Downsville had said:I do not agree with Downsville on this.
My Bible said that "He nailed our certificate of debt" to the cross. Not the Law of God. Not even
the ceremonial law of God. The ceremonial law did not have to be nailed to the cross - it just had to be fulfilled - the shaddow pointing to the sacrifice of Christ.
However our "debt" did have to be "paid" it had to be nailed to the cross as "paid in full".
Eric saidNo.
#1. Moses has no authority to make any law. It was all the "Law of God".
#2. The Law of God consisting of shaddows pointing forward to the death of the Messiah - were predictions about the death of Christ. Those predictions were fulfilled as specifice.
Christ the Creator's 7th-day holy Sabbath memorial of His creation event is not a prediction about death.
Eric saidThe 10 commandments were the only part of God's Law kept "inside" the Ark. God had the rest of His Word placed "outside" the Ark. God - made the distinction.
The 10 commandments were the only part of God's Word that God spoke audibly to Israel - the rest - was spoken individually to Moses or a prophet. God made the distinction.
Paul continues to quote from those 10 commandments as "authorotative" in Romans 7, Ephesians 6, Romans 13 etc.
James quotes from them as "authorotative" and as "judging the saints" in James 2.
The unit continues to be authorotative.
I never gave God's Law nor commanded it.
The dietary laws (including the Levitical law forbidding the eating meat with blood in it - enforced even for the Gentiles in the NT - in Acts 15) are still in tact because they do not "point to any future event". They are simply a matter of health.
Christ did not die so you can eat ham. (As much as some would make that the issue at the cross).
Eric saidIf that speculative supposition were in fact "true" then you would not find the NT authors quoting from the books of Moses AS IF they had any authority at all.
But instead - they show that Christ quoted from them, Paul quoted from them, Peter quoted from them, Gospel writers quoted from them... James quoted from them... All quoting and showing God's Word to "still" be in full application.
In Hebrews 10 we are told that Christ put a stop to sin offerings and sacrifices (as Daniel 9 predicted by the way). But we still see the Levitical code enforced about meat with blood in it, Loving your neighbor as yourself and the Deut 6:5 statement about loving God with all your heart in addition to the 10 commandments quoted from in the NT.
So when Moses said in Gen 2:3 that on the 7th day of Creation week God rested, and blessed and sanctified it - and that this is how mankind has its seven day week - that is in fact "Moses lying"? Or would that be "God" lying since all scripture is inspired by God?
When Christ said "The Sabbath was MADE for Mankind and not Mankind MADE for the Sabbath" speaking of the "making" of both - Christ is "lying" because when the Sabbath was "Made" it was "Only Made for Jews"?
Indeed you have speculated "There does NOT remain therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" because it was only given to the Jews....
But Christ said "the Sabbath was MADE for Mankind".
Again - God tells us that in the New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL Mankind come before Me to worship" and you can only respond "who knows??"
God is being consistent from start to finish - it was MADE for Mankind - there CONTINUES to be a Sabbath rest for the people of God - and in the New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL Mankind come before Me to Worship".
The case could not "Be" worse for the POV you are pushing - as you try to get this turned into "who knows that this really is consistent just because it looks consistent".
Jesus said - pre-Cross - "If you Love Me KEEP My commandments" John 14:15. That statment is itself a quote from the 10 commandments.
Your idea that "Exegesis" would lead to an interpretation of John 14:15 such that the hearers of Christ would NOT know that the commandments are the 10 commandments OR that Christ is in fact God - who gave them... leaves something to be proven.
See? Even you can not help but show yourself to be in violation of Christ the Creator's 4th commandment.
You suppose that when Christ (speaking before the Cross) says that Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 are the key foundation stones of His Word - His Law that this really means "all but the Sabbath" all but Christ the Creator's 7th-day holy day made holy at Creation as a memorial to His creative act -- you are simply mistaken. Furthermore it is poor exegesis to suppose that John 14:15 was spoken to a group that thought the 10 commandments were now down to "9" pre-cross.
In Christ,
Bob
For SDA's on Sunday worship
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by thessalonian, Nov 14, 2003.
Page 8 of 12
-
-
-
James quotes from them as "authorotative" and as "judging the saints" in James 2.
The unit continues to be authorotative." This "unit" itself is a summary, not the end in itself, since it hangs on a greater "Law", which does include the commandments quoted in the NT, as I have said.
Also, you are still constantly referring to "made for mankind", but I earlier answered this. Not everything "made for man" is binding on all men, even if it reflects God's eternal actions. Marriage is an example. -
Lev 19:18 "Love for your neighbor" and Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart" -- were perfectly "fulfilled" by Christ as well as the 10 commandments and all the law. That did not "Abolish love for God" as some would like to use the idead of "fullfill" to mean "abolish".
Rather the law is "established" on the Lev 19 and Deut 6 principles - not "abolished by them".
Those principle did not "Abolish the law" in the OT or in the NT. They existed in both. And that is the flaw in your statement above.
Eric said
Simply not possible to show it - but you seem to be content to simply "say it" rather than "Show it".
Eric said
James quotes from them as "authorotative" and as "judging the saints" in James 2.
The unit continues to be authorotative." as we see in Eph 6.
Eric said
The Unit of the 10 commandments "remains" as we see in Eph 6.
The issue about eating meat with blood is introduced in Gen 8.
What were you thinking?
The clear statement in Lev 11:1-4 is distinction between the "edible" and that which is not.
It is really simple.
Hebrews 8-10 point to an end of the sacrifical system and explain "why". However it does not say "because we don't believe that our scriptures are good any more".
The point about the messiah fulfilling the promised sacrifice - did nothing to abolish the 10 commandments.
That seems like a huge sacrifice.
What do you do about the fact that the NT writers in the part of the Bible that you do still accept as fully authortative - are quoting from the part of the Bible that you do call "just a history" as the "force of authority" for their doctrines?
Do you really think that ignoring the Creator's law will result in "no violation" even when James says that to break part is to break all?
How can you feel comfortable taking that road?
Be "assured" if you take someone elses wife - God will consider that "a violation" -- EVEN if you choose no to marry her. It was made "for mankind" and is still in force today. Only by physically changing the biology of all mankind could that ever change to the point that nobody could be blessed by Marriage any longer.
In Christ,
Bob -
BTW - Merry Christmas to Eric and all my Lord's Day bretheren.
In Christ,
Bob -
#1. “The Sabbath was made for mankind”
#2. in the New Earth they would be “worshipping from Sabbath to Sabbath”
#3. the 10 commandments were spoken directly by God to the people – and included the Sabbath…
Then they would join the Gentiles of Acts 13 and Acts 17 that were “already” worshipping on Sabbath in honor of the One True God – just as many gentiles do today… including this one.
It is another practice entirely. It is a pagan practice for which there is no possibility of “Keeping in good faith”.
Combine the information you get in Romans 14 about faithful obedience up to the discretion of the individual to freely select with what you have in Gal 4 about paganism – and it becomes very clear – these are two very different “observances”.
Eric said
In Christ,
Bob -
Which means that each time you say to the Mark 2 statement of Christ the Creator “Yes – but that was the old creation we are looking for a New Earth” you are simply employing circular reasoning. God already said “]“From Sabbath to Sabbath shall All mankind come before Me to Worship”. And your response “Eric said – the New Earth will be the antetypical sabbath.”
.
In the text itself it is the 7th day Sabbath (not an annual one) that is specified and the conclusion “There REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God” shows us that we still have the Sabbath blessing to be entered into – today. In the same way that the godly faithful saints of Heb 11 that ALSO entered the Land Canaan – were not “cast of out Canaan” when they become the faithful spirit-filled people of God. Rather they lived IN Canaan AND were born-again spirit filled “giants of faith” as recorded in Heb 11. The “either/or” dichotomy that you are looking for – does not exist in scripture.
In Romans 2 – Paul says that the “spiritual meaning” of that act is “still” the same as Moses said it was – the “circumcision of the heart” by the Holy Spirit. No change – OT or NT.
In Christ,
Bob -
By not keeping Passover – (which I could freely “keep” today if I chose to according to Romans 14) – I am the one that “does NOT observe”. This is very obvious. I am the one that is “ignoring it” – I am not the example of the Romans 14 saint that chose to “Observe the day”. Your idea of “still observing what you ignore” is a internally-conflicted position that your defense has forced you into. It is not a logical position supportable from Rom 14 or Gal 4 or Matt 5 – “keeping what you ignore” is just not there.
Eric said
You are adopting a defensive position here for which there is no logical support
There is no support in scripture for saying that God’s Word is now cancelled because we would like to start using phrases like “the transitional period of the church age”. That kind of cancellation – does not exist in scripture. Its source is “tradition”.
In other words – it is God’s explicit statement that must be applied to each part – to show that it is no longer binding – and can be freely ignored.
Eric said
Your argument that “salvation is IN the law IF you choose to honor and obey God by keeping Christ the Creator’s Law” was never true in the OT – and continue to be untrue in the NT. Consistently in Romans 3, Galatians 3, Romans 14 and James 2 – we are told that Christ the Creator’s Law “continues” to “define sin” authoritatively. Violation of it “IS” sin – the idea that midway through the NT books -- violation of God’s Law “is righteousness” or “is faith” or “is the New Birth” is not found in scripture.
Perhaps that is a key difference that we should explore further.
In Christ,
Bob -
Actually – Acts 15 does bind the new converts to statements made in the first 5 books of the Word of God. Notice that the laws about fornication, adultery, idols, eating meat with blood in it… they all come from the “scriptures” that the NT saints were reading. You know…. the OT.
Actually – 1Cor 5 makes the case “Christ our Passover has been slain” – he does not say “Christians now exist so no need for Passover”. Passover predicts the substitutionary death of the Messiah – not the substitutionary death of sinners.
Eric asid
Eric said –
-
-
Eph. 6 does not mention them as a whole "unit", as I have been pointing out. You then only say "well, does that then mean that any other commandments not mentioned there are not binding?", but then they are mentioned elsewhere in the NT. The Sabbath is left out of EVERY list of "commandments", or "sins" (for not keeping it) in the NT.
-
-
Merry ["pagan"] Christmas to you -
In each case you reach a point where you back away from advancing your point to the next level and simply repeat your prior assertion without answering the problems I bring up with your view - as I show that it is not workable.
Your next statement is an excellent case in point.
#1. Instead of giving a scripture you "introduce" a "proposal" that if the Sabbath is not repeated it is deleated. The problem is - it is not in Malachi and it is not in Matthew "pre-Cross" at a time when even you admit it is "not deleted".
#2. Then you introduce the idea that "maybe.. unlike all the examples Christ gives in Matt 5 pre-cross, the Sabbath is strengthened and deepened in a way that lets us not-observie it at the same time". This "novel" suggesting finds no support in all of scripture for this being a "deeper way to keep one of God's commands".
#3. Then you suggest that "we keep what we ignore" and use the Passover as an example. My point was made that in fact we don't keep Passover at all because "Christ our Passover has been slain" 1Cor 6. He fulfilled it - we don't keep it at all. I even gave you the exmaple of Romans 14 showing you that this is a perfect case of the one that "does not observe" one of the specific feast days. I will be reading your recent responses in the morning - but until know I have not seen you respond to this.
And so - having all these irons in the fire with this one point alone - you simply double back and repeat your opening assertion.
On the Timeless binding nature of Sabbath -
We saw that it began with God and mankind in Gen 2:3 and Christ shows us that His own Creation Memorial 7th-day holy day was "made for Mankind".
Then we saw that it continues even into the New Earth in Isaiah 66 "From Sabbath to shall All mankind come before Me to worship".
Your response was
#1. Maybe the New earth in Isaiah 66 is "some other New Earth" other than the one the Bible speaks of in places like Rev 22.
#2. You argue that maybe God made the Sabbath for mankind but forgot to actually tell mankind about it.
#3. You argue that since it is not repeated in the book of Acts - maybe it "Transitions" out for a while in the NT before coming back in - in some future New Earth for all mankind.
#4. You argue that although Christ and the Jews were keeping the Sabbath in the Gospels - maybe after the Gospels in - some other part of the NT - they stopped. You propose that the absence of the Sabbath commandment "Shows" that it is not to be kept EXCEPT when we see it absent in Malachi and EXCEPT when we see the commandment not fully repeated in Matt, Mark, Luke, John etc. You simply "make these rules up" as if that is "scripture telling you to do it".
Having taken the steps listed above - you then summarize your own history on these points as follows --
The charge that I did not use scriptures like
1 - MAtt 18 forgiveness revoked -
2. - John 12:32 "I will Draw ALL mankind unto Me"
3. 1John 2:1-3 "He died as the atoning sacrifice for Our sins and NOT for our sins only but for those of the entire WORLD".
4. 2Peter 3 - "God is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance"
can not be supported by a careful review of those debates (and the texts above are just one small set). Recall that I was challenged to give 50 texts in support of the Arminian view. I gave 50 specific refrerences consisting of 100's of texts in response.
Again - your summary is not accurate.
I affirm your using that example as it is "common ground" and easy to see where the point could be made.
You seem to complain that I would even subject it to the test at all.
You are then reduced to slicing up the NT between the pre-cross and post-cross sections and even abolishing the words of Christ Himself in the Gospels - if spoken Pre-Cross. How "legitimate" is that as a mere "proposal" Eric? Surely you can see that you are simply climbing farther and father out on a limb on this point.
So if in fact you wanted to "apply" that category of "observance" to Sabbath - what you would be saying is "I would keep every 7th-day Sabbath strictly if not doing so should cause my brother to stumble" see 1Cor 8:13.
Instead you take the equivalent approach "IF my brother is bothered by my meat eating - he goes to hell as Gal 4 states". By assigning Sabbath keeping NOT to the optional practices of Romans 14 - but to the condemned pagan practices of Gal 4.
You simply "can't" have a Romans 14 optional practice - that is protected to the point of 1Cor 8:13 - stand-on-its-head to become anything like Gal 4 - where you go to hell for even practicing it.
You claim you won't go to hell unless you both practice it AND expect others to do likewise - which is EXACTLY what we see them doing in 1Cor 8:13 where Paul's response is "Fine then I won't eat meat".
Whereas in Gal 4 Paul says of the pagan observances of seasons etc even to practice it - gets you to hell.
You simply had no leg to stand on in taking the path you took -
When We combine that with the "Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" in the New Earth - you were simply painting yourself into a very small corner.
#1. In Heb 10 we find strong explicit statements that "He put and end to sacrifices and offerings" - Nothing of the sort is found for Christ' 7th-day memorial of creation MADE for mankind. In fact - the opposite is found - we see it in the New Earth.
#2. There is no reference to animal sacrifices in the New Earth.
#3. Animal sacrifices are never said to be MADE for mankind and were not given before the fall.
#4. The annual feast days ALL were rooted in animal sacrifices with none of them sanctified by God in Gen 2:3.
I too spend hours in these response - so I know exactly how you feel on that point.
I too am not interested in going in circles. But I feel that the reason that this "repeats" is that given a specific line of argument - after 2 or 3 exchanges you go back and simply repeat your opening statement without carrying the argument to the next leve. That means I have to go back and give the same answer I already gave - as though I am walking you back to the 3rd or 4th exchange on that one point and encouraging you to eather take it to a 5th level or yield the point or agree to go to another one if you have no answer.
Merry Christmas - and by that I mean "A blessed Christmas" to you and a happy New Year.
In Christ,
Bob -
I said that the two commandments of Love existed already in the OT and did nothing to abolish any other part of God's Law.
You can not appeal to Deut 6:5 or to Lev 19:18 and say "SEE we have this now in the NT so we don't need the rest".
Get it?
Until you actually respond to that point - the argument above "stands".
Lets not go back to just repeating your opening statement on this without actually responding to the point above.
We don't have anything of the sort for Christ the Creator's 7th-day memorial of Creation that He makes "For mankind" and makes a holy day in Gen 2:3.
1. I already pointed out that Ephesians 6 shows the 10 commandment "unit" to still be in effect as Paul says the 5th commandment is the "FIRST commandment with a promise".
2. Quotes from that unit - are in Paul's writing, in the Gospels (pre-cross) and in James' writings.
The unit remains - and quotes from that unit continue in the NT.
Eric said
Those speculative notions never enter my arguments.
You have "yet" to respond to the point.
#2. The 3rd commandment is the ONLY one not "quoted" at all in the NT.
#3. EVEN YOU admit that the 4 gospels are in the NT - they don't repeat the Sabbath commandment AND the Sabbath WAS in full force pre-cross for those Gospels.
Your point simply has no leg to stand on. And I have pointed these facts out numerous times in regard to this oft-repeated statement of yours.
Carry your point forward or admit that you can not resolve these issues.
Now you have a problem - because you want to claim that by introduced the doctrine - the fact in Genesis 6 but not "commanding obedience" like the commandments in Exodus - this truth is "ignored" in Genesis - yet you already have admitted that this is not the case with Sabbath before the fall of man.
In fact you made some imaginative attempts to speculate how Adam would know to stop keeping Sabbath after the fall.
You can't go back to your old failed position on Sabbath in Eden that was "A secret" and extend it to "Unlean animals" in Genesis 6 as if we have "another secret" even though - by bringing in the clean animals "by sevens" "the secret would get out".
Please respond to this point.
Your point again??
I have highlighted this in my previous posts - and AS in this case - you simply wait a post or two and then re-post your opening statement for this point. That makes me have to repost my response to you "again" and wait for you to either carry your point on - or drop it.
I have "repeatedly" referenced Heb 10:4-12 "Showing" that your supposition is not true - as God said that He put an end to "sacrifices and offerings" (as He predicted He would in Dan 9:27 BTW)
Going back and re-posting that we must throw out the words of Christ pre-Cross or "else" we don't know we can stop sacrificing animals - just ignores the entire dilemma that your point fell into - you just loop back to the start.
Christ "fulfilled" the sacrifice "requirement" as the Lamb of God that takes away sin - doing it JUST as these shadow "predictive" laws predicted the Messiah would do.
I DO NOT participate as that sacrifice - I don't KEEP that sacrifice. I would be one of those in Romans 14 that is "NOT OBSERVING" the passover and should not be condemned for NOT doing so.
Your idea of calling "all things" as "observing" wipes out your own point in Romans 14.
I have already posted this as well -
You did not respond to this level by carrying your point forward - you simply come back to the start again and say that "not observing" is really "observing" in this case of animal sacrifices.
When James 2 quotes from some of the OT commandments (and not all nine) he says "So LIVE and so ACT as those who are to be JUDGED by this law".
You simply have no leg to stand on in that speculative statement above.
So ALL mankind had it from the very start.
#2. You can not argue "whatever WE can think up on our own trumps whatever Christ the Creator gives us".
AS for not violating the rules regarding Marriages -- My point is the same for Sabbath. You can not "refrane from violating Sabbath" while "ignoring it".
These gentiles were meeting on consecutive "Sabbaths" AND were even "God fearing Gentiles" who DID honor the reading of scripture AND were coming to Sabbath services EVEN when the Jews bailed out. In fact the FEWER the Jew the MORE the Gentiles according to Acts 13.
The idea that they knew nothing about Sabbath, Sabbath services, the word of God in the OT -- Acts 13 is a devastating rebuttal of those speculative ideas.
Gal 4 --
#1. There are no Jewish practices regaridng "Seasons" as there was for the Pagans in spring and fall. The text is far beyond anything Jewish.
#2. There is nothing in Gal 4 about "you observe these days and that is FINE but you also insist that others observe them so that sends you to hell".
#3. In 1Cor 8:13 the saints were insisting that "others" followed their own practice of not eating meat offerred to Idols. INSTEAD of making your argument for obviously Jewish laws (Recalol that you say that you go to hell if you observe them AND insist that others do too) Paul says "I WILL never eat meat again" if that is causing them to stumble. In your view he should be saying "you go to hell if you expect others to do what you see God commanding".
Romans 14 and Gal 4 --
#2. I have recently been adding the example of 1Cor 8:13 as it is the Romans 14:1-4 issue played out EXACTLY as you would condemn it in Gal 4.
In 1Cor 8 we see them observing AND insisting that others do so as well. INSTEAD of giving them the Gal 4 "hit the road" message that your view would require -- Paul says EVEN HE would be bound by that, thus sending them all to hell by your arguments.
Your argument has been shown to be without support.
In Christ,
Bob -
quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heb 4 -- In the text itself it is the 7th day Sabbath (not an annual one) that is specified and the conclusion “There REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God” shows us that we still have the Sabbath blessing to be entered into – today.
In the same way that the godly faithful saints of Heb 11 that ALSO entered the Land Canaan – were not “cast of out Canaan” when they become the faithful spirit-filled people of God. Rather they lived IN Canaan AND were born-again spirit filled “giants of faith” as recorded in Heb 11.
The “either/or” dichotomy that you are looking for – does not exist in scripture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric said
As already pointed out above - this was a case of BOTH the Sabbath AND rest in Canaan -- BOTH the Sabbath AND the faith of those in Heb 11.
In fact the argument is that neither the Sabbath NOR the rest of Canaan is of value IF you choose to rebell against God.
So when we see that the Sabbath rest REMAINS for the people of God - then as we observe Sabbath as the people of God - AS those saved and born-again we look forward to heaven when we can observe Sabbath with "ALL" mankind for "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship".
Instead of "ALL mankind may come before Me to worship OR all mankind may choose to keep Sabbath" it is BOTH aspects combined as "the blessing MADE for mankind".
quote: Bob said of circumcision of Jews-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it was still required in the NT. For this reason Paul has Timothy submit to it in Acts 16 AND Paul states 3 times from Acts 21-then end that his teaching was consistent with what God gave Moses.
In Romans 2 – Paul says that the “spiritual meaning” of that act is “still” the same as Moses said it was – the “circumcision of the heart” by the Holy Spirit. No change – OT or NT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Change.
Deut 30 did not "become" true after the cross.
There is simply "no change".
You simply can not argue "wholesale rejecting" as the only for us to figure out that we need to read and accept Heb 10:4-12.
I have already pointed this out numerous times - and you just keep coming back to the idea that we would not know to stop sacrificing if we did not push "reset" on God's Law when we get to the cross.
It just isn't true.
In Gal 3 Paul does not say "But when Christ was crucified on the cross THEN we stopped listening to the LAW of God" as you suppose.
Rather he says "WHEN FAITH CAME" - at the point of conversion for each soul - our relationship to the law changes. The ongoing authorotative law of God that continues to define sin - condemns us as sinners - lost - UNTIL faith comes, we are led individually to Christ and THEN Roman 2:13-16 relationship exists "NOT the HEARERS will be just before God but the DOERS of the law WILL be justified" because the "LAW is WRITTEN ON THE HEART" in the New Covenant instead of "ignored and abolished".
It is obedience from the heart - not wholesale rejection.
You argue that a law-centered christless gospel was the way of salvation in the past. Paul said in Gal 3 that "IF that were possible then righteousness would be based on law -- (there would BE NO need of Christ)" Gal 3:21
Start with 21:21-24, then 23:4-9, then 24:14-18 then 25:8,10-11, then 26:20-23 then 28:17.
You are simply on the wrong path here.
quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By not keeping Passover – (which I could freely “keep” today if I chose to according to Romans 14) – I am Romans 14 example of the one that “does NOT observe”.
This is very obvious.
I am the one that is “ignoring it” – I am not the example of the Romans 14 saint that chose to “Observe the day”.
Your idea of “still observing what you ignore” is an internally-conflicted position that your defense has forced you into.
It is not a logical position supportable from Rom 14 or Gal 4 or Matt 5 – “keeping what you ignore” is just not there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This forever ends your idea that not-keeping is really keeping.
#2. I have pointed out that NOT observing things like Passover on the basis of Heb 10:4-12 but NOT observing things about Adultery - or Christ the Creator's 7th day memorial is a problem for James quotes from the 10 commandments and then says if you break one you break them all. NOT observing those as you would NOT observe passover - is "a huge problem".
I think you see what I am arguing here.
You can't then go on to claim "not observing is a good example of Matt 5 deeper observiing".
Your argument is falling apart.
quote: Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Matt 5 when Christ contrasted the letter and the spirit – keeping it in the spirit ALWAYS included and surpassed outward performance.
You have gone the to the extreme opposite were “ignoring” is a “spiritual keeping and observing”.
That position is so “conflicted” that it totally makes mush out of Gal 4- because even when you think you are “faithfully ignoring those pagan Seasons” you are still “keeping” by your definition and as Paul said in Gal 4 – lost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You argue that by NOT keeping them your are still observing them. Paul in Gal 4 only condemns the "observance" and you claim that even by not observing you are "observing".
Futhermore - you are messing up your own Romans 14 argument as well saying that all practices are still "observing" the days.
quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with your view that IF you can’t just trash the Laws of God wholesale – then you actually have to pay attention to it – and who knows you might have to keep it all (as horrible as that might be).
My entire point is that your view is correct to a point.
Instead of wholesale dismissal of the Word of God (because it pertains to the Word of God before the Cross) what we really have is “ONE” Gospel in ALL ages. We pay “close attention” to His word in Heb 10 saying that the Sacrifices and offerings were “put to a stop” by Christ.
In other words – it is God’s explicit statement that must be applied to each part – to show that it is no longer binding – and can be freely ignored.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 14 defends "OBSERVING EVERY DAY and OBSERVING one day ABOVE another" it says of those that do not observe on one of those feast days - that it is fine. You claim that there is no such thing as not observing - since even ignoring the day is still observing it. Your argument fails there.
You argue the Gal 4 case with respect to the SAME days as Rom 14 - where in Gal 4 the "observance" is only "condemned" and no mention at all is given in Gal 4 about these "weak and elemental things pertaining to that which is no god" that "It would be find to observe them IF you did not also require others to do as you do" -- you simply "insert" that idea in the text.
quote:Bob said in response to Eric's statement about judging.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually this debate consists of you criticizing others for saying that the Word of God is still in force regarding the moral law to the point that it still includes Christ the Creator’s Holy day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been arguing that such a view of the pagan practices (oops I mean "weak elemental things that are of that which is NO-God-at all) of Gal 4 -- applied to Sabbath or to ANY practice listed in Romans 14 - does not work.
In Christ,
Bob -
-
How can you skip over things like this and then accuse me of not answering, or just repeating sopmething else? (you're the one repeating the same unproven assumptions)
Even so, you should admit that a line has to be drawn where having strong convictions on things like that does cross over into the "bondage" of Gal.4. You are also on my side when you appeared on the music forum, and if you may remember, Aaron uses 1 Cor. 8 to prove once and for all that we should all completely give up all our contemporary music (both in church and even our own personal listening), but you have to weigh whether this is a legitimate request, or whether it is entrapment in bondage. In Rom.14 and 1 Cor. 8, it is legitimate, and in Gal. 4, (as well as the music issue, KJV, etc) it is not, but is bondage. In the former case, we should respect our weak bretheren and have the ATTITUDE of such concern that we feel like we could give it completely up for their sake--not saying that we must actually do that, else we wouldn't do anything, as people will find fault with anything, including those in the latter case who are not legitimate. -
As we shall see now:
Page 8 of 12