Are Christians to Obey the Law of God/Jesus?

Of course. To teach disobedience to the law of God is teaching lawlessness.

BobRyan said:

As even the pro-sunday Bible scholars admit - the moral law of God defines what sin is .. in both the Old Covenant and the New. It is the"Covenant" that is different - not the moral law of God that defines what sin is and that is written on the heart. The moral law of God known to Jeremiah and his readers, defining what sin is 1 Johnn 3:4 -- exists in both OT and NT and it is part of both the OC and the NC.

Click to expand...

Actually, I agree about keeping the moral laws and the Sabbath on Sundays. The ceremonial laws nobody can keep bec the Jerusalem Temple in no more. This leaves the dietary laws, which people usually discuss.

I assumed that you were advocating for the dietary laws. I'm neither for nor against keeping them.

Andrewn said:

Actually, I agree about keeping the moral laws and the Sabbath

Click to expand...

And of course these pro-Sunday groups would also affirm your views as well including your 'Sunday Sabbath' idea.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

I think a great many Christians on the "Sunday" side of the isle would agree with you BUT notice this.

1. Almost NONE of them show up on this Sabbath discussion board.
2. Almost ALL opposition on this forum to the Sabbath demands opposition to the 4th commandment and in most cases demands opposing all TEN commandments as not being the moral law of God written on the heart.

Now ask yourself this - how is it that the majority of pro-sunday bible scholars agree with you - but none of their followers show up on the Sabbath board even though there is plenty of opposition to the Sabbath and to the TEN Commandments on this board??

How is that happening??

How is it that they are leaving all the defense of the TEN Commandments (including 4th commandment) to those who affirm the 4th commandment statement "the 7th day IS the Sabbath of the LORD (YHWH)" - Ex 20:10 ??

The fact is they are part of our own group - affirming all TEN of the TEN Commandments. How can we get more participation on this forum from them?

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

What that means is that on almost every one of these threads your agreement that all TEN of the Ten commandments are included in the moral law of God written on the heart under the Jer 31:31-33 and Heb 8:6-13 "New Covenant" will put you on the same side as the pro-Sabbath posts on this forum.

For example notice this post -- Today at 4:59 PM #92 -- I think you will agree with it.

Here is an example of a thread that you might agree with given your "Sunday Sabbath" POV -- Sep 1, 2019 #1

Vicky gould said:

Hi, I have not tried the podcast I am older not for computer literate where and how do I find the podcast. The biggest problem as you know is Romans 13:4. But the same thing is taught in the call for us to be subject to our slave masters not if they are good but for the Glory it brings to God. David while being pursued by Absalom who sought to kill his father and take his throne was asked if they should go and kill him were told not to by David because it might be an action that was contrary to the Lord’s Will.

Couple quick other takes on the matter if you would indulge a little further. In 1 Samuel 8 Israel, in an apostate condition tells Samuel they want a human king instead of God to rule them. Samuel takes the message and the Lord tells Samuel they have rejected the Lord not Samuel. The Lord gives Samuel an unsurprisingly accurate prophecy of what human government would be like. Ours certainly fits the description. But that is not our concern because God tells us in Daniel 4 I think verse 17 that He, the Lord, raises up the Worst of men” to rule. How can that be? The Lord’s will in all this is to teach men the insanity of not turning to Him and instead trusting in men. If the Lord raises who He wants, sparrow doesn’t fall OT king lifted up, to rule. IMHO we need to pretty sure that God’s will is not for this ruler to do what they do to accomplish His purpose. Do we then do the things that are evil? Daniel always did two things in Babylon he always spoke the truth to Nebby and also served and loved him so that he probably was not converted but to declare to the entire world that Daniel’s God is the one, true God.

Please let me know how to find the podcast, thanks. Great subject of your post. God bless

Click to expand...

I do agree that we are follow civil authorities at least as far as it does not conflict with what God has commanded, nevertheless I think that Romans 13 is speaking about submitting to authorities who serve actively serve God. In Paul's day, they had the authority to administer punishments, some of which he was on the receiving end.

I think that there some intentional contrasts between Saul and David to show that kind of leader that God wants, such as with Saul being a donkey herder, while David was a shepherd. Saul was Benjaminite, who were known for their slings (Judges 20:16), so David doing what Saul should have been doing, but failed to do during his 40 days of testing.

Daniel 4:17 “‘The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of people.’

I don't see this verse as saying that God sets up the worst of men to rule.

Soyeong said:

I do agree that we are follow civil authorities at least as far as it does not conflict with what God has commanded, nevertheless I think that Romans 13 is speaking about submitting to authorities who serve actively serve God. In Paul's day, they had the authority to administer punishments, some of which he was on the receiving end.

I think that there some intentional contrasts between Saul and David to show that kind of leader that God wants, such as with Saul being a donkey herder, while David was a shepherd. Saul was Benjaminite, who were known for their slings (Judges 20:16), so David doing what Saul should have been doing, but failed to do during his 40 days of testing.

Daniel 4:17 “‘The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of people.’

I don't see this verse as saying that God sets up the worst of men to rule.

Click to expand...

In other translations it says words like worst of men, basest of men. Not every leader is evil as we might think of evil look at assortment of kings both in Judah and Israel. In our own lifetime I am sure we have both seen good and bad rulers, politicians bosses and down the line. As we are told the king does not rise or the sparrow fall that He has not allowed it. The sovereignty of God is amazing and not appreciate for how amazing it is. He turns the kings heart whichever way He chooses and never interferes with our free will. The sovereign God who works all things for good with turning men and angels who have no Choi’ce men rebel all the time and His Will is done. The more we can come to know Him as the Sovereign He has shown us He is it makes it a lot easier to trust in all that happens in the world in our lives or any situation happens. I love Job talking about if the earth was to disappear leaving dangling in space yet he feared the Lord. I don’t think He was meaning fear being afraid but an awe of who owns us which translates into stronger faith. Your thoughts please.

Romans 13 is a sensational chapter in Scripture, I feel that way about the entire Bible. You probably know how the Lord used Martin Luther to use the Book of Romans to restore the Doctrine of Grace. It is something that has always caused me to dwell on the One of the stranger events in Scripture that shows just how legalism is so dangerous. Pilate gave the Jews a choice Jesus or Barsabbas and they hate Him and chose Barsabbas. When we understand the added details of what we are shown we see a living breathing prophecy. The Torah abusing leaders chose not Christ as their King they claimed Caesar and then followed cherry on top. They reject Christ once again choosing Barsabbas which means ‘son of the Father’ and he was a murderer and a rebel giving a very interesting picture of when the apostate leaders of Israel will make their last rejection of Christ by taking the murderer and the rebel their king who will be Satan Incarnate. And again following all religious and secular until they conflict with God’s will we can choose to pay the price for not crossing that line.

The contrast between different events, people etc can open new understanding. In the O.T. They are The Feast’s of the Lord” by the N.T. They have become “The Feasts of the Jews.’ Always intrigues when things happen. I mentioned, probably in another thread, how Abram and Sarai after believing God for the Promised Son, the Promised Seed from the Garden. The Lord when changing their names added what in the original language comes from a breathing our and placing in each of them a part of His own name and with this breathing into the Man Abraham and the Woman Sarah the Spirit Of rebirth just as He had breathed Life into Adam. Maybe one of the lessons the Lord expected to have learned and taught of the need to be reborn to enter the Kingdom of heaven. This rebirth of course was taught in many ways the baptism, which was foreshadowed by the crossing of the Red Sea. Going down into death, deep water, passing through to new life as you symbolically are resurrected coming back up. I am in utter awe of our God. Sorry I ramble I will try to cut down but it is so connected and so interprets itself it’s hard to stop.

One quick unrelated thing do you know what Migdal Eder is? In case you don’t it is the Tower of the Flock located in a little town named Bethlehem, “House of Bread’ the lambs for temple sacrifice were raised and the true Passover Lamb was born just where He needed to be born to be our Passover Lamb. There the Bread Of Life was born and placed in a manger where the Passover flock also stayed. The Bread that came down from heaven. Simply amazing. Thanks for bearing with me. I like discussing things with you your passionate, smart and knowledgeable. I’m a lousy speller sorry for any of that. All day tomorrow I will try to answer everything in 1 and a half our less paragraphs. I better get a full night prayer in I probably need a miracle. Enjoyed the podcast when hubby got home and unmuted my iPad. I am getting closer to this century everyday. Good night and thanks for sharing your heart for the Lord.

RexColin said:

I don't observe the Law to get saved, I observe the Law to show love to my creator as he created me to live. The Law of sin and death is not the Law btw. That is the Law given to Adam that stated that if you eat of this tree, you shall surely die (hence sin and death). It was the curse Jesus removed from the Cross so that we might have eternal life with him as those whom he calls his people, his bride, Israel, sons.. Breaking the law is the only way the law of sin and death can have any authority, unless God calls you one of his.

Click to expand...

Showing love by trying to live the very Law, the very Law of which Peter, after being filled with Holy Spirit said:

[Act 15:10 KJV] 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Dare some try to claim that was not a reference to the Law of Moses, they should go to that chapter and read it in context, for the Law of Moses is indeed the topic at hand, as is evidenced in verse 5.

So, the claims that attempted obedience to the Law of Moses is somehow a show of greater love for God than others who do not strive to live by its jots and tittles are actually quite petty. One may as well yell to the world, "My dad can whip your dads!"

One may as well claim that because they observe the feasts and other observances of the Law, they are showing more and better love for God than those who don't, and yet here we are seeing the pettiness of pride moreso than a love for God when some think themselves qualified to force upon others the burden of the Law that Peter himself, as a Jew, decried as being too burdensome for their forefathers and for them.

Was Peter not loving God as much as all of you who think you're trying to live the Law as a show of your love for God? Are we now holding up the scroll of the Law as the measuring stick for who loves God more? Is THIS your testimony for the Gospel? Is that all you have in your arsenal?

Tell you what, I'll do some one-upmanship on the alleged Law followers:

[Mat 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44 KJV] 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. ... 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. ... 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. ... 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: ... 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. ... 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

There. Those things are not written in the Law of Moses, nor were they said before the Law of Moses. What now? Are we going to claim that the idea is to follow the Law of Moses AND what Jesus said? Well, then, He also told a man He had healed to go and offer up the sacrifices according to the Law. I doubt any of you do that. What about wearing garments woven with more than one type of fiber? Hmm. The love of the Law-followers must not be all that worthwhile for them to so flagrantly violate ALL the Law when they are guilty of one point.

Rather than to claim they are haters of God for being guilty of ALL the Law for violation of just one point in the Law, I will take the higher road by saying they are just as guilty of all the Law as all the rest of us who do not strive to live it as they claim they do. We are ALL guilty of sin, and yet justified through the shed blood of Christ Jesus (Yeshua).

Oh, and in case one is going to argue that they are showing MORE love for God by attempted obedience, read Matthew 5 (CORRECTION: Acts 15) again for what it says rather than to pit the word of God against itself. You claim to have considered what ALL scriptue says on the subject, and yet ignore those portions that also add to the totality, and therefore negate your own claims.

Maybe we could dispense with obedience to the Law as a measure of one's alleged love for God, and just say to all others here, "I love God and you all, and want to share with you what a blessing it was to me to have participated in a feast observance with some fellow believers. You all are invited when next we gather for such."

Squabbling over the pettiness of whose got more love for God because they are at least trying to obey the Law of Moses and of Christ more and more is not a measure for who loves God more or less. What I LIVE before you, and how I speak to you is the evidence of my love for God and for you. THAT is what the Lord looks upon. It is what is coming OUT of me and OUT of you that establishes the reality of love.

Jr

God's Word, His Law, His Commandments - say "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
Paul says of that Law that it includes the TEN where "the first commandment with a promise" is the 5th commandment - Eph 6:1-2 and so is still binding on all mankind

Peter never says anything against it... but we do find this..

SwordmanJr said:

Showing love by trying to live the very Law, the very Law of which Peter, after being filled with Holy Spirit said:

[Act 15:10 KJV] 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Click to expand...

Where Peter is speaking of the man-made-tradition mentioned in Acts 15:1-2 - in which some Jewish Christians thought gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved.

Peter condemns man made traditions.

SwordmanJr said:

Dare some try to claim that was not a reference to the Law of Moses,

Click to expand...

It was specific to circumcision - -

Acts 15:1-2
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

context is everything

BobRyan said:

Where Peter is speaking of the man-made-tradition mentioned in Acts 15:1-2 - in which some Jewish Christians thought gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved.

Peter condemns man made traditions.

Click to expand...

How was circumcision burdensome to the forefathers and to the Apostles? Really? Come on!

The context clearly is the Law of Moses, from which the requirement for circumcision was derived.

Recall that I did not say that circumcision was not a part of the context. That was the tipping of the scale in the direction of.....what? Verse 5 lays it all out when specifically addressing the Law of Moes.

You are free to interpret it the way you claimed, but not all of us are in agreement when we can read the clear language for context and scope. However, I'm not sure how you missed the obvious where it's said:

[Act 15:5 KJV] 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.

How did you arrive at the idea that it was ONLY about circumcision? By what authority do you force upon the text that one limitation when BOTH items, one being the parent of the other, are the topic of the context? Can you reveal that to us?

Jr

The Mosaic Law can be divided into three groups of laws — those regulating the government of Israel (civil laws), ceremonial laws, and moral laws. Nobody could apply all these laws since the Maccabees lost their government. For example, Jews were not allowed to kill sinners as required in the Torah. And since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, it has become impossible to follow ceremonial laws. Even before this, sects like the Essenes did not follow these laws and considered the priesthood corrupt.

So, this discussion boils down to circumcision, dietary laws, and the 7th day Sabbath. These distinguish Rabbinic Jews. The first 2 were clearly abrogated by the Jerusalem Council in 70 AD and the 3rd by Christians in the following century.

Of course, it is a good idea to follow ethical laws, but without killing the offenders . After all the Lord said that not a word would be removed from the law.

Andrewn said:

The Mosaic Law can be divided into three groups of laws —....

Click to expand...

The problem with those who think they're more "Law abiding" than us "Gentiles" is that they don't like the concept of divisions within the Law. Never mind that various of the laws dealt with different aspects of life and leadership, they simply don't like it that any of us focus upon those distinctions.

And yet, they seem to think that they are empowered to foist their man-made distinction between the impossibility for keeping of the Law in this life for salvation, and the fact that they cannot point at that same Law and their attempted adherence to it as some sort of barometer for loving God.

It's all about the "letter" rather than the Spirit. Given that none of us could possibly be saved by trying to live the Law, how much credibility is there in trying to use that same level of adherence in relation to a love for God?

Now any one of them can chime in on this, which is fine, but I don't see how anyone can think that they can create from nothing the idea that the attempted keeping of the Law is any measure for one's love for God, given that we ALL fail miserably with the keeping of the Law, which renders legalists guilty of ALL the Law, which would be true of us all were we to claim that we keep the Law. We don't, and they don't, so trying to use it as some sort of contrived measure for love of God is highly suspect.

How does one quantify their love for God in keeping the parts of the Law that they choose for themselves, or are taught by their selected teachers?

Where is that line in the sand that shows they have arrived at the level of love that God is pleased with in their lives to get to the next crown, or whatever they're trying to achieve with their legalistic sounding tirades? Believe me, I get ear-fulls of this kind of stuff from some of my messianic Jewish acquaintances. I have messianic Jewish friends who are not at all n league with this idea that those of us not enacting the feasts and other observances are guilty of anything, or are to be seen as less loving of God than themselves.Many of those folks look upon the FRUIT in the lives of others rather than to ask to what extent we're pursuing obedience to the Law of Moses.

For the record, I'm a firm believer in striving to obey the Lord in every way. The Law that He has written upon our hearts is tantamount to our efforts. It's great to study Torah, and allow that to strengthen what the Lord has written upon our hearts by His own Hand. Yes. I fully agree.

The problem is pointing at the letter as some sort of measure in the face of what is written when it is said that the Lord looks upon the heart, where man looks upon the outward. The vast majority of us have flown on jet aircraft the Law never made allowances for to the letter, and yet we do it.

[Gal 3:2 KJV] 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Jr

SwordmanJr said:

Believe me, I get ear-fulls of this kind of stuff from some of my messianic Jewish acquaintances.

Click to expand...

They deceive themselves into thinking that they're keeping the whole Law by taking Saturdays off and not eating pork. The Lord has destroyed the Temple to make sure they could no longer practice their abominations.

SwordmanJr said:

For the record, I'm a firm believer in striving to obey the Lord in every way.

Click to expand...

Amen.

God's Word, His Law, His Commandments - say "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
Paul says of that Law that it includes the TEN where "the first commandment with a promise" is the 5th commandment - Eph 6:1-2 and so is still binding on all mankind

Peter never says anything against it... but we do find this..

SwordmanJr said:

Showing love by trying to live the very Law, the very Law of which Peter, after being filled with Holy Spirit said:

[Act 15:10 KJV] 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Click to expand...

Where Peter is speaking of the man-made-tradition mentioned in Acts 15:1-2 - in which some Jewish Christians thought gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved.

Peter condemns man made traditions.

SwordmanJr said:

Dare some try to claim that was not a reference to the Law of Moses,

Click to expand...

It was specific to circumcision - -

Acts 15:1-2
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

context is everything

SwordmanJr said:

How was circumcision burdensome to the forefathers and to the Apostles? Really? Come on!

Click to expand...

No part of the word of God is being condemned in Acts 15 - what Peter condemns is the idea of 'man-made-traditions' which is what this is in the case of Acts 15:1-2 -- there was no such command for gentiles in scripture - the Christian Jews were just "making stuff up" and Peter's comment was that the system of "just making-stuff-up" was a burden the Jews could not bear nor could the Apostles

SwordmanJr said:

And yet, they seem to think that they are empowered to foist their man-made distinction between the impossibility for keeping of the Law in this life for salvation, and the fact that they cannot point at that same Law and their attempted adherence to it as some sort of barometer for loving God.

Click to expand...

Paul says that in the case of the lost "they do not submit to the Law of God neither indeed CAN they" Rom 8:4-11

By contrast he says the saints keep it.

IT is the same argument he makes in Romans 2:5-16
And in Rom 3:31
And in 1 Cor 7:19
and in 1 Cor 6
and in Romans 6
and in Romans 13
and John makes that same case in 1 John 5:2-3 and in Rev 14:12
...
(a long list)

"The ONE" Gospel is not only the rule of "saved by grace through faith" Eph 2 it is also the New Covenant promise of the "LAW written on the heart and mind" Jer 31:31-34.

So then... it is still a sin to take God's name in vain -- even for Christians.

Andrewn said:

They deceive themselves into thinking that they're keeping the whole Law by taking Saturdays off and not eating pork. The Lord has destroyed the Temple to make sure they could no longer practice their abominations.

Click to expand...

In relation to the practitioners of the Judeo religion, yes. Those being addressed here are Messianic Jews, or at least, that was my impression.

Jr

SwordmanJr said:

In relation to the practitioners of the Judeo religion, yes. Those being addressed here are Messianic Jews, or at least, that was my impression.

Jr

Click to expand...

Like Moses and Elijah in Matthew 17 -- a great example of "Messianic Jews"

BobRyan said:

God's Word, His Law, His Commandments - say "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
Paul says of that Law that it includes the TEN where "the first commandment with a promise" is the 5th commandment - Eph 6:1-2 and so is still binding on all mankind

Peter never says anything against it... but we do find this..


Where Peter is speaking of the man-made-tradition mentioned in Acts 15:1-2 - in which some Jewish Christians thought gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved.

Peter condemns man made traditions.



It was specific to circumcision - -

Click to expand...

Ok, repeating the same fallacy from previously does not make your case any more valid. An SDA minister here locally tried the same bait-n-switch tactics with me on this same series of verses, and it simply doesn't work.

So, tell us.....what parts of the clarity of God's word do you not understand in the following:

[Act 15:5, 7 KJV] 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses. ... 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

[Act 15:10 KJV] 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

How can anyone miss the obvious clarity of the issues? One was circumcision, AND the other was the Law of Moses.

Circumcision was not a man-made practice because it was FIRST commanded by God Himself:

[Gen 17:11 KJV] 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
[Deu 10:16 KJV] 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
[Deu 30:6 KJV] 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.
[Jos 5:2 KJV] 2 At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.

Circumcision is practiced even today because it affords a higher level of cleanliness for men. Circumcision is therefore not anything akin to a yoke upon anyone. You should really read the text for what it says.

My SDA preacher friend demands TITHES from his followers on the basis of man-made traditions handed down from the Roman Catholic Popes, and yet decries circumcision as a yoke! What nonsense!

I told him to his face that his statements are hypocritical. He was completely unable to show me anywhere in the Bible where the OT tithe EVER had anything to do with monetary wages EARNED by the people, and where the Bible ever stated that monetary wages are a form of increase as defined by the word of God that actually defined increase as ONLY applying to the increase from fields, orchards, vineyards, herds and flocks. He could not show me where any CARPENTER (pound the pulpit for emphasis) was required to hand over every tenth chair, or table, or anything else to the Levites, or even fishermen, every tenth fish, etc.

He seems to have the magical ability tp see other things not there in the text, such as circumcision as allegedly being THE burdensome yoke of which Peter allegedly was speaking as opposed to the whole Law of Moses. Seriously?

I talked with him about how he needed to apply a higher degree of critical thought to his claims that are contrary to the clarity of the language spoken in places like Acts 15. His denials were like listening to a brainwashed man from some cult, and I never considered by SDA friends as being a part of any cultic system of thought. Needless to say, he considered his being ordained as placing him above question by anyone, especially a non-member.

He's choking on his own pride so much that he refuses to see the errors in his own beliefs, simply because he has the title "pastor" attached to his name in the minds and hearts of his followers. The blinders he is wearing from seeing that the Law of Moses was EXACTLY an item of which Peter was addressing. The word AND has meaning, you know, as being inclusive in what the Judaiisers were telling the churches.

Jr

BobRyan said:

God's Word, His Law, His Commandments - say "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
Paul says of that Law that it includes the TEN where "the first commandment with a promise" is the 5th commandment - Eph 6:1-2 and so is still binding on all mankind

Click to expand...

1. I repeat the Bible texts that must be ignored to make the case against them.

SwordmanJr said:

Ok, repeating the same fallacy from previously does not make your case any more valid. An SDA minister here...

Click to expand...

2. Blaming those texts on some SDA minister you encountered once ... is not helping.

SwordmanJr said:

it simply doesn't work.

Click to expand...

Its already working - because you are posting in contrast to the texts and have yet to address a single point raised in them...

I find that "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers

BobRyan said:

Paul says that in the case of the lost "they do not submit to the Law of God neither indeed CAN they" Rom 8:4-11

By contrast he says the saints keep it.

IT is the same argument he makes in Romans 2:5-16
And in Rom 3:31
And in 1 Cor 7:19
and in 1 Cor 6
and in Romans 6
and in Romans 13
and John makes that same case in 1 John 5:2-3 and in Rev 14:12
...
(a long list)
.

Click to expand...

Bible details so incredibly obvious that scholarship on BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate admit to them.

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

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm ALL TEN of the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism

SwordmanJr said:

How can anyone miss the obvious clarity of the issues?

Click to expand...

I find myself asking that same question when it comes to the TEN Commandments

BobRyan said:

Where Peter is speaking of the man-made-tradition mentioned in Acts 15:1-2 - in which some Jewish Christians thought gentiles had to be circumcised to be saved.

Peter condemns man made traditions.
It was specific to circumcision - -

Acts 15:1-2
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

context is everything

No part of the word of God is being condemned in Acts 15 - what Peter condemns is the idea of 'man-made-traditions' which is what this is in the case of Acts 15:1-2 -- there was no such command for gentiles in scripture - the Christian Jews were just "making stuff up" and Peter's comment was that the system of "just making-stuff-up" was a burden the Jews could not bear nor could the Apostles

Click to expand...

And then inexplicably...

SwordmanJr said:

Circumcision was not a man-made practice because it was FIRST commanded by God Himself:

[Gen 17:11 KJV] 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
[Deu 10:16 KJV] 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
[Deu 30:6 KJV] 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.
[Jos 5:2 KJV] 2 At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.

Circumcision is practiced even today because it affords a higher level of cleanliness for men. Circumcision is therefore not anything akin to a yoke upon anyone. You should really read the text for what it says.

Click to expand...

Reading my post carefully you will see that I did not say that circumcision was a man-made-tradition ... I said that the rule of Acts 15:1-2 for gentiles about circumcision and salvation was "totally made up" and that the practice of making-stuff-up is what was being condemned by Peter ...

hint there is no OT command for gentiles to be circumcised in order to be saved -- not in OT or NT - it was something that Christian Jews "made up" ... and Peter is condemning the practice of "making stuff up".

The point remains.

BobRyan said:

1. I repeat the Bible texts that must be ignored to make the case against them.

Click to expand...

Nine of the ten are repeated in the NT as binding upon mankind.

2. Blaming those texts on some SDA minister you encountered once ... is not helping.

Click to expand...

Oh, contrar. No. He is a family friend. We speak all the time together.

Its already working - because you are posting in contrast to the texts and have yet to address a single point raised in them...

Click to expand...

I find that "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers[/QUOTE]

You'll have to elaborate on this, because I did indeed bring up circumcision as a part of it, and showed that Peter was addressing not only circumcision, but also the Law of Moses. THAT is a part of the main topic for this thread that I'm trying to remain consistent with rather than to go off into more rabbit trails.

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm ALL TEN of the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism

Click to expand...

Those men did indeed have much to say about things, but that doesn't mean they were infallible.

[1Jo 2:27 KJV] 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Jr