Sabbath Keeping and The Gospel

Mercy Shown · Feb 11, 2026

BobRyan said:
1. God said "HE spoke the TEN and added no more" Deut 5
2. It is where we find "honor your faither and mother" being the FIRST commandment with a promise Eph 6:1-2
3. The NEW Covenant writes the LAW on the heart Jer 31:31-34

That is "why" they find God's Law to be important". The NEW Covenant affirms God's Law instead of abolishing it Rom 3:31

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

I agree that God spoke the Ten Words uniquely (Deut 5), that honoring father and mother carries a promise (Eph 6:1–2), and that the new covenant writes God’s law on the heart (Jer 31:31–34). The question, though, is not whether God’s moral will matters but what its purpose is for those of us in Christ and the new covenant.

When Deuteronomy says God “added no more,” it is emphasizing the solemnity of the covenant moment at Sinai, not freezing the covenant in its Mosaic form for all redemptive history. The Ten Commandments were the covenant document of that specific covenant (cf. Ex 34:28 calls them the “words of the covenant”). The new covenant promised in Jeremiah is explicitly said to be “not like the covenant I made with their fathers.” The law written on the heart is not a reissue of stone tablets, but an internal transformation by the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor 3; Rom 8:3–4). The focus shifts from an external code to Spirit-empowered obedience flowing from union with Christ.

When Paul says, “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Rom 3:31), he has just spent three chapters proving that no one is justified by keeping it. Faith upholds the law because Christ fulfills its righteous demands and because the gospel produces genuine love—the true substance of the law (Rom 13:8–10; Gal 5:14). Likewise, 1 Cor 7:19—“keeping the commandments of God”—must be read in context: Paul has just said circumcision (a covenant command) counts for nothing. So he cannot mean strict adherence to the Mosaic code as such; he means obedience that flows from belonging to Christ (cf. Gal 6:2, “the law of Christ”).

The danger in this line of argument is subtle but real: it can shift the center of assurance from Christ’s finished righteousness to our law-keeping. That is where moralism and legalism begin—not in valuing obedience, but in making obedience the defining marker of covenant standing or spiritual security. The New Testament consistently guards against this drift. The law is holy and good, but it cannot justify, secure, or perfect us (Rom 7:12; Gal 3:3). In the new covenant, obedience is fruit, not foundation; evidence, not entrance.

So yes—God’s moral will matters deeply. But under the gospel, the believer’s hope is not that the Ten Commandments remain formally binding as covenant terms; it is that Christ has fulfilled the covenant, borne its curse, and now writes His will on our hearts by the Spirit. When that order is reversed—even slightly—we move from grace into a refined but very real legalism.

Mercy Shown · Feb 11, 2026

BobRyan said:
Does Rom 2:4-16 look like "nothing" to you?

that was my "test for you" to see IF you would allow yourself to actually read Rom 2:4-16 or even address what actually said there in respsonse. Instead of "just saying the number" of the verse...let's actually LOOK at it.

Rom 2:
4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

In those verses we see the active supernatural work of God being opposed by willful choice of sinful men (in the bad case)

Rom 2:
6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

instead of saying "and so then everyone goes to hell" Christ shows that the born again Christian does exactly what He said in Matt 7 "the good tree produces good fruit'. The judgment is neither random nor arbitrary, but rather the result of the willful choice to either accept the drawing convicting power of God the Holy Spirit or by rejecting it.

Clearly you did not want to talk about the details of what is actually in the text of scripture I referenced.

Rom 2: 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,

God supernaturally draws all mankind to Himself (John 12:32) yet the hardened heart of some is to refuse the gospel.

Rom 2:10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

Scripture teaches that the judgment is righteous and just IN BOTH cases

12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

"the DOERS of the Law are justified" according to the text because they obey the Word of God, obedience comes from accepting the work of the Holy Spirit in the life (Rom 8:4-10) and as Rom 2 says , choosing to obey the word of God (the LAW). Heb 8 and Jer 31:31-33 both say that the Law is written on the heart for those under the New Covenant (that is also how Rom 2 ends).

Sooo many details you are not allowing yourself to even look at in the text.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

That is the same "LAW written on the heart" that we see at the end of Rom 2, we see in Jer 31:31-34 New Covenant and in Heb 8.

The Law that says "do not covet" Rom 7 and also 'honor your father and mother" Eph 6:1-2

It is the Law of God, God's Commandments, the Commandments of God that we see in Moses' writings

Deut 6:5 "LOVE GOD with all your heart"
Lev 19:18 "LOVE your neighbor as yourself"

as quoted verbatim by Christ in Matt 22

And Rom 2 says the future judgment proceeds along the very lines Paul has outlined for the reader in Rom 2:4-16

Rom 2:16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Romans 2 absolutely teaches that God’s judgment is righteous, impartial, and according to works. No one disputes that. The question is why Paul says this here. In the flow of Romans 1–3, Paul is not describing how people attain eternal life by Spirit-enabled law-keeping; he is leveling the ground so that “every mouth may be stopped” (Rom 3:19). If judgment is truly according to deeds, and if the standard is persevering, flawless good (2:7, 13), then the conclusion Paul draws is not “some succeed,” but “there is none righteous” (3:10) and “by works of the law no flesh will be justified” (3:20).

When Paul says “the doers of the Law will be justified” (2:13), he is stating a principle of divine justice: perfect obedience would justify. But Romans 3 and 7 make clear that fallen humanity does not actually achieve that standard. Romans 8:4 does not reintroduce justification by law-keeping; it describes the result of life in the Spirit for those already justified in Christ (Rom 8:1). Obedience is fruit, not the basis of acceptance. That distinction is crucial.

Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 speak of the law written on the heart, but in the New Covenant this is tied to the once-for-all forgiveness of sins (Jer 31:34) and Christ’s superior priesthood. The internalized law is the Spirit’s transformative work in those already reconciled—not a new covenant mechanism for achieving justification through commandment-keeping. Paul himself says circumcision and uncircumcision (both Mosaic commands) count for nothing, but “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6).

The subtle danger here is moralism: shifting assurance from Christ’s finished righteousness (Rom 3:21–26; 5:1) to the degree of our obedience under the Spirit. Yes, God draws; yes, hearts respond or resist; yes, judgment is just. But in Romans, works function as evidence at judgment, not as the ground of justification. Paul’s “gospel” (2:16) climaxes in this: righteousness is given apart from the Law, through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

Obedience matters deeply. It is necessary as fruit. But once obedience becomes the decisive factor securing eternal life, we have quietly moved from grace back to law—even if we call it Spirit-enabled law. Romans will not allow that shift.

BobRyan · Feb 11, 2026

Mercy Shown said:
Isaiah 66:23 certainly deserves careful attention, but it is not self-evident that the prophet is simply reinstating the weekly Sabbath

1. Sabbath was not abolished in Isaiah's day so his readers would have no "REinstating" agenda insert' or desire to change the text in the way you suggests. I suspect most of us can see that.

Mercy Shown said:
as a binding ordinance for all nations in the new creation.

The text itself mentions Sabbath for all mankind ... we can't edit that part out either

Gen 2:2-3 Sabbath made a holy day, binding obligation, sanctified "made holy" just as we see in Ex 20. And in Gen 2 it is also "all mankind"
Just as Christ affirms in Mark 2:27 "made FOR mankind".

Isaiah's readers had no reason to bend the text as if "hey that cant be the actual Sabbath of Gen 2 and Ex 20"

Mercy Shown said:
Similarly, Isaiah 56:3–7 shows that Gentiles who joined themselves to the Lord

Gentiles that chose to worship the one true God are the same in Acts 13 "god fearers" they were physically in the worship services but were not circumcised and did not participate in ceremonies like Passover.

Mercy Shown said:
he allows liberty of conscience regarding the observance of days (Rom 14:5–6).

no mention of Sabbath in Rom 14.

He is speaking of the Lev 23 annual holy days where "one man observes one ABOVE the others while another observes them all"

Mercy Shown said:
Jesus’ statement that “the Sabbath was made for mankind” (Mark 2:27) highlights its beneficent purpose

and scope.

Just as Christ said "mankind shall not live by bread alone".

Mercy Shown said:
So the question is not whether the Sabbath was good, gracious, or even universal in scope

Then we don't need to try to get mankind out of Is 66 or the actual Sabbath out of Is 66:23 ... so?? that was a red herring?

Mercy Shown said:
under the old covenant—it clearly was a gift.

And Jer 31:31-34 NEW Covenant -- ALSO made "with the house of Israel and house of Judah"

So also in Heb 8

Mercy Shown said:
The question is whether, in light of Christ’s fulfillment and the new covenant, it continues as a binding

all the major confessions of faith in Christianity affirm that they CONTINUE

D.L. Moody in his sermon on the TEN Commandments
C.,H, Spurgeon
Baptist Confession of Faith chpt19
Westminster Confession of Faith chpt 19
Catholic Dies Domini on the Sabbath still for mankind
all the Bible Sabbath keeping Christian groups including about 24 million Adventists

Mercy Shown said:
sign in the same way. That requires weighing the whole counsel of Scripture, not a single prophetic text in isolation.

My argument has never been "just one prophetic text" and I think we both know it.

Mercy Shown · Feb 11, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
I understand your concerns but let me connect the dots for my reasoning ...

This is the context of Romans 14, said in the very first verse
Rom14:1

Paul is not arguing over settled matters, like Jesus who is God used interchangeably the commandment of God quoting from the Ten Commandments calling it the word of God. And laying aside the commandment of God invalidates the word of God so in doing so how harmful that is to those who teach and follow this teaching Mat15:3-14

Mat 15:3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves also break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ From the Ten Commandments
Mat 15:6 he is not to honor his father or mother.’ And by this you have invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Mat 7:13 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of me
13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Exo 20:1 And God spoke all these words, saying…”

These “words” are the Ten Commandments.

The commandments of God Jesus used interchangeably with the Word of God. Wow, can you imagine making the word of God of no effect though traditions of man. That's pretty serious in my mind. Jesus said it was
"in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men". The apostles spoke of this as well Col2:8

“These words the LORD spoke… and He added no more.
And He wrote them on two tablets of stone." Deut5:22

The Ten Commandments are explicitly called “the words” God spoke, and nothing else was added.

The Hebrew phrase is עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים — Aseret haDvarim
Meaning: The Ten Words.

The Ten Commandments is the Ten Words of God which Jesus called the word of God.

Is Paul saying the word or commandment of God is a doubtful disputation? He taught what matters is keeping the commandments of God 1Cor7:19 which of course includes the 4th commandment. Doubt comes from the spirit in the garden, not taught by Jesus or the apostles.

Just because man has separated this one commandment from God's Ten Words that God Himself placed together in a unit of Ten Deut4:13, personally wrote Exo31:18 and said no editing Deut4:2 Ecc3:14 Mat5:18-19 Rev22:18-19 Paul was not the corrector of God He was His servant. People keep placing him above God, not something even Paul did, he would probably be horrified what people have done to his writings. There is a serious warning about it in Scripture so if we can't duplicate our understanding of what we think Paul is saying with what Jesus taught, I would tread lightly, but that of course is up to the individual to do so or not. I would hate to be in the position when Jesus comes where something God told us to Remember and keep holy, that He personally said was made for us, that we invalidate His word or lay it aside as to say no Lord thats not for me ( for instead something He said is doing evil Neh13:17 Isa 56:2 Mar 3:4)because we followed what man was doing instead. I do not beleive this is a refection of what faith is in God.

Isn't that what one is doing when they say we do not have to keep the Sabbath holy, we can choose another day to our liking what man esteems over what God commanded?

Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Paul was never debating if one should obey or not obey a direct commandment from the Lord thy God on the day GOD esteemed in clear easy to understand Scripture that was even written by God Himself. How much more does God need to do in order for one to believe Him at His word? Mind you just by speaking, He made it so. Psa 33:9-11 How powerful God’s Word is and how insignifiant mans word is in comparison.

Exo20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Isa 58:13 “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath,
From doing your pleasure on My holy day,
And call the Sabbath a delight,
The holy day of the Lord honorable,
And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways,
Nor finding your own pleasure,
Nor speaking your own words,

Eze 22:26 Her priests have [g]violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them

To claim God never esteemed one day above another is not being honest with the Text. God Himself says He does not change. Jesus is LORD of the Sabbath day, not Lord of the first day. God wrote and spoke on this matter- its settled Psa119:89 its not a doubtful disputation, its not something that man can esteem above the holy day of the LORD - God could not have been more clear on this matter -its not up for debate or it shouldn't be if we are to serve Him Isa56:6. Why the Sabbath is not mentioned once in all of Romans 14 because its not about the Sabbath or debating if they should obey or not obey one of God's commandments.

That's good to know.

The main problem with this reasoning is that it assumes the Ten Commandments, as given at Sinai, function in exactly the same covenantal way after Christ as they did before Him. Yes, God spoke the Ten Words uniquely, and yes, they are called “the words of the covenant” (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 5:22). But that is precisely the point—they were the covenant document of the Mosaic covenant. Jeremiah 31 explicitly says the New Covenant will be “not like the covenant” made at Sinai. God does not change in His character, but covenants can and do change in administration. We no longer offer animal sacrifices, not because God’s Word failed, but because it was fulfilled in Christ. The question is not whether God’s Word matters; it is how it functions after fulfillment.

Romans 14 must be read in that light. Paul says some esteem one day above another while others esteem every day alike, and he allows liberty without rebuke (Rom. 14:5). If he were speaking about murder or adultery, he would never say, “Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.” That tells us we are dealing with covenant observances—like food laws and special days—not timeless moral evils. This fits with Colossians 2:16–17, where Paul includes Sabbaths among the shadows pointing to Christ. He does not condemn those who keep them; he forbids judging those who do not. That would be impossible if seventh-day observance were still binding in the same way as at Sinai.

The subtle danger in the argument presented is that it shifts the center of faith from Christ’s finished work to correct observance of a covenant day. That is where legalism begins—not in valuing obedience, but in making a particular commandment the decisive marker of who truly honors God. In Romans, justification rests on union with Christ (Rom. 3:21–26; 8:1), and obedience flows from that relationship. The moral heart of the Law—loving God and neighbor—remains. But the Sabbath as a covenant sign is not treated by the apostles as a binding test of salvation. Romans 14 is not making void the Word of God; it is recognizing that in Christ, the shadow has given way to the substance, and believers are not to divide over matters that no longer define covenant standing.

SabbathBlessings said:
What I mean by this, is we can debate the whole Sunday/Sabbath issue until we are blue in the face. The debate will not be settled here, its not like we can will God to change His mind to our standard- He lifts us up to His, if we allow, I beleive the matter is settled by every thus saith the Lord God repeated saying to keep His Sabbath. I know the majority have chosen another day that is not one of His commandments, was never blessed or sanctified by God, was never kept by Jesus, or the apostles and a 1 time meeting in 30 years at night because Paul was leaving the next morning for a long trip, that says nothing about it being weekly or replacing the Sabbath as if they can edit one of God's commandments, when He plainly said no one can, no man can take away His blessings Num23:10-20 we can only forfeit our own. God will settle this matter in His time. In the meantime, Jesus said to teach others to keep the commandments, not to break the least of these commandments or teach others to break Mat5:19-30 I guess we shall find out soon enough.

I see no debate between sunday keeping or saturday keeping. The debate for me is the judging of those who do not interpret the commandments the same way we do and then demand that anyone disagreeing with their interpretation is rebelling against God.
Observing the Sabbath as a memorial in time, an acknowledgement that God is our creator and recreator; a reminder that he sustains us and noting else and a taste of the rest to come is a fantastic gift. It should be humbling and not ever done from a since of obligation or maintenance of salvation. And if someone honors a different day, it is not in our purview to condescend to them.

Mercy Shown · Feb 11, 2026

BobRyan said:
1. Sabbath was not abolished in Isaiah's day so his readers would have no "REinstating" agenda insert' or desire to change the text in the way you suggests. I suspect most of us can see that.

The text itself mentions Sabbath for all mankind ... we can't edit that part out either

Gen 2:2-3 Sabbath made a holy day, binding obligation, sanctified "made holy" just as we see in Ex 20. And in Gen 2 it is also "all mankind"
Just as Christ affirms in Mark 2:27 "made FOR mankind".

Isaiah's readers had no reason to bend the text as if "hey that cant be the actual Sabbath of Gen 2 and Ex 20"

Gentiles that chose to worship the one true God are the same in Acts 13 "god fearers" they were physically in the worship services but were not circumcised and did not participate in ceremonies like Passover.

no mention of Sabbath in Rom 14.

He is speaking of the Lev 23 annual holy days where "one man observes one ABOVE the others while another observes them all"

and scope.

Just as Christ said "mankind shall not live by bread alone".

Then we don't need to try to get mankind out of Is 66 or the actual Sabbath out of Is 66:23 ... so?? that was a red herring?

And Jer 31:31-34 NEW Covenant -- ALSO made "with the house of Israel and house of Judah"

So also in Heb 8

all the major confessions of faith in Christianity affirm that they CONTINUE

D.L. Moody in his sermon on the TEN Commandments
C.,H, Spurgeon
Baptist Confession of Faith chpt19
Westminster Confession of Faith chpt 19
Catholic Dies Domini on the Sabbath still for mankind
all the Bible Sabbath keeping Christian groups including about 24 million Adventists

My argument has never been "just one prophetic text" and I think we both know it.

You used an unfortunate example by referring to Is 66. I think any reasonable reader of that chapter would recognise it as highly symbolic. Unless you think we will go out for Sabbath strolls among the dead bodies. (Of course I do not believe you think that.)

BobRyan · Feb 11, 2026

Mercy Shown said:
I agree that God spoke the Ten Words uniquely (Deut 5), that honoring father and mother carries a promise (Eph 6:1–2), and that the new covenant writes God’s law on the heart (Jer 31:31–34). The question, though, is not whether God’s moral will matters but what its purpose is for those of us in Christ and the new covenant.

When Deuteronomy says God “added no more,” it is emphasizing the solemnity of the covenant moment

actually the text says in chapters 4 and 5 it is an explicit reference to the TEN saying "He added no more"
only they were written with His finger
only they were in stone
only they were place inside the ark of the covenant

This means that the term "My Law" in the New Covenant text of Jer 31:31-34 is first and foremost inclusive of the TEN
That means James 2 "to break one is to break them all" is first and foremost a reference to the TEN

Mercy Shown said:
. The new covenant promised in Jeremiah is explicitly said to be “not like the covenant I made with their fathers.”

Same Law "My Law" but "Written on the heart" in the NEW Covenant of Jer 31

Mercy Shown said:
The law written on the heart is not a reissue of stone tablets

turns out... it remains a sin to take God's name in vain.

All Ten written on the heart "and He added no more" meaning that the UNIT of LAW of the TEN is always included in the phrase "my Law" when God is speaking.

This is something so glaringly obvious that is not just the Bible Sabbath groups that admit to it, but all Christian confessions of faith.

Large areas of agreement do exist between Bible Sabbath keeping groups and Sunday groups

1. If a church posted on its sign "IT IS NOT A SIN TO BREAK THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" a lot of Christian members of that church would complain and it would not matter if the church was keeping Sunday or the Bible Sabbath as given to Adam. 2. A lot of children in both Sunday School classes and...

www.christianforums.com

This is not even a tiny bit confusing

Mercy Shown said:
When Paul says, “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Rom 3:31)

NAS "on the contrary WE ESTABLISH the LAW" and Rom 7 makes it clear he is including the TEN where we find "Do not covet"

Mercy Shown said:
, he has just spent three chapters proving that no one is justified by keeping it

True. But there is no such thing as a "justified by works gospel" in the OT followed by grace. Rather as Gal 3:8 says "The GOSPEL as preached to ABRAHAM" it is fully OLD testament.

It is by that one and only gospel that both Moses and Elijah stand in glory with Christ in Matt 17. Hint no one gets to heaven under your "salvation by works" idea. Not even Moses.

Mercy Shown said:
1 Cor 7:19—“keeping the commandments of God”—must be read in context: Paul has just said circumcision (a covenant command) counts for nothing.

indeed for the ceremonial law. But 1 Cor 7:19 'what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" is not a funny way to say "it is now ok to covet and take God's name in vain".

This is not even a little bit confusing.
No wonder all the Christian Confessions affirm it

Mercy Shown said:
So he cannot mean strict adherence to the Mosaic code

Mark 7:7-13 Jesus does the very thing you just condemned

Mercy Shown said:
The danger in this line of argument is subtle but real: it can shift the center of assurance from Christ’s finished righteousness to our law-keeping.

that is misdirection.

Not taking God's name in vain "does not shift the center of assurance from Christ’s finished righteousness to our law-keeping" and we all know it. This is not even a little bit confusing.

1 Cor 6 is not Paul's attempt to argue that we are saved by works... while he condemns all who trash the moral law of God.

Mercy Shown said:
The law is holy and good, but it cannot justify,

true. Moses and Elijah stand with Christ in glory in Matt 17, justified by faith. Not at all in rebellion against God's Law. Rather it was written on their heart.

Mercy Shown said:
So yes—God’s moral will matters deeply.

you have that part in line with actual scripture. Many Bible references available for that idea.

Mercy Shown said:
But under the gospel, the believer’s hope is not that the Ten Commandments remain formally binding

They are morally binding "he who is guilty of one is guilty of all" James 2
1 Cor 6 Paul flat out condemns Christians guilty of breaking God's Law
1 John 5:3-4 "This IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments"

"our HOPE" is not that "God's commandments are good" or that "God's commandments can save" ... that is misdirection.
The Gospel writes those commandments on the heart under the New Covenant (as one part of the New Covenant)

Mercy Shown said:
it is that Christ has fulfilled the covenant, borne its curse, and now writes His will on our hearts by the Spirit.

true. That is the ONE Gospel of both OT and NT. That is how Moses and Elijah stand with Christ in glory.

"The LAMB of God slain from THE FOUNDATION of the world"

Mercy Shown said:
When that order is reversed—even slightly—we move from grace into a refined but very real legalism.

your definition of Legalism is "strict obedience to the word of God"... I think you need to rethink that idea.

I argue for "saved by grace through faith" that is not at war with God's word or the Commandments of God.

"The saints KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

pasifika · Feb 11, 2026

BobRyan said:
Moses shows us that the moral law of TEN begin in Gen 2:2-3 and God then shows in Ex 20:11 that the Sabbath did not originate for mankind at Exodus but rather in Gen 2:2-3. Gen 2 is where the Sabbath is made holy and it is given to mankind.

Jesus affirms "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND" Mark 2:27. His statement was not "Sabbath was made just for Jews' read the actual Bible in Mark 2:27

We all have Bibles .. reading what Christ said is just not that difficult.

Is 66:23 "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship"

Is 56:3-7 gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping

In the New covenant you must believe the Gospel in order to uphold the Sabbath Heb 3.

Sure, the Sabbath was made for mankind but you treated as like its "man was made for the Sabbath"..

BNR32FAN · Feb 11, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
Sadly, you cut off the context to Col 2 which has been addressed to you before Asking AI to explain Sunday observance when NT has no such command and than claim "running away" from Exo24:4 which I addressed with you many times, even in the context of this very passage does not have Moses writing the Ten Commandments but God Himself that you never quote

Why do I need to quote scripture about God writing the 10 commandments when I’ve already told you that He wrote the 10 commandments?

BNR32FAN said:
I never said that God didn’t write the Decalogue on the stones what I’m saying is that Moses did in fact write them in the book of the covenant. You’re saying that he didn’t which contradicts Exodus 24:4.

Why is it so hard to believe the both God and Moses wrote down the 10 commandments? God wrote them on the stone tablets and Moses wrote them in the book of the covenant. The fact is that it’s not hard to believe at all and if it didn’t ruin your interpretation of Colossians 2:16 you’d have no problem admitting that fact. I actually came on here today to tell you about a verse that I found that actually makes your interpretation of Isaiah 56:6-7 seem plausible. I think as in the process of gathering context from Hebrews chapters 8-13 when I stumbled across this verse that made me stop and think that it is actually plausible that could will be offering burnt offerings and sacrifices in the new earth so I thought I would share it with you.

“Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭13‬:‭15‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So I don’t think I could rightly say that Isaiah 56:7 has to be referring to sin offerings because it could very well be referring to grain & drinks offerings and worship being the sacrifice. I don’t recall you quoting this verse so I thought it might be of interest to you.

SabbathBlessings · Feb 12, 2026

BNR32FAN said:
Why do I need to quote scripture about God writing the 10 commandments when I’ve already told you that He wrote the 10 commandments?

Why is it so hard to believe the both God and Moses wrote down the 10 commandments? God wrote them on the stone tablets and Moses wrote them in the book of the covenant. The fact is that it’s not hard to believe at all and if it didn’t ruin your interpretation of Colossians 2:16 you’d have no problem admitting that fact.

I never said I do not believe that Moses could have copied and wrote down the Ten Commandments- but its not stated anywhere in Scripture. The emphasis on the Ten Commandments is what God did. Do you think man has the same power as God? That its is just inconsequential what God did, and all focus is instead elevated to man and that's what Paul did? God by just His word spoke and made man. Does man have that power? God came down from heaven and personally spoke to an entire nation He called His people and wrote out His moral standard for mankind. He numbered them by design, they are the law that defines what sin is, why all Ten are under His mercy seat Exo25:21 Exo31:18 Rev15:5 Rev11:19 God doesn't make mistakes Ecc3:14 we do by not fully trusting Him.

God never wrote the handwritten ordinances Paul was quoting, Moses did and the handwriting of ordinances was never referred to as the Ten Commandments that Jesus Himself quoted from and used interchangeably calling it the word of God. The word of God is never referred to as the "handwriting of ordinances"

Mat 15:3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves also break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ From the Ten Commandments
Mat 15:6 he is not to honor his father or mother.’ And by this you have invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

Mat 7:13 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of me
13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

“These words the LORD spoke… and He added no more.
And He wrote them on two tablets of stone." Deut5:22

The Ten Commandments are explicitly called “the words” God spoke, and nothing else was added.

The Hebrew phrase is עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים — Aseret haDvarim
Meaning: The Ten Words.

The Ten Commandments is the Ten Words of God which Jesus called the word of God.

So even if Moses copied what God spoke and personally wrote Exo31:18 would have no affect on the interpretation of Col2:8-17 because Paul was never speaking of the Ten Commandments.

I came across this study today on this topic . Colossians 2:16 - Sabbath or Ceremonial Law

I believe God's word governs man, not the other way around.

BNR32FAN said:
I actually came on here today to tell you about a verse that I found that actually makes your interpretation of Isaiah 56:6-7 seem plausible. I think as in the process of gathering context from Hebrews chapters 8-13 when I stumbled across this verse that made me stop and think that it is actually plausible that could will be offering burnt offerings and sacrifices in the new earth so I thought I would share it with you.

“Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭13‬:‭15‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So I don’t think I could rightly say that Isaiah 56:7 has to be referring to sin offerings because it could very well be referring to grain & drinks offerings and worship being the sacrifice. I don’t recall you quoting this verse so I thought it might be of interest to you.

Amen! Thank you, yes agree, the NT is not about animal sacrifices that were shadows Heb10:1-10 which if we not place any bias in our readings makes Isa 56:6-7 very powerful, spoken by God directly.

Thank you for sharing.

Mercy Shown · Feb 12, 2026

BobRyan said:
actually the text says in chapters 4 and 5 it is an explicit reference to the TEN saying "He added no more"
only they were written with His finger
only they were in stone
only they were place inside the ark of the covenant

This means that the term "My Law" in the New Covenant text of Jer 31:31-34 is first and foremost inclusive of the TEN
That means James 2 "to break one is to break them all" is first and foremost a reference to the TEN

Same Law "My Law" but "Written on the heart" in the NEW Covenant of Jer 31

turns out... it remains a sin to take God's name in vain.

All Ten written on the heart "and He added no more" meaning that the UNIT of LAW of the TEN is always included in the phrase "my Law" when God is speaking.

This is something so glaringly obvious that is not just the Bible Sabbath groups that admit to it, but all Christian confessions of faith.

Large areas of agreement do exist between Bible Sabbath keeping groups and Sunday groups

1. If a church posted on its sign "IT IS NOT A SIN TO BREAK THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" a lot of Christian members of that church would complain and it would not matter if the church was keeping Sunday or the Bible Sabbath as given to Adam. 2. A lot of children in both Sunday School classes and...

www.christianforums.com

This is not even a tiny bit confusing

NAS "on the contrary WE ESTABLISH the LAW" and Rom 7 makes it clear he is including the TEN where we find "Do not covet"

True. But there is no such thing as a "justified by works gospel" in the OT followed by grace. Rather as Gal 3:8 says "The GOSPEL as preached to ABRAHAM" it is fully OLD testament.

It is by that one and only gospel that both Moses and Elijah stand in glory with Christ in Matt 17. Hint no one gets to heaven under your "salvation by works" idea. Not even Moses.

indeed for the ceremonial law. But 1 Cor 7:19 'what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" is not a funny way to say "it is now ok to covet and take God's name in vain".

This is not even a little bit confusing.
No wonder all the Christian Confessions affirm it

Mark 7:7-13 Jesus does the very thing you just condemned

that is misdirection.

Not taking God's name in vain "does not shift the center of assurance from Christ’s finished righteousness to our law-keeping" and we all know it. This is not even a little bit confusing.

1 Cor 6 is not Paul's attempt to argue that we are saved by works... while he condemns all who trash the moral law of God.

true. Moses and Elijah stand with Christ in glory in Matt 17, justified by faith. Not at all in rebellion against God's Law. Rather it was written on their heart.

you have that part in line with actual scripture. Many Bible references available for that idea.

They are morally binding "he who is guilty of one is guilty of all" James 2
1 Cor 6 Paul flat out condemns Christians guilty of breaking God's Law
1 John 5:3-4 "This IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments"

"our HOPE" is not that "God's commandments are good" or that "God's commandments can save" ... that is misdirection.
The Gospel writes those commandments on the heart under the New Covenant (as one part of the New Covenant)

true. That is the ONE Gospel of both OT and NT. That is how Moses and Elijah stand with Christ in glory.

"The LAMB of God slain from THE FOUNDATION of the world"

your definition of Legalism is "strict obedience to the word of God"... I think you need to rethink that idea.

I argue for "saved by grace through faith" that is not at war with God's word or the Commandments of God.

"The saints KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

James 2 does say that breaking one command makes one guilty of all—but his point is the unity of the law as a covenant standard, not the perpetuity of the Mosaic administration. In fact, that argument cuts the other way: if you stand under the law as covenant, you stand under the whole of it (cf. Gal. 5:3). Paul is clear that justification is not by that covenant (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:10–12). When Paul cites “Do not covet” in Romans 7, he is showing the law’s diagnostic power to expose sin, not reestablishing it as the believer’s covenant charter. Likewise, when he says “we establish the law” (Rom. 3:31), he means the gospel upholds the law’s true purpose—revealing sin and pointing to Christ—not that Christians are re-bound to Sinai as a covenant unit.

Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount actually deepens and internalizes the law (“you have heard… but I say to you”), shifting the center from external conformity to heart reality. Paul then summarizes the commandments by saying, “and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Rom. 13:9). Love fulfills the law—not because commandments vanish, but because their moral substance is realized through the Spirit (Gal. 5:14, 22–23). That is different from saying the strict code, as covenant document, is simply transferred unchanged onto the heart.

No orthodox Christian claims it is now acceptable to covet, commit adultery, or take God’s name in vain. The moral will of God remains. The question is covenantal structure, not moral chaos. The subtle danger in the argument presented is that it treats Sabbath observance (and the Sinai code as a unit) as a defining marker of covenant faithfulness. That risks shifting assurance from Christ’s finished righteousness to conformity to a particular covenant form. Legalism is not “strict obedience to God”; it is making obedience to the law the ground or defining proof of justification. The New Testament consistently guards that line.

Revelation 14:12—“those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus”—holds obedience and faith together, but never inverts their order. Faith in Christ is the root; obedience is the fruit. Moses and Elijah stand in glory not because the Sinai code remained their covenant charter, but because the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world secured their righteousness. The law written on the heart under the New Covenant is the Spirit’s work in those already justified—not a reinstallation of the Mosaic covenant as the believer’s rule of standing before God.

BobRyan · Feb 12, 2026

pasifika said:
In the New covenant you must believe the Gospel in order to uphold the Sabbath Heb 3.

Do you see that as a problem? Do you think people should reject the gospel but still keep the Sabbath???

pasifika said:
Sure, the Sabbath was made for mankind

Yes, we believe Jesus in Mark 2:27
And we see Moses and Elijah standing in glory with Christ, before the cross event even happens in Matt 17

pasifika said:
but you treated as like its "man was made for the Sabbath"..

I explicitly stated "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND"...

Do you understand the difference?

SabbathBlessings · Feb 12, 2026

Mercy Shown said:
The main problem with this reasoning is that it assumes the Ten Commandments, as given at Sinai, function in exactly the same covenantal way after Christ as they did before Him. Yes, God spoke the Ten Words uniquely, and yes, they are called “the words of the covenant” (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 5:22). But that is precisely the point—they were the covenant document of the Mosaic covenant. Jeremiah 31 explicitly says the New Covenant will be “not like the covenant” made at Sinai. God does not change in His character, but covenants can and do change in administration. We no longer offer animal sacrifices, not because God’s Word failed, but because it was fulfilled in Christ. The question is not whether God’s Word matters; it is how it functions after fulfillment.

I am not sure if realized what you just did.... again. I quoted Jesus where He plainly taught when we keep man-made traditions over obeying the commandments of God quoting directly from the Ten Commandments, this practice makes the word of God of no value makes our worship to Him in vain and your come back was to use Paul as a way to countermand what Jesus taught in this exact scenario. Its these type of teachings I beleive why we have this very serious warning 2Peter3:16

Mercy Shown said:
Romans 14 must be read in that light. Paul says some esteem one day above another while others esteem every day alike, and he allows liberty without rebuke (Rom. 14:5). If he were speaking about murder or adultery, he would never say, “Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.” That tells us we are dealing with covenant observances—like food laws and special days—not timeless moral evils. This fits with Colossians 2:16–17, where Paul includes Sabbaths among the shadows pointing to Christ. He does not condemn those who keep them; he forbids judging those who do not. That would be impossible if seventh-day observance were still binding in the same way as at Sinai.

Romans 14 doesn't mention the word the Sabbath and it about doubtful disputations what man esteems not the written Testimony of the God of the entire Universe Exo31:18 that Jesus, who is God, did not come to destroy Mat5:17 but to magnify Isa 42:21- place them in our hearts and minds Heb8:10. When did Paul teach to obey him over God?

Col2:16 is not about the seventh day Sabbath, its about the handwriting of ordinances Col2:14KJV that are contrary and against. Moses wrote the handwriting of ordinances 2Chron33:8 that contained the annual sabbaths and feasts days connected to animal sacrifices that the Bible clearly says are the shadows laws and explain why Heb10:1-15 why they were placed besides the ark as a witness against thee Deut31:24-31 not the TEN COMMANDMENTS written by the Holy Spirit of Truth Exo31:18 that is perfect Psa19:7 holy, just and good Rom7:12 that GOD, the Creator who spoke and said the Sabbath was made FOR man, not against man. Mark2:27-28 God said He would not alter His words Psa89:34 not a jot or tittle Mat5:18-19 because who could correct the Holy Spirit of Truth? Certainly not Paul, nor would Paul want to, he himself claimed to be His servant, not corrector Rom1:1 He taught what matters is keeping the commandments of God 1Cor7:19 not lay aside the one commandment God blessed and made holy and instead keep whatever day you want. This is a very sad interpretation that not even Paul did in action or can be duplicated by the words of Jesus Christ our Savior. He taught His Sabbath was not nailed to His Cross Mat24:20 Isa66:22-23.

Mercy Shown said:
The subtle danger in the argument presented is that it shifts the center of faith from Christ’s finished work to correct observance of a covenant day. That is where legalism begins—not in valuing obedience, but in making a particular commandment the decisive marker of who truly honors God. In Romans, justification rests on union with Christ (Rom. 3:21–26; 8:1), and obedience flows from that relationship. The moral heart of the Law—loving God and neighbor—remains. But the Sabbath as a covenant sign is not treated by the apostles as a binding test of salvation. Romans 14 is not making void the Word of God; it is recognizing that in Christ, the shadow has given way to the substance, and believers are not to divide over matters that no longer define covenant standing.

These are your words- God said those who want to join themselves to the LORD, who love and serve Him who keep His Sabbath and tells us to HOLDFAST His covenant Isa 56:6 not to replace man-made traditions over the commandment of God. Can you tell me where GOD who wrote His Testimony not Paul told us we can profane the 4th commandment, anywhere in Scripture and instead now commanded us to keep the first day holy? Jesus taught, not to break or teach others to break the least of these commandments Mat5:19-30 laying aside the commandment of God for mans traditions we make the word of God of no value. God never treated the 4th commandment any different than the other 9 commandments- they all came with the same penalty Rom6:23 and unless we have a conversion in Christ where we change our mind about sin and turn to Jesus who taught if you love Me, keep My commandments- it was Christ who spoke them personally Exo20:1 Exo20:6. God has never been partial with people nor is He will with His laws. James2:8-11 Malachi 2:9 God does not change- He said this Himself. It really comes down to whose words are we going to believe- this is what Jesus taught

Luke 6:46 “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? 47 Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. And when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, and could not shake it, for it was [j]founded on the rock. 49 But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it [k]fell. And the ruin of that house was great.”

He never taught that His apostles would come along and undo everything He taught. Paul came with a serious/salvation warning of misunderstanding him, if we can't duplicate our understanding of his writings with Jesus and is actually teaching against what Jesus taught I think we need to take the warning more serious.

If there is no clear statement from God reversing what He sanctified (Gen 2:3) and commanded (Exo 20:8–11), then appealing to man’s reasoning cannot override divine speech.

That’s the consistent biblical standard:
God’s word governs man — not the other way around.

Mercy Shown said:
I see no debate between sunday keeping or saturday keeping.

The word of God has never been left to the hearts of man. Pro14:12 Jer17:9. You see no difference between obeying one of God's commandments that comes with the power of the blessings and sanctification from the God who spoke just with His voice and made it so Psa 33:6-9 compared to a day God made for for works and labors Exo20:9 never came with the power of God's blessings and sanctification, is not one of the comamndment of God but a mere tradition of man a practice that Jesus Himself could not condemn more Mat15:3-14 Mark 7:7-13 as did the apostles Col2:8.

This reminds me of the teaching in the garden that caused our first parents to fall. Its just a tree, what does a tree matter - its just a day, what does a day matter.

It matters to God,

Eze 22:26 Her priests have [g]violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.

Eze20:15 So I also raised My hand in an oath to them in the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land which I had given them, ‘flowing with milk and honey,’ the glory of all lands, 16 because they despised My judgments and did not walk in My statutes, but profaned My Sabbaths; for their heart went after their idols

Worship according to Jesus is about obedience to God's commandments- what voice are we going to subject ourselves to- God or man.

According to God- His people keep God's commandments, not mans. Rev12:17 Rev14:12 Rev22:14

Mercy Shown said:
The debate for me is the judging of those who do not interpret the commandments the same way we do and then demand that anyone disagreeing with their interpretation is rebelling against God.

Out of context to what to what Paul was referring to.

Mercy Shown said:
Observing the Sabbath as a memorial in time, an acknowledgement that God is our creator and recreator; a reminder that he sustains us and noting else and a taste of the rest to come is a fantastic gift. It should be humbling and not ever done from a since of obligation or maintenance of salvation. And if someone honors a different day, it is not in our purview to condescend to them.

We shouldn't condemn anyone- God's Word should do the cutting Heb4:12, not us, but when we see our brother committing adultery and encourage them, well what difference does it make which women it is, your wife or someone else's, its still a women- its something God condemns 1John3:4 Mat12:48 James2:11-12 Rev11:18-19 just like He does with the 4th commandment. God never isolated and said this one commandment was optional, or pick the day you want. He was very specific Exo20:8-11 Heb4:4, replacing what God said for our own wants, desires and following popular traditions has never worked out well for anyone. Jesus said IF you love Me, keep My commandments- not find reasons why I am wrong or why you can't. Our battle is over who we obey, or serve which voice is one having faith to follow Rom6:16. When Jesus comes back we will have to be accountable for our decisions there will be no more chances to change sides Rev22:11 why He calls on us today if we hear His voice to not harden our heart to rebellion, sin, disobedience and unbelief all used interchangeable. Heb3:7-13

I think we are at a point where we will just have to leave it as agree to disagree and I guess we shall see at His soon return. I wish you well.

BobRyan · Feb 12, 2026

Mercy Shown said:
James 2 does say that breaking one command makes one guilty of all

indeed James says that.

This helps explain why the Christian church condemned "antinomianism" so early in church history

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

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...

www.christianforums.com

Mercy Shown said:
—but his point is the unity of the law

j
indeed

Deut 4 says God "spoke the TEN Commandments"
Deut 5 says "and HE added NO MORE"
God places ONLY THE TEN inside the ark
God wrote ONLY THE TEN on stone.

in Matt 22 Jesus points out that more commandments other than THE TEN are included in the moral law of God

No wonder there is large sections of agreement across Christian Confessions of faith that the TEN are included in the law of God written on the heart.

Large areas of agreement do exist between Bible Sabbath keeping groups and Sunday groups

BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate do still share some points in common: 1. If a church posted on its sign "IT IS NOT A SIN TO BREAK THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" a lot of Christian members of that church would complain and it would not matter if the church was keeping Sunday or the Bible Sabbath as...

www.christianforums.com

Mercy Shown said:
n fact, that argument cuts the other way: if you stand under the law as covenant

The NEW Covenant has the LAW of God known to Jeremiah and his readers written on the heart. There is wide agreement across Christian Confessions of Faith on this obvious Bible detail.

James is writing to Christians. They too agree with James when it comes to the moral law of God where God "Spoke the TEN" and "Added no more"

Mercy Shown said:
Paul is clear that justification is not by that covenant

Everyone agrees that the lost do not become saved by doing good works such as "not taking God's name in vain".

But that is not a funny sort of "condemnation" of the command against taking God's name in vain.

I don't think this is every a tiny bit difficult to see.

Mercy Shown said:
(Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:10–12). When Paul cites “Do not covet” in Romans 7, he is showing the law’s diagnostic power to expose sin

Paul says the Law defines sin, the Law is holy just and good. He says the problem of the sinful nature.

Simply put "born again Christians can choose to obey the commandment against taking God's name in vain and STILL be saved by grace through faith". I fail to see how this concept is difficult to accept, in the least.

Mercy Shown said:
when he says “we establish the law” (Rom. 3:31), he means the gospel upholds the law’s true purpose

indeed. The New Covenant WRITES THAT LAW (known to Jeremiah and his readers to include the Ten that HE spoke and ADDED NO MORE), on the heart via the new birth. As the Covenants of faith affirm , this principle is not OPPOSED to grace and God's Commandments but rather perfectly complies with it.

Mercy Shown said:
—revealing sin and pointing to Christ

Indeed that is the role of the law for the lost, who do not have the law written on the heart.

But for the saved it is integral to their new creation, new nature, written on the heart.

Simply put "We choose obedience" to the Word of God, not rebellion against it.

Mercy Shown said:
—not that Christians are re-bound to Sinai as a covenant unit.

turns out.. it is a sin to take God's name in vain "even for a Christian"

This concept is just not that hard.

Mercy Shown said:
Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount actually deepens and internalizes the law (“you have heard… but I say to you”),

yep. Rather that DELETING His TEN commandments, He expands them. Gospel faith does not delete/abolish Christ's TEN commandments written in stone at Sinai, rather it "establishes them" Rom 3:31 as "written on the heart"

Mercy Shown said:
shifting the center from external conformity to heart reality.

external conformity never was salvation. Moses and Elijah stand with Christ in glory, fully saved , before the cross in Matt 17

Mercy Shown said:
Paul then summarizes the commandments by saying, “and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Rom. 13:9). Love fulfills the law

Matt 22 Jesus admits that the two commandments of Moses are the foundation for ALL of SCRIPTURE (the LAW and the prophets) and the Jews of Christ day fully agreed. IN fact that Pharisees note that this answer silenced the Sadducees.

Bible details matter.

Mercy Shown said:
—not because commandments vanish, but because their moral substance is realized through the Spirit (Gal. 5:14, 22–23). That is different from saying the strict code, as covenant document, is simply transferred unchanged onto the heart.

Matt 5 shows that it includes the strict code and goes even farther as opposed to 'ignore that thing about not taking God's name in vain, after literal strict obedience does not matter. You can get by with taking God's name in vain if you find it convenient to do so"

So yeah when written on the heart it most certainly includes literally "NOT taking God's name in vain'

I don't see how this is even a tiny bit difficult to accept

Mercy Shown said:
No orthodox Christian claims it is now acceptable to covet, commit adultery, or take God’s name in vain.

It appears they do not mind if it is literally strictly obeyed. They do not regard God's Commandments as opposed to His Gospel. JUST as the Confessions of faith, section 19, affirm (Westminster, and Baptist confessions)

Mercy Shown said:
The moral will of God remains.

And He did us the favor of telling us about it, even writing it in stone in case someone got confused and that His commandments had changed or were edited.

Mercy Shown said:
The subtle danger in the argument presented is that it treats Sabbath observance (and the Sinai code as a unit)

"He spoke the TEN Commandments" Deut 4 ... "And ADDED no more' Deut 5. Is God getting into "subtle danger".
Take it up with Him. I just read scripture, I don't author it and I don't critique the Author

Mercy Shown said:
That risks shifting assurance from Christ’s finished righteousness to conformity

The idea that knowing that God commands us not to take God's name in vain, "risks shifting assurance from Christ's finished work" us nonsense.

Christ IS the one speaking that commandment according to Paul in Heb 8.

Please be serious.

Mercy Shown said:
Legalism is not “strict obedience to God”;

You are stepping out on a limb, that is a bold step. Thanks for doing that.

We can strictly obey the Word of God, the Commandments of God, without offending , insulting, rejecting God or His Gospel.

"IF you LOVE Me KEEP my commandments" John 14:15 rather than "BEWARE of keeping My commandments because then you will not love Me"

I think all Christians can agree. This just isn't that hard.

Mercy Shown said:
it is making obedience to the law the ground or defining proof of justification.

Jesus said in Matt 7 that "the GOOD tree produces GOOD fruit" defined as conforming to the WORD the commandment of God in Matt 7. As Jesus Himself defined it.

Paul and James both make the point you just condemned. James does it in chapter 2, and Paul does it in Rom 2.

Mercy Shown said:
Revelation 14:12—“those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus”

"here is the PATIENCE of the SAINTS, here are they who KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

WHERE "The first commandment WITH a promise, is Honor your father and mother" Eph 6;1-2
It includes the TEN having "do not Covet" in the unit of Ten according to Paul in Rom 7.

Mercy Shown said:
—holds obedience and faith together, but never inverts their order.

True. But whoever made up the idea that if one actually stops taking God's name in vain after being saved, they have "inverted the order". That is simply nonsense.

Mercy Shown said:
Faith in Christ is the root; obedience is the fruit.

true. That Christ affirms it in Matt 7 as the preCross fact of salvation. "The Gospel was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8

Mercy Shown said:
Moses and Elijah stand in glory not because the Sinai code remained

not by taking God's name in vain
Not by claiming Christ is wrong in Matt 5 to say the commandments remain until heaven and earth pass away
Not by antinomianism

Mercy Shown said:
because the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world secured their righteousness

yep Gospel, in the OT

Mercy Shown said:
The law written on the heart under the New Covenant is the Spirit’s work in those already justified

True. And they are told to literally not take God's name in vain. God's TEN, unchanged... "and He added no more".
The gospel does not teaching rebellion against the Father's word.

pasifika · Feb 12, 2026

BobRyan said:
Do you see that as a problem? Do you think people should reject the gospel but still keep the Sabbath???

Yes, we believe Jesus in Mark 2:27
And we see Moses and Elijah standing in glory with Christ, before the cross event even happens in Matt 17

I explicitly stated "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND"...

Do you understand the difference?

Sure! Your view of Mark 2:27 of the Sabbath to be the 7th day But it's Not.
The Sabbath there is refers to the "Rest" which found in Christ. It doesn't mean every 7th day, But everyday in Him.

The law (OC) and the Gospel are two different "ways" achieving Righteousness.
Romans 7:6 we serve God in the New Way of the Spirit NOT the Old Way of the letter...

BobRyan · Feb 12, 2026

pasifika said:
In the New covenant you must believe the Gospel in order to uphold the Sabbath Heb 3.

Do you see that as a problem? Do you think people should reject the gospel but still keep the Sabbath???

pasifika said:
Sure, the Sabbath was made for mankind

Yes, we believe Jesus in Mark 2:27
And we see Moses and Elijah standing in glory with Christ, before the cross event even happens in Matt 17

pasifika said:
but you treated as like its "man was made for the Sabbath"..

I explicitly stated "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND"...

Do you understand the difference?
===========

pasifika said:
Sure! Your view of Mark 2:27 of the Sabbath to be the 7th day But it's Not.

in context "it is" that very subject that both Christ and the Jewish leaders are discussing. Context matters.

Everyone listening to Jesus in Mark 2:27 knew what the term "Sabbath" means and in fact they were in the middle of a debate with the disciples about activity on the TEN Commandment Sabbath.

details matter.
context matters

pasifika said:
The Sabbath there is refers to the "Rest" which found in Christ.

neither side in Mark 2 mentioned "The rest found in Christ"

Consider reading the actual text.

pasifika said:
It doesn't mean every 7th day, But everyday in Him.

no text in all of scripture for that one. How do you propose to insert your edit into Mark 2???

pasifika said:
The law (OC) and the Gospel are two different "ways" achieving Righteousness.

so you think that the OT was God's 4000 year long "salvation by works" program for mankind? Seriously??

pasifika said:
Romans 7:6 we serve God in the New Way of the Spirit NOT the Old Way of the letter...

As Rom 7 points out explicitly that is the contrast between lost vs saved and is true in every age of fallen man.

SabbathBlessings · Feb 12, 2026

pasifika said:
Sure! Your view of Mark 2:27 of the Sabbath to be the 7th day But it's Not.
The Sabbath there is refers to the "Rest" which found in Christ. It doesn't mean every 7th day, But everyday in Him.

Can you please post one verse that says the Sabbath is every day?

The Lord of the Sabbath said plainly when the Sabbath day is

Exo20:10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.

The God who made everything used the seventh day and the Sabbath day as interchangeable

Exo 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Not once in all of Scripture did God ever take this back.

The Sabbath-rest is according to the commandment in the NT Luke23:56

Because there is no one who can correct God and He makes no mistakes. Psa19:7 Rom7:12

pasifika said:
The law (OC) and the Gospel are two different "ways" achieving Righteousness.
Romans 7:6 we serve God in the New Way of the Spirit NOT the Old Way of the letter...

That's right the letter of law calls for death if we break God's laws even in the NT Rom6:23 1John3:4 James2:11 Rom7:7

If we are submitting to the Spirit through Christ and abiding in Him, He enables His NC believers to keep the laws that He wrote in the hearts and minds of His NC believers John14:15-18 John15:4-10 Heb8:10 sadly many never enter through faith because they have harden their hearts Heb3:7-19 and won't subject themselves to the law of God Rom8:7-8

Hentenza · Feb 12, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
Can you please post one verse that says the Sabbath is every day?

“For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; and again in this passage, “They certainly shall not enter My rest.” Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who previously had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, “Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.””
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4‬:‭4‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Hebrews 4:6-7 (NASB2020) - Therefore, since it remains for som | YouVersion

Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who previously had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through

bible.com

“Today” is everyday. And no is not simply about hardening our hearts since it is talking about the rest that some still need to enter.

SabbathBlessings · Feb 12, 2026

“For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; and again in this passage, “They certainly shall not enter My rest.” Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who previously had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, “Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.””
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4‬:‭4‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Hebrews 4:6-7 (NASB2020) - Therefore, since it remains for som | YouVersion

Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who previously had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through

bible.com

“Today” is everyday. And no is not simply about hardening our hearts since it is talking about the rest that some still need to enter.

Without editing the Text where does it say

“Today” is everyday.

The Text you quoted says this:

“Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.””

Which is quoting David in Psalms. It doesn't say anywhere Today is the Sabbath or today is everyday- the only way to do that is to cut and paste Scripture together which we could literally make the Bible say anything at that point and why even bother because its no longer God's words, just mans.

pasifika · Feb 12, 2026

BobRyan said:
Do you see that as a problem? Do you think people should reject the gospel but still keep the Sabbath???

Yes, we believe Jesus in Mark 2:27
And we see Moses and Elijah standing in glory with Christ, before the cross event even happens in Matt 17

I explicitly stated "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND"...

Do you understand the difference?
===========

in context "it is". Everyone listening to Jesus in Mark 2:27 knew what the term "Sabbath" means and in fact they were in the middle of a debate with the disciples about activity on the TEN Commandment Sabbath.

details matter.
context matters

neither side in Mark 2 mentioned "The rest found in Christ"

Consider reading the actual text.

no text in all of scripture for that one. How do you propose to insert your edit into Mark 2???

so you think that the OT was God's 4000 year long "salvation by works" program for mankind? Seriously??

As Rom 7 points out explicitly that is the contrast between lost vs saved and is true in every age of fallen man.

What the meaning of the word Sabbath?

Hentenza · Feb 12, 2026

SabbathBlessings said:
“For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; and again in this passage, “They certainly shall not enter My rest.” Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who previously had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, “Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.””
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭4‬:‭4‬-‭7‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Hebrews 4:6-7 (NASB2020) - Therefore, since it remains for som | YouVersion

Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who previously had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through

bible.com

Without editing the Text where does it say

Because “today” can be any day.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Sabbath Keeping and The Gospel

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Similar threads