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

[SabbathBlessings]

"Why then was the law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the seed to whom the promise referred. It was administered through angels...
Before this faith came, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
Gal 3:19 and next


You just put Scriptures together to support the visions of Ellen White, but the theology you want is not found in them.

Which law? Not all law is the Ten Commandments prove the law we are to keep only until the arrival of Jesus is the Ten Commandments and how does that compare to Revelation 22:14-15? Does that mean we can worship other gods now or vain God's holy name, covet and steal? Which law was added because of transgression, which law always existed?

Does faith void the law or uphold it?

 

[trophy33]

Which law? Not all law is the Ten Commandments prove the law we are to keep only until the arrival of Jesus is the Ten Commandments and how does that compare to Revelation 22:14-15? Does that mean we can worship other gods now or vain God's holy name, covet and steal?

Does faith void the law or uphold it?

"The" law - a singular legal document. No divisions you would like to be there.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

"The" law - a singular legal document. No divisions you would like to be there.

Prove it, your words are not scripture. Exodus 32:16 disagrees with you, not all laws are the same. What laws are inside the covenant, which are outside? Why would there be a difference if all laws are the same? Why did God write some law and why would you think the laws God wrote with His own finger not be different than what a human wrote?

Which laws were broken in heaven - for if there is no law there is no transgression Romans 4:15. There was transgression in heaven meaning there was law. Which law was added after transgression? Please answer these questions through scripture

 

[trophy33]

Does faith void the law or uphold it?

That was my original topic, before you started your dancing around what the law actually is.

The verse "we uphold the law" cannot mean "we obey its commands", because you yourself do not obey them.

It must, therefore, mean something like "by faith we confirm the purpose/point of the law".

 

[trophy33]

Prove it, your words are not scripture. Exodus 32:16 disagrees with you, not all laws are the same. What laws are inside the covenant, which are outside? Why would there be a difference if all laws are the same? Why did God write some law and why would you think the laws God wrote with His own finger not be different than what a human wrote?

Which laws were broken in heaven - for if there is no law there is no transgression Romans 4:15. There was transgression in heaven meaning there was law. Which law was added after transgression? Please answer these questions through scripture

Paul says "the law". Nothing to prove from my side. I have no need to divide it into several parts with uncertain borders (yes, because I have no need to defend Ellen White theories).

 

[SabbathBlessings]

That was my original topic, before you started your dancing around what the law actually is.

The verse "we uphold the law" cannot mean "we obey its commands", because you yourself do not obey them.

It must, therefore, mean something like "by faith we confirm the purpose/point of the law".

Prove it thorugh scripture. You just post your opinion like its equal to the Word of God and our opinions no matter how much we value them are not God's Word. I am not sure why you are opposed to using scripture to prove your case.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Paul says "the law". Nothing to prove from my side. I have no need to divide it into several parts with uncertain borders.

Paul quotes the law from the Ten Commandments to define sin. Is this a different law that upholds faith?

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

 

[trophy33]

Prove it thorugh scripture. You just post your opinion like its equal to the Word of God and our opinions no matter how much we value them are not God's Word. I am not sure why you are opposed to using scripture to prove your case.

Proved by your dancing around. You yourself do not keep the commandments of the law, so we agree thats not what the verse about upholding it means.

 

[trophy33]

Paul quotes the law from the Ten Commandments to define sin. Is this a different law that upholds faith? if so prove it.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

I meant in Galatians - the law was "our" (i.e. Jewish) guardian till Christ.

After Christ, "we" (i.e. Jews) are not under the guardian.

Edit - and, of course, neither we Gentiles are under the guardian after Christ. To be completely clear.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Proved by your dancing around. You yourself do not keep the commandments of the law, so we agree thats not what the verse about upholding it means.

I wasn't expecting you to address the scripture.

You have no idea what I do, we do not know each other and only God is our righteous Judge and I am going to sign out which I should have done previously.

 

[trophy33]

I wasn't expecting you to address the scripture.

I will not address your messy compositions of chaotic verses taken out of context and put into a puzzle supporting Ellen White.

I will address one thought/verse at a time, in orderly manner. If you cannot accommodate to it, get used for the most of your posts to be ignored and only the first point to be addressed by me.

 

[expos4ever]

You state the law excludes the Ten Commandments

This is simply not true. How can you possibly say this when myst33 has clearly denied that he (or she) stated such a thing? I would be stunned if any Biblically literate person would say such a thing anyway - it is beyond obvious that the 10 are part of the law.

 

[GDL]

Forget the fact that I am using the golf club as an analogy for the moment - let's take it step by step. In serious discussion, you cannot evade legitimate questions. Again:

Forget the fact that you are creating an analogy to support your interpretive view of what the Text says? Sorry, but you don't make up the rules of textual analysis. Any of us can make up an analogy to support our view. In serious discussion we should all understand this. I see your manufactured point in your analogy. I disagree that it accurately represents Rom3:28-29.

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 writer of these words believes the Mount Royal Golf club only admits whites!

I double-dog dare anyone to suggest otherwise

Again, you make up an analogy that you think represents what Rom3:28-29 says.

You accused me of evading your point. I did not evade your point. To be clear, I disagree with your point and your self-asserted analogy.

The problem for your analogy in part is that there is a lot of context that you're isolating from. If you go back to my post #350 (linked for your convenience) you'll find that the vast majority of what I posted to you was simply context from Roms3, building up to Rom3:28-29. And I didn't take it back that far to keep this a bit easier to deal with.

The other problem for you is that there are a lot of different structures taking place in the Biblical Text. Some of them are very Hebrew oriented. The logic of the Text is not so easy to pick up and follow. Romans is very complex literature. I'm looking right now at an analysis of Rom3:27-31 that proposes 9 different parallel & chiastic structures in these verses. Here's the link if you care to read the article (assuming you can access it). Interestingly this work does not substantiate your POV.

Then there is the language in Rom3:28 that seems to show Paul reaching a conclusion to what he's been discussing, and that conclusion says no justification for man by works of law - justification is by faith apart from works of law.

Then, the "or" you seem clearly to be basing your POV upon, in Greek can simply be setting up a rhetorical question. And that rhetorical question does not have to, nor does it seem to be addressing only Rom3:28, but much more than that. I'll go back as far as Rom3:9 to pick up a point and then jump back closer to 3:28-29 to conclude;

• In Rom3:9 Paul says both Jews and Greeks are all under sin. Then for the next 9 verses he gives us reasons from Scripture to back up this charge.
• In Rom3:19-20, to repeat what I said earlier, Paul says the liability to law is global - all men - no man can do works of law for justification - the law was to teach re: sin
  • For some interesting comments re; law for all men see @HIM post #363 in this thread re: Enoch & Noah & Abraham.

So, just by these few verses in context we can see that works of law are not only related to the Jews. The point is the one Paul makes in Rom3:29-30 - God is the God of all men & He will only justify men by faith - no man will be justified from works of law no matter their race - all men are under sin and law is global - and it took an act of God in Christ to remedy this.

So, again, I think you're missing the point.

This is a perfectly well-posed and clear challenge. You may not like it for the obvious reason that you likely know where this is headed. But that is not an excuse - if you wish to be serious, you must answer the challenge. If you think the analogy to Romans 3:28-29 is invalid, we will address that once you acknowledge what I believe to be irrefutable: the author of my little text must believe that the golf club currently restricts membership to whites.

Well, you've challenged me and others by making up your own analogy. If your interpretation of Scripture is wrong, and I think it is, then your manufactured analogy to meet your erroneous view has no merit. Your manufactured analogy is also very simplistic and has no complex context and structure and it was not written by a learned Hebrew under inspiration.

So, no, I do not acknowledge what you believe to be irrefutable, just as I told you some posts ago. What you or any of us believe is not the basis of Truth.

Your referenced golf club seems like it could be a place to avoid. But, then again, we have no context to review, and I'm concerned you don't like context, based upon your accusation against me for referring to it.

 

[HIM]

"The" law - a singular legal document. No divisions you would like to be there.

That would depend on the context in which the word is used

 

[HIM]

I guess I'd have to see your take on the typical verses like: Rom14:14-15; Acts10:9-16.....

Please do a word study on common and unclean in relation to Acts 10 first and then Romans 14.

Just FYI and a little brotherly love to save you some work.

Gotcha, I enjoy and have incorporated this as part of my devotional so it isn't an issue.

 

[HIM]

​

Another question:

• You say the issue is the ministry of the Book of the Law. Does this mean the or some of the contents of the BoL are not an issue? IOW, what is the Spirit putting in minds and writing on hearts now?

Sorry I am out of time almost and must start my day of work and toil lol. The contents of the Book of the Law was never an issue in respect to what it is to be made in His image and likeness. To live in, through and of God. The issue is the ministry. Being told what to do from an outside source, the Book of the Law avails nothing.

We will continue later... may the Lord our God continue to bless us all His Way, Christ Jesus.

 

[Leaf473]

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.”

I'm not saying use tradition instead of the Bible.

I'm saying that without tradition, it's up to each person to decide for themselves what is scripture and what is not.

You may wish to think about this:
The Bible that you use, is it the result of your own personal research, evaluating all the many ancient documents, or did someone tell you it was the scriptures?

 

[Leaf473]

Protestants and Catholics have the same NT.

Exactly! That's a tradition, and we can choose to use that same tradition

 

[Leaf473]

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.”

Protestants and Catholics have the same NT.

I'm not saying use tradition instead of the Bible.

I'm saying that without tradition, it's up to each person to decide for themselves what is scripture and what is not.

You may wish to think about this:
The Bible that you use, is it the result of your own personal research, evaluating all the many ancient documents, or did someone tell you it was the scriptures?

Exactly! That's a tradition, and we can choose to use that same tradition

Our brothers and sisters who keep a Seventh-Day Sabbath often say that the bulk of Christianity has been on the path to destruction throughout most of history.

However, unless we're going to pick out scriptures for ourselves, we end up following the traditions of that bulk of Christianity.

Why would we follow in the footsteps of people on the path to destruction?

Now... if we accept that God was guiding those same Christians,
well, then it seems reasonable to consider their understanding of the Sabbath as well.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 5:15 - New International Reader's Version

Also, people do not light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead, they put it on its stand. Then it gives light to everyone in the house.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Leaf473]

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.”

And quoting the Catholic Record, September 1, 1923:

Deny the authority of the Church and you have no adequate or reasonable explanation or justification for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday...

Hey, SB, don't feel like you need to respond to this if you don't want to

If we deny the authority of the church, then we basically become our own authority on the scriptures, as well.

Which may not be a bad thing after all What do you think, if you want to comment?