May I address your 'test' question.
The Apostles were not lead by the Holy Spirit to command the Gentile Church to keep the Sabbath because they all, already kept it holy "in all the Congregations everywhere every Sabbath Day" unto the Lord Jesus -- of which simple fact the very Scripture of Acts 15 witnesses.
(In any case, it is not the work of the Spirit to command what God has commanded already; least to command against what God has commanded already -- seeing the Word of God is forever more.)
Then no one in his right senses will command the Gentile Church to keep the Sabbath because it has got the Lord of the Sabbath Day for reason to keep it; and besides have His resurrection from the dead its very basis and essense and historical precedent.
Do we have to worship on Saturday not Sunday?
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by xdisciplex, Sep 23, 2006.
Page 9 of 9
-
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
-
Thanks for replying. Acts 15:21 (NIV) says that Moses had been preached in every city and read in the synagogues every Sabbath. It does not say that every Gentile congregation kept the Sabbath as commanded in Judaism. The argument was that some had gone out to the Gentile Churches and told the Gentiles that they had to become circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses before they could be saved. Peter responds by asking how they could put a burden on the Gentiles that neither we or our forefathers could bear. That burden that they could not keep was the keeping of the law and Peter made it clear that the Gentile believers were saved by grace just as the Jewish believers were. -
BobRyan,
re: "The Sabbath commandment contains unique language that IS repeated in the NT. It is the ONE we find in Heb 4 ‘THERE REMAINS therefore a SABBATH REST for the people of God’".
The "Lamsa Translation From the Aramaic of the Peshitta" is even more emphatic: "It is therefore the duty of the people of God to keep the sabbath." -
DHK -
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
"The apostles and elders came together for to consider this matter ..." The REAL 'matter' of the council is given by Peter: "(God) put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts BY FAITH ... through the GRACE of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved .... even as they (who received the Holy Spirirt 'even as us'). THEN, all the multitude kept silence." The issue was settled; the issue was: Righteousness by faith, or, righteousness by works?
Sure, Peter literally meant that it was NOT "needful to circumcise them (or) to keep the law of Moses --- which in context just as surely, implies sacrifices etc. It never meant any of the moral principles of the Law OF GOD. But even though the Law any Christian was supposed still to have obeyed was God's Covenant Word of Ten Commandments, the 'matter' as far as the council was concerned, was not the duty of it, but the merit of it. No one could be saved by obeying the Great Law; it had been an impossible burden and always would be. Even less could the sacrifices amend for one's transgression of the Great Law. At the Jerusalem Council this was the real 'matter' 'considered. One "NEEDS" nothing but the grace of our Lord jesus Christ in order to be saved, because one is saved by grace.
Now THAT was the message that was sent out from this council to the whole Sabbath-keeping Church of Christ. No allusion exists to any Congregation that did not assemble on Sabbaths and that did not read this very Moses by which none has, and none ever will be saved.
There is no excuse in Acts 15 for not obeyeing God's Law of the sabbath Day; find it out now, rather than too late; the day of judgement won't know of an excuse either. -
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
The axiomatic assumption of circumstance in Acts 15 is a Church that existed under 'Sabbath-rule'. And another axiomatice preclusion of event in Acts 15 is a Church of both gentile and Jewish stock, undivided. Not the faintest allusion to this Church's existence or government under "First Day-rule' comes through.
-
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
Correction: ...of both gentile and Jewish stock, undivided ... should be: ...of both gentile and Jewish stock, divided.
-
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
-
why do you link the word "rest" in there to the resurrection? it doesnt say that at all -
So in Acts 15 they just focused on the point of the debate.
In Christ,
Bob -
Option B - "Make stuff up"
GE likes option B.:type: :laugh: -
(BTW - my point is that he argues FOR the Sabbath Commandment in the very areas where many Sabbath-breaking Christians argue against it).
I agree that this was their view - even though I am not one to Edit God's Word in that way. However I do admire their faithfulness to God in wanting to honor His Ten Commandments.
What is interesting is that they oppose the Ten-commandments-denying doctrine popular among some Christians today.
In Christ,
Bob -
Well, we meet on Sat and Sunday so I guess I got it covered.
-
-
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
Originally Posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn
GE: Yes, repetitions there are a-plenty in the New Testament of the Sabbath; one needs not search for it; it is there throughout. It is only the wilful who won't admit --- even as it is only the wilful who won't admit the BASIS and STRENGTH of this Sabbath Day as precisely in this reference of yours: "It is THEREFORE, the duty of the people of God to keep the sabbath." "Therefore" refers to "If Jesus had given them rest" and "FOR HE that is entered into His rest". Undeniably the whole 'matter' rests on Jesus' resurrection from the dead, and 'therefore' the Sabbath directly rests on Jesus' resurrection from the dead.
Claudia T:
"Why do you link the word "rest" in there to the resurrection? it doesnt say that at all"
GE:
It doesn't? Then to what would you - contextually - ascribe the use of the word 'rest' 'in there'? -
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
The Letter to the Hebrew believers always refers to the resurrection of Christ with metaphor - only once - in the very last chapter - does it speak of Christ being "brought to life again". Must one deduce from the absence of direct mention, that the writer nowhere esle takes the resurrection as presuppositional factuality throughout?
-
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
Brother Bob:
"Do we have to worship on Saturday not Sunday? ... Well, we meet on Sat and Sunday so I guess I got it covered.
"Whosoever wills ..." (he got underneath) ... as long as according to his own will.
Page 9 of 9