Christianity, the Sabbath, Ten Comm, from Eden onward

SabbathBlessings said:

Ok, I was not trying to misrepresent you. The law that was fulfilled in Christ is not the law of sin and death Paul is releasing us from. The law that is fulfilled in Christ is the law He magnified Isa 42:21 Mat5:17-30 Exo20:6, the law He placed in our hearts and minds that are fulfilled in us Rom8:4 by submitting to His Spirit John14:15-18, the law Paul said in his mind he served Rom7:22 that one that defines what sin is when we break Rom7:7 its the other law that one one is released from, that condemns the sinner that brings one into captivity of sin and death Rom7:23 Rom6:23 if we are not in Christ John15:4-10 John14:15-18

I am OK agreeing to disagree but it seems like a big difference between the law of sin that we are released from versus the law of God that we keep through our love to Him and a response to His Spirit working within us.

Click to expand...

I'm seeing a repeated trend and I would like to stop, slow down and address it. it may seem like semantics, but the differences matter and these definitions needs to be clear up.

Ron 7:6 law is not Rom 7:23 law. the passage is explicit with this. 7:6 law is not of sin (v7), where 7:23 is directly called the law of sin. but you seem to be casually lumping them together conflating them with the law of sin. we first need to establish that the context of v7 addresses the law of v6, and this law is not of sin. and the context of v23 addresses how it explicitly says "I see in my members another law waging war..." and not v6 (hence "another law"). it is called the "law of sin", therefore v6 cannot be addressing the law of sin.

In 7:2–3, what ‘law’ is the married woman ‘bound by’ until death? Is that ‘the law of sin,’ or a legal statute/regime? Whatever that is, that’s the law in view when Paul says ‘released from the law’ in 7:6.

Paul also is not doing the releasing. this is not the first time you've framed it this way and it needs to be addressed.

v6 is:
"But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code."

this does not read as Paul doing the releasing. inclusive first person plural pronounces "we" and "us' are used (and is the same in Greek) Paul is speaking as a recipient not as the authority releaser himself. the action is also lot on law, it is on us as believers from law.

these definitions need to be grounded better. if we cannot agree on the definitions then we cannot have a productive conversation.

DamianWarS said:

I'm seeing a repeated trend and I would like to stop, slow down and address it. it may seem like semantics, but the differences matter and these definitions needs to be clear up.

Ron 7:6 law is not Rom 7:23 law. the passage is explicit with this. 7:6 law is not of sin (v7), where 7:23 is directly called the law of sin. but you seem to be casually lumping them together conflating them with the law of sin. we first need to establish that the context of v7 addresses the law of v6, and this law is not of sin. and the context of v23 addresses how it explicitly says "I see in my members another law waging war..." and not v6 (hence "another law"). it is called the "law of sin", therefore v6 cannot be addressing the law of sin.

In 7:2–3, what ‘law’ is the married woman ‘bound by’ until death? Is that ‘the law of sin,’ or a legal statute/regime? Whatever that is, that’s the law in view when Paul says ‘released from the law’ in 7:6.

Paul also is not doing the releasing. this is not the first time you've framed it this way and it needs to be addressed.

v6 is:
"But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code."

this does not read as Paul doing the releasing. inclusive first person plural pronounces "we" and "us' are used (and is the same in Greek) Paul is speaking as a recipient not as the authority releaser himself. the action is also lot on law, it is on us as believers from law.

these definitions need to be grounded better. if we cannot agree on the definitions then we cannot have a productive conversation.

Click to expand...

By all means if you wish to believe Paul released us from the law that defines sin and is holy, just and good, so we have this to look forward to Heb10:26-30 Rev22:15 instead of being released from the law that is sin and death that condemns, that is the one He fulfilled in us, you are free to believe as you wish. I hope it works out okay for you.

SabbathBlessings said:

By all means if you wish to believe Paul released us from the law that defines sin and is holy, just and good, so we have this to look forward to Heb10:26-30 Rev22:15 instead of being released from the law that is sin and death that condemns, that is the one He fulfilled in us, you are free to believe as you wish. I hope it works out okay for you.

Click to expand...

did you even read the post? Paul doesn't release us from anything. how can we have a productive conversation when you refuse to represent the details accurately.

v6
"But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

v7
What then shall we say? That the law is sin?..."

v23
but I see in my members another law...

1. Paul is not doing the releasing.
2. the law identified in verse 6 is the same law identified in v7. they are in the same immediate context, litterally right next to each other.
3. v23 is "another law" so this is not the law addressed in in v6/v7 this is quite litterally "another..." it's also identified as "the law of sin" where v6/V7 is explicitly not of sin. these cannot be the same.

BobRyan said:

true. The Gospel releases us from the condemnation of God's Law that we justly deserve due to our own willful rebellion

Fulfilled IN US who DO NOT walk after the sinful nature (the flesh) but rather after the Spirit. Rom 8:4-11

Click to expand...

Rom 7:6 (NIV)
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Rom 7:6 (ESV)
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

Rom 7:6 (NASB)
But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Rom 7:6 (KJV)
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Rom 7:6 (Amplified)
But now we have been released from the Law and its penalty, having died [through Christ] to that by which we were held captive, so that we serve [God] in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter [of the Law].

Your contention is that we are released from the penalty of law only, but not the legal code. v6 steers us in a different direction, saying we are "released from law" and no longer serve "in the oldness of the letter" This identifies both code, and penalty and is consistent with the example given earlier of marriage. When we look at the example of marriage Paul opens with in v1 saying "the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives" Paul hasn't actually entered the marriage example; this is the preamble showing already that death releases us from law. This is enough and v6 only shows this with more clarity. Paul takes time to explain his point with the example of marriage, showing us that in a covenant contract of marriage, the conditions that are binding are released upon death. The widow is not free to sleep with whom she chooses after death (that's a strawman), but is free to enter a new marriage covenant without violating the conditions of the old because she is released from it. It is not just condemnation that she is released from, but from the whole covenant as she is no longer bound to that person.

This is the context that builds up v6. So we are released from covenant law, its penalty, and its legal code. This isn't to say we are lawless (that's a strawman) it's to highlight the new covenant agreement. This release is triggered from death through Christ, yes a death of self too, but only enabled through the death of Christ. Is this law the law of sin of v23? no, it explicitly says it's not of sin (v7), and v23 explicitly addresses "another law..."

A confusion is 8:1-2 "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death." so is this the same as v6? it's analogous but is addressing the law of sin mentioned in v23. v6 is covenant law as Paul carefully unpacks with a marriage covenant as an example and explictly says it is not of sin (v7), plus calls it holy, good and just (v12). Paul identifies 3 laws and jumps back and forth. one is covenant law, unmistakably referenced in 1-12. one is the law of sin referenced in the end of ch7 (v23) and another is the law of the Spirit which is the law of the new covenant which is brought up as a contrast. There are other terms like the "law of God" (v22), but law of God is not a 4th clasification, it used to contrast; the ways of God vs the ways of sin.

here is 8:1-3
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For [the law of the Spirit of life] has set you free in Christ Jesus from [the law of sin and death]. 3 For God has done what [the law], weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh

3 verses, 3 laws are identified
the law of Spirit of life = "serve in the new way of the Spirit" (of 7:6)
the law of sin and death = "but I see in my members another law ... making me captive to the law of sin..." (of 7:23)
the law = "the old way of the written code" (of 7:6) or broadly "the law" (7:1,4,5,6,7,etc...) with no qualifier (no "...of sin", "...of the spirit", ...etc) this is addressing covenant law.

God's grace to believers, who are included in the new covenant and have security in Christ with the restoration to Yahweh, releases them from consequences from judgment which the law shows could come. Others are under the judgment still, shown by the law. Christ was showing that commandments require more than what was already being observed, and he was not making less being required by commandments, which really are showing to not go contrary to God's will, which is shown earlier than anything to conflict with those, which must be understood differently, rather than in change in God's will for any. And the rest of Sabbath made possible in Christ is the only Sabbath that could ever be observed rightly, this does not make anything other than the seventh day of each week already understood to be from when the sun sets on Friday, or is known to even if clouds obscure that being seen, to when the sun sets on Saturday, as known the same way. And in Christ it can be observed rightly with true rest in Christ. Whatever any do, the Sabbath is still holy for that, just as God said it is, and it is never called off.

BobRyan said:

And as all Christian confessions of faith affirm,

Click to expand...

What a load of nonsense.

BobRyan said:

Paul explicitly says "what matters is KEEPING the commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

Click to expand...

This is a problem of the referent, which is easily settled when reading its mirror verses Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 (I've brought this up several times). all have the same referent, which must be one context; when you don't comment on Galatians, it feels like you're intentionally ignoring and redirecting it to something Paul never intended, and that's not something I can respect. What I see are canned responses that appear to circumvent context and broadly NT conclusions to promote your own agenda. You're welcome to post verses about "Commandments of God" but you're going to have to unpack that rathing that just pretent what it's really saying is the 10 commandments (which no verse makes that leap)

BobRyan said:

Heads up for readers of this thread: in a world that has Satan as its god ("the god of this world" according to Paul in 2 Cor 4:4), with the sinful nature at war with God's Law according to Rom 8:6-8, you may expect to see "obedience to God's Word" called "legalism", and God's commandments diminished, downsized, deleted.
===========================

Ex 20:
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 a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed THE Sabbath day and made it holy. (Sanctified it)

Gen 2:2-3
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

God's Law, God's Commandments
1. First and foremost refers to the TEN COMMANDMENTS Deut 4:12-13
2. A spoke the Ten "And added no more' Deut 5:22. (only the TEN inside the Ark)

So then: The moral law first and foremost includes the TEN, (whatever else it would include)

1 Cor 6 Paul condemns breaking the TEN
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

where the first commandment with a promise is "honor your father and mother" Eph 6:1-2

Bible-aware Mankind Chooses one of the following as response:
1. Accept God's commandments, affirm and obey (see Rom 8:4-9)
2. Edit God's Commandments via tradition Mark 7:7-13
3. Downsize God's Commandments and ignore James 2
4. Declare God's commandments to be deleted/ended, fully ignoring James 2:4-13 regarding God's Royal LAW

The Bible says:
Gen 2:1-3 the Sabbath made holy, set apart for holy use, dedicated to God
Ex 20:11 the Sabbath began in Eden, when God sanctified it and made it holy, points to Gen 2.
Mark 2:27 the Sabbath made for mankind, not mankind made for the Sabbath
speaks to the making of both, Gen 1-2

7 days of creation week where the only thing made on the 7th day is the Ex 20:11 Sabbath

The majority of Christianity admits to this Bible truth

1. Baptist Confession of faith section 19 the TEN start in Eden (not a downsized nine)
2. D.L. Moody sermon on the TEN -- the Sabbath begins in Eden
3. Westminster confession of faith section 19 all TEN begin in Eden
4. C.H. Spurgeon all TEN from Eden
5. R.C. Sproul Sabbath commandment still valid (though speculated to have been edited in the NT without saying it)
6. Catholic Catechism Sabbath still valid (even those who speculate that it was edited to point to Sunday after the cross)

Gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath blessing Is 56:27
Acts 13 gentiles in synagogue on Sabbath, wait for Jews to leave after hearing the gospel, then ask Paul to schedule more Gospel preaching the "Next Sabbath"
(instead of "tomorrow)

Sabbath kept by all mankind for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth Isaiah 66:23

Jesus condemns editing/downsizing even one of them via man-made tradition Mark 7:7-13
James says to break one , is to break them all James 2;0-13

Click to expand...

AMEN

Hentenza said:

None of which rest on Saturday. All of which celebrate our Lords resurrection on Sunday. None of which declare professed Christian sinners if they rest a few hours later on Sunday. None of which are legalistic.

Strawman. No one has been edited. What an inconvenience for you that Christ died on the cross and resurrected on Sunday and became our sabbath rest. How inconvenient for you that Christ gave us two love commandments that did not include the Jewish sabbath. How inconvenient for you that there isn’t a single verse in the new covenant requiring the Christian to keep the Jewish sabbath. How inconvenient for you that there is absolutely no evidence that anyone kept the sabbath prior to Moses.

Click to expand...

These are both important points - firstly, one cannot reasonably cite the statement of faith of a non-Trinitarian denomination, that in the case of the Calvinists, regards the commandments and whether or not they are kept as irrelevant concerning salvation (since in reformed churches, particularly those adhering to the Westminster Confession and certain related confessions, total depravity is assumed as well as unconditional election and predestination, basically, TULIP, and so salvation is by unconditional election through the sovereign grace and the adherence to those commandments by itself has no bearing on salvation, and in the case of Baptists, in general salvation is regarded as being on the basis of sola fide, but there are many Baptists, including Calvinists, Arminians and also those of … more controversial soteriological models (such as the “Old School Baptists” and “No-Hellers” and other various groups - the thing about Baptists being the very broad range of doctrines one finds, about the only thing all Baptists would probably agree on at present is a rejection of infant baptism.

Additionally it must be stressed that the arguments for not rejecting Sunday worship and for not criticizing non-Sabbatarians (which is really the main issue as I see it) are extremely Scripturally sound, flowing directly from the instruction of Christ our True God to “judge not, lest ye not be judged” and from numerous Scriptural verses, including Mark 16:1-9, Matthew 28:1-19, Luke 24 entire, John 20:1-29, Acts ch. 2 entire, Colossians 2:16 and so on (also Galatians 3:15 - 5:15).