Antinomianism, definition and a Question "is this you"?

Hentenza · 2025-12-17T09:18:11-0600

SabbathBlessings said:
These appear to be your words, not what Jesus said plainly Mark2:27-28 Isa56:6. Whoever we obey is who we serve. Rom6:16 Why Jesus said to live by His words, not mans and said not to add our words to His. This is telling Him what He says doesn't matter, our words mean more than His.

No. Those are the words of Mark.

Isa. 56:6 is speaking of converted gentiles to Judaism as that was the way to keep His covenant since the old covenant was made with Israel not with the gentiles in general.

Rom. 6:16- keep reading. You are again reading your pet doctrine into scripture.

“But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were entrusted, and after being freed from sin, you became slaves to righteousness.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭6‬:‭17‬-‭18‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Romans 6:17-18 (NASB2020) - But thanks be to God that though yo | YouVersion

But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were entrusted, and after being freed from sin, you became slaves to r

bible.com

How are we freed from sin? Did the Mosaic law give anyone a way to repentance?

SabbathBlessings said:
There is no Scripture that says this

Sure there is but it doesn’t work for you.

SabbathBlessings · 2025-12-17T09:24:16-0600

Hentenza said:
No. Those are the words of Mark.

Isa. 56:6 is speaking of converted gentiles to Judaism as that was the way to keep His covenant since the old covenant was made with Israel not with the gentiles in general.

Where does it say this? This again appears to be your words trying to override what our Lord said plainly. When does EVERYONE mean Jews? Or where does it say only converted Gentiles to Jews? This is your own doctrine, nothing what the Lord spoke. There is a reason we are told not to add our words to His.

Hentenza said:
Rom. 6:16- keep reading

Yes, for those who overcome, not everyone does Mat7:23

Hentenza said:
. You are again reading your pet doctrine into scripture.

“But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were entrusted, and after being freed from sin, you became slaves to righteousness.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭6‬:‭17‬-‭18‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Romans 6:17-18 (NASB2020) - But thanks be to God that though yo | YouVersion

But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were entrusted, and after being freed from sin, you became slaves to r

bible.com

How are we freed from sin? Did the Mosaic law give anyone a way to repentance?

Sure there is but it doesn’t work for you.

I can see why you wanted to change the argument once again. You couldn’t make your initial argument in Mar2:27-28 work without severely editing what Jesus said and instead of correcting our doctrine as we are told 2Tim3:16 just went to the next argument where the is Lord speaking again, and the words you claim He is saying is no where to be found in the Text.

Hentenza · 2025-12-17T10:05:13-0600

SabbathBlessings said:
Where does it say this? This again appears to be your words trying to override what our Lord said plainly. When does EVERYONE mean Jews? Or where does it say only converted Gentiles to Jews? This is your own doctrine, nothing what the Lord spoke. There is a reason we are told not to add our words to His.

Since the law was given to Israel and not the gentiles (Exodus 20:22) then those spoken about in Isaiah 56:6 are indeed converts to Judaism as they dwelled with Israel. Those were the gerim which adopted Israel’s ways include following the law, like Rahab and Ruth.

SabbathBlessings said:
Yes, for those who overcome, not everyone does Mat7:23

And yet:

“Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep listen to My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.””
‭‭John‬ ‭10‬:‭25‬-‭30‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

John 10:25-30 (NASB2020) - Jesus answered them, “I told you, a | YouVersion

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep listen to My v

bible.com

SabbathBlessings said:
I can see why you wanted to change the argument once again. You couldn’t make your initial argument in Mar2:27-28 work without severely editing what Jesus said and instead of correcting our doctrine as we are told 2Tim3:16 just went to the next argument where the is Lord speaking again, and the words you claim He is saying is no where to be found in the Text.

How did I change the argument when I replied to your verse mining? You quoted Rom. 6:16 in an island and ignored what came next. I merely corrected your error. But, of course, you had to accuse me of something to detract from your mistake. That’s typical.

Btw- you never addressed my argument for Mark 2:27-28 but you insist that it doesn’t work. Just because you say so is not evidence.

SabbathBlessings · 2025-12-17T10:20:57-0600

Hentenza said:
Since the law was given to Israel and not the gentiles (Exodus 20:22) then those spoken about in Isaiah 56:6 are indeed converts to Judaism as they dwelled with Israel. Those were the gerim which adopted Israel’s ways include following the law, like Rahab and Ruth.

Just like we are adopted in and part of the promises Gal3:26-29. Israel was never meant to be literal but represented God's people who He called Israel His son Exo4:22, if it was literal that would mean Adam.

Hentenza said:
And yet:

“Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep listen to My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.””
‭‭John‬ ‭10‬:‭25‬-‭30‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

John 10:25-30 (NASB2020) - Jesus answered them, “I told you, a | YouVersion

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep listen to My v

bible.com

And yet you teach that those who follow Jesus do not listen to His words Mark2:27 or follow in His example Luke4:16 1John2:6 or believe His own written and spoken Testimony Exo31:18 that He promised not to alter His words Psa89:23 Deut4:13 why He says to hold fast My covenant Isa56:6 not toss it aside.

Hentenza said:
Btw- you never addressed my argument for Mark 2:27-28 but you insist that it doesn’t work. Just because you say so is not evidence.

How does one address an argument that doesn't exist in Scripture. Trying to reason with someone who thinks their words are the same as God's words, is not fruitful.

This usually goes into the same place, and we are not able to reason together, so I am moving on. God will sort this out soon enough.

Hentenza · 2025-12-17T10:39:02-0600

SabbathBlessings said:
Just like we are adopted in and part of the promises Gal3:26-29. Israel was never meant to be literal but represented God's people who He called Israel His son Exo4:22, if it was literal that would mean Adam.

So the people calling themselves Israel that waited at the bottom of the mountain and that Moses addressed were not Israel?

What is not literal is Exodus 4:22 even though Israel was indeed Gods first born but it does not refer to Adam.

SabbathBlessings said:
And yet you teach that those who follow Jesus do not listen to His words Mark2:27

Nope. Never taught that but you do as you ignore verse 28. You refuse to give up your legalistic ideology.

SabbathBlessings said:
or follow in His example Luke4:16 1John2:6 or believe His own written and spoken Testimony Exo31:18 that He promised not to alter His words Psa89:23 Deut4:13 why He says to hold fast My covenant Isa56:6 not toss it aside.

Already addressed these.

SabbathBlessings said:
How does one address an argument that doesn't exist in Scripture. Trying to reason with someone who thinks their words are the same as God's words, is not fruitful.

Exactly. Your argument is not scriptural. You read your doctrines into the scriptures and then pretend that error works. You need to actually read what the result of Jesus redemptive sacrifice means and what the actual definition and application of justification is.

SabbathBlessings said:
This usually goes into the same place, and we are not able to reason together, so I am moving on. God will sort this out soon enough.

We can’t reason together because you are a hostage to your legalistic doctrines. The Bible is super clear that the law is not part of the new covenant and that Christ nailed it to the cross. But you want believers to return to the law that profits nothing so that they can save themselves and become slaves again.

I know that you are not moving on because you can’t stand it not having the last word. Another trait of legalism.

Hentenza · 2025-12-17T11:20:06-0600

Legalisms is the opposite to Antinomianism and just as destructive if not more. The definition of Legalism is as follows:

FTG’s Expanded Explanation: Legalism treats moral behaviors and obedience to God’s Law as to how you achieve salvation. This leads to a primary emphasis on behavior modification and rarely focuses on heart transformation. Legalism aims to fix someone’s behavior without ever focusing on their heart and is the opposite extreme of another term we’ve defined: Antinomianism. Since people who are antinomian believe that there is no need to obey the Law of God because we are under grace, people who practice legalism believe that keeping religious laws will make them good enough to earn grace. Legalism is practiced by religions which teaches that you must perform certain acts to keep your salvation. Legalism adds human rules to the Law of God. Legalism believes that your good works save you and keep you saved. Legalism knowingly or unknowingly makes your relationship with God a set of religious rules, rather than a desire for obedience out of genuine love for God. Legalism leads to a lifestyle of rule-keeping and outward moralism but does not save your soul.

Theology Terms Explained: “Legalism” — For the Gospel

Legalism treats moral behaviors and obedience to God’s Law as to how you achieve salvation. This leads to a primary emphasis on behavior modification and rarely focuses on heart transformation.

www.forthegospel.org

The SDA church requires strict adherence to parts of the law. The consider those that do not strictly keep the Jewish sabbath to be sinners because they consider the 4th commandment to be strictly a moral commandment. In addition to the sabbath keeping they also keep the dietary laws. A good portion of the SDA adherents become vegetarians because they buy into the error that the early inhabitants of earth only ate veggies and they keep the Mosaic law in relation to prohibited foods like pork or shell fish. They also require a relatively strict lifestyle and dress.

The arguments in the op and other proponents center on the arguments that those for antinomianism would make but that is not what non legalists are arguing but an attempt to show that either one agrees with the legalism of the SDA or one is a heretic. The argument, of course, fails.

BobRyan · 2025-12-17T15:04:47-0600

BobRyan said:
The Bible says to obey the Word of God

1 Cor 7:19 what matters is keeping the Commandments of God
John 14:15 Love Me and KEEP My Commandments
Ex 20:6 Love Me and KEEP My Commandments
Rev 14:12 the saints KEEP the Commandments of God and their faith in Jesus
1 John 5:3 this IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments
Epn 6:1 where the first COMMANDMENT with a promise is "Honor your father and mother"

And the Bible says that the antinomians within the Christian church of the first century objected to that Bible teaching

DamianWarS said:
it shows how much you want it so xonflat every "God's commandment" with the 10

Until you read Eph 6:1 where "the first commandment with a promise is Honor your father and mother" in that still valid unit of TEN
And Rom 13, James 2, Matt 19 ...

DamianWarS said:
1 Cor 7:19 biblically is not referring to the OC.

It is referring to scripture
It is referring to "The Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
Eph 6:1 where "the first commandment with a promise is Honor your father and mother" in that still valid unit of TEN

DamianWarS said:
you're still conflating. "commandment" is ambiguous

Ephesians 6:1-2 is not as difficult to read as you have imagined, as it quotes "Honor your father and mother" , being the FIRST commandment in that still binging set of TEN

DamianWarS said:
and can be defined differently based on context.

Well you keep ignoring Eph 6 no matter how often it is referenced.

DamianWarS said:
for example the context of 1 Cor 7:19 is not the 10 commandments

Sadly you are not following 1 Cor 7 either. In 1 Cor 7 : 19 we see the contrast between moral law such as the "Commandments of God" (where the first commandment with a promise is Honor your father and mother) as compared to ceremonial law (specifically circumcision as stated in the text). The very contrast and compare that your preferences keep wanting to avoid so far.

DamianWarS said:
the first commandment with a promise would invoke a whole lot more than the 10 if you intend to use that to smuggle

Sadly here again you simply dig a hole for your own argument since the TEN are THE unit of Law where "honor your father and mother" are THE FIRST COMMANDMENT with a promise. That is not the case in Genesis or any other place where you may wish to look for God's LAW in scripture and the FIRST commandment WITH A promise is "Honor your father and mother".

You don't even come up with a single alternative that meets the criteria,

Are you imagining to yourself that "we just won't notice"??

You need to make an effort to at least appear to be serious

BobRyan · 2025-12-17T15:10:34-0600

Hentenza said:
Legalisms is the opposite to Antinomianism

fine.

This thread is on Antinomianism.

Are you embracing that POV or do you find a way to reject it?

Hentenza said:
The SDA church requires strict adherence to parts of the law.

Do you read Matt 5 much?

You can't keep posting against the Commandments of God without embracing the OP definition of antinomianism

James 2:10 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

Matt 5:19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

BobRyan · 2025-12-17T15:16:48-0600

Hentenza said:
Since the law was given to Israel and not the gentiles

The fiction that gentiles were given permission to worship false gods, take God's name in vain, covet , commit adultery -- may be some sort of myth in the camp of the antunomians, but the Bible does not affirm it.

By contrast

Mark 2:27 "The Sabbath was made for mankind" (oops! no antinomianism there)
Isaiah 66:23 "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" (another nail in the antinomian POV coffin)

Hentenza said:
(Exodus 20:22) then those spoken about in Isaiah 56:6 are indeed converts to Judaism as they dwelled with Israel.

The OT did not say of gentiles merely living in Israel , made them fully Jewish as it turns out -- they could not participate in the Passover

In the gospels there are a number of references to gentiles living in Israel some of which worshiped the one true God and some who did not. Merely living in the land did not make them Jews.

Hentenza · 2025-12-17T15:17:49-0600

BobRyan said:
fine.

This thread is on Antinomianism.

Are you embracing that POV or do you find a way to reject it?

Do you read Matt 5 much?

You can't keep posting against the Commandments of God without embracing the OP definition of antinomianism

James 2:10 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

Matt 5:19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I addressed it in my post but you, again, ignored it. Do you not have the courage to quote and address my whole post?

Btw- your Strawman continues.

Hentenza · 2025-12-17T15:24:51-0600

BobRyan said:
The fiction that gentiles were given permission to worship false gods, take God's name in vain, covet , commit adultery -- may be some sort of myth in the camp of the antunomians, but the Bible does not affirm it.

Show me where the Mosaic law was given to the gentiles collectively. You keep making the claim but cannot back it up with scripture.

BobRyan said:
By contrast

Mark 2:27 "The Sabbath was made for mankind" (oops! no antinomianism there)
Isaiah 66:23 "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" (another nail in the antinomian POV coffin)

“So the Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.””
‭‭Mark‬ ‭2‬:‭28‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Mark 2:28 (NASB2020) - So the Son of Man is Lord, even of | YouVersion

So the Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.”

bible.com

You forgot this verse again. Remember the “so”.

BobRyan said:
The OT did not say of gentiles merely living in Israel , made them fully Jewish as it turns out -- they could not participate in the Passover

Sure they did. The were call zer tzedek and they could participate in the Passover and any other feast.

BobRyan · 2025-12-17T16:17:37-0600

Hentenza said:
The problem with your premise is the typical fallacy by legalists. Your real argument is if you don’t believe in keeping the Jewish law then you are committing a heresy. The other part of your argument that fails is the part where you ignore that Jesus redemptive sacrifice ushered in a new covenant. A covenant is like a contract and has unique terms.

ok so that is fiction.

Do you have an actual quote from me or an argument that gets beyond wishful thinking on your part??

Hentenza said:
As we have discussed before the non legalist position is that Jesus fulfilled (completed) the 613 commandments

Everyone agrees that Jesus perfectly complied with the moral law and fulfilled the predictions of the ceremonial law.

self described "non legalist" terms not withstanding

Hentenza said:
of the law including the 10 commandments

The TEN are to be complied with by all since moral law is prescriptive. That means that things like "do not take God's name in vain" don't get deleted as soon as the first person does not take God's name in vain.

Here again this is very basic moral law of God 101. Nothing at all complicated about.

But predictive law such as Passover ends as soon as the Lamb God makes His atoning sacrifice.
No news here, it is what we all know to be true.

next.

Hentenza said:
and the dietary laws that your church still follows.

The clean vs unclean distinction that all mankind was working with in Genesis 7 did not end as even Peter in Acts 10 affirms that years after the cross it was still being followed. So we don't condemn Messianic Jews, Adventists etc that admit to what the Bible teaches on that point.

Though I am sure a you say that antinomians would have a problem even with the moral law of God.

Hentenza said:
So does this means that God’s moral law is no longer applicable? Absolutely not

Interesting that we get agreement on something.

Deut 5 says God spoke the Ten words "and added no more"... speaking of the Ten Commandments.

No wonder the Christian confessions of faith admit it as well.

Hentenza said:
. Jesus gave us two love commandments

Jesus gave us the Ten Ex 20, all spoken by Jesus as Hebrews 8 affirms. You keep ignore this detaill
Jesus repeated the Law of Moses in Matt 22
Deut 6:5 Love God with all your heart
Lev 19:18 Love your neighbor as yourself, nothing new there

Jesus said all of scripture is firmly established on those two commands in the Law of Moses

Including the TEN where "the first commandment with a promise" is Honor your father and mother

Hentenza said:
and into them He repeated 9 of the 10 commandments.

hmm. more creative writing on your part?
James 2 comes to mind

Hentenza said:
“Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy
[*]R.C. Sproul
[*]many others as well..

* - 10 as-is or else in edited form”

true.

Hentenza said:
None of these denominations and people believe in the legalism

none of them make your claims about one of God's commandments being deleted.

The point remains

Hentenza · 2025-12-17T17:36:56-0600

BobRyan said:
ok so that is fiction.

Do you have an actual quote from me or an argument that gets beyond wishful thinking on your part??

This is your argument. You accuse others of committing heresy because they don’t believe as you do. You accuse others that not believe like you of ignoring or better yet “deleting” the 10 commandments when that is not the case or the argument. Why did you start this threat? Have you actually found anyone yet that had actually argued that God’s moral law no longer applies?

BobRyan said:
Everyone agrees that Jesus perfectly complied with the moral law and fulfilled the predictions of the ceremonial law.

self described "non legalist" terms not withstanding

The Bible does not say that He only fulfilled the ceremonial law. The Bible plainly states that He fulfilled ALL of the law AND the prophets.

““Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5‬:‭17‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Matthew 5:17 (NASB2020) - “Do not presume that I came to abol | YouVersion

“Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

bible.com

“Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22‬:‭40‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Matthew 22:40 (NASB2020) - Upon these two commandments hang th | YouVersion

Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”

bible.com

BobRyan said:
The TEN are to be complied with by all since moral law is prescriptive. That means that things like "do not take God's name in vain" don't get deleted as soon as the first person does not take God's name in vain.

Here again this is very basic moral law of God 101. Nothing at all complicated about.

But predictive law such as Passover ends as soon as the Lamb God makes His atoning sacrifice.
No news here, it is what we all know to be true.

1. Nothing gets deleted. Stop your drama. Every law was fulfilled all of it.

2. The 10 was prescriptive for Israel but was never given to the gentiles nor is it prescriptive to the Christian church. The 10 commandments were repeated into Jesus two love commandments and the 4th commandment Jesus has full authority and is the Lord of the sabbath. Jesus is our Christian rest.

3. All prescriptive law ended with Jesus sacrifice and ushering of the new covenant.

Your legalistic opinion does not work or have authority over the Christian church.

BobRyan said:
The clean vs unclean distinction that all mankind was working with in Genesis 7 did not end as even Peter in Acts 10 affirms that years after the cross it was still being followed. So we don't condemn Messianic Jews, Adventists etc that admit to what the Bible teaches on that point.

It’s part of your churches legalistic doctrines. The Mosaic laws were nailed to the cross, fulfilled. The NT plainly states that all foods are clean.

Your reading your pet doctrine into scriptures negates your hypothesis of Gen. 7. People back then raised flocks of animals. Secondly, even God preferred Abel’s offering of the first born from his flock than Cain’s offering from the fruit of ground. People ate meat before Gen. 7.

BobRyan said:
Though I am sure a you say that antinomians would have a problem even with the moral law of God.

What? This doesn’t even make sense. Automomians do in fact have a problem with keeping God’s moral law. Did you read your own definition from your OP?

BobRyan said:
Interesting that we get agreement on something.

Let me add what you did not quote and I doubt that we are in agreement. Of course, you never quote my whole post or my context.

“So does this means that God’s moral law is no longer applicable? Absolutely not. Jesus gave us two love commandments and into them He repeated 9 of the 10 commandments. For the 4th commandment Jesus is Lord of the sabbath so the Christian rest is now in Jesus not in a day.”

This is what followed the small out of context part that you quoted, Do we still agree?

Your debating tactics are deplorable.

BobRyan said:
Jesus gave us the Ten Ex 20, all spoken by Jesus as Hebrews 8 affirms. You keep ignore this detaill
Jesus repeated the Law of Moses in Matt 22
Deut 6:5 Love God with all your heart
Lev 19:18 Love your neighbor as yourself, nothing new there

Jesus gave the church two commandments not 10.

““Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22‬:‭36‬-‭40‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Matthew 22:36-40 (NASB2020) - “Teacher, which is the great comman | YouVersion

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ This is the great an

bible.com

The ten hang in the two commandments and so is the rest of the law and the prophets.

BobRyan said:
Jesus said all of scripture is firmly established on those two commands in the Law of Moses

No. The law of Moses is fulfilled on the two commandments as Jesus fulfilled all of the law. You have no scripture to prove your hypothesis.

BobRyan said:
true.

Oh look. Once again removes what I wrote to attempt to prove a point that I refuted. You are bordering on false witness. Let me add it here so you can address it but you will probably ignore it again because it refutes your point fully. Do you have the courage or knowledge to address the below?

“None of these denominations and people believe in the legalism that you and your church believe in. They think of the Ten Commandments just as other mainstream churches do which is as I explained above. Secondly none of these denominations and people keep the Jewish sabbath like you do. All of these denominations and people believe that the sabbath now is Christ resurrection day which is Sunday. Why would anyone in the new covenant want to celebrate a day when Jesus was still in the tomb?”

BobRyan said:
none of them make your claims about one of God's commandments being deleted.

The drama and the Strawman continues. No one had made the argument that anything has been deleted. Do you do that on purpose? Do you do that for effect? Or is that the way your church teaches you?

You really need to learn how to have a proper debate.

BobRyan said:
The point remains

None of your points remain.

BobRyan · 2025-12-17T17:38:29-0600

Hentenza said:
Show me where the Mosaic law was given to the gentiles

ALL MANKIND Mark 2:27
ALL MANKIND Is 66;23
The Sabbath given as a promise to gentiles

Matt 4 MANKIND shall not live by bread alone...

Quoting from the TEN commandments James says
James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

I
Isaiah 56:

3 Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
“The Lord will surely separate me from His people.”
Nor let the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.”

4 For thus says the Lord,

“To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And hold fast My covenant,
5 To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.

6 “Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord,
To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath
And holds fast My covenant;
7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain

Hentenza said:
collectively.

read.

You keep making the claim but cannot back it up with scripture.
read the scriptures pointed out to you (repeatedly pointed out)

Hentenza said:
“So the Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.””
‭‭Mark‬ ‭2‬:‭28‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

True. Because He made mankind in Gen 1 and 2 on the 6th day of Creation week
And He made the Sabbath on day 7 as stated in Gen 2:2-3 and as the Sabbath commandment reminds us in Ex 20:11

Nothing says that after making the Sabbath He waited 4000 years to "become" the Lord of the Sabbath.

That is simply wishful thinking

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

Christ points out the MAKING of both mankind and the Sabbath (Mark 2:27) and SO Christ being the maker of both in Gen 1-2, Christ IS LORD , not "Christ BECAME LORD in Mark 2)

Hentenza · 2025-12-17T18:04:53-0600

BobRyan said:
ALL MANKIND Mark 2:27
ALL MANKIND Is 66;23
The Sabbath given as a promise to gentiles

Nope. None of these verses say that. You continue to read your pet doctrine into scripture. Secondly you are yet to post a verse that shows anyone keeping the sabbath before Moses.

BobRyan said:
Quoting from the TEN commandments James says
James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

Which matches what Paul teaches also but is not what you are reading into it. It is actually quite negative.

“So speak, and so act, as those who are to be judged by the law of freedom. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.”
‭‭James‬ ‭2‬:‭12‬-‭13‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

James 2:12-13 (NASB2020) - So speak, and so act, as those who | YouVersion

So speak, and so act, as those who are to be judged by the law of freedom. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

bible.com

The Mosaic law is NOT the law of freedom. So if you decide to remain on the Mosaic law then you better keep all of it, however, until Jesus no one could so good luck with that.

BobRyan said:
You keep making the claim but cannot back it up with scripture.

I already backed it up but you only post and answer little bits of my posts to you. Go back and reply to my posts properly.

BobRyan said:
read the scriptures pointed out to you (repeatedly pointed out)

Unlike you, I have read and replied to every bit that you have posted. I have addressed every scripture that you have wrongly posted.

BobRyan said:
True. Because He made mankind in Gen 1 and 2 on the 6th day of Creation week
And He made the Sabbath on day 7 as stated in Gen 2:2-3 and as the Sabbath commandment reminds us in Ex 20:11

Read your pet doctrine into scripture much? Let’s start again. Do you know why Mark 2:28 begins with “so”. Let’s start with that simple question,

BobRyan said:
Nothing says that after making the Sabbath He waited 4000 years to "become" the Lord of the Sabbath.

Actually it was only less than 1500 years. Moses wrote the Torah between 1440 to 1400 BCE. Christ fulfilled the law in 33ad. Take out your calculator.

Secondly, Jesus was NOT fully man until His incarnation so now that you know that go back and read Mark 2:27-28 with that understanding. Jesus became the Lord of the sabbath because the sabbath was made for man.

BobRyan said:
That is simply wishful thinking

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

Christ points out the MAKING of both mankind and the Sabbath (Mark 2:27)

Read above and then maybe address it. If you don’t then I’ll post it again for you to address.

BobRyan said:
and SO Christ being the maker of both in Gen 1-2, Christ IS LORD , not "Christ BECAME LORD in Mark 2)

Christ had been Lord, is Lord, and will always be Lord forever. But then that wasn’t the argument was it?

BobRyan · 2025-12-17T19:53:18-0600

Apparently I need to make this very very easy.

Fine , one step at a time

Hentenza said:
No. The law of Moses is fulfilled on the two commandments as Jesus fulfilled all of the law. You have no scripture to prove your hypothesis.

I am beginning to question if you are even reading what you post.

Jesus reminds us all of two commandments from the LAW of Moses in Matt 22. They are:

Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart"

Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself".

(Mark 12:28-31) Luke 12:28 -- The Jews fully agree that this is what happened at the time of Moses' writing. Those commands are foundational as Jesus said, and nothing in the least had changed in that regard, even the Jews agree. You should feel inclined to agree with them ... even nonChristian Jews got the point.

Those commands did not suddenly appear in the first century AD. They were already there at the time Moses wrote them. If this is confusing for you, just go read the texts I have as stated right there, repeatedly given to you. So now you do not need to act as if it is news.

That means whatever those laws fulfilled (in your words) would have been done in Leviticus 4000 years ago.

Moral law (hint: do not take God's name in vain, do not murder) like the TEN Commandments does not get deleted as soon as someone actually refrains from taking God's name in vain. That is not how moral law works. You keep responding as if this obvious detail is somehow confusing for you. That would be nonsensical since even you argue for at least nine out of the actual TEN Commandments of God.

Jesus said that ALL "OF SCRIPTURE" (the LAW AND THE PROPHETS) are fulfilled by those two commandments AND THE JEWS agreed!

Neither of them said "ALL of scripture IS DELETED by these two commandments".

Since this simply oft repeated detail keeps having to be posted to the same flawed suggestion... let's stop right here and find out why you find this part so difficult. There is just a couple details, this should be very easy.

If you can accept this instead of continually circling back so it has to be explained again... we can move to the next part.

BobRyan · 2025-12-17T20:23:24-0600

BobRyan said:
ALL MANKIND Mark 2:27
ALL MANKIND Is 66;23
The Sabbath given as a promise to gentiles

Matt 4 MANKIND shall not live by bread alone... same word "mankind"

Hentenza said:
Nope. None of these verses say that.

So then the problem is your ability to read?

If so, than I think we are getting some place. This is why the easy part keeps getting missed.
Instead of just "not getting it" lets have you stop and show how you are able to dismiss this point without any support at all for your speculation above.

DamianWarS · 2025-12-17T21:34:56-0600

BobRyan said:
Until you read Eph 6:1 where "the first commandment with a promise is Honor your father and mother" in that still valid unit of TEN
And Rom 13, James 2, Matt 19 ...

BobRyan said:
It is referring to scripture
It is referring to "The Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
Eph 6:1 where "the first commandment with a promise is Honor your father and mother" in that still valid unit of TEN

BobRyan said:
Ephesians 6:1-2 is not as difficult to read as you have imagined, as it quotes "Honor your father and mother" , being the FIRST commandment in that still binging set of TEN

BobRyan said:
Well you keep ignoring Eph 6 no matter how often it is referenced.

BobRyan said:
Sadly you are not following 1 Cor 7 either. In 1 Cor 7 : 19 we see the contrast between moral law such as the "Commandments of God" (where the first commandment with a promise is Honor your father and mother) as compared to ceremonial law (specifically circumcision as stated in the text). The very contrast and compare that your preferences keep wanting to avoid so far.

if you intend to smuggle in the entire 10 because Paul says "the first commandment with a promise" then read all that you need to bring in with in. Ex 20-23 is the context of where the 10 are first introduced, along side a bunch of other commandments directly from God and a blood covenant is formed for them all (not a subset)

1 Cor 7:19 has mirror verses in Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15. They all have the same meaning, not "in addition to" and it's meaning is not of the 10, it is a unique inward identiy of the NC found in Christ called the "new creation" which is contrasted with a unique outward identiy of the old which is circumsion. These verse contrast the new and the old, a common theme throughout the NT.

Paul never uses this terminology "moral law" and certainly nowhere in the bible references this as the 10 commandments. These are forced into the text, then swirled around with all your other conflated verses to make this SDA soup that allows to affirm the 10. There's too much manipulation of the text for me to see it as responsible. Be more grounded and critically minded when presenting these verses so I can consider your position more seriously.

BobRyan said:
Sadly here again you simply dig a hole for your own argument since the TEN are THE unit of Law where "honor your father and mother" are THE FIRST COMMANDMENT with a promise. That is not the case in Genesis or any other place where you may wish to look for God's LAW in scripture and the FIRST commandment WITH A promise is "Honor your father and mother".

You don't even come up with a single alternative that meets the criteria,

Are you imagining to yourself that "we just won't notice"??

You need to make an effort to at least appear to be serious

Paul is affirming a specific moral aspect of the 10, reframing it to the NC with the "in the Lord" reference. so it is not a verbatim 5th commandment, but reframed for NC values. We do not get the luxury of a reframed 4th commandment in this passage. The 5th is legal code of the OC, and the penalty was death. Paul does not invoke the legal code. he restestablishes the context as "in the Lord" (hence the reframing). What he does not do is reestablish the legal/moral requirement of keeping the Sabbath (the giant leap you're making). He is also not isolating the 10 as some sort of hierarchy where the 10 operate external to the law (another giant leap you're making). 1-3 are monotheistic claims, 5-10 are moral claims, but the 4 is bit of an oddball and is ritually driven. Contextually (the time of Moses) it still operated as a monotheistic claim to counter pagan practices of the day that were already happening with surrounding cultures, so in this sense the 4th operates as a polemic (as do the entire 10). A polemic that is not universal, as polemics contrast an opposing action and if the opposing action drops out of practice, the polemic's root context and needs to be redefined to have meaning (another reason why the 5th needs to be reframed for it to have continued meaning in the NC). Although the 4th can be practiced freely, its monotheistic claim is abstract and a better when we look to Christ for this model, as it happens, the Sabbath points to Christ by design, so there is nothing random about it. if we are looking to reframe the sabbath in the NC we look to Christ. There is no 4th commandment requirement in the NT, and this is a massive one to leave out. There are scriptures that speak about sabbaths and ritual days that they are not binding to our faith, there are scriptures that tells us that sabbath rest is available to us in this very moment, not a specific day, there are scriptures that tell us the OC is obsolete, there are scriptures that tell us Christ came to fulfill the law but the requirement of the 4 commandments is not there. Sure there is value for obeying your parents, but there is no spoken value for keeping the 4th commandment.

Antinomianism, definition and a Question "is this you"?

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Junior Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Junior Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Junior Member

Junior Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Similar threads