BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
Everything is your fault—everything.
.
Neither is "dude," dude.
.
Where was the Sabbath Abolished?
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Everything is your fault—everything.
.
Neither is "dude," dude.
.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Should A Christian Keep the Sabbath?Where was the Sabbath Abolished?
Golgotha. It was abolished ON the Cross AT Golgotha.
by Pastor J. C. O'Hair
The Bible is God’s Word? What saith these Scriptures concerning the Christian Sabbath? Nothing. Concerning Israel’s Sabbath the Scripture speaks: Israel failed under the law. God abolished the Old Covenant.
It is because of this that the Son of God said to this same people: “My Father worketh hitherto and I work.” John 5:17. It is because of His bleeding work in Gethsemane and on Calvary when He drank the cup and cried, “it is finished,” that He can still say with authority, “Come unto me and I will give you rest.” The Lord Jesus Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath day.
Sabbath means rest. The only rest any sinner can find is Christ: “For he that is entered into His rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His.” Hebrews 4:10. God in creation rested in a perfect work of creation. The Lord Jesus Christ after he had died and abolished death sat down at the right hand of God. Israel found no rest under the law; only condemnation and wrath. It was their school-master to bring them to Christ that they might be justified by faith Galatians 3:24. The schoolmaster was not the ceremonial law alone but the moral law. The next verse states that the believer is no longer under a schoolmaster; which plainly confirms the declaration of God in another verse: “For ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Romans 6:14.
On the Sabbath Israel was to cease from works. But before the Sabbath was ever given to Israel, Abraham entered into God’s rest by faith which was reckoned to him for righteousness. When does the New Testament saint cease from His works? Not on the Sabbath day either the first or the seventh; but the moment he enters by faith into Christ and receives rest and eternal life. He then and there receives not a portion of land and earthly prosperity in Canaan, but heavenly citizenship in the Body of Christ. He does not worship in Jerusalem, but is blessed with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies, and is raised up to sit together in the heavenlies with Christ Jesus. The first day of the week is not the Christian Sabbath. Nor has the Christian anything to do with the seventh day Sabbath except to ignore it; for the Saviour by whom the believer is crucified to the law and also dead to the law, was dead on the Sabbath day and arose on the first day of the week to begin a New Covenant. “Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” Hebrews 8:13. Christ is the believer’s only Sabbath. We do not rest on a day, but in a Person.
Johann
Well-Known Member
God said to His earthly people, that which He has never said to His heavenly people: “It is a sign between me and you throughout your generations.” Exodus 31:13. “The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel.” Exodus 31:17.
The Sabbath was not a sign between God and Abraham; for he had no Sabbath day. It is not a sign between God and the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is not Israel any more than Jerusalem is heaven. Those who claim to be Christians and Israel should carefully read Romans 11:25: “A blindness in part is happened to Israel.”
There could not be a universal Sabbath, with morning in one part of the earth while it is evening in another.
Israel had a Sabbath, but no rest. The New Testament saint has rest, but no Sabbath. The Sabbath-keepers nailed Jesus to the cross. They had murder in their hearts several times because this great Benefactor wanted to heal one of God’s suffering creatures on the Sabbath day. How can a loving God rest when the whole creation is travailing in pain. Sabbath-keepers are austere, critical and never filled with the Spirit. They prefer to be Levites with the stones to kill the offender for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. But this is true legalism. Levites, stones and death go with the Sabbath. You cannot have one without the other.
The Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, mentions in his epistle several of the commandments, but he never instructed a Gentile believer to observe the seventh day. His statement concerning the matter is this:
“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.” Romans 14:6 and 7. Read also Colossians 2:16. Let no man judge concerning Israel’s days.
ISRAEL’S SABBATH BELONGED TO THE LAW DISPENSATION WHICH WAS A TEMPORARY COVENANT
“Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made.” Galatians 3:19.
“What the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son, . . .” Romans 8:3. Christ is the Seed.
I once attended a Seventh Day Adventist convention where there was a large gathering of these deceived people. There was a genuine religious atmosphere, much resembling the camp of Israel with its Judaism rather than the spiritual blessings which attend a gathering of members of the Church of Christ.
I found myself suddenly plunged in to an argument with two of their amateur preachers and presently surrounded by a crowd of their followers. When the crowd perceived that their two champions were being routed by the bombardment of God’s Word, one of their number hastened to the auditorium for their Goliath, and with him came another crowd.
In this human circle the debate continued and the big chief seemed overjoyed at the opportunity of exposing the stupidity of one who would dare challenge the scriptural validity of his religion. With little difficulty he willingly and readily answered from the Bible a number of question which I put to him very rapidly. Then said I, “you seem to know your Bible quite well: will you please explain to this audience Galatians 3:19?” “Certainly,” said he, “just as soon as I read it.” Then he read: “Wherefore serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made.”
He was silent for some moments; not so quick to answer as before. I said, “we are waiting for the explanation.” “Well,” said he, “let’s have your explanation.” I said, “this is the first time you have asked this, and I have been leading you up to this question.” A few more silent moments and turning of the leaves. I turned to the people and said, “will any of his disciples volunteer to explain the verse in his stead?” More silence. The preacher looked me and said, “we are waiting for your explanation.” I said, “I know you do not understand that verse of Scripture, for if you did, and were honest, you would leave and denounce Seventh Day Adventism immediately.” He gave up so far as an explanation is concerned.
Much of Galatians has to do with the ceremonial law of Israel; but the verses immediately connected with Galatians 3:19 have to do with the moral law. So when God asks of the Christian. “Wherefore serveth the law.” He is referring to the law given at Sinai on the tables of stone. For it was this law that was added because of transgressions. I said to the Adventist preacher, please explain what the law was added to. But neither he nor any member of that circle knew.
I said, “if the law was added, it was unknown to man, before it was added, or in the Bible language, before it entered that the offense might abound.” “It was added till.” Till something happened. That something has happened Therefore the Law; covenant was a temporary covenant, and has served the purpose for which God intended it.
It was added to the gospel which God preached in His covenant with Abraham. It was added till Jesus Christ broke down the middle-wall of partition between Israel and the Gentile on Calvary’s cross. Ephesians 2:15.
Before the law, God preached the gospel to Abraham. Galatians 3:8. The covenant was by promise and the law did not and cannot disannul it. Galatians 3:17. The fourth chapter of Romans shows the relation of the law to the Abrahamic covenant fulfilled in the One who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification.
We praise God for the privilege of one day in seven, the first day of the week, which we can devote wholly special worship, rest and service. But the first day of the week is not the Sabbath any more than the Body of Christ is Israel. We are sure the first day of the week was a day of special privilege and rejoicing with the apostolic church.
Pastor J. C. O'Hair
The Sabbath was not a sign between God and Abraham; for he had no Sabbath day. It is not a sign between God and the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is not Israel any more than Jerusalem is heaven. Those who claim to be Christians and Israel should carefully read Romans 11:25: “A blindness in part is happened to Israel.”
There could not be a universal Sabbath, with morning in one part of the earth while it is evening in another.
Israel had a Sabbath, but no rest. The New Testament saint has rest, but no Sabbath. The Sabbath-keepers nailed Jesus to the cross. They had murder in their hearts several times because this great Benefactor wanted to heal one of God’s suffering creatures on the Sabbath day. How can a loving God rest when the whole creation is travailing in pain. Sabbath-keepers are austere, critical and never filled with the Spirit. They prefer to be Levites with the stones to kill the offender for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. But this is true legalism. Levites, stones and death go with the Sabbath. You cannot have one without the other.
The Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, mentions in his epistle several of the commandments, but he never instructed a Gentile believer to observe the seventh day. His statement concerning the matter is this:
“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.” Romans 14:6 and 7. Read also Colossians 2:16. Let no man judge concerning Israel’s days.
ISRAEL’S SABBATH BELONGED TO THE LAW DISPENSATION WHICH WAS A TEMPORARY COVENANT
“Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made.” Galatians 3:19.
“What the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son, . . .” Romans 8:3. Christ is the Seed.
I once attended a Seventh Day Adventist convention where there was a large gathering of these deceived people. There was a genuine religious atmosphere, much resembling the camp of Israel with its Judaism rather than the spiritual blessings which attend a gathering of members of the Church of Christ.
I found myself suddenly plunged in to an argument with two of their amateur preachers and presently surrounded by a crowd of their followers. When the crowd perceived that their two champions were being routed by the bombardment of God’s Word, one of their number hastened to the auditorium for their Goliath, and with him came another crowd.
In this human circle the debate continued and the big chief seemed overjoyed at the opportunity of exposing the stupidity of one who would dare challenge the scriptural validity of his religion. With little difficulty he willingly and readily answered from the Bible a number of question which I put to him very rapidly. Then said I, “you seem to know your Bible quite well: will you please explain to this audience Galatians 3:19?” “Certainly,” said he, “just as soon as I read it.” Then he read: “Wherefore serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made.”
He was silent for some moments; not so quick to answer as before. I said, “we are waiting for the explanation.” “Well,” said he, “let’s have your explanation.” I said, “this is the first time you have asked this, and I have been leading you up to this question.” A few more silent moments and turning of the leaves. I turned to the people and said, “will any of his disciples volunteer to explain the verse in his stead?” More silence. The preacher looked me and said, “we are waiting for your explanation.” I said, “I know you do not understand that verse of Scripture, for if you did, and were honest, you would leave and denounce Seventh Day Adventism immediately.” He gave up so far as an explanation is concerned.
Much of Galatians has to do with the ceremonial law of Israel; but the verses immediately connected with Galatians 3:19 have to do with the moral law. So when God asks of the Christian. “Wherefore serveth the law.” He is referring to the law given at Sinai on the tables of stone. For it was this law that was added because of transgressions. I said to the Adventist preacher, please explain what the law was added to. But neither he nor any member of that circle knew.
I said, “if the law was added, it was unknown to man, before it was added, or in the Bible language, before it entered that the offense might abound.” “It was added till.” Till something happened. That something has happened Therefore the Law; covenant was a temporary covenant, and has served the purpose for which God intended it.
It was added to the gospel which God preached in His covenant with Abraham. It was added till Jesus Christ broke down the middle-wall of partition between Israel and the Gentile on Calvary’s cross. Ephesians 2:15.
Before the law, God preached the gospel to Abraham. Galatians 3:8. The covenant was by promise and the law did not and cannot disannul it. Galatians 3:17. The fourth chapter of Romans shows the relation of the law to the Abrahamic covenant fulfilled in the One who was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification.
We praise God for the privilege of one day in seven, the first day of the week, which we can devote wholly special worship, rest and service. But the first day of the week is not the Sabbath any more than the Body of Christ is Israel. We are sure the first day of the week was a day of special privilege and rejoicing with the apostolic church.
Pastor J. C. O'Hair
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
J, no offense, but that's an awful lot of copy-and-paste wordsmithing there.
It seems a little odd that you'd be quoting a hyper-dispensationalist.
Do you actually concur with all of that pontification?
Even the anecdotal, 4-paragraph, corporate ad hominem—the part that makes the embarrassingly erroneous claim that "much of Galatians has to do with the ceremonial law of Israel; but the verses immediately connected with Galatians 3:19 have to do with the moral law?"
I looked over chapter 3 of Galatians pretty thoroughly, and I'm no Greek expert, but it looks pretty bad for O'Hair's "David And Goliath" story. There's no ordained Adventist minister who would have fallen for that nonsense.
I can't find a single explicit reference to the moral law in the entire chapter, much less the verses immediately adjacent to #19.
Granted, O'Hair might have passed on by the time of its printing, but this commentary was available to all seminary students by 1953, and it was nothing new. The Adventist Pioneer Library at the White Estate was the source material for much of it:
Love you, Brother.
.
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
Perhaps a small paradigm shift already!
I'm waiting for my morning quiet time to reply.
.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
The VOICE translation makes a similar, albeit more condensed point of Galations 3:19:
Throughout this argument, one critical question remains: why would God give the law if it would not bring His people into a right standing with Him? Couldn’t God have found a better way of doing this? It isn’t as if the law is a bad thing or a mistake that God needs to correct. It has a good purpose, but a limited one. It never supplants God’s promise to Abraham. Rather, the law keeps sin in check until the time is right for the saving justice that comes through faith in Jesus. The law serves as a tutor or a schoolmaster, revealing our great need for salvation and pointing everyone toward Jesus.
3 profound points:
- "(The law) never supplants God's promise to Abraham." Emphasis added.
- The purpose of the law is to keep sin in check - until God fulfills Jeremiah prophecy of giving us a new heart, where the law is written not on stone, fulfilled through Christ.
- The law continues to serve as a tutor, revealing our ongoing need for a Savior as we cannot do it on our own.
And again, I say all of this is a distraction from the fact that the Sabbath is a gift. There is no command to eat but we still do. Whereas food is necessary for our physical well being, Sabbath is necessary for our spiritual well being. Only a fool would not do what is needed for their own well being.
All this nonsense that it is not required for salvation is true but irrelevant to the point. What a rebellious lot we are! If I were God, I would not have put up with our nonsense. (Thank God I am not God).
Johann
Well-Known Member
No offense Barn-you are on a all out attack on the Berean Bible Society-and this all re the Sabbath.
Again-accusing me of Copy and paste and wordsmithing- corporate ad hominem--unbefitting from a man such as yourself and from a quarter I would least expect it from.
Here is a article where you misrepresent the Berean's-
Are We Hyper-Dispensationalists?
by David M. Havard
Many years ago, H. A. Ironside1 published a booklet entitled Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth in which he threw Charles Baker and C. R. Stam into the same bucket as E. W. Bullinger. Ever since then, we have been labeled as having the same extreme views as Bullinger.
Men who have never looked into what we really teach continue to spread the slander started by Ironside back in the 1930’s. Besides, it’s much easier to label us as “hyper” and dismiss us than it is to address us based on the Scriptures.
This was recently done again in the July/August 1999 issue of Uplook magazine (published by the Plymouth Brethren). In this their Dispensationalism Issues issue, they presented an excellent overview of dispensationalism. As a matter of fact, we would agree with the majority of what was written. But then, one writer had to add this statement:
“One final word. Like all good things, the study of dispensations can be abused. There are some Christians who carry dispensationalism to such an extreme that they accept only Paul’s Prison Epistles as applicable for the church today. As a result, they do not accept baptism or the Lord’s Supper, since these are not found in the Prison Epistles. They also teach that Peter’s gospel message was not the same as Paul’s….These people are sometimes called ultra-dispensationalists or Bullingerites (after a teacher named E. W. Bullinger). Their extreme view of dispensationalism should be rejected.”2
This article was then followed by the following excerpt from Ironside’s book:3
“What is Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism? This system was first advocated some years ago by Dr. E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913), who was educated at King’s College, London, and was a clergyman in the Church of England. These views have been widely spread through the notes of the Companion Bible which he edited. Dr. Bullinger’s positions are glaringly opposed to what is generally accepted as orthodox teaching. This movement has been carried forth in our day by ardent proponents such as Cornelius Stam, J. C. O’Hair and Charles Baker. [emphasis mine]
---
This is what we are up against. These are the same battles, misunderstandings, and deliberate misrepresentations that Pastor Stam has had to fight against for over 60 years—and we must continue to do so today if the gospel of the grace of God is going to continue to go forward.
Yet rather than discourage us, these things should motivate us. We know what we have found. We know how confused we used to be. We can honestly say that this is a more consistent and literal approach to Scripture. We no longer have to explain away what the Bible clearly says in verses such as Acts 2:38. We know that by reading the Body of Christ back into the gospels, we rob them of their distinctive kingdom character. By not understanding the difference we either have to make the clear statements in the gospels (such as a distinction between Jew and Gentile and water baptism) conform to Paul’s epistles (where he says there is no difference between Jew and Greek, and that he is the apostle to the Gentiles) by explaining them away or we have to read the gospels into Paul’s epistles and make them conform to the message in the gospels (which is what John MacArthur has done with “Lordship Salvation”).
We are not the wild-eyed radicals that the theological media tries to portray us as. We are in agreement with the overwhelming majority of traditional dispensationalism. Our two primary points of disagreement are that we see the Body of Christ starting with the conversion and call of the Apostle Paul and that water baptism is not a requirement for this dispensation.
Let us stand firm in proclaiming the unique message revealed to and through the Apostle Paul. It is like telling others about our faith in Christ. We know what it has done for us. We know that it has cleared away our confusion. Let us graciously and boldly share with others what this message has done for us.
Are We Hyper-Dispensationalists?
Many years ago, H. A. Ironside1 published a booklet entitled Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth in which he threw Charles Baker and C. R. Stam into the same bucket as E. W. Bullinger. Ever since then, we have been labeled as having the same extreme views as Bullinger. Men who have never looked into
bereanbiblesociety.org
I think a apology is in order here since I have never attacked the SDA's of which you are affiliated with but you are ready with "corporate ad hominem's"
J.
Johann
Well-Known Member
I see now the reaction and as to WHY the reaction brother-
In the light of such-clear statements as I Peter 3:18, John, 19:30, Hebrews 9:14 and Ephesians 2:8 to 13, I am sure that you will agree with me that such teaching can be included in that which the Scriptures call “the damnable heresy”. II Peter 2:1. The Adventists claim to be the children of Israel, and therefore govern themselves by the prophecies made to that nation. They claim that Israel’s sabbath is the Christian’s sabbath and should be observed by the members of the Body of Christ.
According to Exodus 31:13 to 17, the seventh-day sabbath was a sign between Jehovah and the children of Israel. The Adventists claim that only the ceremonial law was done away with at Calvary, and that the moral law is just as binding upon members of the Body of Christ in the dispensation of the grace of God as it was upon Israel during the dispensation of the Law.
In the light of Colossians 2:11 to 14, II Corinthians 3:5 to 12, Acts 15:7 to 19 and Romans 10:3 to 7, we see the absolute nonsense of such teaching. We know that even one circumcised is debtor to the whole law. Galatians 5:3. We know there can be no reign of law without Levites to execute judgment upon even the law-breaker who kindles a fire on the Sabbath.
Likewise the one who is debtor to the sabbath is debtor to the whole Law. The Lord Jesus Christ abolished the Law, took out of the way the handwriting of ordinances, which was nailed to His cross. Colossians 2:12 to 14. He took the sabbath to the sepulchre and arose from the dead to be the head of a new creation. By putting away sin, bringing the Law to an end and abolishing death, the Lord Jesus Christ established “the Law of the Spirit of Life in Himself”. Romans 8:2. The language is very plain that Christians are not under the Law. Romans 6:14.
The Apostle Paul was the chosen vessel of the Lord to instruct members of the Body of Christ, and never once did. he say in any message that members of the Body of Christ had any obligation toward Israel’s sabbath. Not once did he give to any member of the Body of Christ the “thou shalt” and “thou shalt nots” of Sinai.
Galatians 3:24 and 25 is the refutation and negation of the legalistic teaching of the Adventists. We quote these two verses: “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”
We say that some Adventists are saved in spite of their perverted gospel. God’s Book tells us that the perverted gospel, that is, a mixture of law and grace, subverts the soul. Galatians 1:6 to 10 and Acts 15:10 to 19. If the Adventists were really under the Law, as they think they are, they would be under the curse; for there is not one of them, no matter how he may strive to keep the whole Law, who does not offend in one point; therefore he is guilty of all. They teach “soul-sleeping” in contradiction to the plain statements of God’s Book in II Corinthians 5:7 to 10, Philippians 1:10 to 18, Acts 7:47 to 52 and II Peter 1:17 to 21. They also teach annihilation as the punishment for the unsaved. We have mentioned only a few of their unscriptural doctrines, but we mention sufficient to warn Christians against their fallacies and fantasies. Beware of false prophets. “Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” Galatians 5:1.
The Doctrines of Seventh Day Adventism -- Spiritual or Pernicious?
We receive very many letters asking us what we think about Seventh Day Adventism. It requires so much time to answer these letters separately that we have decided to write this short message in the magazine. Now note, we are dealing with “Seventh Day Adventism” and not with Seventh Day Adventists
bereanbiblesociety.org
Johann
Well-Known Member
??!!J, no offense, but that's an awful lot of copy-and-paste wordsmithing there.
It seems a little odd that you'd be quoting a hyper-dispensationalist.
Do you actually concur with all of that pontification?
Even the anecdotal, 4-paragraph, corporate ad hominem—the part that makes the embarrassingly erroneous claim that "much of Galatians has to do with the ceremonial law of Israel; but the verses immediately connected with Galatians 3:19 have to do with the moral law?"
I looked over chapter 3 of Galatians pretty thoroughly, and I'm no Greek expert, but it looks pretty bad for O'Hair's "David And Goliath" story. There's no ordained Adventist minister who would have fallen for that nonsense.
I can't find a single explicit reference to the moral law in the entire chapter, much less the verses immediately adjacent to #19.
Granted, O'Hair might have passed on by the time of its printing, but this commentary was available to all seminary students by 1953, and it was nothing new. The Adventist Pioneer Library at the White Estate was the source material for much of it:
Love you, Brother.
.
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
But the Sabbath is necessary for our physical well-being as well. It's a well-studied principle.
.
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
No offense Barn-you are on a all out attack on the Berean Bible Society-and this all re the Sabbath.
Again-accusing me of Copy and paste and wordsmithing- corporate ad hominem--unbefitting from a man such as yourself and from a quarter I would least expect it from.
Here is a article where you misrepresent the Berean's-
Are We Hyper-Dispensationalists?
by David M. Havard
Many years ago, H. A. Ironside1 published a booklet entitled Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth in which he threw Charles Baker and C. R. Stam into the same bucket as E. W. Bullinger. Ever since then, we have been labeled as having the same extreme views as Bullinger.
Men who have never looked into what we really teach continue to spread the slander started by Ironside back in the 1930’s. Besides, it’s much easier to label us as “hyper” and dismiss us than it is to address us based on the Scriptures.
This was recently done again in the July/August 1999 issue of Uplook magazine (published by the Plymouth Brethren). In this their Dispensationalism Issues issue, they presented an excellent overview of dispensationalism. As a matter of fact, we would agree with the majority of what was written. But then, one writer had to add this statement:
“One final word. Like all good things, the study of dispensations can be abused. There are some Christians who carry dispensationalism to such an extreme that they accept only Paul’s Prison Epistles as applicable for the church today. As a result, they do not accept baptism or the Lord’s Supper, since these are not found in the Prison Epistles. They also teach that Peter’s gospel message was not the same as Paul’s….These people are sometimes called ultra-dispensationalists or Bullingerites (after a teacher named E. W. Bullinger). Their extreme view of dispensationalism should be rejected.”2
This article was then followed by the following excerpt from Ironside’s book:3
“What is Bullingerism or Ultra-dispensationalism? This system was first advocated some years ago by Dr. E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913), who was educated at King’s College, London, and was a clergyman in the Church of England. These views have been widely spread through the notes of the Companion Bible which he edited. Dr. Bullinger’s positions are glaringly opposed to what is generally accepted as orthodox teaching. This movement has been carried forth in our day by ardent proponents such as Cornelius Stam, J. C. O’Hair and Charles Baker. [emphasis mine]
---
This is what we are up against. These are the same battles, misunderstandings, and deliberate misrepresentations that Pastor Stam has had to fight against for over 60 years—and we must continue to do so today if the gospel of the grace of God is going to continue to go forward.
Yet rather than discourage us, these things should motivate us. We know what we have found. We know how confused we used to be. We can honestly say that this is a more consistent and literal approach to Scripture. We no longer have to explain away what the Bible clearly says in verses such as Acts 2:38. We know that by reading the Body of Christ back into the gospels, we rob them of their distinctive kingdom character. By not understanding the difference we either have to make the clear statements in the gospels (such as a distinction between Jew and Gentile and water baptism) conform to Paul’s epistles (where he says there is no difference between Jew and Greek, and that he is the apostle to the Gentiles) by explaining them away or we have to read the gospels into Paul’s epistles and make them conform to the message in the gospels (which is what John MacArthur has done with “Lordship Salvation”).
We are not the wild-eyed radicals that the theological media tries to portray us as. We are in agreement with the overwhelming majority of traditional dispensationalism. Our two primary points of disagreement are that we see the Body of Christ starting with the conversion and call of the Apostle Paul and that water baptism is not a requirement for this dispensation.
Let us stand firm in proclaiming the unique message revealed to and through the Apostle Paul. It is like telling others about our faith in Christ. We know what it has done for us. We know that it has cleared away our confusion. Let us graciously and boldly share with others what this message has done for us.
Are We Hyper-Dispensationalists?
Many years ago, H. A. Ironside1 published a booklet entitled Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth in which he threw Charles Baker and C. R. Stam into the same bucket as E. W. Bullinger. Ever since then, we have been labeled as having the same extreme views as Bullinger. Men who have never looked into
I think a apology is in order here since I have never attacked the SDA's of which you are affiliated with but you are ready with "corporate ad hominem's"
J.
Brother J, I care nothing for the BBS one way or the other (although I do make good use of Biblehub.com in which, I suspect, they hold more than a marginal interest).
Sorry, J, but I accused you of nothing. I merely observed the copy-and-paste and it sounds like you have more loyalty to the BBS than I do to the Adventist church organization. Hyper-dispensationalism isn't a corporate entity, as far as I know. But the Adventist church is, and O'Hair smeared them pretty well and good in the article you quoted—most likely in a fabricated story, I might add. My main problem was with the Galatians 3:19 claim which is utterly ridiculous and I notice you haven't addressed my refutation—or the twisting of Hebrews 7:12 that so often makes the antinomian rounds hereabouts. Hebrews is sliced and diced (rather than rightly divided) nearly as badly as Romans and Galatians, I reckon—if not worse.
The word "law" simply doesn't mean whatever we want it to mean when we find it in the Bible.
I apologize if I have offended you, but I'm not sure why you would be offended, to be honest.
As much as it seems to agitate you, I confess that I often can't tell whether the words you post are your own or someone else's. They often seem very essay-like. Perhaps you can clear that up, if you so desire.
And, hyper- or not, I think you will ultimately find dispensationalism to be as empty a cistern as you once found hyper-Calvinism to be, if I recall correctly.
I've read all of the Scofield and multi-step schemed stuff I care to read, frankly. It is often tied to eternal security and Calvinism, especially in the case of the Southern Baptist church, which ruined my father's religious life (he listens to Joel Osteen now) and, by his influence, nearly half of my own. You can read my testimony about that here (link). The New Covenant is Everlasting, Brother—present, forward, and backward.
God has saved every man who would be saved from Adam forward by faith in the LORD Jesus Christ, whether they knew the name whereby all must be saved or not. There is no other way than by the Sheep Gate.
.
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
Okay, down to brass tacks:
I would say, purely from a historical-grammatical approach to hermeneutics. I honestly can't speak for all Adventists, but I tend to be of a BRI (Biblical Research Institute—but even there, I don't comply with everything that is proposed) cut of cloth in this respect. I also use some of the things taught in a hermeneutics class by Jon Paulien, head of the religion dept at Loma Linda University. It's really hard to describe because we have such an image of lockstep adherence that interdisciplinary claims usually just sound ridiculous to a non-Adventist.
But what I do is try to branch out from each verse, and make sure I can reconcile my conclusions with the whole of Scripture, especially as pertains to the loving character of God.
God is love is the main theme of Scripture. Not the "Summer of Love" kind that's upended our society—the kind that is expressed by the perfect mingling of justice and mercy that is on full display at Calvary.
I suspect that you're asking about the tension that prevails between the spirit and the letter of the law that is emphasized in postmodern Christianity. I just ignore all of that and go about my Bible study business. I've been a Christian long enough to remember a time when people weren't hollering "Don't tread on me!!!" so it's not that hard for me to do.
Mr. Spock's observation that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few is actually quite true, in a very real sense. Our world has been quarantined by Heaven to protect the rest of God's perfect (ninety and nine) universe while he disposes of the (one) viral problem of sin/rebellion.
This is the contingency that God is working through to His own glory, that he allowed to pass before Moses as hid him in the cleft of the Rock.
In, short, I let each passage speak for itself and pay no attention to the echo chambers around me—even (and sometimes, especially) the Adventist ones.
If you'd like more specific interpretations of Pauline passages, I'll do the best I can.
To be honest, I don't know much about it, except to say that Adventism probably has a richer base of orthododxy which, if you're not already well-versed in, I'd appreciate it if you would go HERE before you go here.
And let me know if I'm not giving you what you are looking for.
.
I would say, purely from a historical-grammatical approach to hermeneutics. I honestly can't speak for all Adventists, but I tend to be of a BRI (Biblical Research Institute—but even there, I don't comply with everything that is proposed) cut of cloth in this respect. I also use some of the things taught in a hermeneutics class by Jon Paulien, head of the religion dept at Loma Linda University. It's really hard to describe because we have such an image of lockstep adherence that interdisciplinary claims usually just sound ridiculous to a non-Adventist.
But what I do is try to branch out from each verse, and make sure I can reconcile my conclusions with the whole of Scripture, especially as pertains to the loving character of God.
God is love is the main theme of Scripture. Not the "Summer of Love" kind that's upended our society—the kind that is expressed by the perfect mingling of justice and mercy that is on full display at Calvary.
I suspect that you're asking about the tension that prevails between the spirit and the letter of the law that is emphasized in postmodern Christianity. I just ignore all of that and go about my Bible study business. I've been a Christian long enough to remember a time when people weren't hollering "Don't tread on me!!!" so it's not that hard for me to do.
Mr. Spock's observation that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few is actually quite true, in a very real sense. Our world has been quarantined by Heaven to protect the rest of God's perfect (ninety and nine) universe while he disposes of the (one) viral problem of sin/rebellion.
This is the contingency that God is working through to His own glory, that he allowed to pass before Moses as hid him in the cleft of the Rock.
In, short, I let each passage speak for itself and pay no attention to the echo chambers around me—even (and sometimes, especially) the Adventist ones.
If you'd like more specific interpretations of Pauline passages, I'll do the best I can.
To be honest, I don't know much about it, except to say that Adventism probably has a richer base of orthododxy which, if you're not already well-versed in, I'd appreciate it if you would go HERE before you go here.
And let me know if I'm not giving you what you are looking for.
.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Pun noted brother-
This is going nowhere-but thanks.
The subject on the law and Shabbat almost always bring division and schisms-I don't advocate antinomianism and neither are the BBS.
I'd rather go HERE before I go THERE.
THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH
By Adam
“WHEREFORE, AS BY ONE MAN SIN ENTERED INTO THE WORLD, AND DEATH BY SIN; AND SO DEATH PASSED UPON ALL MEN, FOR THAT ALL HAVE SINNED.” ROMANS 5.12. “FOR AS IN ADAM ALL DIE, EVEN SO IN CHRIST SHALL ALL BE MADE ALIVE.” “THEY THAT ARE CHRIST’S AT HIS COMING.” I CORINTHIANS 15:22 TO 24.
“FOR IF BY ONE MAN’S OFFENCE DEATH REIGNED BY ONE; MUCH MORE THEY WHICH RECEIVE ABUNDANCE OF GRACE AND OF THE GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS SHALL REIGN IN LIFE BY ONE, JESUS CHRIST. THEREFORE AS BY THE OFFENCE OF ONE JUDGMENT CAME UPON ALL MEN TO CONDEMNATION; EVEN SO BY THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF ONE THE FREE GIFT CAME UPON ALL MEN UNTO JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE.” ROMANS 5:17 AND 18.
THE LAW OF TEN COMMANDMENTS
By Moses
“FOR THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY MOSES, BUT GRACE AND TRUTH CAME BY JESUS CHRIST.” JOHN 1:17.
“THEREFORE BY THE DEEDS OF THE LAW THERE SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED IN HIS SIGHT; FOR BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN.” ROMANS 3:20.
“FOR IF THE MINISTRATION OF CONDEMNATION BE GLORY, MUCH MORE DOTH THE MINISTRATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS EXCEED IN GLORY.” II CORINTHIANS 3:9.
“BECAUSE THE LAW WORKETH WRATH; FOR WHERE NO LAW IS, THERE IS NO TRANSGRESSION.” ROMANS 4:15.
THE LAW OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE
By Christ
“GRACE AND TRUTH CAME BY JESUS CHRIST,”
“AND BY HIM ALL THAT BELIEVE ARE JUSTIFIED FROM ALL THINGS, FROM WHICH YE COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW OF MOSES.” ACTS 13:39.
“MOREOVER THE LAW ENTERED, THAT THE OFFENCE MIGHT ABOUND. BUT WHERE SIN ABOUNDED, GRACE DID MUCH MORE ABOUND: THAT AS SIN HATH REIGNED UNTO DEATH, EVEN SO MIGHT GRACE REIGN THROUGH RIGHTEOUSNESS UNTO ETERNAL LIFE BY JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD.” ROMANS 5:20 AND 21.
“BEING JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE THROUGH THE REDEMPTION THAT IS IN CHRIST JESUS.” ROMANS 3:24.
“HE THAT BELIEVETH ON HIM IS NOT CONDEMNED; BUT HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT IS CONDEMNED ALREADY, BECAUSE HE HATH NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.” JOHN 3:18.
Here is a very interesting truth:
“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Romans 8:2 and 3.
REMEMBERING WHAT WORKS IN YOU
A STUDY ON THE POWER OF LAWS
“I find then a law, that, when I would do good,
evil is present with me.”
~ Romans 7:21
1. Introduction
a. The most important thing you can learn after what Christ did is who you are in Christ
b. You had a life, but it has been crucified. Now, a new motivation – 2 Cor 5:15
c. The greatest lie ever told you haven’t truly lived except in sin – Gen 3:4-5
d. Romans 6:23 – The wages of sin is death, not life (Rom 5:20-21)
e. You were a sinner, but now you have a new position serving righteousness
f. Leaving Romans 6 we should want to live right – Rom 6:11
g. Romans 6 explains how to live, Romans 7 explains the power of laws
h. Romans 7 explains the futility of the law to make us do, how do we perform?
2. Turning Back to the Law
a. When people want to do good, they often turn to religion – what you do.
b. God told Israel it would be there righteousness if they did - Deu 6:25, Lev 18:5
c. The problem: the strength of sin is the law - 1 Cor 15:56
d. The law has no more dominion over you as long as you live - Rom 7:1-4
e. The law was against you. Now you are dead to it - Col 2:14, Eph 2:14, Gal 3:2-3
f. The law of sin and death is that the law of God brought forth death in you – Rom 7:5
3. Sin Dwells in You
a. The law of God is not sin, the law brings the knowledge of sin – Rom 3:20, Rom 7:7
b. In case we think that the law itself is evil … go back to Rom 6 - Gal 3:21-22
c. Guilt is not the problem, we need the law to bring people to Christ – Gal 3:24
d. Sin is what is evil. It’s deception is that it is not there, it does not kill and destroy
e. Sin was “dead” = not moving or noticeable; the law moves flesh and revives sin
f. The law is holy, just, and good, the law is spiritual, it is you that is the problem.
g. You are carnal, sold under sin – sin dwells in you – Rom 7:14-17
h. Your sin nature is still present with you, and works in you to deceive and destroy.
i. The law of your flesh is that in you dwelleth no good thing – Rom 7:18
4. Willpower is not Real Power
a. “to will is present with me, but how to perform I find not” - Rom 7:18
b. You do the things you would not proving that your will cannot change what you do
c. “I delight in the law of God” - from Rom 6, but “I see another law in me” – Rom 7:23
d. It is not just that you do sins, sin dwells in you, and you cannot wish it away.
e. The law could not make flesh perform – walk by the law of the Spirit of life – Ro 8:2-3
f. You will sin –if you rebuild the law you bring death– let Christ live in you – Gal 2:17-20
Off to gym-
J.
Logikos
Active Member
Okay, so this delay in the progress of our discussion has been surprisingly informative. I've taken a bit of time to educate myself better on the doctrinal distinctives of SDAism (That is such an awkward feeling abbreviation!) and there's been a few posts on the thread itself, including the one quoted above, that have been very informative as well. Unfortunately, it seems that some of those posts also have had the effect of poisoning the well, although your use of the phrase "hyper-dispensationalism" demonstrates that it's a well that was poisoned long ago.Okay, down to brass tacks:
I would say, purely from a historical-grammatical approach to hermeneutics. I honestly can't speak for all Adventists, but I tend to be of a BRI (Biblical Research Institute—but even there, I don't comply with everything that is proposed) cut of cloth in this respect. I also use some of the things taught in a hermeneutics class by Jon Paulien, head of the religion dept at Loma Linda University. It's really hard to describe because we have such an image of lockstep adherence that interdisciplinary claims usually just sound ridiculous to a non-Adventist.
But what I do is try to branch out from each verse, and make sure I can reconcile my conclusions with the whole of Scripture, especially as pertains to the loving character of God.
God is love is the main theme of Scripture. Not the "Summer of Love" kind that's upended our society—the kind that is expressed by the perfect mingling of justice and mercy that is on full display at Calvary.
I suspect that you're asking about the tension that prevails between the spirit and the letter of the law that is emphasized in postmodern Christianity. I just ignore all of that and go about my Bible study business. I've been a Christian long enough to remember a time when people weren't hollering "Don't tread on me!!!" so it's not that hard for me to do.
Mr. Spock's observation that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few is actually quite true, in a very real sense. Our world has been quarantined by Heaven to protect the rest of God's perfect (ninety and nine) universe while he disposes of the (one) viral problem of sin/rebellion.
This is the contingency that God is working through to His own glory, that he allowed to pass before Moses as hid him in the cleft of the Rock.
In, short, I let each passage speak for itself and pay no attention to the echo chambers around me—even (and sometimes, especially) the Adventist ones.
If you'd like more specific interpretations of Pauline passages, I'll do the best I can.
To be honest, I don't know much about it, except to say that Adventism probably has a richer base of orthododxy which, if you're not already well-versed in, I'd appreciate it if you would go HERE before you go here.
And let me know if I'm not giving you what you are looking for.
.
You should know, if you don't already and whether you intend it as such or not, there isn't a dispensationalists alive anywhere on planet Earth that does not except that phrase as a pejorative that is intentionally designed to act as a sort of ad-hominem type of preemptive strike. The only exceptions being those who hold to Acts 2 Dispensationalism, who are happy to join in with the covenant theologians in their ad-hominem attacks against the rest of the dispensational community, to their own detriment, I might add.
Given all of that, I want ask a different question that I hope will lead us into a more profitable discussion about your doctrinal system vs. mine. The goal being, of course, to demonstrate the objective superiority of my system. And, by the way, I'm not making an attempt to emply the Socratic meathod here. I don't intend to turn this into an endless line of questions. I'm just searching for a firm place to get a foothold from which we can proceed in a manner that makes some sort of sence to both of us.
Why do you, as an Adventist believe you're obligated to observe the sabbath but are not obligated to be circumcised?
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
I find that arguments over the law, in general, and the Sabbath, in particular (since that's the only one that anybody really objects to), tend to confuse more than clarify. It seems that much more evidentiary ammunition is brought to bear in objection to the fourth commandment than in favor of it, almost to a degree of desperation. I find it puzzling.
"Trust and obey" gives much peace to my mind. I find it quite impossible that, trusting as I do in the complete account of Christ's works in my stead, I shall ever have to hear Christ say to me: "I never knew you. You spent 24 hours out of each week to pay special attention to Me and allow me to restore you both physically and spiritually. Depart from me, you who work iniquity."
.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Salutations…..Have a blessed year.
It has been a while….
When was the Saturday Jewish Sabbath abolished?
Had this question come up in Sunday school a few weeks back. Its kind of a trick question.
The answer….The Sabbath has never been abolished. Why would they or you want to? There is no reason we cannot worship the Lord seven days a week.
Of course for those in the Old Covenant….the Jews….they are still required to observe the Jewish Saturday Sabbath and keep all the rules associated with the Sabbath. But that does not mean that Christians cannot worship on Saturday. After the resurrection the Jews “more or less” shut the Gentile-Christians out of the Temple….they could gather outside…in what is referred to as the outer most court. On the other hand menstruating women were not allowed anywhere near the Temple on any day.
The “shut out” was more significant than most people realize, it was one of many things that caused the Jews and Christians to disagree and part ways and eventually become enemies. They fought within the walls of Jerusalem during the siege of 70 AD and Christians judged and executed Jews like witches by the thousands during the inquisitions and witch-hunts and they were not welcome in most Christian countries. [Disclaimer….None of this was right on either side. As it is Christians should love Jews. It will probably pay dividends in the end.]
But anyway….Eventually the Christians came to believe that the day that Christ resurrected was the most significant day in history so they made Sunday the Christian day of worship and called it the “Lord’s Day” (I am sure they had other names for it.) Either way, at times people tried to force people to worship on Sunday, but never with positive results. Here is what the scriptures say…So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths…. Colossians 2:16 So Christians are free to worship on Saturday or Sunday or any day of the week. Some times people have schedules that makes it difficult to make it on Sunday, that is why I am glad that most of the churches I go to have Wednesday services.
Now it is my opinion that you should not be calling yourself a Christian if you are not going to church and worshiping the Lord. Is that pretty harsh? Well sorry….a lot people see Christianity as a club….social acceptance….Ya I am a good person because I say I believe in God or…..Ya I believe in God and all those Apostles…. Me and God are mates! Quote form Crocodile Dundee.
But anyway that is not the Way. Christianity is a Way of life….a Way to Heaven…..the lukewarm club mentality is the Way to Hell.
Of course if someone does not have arms or legs and they do not know anyone that could take them to church that is different. But still someone from the church should be fellowshipping and worshiping the Lord with them.
Can we come up with a list of reasons why we cannot go to church? Sure? Well not really….We can set aside any day of the week to worship the Lord.
Do you love the Lord enough to go to church and worship Him?
Do you love Christianity enough to go to church and fellowship with other Christians?
Do you think God notices when you do not put forth any effort and expect an eternal reward from Him?
CadyandZoe…
Of course I am not saying you do not go to church….it is a general statement on loving Christ enough to celebrate Him.
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
So, labels are the plague, I get that, and I think I can sympathize with the benefit of quite some experience on that front, but I don't know what else to call it, and I think folks who are pretty confident in their convictions ought to also be cultivating some pretty thick skin. "Sticks and stones...," I guess.
Well, from a (Bible) scholarly—not emotional—standpoint, I'd have to say that I object to the juxtaposition of a moral article and a merely liturgical ordinance. The only laws apart from the Ten Commandments that I consider myself obligated to observe are the ones that pertain to better compliance with those Ten, with the even higher aim of keeping the Two Great Commands, of course, which themselves are just a statement of the single principle of self-sacrificing, other-centered love, split between God and man, stipulating that God is the supreme object of devotion and loyalty.
And then, of course, there's this utterly plain statement:
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (1 Corinthians 7:19)
.
Logikos
Active Member
How do you define moral and how is sabbath observance not liturgical?
They seem to me to both very clearly to be liturgical, for want of a better term, because the two laws can conflict with each other. For example, a child was to be circumcised on the eighth day. If he was born on a what we currently call Friday, that would put his eighth day on the Sabbath. One might expect that circumcision, being an obvious work of the flesh, would be forbidden on the Sabbath but on the contrary, you broke the sabbath to circumcise. (See John 7:21-24)
Moral laws cannot conflict in this manner! There is never a situation where one is forced to assault someone in order to keep themselves from robbing them. A man is never forced to rape a woman in order to keep himself of kidnapping her. This is a key difference between moral right and wrong vs. religious laws designed to either teach something symbolically or to keep Israel separated from other nations (sometimes both).
If God considered circumcision to be superior to, or to take precedence over, the sabbath, why don't you?
Where do you read "self-sacrificing" or "other-centered" love in the "Two Great Commandments", to use your terminology?
Deuteronomy 6:5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.
Leviticus 19:18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
The love of yourself is the standard used in the 2nd commandment, is it not?
It gets much plainer than that!
Galatians 5:2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
Did you ever wonder why Paul focused on circumcision? If you were to guess which spoke more often about circumcision, the Old Testament or the New Testament, would you guess that it was the New Testament? The New Testament is way shorter than the Old Testament and yet more than half of the times circumcision is mentioned, it's in the New Testament. It turns out that understanding why circumcision is now prohibited (as a religious rite) is the key to the whole New Testament!
Incidentally, in another post of yours you made the following statement....
I would say that I object to them very much, except that "object to them" isn't the right way to put it. Let's put it this way....
You should NOT follow the Ten Commandments! None of them!
I know that probably just made your head explode!
But I'm totally serious!
Does that mean I think its okay to murder people or steal from them, etc? No, of course not! But it doesn't have anything to do with the Ten Commandments. Murder and stealing and covetousness and adultery, etc. were all evil and sinful long before there was any such thing as the Ten Commandments or any other form of law, for that matter, and if someone needs a list of rules hanging on the wall to keep from stealing from their neighbor or they don't cheat on their wife because there's this dad-gum rule in the way, then, to echo Paul, Christ will profit them nothing!
You do not need the Ten Commandments. What's more, you cannot follow the Ten Commandments. The more you try, the more you will fail. Indeed, the attempt itself is failure. One's attempt to follow the Ten Commandments is the problem, not the solution! The solution to that problem is death, which happens to be the ministry of the law, including the Ten Commandments. There are two things that the bible teaches had a ministry of death. Care to guess what the other one was?
P.S. I just read through my own post here and realized that it might feel to you like we're off track but we aren't. I promise!
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
How do you define moral and how is sabbath observance not liturgical?
They seem to me to both very clearly to be liturgical, for want of a better term, because the two laws can conflict with each other. For example, a child was to be circumcised on the eighth day. If he was born on a what we currently call Friday, that would put his eighth day on the Sabbath. One might expect that circumcision, being an obvious work of the flesh, would be forbidden on the Sabbath but on the contrary, you broke the sabbath to circumcise. (See John 7:21-24)
Moral laws cannot conflict in this manner! There is never a situation where one is forced to assault someone in order to keep themselves from robbing them. A man is never forced to rape a woman in order to keep himself of kidnapping her. This is a key difference between moral right and wrong vs. religious laws designed to either teach something symbolically or to keep Israel separated from other nations (sometimes both).
If God considered circumcision to be superior to, or to take precedence over, the sabbath, why don't you?
Where do you read "self-sacrificing" or "other-centered" love in the "Two Great Commandments", to use your terminology?
Deuteronomy 6:5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.
Leviticus 19:18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
The love of yourself is the standard used in the 2nd commandment, is it not?
It gets much plainer than that!
Galatians 5:2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.
Did you ever wonder why Paul focused on circumcision? If you were to guess which spoke more often about circumcision, the Old Testament or the New Testament, would you guess that it was the New Testament? The New Testament is way shorter than the Old Testament and yet more than half of the times circumcision is mentioned, it's in the New Testament. It turns out that understanding why circumcision is now prohibited (as a religious rite) is the key to the whole New Testament!
Incidentally, in another post of yours you made the following statement....
I would say that I object to them very much, except that "object to them" isn't the right way to put it. Let's put it this way....
You should NOT follow the Ten Commandments! None of them!
I know that probably just made your head explode!
But I'm totally serious!
Does that mean I think its okay to murder people or steal from them, etc? No, of course not! But it doesn't have anything to do with the Ten Commandments. Murder and stealing and covetousness and adultery, etc. were all evil and sinful long before there was any such thing as the Ten Commandments or any other form of law, for that matter, and if someone needs a list of rules hanging on the wall to keep from stealing from their neighbor or they don't cheat on their wife because there's this dad-gum rule in the way, then, to echo Paul, Christ will profit them nothing!
You do not need the Ten Commandments. What's more, you cannot follow the Ten Commandments. The more you try, the more you will fail. Indeed, the attempt itself is failure. One's attempt to follow the Ten Commandments is the problem, not the solution! The solution to that problem is death, which happens to be the ministry of the law, including the Ten Commandments. There are two things that the bible teaches had a ministry of death. Care to guess what the other one was?
P.S. I just read through my own post here and realized that it might feel to you like we're off track but we aren't. I promise!
Okay
.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Guess we don't follow the ten commandments then-right?Okay
.
Similar threads
