Evidence for God from Science

Yeshua's follower wrote:Hello everyone,
Well it's taken me a while to catch up, but I've finally read through everything! I thought that I would share a thought that I had when thinking about the topic of clean and unclean foods. Whenever I am searching scripture and find something that I'm not quite sure on, I ask myself...would our Lord and Savior do this and did he do this. As for the clean and unclean foods, this is a question that I began to wrestle with about 4 years ago. I dug into scripture and tried my hardest to find an answer. But the biggest thing that influenced my decision was that question..."what did Messiah do, and what would He do if he were in the world today?" He is our example in everything we do...

"the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked" -1 John 2:6

"For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps -1 Peter 2:21

Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. -1Corinthians 11:1

Now I've told this to people before and they get all roused up and say, "so since Jesus was a carpenter, are you saying we should all go out and become carpenters?!?" When the bible says we should walk in his footsteps, it means we should act, think, and have a heart like Christ according to what scripture says. So my answer is no, we don't have to go out and become carpenters because scripture doesn't tell us to. But don't let that stop you from becoming a carpenter if you so desire

If you look at the life Messiah Yeshua lived then you will know what I believe on this matter.

Ah, Yeshua's follower and Zoegirl - you are closest in understanding the intent of the law.
-
-
-

When Osacar first asked the question which started the post, I thought that all answers would either be, "No, the food laws are not binding, or yes, the food laws are still binding." (Very passionate posts from all by the way.)

Instead there were mixed results, some yes, some no.

If we as Christians, can not decide to be unified on a definite answer to the simpliest question, what kind of a witness is that to non-Christians, who may have viewed the thread on this forum? I think they'd come away saying, "These Christians can not even decide the right answer regarding the right food to eat. Why would I want to believe in a belief system where the members are so divided?"

Paul says:

1Cor 1:10, Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (KJV)

Christians, according to what Paul is saying are not to be divided. They should be perfectly joined together in the same mind and judgement, even on the the simpliest matters. Denominationalism today in the Christian world shows me that Christians worldwide are a fractured bunch, not only on understanding the validity of something simple like the food laws but on many other issues, including salvation issues. God is not the author of confusion. It's humans misunderstanding of scripture which has caused confusion and resulted in denominationalism.

In my opinion, I know God as the creator of humans, knew from the very beginning what foods we were to eat or not to eat for us to remain healthy in these flesh bodies, as long as we lived and I documented to you using scripture why I believe that. If I created a machine, I think I'd know what made it work best. But to each their own.

Jesus says:

Matt 5:37, But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (KJV)

He also says:

Mark 13:23, But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. (KJV)

Therefore, the food laws have either been done away with or they have not. If they have, so has all the rest of the law been done away with. If they have not, neither has the rest of the law. And there is a definite yes or no answer to the question. It's that simple.

Peace to you all.

Ron

Therefore, the food laws have either been done away with or they have not. If they have, so has all the rest of the law been done away with. If they have not, neither has the rest of the law. And there is a definite yes or no answer to the question. It's that simple.

Yes the food laws have been done away with.

No, it doesn't follow that if that is the case that the rest of the law has been done away with, anymore than it follows that if some of the Old Testament law remains that all of it remains.

All or nothing thinking for its own sake is not the issue. The issue is what the Scriptures say and they are not held to an all or nothing standard in that context, we are held to the Scripture's standard.

Katabole,

I think a number of us HAVE addressed this question.

Romans 14!!

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

As to whether or not we should agree? There are some issues that AREN"t going to be settled I am sure. You can search many threads and find rabid disagreement between some otherwise very calm and collected and loving Christians. I don't think all issues can be resolved (although personally I think this one can be....but you obviously know that And to a large degree, it has been resolved. THE VAST MAJORITY OF PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC DENOMINATIONS VIEW THE DIETARY LAWS AS NON-BINDING. There have been many people here who have shown you this. So quite honestly, the mainstream Christian church does agree. Sorry, but there you have it

....

I think the crucial question lies in what you view the EFFECT of the law and the ROLE of the law with regards to salvation.

THe NT is quite clear that "it is by grace that you are saved, not by works"

As long as you ultimately regard this as the only was to be saved, then by all means, worship on saturday, eat only those foods, hey, don't touch that unclean cooking pot that touched that unclean food. whatever....just don't view that as doing anything towards your salvation!!! FOr if you DO, then you are DISCOUNTING THE WORK CHRIST ACHIEVED ON THE CROSS!!!

And that operative word? OUR UNDERSTANDING. IF WE AT ALL VIEW THOSE LAWS AS NECESSARY TO SALVATION THEN WE ARE NOT BELIEVING CHRIST AND HIS WORK.

Love the Lord your God and Love your neighbor because of the Love Jesus Christ showed us when He died for our sins. Just as in the parable of the debtor, we love and forgive and care for others because Jesus first loved us. THAT is why and how we can follow Him in what He does!! We who have had the greatest debts forgiven understand what it means to forgive and to love one another. Praise God!!

Katabole, Oscar, Wheels, etc..

The question comes down to this:

Is God's love contingent upon us keeping the law; meaning, if we do not keep the law we fall from his grace and he loves us less?

From what I am reading from you guys is that for the Christian to stay in favor with God he or she must keep the law so God will love one more than those who do not abide by the law.

What I am hearing you say is this: If you fail to keep the law — you lose favor with God.

Is this correct? Or am I hearing you guys wrongly??
-
-
-

Why would God continue forcing His love on one who is totally rejecting it?He bids us show ours by keeping His Law-John 14 v 15.
Would we make Him a fool to continually render Him lip service and not deliver on the pragmatic front?That pragmatic part is the evident abiding by His law.

oscarsiziba wrote:Why would God continue forcing His love on one who is totally rejecting it?He bids us show ours by keeping His Law-John 14 v 15.
Would we make Him a fool to continually render Him lip service and not deliver on the pragmatic front?That pragmatic part is the evident abiding by His law.

I don't think God "forces" His love on anyone, regardless of whether they accept that love or not. If a human parent has a child, who they have raised lovingly, and that child does not do what they are supposed to do, and honor their parents, does this make the parents not love their children? No. Is this love forced on the child? No. Children can reject their parents instructions without their parents forcing love on them. The parent loves the child regardless. Will the parent correct and punish a disobedient child? Yes. Is their love conditional? No.

oscarsiziba wrote:Why would God continue forcing His love on one who is totally rejecting it?He bids us show ours by keeping His Law-John 14 v 15.
Would we make Him a fool to continually render Him lip service and not deliver on the pragmatic front?That pragmatic part is the evident abiding by His law.

Absolutely we seek to become more like Him, AFTER we are saved....BEFORE we are saved we have no power to uphold the law. (and thus the need for Christ's sacrifice....if, after all, if we could follow the laws perfectly, we would have no need for a savior)...we can try all we want but we could never fulfill the law ourselves.

So our power to follow HIM and become more like Him comes from HIs indwelling in us.

B. W. wrote:Katabole, Oscar, Wheels, etc..

The question comes down to this:

Is God's love contingent upon us keeping the law; meaning, if we do not keep the law we fall from his grace and he loves us less?

Definitely No. God's love is not contingent upon our keeping of the law..."while we were still sinners..." Romans 5:6-8
God's love does have limits. He cannot forgive without being just.

B. W. wrote:From what I am reading from you guys is that for the Christian to stay in favor with God he or she must keep the law so God will love one more than those who do not abide by the law.

What I am hearing you say is this: If you fail to keep the law — you lose favor with God.

Is this correct? Or am I hearing you guys wrongly??

Again...this is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is simply this. To ignore God's precepts has consequences...be it dietary laws and/or the 4th commandment. Both of which we cannot keep perfectly...both of which are not issues of salvation. *(however I do believe the Sabbath/Sunday issue will become a dividing line at some point in the future as proper worship has always been an issue since the beginning)*

One can choose to set aside the dietary laws without fear of being "punished" by God. God need not punish us since there are natural consequences in not following his precepts. As katabole (I think) mentioned, God knows how he built this body of flesh and what is best for it's maintenance.
.
.

+
It appears that several of you really do not understand the doctrine of grace the orthodox Christian knows as fact. You appear to be basing your assumption of law keeping on the presupposition that the orthodox position on grace is antinomianism. In this you are greatly deceived.

The orthodox position is summed in the writings of the entire bible and summed up by Christ in Matthew 22:37-40, “And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." ESV

Read the entire book of 1 John too.

Several of you seem to be implying that keeping the law of works is a sign of true love for God. In this I would disagree for the simple reason, such works serve as a smoke screen for not loving God and the justification of not demonstrating his love one to another in your own local assemblies. This is called 'religion.' A works based religion system that makes God's love conditional.

What is the definition of Agape? Would you or the person sitting next to you in your church lay down their life for you, not betray confidence, care, support, laugh, cry, speak the truth in love? See how we all have violated the true law?

Can you and I repent? Turn away from sin involves turning to Lord to seek his love towards you. After time, you learn to reflect this love back to those around you.

Jesus said in Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them…" ESV

When people look into and at your local assembly —do they see law or Christ Love being demonstrated? You cannot fake God's love nor make it into a work — it is Holy.

What is the definition of Agape?

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. “ ESV
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:+
It appears that several of you really do not understand the doctrine of grace the orthodox Christian knows as fact. You appear to be basing your assumption of law keeping on the presupposition that the orthodox position on grace is antinomianism. In this you are greatly deceived.

The orthodox position is summed in the writings of the entire bible and summed up by Christ in Matthew 22:37-40, “And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." ESV

Read the entire book of 1 John too.

Several of you seem to be implying that keeping the law of works is a sign of true love for God. In this I would disagree for the simple reason, such works serve as a smoke screen for not loving God and the justification of not demonstrating his love one to another in your own local assemblies. This is called 'religion.' A works based religion system that makes God's love conditional.

No...it's a sign of taking God at His Word and not assuming that because we are "no longer under law" that that means the law is worthless. The law is worthless as a means for salvation. We agree. However, this does not mean Honoring your mother and father is now unnecessary. Someone was talking about being consistent...abiding by "Do not murder" is being under law. Abiding by "Do not take the name of the Lord..." is being under law...yet none of you that are arguing against God's law will ever say a word against any of that, yet endeavoring to keep God's precepts is "weak" Christianity to you and reason to belittle our understanding of Grace. Amazing. Grace is just that...Grace. Afforded to us apart from the law, through the death of Christ to all who believe...Jew or Gentile... Nothing we do can earn us salvation. It's all been done for us in Christ. We cannot make God love us more...we also cannot make God love us less....

Taking the Name of God in vain is sin. We've all done it at one time or another. However to throw out this precept and say, "I'm no longer under law so I'm free to take God's Name in vain" and continue is utter nonsense as a Christian.

B. W. wrote:What is the definition of Agape? Would you or the person sitting next to you in your church lay down their life for you, not betray confidence, care, support, laugh, cry, speak the truth in love? See how we all have violated the true law?

Can you and I repent? Turn away from sin involves turning to Lord to seek his love towards you. After time, you learn to reflect this love back to those around you.

Jesus said in Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them…" ESV

When people look into and at your local assembly —do they see law or Christ Love being demonstrated? You cannot fake God's love nor make it into a work — it is Holy.

What is the definition of Agape?

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. “ ESV

I haven't the faintest what all this has to do with the discussion.
.
.

We're approaching the issue in many ways from 2 different angles.

We're starting with grace and moving from there as a relationship maintained by grace in which we as God's children seek to love Him and please him and certainly no one here that I'm hearing nor am I advocating antinominanism which is the idea that you're saved and then you can live like you want.

Frankly, I think there will be a lot of surprised "Christians" who will stand before God whom God will declare as never having been saved because they're basing their salvation on having prayed a prayer and there's no evidence or fruit in their life. For the Christian, we follow God because He first loved us, we in return love Him and receive His Grace and then we walk in His continued Grace as Children, adopted heirs of God, secure in that relationship. We don't sin because we have license to do so. We seek by His Grace not do because we love Him and don't want to grieve Him or His Holy Spirit.

When you start with the law and then move toward things, I think you cloud the issue. The only value to the law from the viewpoint of salvation, is to show that we can't keep it and we need Christ. To imagine then that we take a relationship that begins in Grace and assume that God now becomes the stern taskmaster waiting for us to trip up so He can punish us or take our salvation is not walking as a Child or Son or Daughter of God, it is returning to the status of slave or servant and failing to recognize the position that God has given us and how we are to walk.

There is a good deal of the Law that is in fact declared no longer in effect. Dietary laws, sabbath keeping, ceremonial laws etc. have clear passages in place in the New Testament that indicate that they are not in effect and in fact were between God and Israel, not God and the Church as bought by Christ. Are there reasons why a lifestyle following some of the dietary laws would be healthier. No doubt. But that is no longer a requirement, it is a choice and it is not a basis of our holiness or continued relationship. If someone chooses to do so because they believe it honors God, fine. The Scripture speaks to those of us who are not so convinced to use our liberty wisely and not offend the "weaker brothers" (the Bible's term not mine) by using our liberty to entice them to go against their consciences. For them. the scriptures say it is sin and Paul set the example of eating in the manner that custom dictated where he was and being grateful for food and respectful to those who felt it was important to eat kosher or avoid offerings made to idols.

Nothing much has changed. I'm not, and I don't believe anyone here is suggesting that anyone shouldn't follow their conscience in this regard and if they do it to worship God, great. I think God is honored. If those of you starting with the Law and moving toward God think you're better, more saved, or more holy that those of us who don't, I'm content to allow God to deal with you on that in His own way and time and I'm fine with respecting your beliefs.

If you wish to crusade and establish yourselves as more Holy I'd simply ask you to consider why the Scripture refers to those of like mind in the New Testament as weaker brothers and why Paul goes so far as to suggest that those advocating rituals such as circumcision in the New Testament, says extremely harsh things such as wishing they would go further than just circumcision and mutilate themselves? It would appear that those seeking to saddle gentiles with the Jewish Law as a basis of salvation and fellowship were not looked at favorably by Paul or God and frankly I think those of us here have been very patient and tried to be gentle in our responses.

So you understand, the purpose of this board goes well beyond this issue and we're here to welcome seekers wanting to know God and especially those who want to understand how it is possible to reconcile God in the context of modern science and I think we've spent an inordinant amount of time discussing these issues to where we're simply repeating ourselves and it's obvious there will not be full agreement and that these issues have existed since the inception of the Church and it's not likely we'll resolve them to everyone's satisfaction here. That's fine.

We're not primarily a debate board. Those of you who feel strongly contrary to the statement of faith on this board (which is not anti-law by any means) and wish to continue arguing these issues, I suggest you find other boards or places to discuss it. I'm of the opinion that we're losing balance and losing what this board exists for, and I'd like to see us move more in that direction.

I hope this is clear. Understand please that moving forward, I intend to spend less time on these threads and issues for the purpose of continued debate and that if that's a primary purpose of why you're here, you may be asked to move on. The decision in that regard is up to you and I'm not suggesting anyone leave or that you're not welcome, but please consider again what the purpose of this board is and let's move back in that direction. I think we've given this enough time and there's not much new that can be said.

Blessings,

Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:We're approaching the issue in many ways from 2 different angles.

We're starting with grace and moving from there as a relationship maintained by grace in which we as God's children seek to love Him and please him and certainly no one here that I'm hearing nor am I advocating antinominanism which is the idea that you're saved and then you can live like you want.

Frankly, I think there will be a lot of surprised "Christians" who will stand before God whom God will declare as never having been saved because they're basing their salvation on having prayed a prayer and there's no evidence or fruit in their life. For the Christian, we follow God because He first loved us, we in return love Him and receive His Grace and then we walk in His continued Grace as Children, adopted heirs of God, secure in that relationship. We don't sin because we have license to do so. We seek by His Grace not do because we love Him and don't want to grieve Him or His Holy Spirit.

Curiously Romans speaks of obedience to the one you serve...however I hear nothing of obedience in your above rendition of being a Christian. Following God means obeying God. Obedience comes after...not before receiving Grace.

You don't sin you say. How on earth do you know what sin is if not through the law? The law points at sin and curses the sinner because by law the sinner cannot find salvation. I really wish you would understand this concept of abiding in the law (imperfectly) as a means to follow in God's will AFTER having received His grace. Romans 6:15 tells we are (now) slaves to obedience...which leads to righteousness.

Canuckster1127 wrote:When you start with the law and then move toward things, I think you cloud the issue. The only value to the law from the viewpoint of salvation, is to show that we can't keep it and we need Christ.

Really...yet the Bible tells us the law points to sin.

Canuckster1127 wrote:To imagine then that we take a relationship that begins in Grace and assume that God now becomes the stern taskmaster waiting for us to trip up so He can punish us or take our salvation is not walking as a Child or Son or Daughter of God, it is returning to the status of slave or servant and failing to recognize the position that God has given us and how we are to walk.

Who said any of this sort that God now becomes a stern task master? Does not Paul say we are now slaves to obedience? I've certainly not mentioned we are mandated to follow the law. I've simply stated that the law is God's word and to disregard it as "no longer under law so I'll pick and choose what fits and what doesn't..." is laughable given it's God's ONLY written Words to humans written into tablets of stone. Or do you now presume to belittle God's only words written down for man?

Canuckster1127 wrote:There is a good deal of the Law that is in fact declared no longer in effect. Dietary laws, sabbath keeping, ceremonial laws etc. have clear passages in place in the New Testament that indicate that they are not in effect and in fact were between God and Israel, not God and the Church as bought by Christ.

Which part specifically says, "...that Sabbath day I said to remember...that's no longer my word...I was just joking and it was ONLY for those crazy Israelites..." Only God can remove that which He's put as law. If He does change His law, he lies in saying He never changes. So I would like God's word in the NT that the Sabbath is no longer within His will for man.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Are there reasons why a lifestyle following some of the dietary laws would be healthier. No doubt. But that is no longer a requirement, it is a choice and it is not a basis of our holiness or continued relationship.

I've never presumed it to be so. I've simply said there is meaning in God's precepts. They serve a purpose. They are certainly of some benefit.

Canuckster1127 wrote:If someone chooses to do so because they believe it honors God, fine. The Scripture speaks to those of us who are not so convinced to use our liberty wisely and not offend the "weaker brothers" (the Bible's term not mine) by using our liberty to entice them to go against their consciences. For them. the scriptures say it is sin and Paul set the example of eating in the manner that custom dictated where he was and being grateful for food and respectful to those who felt it was important to eat kosher or avoid offerings made to idols.

Nothing much has changed. I'm not, and I don't believe anyone here is suggesting that anyone shouldn't follow their conscience in this regard and if they do it to worship God, great. I think God is honored.

How can God be honored by something of no value? Interesting you would say this if our best for God is like filthy rags.

Canuckster1127 wrote:If those of you starting with the Law and moving toward God think you're better, more saved, or more holy that those of us who don't, I'm content to allow God to deal with you on that in His own way and time and I'm fine with respecting your beliefs.

Who started with law AND THEN to God? Without God there is no law. How can we start with law and then go to God?

When did I say I was better for any of my beliefs. I'm simply here offering up my beliefs and thoughts just like everyone else. (but in reading your comments below...having different beliefs means we should not come here to YOUR forum.)

Canuckster1127 wrote:If you wish to crusade and establish yourselves as more Holy

Your guilt might be putting these thoughts into your head...that I'm trying to establish myself as more holy...????

Canuckster1127 wrote:I'd simply ask you to consider why the Scripture refers to those of like mind in the New Testament as weaker brothers and why Paul goes so far as to suggest that those advocating rituals such as circumcision in the New Testament, says extremely harsh things such as wishing they would go further than just circumcision and mutilate themselves?

Out of context. The thinking was that one HAD to be circumcised to be an heir. The argument here is whether dietary laws and now as you think, circumcision is of no value. God didn't just say, "Let's make them mutilate themselves just because and then later make the act useless and without value." That's NOT what scripture is alluding to when it says those people are weaker. They thought it was just the outward apperance that was the requirement...Christ said it is the inside that counts.

Canuckster1127 wrote:It would appear that those seeking to saddle gentiles with the Jewish Law as a basis of salvation and fellowship were not looked at favorably by Paul or God and frankly I think those of us here have been very patient and tried to be gentle in our responses.

No one is saddling anyone...there is no difference. God doesn't show favoritism. God's law is not "Jewish". Christ himself says that the Sabbath was made for man...since when is man spelled J-E-W?

Canuckster1127 wrote:So you understand, the purpose of this board goes well beyond this issue and we're here to welcome seekers wanting to know God and especially those who want to understand how it is possible to reconcile God in the context of modern science and I think we've spent an inordinant amount of time discussing these issues to where we're simply repeating ourselves and it's obvious there will not be full agreement and that these issues have existed since the inception of the Church and it's not likely we'll resolve them to everyone's satisfaction here. That's fine.

So in other words...if we don't agree with you, we're to leave this board. Mighty interesting given all the debate on this forum. It looks, by design, this forum is up for some Christian debate. It seems to me that just because we disagree here, you're saying I should leave this forum? There is lots of debate here on this forum! Why is it that because we are in disagreement you have to come and all of a sudden, for whatever reason, cite the forum as not being a place for debate? I'm at a loss here.

Canuckster1127 wrote:We're not primarily a debate board. Those of you who feel strongly contrary to the statement of faith on this board (which is not anti-law by any means) and wish to continue arguing these issues, I suggest you find other boards or places to discuss it. I'm of the opinion that we're losing balance and losing what this board exists for, and I'd like to see us move more in that direction.

Which direction is that...to post, "The earth is not 6000 years old." and the rest of us post, "I agree." (I'm not a proponent of a 6k yr old earth by any means btw.) That would make for some exciting reading.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I hope this is clear. Understand please that moving forward, I intend to spend less time on these threads and issues for the purpose of continued debate and that if that's a primary purpose of why you're here, you may be asked to move on.

I'm not here TO debate...I like this forum because there is healthy debate. I differ in some of my beliefs to yours, is it that bad that you should shoo me away?

Canuckster1127 wrote:The decision in that regard is up to you and I'm not suggesting anyone leave or that you're not welcome,

No...of course not. But if we don't conform to your take on what this forum is not about, we're not welcome.

Canuckster1127 wrote:but please consider again what the purpose of this board is and let's move back in that direction. I think we've given this enough time and there's not much new that can be said.

Blessings,

Bart

I would hope that I would still be welcome here regardless if my beliefs are not 100% in accordance with this forum. I have been a member longer than most of you...which really means nothing...but a loyalty to and a liking of this forum both in form and in what it promotes as truth.

If I'm unwelcome for believing God's words have meaning, that would really be a shock to me.
.
.

Canuckster1127 wrote:
We're approaching the issue in many ways from 2 different angles.

We're starting with grace and moving from there as a relationship maintained by grace in which we as God's children seek to love Him and please him and certainly no one here that I'm hearing nor am I advocating antinominanism which is the idea that you're saved and then you can live like you want.

Frankly, I think there will be a lot of surprised "Christians" who will stand before God whom God will declare as never having been saved because they're basing their salvation on having prayed a prayer and there's no evidence or fruit in their life. For the Christian, we follow God because He first loved us, we in return love Him and receive His Grace and then we walk in His continued Grace as Children, adopted heirs of God, secure in that relationship. We don't sin because we have license to do so. We seek by His Grace not do because we love Him and don't want to grieve Him or His Holy Spirit.

Curiously Romans speaks of obedience to the one you serve...however I hear nothing of obedience in your above rendition of being a Christian. Following God means obeying God. Obedience comes after...not before receiving Grace.

Then you're not listening. What do you think the evidence and fruit is? I stated it clearly.

You don't sin you say. How on earth do you know what sin is if not through the law? The law points at sin and curses the sinner because by law the sinner cannot find salvation. I really wish you would understand this concept of abiding in the law (imperfectly) as a means to follow in God's will AFTER having received His grace. Romans 6:15 tells we are (now) slaves to obedience...which leads to righteousness.

You seem purposely choosing to miss what you claim is not there. The condemnation of the law is to point to our need for Christ. When we are in Christ there is therefore no condemnation and we walk in grace responding out of Love for God as Heirs of Christ.

Which part specifically says, "...that Sabbath day I said to remember...that's no longer my word...I was just joking and it was ONLY for those crazy Israelites..." Only God can remove that which He's put as law. If He does change His law, he lies in saying He never changes. So I would like God's word in the NT that the Sabbath is no longer within His will for man.

These are where the individual commandments of the Old Testament are reinstated specifically in the New Testament:

The 1st commandment was reinstated in Matt. 22:37; 1 Cor. 8:5,6.
The 2nd commandment was reinstated in 1 Jn. 5:21. (Col. 3:5 and Eph. 5:5 broadens idolatry to include covetousness.)
The 3rd commandment was reinstated in Col. 3:8.
The 5th commandment was reinstated in Eph. 6:1-3.
The 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th commandments were reinstated in Rom. 13:8-10; Matt. 19:18; Gal. 5:14; 1 Cor. 6:9,10; and Gal. 5:19-21.

The general appeals to the law that I see some make lose sight of the fact of several things in my opinion.

9 of the 10 commandments are specifically reinstated in the NT, but the Sabbath is not. In fact several passages specifically indicate that the Sabbath of the Old Testament is not carried into the new but is in fact not a moral law, but a ceremonial law.

This makes sense from several points of view that I see:

1. The Saturday Sabbath was given to the nation of Israel (not the church) as a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt.

"Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day" (Deut. 5:15).

"The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested" (Exo 31:16,17).

2. Christians are given liberty on this matter alone in the 10 commandments as again the other 9 are specificially reinforced and regiven in the NT. With regard to the setting aside of days liberty is granted.

"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord ...." (Rom. 14:5,6)

If Saturday Sabbaths were still in force, there would be no such liberty.

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. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." (Col. 2:16,17 )

Further, the early Church as demonstrated was already moving toward a Sunday observance as demonstrated in these 2 passages.

On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight (Acts 20:7).

On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made (1 Cor. 16:2).

3. The concil of Jerusalem in Acts 15 addressed many issues in terms of the law and the keeping of many elements of it by the Gentiles and conspicuously absent was the keeping of the Sabbath.

4. Paul tells us the purpose of the law in these two passages.

"So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith." (Gal 3:24)

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (Rom 3:20)

As the Sabbath is not continued into the New Testament it is not anything we need to be conscious of as it is not sin to follow the Liberty given.

5. If the Saturday Sabbeth is still in effect under Christ then Christ ordered a man to sin as demonstrated by this passage.

"Sir," the invalid replied, "I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me." Then Jesus said to him, "Get up! Pick up your mat and walk." At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked. The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, and so the Jews said to the man who had been healed, "It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat." But he replied, "The man who made me well said to me, 'Pick up your mat and walk' " (John 5:7-11).

This is where the law is given that Jesus was commanding this man to "violate."

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (Ex. 20:8-11).

Again, here's what the old testament sabbath law states.

"The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, and so the Jews said to the man who had been healed, "It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat" (John 5:9,10).

It's expanded further in

"This is what the LORD says: Be careful not to carry a load on the Sabbath day or bring it through the gates of Jerusalem. Do not bring a load out of your houses or do any work on the Sabbath, but keep the Sabbath day holy, as I commanded your forefathers. Yet they did not listen or pay attention; they were stiff-necked and would not listen or respond to discipline. But if you are careful to obey me, declares the LORD, and bring no load through the gates of this city on the Sabbath, but keep the Sabbath day holy by not doing any work on it" (Jer. 17:21-24).

So how about it? Is Jesus commanding the man to sin or are those advocating Sabbath keeping exercising their own selectivity as to what they will do or not do?

Here's some laws related to the Sabbath in the OT that I've not heard brought forth by those advocating the yoke of a law not commanded in the NT.

"Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested" (Exo. 31:14-17)

Again, note the emphasis on "Israel".

"Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day" (Ex. 35:3, KJV).

Do Sabbath keepers light their stoves or run their furnaces on the Sabbath?

So there you go. You've asked several times and made the appeal to the 10 commandments as being all or nothing. The NT doesn't command it and in fact grants liberty in the matter. You're free to use your liberty as you see fit.

As to the other statement I'm saddened you feel they were directed exclusively to you. I think we've discussed items of this nature before and been civil and I've not changed in my desire of that.

Now, again, if you believe I'm misusing my moderators powers in this issue, please feel free to discuss it with the other moderators or with the Board Founder.

Enough is Enough.

BavarianWheels wrote:...No...it's a sign of taking God at His Word and not assuming that because we are "no longer under law" that that means the law is worthless. The law is worthless as a means for salvation. We agree. However, this does not mean Honoring your mother and father is now unnecessary. Someone was talking about being consistent...abiding by "Do not murder" is being under law. Abiding by "Do not take the name of the Lord..." is being under law...yet none of you that are arguing against God's law will ever say a word against any of that, yet endeavoring to keep God's precepts is "weak" Christianity to you and reason to belittle our understanding of Grace. Amazing. Grace is just that...Grace. Afforded to us apart from the law, through the death of Christ to all who believe...Jew or Gentile... Nothing we do can earn us salvation. It's all been done for us in Christ. We cannot make God love us more...we also cannot make God love us less....

Taking the Name of God in vain is sin. We've all done it at one time or another. However to throw out this precept and say, "I'm no longer under law so I'm free to take God's Name in vain" and continue is utter nonsense as a Christian.

When one loves God, honoring one's parents is not a chore. When one loves God, they hold no murder (Jesus includes anger as murder) in his heart toward his fellows. When one loves God one will not take the name of the Lord in vain or use it for vain purposes. We can learn to Love the Lord more and the more we love, the more we are transformed.

B. W. wrote:What is the definition of Agape? Would you or the person sitting next to you in your church lay down their life for you, not betray confidence, care, support, laugh, cry, speak the truth in love? See how we all have violated the true law? Can you and I repent? Turn away from sin involves turning to Lord to seek his love towards you. After time, you learn to reflect this love back to those around you. Jesus said in Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them…" ESV

When people look into and at your local assembly —do they see law or Christ Love being demonstrated? You cannot fake God's love nor make it into a work — it is Holy.

What is the definition of Agape? love fulfills law

John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. “ ESV

BavarianWheels wrote:I haven't the faintest what all this has to do with the discussion. .

1 Timothy 1:5, “but the end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience, and faith not pretended…”LITV

1Peter 1:22, “Having purified your souls in the obedience of the truth through the Spirit to unpretended brotherly love, love one another fervently out of a pure heart…” LITV

Romans 13:10, “Love does not work evil to the neighbor. Then love is the fulfillment of Law.” LITV

That is what it has to do with the discussion…-
-
-