1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

SDA Hypocrisy?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by nate, May 7, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    There Seems to be a difference in your views and DHKs -- this is noted by simply reading the two posts above.

    I address that in detail here -
    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/4019.html#000000
     
  2. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    What DHK is saying is that Jesus was pointing out that the sabbath was technically "broken" for legitimate reasons within the INTENT of the command, such as David or the priests in the Temple, and therefore it was OK for Him and the disciples. I think he should point that out more, because just saying that He actually "broke" the sabbath is confusing, but what I think he is getting at is that this sets the principle that literally ceasing from all work according to the LETTER is not the ultimate point. So yes, it was still in effect at that "pre-Cross" time, but the principle was being shown that we follow post-Cross. In that case, noone is any longer "breaking" it, as the issue is moot.
     
  3. Michaeneu

    Michaeneu Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is this type of rationalizing or caviling that leads directly to antinomianism and that is why I make no discernment between your doctrine and antinomianism. Your eisegetical appeal to “certain applications of the letter of the law” falters upon the scriptural evidence that Yahshua came to magnify the law and make it honorable (Isaiah 42:21).

    • “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill… But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment…” Matthew 5:21-22

    • “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Matthew 5:27-28

    The transgression of the law is not only in the deed or letter but in premeditation also! The letter embraces the deed while the spirit is concerned with premeditation. Yahshua did not mitigate the deed or letter of the law; he magnified it and embraced the spirit, which concerns premeditation of the deed also. Ipso facto—the spirit of the law is more encompassing than the letter—but NERVER mitigates the letter!

    For instance, it is still sin to make and worship graven images according to the letter, but avoidance of the aforementioned does not mitigate idolatry of money, nationalism, and etcetera—which are conditions of the heart and mind. Holding the title of the Creator in irreverence in deed is still transgression of the letter, but that irreverence or sin commences in the heart and mind. There is absolutely no relaxation of the letter concerning the Decalogue. Your doctrine is specious and leads to antinomianism!

    Moreover, your position on the distinction between the ceremonial and Decalogue is also mere caviling. While the Hebrews new no such distinction under the Old Covenant that does not preclude that the distinction existed and the evidence of this is in the New Testament.

    “For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law…. The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless. (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.” NIV Hebrews 7:12, 18-19

    We are not left to guess or interject our own ideas how the law changed according to your doctrine. It is clearly revealed that there are certain laws that are set aside; nowhere is their mention that there is departure or mitigation of the letter for the spirit; that is a man-made contrivance. The regulations or laws that were set aside concerned Yahshua priesthood and the criterion is that they were weak and not intended to make anything perfect. We find the criterion amplified in the same book.

    “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.” NIV Hebrews 10:1-2

    The Decalogue is NOT a shadow of good things to come to be set aside; the Decalogue merely points to sin and is still profitable for that very purpose in letter and spirit. The criterion points to the sacrificial system or the ceremonial laws that were truly set aside.

    “The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.” NIV Hebrews 10:15-18

    The sacrificial system was set aside because it made no one perfect and Yahshua, being of the tribe of Judah, could not become our high priest so long and the aforementioned continued to have standing. The sacrificial system ceased to have any significance and was set aside by the remission of our sins at the cross, but the necessity to expose sin still persists and is the purpose of the Decalogue, which is the law for heart and mind above. There certainly is a distinction between the ceremonial and moral Decalogue in the New Testament, even if the Hebrews of the past were ignorant of it.

    That the laws of the sacrificial system hung on the Decalogue does not preclude the ephemeral nature of former and perpetual and moral nature of the latter revealed in Hebrews above. Clearly, the significance that Yahweh wrote and audibly gave the Decalogue, as opposed to the positive statues of the ceremonial laws, is greater than your doctrine. By placing the fourth commandment in the center of the Decalogue it is clear that the Father gave the commandment the same standing as the other nine. The other nine are moral and perpetual and by no means ephemeral; the forth has the same standing according to Yahweh.

    As I’ve shown in Hebrews, your view on the criterion concerning the law is erroneous. Moreover, Paul makes it clear that if one attempts to put oneself under the PERFORMANCE of the ceremonial law again, they are cursed if they continue in not all things written thereof.

    “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” Galatians 3:10

    Of course Paul’s main dispute centers on circumcision and this concerns performance, the object of the ceremonies—which circumcision fell under. Under the first covenant the Hebrews were required to PERFORM certain ceremonies and if they did not perform them according to the letter of the law they were cursed and this supports my previous position that without a physical temple all those who hold themselves under the ceremonial laws again are ultimately cursed.

    The Decalogue concerns abstinence not performance; the object of the expression “thou shalt not”. By grace we can abstain from stealing and find righteousness. By grace we can abstain from taking the name in vain and find righteousness. By grace we can abstain from work and doing our own pleasure on the Sabbath and find righteousness. Even the fifth, if by grace we abstain from dishonoring our parents then there is no performance involved. There is no performance involved in the Decalogue and again this distinguishes it from the ephemeral nature of the ceremonial laws.

    We’ve already been through this; Yahweh certainly did expect the nations around it to keep it for the Sabbath was made for man generic, not just genetic. The object of Israel was to ultimately subject the Ethnos under Yahweh’s people that all flesh keep the Sabbath.

    He shall subdue the people under us, and the nations under our feet. He shall choose our inheritance for us, the excellency of Jacob whom he loved. Selah…. God reigneth over the heathen: God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness. The princes of the people are gathered together, even the people of the God of Abraham: for the shields of the earth belong unto God: he is greatly exalted.” Psalms 47:3-4, 8-9

    “And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.” Isaiah 66:23

    What is moral is perennially exact and as we saw this truly concerns abstinence not performance. If man were not continually convicted that it is moral to allow for periodic abstinence from work then we would not have secular society acknowledging the need for periodic rest, but we see even secular society acknowledging the morality of periodic rest from work.

    But the perennial moral precept concerning this rest stems truly from Yahweh because He knew that man was not only a physical creature but a spiritual one that needed perennial periodic abstinence from toil and the revitalizing of his spirit in the domestic moral precept of the Sabbath. That is why Yahweh sanctified and blessed the seventh-day for man, generic, and gave it to man from the beginning. It is simply myopic to not to acknowledge that, just as Yahweh attended to mans’ needs for companionship in a mate, He also attended to mans’ physical and spiritual needs in the Sabbath. There is no evidence in the New Covenant that Yahweh abrogated the Sabbath or sanctified another day; man has merely attempted the hubris to think he can change the day and moral precept.

    Clearly, the moral law is embodied by the Decalogue and Yahweh is still using it to write upon the minds and hearts of those under his New Covenant. As I stated above, Yahweh gave the seventh-day Sabbath the same standing as the moral law and that simply can’t be avoided.

    Michael
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    First of all - you and I differ on this subject and I have shown no hesitancy to speak out on our differences. IF it turned out that DHK was holding the same position as you - then I would simply be arguing the same case with him that I am already arguing when you and I discuss the topic.

    In other words - I really have no "need" for DHK to have HIS OWN flavor of error - it would be just fine with me if he and you agreed because I am sure that there are many people that take your view as there are also many that takes DHK's.

    But having said that -- the "details" in the quote I showed from DHK do NOT SUPPORT your argument that "The Sabbath REMAINS in force WITHOUT any change - in the same way that it always has" in Mark 2.

    DHK's uses the words "They do not have to obey its rules ANY LONGER"

    I don't see how to shoehorn his "NO LONGER applicable" and "TEACH to BREAK" -- into your "THIS IS in fact perfectly keeping the Sabbath with NO CHANGE from its original intent".

    I am just pointing out this "detail" as it does not place your view of Mark 2 in the same framework as DHKs.

    But you and DHK do appear to agree on one point. You and he both claim that Christ IS REALLY BREAKING the Sabbath JUST as the Jews charge!

    My argument has been that the Jews were "making stuff up" and that Christ was arguing "Sola Scriptura" showing that HIS perfect obedience to the Sabbath - was in fact the RIGHT view of the Sabbath and their man-made-traditions that made the Sabbath onerous were in error.

    That is a point where you and DHK appear to agree in opposition to my views - so maybe you would prefer to focus on that point of difference instead.

    It is because he is arguing a "different point" than you are. DHK explicitly says they are not to be bound by the regulations (Words in Scripture pertaining to Sabbath) "any longer" and the "reason" is that the very existence of the Messiah - the presence of Christ in HIS ministry abolishes the previous LAW regarding Sabbath EVEN for Jews!!


    This is your argument not DHK's "NO LONGER in force" argument".

    In your argument we have the "original scope and intent and force" of the Sabbath continued in Mark 2 "at the start of Christ's ministry".

    I think that point is easy to make and I would agree with it.

    I also agree that this pre-cross statement highlights the TRUTH about the Sabbath that REMAINS true EVEN in the Post-Cross age!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Typing this response on the phone during my breaks Sat. for a good half of the day, only to find the board shut down for 48 hours, I had saved this and have been waiting, as quite a mouthful was spoken here that needs to be challenged.

    We know all of this about magnification. But still, the letter is relaxed in the case of the ceremonial law. Of course, you try to get around that next, but I find it funny you don't address that first before stating that about the letter, and then talking about antinomianism, which is the disregard of all law, including the moral law. That is basically an afterthought, because your first premise has been refuted. But you have to prove the distinction first, not presuppose it, and you haven't proven it.
    Also, when the sabbath is magnified, it would mean to keep EVERY day
    "holy", not just one day. Of course, we can't not work every day, but
    physically ceasing from work is not what the spirit of the law was about
    anyway, as Heb. 4 shows.

    But you have not addressed the fact that the original universal moral laws were covered in the Seven. The Ten were those, plus the Sabbath, addressed specifically to Israel as their "sign". You are still making up your own method of distinction through assumption. So you admit the Hebrews knew no such distinction, yet that does not leave it up to guess, or "my" doctrine; instead, let's make up your own doctrine now, involving the priesthood. Hebrews mentions the priesthood in connection with this, so let's just plug that in as our "distinction".

    However, the entire nation of Israel revolved around the priesthood. The Ten were kept inside of the ark of the Covenant, as your side constantly reminds us. And you have yet to acknowlege that circumcision went before the entire Mosaic system, and the nation of Israel, and the priesthood. But now, you try to tie it in with your new "performance" criteria. How convenient!
    There is no separating it. The Ten included universal moral and spiritual laws, and those are what always were, and what continue.

    And while making up your own distinctions, you now boldly call the scriptural distinction between letter and spirit "man-made contrivance". (2 Cor.3, notice the depreciatory mention of "tables of stone"!)
    You are turning the Word of God on its ear!

    Greater than "my doctrine". You just make that up. Where does it say all
    of this in either testament? You now admit it is not in the Old, but
    neither is it in the New. How does being in the center make it equal?
    Does that mean the ones on the ends are less? Where do you get this
    stuff from? No scripture ever says "this is the Decalogue over here,
    and that is the ceremonial law over there". We can show you scriptures
    where both are interchanged under the name "Law" and "commandments of Moses".
     
  6. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    So yet another new distinction made up: "abstinence/performance". The rabbis call this "negative" as opposed to "positive" commandments. They were the ones who made up that distinction, getting so hung up in "atomizing" it as pone writer put it, and neglecting its weightier spiritual matter.
    Still, there was no scriptural distinction between them, in fact, many laws have both positive and negative aspect, including the sabbath (DO this, and DON'T DO that)
    And the sabbath not performance? Come off it now! The whole merit of it among you sabbatarians when instructing a convert is how you have to quit your job and "trust God" to provide, as your groups always say. This is precisely what proves it is a "ceremonial" command, and something that significant on every believer's schedule would definitely be discussed, questioned on, corrected on, etc. in the NT. We're not to assume "they must have known" or "it just was not written down", because that's the same reasoning the catholic 'tradition'ists use.
    You are going directly against Paul now in saying we find righteousness in those Laws. (Gal.2:21, 3:21. And he includes the decalogue in his discussions on the Law). Even when we keep them, it is imperfect, and therefore it is only by that grace that that righteousness is imputed to us, not just by our keeping them. So your whole "proof" here that the sabbath is the same as the others fails.
    Even in a moral and spiritual sense, the sabbath does not have the same effect as the others. God absolutely cannot have us worshipping other gods or misusing His name, but as Jesus' example shows, people can physically do work on the sabbath within God's will. That's not to say He was "abolishing" it at that moment, but this shows in principle that it was not a universal law.
    And you refuse to acknowledge that that may have been intended to be spread to the nations, but all of that changed when that covenant was broken, and replaced by the new covenant. Your side never addresses this point. You just try to transfer that covenant to this one, with certain modifications, which you have defined by this "ceremonial" and "abstinenece/performance"distinction.
    Man may acknowledge the need for rest, but no one is ever convicted of keeping it on a certain day of the week. And it's not moral like adultery, killing, etc, but wise and healthy to get rest, but regardless of exactly what interval you use.
    Several passages do tell us it is no longer binding, and not to be judging others over it, but you all have your own little explanations for them, so that is a whole 'nother can of worms.
    Man did not change it. God gave it to Israel under the old covenant, and than afterwards ended that covenant. You have come nowhere near showing that it was universal.
    So speaking of rest, then, let me ask you what you're even doing online on the sabbath? I know you will probably claim it's "the work of God", but is it really? The work of God is witnessing to the lost, preachiing repentance to the sinners. If that is what you are doing here, it is against the BB rules for non-Baptists to use the board to try to "evangelize" others to their church, religion or belief system/practice. If it's not that, then is is basically personal recreation; you know, "your own pleasure", even if it does "involve" God (as just a subject of debate).
    To go on the fellowhsip forum for a while is one thing, or to answer people like xdisciples' questions; but this discussion is not something that absolutely vital for it to be done on the sabbath. I myself know how mentally draining spending all day on the computer can be. My wife calls it "a second job" for me. And it must take a lot to make posts as long as yours. I know it took me a long time and energy just to answer it. I would certainly say this violated the purpose of "rest" of the sabbath, and remember, according to your definition of "the spirit", each point of the Decalogue becomes more binding. You all keep pointing out how it is not "the burden the Jews made it out to be", but then it is still not for recreation, and you all have softened it to allow spending the whole day on online recreation! Just admit that's what it is!

    So you all are off the wall to be coming here judging us with all this accusatory rhetoric! "Cavilling"! Just like Jesus said, Moses gave you the Law and none of you keeps the law! Are you even keeping the sabbath unto the Lord? (I.e., it's between you and Him) Or is it just something to come and judge us with, like it makes you some sort of better Christian. That's what it seems like from what I am seeing. I don't think God accepts that kind of "observance". Once again, all I see here is recreation as well as stroking of one's own ego. Once again, you who desire to be teachers of the Law do not understand what you are teaching.
     
  7. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    That's not what I'm arguing. He was "Technically" breaking it (His own words, in pointing back to David), but in a way allowed by God. What the Jews were saying was that it was not allowed. The point is, this shows that the principle of ceasing from work is not a universal application. In no case would God ever allow adultery, blasphemy or idolatry.
     
  8. Michaeneu

    Michaeneu Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eric, you’d have a little more credibility if you didn’t have to resort to terms such as “ceremonial law” as distinguished from terms in “moral law”! You can’t resist using the distinction yourself—which only underpins the doctrine I uphold rather than yours! And that’s really the thrust, for we obtain this distinction from the scriptures—not man. Certainly, one element that makes the ministration of the spirit greater is awareness of the ephemeral nature of positive law as opposed to the perennial nature of moral precepts, even if the ancient Hebrews did not foresee it—even as it was expounded in the OT. The ritual and sacrificial system was ephemeral, foretold in the OT; the moral laws of Yahweh are perennial—the same yesterday, today and forever.

    You say you knew about the magnification so pray tell how does one reconcile the accomplishment of “magnification” along with its antonym “relaxation” upon an indivisible aggregate system? It is clearly nonsensical to perform both acts upon an indivisible aggregate system at the same time. According to your doctrine, then, the only rational reconciliation is that Yahshua came to magnify the letter of the law for the Jews under the first covenant and later relax it for the Gentiles under the second, but this is simply untenable according to the spirit and letter of the law under the New Testament.

    “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” 1 John 3:15

    John is merely reaffirming the magnification of the sixth commandment under the New Covenant that was accomplished under the first covenant (Matthew 5:21-22); there is absolutely no mitigation of the “letter” of the sixth commandment under the spirit of the New Covenant. Then clearly we find the magnification of the law under the New Covenant also. In truth the NT verifies that there is no mitigation of the “letter” concerning both tables of the Decalogue. What the NT does confirm is a cancellation of certain laws that are/were shadows, for there weakness and unprofitableness—which I previously expounded upon (Hebrews 7:12, 18-19; 10:1-2). The term “disannulling” in Hebrews 7:18 is from the Greek “athetesis” which means: cancellation or abolition. There is absolutely no meaning or inference of “relaxation” attributed to the term athetesis”! We find a form of the same word used in Hebrews chapter nine.

    “For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Hebrews 9:26

    The highlighted phrase is translated from a form of the same word in the aforementioned text and in no way is it to be interpreted to mean Yahshua “relaxed” sin by his sacrifice. It is clear that Yahshua cancelled our sins by his sacrifice just as he cancelled certain laws that are/were shadows, for their weakness and unprofitableness; the law changed by the cancellation of certain laws that are/were shadows, for there weakness and unprofitableness.

    One cannot cancel the same aggregate law and put in the mind at the same time according to Hebrews 10:15-18; herein lays the distinction! The only sound reconciliation is in the distinction of the ephemeral ceremonial laws from the perennial moral laws of the Decalogue. The former represents the law that was weak, unprofitable, shadows, while the latter upholds perennial morals that are still profitable for revealing sin.

    Let’s be honest, object all you want that there is absolutely no express statement of the distinction of the ceremonial from the Decalogue—while I do likewise that there is absolutely no express statement that the change was in the “relaxation of the letter for the spirit” either. The point is that we can find scriptural support for the CANCELLATION of certain laws that were shadows, weak and unprofitable while your doctrine of “relaxation of the letter” is stated no where in scripture nor can it truly be substantiated when we continue to see the magnification of the Decalogue in the New Covenant.
     
  9. Michaeneu

    Michaeneu Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pray tell me how “the letter is relaxed in the case of the ceremonial law” that among the genetic descendents of Jacob only the genetic descendants of Aaron were eligible as priests? Was the regulation relaxed so that Yahshua merely had to be genetically ¼ Levy? Clearly, the ceremonial law was not merely “relaxed” but CACELLED, in order that Yahshua become high priest. The contrivance is in yours not mine.

    Pray tell me how the fact that circumcision went before Israel helps your position that “the letter is relaxed in the case of the ceremonial law”? Weren’t you the one that was saying there is no such distinction in the law? The point is that you interjected the issue of circumcision because is also required no theocracy; all I did was interject the clear truth that circumcision required performance and the Sabbath truly doesn’t: “thou shalt not do any work.” I’ll expound more on this below.

    Really, Eric, you need to read to understand; my contention is with your doctrine that the change in the law is manifest in “a relaxation of the letter.” That is completely different than the distinction between the letter and spirit. I acknowledge the latter; I just don’t agree with the former. There is a distinction in the letter and spirit, but that is not how the law changed. The law changed by the CANCELLATION of certain laws that were shadows, weak and unprofitable.

    The point is that you acknowledge the distinction between ceremonial as opposed to moral! Is your distinction extra-scriptural? You can show where the scriptures in the Old Testament intermingled them all you want, but your acknowledgment of the distinction is foregoing evidence that they were not indistinguishable.

    The evidence that the law has rank or standing is in the scriptures: “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments…” Matthew 5:19. Plainly, Yahshua acknowledged rank or standing concerning the commandments. When the lawyer attempted to tempt Yahshua, again he acknowledged that the law had rank or standing: “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” Matthew 22:36. The first commandment concerned the love of Yahweh: the first table of the Decalogue. Consequently, the appendage of the FIRST commandment would have no other gods before, allow for no graven images, never countenance His name taken in vain, and of course, have His creation abstain from work on His holy day. The second table concerns love thy neighbor and the appendage to these are abstain from dishonor towards parents, abstinence from hate or murder, abstinence from adultery or fornication, abstinence from thievery, abstinence from lying and abstinence from coveting.

    These are the two greatest commandments by rank and standing and what are further appended to these are the prophets and then the sacrificial system that was destined to be cancelled according to the prophets.

    “Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second…. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” Hebrews 10:8-9, 18

    Of course the author of Hebrews is quoting from Psalms 40 and explains the meaning that Yahshua came to remit sin, once and for all, which cancelled the sin offerings—the ceremonial law.
     
  10. Michaeneu

    Michaeneu Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    Note how you could not resist expressing abstinence in upholding the forth commandment. “Quit your job” is to abstain from work; that’s abstinence, not performance. Yahweh would not expected one to quit ones job unless one’s employer insists upon violation of one’s conscience concerning anything holy: render to Yahweh what is Yahweh’s. It is also safe to state that Yahweh would expect a nurse to quit her (or his) job if her employer insisted that she aid in abortions: fulfilling the abstinence of the letter of the sixth commandment.

    Note also that I stated over and over that BY GRACE we abstain: that’s faith not works.

    “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone…” Romans 9:31-32

    Israel could have attained the law of righteousness, if they had pursued it by faith. Paul certainly was not implying any interpretation of the law under your doctrine: the relaxation of the letter in the case of the ceremonial.

    I think Bob has dispelled your position that Yahshua abolished anything by declaring it lawful to eat the wheat on the Sabbath. “Lawful” means within the spirit of the law and the letter. Or are you saying that Yahshua did not know what was lawful or at least less than what the Pharisees knew?

    The plan has not changed; the OT predicted that the Gentiles were to be grafted to Israel under the New Covenant.

    “And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.” Revelation 2:26-28

    “For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.” Isaiah 14:1-2

    As I expounded above, the author of Hebrews revealed that this would be accompanied by the cancellation of the sin offerings done under the ceremonial laws. Yahshua would come to take away the first and establish the second! How did that Prego commercial go? it’s in there! the OT, that is.

    That’s a very presumptuous statement. There are many that are convicted that that day has not changed. It is immoral to deny anyone a periodic rest; that makes it an issue of morality. We merely uphold the day that Yahweh blessed and hollowed for that moral purpose.

    I find this humorous because it is so Pharisaical in understanding. It is most invigorating to immerse oneself and meditate on the law on the Sabbath; that’s it’s purpose. The rest of the week is rife with distractions in just eking out a living and etcetera. Since I cannot merely turn off my brain all day long I lend my reason to His thoughts in the scripture in my waking hours on Sabbath; but I do catch a lot of shut-eye too.

    BTW, I’m not a member of any denomination so I can’t proselytize. As I stated, I uphold the Sabbath like I uphold honoring mother and father. I think it’s quite specious of you to try and make upholding principle unholy and or self-gratifying. It’s clear you want to find some way of stifling me, not unlike the Papal prelates. In truth I don’t care if I’m banned, it won’t be the first time I was banned for merely upholding principle.

    To bad it is such toil for you to have to respond to me, but maybe that’s because your doctrine is wanting, while mine is invigorating because it merely upholds principle.

    Michael
     
  11. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4

    I use the terms mainly because you use them. The debate is which are ceremonial, and which are universal and/or moral, and this you have not proven. You've only asserted your own criteria of "positive" and "negative".


    Because you make up your own criteria on which commandments fall into which category, you are confused. I imagine it is the Ten Commandments you are referring to as the "indivisible aggregate system", right? Well, that was a summary of the whole law. It itself is summed up in the Two Commandments of Love God and Love your neighbor, which is in turn summed up in the one principle "Do unto others as you would do unto youself" --"for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Matt.7:12)
    The Ten were addressed to Israel. Outside of Israel, you had seven basic moral commands which were universal. These too could be broken down into the Two, and then the One. Six of them were the same as the Ten given to Israel. So we see the entire moral law given to all. To Israel was added the sabbath as the sign of their covenant with God. That was not intended to be ephemeral, but it became such when that covenant was broken.
    So then we basically reverted back to the universal "Noahide" laws, (which we see in part in Acts 15), which are now magnified spiritually. The particular laws associated with Israel were in the letter set aside, yet even they had spiritual principles that would carry on. So that is why it appears that "some" in the "unit" are "relaxed" while others are "magnified". You are looking purely at the letter, and this is what causes you to stumble at this truth. But even then, you are not consistent with it, because your observance of the Sabbath IS "relaxed", as I will address later.

    That was one of the universal laws.

    OK, you're getting hung up on the term "relaxation", but what I was saying, was that the Law once commanded physical sacrifices. But now, we no longer have to keep them. Why? Because Christ was made our once and for all sacrifice. You speak of the law being "cancelled", but it is not completely cancelled, is it?. What was cancelled is the letter obligation to bring an animal to the Temple. But the INTENT of the Law, blood atonement, is NOT "cancelled", but rather STILL in effect, yet FULFILLED by Christ.
    The same with circumcision. That too was a sign of Abrahamic inheritance, that even predated the Law of Moses. Btu that too is now brought out in its spiritual intent by the metaphor of "circumcision of the heart (opening it up to God's word) and ears (hearing God's Word)" (Acts.7:51). Once again, the principle still carries on, even though the LETTER of the commandment is cancelled, or you could say "totally relaxed".

    Yes, sin was cancelled, not "relaxed", but we're not talking about sin; we're talking about various precepts of the Law, such as sacrifices.

    As I have just shown above, this is basically semantics. "relaxed" vs. "cancelled". The literal instructions of some laws were "cancelled", while the INTENT of those commands still carried on spiritually in some way. Nothing is just thrown out the window without its proper "FULFILLment", and that's the true meaning of "not one jot nor tittle". That is clear, and you cannot substitute it with some distinction of the Decalogue from the rest. The Decalogue was but a summary of the whole law.
     
    #331 Eric B, May 31, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2006
  12. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    But the fact that there still is a priesthood, yet none of us has to be trained for it and go into a temple and sacrifice animals does show a "relaxation" in the letter.

    I was not saying there was no such distinction in the LAw; I was challenging the criteria by which you try to draw which are which. By your criteria of "theocracy" circumcision falls into the same category as the sabbath. But then you also added this "peformance" issue. But sabbath is preformance, else God could never condemn Israe lf for NOT "doing" something, as in "Not KEEPING the sabbath". The "keeping" is where the "performance" lies, even if that performance itself might be negative.

    And this means LESS things we have to "keep" or "do". That is what I meant by "relaxation of the letter". I only brought that up, because yopu're the one who keeps saying that the commands are all "more binding" (your side's definition of "magnified"). Magnified does not necessarily mean "more binding", because of the fact, that when the spiritual intent is brought out, many of those laws were "cancelled" as you are now putting it. My "relaxed" was but another way of stating your "cancelled", but remember, they do continue in some spiritual way, lest anyone accuse us of "cancelling" any jot or tittle.


    Once again, the issue is where the distinction lies, not THAT there was any such distinction. Just maintaining a distinction does not by tself prove that your view of where it lies is true, and neither do your criterion prove it.

    And under those first four themselves hung the instructions given to Israel on exactly HOW the one God was to be worshipped, with the Temple, and atonement rituals, and annual sabbaths and new moons and such. You will admit those were "cancelled", but then since the first four themselves hung on the the One Commandment to love God with all your heart (as well as the first two of the universal Seven laws for the rest of the world), then those four could be "Cancelled" as well, since they too were addressed specifically to Israel, and Israel broke that covenant, and the spiritual intent of those laws is summed up in "Love God". Not worshipping other gods, idols or misusing His name were universal. Ceasing from work on a day is not. This is why three still carry over today, and one doesn't (though it is to be spiritually fulfilled).

    And you are still trying to cast the entire universal Law in terms of "negative" commandments, but each of those do include positive commands, especially now under spiritual magnification. DO flee fornication, HONOR your parents (this basically was written as a positive command, and now you have turned it into a negative command, but any "DO" can thusly be expressed as a "DON'T".

    Now note what you're saying. You're saying exactly what I've just said. The greatest Commands are the TWO that summarized the whole thing. The Ten were appended to them along with the rest that hung on the Ten. They were cancelled when that covenant ended, and now we have the Two, whose universal principles are magnified in the spirit.

    And in Isaiah and Amos, He says He hates their sabbaths as well. (He would never say He despised their "abstinence" fro killing or stealing). Of course, this was because they were committing other sins, that shows you cannot take such a passage as necessarily proving that God would later abolish it.
     
  13. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    That's still GETTING UP and "PERFORMING" an ACT. As opposed to "doing nothing" and remaining there. And it can be a tremendous prefromance at that. I myself have gone through it at a time early in my faith when I was trying to keep the sabbath.
    It is still doing something.
    And that is still DOing something also. This is exactly what I was getting at last post when I pointed out that all of the commands have BOTH positive and negative applications. To abstain from something is to DO something else instead. We often teach that to teens in the area of abstinence from sex and sexual temptation. They call it "sublimation".


    We've heard that before, from Campbellists like mman, who insist the same thing for baptismal regeneration. But once again, the grace comes in in the fact that we do not keep any of the commandments perfectly or consistently, at least. So it is by grace that we are saved through our faith in Christ's substitutionary atonement, instead of bringing animals to a Temple. It is is by worls, it is no mor by grace, and simply slapping the word "grace" onto a system of works does not make it grace.

    Then what was the problem then? They had the whole Law; if it were just a matter of keeping certain things or abstaining from certain things, then yes, they should have attained it. Especially the Pharisees of Jesus' day, who had gone into rigourous "more binding" applications of the Law. they may have added to what God said, but doing more than what God said shouldn't hurt, if the Law is simply to be made "more binding".

    I never said that; that was more along the lines of DHK's argument, and I explained this to Bob above. Christ did not abolish anything at that point, but He was indirectly showing in principle that "ceasing from work" was ultimately not the spiritual intent of the sabbath. If the sabbath was some universal "rest" principle", yet it is OK to "do some work for good" such as plucking ears, or hauling the ox out of the ditch, or running a religious service, [or spending all day online arguing about the sabbath] then where do you draw the line when you are no longer literally resting? there must be a spiritual application of it that goes beyond the letter.


    But it's still a NEW covenant. They are spirituall grafted in, and it is a spiritual kingdom, not a physical nation with its own laws. You are still trying to transfer the old covenant to the New.

    That is correct. The problem is, that you're still trying to hold on to some of the first.


    Yeah, they may be "convicted" of it after hearing the slick arguments of sabbathkeepers, as I once was (Eph.4:14). The problem was that "historic Church" made the mistake of saying "We keep the Ten Commandments, but the fourth is changed to Sunday", or "the fourth was abolished", which is never stated anywhere in scripture. Others said "the [whole] law was abolished" but couln't really explain why we still keep some of them, except that "the NT tells us to". So I had to go back to the Word of God to learn all of this from scratch, and one of the things I've learned was the difference between the universal laws and the temporal ones under the Old Covenant.


    But outside of this debate, or reading the OT without the NT, nobody would ever figure out a need to keep a specific day in seven out of the week, like they would know that killing their neighbor, stealing from him, taking his wife or being otherwise unjust to him are wrong. Think of some tribespeople in the bush somewhere, who don't even know of our seven day week. They could NEVER determine that on their own. It is just not universal. The commandments about God are harder to realize for tribal religions, but it is possible, and God did complain of "the nations'" idolatry, murder, lasciviousness, etc. but never their not keeping the sabbath, even if it would have spread to them, if Israel had kept the covenant and been God's light like they were supposed to. No one is ever condemned over it in the NT, including Revelation, which tells us what the endtime sins will be (depsite the pathetic attempt to read it into the Three Angel's message).
     
    #333 Eric B, May 31, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2006
  14. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    But you're not meditating on the Law; that is between you and God. What you're doing is arguing with others about the Law and that is not the same thing! It is either evangelism to the lost, or it is personal recreation that can be done on other days. It is not even fellowship, because it is basically done in a judging premise, not as a united body under Christ. I'm sorry, but that to me sounds like it violates literal sabbath rest. Especially as I mentioned; how mentally draining spending a whole day staring at a screen with this stuff and typing away is.
    My understanding is not pharisaical; it's that yours is an overly liberalized view of the sabbath (as much as you all criticize us as lawless). You see that Christ removed the Jews' additional burdens, and you take it further than He did, to allow for personal recreation involving the subject of God in debate. But then, it contradicts you claims that "sabbath rest is a universal principle", and that "the Law would be magnified, meaning becoming more binding, like lust is adultery", etc.) If adultery includes lust now, then how do you figure that a similarly "magnified" [literal] sabbath command allows for spending the whole day on the computer in a non-essential debate? I tried to think of my time on this board, or writing my webpages as "time with God", but it didn't really fly so well. It is my own driven pursuit, that involves the work of God, but I would never try to say that this was consistent with keeping a sabbath, when it could be done on other days.

    I'm not trying to stifle you or get you banned; but I'm pointing out to you that you want to come on here with an accusatory tone, but what you say will be challenged, and then, if you're judging us as "antinomians" for not keeping the sabbath, then I am seeing an area where you youurself are bending it. I have the right to challenge that, as I am responding to your accusations of my faith. If you can spend the whole day on the computer "for God", then I can spend the day working to support my family, and to have the resources to help spread the Gospel. (Even Gerhard acknowledged something like this, once). That now is stretching it way beyond any literal meaning, but then once again, where do you draw the line? You might as well say the sabbath is spiritually fulfilled, as I have been saying.


    You do not have to have any denomination. Notice I included "belief system". My only point with that, is either way, you're bending some rule. If this is personal recreation, it bends God's sabbath law. The only way your side generally gets out of that is by claiming you're doing the work of God. But the work of God is not debating with other believers. It is winning the lost, so the only way your being on here for hours on the sabbath could not violate it is if you think we are lost, and you must "evangelize" us with the 'gospel' of God's sabbath. You can't say that you're "fellowshipping" either. Clearly, you are here preaching to a bunch of "antinomians", whom many people (especially your system) would regard as lost. And appealing to some "Papal prelate" conspiratorial rhetoric won't help you. We are not acting like the papists. You can come and argue anything you want, but we just ask that you not be trying to "evangelize" anyone to any expression of faith outside of Baptist or mainstream evangelical belief. But if you deny evangelizing, then you have to admit it is personal recreation that violates the sabbath you are criticizing everyone else for not keeping.

    It is only a toil because of the accusatory tone you and a couple of others have undertaken. And all the while you are upholding principles of your own devising, while bending or ignoring the principles God has determined in scripture, so it is your doctrine that is wanting.
     
    #334 Eric B, May 31, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2006
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...