Evidence for God from Science

<b>Is not setting a day of the week apart from the drudgery of daily life for the purpose of encouraging believers and worshiping the Lord a part of the spirit of the law?</b>

First of all, no. Second of all, why just one day?

Mastermind wrote:<b>Is not setting a day of the week apart from the drudgery of daily life for the purpose of encouraging believers and worshiping the Lord a part of the spirit of the law?</b>

First of all, no. Second of all, why just one day?

Maybe this question would be better answered by God Himself as it is His law!

Doesn't He speak to you?
.
.

I don't get it. What part of "HE GAVE THE 10 COMMANDMENTS TO ISRAEL" is so hard to understand? He speaks to all of us. I guess He wants you to follow it but I feel no such attachment to it.

Mastermind wrote:I don't get it. What part of "HE GAVE THE 10 COMMANDMENTS TO ISRAEL" is so hard to understand? He speaks to all of us. I guess He wants you to follow it but I feel no such attachment to it.

You find difference between the God's people pre-Calvary and the people of God post-Calvary.

I see none!

Both are saved according to the same promise. One looked forward to the promise...and were to follow God's commands...and we look back to the same promise and are blessed that Christ gave deeper meaning to the words of the 10.

All that follow God's will and commands are God's people.

Rev. 12: 17 and Rev. 14: 12...for instance. Both are post-Calvary.
.
.

I could just as easily say those two verses are referring to the two commandments Jesus gave(and they are).

Mastermind wrote:I could just as easily say those two verses are referring to the two commandments Jesus gave(and they are).

You could, but then the text differentiates between God's commands and the testimony of Jesus...
.
.

Because Jesus isn't God.

Mastermind wrote:Because Jesus isn't God.

Is the Trinity a new concept to you?

God is three, yet one.
God is one, yet three.
.
.

Your highly tuned ability to detect sarcasm is awe inspiring.

Yeah, Mastermind is 99.99% sarcastic... and .01% hamster.

Felgar wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:the covenant of faith was installed with Christ, and those who are under it now live by the spirit of the law in love, not the letter which brings death and condemnation.

Right. Finally. That's what I started saying at the very start. We live by the spirit of the law in love, not the letter. This is what the Pharisess couldn't see, and what Jesus demonstrated.

- it may sound similar if not identical words, but I believe there is a difference in our positions which we've both obviously been debating. I see it as this: You say we live by the spirit of the law in love, but then you drudge up laws we "can" fully keep with the help of the Spirit, and ones we ought to keep. You believe we can live fully righteous after coming to Christ by meeting the requirements of law that I believe we are no longer under. So you still go back to a works-based theology rather than continuing on with a faith-based theology regarding our righteousness post-salvation. So while we are saved (which we all here agree upon), you (and BW) kind of take a backstep in believing after salvation we kind of earn His favour by being good and righteous—following after Christ. I on the other hand believe His favour can't be earned at all, and that we already have it through faith in Him not just at salvation, but post-salvation. I think in general this is where we differ. Feel free to correct me on anything.

To put it a different way, I've read something by Alister McGrath in his Christian Theology textbook which helps to highlight the two main positions:

1. The Christian life takes the form of the believer's sustained attempt to imitate Christ. Having become a Christian, the believer now treats Christ as an example of the ideal relationship to God and other people, and attempts to mimic this relationship... It places emphasis upon the human responsibility to bring one's life into line with the example set by Christ.

2. The Christian life is a process of "being conformed to Christ," in which the outward aspects of the believer's life are brought into line with the inward relationship to Christ, established through faith. This approach is characteristic of writers such as Luther and Calvin, and is based on the idea of God conforming the believer to the likeness of Christ through the process of renewal and regeneration brought about by the Holy Spirit.

I think this wraps things up nicely. It seems to me that you are more aligned with the first and us working to be more Christ-like, while I am more aligned with the second that we become more Christ-like through our faith in Him.

Felgar wrote:Is not setting a day of the week apart from the drudgery of daily life for the purpose of encouraging believers and worshiping the Lord a part of the spirit of the law? This is all I'm saying. Maybe we've found some common ground?

Is keeping the sabbath day apart of the spirit of the law? No. I'd say it is within keeping the spirit of the law based on Christ's commandments to love God and each other. Yet there is no reason to see the sabbath day as something one ought to keep, or keep if they love God. It may be beneficial and I'd certainly hope Christians take time out to rest and devote time to God during the week, but I don't see any more benefit to keeping the sabbath than say doing the same on the first day of the week, or perhaps setting aside an hour a day. Each are keeping within the spirit of the law to love God. It seems in some respect you believe the spirit of the law to be binding, I see the spirit of the law as based on love, and love is never binding.

Now perhaps for one person, keeping the sabbath is one way they display their love to God. Yet, for another it may not be. This is why I said to BW earlier: "Now if you say that you only wish to keep the Sabbath out of some sort of sign of respect, or because of your own conscience, then so be it. But don't go saying this is a commandment all Christians should abide by. Such is to place Christians back under the covenant of law they were freed from in Christ!"

Does this make sense to you? Do you agree with what I've said to BW?

Kurieuo.

Well I'm glad to see we're getting back to being more civil (goes for me too).

Kurieuo wrote:So you still go back to a works-based theology rather than continuing on with a faith-based theology regarding our righteousness post-salvation. So while we are saved (which we all here agree upon), you (and BW) kind of take a backstep in believing after salvation we kind of earn His favour by being good and righteous—following after Christ. I on the other hand believe His favour can't be earned at all, and that we already have it through faith in Him not just at salvation, but post-salvation. I think in general this is where we differ. Feel free to correct me on anything.

I'm 90% in agreement with these statements. I can't place my finger on that 10%, but I reserve the right to wiggle a little bit later if I need to. In general though, yes, I do believe that our behaviour (or works, if you will) is very important even though it's not what saves us. They do however result in heavenly reward and quite often earthly reward for that matter. (And yeah, maybe that is God's favour through works) Though it is "enough" to have faith, at the same time we're called to live to a higher standard.

Kurieuo wrote:1. The Christian life takes the form of the believer's sustained attempt to imitate Christ. Having become a Christian, the believer now treats Christ as an example of the ideal relationship to God and other people, and attempts to mimic this relationship... It places emphasis upon the human responsibility to bring one's life into line with the example set by Christ.

2. The Christian life is a process of "being conformed to Christ," in which the outward aspects of the believer's life are brought into line with the inward relationship to Christ, established through faith. This approach is characteristic of writers such as Luther and Calvin, and is based on the idea of God conforming the believer to the likeness of Christ through the process of renewal and regeneration brought about by the Holy Spirit.

I think this wraps things up nicely.

I agree it does wrap things up nicely. And yes, I do lean towards #1 as opposed to #2. Except I must make clear that it's only through the Holy Spirit and our relationship with God that we are able to work towards living Christ's example. In and of ourselves we can accomplish nothing - it's not like anyone can just decide for themselves "I'm going to live like Christ now". Trying to do so on our own strength we end up like Paul who wants to do good but cannot.

Kurieuo wrote:Is keeping the sabbath day apart of the spirit of the law? No. I'd say it is within keeping the spirit of the law based on Christ's commandments to love God and each other. Yet there is no reason to see the sabbath day as something one ought to keep, or keep if they love God. It may be beneficial and I'd certainly hope Christians take time out to rest and devote time to God during the week, but I don't see any more benefit to keeping the sabbath than say doing the same on the first day of the week, or perhaps setting aside an hour a day. Each are keeping within the spirit of the law to love God. It seems in some respect you believe the spirit of the law to be binding, I see the spirit of the law as based on love, and love is never binding.

Binding is a little bit strong, but yes I do think that it's something we "should" do. I agree the actual day of the week matters little. And if you're a missionary in some foreign country then really all 7 days would be focussed on God. But for the average monday-friday working stiff, havng a day for the Lord is pretty darn important really. Also we're told even in the NT to attend church, and realistically Sunday is the most reasonable time for that anyways.

Kurieuo wrote:Now perhaps for one person, keeping the sabbath is one way they display their love to God. Yet, for another it may not be. This is why I said to BW earlier: "Now if you say that you only wish to keep the Sabbath out of some sort of sign of respect, or because of your own conscience, then so be it. But don't go saying this is a commandment all Christians should abide by. Such is to place Christians back under the covenant of law they were freed from in Christ!"

Does this make sense to you? Do you agree with what I've said to BW?

I understand your position and though I disagree, it does make sense. More generally we do differ in comparing those 2 main viewpoints on Christian life. More specifically I see the Sabbath as a more important part of Christian life than yourself is all.

I guess the only question I have left for you Kurieou is about the #2 viewpoint above. I'm wondering about the "idea of God conforming the believer to the likeness of Christ through the process of renewal and regeneration brought about by the Holy Spirit." What's not clear to me is how that is supposed to happen. If you believe in Jesus long enough you'll eventually just change? I mean, what role do you see the individual playing in the process?

Kurieuo wrote:

Felgar wrote:

bizzt wrote:Felgar could I ask a Question. Do you believe that we should worship on Saturday (the Sabbath). If you believe in that do you then believe that the WHOLE Law regarding the Sabbath should therefore be followed?

You are doing the same that Kurieuo did; introducing a straw man by trying to liken my position that of the Jewish Pharisees of Jesus' time. Jesus rebuked them and revealed that their concepts of keeping the law were completely wrong.

If I understand correctly, Bizzt raised a valid point. He in no way appears to have created a strawman, that is, he never setup something you didn't believe in to knock it down. Infact he only asked a questions without assuming your belief. Additionally, I do not see how he equated your position with that of Jewish Pharisees—a strawman of your own perhaps? Rather he appears to be wondering on what basis you accept only some of the law, although I am a little confused by what he means in saying "WHOLE Law regarding the Sabbath"?

Kurieuo.

Hey K, Thanks in the Whole Law I was just regarding to the same you said about the Levitical, and other various Laws that the Jews were inclined to Keep

Felgar wrote:

bizzt wrote:Felgar could I ask a Question. Do you believe that we should worship on Saturday (the Sabbath). If you believe in that do you then believe that the WHOLE Law regarding the Sabbath should therefore be followed?

You are doing the same that Kurieuo did; introducing a straw man by trying to liken my position that of the Jewish Pharisees of Jesus' time. Jesus rebuked them and revealed that their concepts of keeping the law were completely wrong.

The law defines sin, and we're to do our best to live without sinning, and therefore we should keep the sabbath out of Love for God and our neighbours. It's about being servants of God.

I've said all I'm going to on the matter... It still baffles me that I'm arguing with people who will not recognize Jesus as our ultimately example of godly living.

I was not trying to Felgar. I am just Seeking your Honesty! I want to know what you believe and why you believe it. That is all

OK I take my questions back after seeing Felgars Last post