Where was the Sabbath Abolished?

[IcyChain]

Perhaps but I'm not the judge God is. What's he say?

Well, he said that he will give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, among many other things.

 

[AlightSeeker]

Well, he said that he will give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, among many other things.

I have the kingdom in my heart. I didn't get it from any man though.

 

[HTacianas]

Well here we can get into the canon-rabbit hole. If authority derives from what is explicitly taught in Sacred Scripture, then we must determine who has the authority to declare what books are scripture and what books are not scripture.

The same body that had the authority to declare what is scripture and bind that on the Christian church, is the same body with the authority to change the date.

While I don't disagree with you entirely, it was the apostles who began worshipping on Sunday.

 

[IcyChain]

I have the kingdom in my heart. I didn't get it from any man though.

That's nice.

 

[AlightSeeker]

While I don't disagree with you entirely, it was the apostles who began worshipping on Sunday.

They gathered daily.

 

[IcyChain]

While I don't disagree with you entirely, it was the apostles who began worshipping on Sunday.

Well, I would consider it the same body that initially recognized the canon, ultimately formalized it, and that changed the day of worship (that body constituting different people at different points in time) . . .

 

[IcyChain]

They gathered daily.

I think he might be referring to the Didache (correct me if I am wrong) or other very early Christian writings that indicate that the early Church broke bread on Sundays in particular.

 

[FenderTL5]

I think he might be referring to the Didache (correct me if I am wrong) or other very early Christian writings that indicate that the early Church broke bread on Sundays in particular.

along with that there's also the book of Acts which records the gathering for the Eucharist on Sunday, "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.."

 

[IcyChain]

This thread is fairly amusing because you have a wide range of views from having to worship on Saturday, to worshiping on Sunday, to no obligation to worship at all.

 

[AlightSeeker]

Well, I would consider it the same body that initially recognized the canon, ultimately formalized it, and that changed the day of worship (that body constituting different people at different points in time) . . .

The scriptures existed before them. Even if they played a role in what we now see as the bible which is a collection of scriptures, so what? The scribes gave us scriptures too. God had them do that. But they were mostly Godless. The Lord rebuked them harshly.

 

[AlightSeeker]

This thread is fairly amusing because you have a wide range of views from having to worship on Saturday, to worshiping on Sunday, to no obligation to worship at all.

If you're referring to me not going to church I would caution you. The judge stands at the the door.

 

[IcyChain]

The scriptures existed before them. Even if they played a role in what we now see as the bible which is a collection of scriptures, so what? The scribes gave us scriptures too. God had them do that. But they were mostly Godless. The Lord rebuked them harshly.

OK. Your argument there is a fair one. The fact that a person recognized, or was even the author of scripture, does not necessarily make that person an authority.

So is it your belief that the only source of authority that could bind the Christian faithful with respect to matters of faith was the written word of God?

Kind of like the teachings of the apostles did not become authoritative until the moment that those teachings were written on parchment and the ink dried?

 

[IcyChain]

If you're referring to me not going to church I would caution you. The judge stands at the the door.

No, I did not intend to refer to you as not going to church (I have no idea whether you do or not). Is there any reason why you reached that conclusion?

 

[AlightSeeker]

OK. Your argument there is a fair one. The fact that a person recognized, or was even the author of scripture, does not necessarily make that person an authority.

So is it your belief that the only source of authority that could bind the Christian faithful with respect to matters of faith was the written word of God?

Kind of like the teachings of the apostles did not become authoritative until the moment that those teachings were written on parchment and the ink dried?

I believe the word is what we are given. That and the spirit binds us

 

[IcyChain]

I believe the word is what we are given. That and the spirit binds us

I think I understand you. So in your view the only authority is the particular prompting of the Holy Spirit within your own heart and your own interpretation of the Bible?

Let's say you were a Christian living in the years before the first books of the New Testament were written. If you had run into Peter, you would not have recognized him as an authority?

 

[AlightSeeker]

I think I understand you. So in your view the only authority is the particular prompting of the Holy Spirit within your own heart and your own interpretation of the Bible?

Let's say you were a Christian living in the years before the first books of the New Testament were written. If you had run into Peter, you would not have recognized him as an authority?

The authority is the spirit. It's his interpretation I see in my opinion. God himself draws us to Christ. It's he who opens my ears. Peter would have opened my ears had I listened and obeyed him, and I do obey him. So I guess the answer is yes.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

along with that there's also the book of Acts which records the gathering for the Eucharist on Sunday, "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.."

They broke bread daily, which means they had a meal. There is nothing about Sunday being a new holy day, a new day of worship, or God’s new Sabbath, one would have to add that to the Text to make this argument, not something I would recommend Prov 30:5-6

Acts 2:48 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,

 

[Soyeong]

Well here we can get into the canon-rabbit hole. If authority derives from what is explicitly taught in Sacred Scripture, then we must determine who has the authority to declare what books are scripture and what books are not scripture.

The same body that had the authority to declare what is scripture and bind that on the Christian church, is the same body with the authority to change the date.

People can look at the reasons for why certain books were canonized while others were not and decided whether they agree without needing to rely on the authority of someone else and even if someone made an authoritative decision about what should be included in Scripture, it wouldn't mean that they had the authority to countermand God.

Well, he said that he will give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, among many other things.

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so Peter did not have the authority to make changes to it, but rather he was given the authority to make rulings about how to correctly obey it.

That's cool. You seem really adverse to admitting that a Christian should have an obligation to worship God (regardless of the particular timing or method) but I'm not quite sure why. I think you would agree that the Lord is worthy to be praised. If the Lord is worthy to be praised does it not logically follow that man should have a natural obligation to worship him?

I suspect that you believe that man has an obligation to worship God, but that your fear is that recognition of that obligation will lead to some sort of formal or legalistic formula that man must follow (he must go to church once a week, he must read the bible once a year, etc.) which is incompatible with your notion of freedom in Christ?

But correct me if I am wrong.

The way to worship the God of Israel is by testifying about who the nature of who He is and what He has done. So we worship God by expressing His holiness, righteousness, goodness, justice, mercy, faithfulness, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control and other aspects of His nature. God's law is His instructions for how to express assets of His nature, so it is His instructions for how to worship Him. For example, our by doing good works in obedience to God's law, we are expressing, experiencing, worshiping, loving, believing in, and testifying about God's goodness, which is why our good works bring glory to Him (Matthew 5:16).

 

[IcyChain]

People can look at the reasons for why certain books were canonized while others were not and decided whether they agree without needing to rely on the authority of someone else and even if someone made an authoritative decision about what should be included in Scripture, it wouldn't mean that they had the authority to countermand God.

I think you are correct here. The argument I made there does not succeed.

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so Peter did not have the authority to make changes to it, but rather he was given the authority to make rulings about how to correctly obey it.

Amen. Such as by ruling that the correct way to obey the moral precept of the third commandment is by worshiping on the day of our Lord's resurrection, for example.

The way to worship the God of Israel is by testifying about who the nature of who He is and what He has done. So we worship God by expressing His holiness, righteousness, goodness, justice, mercy, faithfulness, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control and other aspects of His nature. God's law is His instructions for how to express assets of His nature, so it is His instructions for how to worship Him. For example, our by doing good works in obedience to God's law, we are expressing, experiencing, worshiping, loving, believing in, and testifying about God's goodness, which is why our good works bring glory to Him (Matthew 5:16).

Amen. Another way is the Catholic Mass.

 

[Soyeong]

Amen. Such as by ruling that the correct way to obey the moral precept of the third commandment is by worshiping on the day of our Lord's resurrection, for example.

The fourth command is to keep the 7th day holy and the correct way to obey that moral precept is not by doing something other than keeping the 7th day holy. In Mark 7:6-9, Jesus criticized the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so there is nothing wrong with choosing to follow a tradition of worshiping on Sunday in addition to obeying God's command to keep the 7th day holy, but you should not hypocritically set aside God's command to keep the 7th day holy in order to establish your own tradition. Setting aside the God's command to keep the 7th day holy in order to establish your own tradition of worshiping God on Sunday makes as little sense as setting aside God's command against adultery in order to establish your own tradition of worshiping God on Sunday, so we have no need to set aside any of God's commands in order to establish our own traditions. Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works (Titus 2:14), so setting aside God's commands is the opposite of honoring the resurrection.