Evidence for God from Science

I just want to Dip in here. I believe we are to keep a Day of Sabbath not because the Law but because God said it was good for us. The Day of Sabbath for us as Christians does not come on a particular day but any Day that we can take and worship God and Meditate upon him. WHY? Because it is Good for us. The Sabbath was meant for Man not for God. It was to allow us rest after 6 days of work.

I don't have my Scripture with me but I am sure the verses have been covered above

Now that I have taken a Dip

I am getting out of the Pool

bizzt wrote:I just want to Dip in here. I believe we are to keep a Day of Sabbath not because the Law but because God said it was good for us. The Day of Sabbath for us as Christians does not come on a particular day but any Day that we can take and worship God and Meditate upon him. WHY? Because it is Good for us. The Sabbath was meant for Man not for God. It was to allow us rest after 6 days of work.

I don't have my Scripture with me but I am sure the verses have been covered above

Now that I have taken a Dip

I am getting out of the Pool

Bizzt,

How dare you drive by and be reasonable!

I don't dispute the wisdom of the principle either. In fact, I practise it and were I not to, I would pay a price in terms of fatigue and spiritual peace and renewal.

Those who want to embrace legalistic adherence to ceremonial codes from which Christ freed us, are welcome to use their freedom as they wish.

There is often more at work, however than just that. They seek to entice others to accept the yoke of bondage Paul urges the Galations to cast off by making distinctions not found in the text as a pretext to identify those judiastic and pharisaic encumbrances that Christ and the epistles railed against, as somehow now desirable. The Law itself is not bad nor are we to abuse that freedom in favor of anarchy or antinomianism. The purpose of the law is to show our sin and our need for Christ to accomplish what we cannot, apart from perfect adherence to the law, which none but Christ has ever accomplished.

Thanks be to God for His gracious gift that allows us to live as adopted heirs rather than illegitimate slaves.

Bart

Hello all,
I believe that this can be a very fruitful discussion, but I believe that people have a different view on what legalism is. Before we go any further we should understand what it means.

Those who want to embrace legalistic adherence to ceremonial codes from which Christ freed us, are welcome to use their freedom as they wish.

There is often more at work, however than just that. They seek to entice others to accept the yoke of bondage Paul urges the Galations to cast off by making distinctions not found in the text as a pretext to identify those judiastic and pharisaic encumbrances that Christ and the epistles railed against, as somehow now desirable. The Law itself is not bad nor are we to abuse that freedom in favor of anarchy or antinomianism. The purpose of the law is to show our sin and our need for Christ to accomplish what we cannot, apart from perfect adherence to the law, which none but Christ has ever accomplished.

First of all, I am not really sure why you break some of the commandments up and call them "ceremonial". The bible never really breaks the commandments into groups such as ceremonial.

As far as I can tell, it sounds like you think that if someone tries to obey Yahweh's commands exactly the way He says to obey them, that they are being legalistic (such as obeying the sabbath on the 7th day like Yahweh says). But I think it is more legalistic for someone to say that you don't have to do as Yahweh says, and that you don't have to obey the sabbath on the day he made holy.

I'm not trying to attack you at all, but I don't understand what your definition of "LEGALISM" is. Scripture makes it clear that we should be careful to obey Yahweh...

Deut 12:32 (NKJV) "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it."

What is your definition of legalism?

Thanks

Yeshua's follower wrote:Hello all,
I believe that this can be a very fruitful discussion, but I believe that people have a different view on what legalism is. Before we go any further we should understand what it means.

Those who want to embrace legalistic adherence to ceremonial codes from which Christ freed us, are welcome to use their freedom as they wish.

There is often more at work, however than just that. They seek to entice others to accept the yoke of bondage Paul urges the Galations to cast off by making distinctions not found in the text as a pretext to identify those judiastic and pharisaic encumbrances that Christ and the epistles railed against, as somehow now desirable. The Law itself is not bad nor are we to abuse that freedom in favor of anarchy or antinomianism. The purpose of the law is to show our sin and our need for Christ to accomplish what we cannot, apart from perfect adherence to the law, which none but Christ has ever accomplished.

First of all, I am not really sure why you break some of the commandments up and call them "ceremonial". The bible never really breaks the commandments into groups such as ceremonial.

As far as I can tell, it sounds like you think that if someone tries to obey Yahweh's commands exactly the way He says to obey them, that they are being legalistic (such as obeying the sabbath on the 7th day like Yahweh says). But I think it is more legalistic for someone to say that you don't have to do as Yahweh says, and that you don't have to obey the sabbath on the day he made holy.

I'm not trying to attack you at all, but I don't understand what your definition of "LEGALISM" is. Scripture makes it clear that we should be careful to obey Yahweh...

Deut 12:32 (NKJV) "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it."

What is your definition of legalism?

Thanks

Yeshua's Follower,

I correspondingly do not understand why those in your camp, (and I'm being broad here) differentiate between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant either in the New Testament in terms of the application of the term "law" and this despite the fact that no such distinction is made in the New Testament. Yet they attempt to apply that hermeneutic across all New Testament canonical books and in effect negate the Freedom that Christ gave to us.

Set aside the fact, that at least one proponent of your camp in this thread rejects the Trinity and the deity of Christ (I don't know Ruth's position, Gary's or yours in that regard), which in my understanding of Scripture and saving faith sets aside any fellowship, and makes this a very secondary argument; but what is being proffered here is an invitation, if not a campaign to draw Christians into a system of legalistic keeping of the law in the Old Testament, the purpose of which has always been to point us to Christ and a recognition that we cannot keep the standards of God's Law which is PERFECTION.

We're told by those wishing to return us to bondage of the Law that Sunday worship comes from the accommodation of Pagan belief. We're told that Jesus and Paul kept the Sabbath on the Seventh Day and therefore, so should we. Some (not necessarily those here, but I'll let you clarify as needed) point back to the Roman Catholic Church and tie their patterns from the 4th century to Sun worship and pagan ritual. I've even observed some arguments equating Sunday worship with the mark of the beast!

Here's where I take issue.

This was a very strong issue in the early Church evidenced in several passages. This was particularly so, because Gentiles were entering into the fellowship and Jewish Christians were demanding that they be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law. The leaders of the Church specifically met to address this issue in Acts 15. Their conclusion was that God had already shown his acceptance of Gentile believers prior to any circumcision or practise keeping of the law and that this was evidenced by the gift of the Holy Spirit being poured upon them in the same manner that God poured His Holy Spirit out on the day of Pentecost. Therefore, they determined that IF GOD DEMONSTRATED HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THESE GENTILE BELIEVERS WITHOUT CIRCUMCISION OR KEEPING OF THE LAW THEN THAT WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT PLACE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS UPON THEM EITHER

The opportunity existed at that point and time to establish Sabbath Keeping if that were their intent. THEY DID NOT. The only commands they gave were to refrain "from meat offered to idols, from blood, things strangled and from fornication." Meat offered to idols is dealt with further in Corinthians showing that the context of this was in terms of respect for those whose consciences were weak and were offended by those who did so. Even that element is dealt with and shown to be a social more, not a hard and fast command.

In fact, there is not one command within the New Testament to maintain the Sabbath as in Old Testament times. Why? Because the purpose of the Law first and foremost is not to save anyone. The purpose of the Law is to show us clearly that we are sinners and cannot keep the law perfectly. The Law does not save us. IT DAMNS US.

In fact we have very clear instructions NOT to fall prey to others telling us what days to keep in Col 2:16 . Jesus Himself set the stage for the freedom coming in Mark 2:27 by teaching directly that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. You want a definition of legalism? There it is. Jesus reserved his strongest condemnations for those Pharisees who were elevating the law as a taskmaster over the people and utilizing it to present their own piety as worthy of respect and a source of power.

The Church from the very beginning met on the first day. That is when they remembered Christ through the breaking of bread Acts 20:7, that is when they took up a collection I Cor 16:2. It did not start with the Roman Catholic Church. It was evidenced by the apostles and practised from the very beginning because that first day was seen as special because that was the day of Jesus' resurrection. Further it was not commanded or dictated, it was practiced as a simple remembrance of Jesus.

Romans 14:5-10 tells us clearly that different people will esteem different days as special and some will see all days in that manner. If God intended through Paul to reinforce the Old Testament practise of Sabbath Keeping, here was the perfect opportunity to do it. What did he say? He said each man should be fully persuaded in HIS OWN MIND. We are not to judge each other in terms of the day in which we worship.

I've stated clearly, I don't have a problem with Saturday Worship. We have freedom to determine what we believe to be proper and honoring to God. If you and your church want to meet on Saturday because you believe it is honoring to God in view of the Sabbath, then more power to you.

Who in this thread is attempting to push their conscience and convictions in this regard upon others? Who is inferring they are more holy, more obedient and better Christians for their keeping of the Old Testament Law?

Jesus did keep the Sabbath. He came to keep and fulfill the entire Law. He had to do so in order to be able to be a perfect atoning sacrifice. Pointing to Jesus' keeping of the Law misses the point in such a gross manner as to be funny if it were not so tragically sad. Jesus came to free us from bondage to sin. He kept the law perfectly So that we did not have to do so. If you want to point to Christ in this regard as a model, do you wish to go the whole distance and be crucified yourself because Christ was crucified? Physically I mean? Apparently you draw a line there in how far you wish to go with that analogy.

The reason Paul went to the synagogue was not to keep the law. It was to preach the good news to those who needed to hear it. If he went to keep that law then he acted contrary to what he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. He stated eternal life was a product of grace and grace alone Gal 3:11.

Paul had an incredible zeal for Israel to be saved Romans 9:1-5 and in order to reach those Jews still bound to their legalism and emphasis on works he remained as much as he could a Jew in order to reach those Jews for Christ 1 Corinthians 9:20 and to the Gentiles he dropped that and became as they were. IT WAS ALL ABOUT CHRIST AND REACHING PEOPLE FOR HIM. Paul saw sabbath keeping as secondary and Christ as primary and the Jews were in the Synagogue then so he went to reach them NOT OUT OF ANY LEGALISTIC SENSE OF KEEPING THE SABBATH.

The Law can only bring a person to the Cross and no further.

Anyone who wants to flirt with keeping the law in any manner whatsoever in terms of salvation, according to the Scriptures must keep all of it Galatians 3:10. And don't imagine that you can play with it and divide it up into little pieces that the Bible itself makes no distinctions regarding. Keep one from a sense of obligation as a requirement of salvation and you have moved from grace and must keep it all. In other words, you can't do it. That's why Christ did it for you.

Why would you take that perfect gift of Christ and imagine that you could add anything to it?

Of course now we'll likely hear trotted out the age old argument of those who want to remain in Old Testament times, that that must mean that we are anarchists and that, as has been offered before on this board, "Then it must be OK to steal cars, rape women and live with no law whatsoever."

No, that is not the case. The principals of the law are good and holy and were made for our benefit in many regards. Don't get caught up on the day to rest and worship God, THAT is legalism. Rather, respond from your heart in gratitude to Christ and worship Him because you love Him and take a day of rest and worship, because to do otherwise is to violate a principle that is still at work in our spirits, souls and physical bodies and that is that if we do not rest and renew we do ourselves harm and damage our relationship with Christ and God. Getting caught up in the mechanics of this principle and imaging we are better people than others because we keep the "right day" is at its root, pride and arrogance seeking to make ourselves better and more holy than anyone else. That was the error of the Pharisees. It is still alive and well today, unfortunately and I don't believe Christ's opinion of it has changed any.

I don't expect that the protagonists on this thread will change their minds although I hope they will, if only to lessen their position to following their own conscience and not seeking to evangelize to their cause. Those reading this who are wondering what they should do, I urge you to examine the Scriptures, ALL THE SCRIPTURES, and read the lengthy and large passages in Romans and Galatians dealing with this. Note that those seeking to impose legalism on others will jump around and draw extensively from the Old Testament and cannot point to direct commands in the New Testament for Sabbath Keeping because it is not there.

Do not take the freedom and grace you have and then return to a life of bondage. Christ redeemed us to be Heirs not slaves.

Canuckster1127 wrote:This was a very strong issue in the early Church evidenced in several passages. This was particularly so, because Gentiles were entering into the fellowship and Jewish Christians were demanding that they be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law. The leaders of the Church specifically met to address this issue in Acts 15. Their conclusion was that God had already shown his acceptance of Gentile believers prior to any circumcision or practise keeping of the law and that this was evidenced by the gift of the Holy Spirit being poured upon them in the same manner that God poured His Holy Spirit out on the day of Pentecost. Therefore, they determined that IF GOD DEMONSTRATED HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THESE GENTILE BELIEVERS WITHOUT CIRCUMCISION OR KEEPING OF THE LAW THEN THAT WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THEY SHOULD NOT PLACE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS UPON THEM EITHER

The issue here in Acts 15 was not whether or not Gentiles should follow the Mosaic law, but CAN A PERSON HAVE SALVATION IF THEY ARE NOT CIRCUMCISED? This is what the "men from Judea" were teaching as we can see in the very first verse.

Acts 15:1 - And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

You see, the pharisees believed that they needed to do these things (follow law and be circumcised) BEFORE they were considered to be saved.

Acts 15:10 - Now therefore why tempt ye YAHWEH, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Acts 15:11 - But we believe that through the favor of Yahushua the Messiah we shall be saved, even as they.

In verse 11 Peter is refering to what is needed in order to be saved. So this yoke that neither they nor their fathers were able to bear goes back to the very first thing that I mentioned...must we be circumcised and keep the law to be saved? NO MAN has ever kept the law perfectly(except our Messiah of course). I agree with you that the law cannot save us, but it can only condemn us. Therefore, we cannot be saved by it
So the Fathers certainly couldn't bear the yoke of observing the law for salvation and neither could the Gentiles...especially the Gentiles. To receive salvation we need Yahweh's grace.
Acts 15:11 - But we believe that through the favor of Yahushua the Messiah we shall be saved, even as they.

Acts 2:38 - Then Kepha said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Yahushua the Messiah for the forgiveness of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

These Pharisees were teaching: Obedience and circumcision first, then salvation.
Yahweh teaches: Repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Spirit and you are saved. Repentance (Repent means to "turn") is an inner decision to change direction

But we also know that once we have been given salvation, Yahweh desires us to walk in obedience because we love Him. There have been many verses given on this already, but I list one of them again.
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:3).

The final decision in Acts was not to tell them "Hey, the law of Yahweh is done away with now, you are free!" but rather to give them something to start with.

Acts 15:19 - Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to YAHWEH: Acts 15:20 - But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

James was certainly calling on these Gentiles to begin their observance of Yahweh's law. All four of these things are actually from the OT (Exodus 34:14,15--18:1-20 --Genesis 9:4) Now you might be wondering why their are only four things listed. Were these the only things Gentiles were supposed to follow? No. These four things were a starting point for them. James wasn't just going to throw all of the law on them at once! That would be silly because Israel didn't even learn all of the law at one time. The things that they told them to do were some big things that the gentiles were having trouble with. It is the same thing that you would do if you had a friend that came into the faith. You wouldn't push everything on them at once. But you would tell them to stop doing things that are considered "biggies" today, such as drugs, swearing, stealing, ...ect. Then you would invite them to church. This is exactly what happened here.

Acts 15:21 - For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

What does the law being taught each week in synagogues have to do with Gentile believers? Why is it being mentioned here along with the four laws? Because the Gentiles were to "learn the law" each week in the synagogues!

I hope that everyone understands that Acts 15 is often a misused book to say that we don't have to obey all the commands that Yahweh has given us if we don't want to. But this isn't what scripture says...

John 14:15 - If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Yeshua's Follower,

The passage in Acts 15 does not distinguish between circumcision and the law of Moses. This is clear in Acts 15:5 which you failed to quote in your discourse.

Let me remind you,

5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."

In fact, I strongly encourage anyone reading this thread to stop a moment and read the entire chapter of Acts 15 and take it in context rather than listening or hearing snippets here or there.

In terms of the instructions given afterwards please explain to me how you construe this as a broad command to follow Mosaic law when Paul in I Cor 8:1-11 specifically discounts this prohibition and in effect speaks of it in terms of the weaker brother's conscience?

The commands of the Jerusalem Council are historically accurate in terms of what that council determined. There is no indication that their final decision was inspired so much as a preservation of what they did. Paul rebuked Peter in this regard in Gal 2:11-21.

I think we agree that in no way can circumcision or the keeping of the law be construed for the Christian to have anything to do with salvation.

I believe there is clear evidence in the Old Testament as well that the keeping of the law was intended to end.

Jer. 31:31-34

31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.

32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,
declares the LORD.

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house 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 a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

Quoted in the New Testament to Illustrate this Point in

Heb. 8:8-13

But God found fault with the people and said:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

You cannot separate circumcision and the keeping of the law of Moses. They go together.

Yet Paul also worked to be conciliatory between the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. He absolutely, vehemently opposed any imposition of Jewish Law upon gentile believers in terms of salvation. Yet, when he was among the Jews he conducted himself in such a manner as to remain acceptable to them in order not to distract from the message of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

This is why Paul participated in what appears to be a Nazarite vow in Acts 21:17-26. For an explanation you need look only to 1 Cor. 9:19-23.

This one is worth posting up:

19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

What does Paul say in verse 20? Though I myself am not under the law Could he be any clearer?

If anyone wants to keep elements of the law outside of their salvation that is between them and God. Never, ever, imagine that salvation comes, is confirmed or in any way maintained by the keeping of the law.

Did Paul vacillate from what he had written about the Law? The tenor of his epistle to the Galatians had been "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse" and "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by law; you have fallen away from grace." Gal 3:10; 5:4. The key words in those passages are rely and justified. Anyone who would add to or change the gospel was to be accursed Gal. 1:6-9. It was not to be the gospel plus the Law. To rely on circumcision or Jewish identification in order to be justified was to fall under the curse. However, thousands of Jews in Judea kept the "customs" (sacred ordinances) as a continued devotion to God while trusting in Christ for their justification. No word of censure for such action is in the Scriptures.

It's a fine line but one worth noting. I think it is fair to state that the context of Paul in this regard is that those who are caught up or hung up on the keeping of the law in this manner for conscience sake are in effect the weaker brothers. I'm sure that will provoke a response, but I believe Scripture is clear in that regard.

If you wish to follow any element of the law outside of reliance upon the same for salvation, knock yourself out. I think it is unnecessary. I believe the Scripture teaches the same.

If you want to teach it as anything more than that and tie it to salvation then listen carefully to Paul in Gal 5:2-3. Paul equated circumcision not just to the Abrahamic Covenant. He equated circumcision to the WHOLE LAW.

It's not not a buffet where you get to pick and choose. You take it all or you take nothing.

Canuckster1127 wrote:In fact, there is not one command within the New Testament to maintain the Sabbath as in Old Testament times.

If you look at what the scriptures say concerning the time that Yeshua lived in, He never had to teach anyone to keep the Sabbath. It was already being kept. Yeshua didn't have to teach anyone that they must keep the feast days, they were already being kept. In fact, Yahushua didn't need to teach a whole lot on those commandments because they were already obeying the feasts, sabbaths, and eating biblically. The problem wasn't that they weren't keeping the sabbath, but how they kept the sabbath. Yeshua even said that he was the "Master of the Sabbath".

Mark 2:28 "Therefore the Son of Man is also Master of the Sabbath."
So since He was the master of it, I'm pretty sure that means that he would keep it if he were on earth right now.

Also if you read the Book of Acts, the disciples actually kept the sabbath 84 times! Thats only in the book of Acts.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The Church from the very beginning met on the first day. That is when they remembered Christ through the breaking of bread Acts 20:7, that is when they took up a collection I Cor 16:2. It did not start with the Roman Catholic Church. It was evidenced by the apostles and practised from the very beginning because that first day was seen as special because that was the day of Jesus' resurrection. Further it was not commanded or dictated, it was practiced as a simple remembrance of Jesus.

The following is from Eliyah. http://www.eliyah.com/sabbday.htm

Acts 20:7 (NKJV) Now on the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

This is probably the scripture most quoted by those who believe that the Sabbath day was changed. Following Sabbath services, they had gathered in the evening (Saturday night). Paul was an esteemed visitor. Undoubtedly everyone wanted to talk with him after the Sabbath. They probably had many questions to ask him. This was not a Sunday worship service, but an after dinner talk lasting until midnight. Again, there is no mention of a change in the Sabbath

1Cor 16:1 (NKJV) Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: 2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

We find in Acts 11:28-30 and Romans 15:26 that the people in Jerusalem were having a great famine. The brethren were in dire need of food and help. Paul wants the brethren to prepare a collection of food and clothing on the first day of the week and keep it at home. He would come by and pick up the collections, bringing them to the needy in Jerusalem. This had nothing to do with bringing an offering to any meeting or worship service. It was a time consuming gathering of foodstuffs and clothing for the needy which the Corinthians were to do for transporting to Jerusalem. Now notice: Paul is not telling the people to "rest and worship---but to WORK by preparing the collections. The word day in the King James is in italics. This means that it is not in the ancient manuscripts. "Day" has been added because the translators assumed that Paul meant Sunday. Rather than reading "the first day of the week" we should be reading "the first of the week." It could have been Sunday, Monday or even Tuesday and still have been the first part of the week.

Canuckster1127 wrote:In fact we have very clear instructions NOT to fall prey to others telling us what days to keep in Col 2:16 .

Canuckster1127 wrote:Romans 14:5-10 tells us clearly that different people will esteem different days as special and some will see all days in that manner. If God intended through Paul to reinforce the Old Testament practise of Sabbath Keeping, here was the perfect opportunity to do it. What did he say? He said each man should be fully persuaded in HIS OWN MIND. We are not to judge each other in terms of the day in which we worship.

I believe that R7-12 stated it best when he said...

R7-12 wrote:Quote:
Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.

This passage was taken out of context. The entire thought concerns the matter of how we affect those who are weak in the faith (Romans 14:1-4). In this particular case in chapter 14 of Romans, Paul gives the examples concerning eating and fasting. Regarding fasting, God's people are instructed to fast for particular reasons, therefore an individual will choose a particular day for fasting and prayer (coincidently, I'm fasting this very day for a particular reason, thus I have esteemed this day and others have not). The day one chooses to fast and pray may be esteemed (SGD 2929 krino: to separate, prefer, determine) over other days for this purpose. Some will see all days alike while others separate one above another for a holy purpose such as fasting as is the case in Romans 14. The evidence for this is given in verse 6,
Quote:
He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

The issue is not the seventh day of the week which is the commanded day given for worship. This was never in doubt or questioned in the entire Bible. No one is to choose for themselves which day they wish to set aside as the weekly Sabbath because to do this and not observe the seventh day Sabbath is a sin.

The other text you cited was,
Quote:
Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

I find it astonishing how the very texts which prove we are required to obey God are given in defense of doing away with His commands.

Do you think the brethren at Colosae kept the Holy Days, New Moons, and Sabbaths of God as did all the people of God? Well if they didn't, and keeping them wasn't necessary, and if they had been made void by Christ somehow fulfilling their requirement, then why the admonition to not allow anyone to judge you in respect to eating and drinking (Clean meats only and wine is not prohibited), or of keeping the Holy Days, New Moons, and Sabbaths of God?

The very fact that they were admonished not to allow anyone to pass judgment on how these things were observed, proves they were keeping them.

It should also be noted that the Greek equivalent to the English word 'is' at the end of verse 17 is not in the Greek texts. This provides a more clear understanding of the intent of the sentence. I will post it without the word 'is', highlight a few words, and place in parenthesis the additional though paul added to help isolate the point he was making.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, (which are a shadow of things to come); but the body of Christ.

So it is the body of Christ or the church that is responsible for teaching correctly the commandments of God such as clean and unclean meats (Lev. 11:1ff, Deut 15:12ff), the proper use of alcohol (Deut. 14:22-26, Is. 5:11, Amos 9:13-15, Ec. 9:5-10, Hos. 4:11, Matt. 11:19; 26:27-28, 1 Cor. 11:21-22) and the correct observance of the Holy Days, New Moons, and Sabbaths of God, and not any man. In other words, judgments concerning the correct administration of the law of God are to be undertaken by the body of Christ and not by individuals alone.

BTW, the Holy Days, New Moons, and Sabbaths of God will carry on into the millennium as a requirement for all flesh as part of the way we are to correctly worship the one true God (Lev. 23:1ff, Num. 10:10, Ps. 81: 1-4, Amos 8:5, 1 Chron. 2:4, Neh. 10:33, Ez. 46:3, Ex. 16:23-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16, Deut. 5:12-15, Is. 56:2-6; 58:13; 66:23, Heb. 4:9-11, Col. 2:16-17, Zech. 14:16-19).

R7-12

Yeshua's follower wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:In fact, there is not one command within the New Testament to maintain the Sabbath as in Old Testament times.

If you look at what the scriptures say concerning the time that Yeshua lived in, He never had to teach anyone to keep the Sabbath. It was already being kept. Yeshua didn't have to teach anyone that they must keep the feast days, they were already being kept. In fact, Yahushua didn't need to teach a whole lot on those commandments because they were already obeying the feasts, sabbaths, and eating biblically. The problem wasn't that they weren't keeping the sabbath, but how they kept the sabbath. Yeshua even said that he was the "Master of the Sabbath".

Exactly. And this is why it was an issue when the Gentiles entered in after this time and why the issue was raised and why the teaching following was so clear.

Mark 2:28 "Therefore the Son of Man is also Master of the Sabbath."
So since He was the master of it, I'm pretty sure that means that he would keep it if he were on earth right now.

You're "pretty sure?" You better be absolutely sure if you're going to attempt to burden Christian Brothers and Sisters in the manner you are suggesting. I'm amazed you would suggest otherwise!

Also if you read the Book of Acts, the disciples actually kept the sabbath 84 times! Thats only in the book of Acts.

They met at synagogue. Keeping the sabbath is quite a different proposition and I'm surprised you would equate mention of meeting on the sabbath as keeping it.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The Church from the very beginning met on the first day. That is when they remembered Christ through the breaking of bread Acts 20:7, that is when they took up a collection I Cor 16:2. It did not start with the Roman Catholic Church. It was evidenced by the apostles and practised from the very beginning because that first day was seen as special because that was the day of Jesus' resurrection. Further it was not commanded or dictated, it was practiced as a simple remembrance of Jesus.

The following is from Eliyah. http://www.eliyah.com/sabbday.htm

Acts 20:7 (NKJV) Now on the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

This is probably the scripture most quoted by those who believe that the Sabbath day was changed. Following Sabbath services, they had gathered in the evening (Saturday night). Paul was an esteemed visitor. Undoubtedly everyone wanted to talk with him after the Sabbath. They probably had many questions to ask him. This was not a Sunday worship service, but an after dinner talk lasting until midnight. Again, there is no mention of a change in the Sabbath

1Cor 16:1 (NKJV) Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: 2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

We find in Acts 11:28-30 and Romans 15:26 that the people in Jerusalem were having a great famine. The brethren were in dire need of food and help. Paul wants the brethren to prepare a collection of food and clothing on the first day of the week and keep it at home. He would come by and pick up the collections, bringing them to the needy in Jerusalem. This had nothing to do with bringing an offering to any meeting or worship service. It was a time consuming gathering of foodstuffs and clothing for the needy which the Corinthians were to do for transporting to Jerusalem. Now notice: Paul is not telling the people to "rest and worship---but to WORK by preparing the collections. The word day in the King James is in italics. This means that it is not in the ancient manuscripts. "Day" has been added because the translators assumed that Paul meant Sunday. Rather than reading "the first day of the week" we should be reading "the first of the week." It could have been Sunday, Monday or even Tuesday and still have been the first part of the week.

Canuckster1127 wrote:In fact we have very clear instructions NOT to fall prey to others telling us what days to keep in Col 2:16 .

Canuckster1127 wrote:Romans 14:5-10 tells us clearly that different people will esteem different days as special and some will see all days in that manner. If God intended through Paul to reinforce the Old Testament practise of Sabbath Keeping, here was the perfect opportunity to do it. What did he say? He said each man should be fully persuaded in HIS OWN MIND. We are not to judge each other in terms of the day in which we worship.

I believe that R7-12 stated it best when he said...

R7-12 wrote:Quote:
Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.

This passage was taken out of context. The entire thought concerns the matter of how we affect those who are weak in the faith (Romans 14:1-4). In this particular case in chapter 14 of Romans, Paul gives the examples concerning eating and fasting. Regarding fasting, God's people are instructed to fast for particular reasons, therefore an individual will choose a particular day for fasting and prayer (coincidently, I'm fasting this very day for a particular reason, thus I have esteemed this day and others have not). The day one chooses to fast and pray may be esteemed (SGD 2929 krino: to separate, prefer, determine) over other days for this purpose. Some will see all days alike while others separate one above another for a holy purpose such as fasting as is the case in Romans 14. The evidence for this is given in verse 6,
Quote:
He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

The issue is not the seventh day of the week which is the commanded day given for worship. This was never in doubt or questioned in the entire Bible. No one is to choose for themselves which day they wish to set aside as the weekly Sabbath because to do this and not observe the seventh day Sabbath is a sin.

The other text you cited was,
Quote:
Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

I find it astonishing how the very texts which prove we are required to obey God are given in defense of doing away with His commands.

Do you think the brethren at Colosae kept the Holy Days, New Moons, and Sabbaths of God as did all the people of God? Well if they didn't, and keeping them wasn't necessary, and if they had been made void by Christ somehow fulfilling their requirement, then why the admonition to not allow anyone to judge you in respect to eating and drinking (Clean meats only and wine is not prohibited), or of keeping the Holy Days, New Moons, and Sabbaths of God?

The very fact that they were admonished not to allow anyone to pass judgment on how these things were observed, proves they were keeping them.

It should also be noted that the Greek equivalent to the English word 'is' at the end of verse 17 is not in the Greek texts. This provides a more clear understanding of the intent of the sentence. I will post it without the word 'is', highlight a few words, and place in parenthesis the additional though paul added to help isolate the point he was making.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, (which are a shadow of things to come); but the body of Christ.

So it is the body of Christ or the church that is responsible for teaching correctly the commandments of God such as clean and unclean meats (Lev. 11:1ff, Deut 15:12ff), the proper use of alcohol (Deut. 14:22-26, Is. 5:11, Amos 9:13-15, Ec. 9:5-10, Hos. 4:11, Matt. 11:19; 26:27-28, 1 Cor. 11:21-22) and the correct observance of the Holy Days, New Moons, and Sabbaths of God, and not any man. In other words, judgments concerning the correct administration of the law of God are to be undertaken by the body of Christ and not by individuals alone.

BTW, the Holy Days, New Moons, and Sabbaths of God will carry on into the millennium as a requirement for all flesh as part of the way we are to correctly worship the one true God (Lev. 23:1ff, Num. 10:10, Ps. 81: 1-4, Amos 8:5, 1 Chron. 2:4, Neh. 10:33, Ez. 46:3, Ex. 16:23-29; 20:8-11; 31:13-16, Deut. 5:12-15, Is. 56:2-6; 58:13; 66:23, Heb. 4:9-11, Col. 2:16-17, Zech. 14:16-19).

R7-12

[/quote]

You've failed to address many points from my previous posts and your best defense is to quote a heretic who denies the trinity and deity of Christ.

More important than what we are discussing here, who do you say Jesus is?

You've failed to address many points from my previous posts and your best defense is to quote a heretic who denies the trinity and deity of Christ.

And with that arbitrary sweeping judgment of "heretic" placed upon the one quoted, the argument presented is unceremoniously dismissed without any reasonable reply.

What occurs here on a regular basis is clearly evident - except for those who cannot comprehend it because to approach the light is to become exposed. Thus, the law must be suppressed and rejected at all costs - and yet, at the same time spoken of as though it is not. And that's not hypocrisy?

Does anyone who doesn't observe the law have enough of a spine to come out and admit they don't believe the law has any application upon those whom God calls, and is therefore not part of the gospel?

Of course, it is obvious that either position taken is risky for an antinomian - one who opposes or denies the applicability of the law of God, so it is common for replies to be essentially noncommittal.

R7-12

R7-12 wrote:

You've failed to address many points from my previous posts and your best defense is to quote a heretic who denies the trinity and deity of Christ.

And with that arbitrary sweeping judgment of "heretic" placed upon the one quoted, the argument presented is unceremoniously dismissed without any reasonable reply.

What occurs here on a regular basis is clearly evident - except for those who cannot comprehend it because to approach the light is to become exposed. Thus, the law must be suppressed and rejected at all costs - and yet, at the same time spoken of as though it is not. And that's not hypocrisy?

Does anyone who doesn't observe the law have enough of a spine to come out and admit they don't believe the law has any application upon those whom God calls, and is therefore not part of the gospel?

Of course, it is obvious that either position taken is risky for an antinomian - one who opposes or denies the applicability of the law of God, so it is common for replies to be essentially noncommittal.

R7-12

No.

The position has been explained and defended from Scripture quite thoroughly.

The reference to heresy is not used lightly at all and frankly is not used even in the context of this subject but refers to the real heart of the issue which is, Who is Jesus Christ.

Given that you do not accept the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ, it is hardly surprising that that must be replaced with something and in this situation it is apparant that to a great extent the replacement is with a works based salvation system that appeals to Old Testament law.

When Jesus is not seen as sufficient and recognized for who He is, then a vacuum is created and other elements must be brought in.

That being said, I believe people may by conviction believe in elements of the law being in application and choose to follow them. Because the temple is detroyed and the sacrifical system no longer in place obviously it cannot be complete, but the human mind is a resourceful thing and will seek to rationalize and explain away all it can to reach the desired conclusion.

I know where you stand R7-12 and these corallary arguments really pale from the primary issue which is who is Jesus Christ.

I will pray for you in this regard. On a public forum, however, more is at stake than you and I, as others observe. It is legitimate for them to understand the greater context lest they imagine that your position is representative of orthodox Christianity. It is not.

Jesus was not always gentle and in fact his harshest words were reserved for the greatest advocates and supporters of the type of teaching and philosophy represented here. Therefore, I will respectfully close with this admonition from Christ to those pillars of promoting the law in this manner.

Matt 12:1-14

At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

3 He answered, “Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread--which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked Him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”

11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

13 Then He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as the other.

14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

Those who wish to elevate the Law over Christ are still seeking in many ways to kill Christ. Now, instead of physically doing so, they must reduce Him and deny his very Nature.

Yes that is harsh.

I hope to hear from the others on this thread to know if they similarly deny the Trinity and Deity of Christ because really, that is the heart of the matter.

For those interested. Here's a link to an article on our main board, addressing many elements of this thread.

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/grace.html

Are Followers of Jesus Under the Law or Grace?

There are a number of liberal theologians and legalistic "followers of Jesus" who claim that the Apostle Paul created the doctrines of Christianity and distorted the words of Jesus. They reject the teachings of Paul and say they prefer the "eyewitness accounts." However, Peter was an eyewitness and proclaimed the gospel of grace in his epistles:

As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, (1 Peter 1:10)

Therefore, gird your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 1:13)

As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. (1 Peter 4:10)

You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE. (1 Peter 5:5)

And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you. (1 Peter 5:10)

Matthew (another eyewitness) even quoted Jesus, "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." (Matthew 16:18) Therefore, if one rejects Peter, one must also reject the apostle Matthew. However, even John acknowledges Peter as chosen by Jesus (Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?" Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him (John 6:70-71). Later, Jesus had a wonderful conversation with Peter, where He commissioned him as an apostle after having abandoned Jesus at His trial:

So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My lambs." He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Shepherd My sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself, and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go." Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, "Follow Me!" (John 21:15-19)

John very clearly indicates that Peter was to shepherd Jesus' sheep. In addition, Jesus indicated that Peter was to glorify God by being crucified. If one rejects Peter, one must also reject the apostle John and his gospel.

In the Acts of the apostles, Luke proclaims that Paul was chosen directly by Jesus Christ as an apostle. By rejecting Paul, one must also reject Luke's book of Acts and the gospel of Luke. Therefore, by logic, one would have to reject all four gospels of Jesus Christ, as written by the apostles. In addition, by rejecting the grace of God, one must reject the entire Old and New Testament, since there are hundreds of examples of the unmerited grace of God.

If one rejects the doctrine of grace, he must be able to answer the following questions from Paul:

Why did Messiah Jesus die? As Paul said, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." (Galatians 2:21)

The next question is likewise from Paul. "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?" (Galatians 3:2)

Paul had a knack for getting to the point of the gospel. The third question is also from Paul. "Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Galatians 3:3)

Many who reject the gospel of grace do so because they think that they can please God on the basis of their own works of the flesh. This amounts to simple pride, which God abhors. Included below are some of the things the Lord has led me to, that all might accept His grace and trust Him with our sanctification.

1. The problem of the sin of pride
2. Judgment is based upon motives and desires of our hearts
3. The "great" laws are the laws of love
4. Examples of grace in the Old Testament
5. Example of grace from apostle John
6. Old Testament prophesies of grace
7. Verses from apostle John that Jesus brought in grace
8. Verses from the New Testament that Jesus brought in grace
9. Grace does not include license
10. What are the works of God?

1. The problem of the sin of pride

Here are just a few of the hundreds of verses that talk about the abomination of pride in the eyes of the Lord. Proud people who follow the letter of the law, but do not have a relationship with Jesus, will be judged and punished.

"The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way, And the perverted mouth, I hate. (Proverbs 8:13)

Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; Assuredly, he will not be unpunished. (Proverbs 16:5)

Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before stumbling. It is better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, Than to divide the spoil with the proud. (Proverbs 16:18-19)

A man's pride will bring him low, But a humble spirit will obtain honor. (Proverbs 29:23)

For the LORD of hosts will have a day of reckoning Against everyone who is proud and lofty, And against everyone who is lifted up, That he may be abased. (Isaiah 2:12)

Thus I will punish the world for its evil, And the wicked for their iniquity; I will also put an end to the arrogance of the proud, And abase the haughtiness of the ruthless. (Isaiah 13:11)

"Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith. (Habakkuk 2:4)

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. (1 John 2:16)

2. Judgment is based upon motives and desires of our hearts

The problem for us is that we are not judged merely on the basis of our deeds, but on the basis of our hearts and desires. This is where we all fail. I know, because since becoming a Christian 8 years ago, the Spirit has been convicting me of my wrong motives and attitudes. I know that I am not worthy to stand in the presence of God on my own merit. I need a Savior to redeem me and intercede for my sins, and I need the Holy Spirit to lead and guide me into His righteousness. The heart and motives as the basis of the Lord's judgment are shown in a few of the many verses seen throughout the Old and New Testament books:

But, O LORD of hosts, who judges righteously, Who tries the feelings and the heart, Let me see Thy vengeance on them, For to Thee have I committed my cause. (Jeremiah 11:20)

But Thou knowest me, O LORD; Thou seest me; And Thou dost examine my heart's attitude toward Thee. Drag them off like sheep for the slaughter And set them apart for a day of carnage! (Jeremiah 12:3)

All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives. (Proverbs 16:2)

Who can say, "I have cleansed my heart, I am pure from my sin?" (Proverbs 20:9)

Every man's way is right in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the hearts. (Proverbs 21:2)

Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men'shearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God. (1 Corinthians 4:5)

Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife... the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. (Philippians 1:15, 17)

You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures. (James 4:3)

3. The "great" laws are the laws of love

When Jesus was asked what was the great commandment of the law He said, "'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40) Love should be the basis of all actions of Christians.

4. Examples of grace in the Old Testament

There are many examples of grace given to individuals (and the nation of Israel) in the Old Testament.

But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. (Genesis 6:8)

And the LORD said to Moses, "I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight, and I have known you by name." (Exodus 33:17)

"But now for a brief moment grace has been shown from the LORD our God, to leave us an escaped remnant and to give us a peg in His holy place, that our God may enlighten our eyes and grant us a little reviving in our bondage. (Ezra 9:8)

Thus says the LORD, "The people who survived the sword Found grace in the wilderness-- Israel, when it went to find its rest." (Jeremiah 31:2)

There are still more specific verses from the Old Testament which state that God gives grace:

For the LORD God is a sun and shield; The LORD gives grace and glory; No good thing does He withhold from those who walk uprightly. (Psalms 84:11)

5. Example of grace from apostle John

Even the beloved apostle John gave an example of Jesus giving grace to a repentant sinner:

"Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?"... And straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" And she said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more." (John 8:5-11)

6. Old Testament prophesies of grace

The Old Testament specifically prophesizes that God would extend His grace to all mankind who would accept it:

So the angel who was speaking with me answered and said to me, "Do you not know what these are?" And I said, "No, my lord." Then he answered and said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel saying, 'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the LORD of hosts. 'What are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you will become a plain; and he will bring forth the top stone with shouts of "Grace, grace to it!"'" (Zechariah 4:5-7)

"And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born. (Zechariah 12:10)

But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)

By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living, For the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due? (Isaiah 53:8)

As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53:11)

Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53:12)

And He saw that there was no man, And was astonished that there was no one to intercede; Then His own arm brought salvation to Him; And His righteousness upheld Him. (Isaiah 59:16)

7. Verses from apostle John that Jesus brought in grace

Even the beloved apostle John testified that Jesus bestowed grace upon us:

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. (John 1:16)

For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. (John 1:17)

Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. (2 John 1:3)

8. Verses from the New Testament that Jesus brought in grace

The New Testament states that God fulfilled His prophecies of grace through Jesus Christ:

"But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." (Acts 15:11)

"But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, in order that I may finish my course, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God. (Acts 20:24)

being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; (Romans 3:24)

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. (Romans 5:15)

For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:17)

And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (Romans 5:20)
that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:21)

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. (Romans 11:6)

I thank my God always concerning you, for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, (1 Corinthians 1:4)

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. (1 Corinthians 15:10)

And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. (2 Corinthians 12:9)

"I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." (Galatians 2:21)

You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (Galatians 5:4)

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, (Ephesians 1:7)

even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), (Ephesians 2:5)

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. (Ephesians 4:7)

and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 1:14)

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, or of me His prisoner; but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, (2 Timothy 1:8-9)

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, (Titus 3:5-6)
As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, (1 Peter 1:10)

that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:7)

But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, "GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE." (James 4:6)

Therefore, gird your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 1:13)

You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE. (1 Peter 5:5)

And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you. (1 Peter 5:10)

Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it! (1 Peter 5:12)

Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; (2 Peter 1:2)

but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. (2 Peter 3:18)

9. Grace does not include license

Did Paul preach grace in the absence of accountability? No!

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (Romans 6:1-2)

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! (Romans 6:14-15)

I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification. (Romans 6:19)

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET." (Romans 7:7)

For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." (Galatians 5:13-14)

10. What are the works of God?

Many people think that we earn merit with God by performing good works. However, the Bible says we are all unworthy and we will not see heaven on the basis of our "good" works.

God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, To see if there is anyone who understands, Who seeks after God. Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one. (Psalms 53:3)

And do not enter into judgment with Thy servant, For in Thy sight no man living is righteous. (Psalms 143:2)

For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (Isaiah 64:6)

"Why do you contend with Me? You have all transgressed against Me," declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 2:29)

"Indeed all Israel has transgressed Thy law and turned aside, not obeying Thy voice; so the curse has been poured out on us, along with the oath which is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, for we have sinned against Him. (Daniel 9:11)

as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." (Romans 3:10-12)

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23)

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. (Romans 5:18)

What are the works of God that we should walk in?

They said therefore to Him, "What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." (John 6:28-29)

In conclusion, all followers of Jesus should seek His righteousness. However, if we attempt to do it by our own power and strength, we try to make ourselves equal to God. It is only a reliance on the Holy Spirit that can keep us on a righteous path. A good summary of my main point is from the Psalms:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight. (Proverbs 3:5-6)

Hello,
I know this is an old article/topic, but I realized that I never answered the question...

More important than what we are discussing here, who do you say Jesus is?

I believe that Yeshua (which is Jesus in Hebrew) is the promised Messiah for Israel, and the Savior of the world. I believe in Messiah Yeshua and have received Him into my life to be my Lord and Savior and follow Him with all my heart and soul. I also believe that Yeshua obeyed all of the commandments of God. He never said that He "did away with" God's Torah/Law, as God's original covenant is FOREVER and He said so, time and time again. Yeshua said that He came to fulfill Torah...which he did.

God gave the Torah to His people Israel to tell them and show them how to live their lives and relate to Him. Yeshua was Torah observant and neither He nor His disciples ever negated Torah in any way. It doesn't matter whether you are a Jew or Gentile; God wants us to obey
ALL of his commands.

Your friend,
Yeshua's follower

It doesn't matter whether you are a Jew or Gentile; God wants us to obey
ALL of his commands.

ALL? That certainly is a lot.

FFC wrote:

It doesn't matter whether you are a Jew or Gentile; God wants us to obey
ALL of his commands.

ALL? That certainly is a lot.

What happens if you don't?

Yeshua's follower wrote:Hello,
I know this is an old article/topic, but I realized that I never answered the question...

More important than what we are discussing here, who do you say Jesus is?

I believe that Yeshua (which is Jesus in Hebrew) is the promised Messiah for Israel, and the Savior of the world. I believe in Messiah Yeshua and have received Him into my life to be my Lord and Savior and follow Him with all my heart and soul. I also believe that Yeshua obeyed all of the commandments of God. He never said that He "did away with" God's Torah/Law, as God's original covenant is FOREVER and He said so, time and time again. Yeshua said that He came to fulfill Torah...which he did.

God gave the Torah to His people Israel to tell them and show them how to live their lives and relate to Him. Yeshua was Torah observant and neither He nor His disciples ever negated Torah in any way. It doesn't matter whether you are a Jew or Gentile; God wants us to obey
ALL of his commands.

Your friend,
Yeshua's follower

Just one second... Who is Israel? Is it us? Were the Gentiles Adopted into Israel and therefore required to follow the Law?