Ceremonial Law like circumcision -- vs moral law of TEN Comm with Sabbath for ALL

[BobRyan]

Judaism - The Sabbath
This article proves that no one was obligated to observe God's day of rest before the Israelites received the command from Moses at Mt. Sinai. .

Until you read Exodus 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3. And until you read the "Baptist Confession of Faith" section 19 by C.H. Spurgeon and also the TEN Commandments sermon by "D.L Moody".

"Do not take God's name in vain" is never quoted or stated outright until Ex 20:7 - yet was still there as a command that informs what "sin is" long before Ex 20:7 as almost all Christians fully accept.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Paul taught - "where there is no Law there is no sin" Rom 4:15

Robertson's Word Pictures of the NT -- Rom 4:15

Worketh wrath (οργην κατεργαζετα). Because of disobedience to it.
Neither is there transgression (ουδε παραβασις). "There is no responsibility for the violation of a non-existent law."

Law does not bring about wrath to those who are not in violation of that law.
It demonstrates that Law existed in Genesis else there could be no sin in Genesis.

1 Cor 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law;
When there is No Law – there is no sin.

No bible says that but that how your truths are made up.

 

[Cribstyl]

It is very good not to isolate Scriptures in order to promote a popular religious philosophy.

But I fear you have been tricked by religious philosophers of this world who do just that.

Repost my erred post or comments, so I can see what you're talking about. Someone has been tricked

Please consider this little study and feel free to engage about it. Answer the questions posed if you are interested.

Abraham had, at least according to the God of the Bible, God's Laws, Judgments, Commandments and Statutes, and God gave a blessing "BECAUSE" Abraham obeyed these Laws and Commandments of God.

Gen. 26:2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:

3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;

4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.


So we know Abraham had God's Commandments and Laws and Statutes, and he obeyed them, and "Because" of this, God gave Blessings.

Engaging....... Gen 12:1-3 Anyone who read God's first words to Abraham can see 'The Promise" "and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."
So when Paul teaches that the law came 430yrs after the promise. game over,

Gal 3:17

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise
Gal 3:18For if the inheritance is

Gal 3:19 ¶Why the Law then? It was added on account of the [fn]violations, having been ordered through angels at the hand of a [fn]mediator, until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made


The law was added to the promise at the hand of a mediator (Moses) UNTIL the seed would come.

You have to be brainwashed to ignore the facts and contradict these truth with isolated text.

Now when Paul says "For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law", what Law is he speaking to? Sodom was destroyed, Abraham was not. What was the real difference between them according to Scriptures? Because it is Clear that God rewarded Abraham and blessed others "because" Abraham loved and believed in Him enough to follow HIS instructions. It's right there in your own Bible.

So is Paul lying, or is it we have not read enough scriptures to make a determination?

What else did Paul say about this "Law".

Gal. 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

WHAT??? Paul is speaking of a "LAW", or Covenant, that Abraham didn't have. But Abraham had God's Laws, Commandments, Statutes and Judgments. What Law or Covenant didn't Abraham have?

Gal. 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

So this Law that Abraham didn't have, was "ADDED" to Something, because of "Transgression" of Something, 430 years after him, till our Prophesied True High Priest, After the "Order of Melchizedek" should come.

What Law was ADDED to what, because of Transgressions of what?

Jer. 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice,(Like Abraham) and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, (Like Abraham) that it may be well unto you.

So did Israel mix Faith with the hearing like Abraham did?

24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.

No! They didn't walk in the Faith of their father Abraham, rather, they transgressed.

So because of this Transgression (golden Calf) God "ADDED" to His Commandments, Statutes, Laws and Judgments, a Law/Covenant Abraham didn't have. A Priesthood Covenant with Levi, who wasn't even born in Abraham's time. Called the "Order of Aaron" or in the NT, the Levitical Priesthood. NO ONE could become an heir to the Kingdom of God without going through this Priesthood and their sacrificial "Works of the Law" for justification. This "LAW" wasn't given to Israel when God gave them His Commandments, Statutes and Judgments. It was "ADDED" later, because of Transgressions until our true High Priest should come.

Abraham was justified "apart from this law".

Abraham was Blessed by God, not because he took a goat to the Levite Priest and killed it, and the Priest took the blood of the goat and sprinkled some on the alter.

"For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law". a LAW Abraham didn't even have as it wasn't ADDED until 430 years after him.

"but through the righteousness of faith"

Gen. 18:18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?

19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

So yes, God did "ADD" a temporary Law in which men were justified by Levitical Priesthood "works of the Law", which were a shadow of the sacrifice Christ would make for them. This Law was to lead them to Christ, their true High Priest, and for "many" it did just that, Caleb, David, Zacharias and Elizabeth, Simeon, Anna, the Wise Men. But Levi departed out of the way of the Lord. they broke God's Covenant with them and led many astray. Malachi 2 speaks of this Covenant God promised to change.

Study for yourself, but don't isolate scriptures that don't align with your bias. Let them guide your footsteps instead.

LOL, Obviously, you're confusing the details.

 

[BobRyan]

The law was added to the promise at the hand of a mediator (Moses) UNTIL the seed would come.

You have to be brainwashed to,,, <obligatory rant deleted here>

"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
"this IS the Love of God that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:2-3
"honor your father and mother is the FIRST commandment WITH a promise" Eph 6:1-2 in that still-valid unit of TEN.
The NEW Covenant has the LAW of God known to Jeremiah and his readers "written on mind and heart" Jer 31:31-34

All of which reminds us that "Context matters" when reading Gal 3

 

[Cribstyl]

"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
"this IS the Love of God that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:2-3
"honor your father and mother is the FIRST commandment WITH a promise" Eph 6:1-2 in that still-valid unit of TEN.
The NEW Covenant has the LAW of God known to Jeremiah and his readers "written on mind and heart" Jer 31:31-34

All of which reminds us that "Context matters" when reading Gal 3

Eze 18:20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

 

[BobRyan]

"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
"this IS the Love of God that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:2-3
"honor your father and mother is the FIRST commandment WITH a promise" Eph 6:1-2 in that still-valid unit of TEN.
The NEW Covenant has the LAW of God known to Jeremiah and his readers "written on mind and heart" Jer 31:31-34

All of which reminds us that "Context matters" when reading Gal 3

Eze 18:20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

True - and quoting the Bible even when that Bible text is not in agrement with what someone posted on CF - is not a sin.

In Ezek 18 the righteous person does not die - only the wicked die.

21 “But if the wicked person turns from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall certainly live; he shall not die. 22 All his offenses which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, “rather than that he would turn from his ways and live?

24 “But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness, commits injustice and does according to all the abominations that the wicked person does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.

 

[Studyman]

Repost my erred post or comments, so I can see what you're talking about. Someone has been tricked

I would be glad to show you your error.

"Paul said above; The promise did not come through the law it came through faith. If it came though the law, God lied and faith is a sham. The law brings
condemnation, but if there was no law at the time of the promise, their was nothing to break."

The Command came first, not the Blessing. "If you do well, shall you not be accepted"? Abraham was Blessed "Because" He obeyed (Did well). You are refusing to accept the truth about what Law was "ADDED". You also refuse to separate the "ADDED" Levitical Priesthood Law of Atonement, from God's Statutes, Commandments and Laws which define Sin.

Your's is a very popular religious philosophy, but the Scriptures expose it was untrue.

Engaging....... Gen 12:1-3 Anyone who read God's first words to Abraham can see 'The Promise" "and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."
So when Paul teaches that the law came 430yrs after the promise. game over,

Again, you are omitting important Word's of God. When you consider Every Word of God, as Jesus instructs, a more complete understanding emerges. But this understanding also exposes the errors in your religious philosophy.

Gen. 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

There is a Command here. Not unlike Jesus instruction to "Repent". The Command came first.

2 And (if you get out of thy country) I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Abram was told by God to follow HIM, and the implication is "IF" Abram follows the instruction, God will Bless Him.

4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him;

The entire point of the example of Abraham was his obedience/faithfulness. It was his obedience, AKA "Faithfulness" that prompted God to treat Abraham differently than Sodom who was sinning (Transgressing).

Your religious philosophy seems to imply that Abram could have stayed in his own country, rejected the Commands of God, and still received the Promise. This is the same philosophy the serpent convinced Eve of. It is a great deception.

Gen. 26:4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

So Abraham not only had God's Laws, Statutes, Commandments and Judgments, but he was also blessed for obeying them. At least according to the God of the bible.

So the questions I asked you, that you also ignored, I still pose. If Abraham had God's Laws, Statutes, Commandments and Judgments, which the Scriptures clearly show, then what "LAW" was "ADDED" 430 years later? What was it "ADDED" to? Because of Transgressions of what? They didn't "Transgress God's Promise", but that is the implication of your preaching here.

You will find that Abraham had God's Laws, but wasn't under the Levitical Priesthood sacrificial "Works of the Law" for atonement/justification, which was "ADDED" 430 years later. Levi wasn't even born in Abraham's time. This Priesthood "LAW" of the "Order of Aaron", was to be in place "Till the Seed should come". The Seed being a High Priest "After the order of Melchizedek". This Law was to lead them to their true High Priest, the Christ. And for many it did. (See Zacharias, Simeon and Anna in Luke 1&2)

Gal 3:17

What I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise
Gal 3:18For if the inheritance is

Gal 3:19 ¶Why the Law then? It was added on account of the [fn]violations, having been ordered through angels at the hand of a [fn]mediator, until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made


The law was added to the promise at the hand of a mediator (Moses) UNTIL the seed would come.

No my friend. There is nowhere in the entire Bible that even implies the "LAW" was Added to the Promise. The Command came first. ("If you do well, shall you not be accepted"). You are injecting your own religious philosophy into the translation you choose to use here. If you can find a Scriptures which teaches that God ADDED the LAWS, Statutes, Commandments and Judgments to HIS Promise to Abraham, please show me the Scriptures.

The "Promise" was given to Abraham "BECAUSE" Abraham obeyed, or "Departed as the Lord had spoken to him". It's in your own Bible. Don't just omit it because it doesn't align with the religious philosophies of the mainstream religions of this world. Remember, Jesus warned us of the broad path and the "many" who will come in His Name.

You have to be brainwashed to ignore the facts and contradict these truth with isolated text.

LOL, Obviously, you're confusing the details.

What are the facts that I am ignoring? Here are the Biblical Facts as I see them. You tell me which ones I am ignoring.

#1. God gave Abraham His Laws, Statutes, Commandments, and Judgments. Abraham obeyed said Laws. God Blessed him because HE obeyed, which is also called being Faithful..

But his children rebelled against God. They "Transgressed" 430 years later. What did they transgress? God's Commandments, Statutes, Laws and Judgments. So God "ADDED" a Priesthood to His existing Commandments, a Covenant that Abraham didn't have, nor did Israel at first, in the day God brought them out of Egypt. This Priesthood contained Sacrificial "works" required for justification. It was "ADDED" after Israel Transgressed. (golden calf)

Jer. 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. (Like Abraham did)

24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.

They "transgressed", therefore God "ADDED" a Law "concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices".

How is this "ignoring facts"?


What is sad, is that most religious men will not really engage here. They are here to promote their own religious philosophy. They won't answer the questions I posed, they wont ask questions either.

My hope is that you might really engage and address the Scriptures, and answer the questions I posed here.

The Pharisees didn't believe Jesus was their High Priest, so they were still requiring their version of the Levitical Priesthood "Works of the Law" for atonement/justification. Paul fought the influence of these mainstream preachers his whole Biblical life. These Jews were bewitching the Galatians with their doctrines.

Gal. 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, (talking a goat to the Levite Priest) or by the hearing of faith? (listening and then obeying God's instruction, like Abraham)

 

[Cribstyl]

True - and quoting the Bible even when that Bible text is not in agrement with what someone posted on CF - is not a sin.

In Ezek 18 the righteous person does not die - only the wicked die.

21 “But if the wicked person turns from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall certainly live; he shall not die. 22 All his offenses which he has committed will not be remembered against him; because of his righteousness which he has practiced, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, “rather than that he would turn from his ways and live?

24 “But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness, commits injustice and does according to all the abominations that the wicked person does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.

I posted a partial text to demonstrate that context does matter. The bible does say, the soul that sinneth it shall die. Yes, the context makes it clear that if the wicked turns from from their sins they shall certainly live.

You often post partial texts and add a string of other partial scriptures to make your teachings appear as biblical truth. When we address your strategy, you ignore and repeat.
Here's what I'm talking about....
"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
"this IS the Love of God that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:2-3
"honor your father and mother is the FIRST commandment WITH a promise" Eph 6:1-2 in that still-valid unit of TEN.
The NEW Covenant has the LAW of God known to Jeremiah and his readers "written on mind and heart" Jer 31:31-34

 

[A_Thinker]

The TEN have "the first commandment with a promise" being "honor your father and mother" - according to Paul in Eph 6:1-2. And HE says it is still a valid unit of Law having that as its "first commandment" with a promise.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), Eph 6:1-2

And of course that Law "defines what sin IS" according to the Apostles "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4 (still... even in the NT). The "moral law" defines what sin is.

So when contrasting ceremonial law with moral law that defines what sin is - Paul says this
1 Cor 7: "19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God."

"The Commandments of God" include "the TEN" as Christ points out in Matt 19
if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said,
“You shall not commit murder; Ex 20
You shall not commit adultery; Ex 20
You shall not steal; Ex 20
You shall not bear false witness; Ex 20
19 Honor your father and mother; Ex 20
and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Lev 19:18

James 2 - he who breaks one of God's Commandments is guilty of all

Is 66:23 - Sabbath is to be kept for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth - by all mankind
"from one Sabbath to another shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

No wonder "every Sabbath" they are assembled for Gospel preaching in Acts 18:4 coming back Sabbath after Sabbath for "more gospel" preaching.

No wonder the Sabbath commandment is quoted from in Acts 4:24 and Rev 14:7


===============

By contrast Heb 10:4-11 says the ceremonial laws ended at the cross along with their sacrifices and offerings.

4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,
“Sacrifice and offering You have not desired,
But a body You have prepared for Me;
6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure.
7 “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(In the scroll of the book it is written of Me)
To do Your will, O God.’”
8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

But at Paul points out in Romans 14 - keeping those ceremonial holy days is a matter of one's personal choice and freedom.

The Ten Commandments only speaks of the Sabbath with reference to keeping it holy and abstaining from work ...

 

[BobRyan]

The Ten Commandments only speaks of the Sabbath with reference to keeping it holy and abstaining from work ...

In Is 58:13 God tells us that the Sabbath "The Holy Day of the Lord" is kept holy by refraining from all secular activity right down to what topics you talk about on Sabbath. Lev 23:2-3 tells us that it is "a day of holy convocation".

Is 66:23 tells us that for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship"

 

[BNR32FAN]

The TEN have "the first commandment with a promise" being "honor your father and mother" - according to Paul in Eph 6:1-2. And HE says it is still a valid unit of Law having that as its "first commandment" with a promise.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), Eph 6:1-2

And of course that Law "defines what sin IS" according to the Apostles "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4 (still... even in the NT). The "moral law" defines what sin is.

So when contrasting ceremonial law with moral law that defines what sin is - Paul says this
1 Cor 7: "19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God."

"The Commandments of God" include "the TEN" as Christ points out in Matt 19
if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 Then he *said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said,
“You shall not commit murder; Ex 20
You shall not commit adultery; Ex 20
You shall not steal; Ex 20
You shall not bear false witness; Ex 20
19 Honor your father and mother; Ex 20
and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Lev 19:18

James 2 - he who breaks one of God's Commandments is guilty of all

Is 66:23 - Sabbath is to be kept for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth - by all mankind
"from one Sabbath to another shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

No wonder "every Sabbath" they are assembled for Gospel preaching in Acts 18:4 coming back Sabbath after Sabbath for "more gospel" preaching.

No wonder the Sabbath commandment is quoted from in Acts 4:24 and Rev 14:7


===============

By contrast Heb 10:4-11 says the ceremonial laws ended at the cross along with their sacrifices and offerings.

4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,
“Sacrifice and offering You have not desired,
But a body You have prepared for Me;
6 In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure.
7 “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(In the scroll of the book it is written of Me)
To do Your will, O God.’”
8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.

But at Paul points out in Romans 14 - keeping those ceremonial holy days is a matter of one's personal choice and freedom.

Didn’t you notice that in Matthew 19 Jesus made no mention of the Sabbath? Your using this to indicate which ones were supposed to keep but Jesus didn’t mention the Sabbath as one we must keep.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I like to test doctrinal positions by the Bible (sola scriptura test). So then you bring up the idea that the first century NT church had taken the Sabbath commandment and edited it from "the seventh day IS the Sabbath of the LORD (YHWH)" to say something like "week day 1 is now the Sabbath of the LORD because Jesus rose from the dead on that day".

But no NT text says that they ever did such a thing.

Editing what the Bible calls "The Commandments of God" via the "tradition of man" is addressed very specifically by Christ in Mark 7:6-13 so it is not like this subject is never addressed by any NT writer.

Im sure the Pharisees could’ve used this same exact argument against the apostles about their decision to abolish the need for Gentiles living among the Jews to be circumcised in Acts 15 since it was never mentioned in the Old Testament.

 

[BNR32FAN]

To suggest that some of the 600+ laws in the OT are moral while others are not is to suggest that it can be moral to disobey God when it comes to the laws that are not moral laws, however, I do not see any reason to think that it can ever be moral to disobey God and I do not see any standard by which we can use to determine which of those laws are not moral laws. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws.

The view of which of the 600+ laws fits into which of the subcategories of moral, civil, and ceremonial law varies widely depending on whom I ask, such as with some people considering just the Ten Commandments to be God's moral laws, while others consider the greatest two commandments to also be moral laws, or include other laws against such as against rape and kidnapping, so in order for someone to speak about those subcategories in way that derives their view from the Bible rather than inserts their view into the Bible, they would need to show where the Bible specifies which of those categories each of God's 600+ laws belong to, however, the Bible doesn't not even refer to any of those subcategories. If I wanted, I could categorize God's 600+ laws based on which parts of the body are most commonly used to obey/disobey them, such as with the law against theft being considered to be a hand law, however, if I were to create my own doctrine out of my subcategories without establishing that any of the authors of the Bible categorized those laws in the same manner, such as by deciding that the laws I personally consider to be hand laws are no longer valid, then I would quickly run into the same sort of error as those who are deciding that the laws that they personally consider to be ceremonial and civil laws are no longer valid. If a law is no longer valid, then it is no longer profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, or for instruction in righteousness, which is contrary to 2 Timothy 3:16-17.



In Romans 14, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God, so nothing in the chapter should be mistaken as speaking against obeying God as if Paul had the authority to countermand God. When God has given no command, then we are free to have our own opinions, but where God has given a command, human opinion must yield. So for example, God gave no command to fast twice a week, but in the 1st century it had become a common practice to esteem certain days for fasting, and those who were doing that were passing judgement on those who did not (Luke 18:12), so it was exactly this sort of judging each other over disputable matters of opinion that Paul was addressing in this chapter. However, God has commanded His followers to observe His holy days, so whether someone does that is not a disputable matter of opinion, but a matter of obedience to God. God is sovereign so we are obligated to obey Him, and our obedience to Him is not a matter of personal choice and freedom, but whether you fast twice a week is a matter of person choice and freedom.

God also commanded that anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death. Do you keep that commandment? Have you ever stoned anyone to death?

 

[Soyeong]

God also commanded that anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death. Do you keep that commandment? Have you ever stoned anyone to death?

Breaking the Sabbath still carries the same penalty, but Jesus has paid it in our place. To enforce a penalty that has already been paid would deny what Jesus accomplished through the cross.

 

[BobRyan]

God also commanded that anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.

And so also for the sin of gluttony.

How "nice" then that even the Sunday groups listed - fully admit that all the civil laws under a theocracy came to an end when the theocracy it commanded - came to an end.

 

[BobRyan]

I like to test doctrinal positions by the Bible (sola scriptura test).

Im sure the Pharisees could’ve used this same exact argument against the apostles .

Catholic opposition to "protesting catholics" would of course welcome your logic there, but I am sure that one or two others here probably see the flaw in that suggestion.

about their decision to abolish the need for Gentiles living among the Jews to be circumcised in Acts 15 since it was never mentioned in the Old Testament.

You shot your own argument in the foot since it is a fact that the Old Testament scriptures they were using did NOT claim that gentiles could not be saved without being circumcised.

Shot yourself again on that one - because it was not a problem for non-Christian Jews - it was only a problem to certain Christian Jews that the gentile Christians were not required to be circumcised to become a Christian.

 

[BobRyan]

Didn’t you notice that in Matthew 19 Jesus made no mention of the Sabbath?

And no mention of "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
And no mention of "have no other gods"
And no mention of "do not bow down to images"
And no mention of "Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5

In Matt 19 Jesus says "KEEP the COMMANDMENTS" and is asked "which ones?"

What HE did is quote exclusively from 'the LAW of Moses" - from the TEN and from one of the TWO "royal commandments" in the LAW of Moses as James 2 points out.

Your using this to indicate which ones were supposed to keep

True - He quoted from the TEN and from one of the two commands that He says were "the greatest" in Matt 22.

All of the ones He quoted were not dealing with "Love God" - man's duty to God - but rather "Love your neighbor" - man's duty to man.

Paul says Christians are to pay attention to that unit of Law having "honor your father and mother - as the FIRST commandment WITH a promise" Eph 6:1-2 - and that unit is "The TEN" where as James 2 says "to break one is to break them all"

 

[BABerean2]

Until you read Exodus 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3. And until you read the "Baptist Confession of Faith" section 19 by C.H. Spurgeon and also the TEN Commandments sermon by "D.L Moody".

Do the words of Spurgeon and Moody outweigh those of the Apostle Paul, who told the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage" in the passage below?

Why does the "Baptist Confession of Faith" leave out the term "New Covenant", and use a man-made term "the moral law"? One term comes from the Bible, and the other comes from men who could not let go of the Old Covenant even though it is "obsolete". (Hebrews 8:13)


Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Until you read Exodus 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3. And until you read the "Baptist Confession of Faith" section 19 by C.H. Spurgeon and also the TEN Commandments sermon by "D.L Moody".

Do the words of Spurgeon and Moody outweigh those of the Apostle Paul,

No and Paul does not delete scripture.

In fact Paul says "all scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine" 2 Tim 3:16... instead of "and is to be deleted".

So then Paul says "honor your father and mother is the first commandment WITH a promise" that is for Christians in that still binding unit of TEN.

And Paul says "there REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" Heb 4

And Paul says "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

And Paul says "31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? Far from it! On the contrary, we establish the Law." Rom 3:31

And Paul says "
it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.

When Paul points out the LAW of God to be kept (fulfilled) by believers in Rom 13 he only quotes from "the LAW of Moses" given at Sinai - as does Christ in Matt 19, they quote from that same list.

======================

By contrast your post indicates that your entire argument rests on an assumption with no text to it -- namely "The Commandments of God are deleted if you are under the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-34"

But in reality Jeremiah 31 says those commandments are "written on heart and mind" instead of deleted.

A "written on the heart" - Bible detail that is not skipped over by D.L. Moody in his now-online TEN Commandment sermon segment on the Sabbath, or C.H.Spurgeon in "the Baptist Confession of Faith sectn 19" or "the Westminster Confession of Faith sectn 19"

 

[BABerean2]

And Paul says "there REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" Heb 4

Why do some of us rely on a doctrine which only works by taking scripture out of context?


Heb 4:1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it.
Heb 4:2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.
Heb 4:3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "SO I SWORE IN MY WRATH, 'THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST,' " although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Heb 4:4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS";
Heb 4:5 and again in this place: "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST."
Heb 4:6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
Heb 4:7 again He designates a certain day, saying in David, "TODAY," after such a long time, as it has been said: "TODAY, IF YOU WILL HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS."
Heb 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.
Heb 4:9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.
Heb 4:11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Heb 4:13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.


Col 2:16 Let no one, then, judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths,
Col 2:17 which are a shadow of the coming things, and the body is of the Christ;

.