Why the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) is the Lord's Day, in the Bible

[expos4ever]

He doesn't, because he doesn't say "under" law in Rom3:19.

I read your post about the proper wording might be "in the law". Same difference to me, though - I believe it is correct to say that Jews are "in the law" whereas Gentiles are not.

The Law speaks to the [men] in (within the limits of) the law for this purpose: so, every mouth can be closed, and all the world can be liable to God. IOW all mouths & all the world are/is liable to God because all men with mouths in all the world are within the limits of law.

I do not have the time right now to work through the logic of what you are saying. But, in any event, I believe the matter is academic in the sense that we know that Paul believes the Law is for Jews only based on what he writes here:

28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also?

If one is to take the internal logic of these sentences seriously, there is no escaping the fact that, in these verses at least, Paul is saying that the Law is for Jews only.

That this is the case is witnessed by the fact that no one in these threads has ever mounted a real counterargument. The best that is offered is something like "well, in Romans 3:28-29 Paul cannot possibly mean that the Law is for Jews only because over here in this other passage, he says....."

That, of course, is textbook evasion. To offer a real counterargument to my claim about Romans 3:28-29, one would need to offer an explanation of how, all other Biblical texts aside, the text of Romans 3:28-29 could possibly be read in a manner that doesn't force us to conclude that, based on the internal logic of the 2 verses, Paul believes the Law is for Jews only.

Let me illustrate how people are evading using an analogy. Suppose I write these words:

For we know that students are admitted from Harvard apart from considerations of membership in the Mount Royal Golf Club; or is Harvard only interested in admitting whites? No, Harvard is interested in all races.

It is a fact, yes a fact, that the logic of these sentences, as a unit, force us to conclude that, even though it is not explicitly stated, that the Mount Royal Golf club only admits whites!

I double-dog dare anyone to suggest otherwise.

So let's be clear: posters know what Romans 3:28-29 is saying, they just cannot admit it.

 

[Leaf473]

Even so - not one case of someone with a new testament of more than 27 books - and you and I probably both know that Didache is not one of them.

The Shepherd of Hermas (Greek: Ποιμὴν τοῦ Ἑρμᾶ, Poimēn tou Herma; Latin: Pastor Hermae), sometimes just called The Shepherd, is a Christian literary work of the late first half of the second century, considered a valuable book by many Christians, and considered canonical scripture by some of the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus.[1] The Shepherd was very popular amongst Christians in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries.[2] It is found in the Codex Sinaiticus.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shepherd_of_Hermas

 

[Leaf473]

Also on this subject

Even so - not one case of someone with a new testament of more than 27 books - and you and I probably both know that Didache is not one of them.

The work was considered by some Church Fathers to be a part of the New Testament, while being rejected by others as spurious or non-canonical.

Didache - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[GDL]

Chapter 13's context is the law in respect to love. Chapter 14 is about disputing opinions with those who are weak in the faith about things that are not of the law but opinions.

Conclusion: Chapter 14 continues a discussion re: love neighbor based upon law - commands the stronger to be gentle with the weaker on the basis of not judging them and on the basis that Christ is the judge who will judge us all - then gets back into food issues again - including clean and unclean issues which are based in law - on the basis of peace and edification in God's Kingdom in Christ. Rom14 hardly changes context from law.

Nowhere in the Pentateuch is it stated we should only eat herbs. Verse 2 sets the context.

Yet there obviously were food issues related to conscience. Have you never looked at Genesis or read books re: foods and kosher that observe how it looks like man was going to eat plants foods before he sinned? Do you think we're so different today when we have vegetarians and some of them are absolutely against killing animals for foods? I don't recall saying the Torah says not to eat meat. The discussion in Rom14 is that foods and drinks should not be an issue in the Kingdom that God is working to build. Consciences and peace and building the faith are the issues of our era in Christ in Spirit.

Edited: I do recognize what @BobRyan is pointing out re: 1Cor8 food sacrificed to idols & weak consciences.

(NET) Rom 14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions.
Rom 14:2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables.

(EBR) Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in his faith, receive ye,––not for disputing opinions:––
Rom 14:2 One, indeed, hath faith to eat all things, whereas, he that is weak, eateth herbs:

Thanks. I currently have 11 English translations on screen and 2 Greek Texts & most of the time am translating Greek for some of these discussions.

 

[GDL]

Elements of this world would include the Book of the Law.

I know you do Greek phrase searches and use interlinear works. You'd have to prove this quoted statement from the Text.

Here are the verses stoicheion is used in:

NKJ Gal. 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.
NKJ Gal. 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?
NKJ Col. 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
NKJ Col. 2:20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations--
NKJ Heb. 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.
NKJ 2 Pet. 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
NKJ 2 Pet. 3:12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The gentiles were not ministered to and gathered unto Him as God intended until after Christ's Asension.

Agreed. Although gentiles were always grafted in through faith. Ruth 1:16

So you don't think the New Covenant is fulfilled for some?

I went back and looked at your original question and I misunderstood what you meant, sorry about that. I will clarify my original statement- God did not make a covenant with the Gentiles, it has always been with the house of Israel ...

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Isaiah 56:6-8 specifically targets Gentiles to be grafted into His covenant including Sabbath-keeping.

Isaiah 56:6 Also the sons of the foreigner
Who join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him,
And to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants—
Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And holds fast My covenant—
7 Even them I will bring to My holy mountain,
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
Will be accepted on My altar;
For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.”
8 The Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says,
“Yet I will gather to him
Others besides those who are gathered to him.”

 

[BobRyan]

Elements of this world would include the Book of the Law.

Can you point to even one place where Paul says the "elemental principles of this world" or "commandments of men" or "Traditions of man" are "God's commandments" or are called "the book of the law"?

Can you point to one single place where one negative comment is made about the "Book of the Law" in all of scripture?

Deut 30: if you obey the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this Book of the Law, if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. It is never called "The elements of this world" or "The elementary principles of this world"

By contrast Paul says "what matters is keeping the commandments of God"
Eph 6:2 Children obey your parents is further established by pointing out "'honor your father and mother' is the first commandment with a promise"


Josh 1:

This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will achieve success.

IT is from "The book of the law" that Jesus quotes in Matt 22 - for the two greatest commandments
"Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5
"Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18

The issue isn't what is written in it in respect morality but the ministry. God never chose a ministry of parchment and tables of stone. That was not His intention on Mt. Sinia

God wrote the tablets of stone with his own hand. They are not in opposition to Him. "He spoke these ten words and added no more" Deut 5:22. It is the spoken Word of God in the special case of the TEN.

Under the New Covenant as stated in Jer 31:31-34 they are written on the heart along with all the moral law of God. But even without being written on the heart - they remain the Law of God - the rule by which the entire world is judged according to Rom 3:19

. The people cried out for it through fear due to their conscience condemning them. They said Moses speak to us not God lest we die. IT WAS ALWAYS TO BE FROM THE HEART THROUGH HIM.

Exod 20:19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.

Moses responds that this was on purpose that the "fear of God may be on you and that you may not sin against God"

So after 40 years God tried again. For it is He that sanctifies. He said through Moses before they entered into the promise land in Deut 29,30 that he was making a Covenant with them BESIDES the one He made with them on Mt Sinai, Horeb. He states that He would place His statutes, and commandments contained in the Book of the Law. His very Word in the hearts and mouths so they could do it.

Another example where no condemnation is placed on the "Book of the Law"

Notice the judgements are not included,

Deut 29:1 These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.

Deut 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

That's the New Covenant which Jer 31:31-34 also speaks of and informs us that it is that very same moral law of God that is written on the heart under the new covenant.

But the judgments are there as well as we see in Rom 6:23 "the wages of sin is death" -- still even in the NT
Rom 3:19 - the curse still there "19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;"

Gal 3 - the curse is still there - even in the NT
10 For all who are of works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all the things written in the book of the Law, to do them.” 11 Now, that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “the righteous one will live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “The person who performs them will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law,

It can still be said of the lost today - that they are under the curse of the law which condemns all as sinners and dooms them to the second death lake of fire - and for that reason all need the gospel.

God's solution was not to curse, delete, end, terminate His Law - the "book of the Law". Rather it is to uphold His Law by paying the penalty it demands and then to to write that law on the heart. But even when it is not written on the heart it is upheld by God and its judgment on sin executed in the case of the lost who reject the gospel.

No wonder Paul says of it "our faith establishes the Law of God" Rom 3:31

 

[BobRyan]

Chapter 13's context is the law in respect to love. Chapter 14 is about disputing opinions with those who are weak in the faith about things that are not of the law but opinions. Nowhere in the Pentateuch is it stated we should only eat herbs. Verse 2 sets the context.

(NET) Rom 14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions.
Rom 14:2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables.

(EBR) Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in his faith, receive ye,––not for disputing opinions:––
Rom 14:2 One, indeed, hath faith to eat all things, whereas, he that is weak, eateth herbs:

eating vegetables only (as noted in Rom 14) is not about a command from scripture as you point out. Rom 14 is about people choosing for or against things that are all allowed under the Law - under the rule of scripture.

IT is about the 1 Cor 8 problem where former pagan - turned Christian - are very worried about meats offered to idols sold in the market place and wishing to avoid it - they eat vegetables only. Paul ends 1 Cor 8 this way -

1 Cor 8:9 But take care that this freedom of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, the one who has knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will his conscience, if he is weak, not be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11 For through your knowledge the one who is weak is ruined, the brother or sister for whose sake Christ died. 12 And so, by sinning against the brothers and sisters and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to sin.​

​

Rom 14:1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not to have quarrels over opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but the one who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

 

[BobRyan]

The Shepherd of Hermas (Greek: Ποιμὴν τοῦ Ἑρμᾶ, Poimēn tou Herma; Latin: Pastor Hermae), sometimes just called The Shepherd, is a Christian literary work of the late first half of the second century,

No doubt - but it is not scripture

What is scripture is Acts 20
29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them.

what is scripture is 1 Tim 1:
3 Just as I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, to remain on at Ephesus so that you would instruct certain people not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to useless speculation rather than advance the plan of God, which is by faith, so I urge you now.

What is scripture is Jude 1
3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all time handed down to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation,

What is scripture is 3 John 1
3 John 1 : 9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with malicious words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brothers either, and he forbids those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

Very different from "No possibility of anyone having a wrong view not even a century after I write this"

 

[GDL]

I read your post about the proper wording might be "in the law". Same difference to me, though - I believe it is correct to say that Jews are "in the law" whereas Gentiles are not.

With respect, "to me" and "I believe" are not proof of accuracy.

I do not have the time right now to work through the logic of what you are saying.

If and when you do, please let me know.

But, in any event, I believe the matter is academic in the sense that we know that Paul believes the Law is for Jews only based on what he writes here:

28 [x]For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also?

If one is to take the internal logic of these sentences seriously, there is no escaping the fact that, in these verses at least, Paul is saying that the Law is for Jews only.

That this is the case is witnessed by the fact that no one in these threads has ever mounted a real counterargument. The best that is offered is something like "well, in Romans 3:28-29 Paul cannot possibly mean that the Law is for Jews only because over here in this other passage, he says....."

That, of course, is textbook evasion. To offer a real counterargument to my claim about Romans 3:28-29, one would need to offer an explanation of how, all other Biblical texts aside, the text of Romans 3:28-29 could possibly be read in a manner that doesn't force us to conclude that, based on the internal logic of the 2 verses, Paul believes the Law is for Jews only.

Let me illustrate how people are evading using an analogy. Suppose I write these words:

For we know that students are admitted from Harvard apart from considerations of membership in the Mount Royal Golf Club; or is Harvard only interested in admitting whites? No, Harvard is interested in all races.

It is a fact, yes a fact, that the logic of these sentences, as a unit, force us to conclude that, even though it is not explicitly stated, that the Mount Royal Golf club only admits whites!

I double-dog dare anyone to suggest otherwise.

So let's be clear: posters know what Romans 3:28-29 is saying, they just cannot admit it.

Firstly, FWIW, it would be better to just deal with the Text rather than having to look up cultures and their Golf Club rules.

Rom3:22 God's righteousness by the faith of Jesus Christ for all men who believe - man's race is not an issue
Rom3:23 Explanation re: race not being an issue: All men sinned and lack God's glory
Rom3:24 [All] men [who believe] are justified freely by [God's] grace by the redemption which is in Christ Jesus
Rom3:25 What God planned and did with Christ Jesus
Rom3:26 God is just and justifies the [man] (a man who believes or mankind who believes - no matter his race) from faith of Jesus
Rom3:27 Therefore man's boasting is excluded by [the] law of faith - inference: man's boasting is not excluded by the law of works.
Rom3:38 Therefore we determine man to be justified [by] faith without relation to works of law
Rom3:29 God is God of both Jews and Gentiles - not Jews only (stated as a rhetorical question)
Rom3:30 There is one God who will justify [the] circ from faith and the uncirc by the faith

It seems to me that:

• God is judging all men - both Jews and Gentiles - by the Law of Faith and the Faith of Jesus (which are likely one and the same).
• We could make a case for works of law being Jews only
• We could make a case for works of law being all men and law of works being almost irrelevant
  • God is God of all men and He is justifying all men who believe - whether Jew of Gentile works of law are meaningless and will not provide justification for any men
  • The rhetorical question does not seem to be primarily related to works of law. It rather seems the entire prior context of all men no matter his race is setting up the rhetorical question.
• Your logic may not be as conclusive as you suggest.
  • Thus, we would have to go elsewhere in Scripture to proof-text:
    • If we go back a few verses, we're dealing again with Rom3:19. Here's the proposal I've made:
      • The law speaks to the [men] in (within the range/limit of) law so every mouth can be stopped, and all the world can be liable to God.
        • The inference being all men are within the limit/range of law. So, we're right back to and actually setting up all the succeeding discussion re: all men.
      • Rom3:20 because from works of law all flesh will not be justified before Him (in God's presence), to explain this, through law [is] experiential knowledge of sin.
        • Once again, "all flesh" - all men are in view in relation to law and now "works of law".
    • In Galatians Paul's concern was that Christians (no matter the race) could turn or turn back to law and works of law. I don't see Paul's concern being solely for Jewish Christians, so it seems works of law were not race based.
    • In late Acts 17 Paul makes the case that God is God of all men and commands all men everywhere to repent (context is at minimum to repent of ignorance about God and idolatry) in view of the fact that He set a day in which He will judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a Man whom He appointed presenting assurance to all by resurrecting Him.
      • It seems to me all men everywhere were being put under notice of God's pending judgment of all men everywhere. Does God judge all men everywhere whether or not they have Jewish Law - or is this concept of Law being just for the Jews something to be reconsidered in view of Rom3:19-20 and elsewhere?

Double-dog dare accepted. FWIW, I'm very open to be schooled in logic. I would hope it's done with the Biblical Text so we all men can learn it better & accurately.

 

[GDL]

Can you point to one single place where one negative comment is made about the "Book of the Law" in all of scripture?

I recognize your quoted phrase but thought I'd throw these at you that I'm certain you know:

• The Law was not able to free man from sin and death (Rom8:2-3)
• The Law appoints men who have weaknesses as high priests (Heb7:28)
• The Law needed to be changed (Heb7:12)
• The Law could not give life (Gal3:21)
• The Law could not justify any man from all things (Acts13:38)
• The Law could not justify any man (Gal3:11)
• The Law was simply a child-guardian until Christ (Gal3:24)
• The Law can be used unlawfully (1Tim1:8) (there is a danger re: Law)
• The Law used wrongly can cause a man to be set aside from Christ (Gal5:4) (there is a danger re: Law)

And so, it goes...

 

[GDL]

eating vegetables only (as noted in Rom 14) is not about a command from scripture as you point out. Rom 14 is about people choosing for or against things that are all allowed under the Law - under the rule of scripture.

IT is about the 1 Cor 8 problem where former pagan - turned Christian - are very worried about meats offered to idols sold in the market place and wishing to avoid it - they eat vegetables only. Paul ends 1 Cor 8 this way -

1 Cor 8:9 But take care that this freedom of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, the one who has knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will his conscience, if he is weak, not be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11 For through your knowledge the one who is weak is ruined, the brother or sister for whose sake Christ died. 12 And so, by sinning against the brothers and sisters and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to sin.​

​

Rom 14:1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not to have quarrels over opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but the one who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

Good points.

Where does it say this is only about former pagans and does not include Jewish Christians who were also weak in the faith in dealing with a new life in Christ similar to what Peter had trouble with in Gal2 and Acts10?

 

[BobRyan]

Good points.

Where does it say this is only about former pagans and does not include Jewish Christians

In 1 Cor 8 it says the Jewish Christians are the advanced informed ones - and the newly converted pagans are weak in faith since they are used to worshipping many gods.

1 Cor 8:​

4 Therefore, concerning the eating of food sacrificed to idols, we (Jews) know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us (Jews) there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him;​

even non-Christian Jews knew that to be the case - not just Christian Jews.

​

Deut 6:4 “Hear, Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!​

But that Deut 6 statement is all "news" to the pagans. So then former pagans newly converted to Christianity have a bit of an adjustment to make.

..."and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

7 However, not all people have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.​

There is only one group that were accustomed to idols "until now". And that would be newly converted Christians who left their old paganism.

 

[BobRyan]

I recognize your quoted phrase but thought I'd throw these at you that I'm certain you know:

• The Law was not able to free man from sin and death (Rom8:2-3)
• The Law appoints men who have weaknesses as high priests (Heb7:28)
• The Law needed to be changed (Heb7:12)
• The Law could not give life (Gal3:21)
• The Law could not justify any man from all things (Acts13:38)
• The Law could not justify any man (Gal3:11)
• The Law was simply a child-guardian until Christ (Gal3:24)
• The Law can be used unlawfully (1Tim1:8) (there is a danger re: Law)
• The Law used wrongly can cause a man to be set aside from Christ (Gal5:4) (there is a danger re: Law)

And so, it goes...

God's law condemns all mankind as we see in places like Rom 3:19 and Gal 3 - for " all have sinned" Rom 3:23.

In Romans 7 Paul says the problem is "sin" and not God's Law - which he says is "holy , just and good".

The Law that says things like - "do not covet" and "do not take God's name in vain" is not the problem according to Rom 7 - the problem is sin.

The solution is not to announce God's law to be deleted - but rather the solution is to destroy sin, provide forgiveness, death to self, the new creation to begin.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul is saying that the Law is for Jews only.
Paul believes the Law is for Jews only.

Not true - Paul says the Law condemn all humans not just Jews and that all are under the condemnation of the law.

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written:

“There is no righteous person, not even one;
11 There is no one who understands,
There is no one who seeks out God;...
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; ...23 "ALL have sinned"

irrefutable.

The point remains

 

[Leaf473]

No doubt - but it is not scripture

What is scripture is Acts 20
29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them.

what is scripture is 1 Tim 1:
3 Just as I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, to remain on at Ephesus so that you would instruct certain people not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to useless speculation rather than advance the plan of God, which is by faith, so I urge you now.

What is scripture is Jude 1
3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all time handed down to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation,

What is scripture is 3 John 1
3 John 1 : 9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. 10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with malicious words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brothers either, and he forbids those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

Very different from "No possibility of anyone having a wrong view not even a century after I write this"

I believe the issue was that you had asserted that no one thought anything other than the 27 books of the New Testament were ever part of the new testament. But some of the early church fathers did think that the shepherd of hermas was scripture.

So again, without considering tradition in any way, how would a person decide whether Shepherd was scripture or not?

 

[Leaf473]

And if a person decides to consider tradition, then it is consistent to take tradition into account when evaluating the Lord's Day.

 

[BobRyan]

And if a person decides to consider tradition, then it is consistent to take tradition into account when evaluating the Lord's Day.

No doubt "tradition instead of the Bible" goes back a long way.

Mark 7:7-13
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

 

[BobRyan]

I believe the issue was that you had asserted that no one thought anything other than the 27 books of the New Testament were ever part of the new testament.

Protestants and Catholics have the same NT.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

No doubt "tradition instead of the Bible" goes back a long way.

Mark 7:7-13
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Amen. As clear as day.

The Sabbath was at Creation before sin Genesis 2:1-3
The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments personally written and spoken by God Exodus 20:8-11 which is in the Most Holy of God's Temple
Jesus kept the Sabbath and all of the commandments Luke 4:16, John 15:10
Jesus is our example to follow 1 John 2:6
The apostles kept every Sabbath Acts 18:4
And told us to Hebrews 4:9 NIV
The Sabbath continues on the New Heaven and New Earth for eternity Isaiah 66:22-23
We were warned the Sabbath would be changed not by God Daniel 7:25
And we see a church taking credit for this change and admitting it did not come from scripture but their own authority.

• If Protestants would follow the Bible, they would worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church.—Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the Cardinal, in a letter dated February 10, 1920.
• Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday in the Third - Protestant Fourth - Commandment of God... The Church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.'
  —Catholic Record, September 1, 1923.

Jesus warns us to keep God's commandment quoting right from the Ten over mans traditions Matthew 5:3-9 we should believe and follow Jesus!