protestants in denial

I am not saying Hebrews says keeping God's commandments is a bad idea. YOU are the one using two contradictory arguments. On one hand; you quote Christ saying "not one jot nor tittle shall pass".
Then you quote Hebrews saying that sacrifices DID pass!
Weren;t the sacrifices part of "the commandments of God"?
So if we take you're argument; Hebrews WAS saying that keeping THOSE commandments was not a good idea.
And we have a serious contradiction in scripture!

BUT, if we acknowledge that some were FULFILLED; then the two scriptures fit together: Not one jot nor tittle (INCLUDING sacrifices) passed UNTIL "all" (Christ's work on the Cross) was FULFILLED. So NOW sacrifices --and other parts of the Law, have passed, as Hebrews teaches. In chapter 4; it shows how one of those '10 Commandments' was "predictive" (of another type of "rest") as well!

 

That is pretty funny.

Christ did not say "Heaven and Earth WILL pass away but lonnnnngggggg before that happens I will die on the cros and abolish my Law".

Christ did not say "heaven and earth seem to be permanent but they will pass away - my law is even more fleeting - it will be dead and buried before the end of the year - just as soon as I give my self for the sins of the World".

Christ did NOT say "The heavens and earth are pretty stable - but not my Law - that is just about done for".

The argument Christ made was "DO NOT think that my purpose in coming to earth ws to destroy ANY of My Law - RATHER heaven and earth will pass away before My Law fails even in the LEAST!".

Christ has given (in HIS WORD - SCRIPTURE) laws that pertain to the CIVIL administration of the NATION of Israel. They did not apply to OTHER nations because the OTHER nations were not valid theocracies.

Christ had given in HIS Word - "predictive" laws that POINTED TO His sacrifice - that PREDICTED His sacrifice - once the sacrifice was complete they no longer PREDICTED it. (obviously - but some like to pretend that is too confusing for mortals to figure out).

For that reason Hebrews 10 can "state the obviousl"! That Christ's sacrifice ENDED those Shadow-PREDICTIVE sacrifices that never had power in themselves to forgive sins anyway!

Now the "game" some like to play is that this simple fact in Hebrews about the sacrifice of Christ is SO complex and confusing that we can ONLY really apply it - if we abolish the LAW of God.

But as James 2 points out we are to be "JUDGED BY" that law.

As Romans 2 points out "IT IS NOT the hearers but the DOERS of THAT LAW that WILL BE Justified... on the DAY when God judges the secrets of men through the man Christ Jesus"

As Romans 3 points out "THAT LAW continues to BIND ALL the world under sin that ALL may be held accountable before God" Hence ALL (even today) NEED a savior and without it - will go to hell UNDER THAT LAW that REMAINS.

For as Romans 6 points out "The WAGES OF SINNING against God's Law is DEATH but the gift of God is eternal life".

For that reason Rev 12 says that the "SAints KEEP the Commandments of God" even AFTER the Cross.

Christ makes the point clear - "IF you Love ME - then KEEP My Commandments" John 14.

Christ the CREATORS' MEMORIAL of HIS creative Act in making mankind REMAINS so much so that for all eternity "FROM SABBATH to SABBATH SHALL ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" ISaiah 66. This is NOT said of animal sacrifices.

Animal sacrifices were only given AFTER the fall of Adam and end just as Hebrews 10 states. (An obvious point to Christians world wide - I believe).

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is pretty funny.

Christ did not say "Heaven and Earth WILL pass away but lonnnnngggggg before that happens I will die on the cros and abolish sacrifices, annual days, and temporal penalties for breaking the law".

Christ did not say "heaven and earth seem to be permanent but they will pass away - sacrifices, annual days, and temporal penalties for breaking the law are even more fleeting - they will be dead and buried before the end of the year - just as soon as I give my self for the sins of the World".

Christ did NOT say "The heavens and earth are pretty stable - but not sacrifices, annual days, and temporal penalties for breaking the law - that is just about done for".

The argument Christ made was "DO NOT think that my purpose in coming to earth ws to destroy ANY of My Law - RATHER heaven and earth will pass away before My Law fails even in the LEAST!". --which included sacrifices, annual days, new moons, physical penalites for breaking the Law, etc.

See how your argument goes.

This is just what I said.

And there were other predictive parts of the Law too. Heb.4 shows that physical rest (ceasing from physical work) foreshadowed the spiritual rest and ceasing from our works for justification. You take one chapter of Hebrews at its word, and then try to reintepret the other.

But no one's doing away with the Law. But the "Law" or "commandments" we are to keep or be judged by are not all of the SAME ones in the LETTER as in the OT. You yourself attest to this, in showing that some were "predictive".
And there is NOT ONCE any condemnation in the NT for sabbathbreaking.
The real game here is that we can pretend to be keeping "the whole Law", and bragging "I keep more commandments than you"; but then pick and choose which ones we still keep or are abolished; and only agree with scriptures saying they are superseded when they correspond to the rituals we don't feel need to be kept anymore.

Priests and Levites are mentioned there. They administered sacrifices! New moons also; which you believe have passed as well. Once again; picking and choosing.

And so was the physical sabbath command added after the Fall. God created it; but never defined what man was to do with it outside the Law of Moses, where it became a sign of identity to the nation of Israel (Ex.31:13). If we are no longer OT physical Israel (because of the Cross), then that means of INDENTITY has passed along with the other things associated with them.

 

Because it was Israel's civil law.
And he sanctifies us (makes us holy) in a DIFFERENT way (SPIRITUALLY) than He did Israel (most of whom truly were not holy; even though they eventually leaned to go through the motions of keeping days and other Laws, and even adding to them).
To copy such an element of identity (as a mandatory rule) is to become physical Israel; not spiritual Israel.
But once again; the commandments did not "pass away"; but we do not keep all of them in exactly the same way they did. We do not stone those who break them, and those who do not honor their parents do not always have shortened lives. Also, if the 10 were so special; since they do not tell us that lust and anger/name calling are wrong, they must not be, then. (I guess not since starting accusatory threads calling Protestants closet Catholics--a definite violation of that, is OK!) The Letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

 

Here is how "different" Eric's view is from D.L.Moody

In Christ,

Bob

 

The Ten Commandments -

It is that same law that is "written on the heart" in the New Covenant.

It is that same law that is quoted as "The Law of Liberty" in James 2.

Paul quotes from it in Eph 6:1-3 and in Rom 13.

In Christ,

Bob

 

D. L. Moody

 

I don't follow DL Moody. His interpretation of the Bible is not equal to the Bible.

As was pointed out on the thread you started on him, he did not observe the 7th day as a mandatory sabbath; but rather "split" his weekly "Sabbath" between preaching on Sunday, and "rest" on Saturday; and that only because he preached on Sunday; which otherwise apparently was "Christ's day" to him. So if I were to follow him; I would become a preacher in a Sunday church, and then choose any other day of the week to rest on; since you admit that is what he basically did; and it happened to fall on the 7th day.

But I acknowledged on the other thread; that yes; the Church did use to claim that all 10 commandments were in effect, only the 4th was changed from the 7th day to the first; AND that this was WRONG. So pitching Moody's beliefs/practice to me means nothing.

I have explained that the fourth commandment is not just done away; as I said above: the commandments did not "pass away"; but we do not keep all of them in exactly the same way as in the OT. Some physical details are diminished or abrogated; while the SPIRITUAL aspect is magnified. Murder and adultery are magnified SPIRITUALLY into hatred and lust. But while physical murder and adultery are still forbidden; we do not stone those who break them, and neither enforce the other penalties that came with them. So some physical aspect of the command is done away.
Moody may not have agreed with this; but then he did NOT really follow the commandment when he changed the day he told people not to "neglect the house of God" to Sunday, and then split the rest aspect of it off onto another day (of HIS OWN choosing!) for himself. If the commandment changes that much; then how can he speak as if nothing changed at all? He just continues the double-talk of the old time Church; that the SDA's have long condemned.

Since you keep saying "magnified means 'more restrictive'"; and you reject the idea that the fourth magnifies into spiritual rest (Heb.4) and keeping every day holy (of course, not nececcarily not working every day); then you explain to us how the sabbath is "magnified" in the NT age, then!

 

Clearly you differ with him - we both agree on the fact that you differ with him.

I am just pointing out the wide range of difference between you and Moody in cases where he makes MY argument FOR the Law of God.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here again we agree.

The church did accept the Ten commandments of God.

And the church did try to "edit" the 4th commandment while leaving it binding and admitting that it STARTED for all mankind in Eden.

The church was RIGHT on all points - except for the idea of "editing" one of God's commandments on behalf of man-made tradition.

Interesting.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That reference to Matt 5 and 6 is a PRE-CROSS fact about the Law of God - the TEN commandments.

They WERE ALREADY extended to include the thought crimes/sins BEFORE the Cross!

The spiritual fact that Adam was sinless and holy in Eden - means that his keeping of Christ the Creator's own Holy Day in Eden was truly - spiritually kept -- perfectly from the very start.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have only made the "obvious point" that muder IS STILL MURDER even though HATE is ALSO murder.

I make the point on Sabbath that Sabbath is STILL sabbath even though we are to "BE Holy" so that we can "KEEP it Holy" and BEING Holy can only be done in Christ as one is born-again - a SAINT as in the list of SAINTS in Heb 11.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No; the Church was partly right on all points. They insisted on the 10 commandments; yet edited the fourth; so they admitted it changed from the letter of the original. Where they were wrong is in HOW it changed. They kept the OT physical application (rest/worship) and simply transferred it to another day; which they claimed was it's spiritual fulfillment (The day of the week Christ was resurrected). No; it's not simply changing one day for another. The spiritual sabbath was not a different day; but rather the APPLICATION of what "rest" and "keeping holy" was in the first place.
So no one disagrees that there is some application of all 10 Commandments for today.

So? You need BIBLICAL proof; not what some man said; to try to prove that we should believe like you because our forefathers "used your arguments about the Law". Yes; you are consistent with the old church's view, and they were inconsistent. But they were wrong on that as they were on many other issues. As the Church in the early centuries became corrupt; they ironically began copying many aspects of OT Judaism; all the while despising Judaism. So they copied priests and religious hierarchy, and liturgy, and the rest of the legalism. But they changed the particular sign of Judaic identity; and that was the DAYS of the 7th day sabbath, and Nisan 14th Passover (to have "nothing to do with the hostile rabble of the Jews"); the observation of which were moved to the Gentile Sunday and Easter. The original reason these days were no longer obligatory in the NT Church were lost; and now they taught that we keep still the Law from the OT; only change the days, language and forms to new "spiritual" ones (recall the recent debates with Doubting Thomas on the early Church fathers), rather than the applications themselves being changed from physical to spiritual ones.
But this was not right; but based on, as you call it; and the Catholists admmit: "tradition". So don't come now and try to judge me by church tradition, as if I "should be" following it.

I'm sorry; but as much as you try to read between the lines; it nowhere says Adam kept the Sabbath. God rested. He nowhere commanded anyone else to until Moses. Stopping from physical work and recreation and attending mandatory weekly (as well as annual) services WAS another thing that was "added because of sin". --because man needed more remonders of who God was, and that He was to come first.

As for the "magnification" of the Law; it just occurred to me that "becomes more restrictive" was really YOUR words, and not what "magnification" really means. As you keep pointing out; "thought crimes" were ALWAYS against God's Law. So actually; there is NOTHING that became "MORE" resticting. IT was always as restrictive as it ever was meant to be. It's these finer spiritual points that are BROUGHT OUT and MADE MORE CLEAR now. THAT is what the "magnification" was. (So it SEEMS "more restrictive" to us; when we compare lust and hatred to the letter only practice of the Jews; where as long as you didn't actually do the physical sin; you were OK).
So magnifying the Law doesn't mean anything becomes more restrictive; however there are still many physical details in the Law that are replaced by spiritual ones.

Still; what has changed? How is it "magnified" like the others? What is the spiritual application of it?

 

Thank God I am a Baptist, not a Protestant!

 

If you do not keep the 7th day sabbath; then to them, you are just as much in "denial" (of your secret Catholic alliance).

 

And as D. L. Moody said

</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob