New Testament commandment for the believers of Jesus to obey is false doctrine and commandments of men, who have no clue what they are doing or talking about. ()

You are carnally obedient to a carnal commandment, that God no longer commands to His people.]

Paul does not agree with you;
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God,
but under the law to Christ,)

that I might gain them that are without law.
Christians are not lawless...we are under law to Christ...who is the law giver, and law keeper

22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

 

[Iconoclast]

From the 1689 confession of faith;
Chapter 19: Of the Law of God
1._____ God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
( Genesis 1:27; Ecclesiastes 7:29; Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:10, 12 )
2._____ The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.
( Romans 2:14, 15; Deuteronomy 10:4 )

3._____ Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties, all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away.
( Hebrews 10:1; Colossians 2:17; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Colossians 2:14, 16, 17; Ephesians 2:14, 16 )

4._____ To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use.
( 1 Corinthians 9:8-10 )

5._____ The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
( Romans 13:8-10; James 2:8, 10-12; James 2:10, 11; Matthew 5:17-19; Romans 3:31 )

6._____ Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. The promises of it likewise shew them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man's doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.
( Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:16; Romans 8:1; Romans 10:4; Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7, etc; Romans 6:12-14; 1 Peter 3:8-13 )

7._____ Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.
( Galatians 3:21; Ezekiel 36:27 )

 

[Mark51]

THE TWO LOVE COMMANDS VS THE DECALOGUE (TEN COMMANDS)


The argument is frequently made that the two love commands just restate the ten commands, as if they are equivalent to each.other.


This is not so.


The first obvious difference is there are no days commanded to be kept in the two love commands.


But the most glaring difference between them isn’t readily apparent, but is a huge difference indeed.


So let’s compare them.


If you keep the two love commands you keep some of the ten commands, but in reality the two love commands far exceed the ten.


The ten commands - as they pertain to our relationship with other people - are negative commands: they only limit BAD behavior, by telling us what harm we CANT do to others - yet they don’t promote ANY positive acts of good will or good behavior towards your neighbor.


And they were kept not out of love, but kept out of fear of punishment - they had the death penalty by stoning, for breaking them.


And there’s not one drop of love for your neighbor found in the Decalogue.


Whereas in comparison, the two love commands are positive commands, instead of negative.


If you love your neighbor as yourself, you won’t kill him, steal from him, or lie against him, etc, and therefore in effect keep 6 of ten.


But when you love your neighbor as yourself, you’ll go far beyond a mere six negative commands, that only tell you what harm you CAN’T do to your neighbor.


You won’t gossip about him for just one example - and there’s no command that says thou shalt not gossip about your neighbor.


In fact you won’t do ANY of the things that would do some kind of harm to your neighbor, which far exceeds a mere 6 limitations.


Jesus didn’t say, “love does none of the 6 things to harm your neighbor prohibited by the ten commands, thus love fulfills the law”.


He said instead, that love does NO HARM to your neighbor, so love fulfills the law.


Get the difference?


Jesus summed up the question of which is the greatest commandment at Matthew 22:37-40. These verses certainly encompass what the individual Ten Words (commandments) state. Considering this, there is no difference between the two-other than the observance of the Sabbath. This law was abolished upon Jesus’ death.




The two love commands go far beyond the ten commands in how well you treat your fellow man - instead of limiting any harm you’d do to your neighbor to six, if you love him you won’t do ANY HARM to him in any way, shape or form.


And the two love commands also go far beyond not doing any kind of harm to your neighbor: if you love him as yourself - besides NOT harming him - you will HELP him in every kind of way.


If you love your neighbor you’ll mow his lawn when he breaks his leg,or feed him and his wife when he’s out of work and the pantry’s empty, for just two examples.


If you’re just keeping the Decalogue, you can do things harmful to him NOT prohibited by the 6 limitations in it, and ignore any dire needs he has - yet still pat yourself on the back for keeping the Ten commands to a tee.


That’s why the two love commands are far superior to the very limited and negative ten commands, and they’re kept for a very different motive than fear of being stoned to death under the law.


Thus you really can’t equate the ten commands to the two love commands, nor claim that the two merely restate the ten - when in reality they are far different - as different as night and day.

 

[QuickFilly]

God commanded animal sacrifice in the law of Moses.

Where do you sacrifice your animals at?

In the backyard near the BBQ pit. Less effort to drag the carcass later.

 

[kcnalp]

You can have the Big Ten. I'll stick with the New Covenant in Jesus' Blood.

 

[QuickFilly]

You can have the Big Ten. I'll stick with the New Covenant in Jesus' Blood.

While ignoring his commandments command?

 

[kcnalp]

While ignoring his commandments command?

No, I leave that to the Law hypocrites who preach the Law of Moses but don't obey the parts they don't like. Or maybe you execute people who work on weekends?

Exodus 31:15 (NKJV)
15 Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

 

[Curtis]

I am aware of the verses you are speaking of

They became a central feature of that Covenant. They already existed, and still are in effect today.

Try reading 2 Corinthians 3 which completely refutes your claim.

Paul starts out saying the apostles are ministers of the new covenant, not of the old - then he contrasts the ten commands which he states are the letter that kills, the ministry of condemnation and of death, “received by Moses on the mountain” and references the glow on Moses face as he came down from that mountain with the Decalogue, thus irrefutably proving that it’s the ten commands that kills, and brings death and condemnation, that have ended - by comparing them with the new covenant law of the spirit, which gives life.

The law was given, and 3,000 Israelites died.

The new covenant church started in Acts 2, and 3,000 were added to the church and born again into new life.

The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Iconoclast]

Try reading 2 Corinthians 3 which completely refutes your claim.

Paul starts out saying the apostles are ministers of the new covenant, not of the old - then he contrasts the ten commands which he states are the letter that kills, the ministry of condemnation and of death, “received by Moses on the mountain” and references the glow on Moses face as he came down from that mountain with the Decalogue, thus irrefutably proving that it’s the ten commands that kills, and brings death and condemnation, that have ended - by comparing them with the new covenant law of the spirit, which gives life.

The law was given, and 3,000 Israelites died.

The new covenant church started in Acts 2, and 3,000 were added to the church and born again into new life.

The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.

Shalom Aleichem

What you fail to grasp is the law....without the Spirit leads to death.
The law in the heart enabled by the Spirit is life.

 

[Curtis]

No, I leave that to the Law hypocrites who preach the Law of Moses but don't obey the parts they don't like. Or maybe you execute people who work on weekends?

Exodus 31:15 (NKJV)
15 Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

They also can’t have any fires in their habitations on the sabbath - meaning no heat in winter in Siberia if you lived there, and no hot water heater either - which was not a problem for Israel in the desert, who were the only ones given the law and sabbath day command.

And of course an integral part of sabbath keeping was a burnt offering, from animal sacrifices.

Maranatha

 

[robert derrick]

RD,you said;
[Romans 2 is all about the change from a covenant by the law of carnal commandment (Heb 7:16), ]

No it is not...romans 2 show both jew and gentile are both condemned apart from God's mercy.
Your attempt to link it to Hebrews 7 is a fail as Hebrews 7 is speaking of a change in priesthood.

Hebrews 7 is speaking of a change in priesthood.

And of the law, which you left out: For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The priesthood was changed, because the covenant was changed, and so the law making that priesthood for that covenant needed to be changed: the law of God by Moses to the law of God by Christ.

The law of God is now written in hearts by the Spirit, as well as circumcision of the heart.

None of the old covenant with it's carnal law, priesthood, circumcision, and sabbath exists anymore in sight of God.

Man can prop it up all he wants, but not with any honor to God.

There is no Jew that is one outwardly.

 

[robert derrick]

robert derrick,
Young's Literal: For, when nations that have not a law, by nature may do the things of the law, these not having a law -- to themselves are a law
I asked you
[What do you think the heathen will be judged by?]
you said;
[You err in the Scripture here. In Romans 2 it is clear Paul is speaking of Christian believers from among the Gentiles, who were fulfilling the righteousness of God by the law of Christ written on their hearts vs those born Jews after the flesh, who were transgressing the law of God, and yet claiming righteousness with God by outward circumcision of the flesh.

Paul was not speaking of a Roman, Greek, Scythian, or Chinese law that they had committed to their hearts and so were justified with God, because they were so sincere in it.]

Robert you are completely wrong on this;FRom precept austin;
HCSB - The Gentiles do not have the Mosaic law as a moral guide, but they do have an inner law that informs their conscience. All humans have this instinctively as a component of their being created in God's image (Gen 1:26). Kant, the philosopher, spoke of "the starry heavens above and the moral law within." This moral law will accuse or excuse daily moral choices, but ultimately demonstrates that all people fall short of God's holiness.

Gentiles who do not have the Law - That is they do not have the written Law as did the Jews (Ro 9:4). Without knowing the written Law of God, men and women in pagan societies by nature ("instinctively"), instinctively value and attempt to practice justice, honesty, compassion, goodness toward others, etc, this practice testifying to the fact that the divine law has been written in the heart of even the most primitive tribesman. While Paul says that a Gentile may by nature do the things contained in the law, he is very careful not to say that a Gentile could fulfill the requirements of the law by nature.

Gentiles (1484) (ethnos) refers to non-Jews or the heathen and when preceded by the definite article ("the") in Greek, means "the nations" which is synonymous with the Gentiles a description implying those who practice idolatry and are ignorant of the true and living God.

All of mankind can be divided into Jew and Gentile and thus Gentile is a synonym for anyone who is non-Jew or who is not a member of the "chosen people". The Hebrew word corresponding to Gentile is goyim. From Genesis 12 onward the majority of the Scripture deals with Israel and the Jews, with the Gentiles mentioned primarily as they interface with the Jews. The NT does have more mention of the Gentiles after the formation of the Church, but the last book, the book of Revelation is very "Jewish" with over 200 OT quotes or allusions to OT passages!

Do instinctively the things of the law - In Romans 1 Paul had clearly taught that Gentiles were "without excuse (defense)" because that which can be known about God was evident within them (cp "conscience.")

I.e. You call them heathen, not Scripture: they were believers taken from among the Gentiles to show the work of the law of God written in the hearts, which fulfilled the righteousness of God, that they who held the old oracles of God were not doing, but only claiming to do so by outward works of the flesh.

Romans 2 is all about the change from a covenant by the law of carnal commandment (Heb 7:16), that could not produce righteousness of God, even in them that obeyed it outwardly, to a covenant of the law of the Spirit of life, which could by oath of an endless life produce by grace through faith the righteousness of God in them that obeyed from the heart, all the while without hypocrisy of transgression:

I.e. being circumcised of heart with the law of Christ written in their hearts by the Spirit, they fulfilled without transgression the righteousness of God, that they of the first covenant could never do.

[/QUOTE]

Romans 1 is about all being lost without the Gospel of the cross, and them that knew God became reporabates by not worshipping Him as God, and so having His Son crucified.

Romans 2 is not commending pagans that keep a law that approximates God's.

The chapter begins with God's judgment, which is based entirely upon His righteousness and law, which was first upon the Jew, who had the oracles of the law and ought to have been obedient, and then to them that had not the oracles and were blind to the law of God, yet were still judged as transgressors: ignorance of the law of God being no excuse:

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law.

Paul then moves on to Gentiles that have been grafted in and are come in to the fig tree Israel of God: They have the law of God written in their hearts, fulfilling the prophecies of the New Testament:

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts...

Pagans do not have law of God written in their hearts, neither is Paul speaking of a law among pagans that God judges us all by: Paul is writing to Christians, not to good pagans.

Christians without actually reading the law of God on paper know by new divine nature what is good and what is not, and so accuse or excuse such between themselves, without need of a law made for a guide.

 

[robert derrick]

robert derrick,
Young's Literal: For, when nations that have not a law, by nature may do the things of the law, these not having a law -- to themselves are a law
I asked you
[What do you think the heathen will be judged by?]
you said;
[You err in the Scripture here. In Romans 2 it is clear Paul is speaking of Christian believers from among the Gentiles, who were fulfilling the righteousness of God by the law of Christ written on their hearts vs those born Jews after the flesh, who were transgressing the law of God, and yet claiming righteousness with God by outward circumcision of the flesh.

Paul was not speaking of a Roman, Greek, Scythian, or Chinese law that they had committed to their hearts and so were justified with God, because they were so sincere in it.]

Robert you are completely wrong on this;FRom precept austin;
HCSB - The Gentiles do not have the Mosaic law as a moral guide, but they do have an inner law that informs their conscience. All humans have this instinctively as a component of their being created in God's image (Gen 1:26). Kant, the philosopher, spoke of "the starry heavens above and the moral law within." This moral law will accuse or excuse daily moral choices, but ultimately demonstrates that all people fall short of God's holiness.

Gentiles who do not have the Law - That is they do not have the written Law as did the Jews (Ro 9:4). Without knowing the written Law of God, men and women in pagan societies by nature ("instinctively"), instinctively value and attempt to practice justice, honesty, compassion, goodness toward others, etc, this practice testifying to the fact that the divine law has been written in the heart of even the most primitive tribesman. While Paul says that a Gentile may by nature do the things contained in the law, he is very careful not to say that a Gentile could fulfill the requirements of the law by nature.

Gentiles (1484) (ethnos) refers to non-Jews or the heathen and when preceded by the definite article ("the") in Greek, means "the nations" which is synonymous with the Gentiles a description implying those who practice idolatry and are ignorant of the true and living God.

All of mankind can be divided into Jew and Gentile and thus Gentile is a synonym for anyone who is non-Jew or who is not a member of the "chosen people". The Hebrew word corresponding to Gentile is goyim. From Genesis 12 onward the majority of the Scripture deals with Israel and the Jews, with the Gentiles mentioned primarily as they interface with the Jews. The NT does have more mention of the Gentiles after the formation of the Church, but the last book, the book of Revelation is very "Jewish" with over 200 OT quotes or allusions to OT passages!

Do instinctively the things of the law - In Romans 1 Paul had clearly taught that Gentiles were "without excuse (defense)" because that which can be known about God was evident within them (cp "conscience.")

I.e. You call them heathen, not Scripture: they were believers taken from among the Gentiles to show the work of the law of God written in the hearts, which fulfilled the righteousness of God, that they who held the old oracles of God were not doing, but only claiming to do so by outward works of the flesh.

Romans 2 is all about the change from a covenant by the law of carnal commandment (Heb 7:16), that could not produce righteousness of God, even in them that obeyed it outwardly, to a covenant of the law of the Spirit of life, which could by oath of an endless life produce by grace through faith the righteousness of God in them that obeyed from the heart, all the while without hypocrisy of transgression:

I.e. being circumcised of heart with the law of Christ written in their hearts by the Spirit, they fulfilled without transgression the righteousness of God, that they of the first covenant could never do.

[/QUOTE]
All of mankind can be divided into Jew and Gentile

In the old covenant, yes. Not in the new. The only ones that are Jews with God, are they that are circumcised inwardly, and he is not a Jew that is one outwardly: not more outward Jews with God on earth.

Likewise there is no more outward circumcision, only inwardly in the spirit. Any of the uncircumcision on earth can repent and be circumcised inwardly, and be grafted into the Israel of God: the house of Israel and of Jacob: the olive tree of God.

Unless, he is a Jew that is one outwardly, and there is circumcision that is outward in the flesh.

Or, the olive tree of God is not the Israel of God, and was never called by God the house of Israel and of Jacob.

Or, the uncircumcised that become circumcised inwardly by faith are not come in to the olive tree of God.

Or, the branches of the vine of Christ are not the grafted branches of the olive tree of God.

 

[robert derrick]

robert derrick,
Young's Literal: For, when nations that have not a law, by nature may do the things of the law, these not having a law -- to themselves are a law
I asked you
[What do you think the heathen will be judged by?]
you said;
[You err in the Scripture here. In Romans 2 it is clear Paul is speaking of Christian believers from among the Gentiles, who were fulfilling the righteousness of God by the law of Christ written on their hearts vs those born Jews after the flesh, who were transgressing the law of God, and yet claiming righteousness with God by outward circumcision of the flesh.

Paul was not speaking of a Roman, Greek, Scythian, or Chinese law that they had committed to their hearts and so were justified with God, because they were so sincere in it.]

Robert you are completely wrong on this;FRom precept austin;
HCSB - The Gentiles do not have the Mosaic law as a moral guide, but they do have an inner law that informs their conscience. All humans have this instinctively as a component of their being created in God's image (Gen 1:26). Kant, the philosopher, spoke of "the starry heavens above and the moral law within." This moral law will accuse or excuse daily moral choices, but ultimately demonstrates that all people fall short of God's holiness.

Gentiles who do not have the Law - That is they do not have the written Law as did the Jews (Ro 9:4). Without knowing the written Law of God, men and women in pagan societies by nature ("instinctively"), instinctively value and attempt to practice justice, honesty, compassion, goodness toward others, etc, this practice testifying to the fact that the divine law has been written in the heart of even the most primitive tribesman. While Paul says that a Gentile may by nature do the things contained in the law, he is very careful not to say that a Gentile could fulfill the requirements of the law by nature.

Gentiles (1484) (ethnos) refers to non-Jews or the heathen and when preceded by the definite article ("the") in Greek, means "the nations" which is synonymous with the Gentiles a description implying those who practice idolatry and are ignorant of the true and living God.

All of mankind can be divided into Jew and Gentile and thus Gentile is a synonym for anyone who is non-Jew or who is not a member of the "chosen people". The Hebrew word corresponding to Gentile is goyim. From Genesis 12 onward the majority of the Scripture deals with Israel and the Jews, with the Gentiles mentioned primarily as they interface with the Jews. The NT does have more mention of the Gentiles after the formation of the Church, but the last book, the book of Revelation is very "Jewish" with over 200 OT quotes or allusions to OT passages!

Do instinctively the things of the law - In Romans 1 Paul had clearly taught that Gentiles were "without excuse (defense)" because that which can be known about God was evident within them (cp "conscience.")

I.e. You call them heathen, not Scripture: they were believers taken from among the Gentiles to show the work of the law of God written in the hearts, which fulfilled the righteousness of God, that they who held the old oracles of God were not doing, but only claiming to do so by outward works of the flesh.

Romans 2 is all about the change from a covenant by the law of carnal commandment (Heb 7:16), that could not produce righteousness of God, even in them that obeyed it outwardly, to a covenant of the law of the Spirit of life, which could by oath of an endless life produce by grace through faith the righteousness of God in them that obeyed from the heart, all the while without hypocrisy of transgression:

I.e. being circumcised of heart with the law of Christ written in their hearts by the Spirit, they fulfilled without transgression the righteousness of God, that they of the first covenant could never do.

[/QUOTE]
the book of Revelation is very "Jewish" with over 200 OT quotes or allusions to OT passages!

The only 'Jewishness' as you call it, that is in Revelation is of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are liars. (Rev 2:9,3:9)

Other than that, the Jerusalem that is in bondage with her unbelieving children (that still say they are Jews and are not), is the place where the Lord was crucified, and where the two witnesses are killed and left to rot openly, while those so-called Jews have a great and blasphemous "purim' over them.

Revelation is full of prophesies of old fulfilled by Jesus Christ, the Redeemer that is come out of Sion,a nd the last great tribulation on earth against the Christian saints that are followers of the Lamb.

Prophesies of God are not 'Jewish'.

The only Jews on earth to day and at that time, is those circumcised inwardly, walking after the Spirit in natural bodies.

He is not a Jew that is one outwardly.

You and your commentators need to have the vail of seed of flesh taken away from your eyes, that you may see clearly the fulfillment of all prophecy of Scripture through the clear glass of Christ Jesus, which is His Scriptures given to His apostles. (James 1:23)

Trying to interpret prophecies of Scripture by a seed of promise by flesh, is an unbelieving carnal mindedness akin to them that still read Moses of old with the vail of Moses over their hearts, blinding them to Jesus: Lord, Son of God, and true God of Israel and Redeemer that has already come out of Sion.

Salvation is not the question hear between us: interpretation of prophecy is. The only Jews I see being purified in the furnace of great tribulation of the beast, are the inward circumcised of heart, whom the Lord will return for in the air, once they are tried to the end. The rest that are liars by outward circumcision of heart and birth of flesh will be all on board with that beast, except they like any other uncircumcised of heart inhibitor of the earth repents and believes Jesus.

The only uncircumcised 'Gentiles' on earth are those uncircumcised of heart. The only house of Israel and of Jacob called Jews on earth by God are them circumcised of heart inwardly. The only division with respect to God between Gentile and Jew on earth, is that between the uncircumcised and the circumcised of heart.

Unless, he is a Jew that is one outwardly, and there is circumcision that is outward in the flesh.

Or, the olive tree of God is not the Israel of God, and was never called by God the house of Israel and of Jacob.

Or, the uncircumcised that become circumcised inwardly by faith are not come in to the olive tree of God.

Or, the branches of the vine of Christ are not the grafted branches of the olive tree of God.

 

[QuickFilly]

No, I leave that to the Law hypocrites who preach the Law of Moses but don't obey the parts they don't like. Or maybe you execute people who work on weekends?

Exodus 31:15 (NKJV)
15 Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Sarcasm. What a sad testimony.

 

[Curtis]

In the backyard near the BBQ pit. Less effort to drag the carcass later.

Too bad that the destroyed temple in Jerusalem is the only acceptable place to God for animal sacrifices.

 

[Iconoclast]

They also can’t have any fires in their habitations on the sabbath - meaning no heat in winter in Siberia if you lived there, and no hot water heater either - which was not a problem for Israel in the desert, who were the only ones given the law and sabbath day command.

And of course an integral part of sabbath keeping was a burnt offering, from animal sacrifices.

Maranatha

No one said we obey the Mosaic sabbath...why do you suggest this? Is it because you cannot enter in to the Lords day rest?

 

[Instant]

This is an extremely judgmental comment, and it is in direct opposition to Paul's teaching in Romans that those who choose to do things like keep the Sabbath do so unto the Lord and should be accepted. I know that by faith, I have entered into "His rest," but I respect those who choose to rest on the Sabbath.

Oh really? I'm sorry. I thought we were dealing with people who demand a Sabbath day by commandment of God, or else!: rebellion and eternal damnation. I didn't realize we were sharing good things about keeping a physical day of rest as a really good practice, based upon God's example with creation.

Huh. My bad.

No wait. I went and briefly reviewed. No, I am dealing with people demanding and commanding and judging all others by a carnal law, that no longer exists with God for His people.

So, it seems you are no doubt trying to insert reasonableness of Scripture here, to which I agree, but you need to take your reasonableness to the opposers, and see who well you are received. I have no doubt, once you do so carefully, sincerely, and in love, that they will then concede your point and gladly agree, that keeping a day of rest by example of God in His creation is a really good and voluntary thing to do. And if not, then, oh well, they miss out on a blessing.

Until that time, I stand by the very judgmental judgment that the who make up carnal ordinances to live by in Christ, that Christ's apostles never said, are thus making themselves carnally minded in a willful and outward worship and service of Christ: I.e. forsaking the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ, to impose on themselves and others a carnally-minded rule, carnally obeyed, that frustrates the Spirit of grace.

Now, if they agree with you,a nd I was mistaken, then I will gladly withdraw that judgment of them by Scripture.

Romans was telling us that there will be people with genuine convictions about certain things, like Sabbath keeping. They will believe they must keep the Sabbath, and others will believe that they must abstain from eating certain foods, like pork. Because they believe this, they will tell others it is a requirement. I do not agree with them that this is a requirement from God for us today, but I respect their belief because they keep the Sabbath out of faith to God.

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." Romans 14:4-6

You cannot get much more clear than this. This is exactly the argument going on in this thread, and God says you are being judgmental. "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" Neither you nor those who you disagree with must change their beliefs to be accepted. The Bible is saying that we have to get along with each other, whether we believe we must observe the Sabbath or not. You are welcome to disagree with me, but I really do not see how you can argue with the Bible on this.

 

[farouk]

:)
Matthew 5:17-18

Psalm 111:7-8 “The works of His hands are verity and judgment; all His commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.”

@QuickFilly Good to see parallel passages in the Old and New Testaents.

 

[Curtis]

Romans was telling us that there will be people with genuine convictions about certain things, like Sabbath keeping. They will believe they must keep the Sabbath, and others will believe that they must abstain from eating certain foods, like pork. Because they believe this, they will tell others it is a requirement. I do not agree with them that this is a requirement from God for us today, but I respect their belief because they keep the Sabbath out of faith to God.

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." Romans 14:4-6

You cannot get much more clear than this. This is exactly the argument going on in this thread, and God says you are being judgmental. "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" Neither you nor those who you disagree with must change their beliefs to be accepted. The Bible is saying that we have to get along with each other, whether we believe we must observe the Sabbath or not. You are welcome to disagree with me, but I really do not see how you can argue with the Bible on this.

Tell that to the sabbatarians that have the same error the early church and Paul contended against vigorously, because of the fact that if a believer keeps any part of the law of Moses for their righteousness - as in claiming everyone must keep the sabbath or its a sin against God - they fall from grace and make Christ of no effect unto them.

And you obviously don’t understand what is being said by not judging anyone over what day they keep. It means not to condemn them (to hell) - and quoting the scriptures about not being under the law, and that the Decalogue ended when the old covenant ended, is not condemning them into hell.

Romans 14 says not to condemn anyone over which days they keep, it’s not a prohibition from answering sabbatarians - who are the ones always doing the judging of non sabbatarians for not keeping an ended ceremonial day of rest - with scriptures that show their error.

If pointing out that error is wrong, then Paul sinned a lot in his epistles.

Maranatha