Evidence for God from Science

You sly dog, you'd think you were an atheist, quoting scripture out of context.

Galatians 3
16: Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many; but, referring to one, "And to your offspring," which is Christ.
17: This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.
18: For if the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19: Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained by angels through an intermediary.
20: Now an intermediary implies more than one; but God is one.

I see nothing that supports your idea that we are under the old covenant or anything remotely related to that in the other verses. All you're giving me is verses that say we are saved by faith, not by works. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Mastermind wrote:I am asking you for references as to why I, a non-jew, is bound by the covenant made with an ancestor that is not mine.

Simply because it should be a natural extension of your love for the Lord, to do what pleases Him. As Jesus said...

What did the Father say to Jesus who had kept the Law perfectly - "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Felgar wrote:

BW wrote:We serve from the heart and mind and not by a list of do's and don't's. It's not a check list, but a way of life.

I completely agree. We respect the law because we're saved, not in order to be saved.

Felgar, perhaps I misunderstand, but you aren't simply calling for respecting the laws, you're calling to keeping the laws. And let's be specific here, you are calling us to keep the laws of the First Covenant, specifically the Sabbath, because if we don't then we aren't keeping the commandment to love God. This you make a work out of faith, and grace becomes something earnt rather than freely given.

Now what BW and you (as you've side with him) have argued for, is that the laws of the old covenant still apply under the new covenant, only the consequences are different. Yet, Scripture, particularly Paul who I've quoted in multiple different passages, says we aren't under "the law," not simply the consequences of law! To say that Christians are still under law, is similar to someone in the United Stated keeping to Australia's road rules. If someone is in the United States, then Australia's road rules no longer apply! If someone is under Christ in the New Covenant, then the rules in the previous one no longer apply. Jac was going to write on the old and new covenants, and I kind of wish he did, as I'm certain he would have written something similar to what I'm saying which would have saved me some time...

Now whether the law is still to be respected, or whether this means we should do whatever we want, Paul deals with this in Romans 6! Clearly we should still respect principles based on love, and it just so happens the whole law is based on two—love God and love each other! And clearly if we give our lives to Christ, we not only belong to Him but would want to follow in His example of love! The new covenant is one of love, not one of law! We truly aren't under law, if we love Christ. Yet, as I'll expose below, it seems you don't see that we can have love unless we keep the law. Such is bogus and insults Christ's sacrifice which freed us from law replacing it with love. Perhaps you were all to eager to join in on BW's side due to our recent discussion on death pre-fall, but I must say, I'm really suprised that you'd be here defending a more works oriented stance after your posts in the OSAS thread.

Felgar wrote:Address this point Kurieou, as it goes right along with my earlier post which you completely ignored. Remember as Jesus made clear: the Law rests on love for the Lord. You really don't think that observing a day of rest for the purpose of focussing on God is not a natural extension of the greatest commandment to love the Lord with all our hearts and souls and minds? If not, why not?

Firstly the points you think I ignored I simply don't object to. Rest is good. Rest on the seventh day as a requirement to loving God is something different. I'm not sure you meant the latter, perhaps you did (?), but here's the implications of such a belief in a modus tollens argument.

1) If someone loves God, then they will keep the Sabbath day.
2) Someone doesn't keep the Sabbath day.
3) Therefore they do not love God.

Do you agree with this? I haven't played any trick, but simply followed the logic you've provided. Now I disagree, believing instead that someone can love God without keeping the sabbath day. Therefore the sabbath day has no impact upon whether or not someone loves God.

The sabbath was simply one of many foreshadows of things that found their reality in Christ: "13When 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, 14having 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... 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. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." (Colossians 13-14, 16-17) The Sabbath finds its reality in Christ who gives all everlasting rest!

So why should I enslave myself to old laws? Again, Paul pities the Galatians for desiring to go back to the old after they have the new: 9But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you. (Galatians 4:9-11)

Kurieuo.

PS. Felgar, it seems to me you might be a little confused about what I'm arguing for since you feel I've ignored your points. I'd perhaps recommend reading over this thread from the beginning, as coming in at the end doesn't give the full details of each side and what has been said previously.

Even though I made reference to it earlier, I have my doubts it would have been read; however, I feel this passage is entirely relevant to the two covenant theology I've been talking about and which Jac was going to comment on some time:

• Galatians 4:
  21Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
  
  24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written: “Be glad, O barren woman, who bears no children; break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.”
  
  28Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30But what does the Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.” 31Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

Kurieuo.

Felgar wrote:

Mastermind wrote:I am asking you for references as to why I, a non-jew, is bound by the covenant made with an ancestor that is not mine.

Simply because it should be a natural extension of your love for the Lord, to do what pleases Him. As Jesus said...

What did the Father say to Jesus who had kept the Law perfectly - "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Jesus was jewish.

Mastermind wrote:Jesus was jewish.

And He was perfect. Telling me to behave differently ain't gonna fly bud.

You're telling me I should have to follow the old covenant because Jesus did, despite numerous quotes by Him and his apostles, which K has been quite generous in providing(with such abundance, if I might add, that it pretty much drowns your stance), which from His own mouth say I don't have to. Not only that, but BW seems so desperate in his position that he begins to quote out of context, and often references verses that actually say the exact opposite of what he thinks they say. Now, who should I believe, Jesus and the Apostles or you? I don't care if Jesus followed the old covenant(which was still in effect until his sacrifice, if I might add). Jesus said it is done, the Father gave it to ISRAEL, and paul rebukes people for taking the stance you took. That's more than enough reasons to convince me that you are wrong.

Kurieuo wrote:And let's be specific here, you are calling us to keep the laws of the First Covenant, specifically the Sabbath, because if we don't then we aren't keeping the commandment to love God. This you make a work out of faith, and grace becomes something earnt rather than freely given.

First sentance correct, second sentance incorrect. Faith and salvation comes first - and keeping the Sabbath and honoring God are not done to be saved. I'm not saying that faith is a work at all - in fact I'm saying that keeping the Law has no bearing whatsoever on our salvation, which is why I can argue completely for OSAS but against ignoring the Sabbath.

Kurieuo wrote:Now whether the law is still to be respected, or whether this means we should do whatever we want, Paul deals with this in Romans 6! Clearly we should still respect principles based on love, and it just so happens the whole law is based on two—love God and love each other! And clearly if we give our lives to Christ, we not only belong to Him but would want to follow in His example of love! The new covenant is one of love, not one of law! We truly aren't under law, if we love Christ. Yet, as I'll expose below, it seems you don't see that we can have love unless we keep the law. Such is bogus and insults Christ's sacrifice which freed us from law replacing it with love.

Again, no issues until you deviate from my point - I agree with the bold, disagree with the rest. I never said you can't have love if you don't keep the law. I said it can be (and probably is for most people) more difficult if you don't keep it. The Law is holy, and turning from holiness is simply not a good idea.

Kurieuo wrote:Firstly the points you think I ignored I simply don't object to. Rest is good. Rest on the seventh day as a requirement to loving God is something different. I'm not sure you meant the latter, perhaps you did (?), but here's the implications of such a belief in a modus tollens argument.

1) If someone loves God, then they will keep the Sabbath day.
2) Someone doesn't keep the Sabbath day.
3) Therefore they do not love God.

Ok, I said that it will help you to grow in the Lord, not that it was a fundamental requirement. So not even point 1 holds universally. For instance, if you're a missionary who's set aside all 7 days of the week in direct service of the Lord then the Sabbath probably means very little. If you're an office worker who can't find time focus on God then it means a lot more.

Kurieuo wrote:Therefore the sabbath day has no impact upon whether or not someone loves God.

No impact at all? This is a direct contradiction to the fact that observing the sabbath is a law founded upon loving the Lord. I don't really have anything more to say really.

I'm not sure if you've done this intentionally, but your arguments take my point (and Bav's too) and immediately turn it into one of set laws that apply universally. Now that approach is the old law that has no power to save. Rules and regulations are NOT what Christians keeping the Sabbath is about. Bav said it right:

BavarianWheels wrote:Not for salvation, but because of salvation. We serve from the heart and mind and not by a list of do's and don't's. It's not a check list, but a way of life.

Same as drinking. Go ahead because you're free and justified by Christ. But should I choose to abstain out of love for the Lord and as a precaution to the sin that drinking can cause, then it's very likely that my faith, my relationship with the Lord, and my bearing witness of God are all the better for it.

BavarianWheels wrote:Galatians 3: 16-18 ---carefully read and notice: "The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

The law doesn't set aside the covenant or the promise.

The law doesn't set aside the first/old covenant. Correct! But if you follow my words carefully in my last few posts, you will see I've never said the old covenant has been entirely abrogated. It is however abrogated for those who come to Christ. For example, Colossians 2:13-14 where the "written code" and "regulations" are nailed to the cross, only applies to those who are made alive with Christ. Other passages I quoted such as Galatians 3:25 ("Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law."), and 1 Corinthians 9:20 ("To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law)") support the idea that the old is still here, but it is made void when we come to Christ. Obviously if some can still be "under the law" the law hasn't been set aside. Yet, the law is set aside for those who are saved by grace through Christ as Paul was.

I find it a bit odd that you would think I believe the first covenant isn't around especially since I quote Hebrews 8:13 which says, "By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." The words, "will soon disappear" does not mean it has disappeared! Yet, for those who come to Christ, they are under the new everlasting covenant, and not the old covenant of law and works which will eventually disappear.

Kurieuo.

I should post more often, you're in the lead again.

Edit: Ok, forget my last reponse Kurieuo if you haven't started reponding to it. I think I'd rather go back to the scriptures instead. Clearly basic rational hasn't worked here. This is in response to MM's take on the matter.

Mastermind wrote:You're telling me I should have to follow the old covenant because Jesus did, despite numerous quotes by Him and his apostles, which K has been quite generous in providing(with such abundance, if I might add, that it pretty much drowns your stance), which from His own mouth say I don't have to.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO!!! ACK. You are saying the VERY same thing that the people who Paul was talking to said. "Oh good, I'll just ignore the law because I'm free of it." Let's look at Romans 6 & 7 then, if you want ignore simple reason and look at the scriptures (sorry for the lengthy quotes, but I think necessary to keep the passages in context):

Romans 6:1-4
1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

So we died to sin, in order that we may attain a new life. That we may live NOT live in sin, but live in a new life of rightousness. Remember this, because I'll refer back.

Romans 6:15-18
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

So we're slaves to righteousness... We're no longer slaves to sin, but rather to rightousness.

Romans 7:7-9
7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

Ok, so the law brought death? Yes - because no one can keep it. That is why it can only condemn. Breaking the Law is sin, and sin is death, and everyone breaks it... But does this mean the Law is not holy?

Romans 7:11-13
11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

As Paul says, the law IS holy, righteous, and good. It defines sin (through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful). Ok, so we're slaves to righteousness and the law is righteous... We're getting there.

But finally, here's the punch line:

Romans 8:1-4
1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

[paraphrase]
But we are no longer condemned by the law now that we are in Christ Jesus. Jesus implemented the law of the Spirit, which sets us free from the law of sin and death. So the law which could not save because of our sinful nature is done away with - because Jesus condemned sin in sinful man. And here it is: in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us!!!

Can't you see? We no longer live by the law in order to be saved. That was impossible from the start because of our sinful nature. But now that we ARE saved, our sinful nature is replaced by the Spirit of life. And for this very reason we are now capable of fullfilling ALL the righteous requirements of the law!!! And this brings us full circle to where we started... We fulfill the law because of our Spirit of life which is love for the Lord - we adhere to righteousness because we now can and not because we need to.

.
.
...and as we are in a state of sin, our standing is perfect in Christ regardless of our imperfect law keeping! Not being able to keep the law (a holy and righteous law) does not remove the law and the principles it points to...and as most Christians only disagree with the 4th commandment, specifically...the Sabbath.

Felgar...you're doing a better job than I. Thx.
.
.

I am well aware of what the verses are saying. You however, are not. If we have been saved by grace, we will KNOW what God wants. We don't need to open up the old testament to figure it out. If God does not tell me in my heart that the Sabbath matters, then it does not. Your interpretation does exactly what you said: makes us come back full circle to where we started, and I highly doubt that's where you want to be. The spirit of the law is part of us. That's why Paul(or Peter, it's too late for me to remember) said not to judge others by the Sabbath. God may feel the need to draw some towards it but not others, and he did not want us to get into each other's way by arguing on whether we have to or should keep it.

Mastermind wrote:I am well aware of what the verses are saying. You however, are not. If we have been saved by grace, we will KNOW what God wants. We don't need to open up the old testament to figure it out.

Excellent...lets rip out the only "Bible" Christ our Saviour had available and which was apparently enough for Him.

Mastermind wrote:If God does not tell me in my heart that the Sabbath matters, then it does not.

Does God actually speak to you? I'd be interested in your proof for this.

Mastermind wrote:Your interpretation does exactly what you said: makes us come back full circle to where we started, and I highly doubt that's where you want to be. The spirit of the law is part of us. That's why Paul(or Peter, it's too late for me to remember) said not to judge others by the Sabbath. God may feel the need to draw some towards it but not others, and he did not want us to get into each other's way by arguing on whether we have to or should keep it.

So then God's finger writing is now useless to you. Great thinking. The only actual writing of God Himself...and you'd be happy to bury it and forget about it.
.
.

Excellent...lets rip out the only "Bible" Christ our Saviour had available and which was apparently enough for Him.

This is getting ridiculous. Arguing with you is like banging my head into a brick wall. The above scenario, among other similar ones you proposed have been adressed more times than I care to count.

Does God actually speak to you? I'd be interested in your proof for this.

He speaks to everybody who reads His words, if you actually listen.

So then God's finger writing is now useless to you. Great thinking. The only actual writing of God Himself...and you'd be happy to bury it and forget about it.

God's finger writing was written for the jews. It being written by God Himself does not change that, and no ammount of whining on your part will either.