Do you accidently contradict Rom 14 with Gal 4??

Sgt Fury
"It's actually the Bible that teaches that the OT has been done away with."

GE
In the New Testament it never is the Scriptures meant for and as the Old Covenant. It prelimenary is the understanding of the NT - 100% as in the OT - that the 'Old Covenant' is that of man's works and of man's undertakings. The New Covenant is the very Eternal Covenant of Grace the one and same as throughout Holy Scriptures.

 

Sgt Fury,
"I have no creed, church manual, or confession of faith but the Bible."

GE
I know in whom I believe; how can I not have a Confession. God's salvation in Christ never is not, "to-us ward"; it never is "to-me ward" but 'i' as one OF, 'us' the Church-Temple of Christ IN THE WORLD as that mysterious ENTITY separate from the world; How, can I not, have a Confession "WITH the saints"?

I think you really do not know what you believe yet, dear Sgt Fury. Join the Church if only in your heart, or exclude yourself from all salvation. I, "was forced" to do that, and once I became one of the Flock, and found My Shepherd's abundant and endearing care my soul's desires filled to overflowing. Even though only in my heart through faith am I a member, and so cannot otherwise but with the Church of all time, Confess. I have no other procalmation, than my Confession - my Confession of Faith.

 

What I meant by having no "confession of faith other than the Bible" was that neither I, nor the church of which I am a member, have a separate document that states our beliefs since what we believe is the Bible as a whole.

For example, when I was a member of the Baptist church, we had a little pamphlet called "The Baptist Faith and Message" that laid out the doctrinal distinctives we subscribed to that identified us as Baptists.

I mean no ill-will toward Baptists, (after all, this site is run by Baptists who have alotted a section of their forum for non-Baptists to partake in discussions/debates), but the "Baptist Faith and Message" pamphlet was lacking in several areas when compared with the Bible.

Other groups have other documents that spell out the things they believe as well. Again, these organizations are surely filled with good people, but I fail to see the purpose for "little books" to explain what they believe about the "Big Book", unless the "Big Book" holds more than what they believe. See what I mean?

 

I must admit it took me a few times to make sense of this.

In 2 Pet 3, Peter equates Paul's writings with the OT Scriptures.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

The writers of the NT understood that they were writing by inspiration. Their words carried as much weight as the OT scriptures.

 

GE
What I meant was, don't confuse the 'old covenant' for the Old Testament Scriptures'.

 

Sgt. Fury
“It's actually the Bible that teaches that the OT has been done away with.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;...”

GE
Absolutely so! Just as long as we remember what the ‘OC’ is. And I can go so far as to unreservedly accept the view it is the “Law” of the ‘Old Testament’ that has been ‘done away with’, but with the correct understanding of what ‘done away with’, means! For the ‘Written Code’ is as immutably for or against “the transgressors” as He who spoke it.

Because for those ‘under the New Covenant’ Jesus Christ has become the Law of God; the Law, Jesus Christ! The Law is not our Saviour; but Christ; The Law no longer is our Law; but Christ.

In Colossians 2:14-15 we see this truth having become The Truth for the New Testament Church, the truth of Jesus Christ having “Blott(ed) out the handwriting of LAWS that was against us, Law, contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” -- “HIS” cross! It wasn’t like the Church that summoned the members to bring all their Old Testament Scriptures to cast the ‘Written Code’ in flames of lawlessness. It was Jesus Christ hung on the cross for our sins, even He the Law against sin and sinners, crucified to do away their sins and their guilt. Now the Law on the cross was Christ “to us-ward”, Christ come to our salvation; Christ contrary the adversary; Christ against death and sin; Christ spoiling principalities and powers, making a show of them openly, triumphing over them in resurrection from the dead. “Let no man therefore, judge you eating and drinking of Feast, whether of month’s or of Sabbaths’.”

In Colossians 2 we find this grand Truth of redemption in Jesus Christ and not by the works of the Law, believed in and acted upon by the Christian Congregation in Sabbaths’ Feast. We see the Church, spiritually eating and drinking of its redemption wrought by Christ, against the whole world free in the face of and despite “the legal document summonsed against us” for being this rejoicing “Body of Christ’s Own”. Yea, theirs is an “eating and drinking” of God’s “Sabbaths’ Feast” in Jesus Christ who triumphed through resurrection from the dead. This is what Colossians 2 teaches. It does not teach the unbelief of lawlessness.

 

Sorry it took so long to reply. I've been in and out a lot lately.

I have not posted in the "Baptist only" sections. I did once on another Baptist site, and was reprimanded. As I've mentioned earlier on other threads, they have been kind enough to provide the rest of us a place to post, so I'll respect their boundaries.

I would not wish to be mistaken for a Baptist, nor do I think many Baptists would want me to be mistaken for one of them. I hold no ill will toward Baptists, or any other group, though.

 

Concerning scripture being nailed to the cross, it's true that while the NT was being written the OT was what was referred to as "scripture". After all, what else did they have? What we need to understand is that there are things in the scriptures, both old and new testaments that do not have universal application.

I've made mention of God's command to Noah to build an ark. This is one of those commands that is not universally applicable. There would be no point in anyone else building an ark in order to survive a global flood, since there is no danger of another global flood.

The OT, the Mosaic Law, the Ten Commandments, were only given to the nation of Israel. Gerhard made a critical distinction when he said, "...don't confuse the 'old covenant' for the Old Testament Scriptures'."

There are principles from Genesis to Malachi that apply to all men of all time. For example, murder was sin long before the OT was given on Mt. Sinai.

 

Exo 19:3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
Exo 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Exo 19:7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
Exo 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

This covenant was offered by God to the children of Israel, who were chosen from among all other people. God offered them a covenant, and they accepted.

Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

This statement could apply to none other than the nation of Israel, to whom this covenant was offered.

Exo 20:22 And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.

It was only the children of Israel that were addressed here, where the Ten Commandments were delivered from Mt. Sinai. Even Moses' father-in-law had returned to his own land where he presumably continued his task as the priest of Midian

Exo 18:1 When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses' father in law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel his people, and that the LORD had brought Israel out of Egypt;

Exo 18:27 And Moses let his father in law depart; and he went his way into his own land.

Jethro was free to continue to worship God under the Patriarchal system of worship, and was not bound by the Law of Moses. He would not be observing the sabbath, nor was he required to.

 

Bob, I've got to admit that you're making a pretty good case for keeping the sabbath. To say otherwise would be less than honest.

Still though, I am not convinced that the observance of the sabbath is required under the New Testament of Jesus Christ. In Acts 15 the matter concerning Gentile Christians and the law (of which the 4th commandment is a part) is discussed.

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Even in this letter there is not found a "No, you don't have to be circumcised or keep the law". All the apostles say is that they had given no such commandment.

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

The teaching that Gentiles were required to keep the law (including the 4th commandment) is characterized by the apostles as "subverting your souls", and the apostles, who operated by the guidance of the Holy Spirit had not commanded it. If they had intended the Gentiles to observe the sabbath, might they have made an exception, or made mention of it in some way?

Certainly the other nine commandments represent principles which are applicable to men of all ages. These nine can all be found in the NT as well.

Yes, God sanctified the 7th day back in Genesis. But until the command was given from Mt. Sinai, there is no record of anyone under the Patriarchal dispensation observing it. God's sabbath was not made known until He made it known to Israel in Exodus 20.

Neh 9:13 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:
Neh 9:14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

The arguments in favor of keeping the sabbath by Barnes, Moody, and others (including yourself) are well presented and obviously the product of much thought. But we are mere men, after all, and though I can say "Amen" to many of their points, as well as yours, I remain in disagreement with you on this issue.

I do look forward to continued discussions, sir.