sabbath keeping

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
Once again, Kurieuo, I've answered your questions and you've replied to posts but as of yet you have not answered my one question.

If (and I believe when) the government, through the guise of "family values" or similar, draws a line in the sand making the official worship day Sunday and in doing so removing freedom to worship, what will your thoughts be on this and ultimately, whom will you follow?
When the day comes and you need to make a choice, will you still be fully convinced of the unimportance of God's Law?
Which will you choose?

I also notice no one else has staked their beliefs on one side or the other here. I happen to know where Byblos sits, but that's because I know what Byblos believes and where his Church stands on the issue(s).
.
.

[Byblos]

.
.
Once again, Kurieuo, I've answered your questions and you've replied to posts but as of yet you have not answered my one question.

If (and I believe when) the government, through the guise of "family values" or similar, draws a line in the sand making the official worship day Sunday and in doing so removing freedom to worship, what will your thoughts be on this and ultimately, whom will you follow?
When the day comes and you need to make a choice, will you still be fully convinced of the unimportance of God's Law?
Which will you choose?

Bav, K answered you a few posts back and said this:

I will not follow any man, whether a church or government, but rather my faith is in Christ and I am now led by the Spirit.

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
Once again, Kurieuo, I've answered your questions and you've replied to posts but as of yet you have not answered my one question.

If (and I believe when) the government, through the guise of "family values" or similar, draws a line in the sand making the official worship day Sunday and in doing so removing freedom to worship, what will your thoughts be on this and ultimately, whom will you follow?
When the day comes and you need to make a choice, will you still be fully convinced of the unimportance of God's Law?
Which will you choose?

Bav, K answered you a few posts back and said this:

I will not follow any man, whether a church or government, but rather my faith is in Christ and I am now led by the Spirit.

You know as well as I, that this is not an answer to a direct question. Of course, we all will follow our faith in Christ.

When a choice needs to be made from one day or another, which will he/you choose?
.
.

[Canuckster1127]

Framing a hypothetical question that leads back to your espoused position and then complaining when another sees through it and answers according to their position, is hardly fair. The issue your question presumes is the issue under dispute.

For my part, if I held to your position and the government attempted to force my compliance, I would follow God and my conscience. As it stands I don't believe the governent should be prescribing any particular day for worship but should be allowing individuals to worship according to the dictates of their beliefs and conscience. The governments role where it exists should extend simply to the civil issues needed to provide reasonable accomodation where that is needed. The issue of the sabbath as it's been discussed here is outside of civil government issues and has been based on scriptural understanding.

I've also given you a large number of scriptural foundations that equate circumcision and the 10 commandments unequivocably and you've not addressed them directly choosing instead to make blanket statements with regard to the early church and lumping in direct scripture as if they were one and the same and then simply repeated your prior assertions as dogma or a repeated mantra. I've been around long enough to know when that happens, then conversation has ceased. I respect these are your beliefs and that you're passionate about them. It's been beat to death over several threads and for several years. What more needs to be said that hasn't been said already?

K and others deserve at least the civility of recognizing when an answer has been given, even if you don't like the answer or they haven't fallen into the rhetorical trap you've set by how you've framed it.

[BavarianWheels]

Framing a hypothetical question that leads back to your espoused position and then complaining when another sees through it and answers according to their position, is hardly fair. The issue your question presumes is the issue under dispute.

For my part, if I held to your position and the government attempted to force my compliance, I would follow God and my conscience. As it stands I don't believe the governent should be prescribing any particular day for worship but should be allowing individuals to worship according to the dictates of their beliefs and conscience. The governments role where it exists should extend simply to the civil issues needed to provide reasonable accomodation where that is needed. The issue of the sabbath as it's been discussed here is outside of civil government issues and has been based on scriptural understanding.

I've also given you a large number of scriptural foundations that equate circumcision and the 10 commandments unequivocably and you've not addressed them directly choosing instead to make blanket statements with regard to the early church and lumping in direct scripture as if they were one and the same and then simply repeated your prior assertions as dogma or a repeated mantra. I've been around long enough to know when that happens, then conversation has ceased. I respect these are your beliefs and that you're passionate about them. It's been beat to death over several threads and for several years. What more needs to be said that hasn't been said already?

K and others deserve at least the civility of recognizing when an answer has been given, even if you don't like the answer or they haven't fallen into the rhetorical trap you've set by how you've framed it.

Hypothetical? It's history. Please refer to your Bible and Daniel 3. It's as much the same. Will you bow to an image of man or THE IMAGE of God? It's a picture of the end times when it will occur again. Have you not heard of Blue Laws? Are you unaware of the begininings of this in small countries already? Have you not seen the few "Family Day" holidays held to all over including Arizona? It's only a matter of time when this concept will creep into a religious weekly holiday.

(edit) Correction: I don't think it will be legislated as a "religious" weekly holiday. It will be hurdled by, "to provide a uniform day of rest for all citizens"

Who's being uncivil? How can I not like the answer if I've not been given an answer? Rhetorical trap? I'm trapping you now? It's a simple question.

Given the civil choice of Sunday vs. Sabbath as the only day to worship (within the laws of the land and to which only one is honored by your employer(s) )...which would you choose?
.
.

[Canuckster1127]

As the worship day is not an issue to me and I can with good conscience follow my prescribed practices in this area without having to make such a decision, it's a moot point for me, personally. I would certainly use my vote and take a stand that the government has no business in creating such a dilemma and further that the government does have a role in ensuring that others whether, SDA, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise are not placed in a position of having to violate their conscience when reasonable accommodation can be made for them in public or private employment. There are jobs where that might be a legitimate issue (such as police, fireman, military, etc.) and as a result preclude persons with such issues of conscience, but even then, if departments and workforces are sufficiently large they can be accomodated with only exceptions of extreme emergency which in many cases, a person's religious convictions allow for exceptions under such circumstances anyway.

That's my answer. I believe it's pretty similar to K's and it's coming from the perspective of my values and beliefs which are different than what your question wants to presume. I see however, how that would be an issue for you given your beliefs and I'm not unsympathetic to them.

The issue of civility arises in whether you're willing to take the time and effort to understand where someone is coming from in answering your questions without demanding that they accept your position in order to answer it. If you can't see that, then we have nothing more to discuss on this particular issue.

You may note that whether you see it or appreciate it, others have attempted to understand your position and have dealt with it directly. You continue to drive at this point while continuing to ignore my and others requests of you to directly deal with the scriptural passages that directly equate the 10 commandments with the Old Covenant and thus with circumcision. Why do you believe that not one but two passages in the OT make this direct correlation in unequivocal terms?

Is your question really more important than that? Is it perhaps an attempt to deflect attention from the unwillingness or inability to address that issue and rather put forth the claim that you haven't been given an answer when in fact you have, multiple times by multiple people?

You'll have to answer that for yourself. It may well be, and I am subject to the same type of responses so please don't take this personally, that you're so passionate and focused on your convictions in this regard that you're not taking the time to really read what's being said.

In any event, as I've said, we've been beating this horse for years and I'm quite content to accept that you see it differently and as you do, you should certainly follow the dictates of your conscience as to do otherwise for you would be sin. Where I take issue is when those with such a conviction extend that to then stand in judgment of others who are following their consciences and walking in the freedom Christ provides. I'm willing to bear with the convictions of others in this regard and even to respect them from a position of love and valuing the tenderness of their hearts and consciences. If there were a church that were strong and loving in most other areas that met on Saturday's I could even see being a part and adapting the practice, in order to worship and be a part. I don't think Saturday worship is inherently wrong.

I just think it's unnecessary to practice and that God is concerned far more about a person's heart than what day their butts hit a pew.

[Gman]

I just think it's unnecessary to practice and that God is concerned far more about a person's heart than what day their butts hit a pew.

[BavarianWheels]

As the worship day is not an issue to me and I can with good conscience follow my prescribed practices in this area without having to make such a decision, it's a moot point for me, personally.

I understand, fully, believe me in this. In your good conscience without a mandate from the State, you have this luxury. Thanks be to God for the system of America and the freedoms it allows and provides. However, as we can certainly note from McGowan v. Maryland, the tables are easily turned to disallow freedom of religion in the guise of what's best for society on the whole.

I would certainly use my vote and take a stand that the government has no business in creating such a dilemma and further that the government does have a role in ensuring that others whether, SDA, Muslim, Jewish or otherwise are not placed in a position of having to violate their conscience when reasonable accommodation can be made for them in public or private employment.

I would stand with you EVEN IF (if it could be fathomed) the wording of the law was to uphold the 7th Day Sabbath!! (gasp)

There are jobs where that might be a legitimate issue (such as police, fireman, military, etc.) and as a result preclude persons with such issues of conscience, but even then, if departments and workforces are sufficiently large they can be accomodated with only exceptions of extreme emergency which in many cases, a person's religious convictions allow for exceptions under such circumstances anyway.

Agreed. Some jobs are not able to be accomodated as easily and the person with that job has to place their beliefs on the line. Do I take the job and go against my convictions or do I wait for another door to be opened? What about the new convert? Of course one must weigh their convictions and what it means with regard to their profession. I've known many that have left VERY good jobs over their newly found convictions on the Sabbath. Some have lost A LOT and others found comparable employment elsewhere. Some have simply chosen to close up shop on Saturdays. Those are the most blessed that are able, since they are the boss, to simply change the hours of work.

That's my answer. I believe it's pretty similar to K's and it's coming from the perspective of my values and beliefs which are different than what your question wants to presume. I see however, how that would be an issue for you given your beliefs and I'm not unsympathetic to them.

I appreciate that...really. If it goes as I suggest, then it's not only an issue for me, but it becomes an issue of larger consequences to you and anyone that holds to similar beliefs of there is no matter in which day is a correct day if there is one.

The issue of civility arises in whether you're willing to take the time and effort to understand where someone is coming from in answering your questions without demanding that they accept your position in order to answer it. If you can't see that, then we have nothing more to discuss on this particular issue.

If I didn't understand the "time and effort" to answer this question, I wouldn't ask it and the answer wouldn't have much of a meaning, now would it. The mere fact that the answer from your perspective is unanswerable, or you won't answer it speaks more volumes than the answer itself can give. If you were to answer, "I would stick with Sunday" then I would simply say, "He's more than convicted than I thought in his position. Good for him. He's not warm on the issue." If you said the opposite, then I'd ask, "Why then do you follow man now?"

Since there is no answer given, what remains is that you're really not convicted and are blatently defying God's Word.

You are neither hot nor cold...

You may note that whether you see it or appreciate it, others have attempted to understand your position and have dealt with it directly. You continue to drive at this point while continuing to ignore my and others requests of you to directly deal with the scriptural passages that directly equate the 10 commandments with the Old Covenant and thus with circumcision. Why do you believe that not one but two passages in the OT make this direct correlation in unequivocal terms?

I have made reference to them, you simply wont see the words as they are written. Not one place in Scripture is the Law (the 10) devalued to a state of non-importance. However the law of Moses, which includes circumcision is what Paul speaks of, and very clearly is the point of contention between him and who he speaks to.

Another point of which no one has mentioned other than me, is the point of the placement of these laws. God's Law and that of the rest of the regulations...of which pointed to Christ's intervention. Not one of the 10 points to Christ intervention/sacrifice for man. Not one. Not one of them is a shadow of things to come, but rather are everlasting truths.

Is your question really more important than that? Is it perhaps an attempt to deflect attention from the unwillingness or inability to address that issue and rather put forth the claim that you haven't been given an answer when in fact you have, multiple times by multiple people?

The contexts are clear in those verses and it has been shown that the context is the laws of Moses that are the shadow and the things the people (Galatians) were doing. The texts are clear. I'm not avoiding answering the questions, I've already shone the context and how is not the 10 that are nailed to the cross. It is the CURSE of the LAW (not the Law itself) to the sinner and all the regulations that pointed to Christ that were nailed. Paul clearly says, "Do we then nullify the Law?..."

You'll have to answer that for yourself. It may well be, and I am subject to the same type of responses so please don't take this personally, that you're so passionate and focused on your convictions in this regard that you're not taking the time to really read what's being said.

Don't think I've avoided, I've read and answered EVERY point which you all have brought up. If I've missed one, give me the text that does away with the Sabbath of the 10.

In any event, as I've said, we've been beating this horse for years and I'm quite content to accept that you see it differently and as you do, you should certainly follow the dictates of your conscience as to do otherwise for you would be sin. Where I take issue is when those with such a conviction extend that to then stand in judgment of others who are following their consciences and walking in the freedom Christ provides.

I can't judge as you accuse me of doing. I give you sound Scripture to point you to the Law of God. It is you that explains it away by using man's tradition and interpretation of the church.

I'm willing to bear with the convictions of others in this regard and even to respect them from a position of love and valuing the tenderness of their hearts and consciences. If there were a church that were strong and loving in most other areas that met on Saturday's I could even see being a part and adapting the practice, in order to worship and be a part. I don't think Saturday worship is inherently wrong.

Likewise, I don't see worship on Sunday is wrong either. However to twist the words of Scripture to promote a man-made tradition and devalue the sanctity of ONE day to worship God...I pity the teacher of this.

I just think it's unnecessary to practice and that God is concerned far more about a person's heart than what day their butts hit a pew.

It's odd you'd mention that God is far more concerned about a person's heart.

Jeremiah 31:33
Romans 2:15
Hebrews 8:10

The new covenant is the Law written on the heart...available in Jeremiah's time in the least.

Who said to worship God is to sit on a pew? The Command is not to sit on a pew...please read it and slowly as it seems you're adding to the Law and inserting man's traditions again.
.
.

[Canuckster1127]

Since there is no answer given, what remains is that you're really not convicted and are blatently defying God's Word.

There it is Bav.

It's not a question of convicted. It's a question of my objective beliefs which have been outlined to you from me and from others in painful detail over an extended period of time. I'm not defying God's word. I'm living in accordance with it under grace.

If you were following your own conscience then there wouldn't be this abject judgement of others. I stand by the multiple passages that clearly state the keeping of the law in this manner is not to be imposed upon others as a requirement for salvation or daily living.

Since you've done me the service of being blunt, I'll return it believing you must wish to be treated here as you're treating others. I see your behavior in this regard as the weaker brother whose conscience is seared at the thought of acting otherwise. By all means follow your conscience. When you seek to judge me and others however by that standard, then you've crossed a line and have gone from conscience into full blown legalism. You're welcome to do whatever you wish. I don't have to receive that judgement from you however or anyone else, when it is clearly seeking to impose bondage upon others whom Christ has freed.

After years of this Bav, believe me, everyone knows your position and I personally am tired of riding this perpetual hobby horse.

Respectfully, give it a rest, why don't you?

[BavarianWheels]

Since there is no answer given, what remains is that you're really not convicted and are blatently defying God's Word.

There it is Bav.

There what is? That you're convicted or against God's word? You still haven't answered.

It's not a question of convicted. It's a question of my objective beliefs which have been outlined to you from me and from others in painful detail over an extended period of time. I'm not defying God's word. I'm living in accordance with it under grace.

Under grace does not mean against or contrary to. As I've mentioned many times, the point is not a salvation point if we die apart from making a choice given the ultimatum of the choice. The point is, of the question, given the ultimatum, which would you choose? To ignore the question is to not be convicted. Simple.

If you were following your own conscience then there wouldn't be this abject judgement of others.

Who is judging you? Me? Hardly. I'm simply relaying the words of scripture and the best context given the language. If there was a change, then that change is not made clear, but in "interpretation" and in "tradition" of men.

I stand by the multiple passages that clearly state the keeping of the law in this manner is not to be imposed upon others as a requirement for salvation or daily living.

The Law doesn't save. You accuse me of repeating, but you keep repeating also this notion that we both hold to.

THE LAW POINTS AT SIN and condemns a sinner because not one human can keep the Law perfectly. The Law then is a curse because IT (the Law) cannot save a sinner. IF THE LAW POINTS AT SIN, then what does it say of each point in the Law?

Since you've done me the service of being blunt, I'll return it believing you must wish to be treated here as you're treating others.

How am I treating you and others? Any differnt than you treat others?

I see your behavior in this regard as the weaker brother whose conscience is seared at the thought of acting otherwise.

You're mistaken. I only wish for you to see the words of Scripture as they are, not as "interpreted by the church, by men, by tradition..."

By all means follow your conscience. When you seek to judge me and others however by that standard

It's not my standard. Your beef is with God and His Commands...all of them.

then you've crossed a line and have gone from conscience into full blown legalism.

You don't know what legalism means do you. Legalism means one MUST KEEP THE LAW PERFECTLY TO GAIN SALVATION THROUGH THE LAW.

You're welcome to do whatever you wish.

Thank you, I hope this doesn't make my points and questions (unanswered questions) as one that divides, but one that brings together.

I don't have to receive that judgement from you however or anyone else, when it is clearly seeking to impose bondage upon others whom Christ has freed.

If it is written on the heart and is as the Spirit would lead and do, then it is not bondage, but LOVE...hmm....didn't Christ say that LOVE fulfills the Commands of God?

After years of this Bav, believe me, everyone knows your position and I personally am tired of riding this perpetual hobby horse.

It's not my position...it's God's Law. Quit making me out to be some kind of person that divides when it is you that is dividing God's Law.

Respectfully, give it a rest, why don't you?

Respectfully, I wont. It is part of God's 10 Commands. It is HIS words I promote as Holy, Righeous and True and it is Paul the apostle that gives the "tradition" of correction here.

The only way you can silence me is to:

1. Show in God's WORDS a change in God's LAW.

2. Ban me from the forum because I endeavor to answer someone elses question with the truth of Scripture and not with a tradition of man of which there is no Biblical directive for either from God, Christ, nor an apostle.

If 2, then we know you failed at 1.

I'm open for revisiting those texts you think I've not dealt with. GIve me a list and I'll go one by one.
.
.

[Kurieuo]

.
.
Once again, Kurieuo, I've answered your questions and you've replied to posts but as of yet you have not answered my one question.

If (and I believe when) the government, through the guise of "family values" or similar, draws a line in the sand making the official worship day Sunday and in doing so removing freedom to worship, what will your thoughts be on this and ultimately, whom will you follow?
When the day comes and you need to make a choice, will you still be fully convinced of the unimportance of God's Law?
Which will you choose?

Bav, K answered you a few posts back and said this:

I will not follow any man, whether a church or government, but rather my faith is in Christ and I am now led by the Spirit.

Bav, I also responded the first time around with:

As for the unimportance of God's Law, I believe it is important as it reveals our weakness and need for God's grace. It helps to show us for who we really are and points to Christ, and our need for Him in whom the Law was fulfilled.

It also continues to be important to those who remain under it, and who will therefore be judged by it. There are two ways to God: Keeping to the old convenant which was based on observing God's law 100%, or by accepting our failure to live up to God's law and placing our faith in Christ and hope in His promise.

Now, you might claim to take God's law more seriously than those who depend entirely upon God's grace offered through Christ, but in reality I don't think you really do at all. For example, Exodus 31:14 has 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people.' Do you believe this should be followed? If not, then when was this jot removed? On the otherhand, I think the following passage explains perfectly why we are no longer bound to Exodus 31:14 and the rest of God's Law:

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (Colossians 2:13-17)

The reason you are not liking my answers are because you have made the question into a loaded question. Bart is exactly right, you are asking a question which embeds premises that are in dispute. So I apologise if you do not accept my response as fulfilling. I would have thought given our long history here, you would at least treat me respectfuly. However, the issue is not with my response, but rather with your quesiton which commits a logical fallacy.

Perhaps you could answer this following question for me: "Do you accept that we are saved entirely by faith in Christ and reject we must worship God on the Sabbath, or will you deny we are saved by faith alone in Christ?"

Many blessings.

[B. W.]

....1. Show in God's WORDS a change in God's LAW.

Hebrews 7:12, "For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also..." NASB


Hebrews 9:14, "...how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives..." NKJV

Gal 3:23. 24, 25, "But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." NKJV

2 Co 3:6, 7, 8"...who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?

2 Co 3:9, 10, 11, "For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious."

2 Co 3:17, 18, "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." NKJV

Romans 7:6,"But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter."
-
-
-

[Canuckster1127]

There what is? That you're convicted or against God's word? You still haven't answered.

Bav,

Do you know what a false dilemma is? Let me help you out.

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

Let me offer you another one in the same vein for you to play with. Are you willfully ignorant of what you're doing with this tactic, or are you sincerely this incapable of understanding a simple concept and engaging in civil discourse? While you're at it, maybe you can let us know if you're still beating your wife (a classic example of the type of games you're playing here.)

You've worn this tactic into the ground and I think the only person here who's impressed with it is you.

You've spent the last several years hitting and running here continuing with the same tired discourse and then when you're challenged on it, you take on the persona of an adolescent complaining of how you are ill treated and moderators are threatening you.

I've not said one word about banning in this discourse. I've engaged you and when you're called on this stuff pull it out to bathe in some sort of self-pity party
or to deflect attention from the blatant disrespect that you treat this board and many of us who are moderators or regular participants with despite the fact that you have almost a thousand posts here and you're still here. Methinks you are protesting far too much.

If you leave here or are sent from here, let me offer you another option from one of the other logical fallacies in your post. There's many more options than you're right and we're unable to refute you. It's not a coincidence that you've concluded with another false dilemma here. In fact, legalism of the sort you're displaying thrives on false dilemmas and all or nothing thinking.

You might want to take a look at the definition of legalism. Remarkably, there are other elements of the definition than what you self-servingly offer.

Legalism as I use the term and as other people understand is an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law over the spirit. Your attempt to define it is rather self-serving and misses the point entirely by defining it in the most extreme (and unrealistic) manner so that by comparison you seem in the middle.

Despite your protests all you've offered here particularly in your last few posts, is increasingly shrill judgements of those who choose not to reject God's word, but rather you and your traditions and pharisaical judgements. I'll leave it to you and God to determine if you really do believe in grace. There's precious little evidence in it, in your tone, your accusations or your conduct especially when you ignore and refuse to address direct scriptural evidence still, that the 10 commandments are the old convenant and part and parcel with circumcision. Repeating your position and not addressing the specific quotes from scripture is intellectually unteneble. You're not content to follow your own conscience in this regard. You must attack those who choose to walk in grace as if they were rejecting you. It's not enough to follow your beliefs; you're more concerned about others lest they are too free.

For my part, you're welcome to say whatever you wish about me. Have at it.

You're not welcome however to condemn others and continue with this tired, repetative juvenile series of false dilemmas, and continued violations of the discussion guidelines of the board. As I and others do have a responsibility to address that when it occurs, repeatedly and as this has gone on repeatedly for a long time it's not something new.

Say what you want about me and have fun. If I observe your continued treatment of other moderators and participants of this board with the type of abuse that's gone on for far too long, I will hold you accountable for it in accordance with the board purpose and discussion guidelines and your multiple posts and continued railings will remain on the board as a testimony for others to see for themselves if it's deserved or not and how much and how long patience has been extended to you.

I'm very serious. One way or another it's going to change. How it changes is now up to you.

bart

[BavarianWheels]

The reason you are not liking my answers are because you have made the question into a loaded question. Bart is exactly right, you are asking a question which embeds premises that are in dispute. So I apologise if you do not accept my response as fulfilling. I would have thought given our long history here, you would at least treat me respectfuly. However, the issue is not with my response, but rather with your quesiton which commits a logical fallacy.

Perhaps you could answer this following question for me: "Do you accept that we are saved entirely by faith in Christ and reject we must worship God on the Sabbath, or will you deny we are saved by faith alone in Christ?"

Many blessings.

I am now traveling up to San Fran and cannot take the necessary time to get at this for the moment, but rest assured I will do so in the next day or two.

However the short answer is this:
I accept that we are saved entirely by faith. ENTIRELY by faith through Christ, by His works credited to us. I reject that Faith stands alone as the Scriptures tells us. Faith without works is dead. If there's an inward change, then there is an outward manifestation of that faith and as Paul points out, this faith does not nullify the Law. THE 10. There is no circumcision or priestly work in the 10.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

There what is? That you're convicted or against God's word? You still haven't answered.

Bav,

Do you know what a false dilemma is? Let me help you out.

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

Let me offer you another one in the same vein for you to play with. Are you willfully ignorant of what you're doing with this tactic, or are you sincerely this incapable of understanding a simple concept and engaging in civil discourse? While you're at it, maybe you can let us know if you're still beating your wife (a classic example of the type of games you're playing here.)

You've worn this tactic into the ground and I think the only person here who's impressed with it is you.

You've spent the last several years hitting and running here continuing with the same tired discourse and then when you're challenged on it, you take on the persona of an adolescent complaining of how you are ill treated and moderators are threatening you.

I've not said one word about banning in this discourse. I've engaged you and when you're called on this stuff pull it out to bathe in some sort of self-pity party
or to deflect attention from the blatant disrespect that you treat this board and many of us who are moderators or regular participants with despite the fact that you have almost a thousand posts here and you're still here. Methinks you are protesting far too much.

If you leave here or are sent from here, let me offer you another option from one of the other logical fallacies in your post. There's many more options than you're right and we're unable to refute you. It's not a coincidence that you've concluded with another false dilemma here. In fact, legalism of the sort you're displaying thrives on false dilemmas and all or nothing thinking.

You might want to take a look at the definition of legalism. Remarkably, there are other elements of the definition than what you self-servingly offer.

Legalism as I use the term and as other people understand is an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law over the spirit. Your attempt to define it is rather self-serving and misses the point entirely by defining it in the most extreme (and unrealistic) manner so that by comparison you seem in the middle.

Despite your protests all you've offered here particularly in your last few posts, is increasingly shrill judgements of those who choose not to reject God's word, but rather you and your traditions and pharisaical judgements. I'll leave it to you and God to determine if you really do believe in grace. There's precious little evidence in it, in your tone, your accusations or your conduct especially when you ignore and refuse to address direct scriptural evidence still, that the 10 commandments are the old convenant and part and parcel with circumcision. Repeating your position and not addressing the specific quotes from scripture is intellectually unteneble. You're not content to follow your own conscience in this regard. You must attack those who choose to walk in grace as if they were rejecting you. It's not enough to follow your beliefs; you're more concerned about others lest they are too free.

For my part, you're welcome to say whatever you wish about me. Have at it.

You're not welcome however to condemn others and continue with this tired, repetative juvenile series of false dilemmas, and continued violations of the discussion guidelines of the board. As I and others do have a responsibility to address that when it occurs, repeatedly and as this has gone on repeatedly for a long time it's not something new.

Say what you want about me and have fun. If I observe your continued treatment of other moderators and participants of this board with the type of abuse that's gone on for far too long, I will hold you accountable for it in accordance with the board purpose and discussion guidelines and your multiple posts and continued railings will remain on the board as a testimony for others to see for themselves if it's deserved or not and how much and how long patience has been extended to you.

I'm very serious. One way or another it's going to change. How it changes is now up to you.

bart

Interesting I'm again being warned when I have not engaged with anyone here but moderators on this thread. Catherine, very little, but I didn't know I had been disrespectful to her or the moderators.

It again is telling that a moderator is able to take liberty at insinuating that I am violent in my relationships and no warning or discipline is done, but if I say the Law is still binding and relevant in the heart of the believer who follows the wishes of God, not to be saved, but because of salvation, then I'm the one being disrespectful.

The fact of the matter is, there is only two choices. There is no lukewarm. You're either with God or apart from God. Which is it. None of you yet have the manhood to stake a claim on your convictions. Byblos is the only one, that while he's not stated as such, I know it is his claim and standing that given the choice, he would go with His Church teaching as that is the tradition and claim of the RCC...

Like I mentioned above, I am now on a train traveling and "not in my element" to best answer the texts, but I will by tomorrow or Thursday.

Thanks for the showing of Christian love, Bart. God Bless you.
.
.