Struggling With The Sabbath

[Soyeong]

Then John, Romans and Galatians are straight up foolishness.

bugkiller

Nope, only your interpretation of them. Paul says we are not condemned by our sins, but at the same time he says that being under grace doesn't free us to sin. In other words, we should still live in obedience to God. It really strange to me trying to convince other Christians that they should obey the instructions for how to live rightly given by God that they believe in.

 

[Soyeong]

Nope because Jesus isn't teaching the law according to the Gospels. But you choose to throw them out.

bugkiller

A "yoke" is a rabbinic term. Jesus was contrasted his teachings for how to follow the law with those of the Pharisees. All of their traditions were a heavy burden, but his teachings were easy to understand. To "fulfill the law" or to "abolish the law" were also rabbinic terms. When the evidence contradicts your interpretation, you should really pause to consider whether your interpretation is correct.

Rabbi and Talmidim | Follow The Rabbi

 

[Soyeong]

Did they fast on the Sabbath? I think they did. You're limiting the passage to fit your desired needs.

bugkiller

14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.

Romans 14 is all about quarrels over disputable matters or opinions. The only time fasting is commanded is on Yom Kippur, but fasting twice a week was a common practice. If you thought that people should fast twice a week or to commemorate special events, that was your opinion. If you thought people should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays instead of Mondays and Thursdays, that was your opinion. However, if you didn't fast on Yom Kippur, then that was disobedience to God.

Luke 18: 11-12 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed[a] thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’

8:1 Your fasts should not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays. You should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Whether people happened to fast on the Sabbath was again their opinion, unless it was Yom Kippur.

 

[Soyeong]

Neither was the rest of the law. And no grace doesn't authorize sin.

bugkiller

According to Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 the law makes us conscious of sin and instructs us what sin is, so if grace doesn't authorize us to disregard what the law says is sin, then we should still keep the law.

 

[bugkiller]

Nope, only your interpretation of them. Paul says we are not condemned by our sins, but at the same time he says that being under grace doesn't free us to sin. In other words, we should still live in obedience to God. It really strange to me trying to convince other Christians that they should obey the instructions for how to live rightly given by God that they believe in.

Its appalling to me that some would say we're to follow the law when the Bible says follow the Spirit, not the law in Gal 5:18.

bugkiller

 

[Soyeong]

Who said it was? The Christian no longer need the supervision of the law if I read Galatians correctly.

bugkiller

We reach the point where we no longer need supervision when we're mature enough to do what the law instructs us to do without threat of punishment.

 

[Soyeong]

Granted grace is an exception to something.

bugkiller

The grace is an exception of the penalty of our transgression of the law. Why would we need or want an exception from following God's commands for how to live rightly?

 

[bugkiller]

A "yoke" is a rabbinic term. Jesus was contrasted his teachings for how to follow the law with those of the Pharisees. All of their traditions were a heavy burden, but his teachings were easy to understand. To "fulfill the law" or to "abolish the law" were also rabbinic terms. When the evidence contradicts your interpretation, you should really pause to consider whether your interpretation is correct.

Rabbi and Talmidim | Follow The Rabbi

Doesn't matter to me where the words originated. What does matter to me is Jesus and the Apostles aren't talking about rabbinic matters. Both were talking about the law. You wish to deny this and that's OK by me. Its not my problem nor issue. Jesus came solely to redeem those who will accept.

bugkiller

 

[Soyeong]

Its appalling to me that some would say we're to follow the law when the Bible says follow the Spirit, not the law in Gal 5:18.

bugkiller

Again, being under the law refers to being under it's penalty. Another way to look at it would be a husband who is driving down a road that has a speed limit of 70 mph. However, they are with their wife who doesn't like them driving too fast, so out of love for his wife, he sets the cruise control to 60 mph. In that case, he is driving as though there isn't a speed limit, so he won't face a penalty for breaking it, and is essentially not under the law. The law is not needed for the righteous, but for the unrighteous, because the righteous are already exceeding its requirements out of love for God and the leading of the Spirit.

 

[Soyeong]

Doesn't matter to me where the words originated. What does matter to me is Jesus and the Apostles aren't talking about rabbinic matters. Both were talking about the law. You wish to deny this and that's OK by me. Its not my problem nor issue. Jesus came solely to redeem those who will accept.

bugkiller

Jesus was a Jewish rabbi and even borrow elements in his parables from Jewish literature. Understanding how rabbis used the terms gives the context needed to correctly interpret what Jesus was saying. In the rabbinic sense, someone's yoke was their interpretation and traditions for how to follow the law, not the law itself, hence why Jesus' yoke is different from the yoke of the Pharisees. In Matthew 5, Jesus was teaching how the law should be understood and followed and that's precisely what the rabbis meant by fulfilling the law. You're free to ignore the context, but you're only going to end up interpreting the Bible.

It makes perfect sense to redeem someone from a penalty, but it makes not sense to redeem someone from a set of instructions for how to live rightly.

 

[bugkiller]

14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.

Romans 14 is all about quarrels over disputable matters or opinions. The only time fasting is commanded is on Yom Kippur, but fasting twice a week was a common practice. If you thought that people should fast twice a week or to commemorate special events, that was your opinion. If you thought people should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays instead of Mondays and Thursdays, that was your opinion. However, if you didn't fast on Yom Kippur, then that was disobedience to God.

Luke 18: 11-12 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed[a] thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’

8:1 Your fasts should not be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays. You should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Whether people happened to fast on the Sabbath was again their opinion, unless it was Yom Kippur.

I see nothing that supports your theology.

I fairly sure your 8:1 is from an outside source, The Didache.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

According to Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 the law makes us conscious of sin and instructs us what sin is, so if grace doesn't authorize us to disregard what the law says is sin, then we should still keep the law.

Must be exactly why Rom 7:6 says we are delivered from the law and Gal 5:18 says to be led by the Spirit and not the law. Hmmm!

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

We reach the point where we no longer need supervision when we're mature enough to do what the law instructs us to do without threat of punishment.

Nope. The old feller died and a new man was raised up. Besides the law only led the old feller to death. It got its nickname very justly. It always gets death for violation.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

The grace is an exception of the penalty of our transgression of the law. Why would we need or want an exception from following God's commands for how to live rightly?

Why do we need the law if we have grace (exception to the law?


bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Again, being under the law refers to being under it's penalty. Another way to look at it would be a husband who is driving down a road that has a speed limit of 70 mph. However, they are with their wife who doesn't like them driving too fast, so out of love for his wife, he sets the cruise control to 60 mph. In that case, he is driving as though there isn't a speed limit, so he won't face a penalty for breaking it, and is essentially not under the law. The law is not needed for the righteous, but for the unrighteous, because the righteous are already exceeding its requirements out of love for God and the leading of the Spirit.

Absurd!!!!!

bugkiller

 

[Soyeong]

I see nothing that supports your theology.

I fairly sure your 8:1 is from an outside source, The Didache.

bugkiller

They might have all sorts of opinion about how to correctly follow the law, but it was never in question whether the law should be followed. Paul was not saying that that it was up to your opinion about whether you wanted to follow the commands of God.

Indeed, the Didache is an outside source. I included it to show an example of the types of attitudes that Paul was seeking to bring under control in Romans 14. Fasting twice a week or which days of the week were matters of opinion that they were judging each other harshly for.

 

[bugkiller]

Jesus was a Jewish rabbi and even borrow elements in his parables from Jewish literature. Understanding how rabbis used the terms gives the context needed to correctly interpret what Jesus was saying. In the rabbinic sense, someone's yoke was their interpretation and traditions for how to follow the law, not the law itself, hence why Jesus' yoke is different from the yoke of the Pharisees. In Matthew 5, Jesus was teaching how the law should be understood and followed and that's precisely what the rabbis meant by fulfilling the law. You're free to ignore the context, but you're only going to end up interpreting the Bible.

It makes perfect sense to redeem someone from a penalty, but it makes not sense to redeem someone from a set of instructions for how to live rightly.

You need some one much dumber than me to mess with. Good night.

bugkiller

 

[Soyeong]

Must be exactly why Rom 7:6 says we are delivered from the law and Gal 5:18 says to be led by the Spirit and not the law. Hmmm!

bugkiller

I've already explained to you that the example Paul used in Romans 7 was to show that the wife had been set from from the aspect of the law that would penalize her, not set from from obeying the law. I've also explained that being under the law refers to it's penalty. The whole point Paul is trying to build up to is:

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Which again is referring to the penalty, not saying we are free to sin in violation of the law.

You're still ignoring the point that the law instructs us what sin is and Romans 6:15 says that being under grace doesn't mean that we are free to sin.

Romans 6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

Paul stated it like this precisely because he anticipated that people would misunderstand him and think that being under grace meant we didn't have to follow the law.

 

[Soyeong]

You need some one much dumber than me to mess with. Good night.

bugkiller

Generally it's the smarter people who care about context.

 

[Steeno7]

Indeed, God didn't just pick random set of instructions to give to His people because He wanted to watch them jump through hoops. Rather, God gave them the law to guide His people in how to act rightly.

Ummmm, no. He gave them the Law so that they would see their sin and the reality that they were sinners.

Deuteronomy 6:25 And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.’

Moses could have equivalently said, "We will live rightly if were are careful to obey God's instructions." The issue is that God is holy and His standard of righteousness is perfection, so the only way God will declare us right by us living rightly though our own effort is if we do so perfectly. However, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but that doesn't mean living rightly is bad, it just means we can't be justified by it.

That "ALL" fall short of God's glory means none live "rightly". Game over.

Paul made the point in Romans 4:1-8 that Abraham and David were justified by faith, so if we've all fallen short, then everyone who has been justified has been justified by faith. This means that Moses and the Israelites were justified by faith before the law was given to them. In other words, the law was never given to them with the expectation that they could become justified by keeping it, but rather it was always meant to be obeyed by faith. God has always wanted a relationship with His people, which only comes through faith, not though legalistic obedience to His instructions. Obedience to God in an expression of our faith, but if we obey God without out of legalistic obedience without faith, then we pervert His law.

If faith is but the means of obedience to the Law, then it is the Law that is justifying us, not faith. You still make the Law the means for justification, and faith is relegated to only being the means for obeying what justifies us.

In Isaiah 1:11-17, the problem wasn't that they were following God's instructions be performing sacrifices, keeping the New Moon, the Sabbath, and offering prayers, but rather God's problem was with the perverted way in which they were keeping them. In essence, they honored God with their lips, but their hearts were far from Him. Jesus had that same critique of the Pharisees because they were following the law legalistically.

The Law is what one under it is legally obligated by. There is no other way to follow the Law but legalistically.

God's Grace is not at all opposed to the law, but rather the law is an example of it (1 John 1:16-17). Being under the law refers to being under its penalty. Christ died to pay our penalty for breaking the law, and in doing so made us no longer under the law, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't still follow God's instructions for how to live rightly. Paul said in Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7 that the law makes us conscious of sin and instructs us of what sin is, but in Romans 6:15, he said that being under grace doesn't mean that we are free to sin/transgress the law.

16 For of His fullness [a]we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth [c]were realized through Jesus Christ.

That's John 1:16-17, not 1 John 1:16-17. And it declares the exact opposite of what you are claiming,

Grace and truth did not come through Moses, but through Christ. Being under the Law refers to being under the Law. And all laws have a penalty attached to them, or else they are merely a suggestion. If there is no penalty, there is no "law".

And no one here is claiming that because we are under grace that it frees us to sin. Quite the contrary. But placing folks under the Law is a surefire way to cause them to sin, as the law "stirs up sin". But when grace is operative in the Christian life there will be "obedience resulting in righteousness" (Rom. 6:16).

Justification is just the beginning of the Christian walk, the rest of lives are spent in the process of sanctification. Sanctification is where God's Spirit works within us to transform us into having the character of Christ. The character of Christ necessarily involves modeling our lives after how he thought and behaved, which means becoming obedient to the law. We can't keep the law though our own effort, but we can through the help of His Spirit.

Well, which is it? The Spirit transforming us from within, OR us "modeling" our lives after how he thought and behaved, which means becoming obedient to the law?? Those are two opposing thoughts presented as if they somehow are in agreement.

And no, we arent saved by grace through faith and then revert back to the Law to live by. We continue as we began...

"Just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in Him". Col. 2:6

"For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”" Rom. 1:17

Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Indeed, what was our "must do" under the Old, becomes Gods "I will" under the New. Thank God.