The Sabbath, to keep or not to keep....

[RickD]

Mark 7:6,7,8 wrote: "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" `These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

I'm guessing that you posted this for me? Could you please tell me, in regards to the sabbath observance, since you are saying that I "let go" of that command, which "traditions of men", I'm holding on to?

[RickD]

PaulSacramento wrote:

I think the issue is NOT that it is "work" ( anything done by definition is work).
The issue is whether one should do a SPECIFIC thing to be in God's "god grace" as it were.
Should we keep the sabbath ( a work, deed, whichever term you want to use) because it was commanded to Israel in the 10 commandments?
and WHY?
Does keeping the Sabbath, if we choose to do it, make our worship of God more "correct" than someone that doesn't?

I think this is the issue. All along, Bav has made it his point to say that he believes anyone who doesn't observe the sabbath as he and SDA believe, then we are not worshiping God as He wants us to.

I believe this whole sabbath issue simply comes down to this:
Romans 14:5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

The issue here is what SDA says about the sabbath, from this site:http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

20. Sabbath:
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)

The bold emphasis is mine.

I don't see the SDA belief as any different than Baptismal Regeneration adherents, who require water baptism.

[BavarianWheels]

PaulSacramento wrote:

I think the issue is NOT that it is "work" ( anything done by definition is work).
The issue is whether one should do a SPECIFIC thing to be in God's "god grace" as it were.
Should we keep the sabbath ( a work, deed, whichever term you want to use) because it was commanded to Israel in the 10 commandments?
and WHY?
Does keeping the Sabbath, if we choose to do it, make our worship of God more "correct" than someone that doesn't?

I think this is the issue. All along, Bav has made it his point to say that he believes anyone who doesn't observe the sabbath as he and SDA believe, then we are not worshiping God as He wants us to.

I believe this whole sabbath issue simply comes down to this:
Romans 14:5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

The issue here is what SDA says about the sabbath, from this site:http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

20. Sabbath:
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)

The bold emphasis is mine.

I don't see the SDA belief as any different than Baptismal Regeneration adherents, who require water baptism.

It is God's Law that requires ALL be kept perfectly...for the Law can only declare a perfect person as Righteous. However we are sinners and the Law is death for us because we are lawbreakers.

So there's nothing theologically nor lawfully wrong with saying, "the law requires...". If you understand the basics of Law ( both God's Law and the laws of society ) and/or rules, they, by nature, require observance.

I believe this whole sabbath issue simply comes down to this:
Romans 14:5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

And again, you've been shown that in context of this passage, the sabbaths and days spoken of were the festival days, the sabbaths of weeks, and of years...NOT THE SABBATH OF CREATION.

Notice, for instance, you have not quit eating and drinking...please address why you've not quit eating and drinking.
.
.

[neo-x]

I agree with Byblos, that in reality obedience is simply obedience out of love, it should not be confused, mixed or wrongly called as work based religious ceremony. Just because its obedience. There is a difference. To a legalistic mind, obedience is a performance chart, to a true believer, it is about becoming more like Christ.

On a personal note, I do agree on the whole the the Sabbath do not apply to us. This whole debate is actually a fools errand (no disrespect intended). If someone wants to keep a day holy, let him be, if someone doesn't he is not to be blamed. Simple. I don't see why Bav has to go to lengths to imply sabbath as necessary for all, why not, "love each other as I have loved you" because it is more than a ceremony? This one actually demands humility, humbleness and Spirit of Christ to perform it, and if you do it, it is obedience.

What is the Law?
It is God's code for Israel, a chosen nation among the gentiles, in the time before Christ. It is the task master unless the son arrives.

Whom the Law was intended for?

Rom 3:19-22
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says it to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be
stopped, and the whole world may become guilty before God. 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. But now the righteousness of God
without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God which is
by the faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe

Men in bondage of sin, those that can not be without sin, people who are under command of sin, the law was for them. Paul states that as the very first reason for why else would the law be given if man could not err. People who did not fear God out of love but out of fear of their lives. The law was written on stone tabklets as Bav so rightly pointed out. Yet are they important?

Jeremiah 31:31-34
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[d] them,[e]”
declares the Lord.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.

Look how it says that the new covenant shall not be like the old, the stone tablets were important to people in bondage but for those who are in Christ, the law of God is on their minds and on their hearts, written by the spirit. And it is not the law that was given to Moses, for that is what is being changed in the first place. This means that there wont be a task master to supervise, "because they will all know me".

Rom 6:14 "But you are not under law, but under grace,". If the law is for those who are under it, then we who led in grace can not be under the law. Now you will say we are free from the judgment of the law but are under the law for following it nonetheless at least that is what Bav has been saying all along...well No, you are wrong.

Is the Law perfect?
No, only Christ himself is perfect, the law of God is good but not perfect, for one, it can not save, second it can not heal, third it is not God or part of God. It is concerned with man, his weakness and his error. The law itself is nothing but a standard, which man can not hold up to perfection. That is why it points to Christ.

Is the Law good for sanctification?
No, because the very essence of the law, as even Paul cited, is to show error, for when there was no law, man did not rightly know his error. The law points error and thus implies judgment. Therefore can one a born again believer be sanctified MORE by following the Law? No, he can be sanctified by the work of the Holy spirit.

If the law is Good for a christian life why didn't Jesus made the law as the helper instead of the Holy spirit?
I'll let Bav or Gman answer this or anyone who thinks like-wise.

Does the Holy spirit point to the Law?
No, the works of the flesh and the practice of the flesh is in opposition to the spirit. Consider the woman at the well in the Gospel of John 4. She was corcerned about the right place to worship, the right laws to observe, the right way to kneel before God, to please God, but the Lord told her the exact opposite "believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem...23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”"

He clearly points out the error. The law required that the place of worship was to be in the temple but Jesus told her otherwise. The essence of his words were, you do not have to follow ceremony to worship God, neither does God seek such worshipers.

Did Jesus say about the Holy spirit pointing to the Law?
No, he said, the spirit will let you know of things which are directly from me and the father. You don't have to open the first five books of the O.T to know my will.

Is the law totally useless?
Certainly not, but to follow it is a not a requirement nor obligation. In Romans Paul clearly states that those who live by the law, shall be judged by the law. He means the Jews of course who do not follow Christ. But those who have the spirit of Christ, if chose to obey the practices of the law, they are free to do it, it neither benefits them nor harm them but what it does lead to is often man made-ritual worship. A futile exercise that with time grows more than the message it actually presented and that may be a stumbling block for many.

Can we as Christians live without the LAW for guidance telling us to whats right and whats wrong?
Yes we can, because a true believer has the spirit of God, the heart of God's nature, love and justice, right within him. The Jews didnt have this, neiotehr then nor now and that is why the Law was given to them. I have read somewhere here from Gman or Bav that without the law we will be lost in a subjective chaos. No, you are so wrong. if you have the spirit of Christ, will you not be made aware of the same spirit that you are in error. You are talking about following books, written on paper with inks, I am saying when you have the spirit of God, and you have no Bible, will you not be led in the spirit? Is that not possible? Do you think such a thing can never happen? You have God in you and you seek help from a book that can neither set you free nor make you whole.

You point out rightly, the law is holy, yeah but that same holiness will accuse you of your impotent righteousness, (the same goes for all of us).

Did Jesus fulfilled the law?
Yes, he did, if we look at the requirement of salvation and atonement, he did.

Did Jesus break the law?
On numerous occasion, yes he did out right broke the law. Because the law had become more than what it had been intended for. Any ceremony, over time can get into this sort of legalistic nature. It broods "If you don't do it, you will be less obedient" kind of mentality.

The sermon on the mount is the clearest example of how good the law is it was written "an eye for an eye". Jesus told them "BUT I say to you" that's a big but right there. It means, that was the law and this is what i am commanding you with. And a big list follows in Matthew.

Jesus summed the law, in two sentences, love God with all your heart, love your neighbor as yourself. For on these rest the law and the prophets.
I saw you guys arguing on the Big ten, well let me say, why those from the law, you do realize that if you obey Christ, and have his love in your heart, you will not murder, steal, rape, etc etc. And that alone is enough, for the law is only the shadow of the perfect nature of God.

The law says do not murder, yet it is not perfect, for it does not say that "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift."

the law says, do not perform adultery but can not stop it."

The law accuses, but it can not set you right. It can shout, you're a sinner but it can not stop the cause. It has the tablet of stone but can't change the heart of the sinful man. I wonder how some of you want to regard it so much when in actuality all it did was to make sinner more horrible than before and only Christ saves us from that.

For those of you who think that the law is good for following, may i ask that when Christ himself showed that the law is inadequate, what makes you think otherwise?

You all agree, the law doesn't save, doesn't heal, doesn't cure, doesn't forgive, doesn't set free, doesn't show mercy (for breaking of a single commandment is breaking the entire law) doesn't give any ground, in fact it is so harsh that Christ had to die to fulfill it and overthrow the accusations against us - yet you want to practice it, to what end? to please god? to make yourself sanctified, to follow a safe line of thought? to be obedient? If the latter is the case then you are just looking at the wrong place. To be obedient to Christ means to fulfill what he said. And I can guarantee you, Christ did not go about preaching the LAW. Nor did he ever emphasized on its practical importance, never, not one bit. The only reference to it is when he said that not a dot of it shall be removed and that the law pointed to him, and yes that is indeed so, because that law is the reason Christ died and his atonement is the testament against the work based criteria law had. You may like to follow it, but it does not make you a new creature nor it adds to you being a new creature, only Christ can do that.

If the Sabbath which was given to Jews as a covenant sign, is mandatory, then so is circumcision. And if so then as Paul rightly said, that the message of the gospel is void and of no use.

Do you not see that a person who never had the Old testament would not know the Ten commandments and yet, if he follows Christ he is following a standard way higher than the law.

Its only a shadow of things to come, its not perfect and its not be followed when we are no longer slaves to sin, nor bonded to it. That was the very reason it was given to people who had hearts of stone, without Christ and did not know grace in the manner which we all did. We are not servants, he called us Friends and brothers.

GALATIANS 3:10 All who rely on observing the Law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the Law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12 The Law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." (NIV)

My question "how is the law a better guide than the spirit?" Name whatever you want, sacrifices, ceremonies, clean/unclean, whatever, how does the law in any of its statues help you as a believer?

And don't give me the basic right wrong crap, an atheist knows that too. How does the law, any one of the law written in the first five books of the bible help your spiritual life? what have you gained because of it, any personal testimony?

-----
P.S made some minor edits*

[BavarianWheels]

Mark 7:6,7,8 wrote: "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" `These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

I'm guessing that you posted this for me? Could you please tell me, in regards to the sabbath observance, since you are saying that I "let go" of that command, which "traditions of men", I'm holding on to?

You tell me what traditions you are holding to. You're only "holding to" 9 of God's 10 Commandments. Look at Christ's words. I think you, yourself said God does not require worship...

But Bav, aren't we already accepted by God, through Christ's efficacious offering? Therefore, there is no need for worship on our part. Christ offered Himself once and for all.

But the above Mark passage quoting Christ's words seems to suggest otherwise. By your words above, you're saying Christ worshipped Himself so that we no longer need to? What logic is this? Blood atonement and worship are two totally different things. The Atonement was a payment/offering for SIN...Worship is because He is God...our Creator...it says it exactly as such in the Commandment itself.

So, you tell me...what traditions are you holding on to that you dismiss worship of God in the manner which God ( Himself rested ), and so His Law, requires to do so? If it is a requirement of the Righteous, then how much more is it a requirement to the sinner living according to the Spirit...which is Righeous???
.
.

[RickD]

Mark 7:6,7,8 wrote: "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" `These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

I'm guessing that you posted this for me? Could you please tell me, in regards to the sabbath observance, since you are saying that I "let go" of that command, which "traditions of men", I'm holding on to?

You tell me what traditions you are holding to. You're only "holding to" 9 of God's 10 Commandments. Look at Christ's words. I think you, yourself said God does not require worship...

But Bav, aren't we already accepted by God, through Christ's efficacious offering? Therefore, there is no need for worship on our part. Christ offered Himself once and for all.

But the above Mark passage quoting Christ's words seems to suggest otherwise. By your words above, you're saying Christ worshipped Himself so that we no longer need to? What logic is this? Blood atonement and worship are two totally different things. The Atonement was a payment/offering for SIN...Worship is because He is God...our Creator...it says it exactly as such in the Commandment itself.

So, you tell me...what traditions are you holding on to that you dismiss worship of God in the manner which God ( Himself rested ), and so His Law, requires to do so? If it is a requirement of the Righteous, then how much more is it a requirement to the sinner living according to the Spirit...which is Righeous???
.
.

Bav, I made it clear that I believe God does not require worship, for salvation(to gain it or keep it).

I'll be back later. I have to go to "work".

[BavarianWheels]

Is the Law perfect?
No, only Christ himself is perfect, the law of God is good but not perfect, for one, it can not save, second it can not heal, third it is not God or part of God. It is concerned with man, his weakness and his error. The law itself is nothing but a standard, which man can not hold up to perfection. That is why it points to Christ.

Not only is this wrong, it fails simple logic.

If the Law is holy and righteous, then by nature it is perfect. If it is not part of God, then pretell why it came by God's own hand. The Law is not concerned with man...to anthropomorphize the Law is illogical to say the least as the LAW ITSELF has no concern. It is simply a standard with which Righteousness is measured. If the Law is kept perfectly, the Law simply acknowledges the individual is Righteous. If the individual is shown to be guilty of even one, then the individual is declared a sinner and the wages of sin is death. I think you made this point in the above. If the Law ( as you say above ) points to Christ...then IT IS PERFECT and you've just shot yourself in the foot.

...and so goes the rest of your post.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

Bav, I made it clear that I believe God does not require worship, for salvation(to gain it or keep it).

...of course your belief trumps God's Law. "Remember..." It's not a requirement IT IS LAW! To willfully go against it is to fall into line with the Pharisee's and Christ's words are directed at you too.

"Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" `These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'*

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

.
.

[jlay]

Seriously, what is this obsession with defining practically everything written in scripture as being a work? Don't get baptized, that's a work, don't repent and confess your sins that's a work, don't observe the Sabbath oh no, don't this, don't do that. It's almost as if the mentality is to step as far away from Catholicism as possible but in the process we are losing something much more precious, obedience. And no, not obedience as a work to gain salvation (I can't believe I even have to repeat that), not even for sanctification (and once again I am incredulous that I've been hearing lately even sanctification requires nothing to be done lest it, God forbid, be classified as a work ). But obedience out of love, obedience because we were commanded to do so by Christ himself. There is a reason you know, why he said to do these things. Even though we may disagree on the semantics of what that means, I think it should be obvious enough that we ought to do them simply because he said so. Not in a legalistic, ritualistic manner, but truly and simply out of obedience and love.

Byb, I don't think that's the issue, nor do I think that is how the 'church' presents it.

If the Sabbath is meant for us to keep, then I would say keep it. But the NT, rightly divided, does not teach that. Religion, with lots of prooftexting does. Sadly Wheels skipped right over my last post. As I pointed out, there are specific commands mentioned in 1 John, and even in the other books cited, but this seems to be ignored. The reader seems insistant on important what they think it means. If one insist on reading their pre-determined theology into the text, then everytime they see 'command,' 'obey', or 'law,' then they will jump to those conclusions.

The old, "I'll do it because the Bible says so," ignores sound exegesis and is a reckless hermaneutic. Wheels has no problem making distinctions between the 10 and the rest of the Law.
If someone is compelled to keep the Sabbath, I say go for it. But when one infers that they are not being obedient or loving by not doing so, then it is another issue all together.

Words of Christ ring with the same truth today...and further, He quotes Isaiah...the OT and then immediately after quotes Moses and the 5th Commandment! What more evidence does a people need?

Those words have a context. And that context has an audience. (Israel) And so, why do you insist on putting yourself in that audience?

[BavarianWheels]

Those words have a context. And that context has an audience. (Israel) And so, why do you insist on putting yourself in that audience?

Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,

.
.

[neo-x]

neo-x wrote:
Is the Law perfect?
No, only Christ himself is perfect, the law of God is good but not perfect, for one, it can not save, second it can not heal, third it is not God or part of God. It is concerned with man, his weakness and his error. The law itself is nothing but a standard, which man can not hold up to perfection. That is why it points to Christ.


Not only is this wrong, it fails simple logic.

If the Law is holy and righteous, then by nature it is perfect. If it is not part of God, then pretell why it came by God's own hand. The Law is not concerned with man...to anthropomorphize the Law is illogical to say the least as the LAW ITSELF has no concern. It is simply a standard with which Righteousness is measured. If the Law is kept perfectly, the Law simply acknowledges the individual is Righteous. If the individual is shown to be guilty of even one, then the individual is declared a sinner and the wages of sin is death. I think you made this point in the above. If the Law ( as you say above ) points to Christ...then IT IS PERFECT and you've just shot yourself in the foot.

...and so goes the rest of your post.

And you have so conveniently avoided all the points that I raised, the law is not perfect because it can not do what grace can, simple as that. Righteousness is not measured by the law. Did you not read about Abraham?...o my, you are way off track Bav. LOL...the only reason it points to Christ, its because its not perfect. go ahead read my post again. Very easy to say, "you are wrong", prove it.

[BavarianWheels]

And you have so conveniently avoided all the points that I raised, the law is not perfect because it can not do what grace can, simple as that. Righteousness is not measured by the law. Did you not read about Abraham?...o my, you are way off track Bav. LOL...the only reason it points to Christ, its because its not perfect. go ahead read my post again. Very easy to say, "you are wrong", prove it.

If Righteousness is not measured by the Law...why then is the Law there to point at sin.

Again...your logic fails as it is not logical.

Abraham is a sinner, therefore the Law cannot save him...and it doesn't. So God paid the price THE LAW demands...and freely gives this by faith...and Abraham was credited...

Come on! The Law points to Christ...because He is perfect and the Law establishes that in that Christ is innocent of breaking ANY Law...
.
.

[neo-x]

no, Abraham was made righteous before the law...your point is null and void, explain to me how he was credited before there was law when the law is the only measuring stick and the criteria thereof, to do so, as you say so.

[neo-x]

and how about the rest of my post bav, couple of questions there I asked you, you can of course choose to not reply, which is fine, that is a refusal but not a rebuttal and you're not off the hook.

[jlay]

Romans 10:12 wrote: For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,

Bav,
Two bad proof text don't make a right. You are plucking and tucking verses without any concern to context or sound exegesis. The context of Romans 10 is a theological argument being presented by Paul regarding salvation being available to the Gentiles. A bit of a touchy subject to 1st cnetury Jews. And has nothing to do with how you are using it. Part of answer is included in the 2nd part of the verse.

It is sloppy disregard.