Are Christians to Obey the Law of God/Jesus?

[BobRyan]

We we're talking about the Law, we're really only disagreeing about the Sabbath. This is a rather minor agreement considering the entire Torah has 613 laws. We know that in OT time, the command was to rest on the 7th day / Sabbath.

Which is a very big step in the direction of agreement.

The other step in that direction is that all Ten of the Ten commandments are important for mankind, written on the heart under the new covenant, part of the moral law of God that defines what sin is.

Just that alone resolves about 99% of the threads in this forum area.

 

[BobRyan]

We know that in OT time, the command was to rest on the 7th day / Sabbath. So, there are 3 possibilities for us:

1) Rest on the Sabbath.
2) Rest on Sunday, instead.
3) No day of rest or any day of rest that you can manage as a lot of Christians now advocate.

agreed.

I take position #2 in agreement with Christians of previous generations as noted in your signature line.

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one judge you regarding food, or drink, or in respect of a holy day or new moon or sabbath days. 17 These are shadows of things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Mark 7 says "judge not that you be not judged" - and as you already stated the conditions before the cross for Sabbath keeping were for the 7th day of the week. So that "do not judge" statement in Matt 7 was not changing the day of the week for Sabbath to week-day-1 nor deleting the Sabbath commandment ... as we might all agree.

Now we have Col 2 also arguing that same case for "judge not" -- but it is not saying
"don't eat"
or "don't drink"
or "don't keep Sabbath"

What is more even if one edits the Sabbath to repoint it to week-day-1 instead of the 7th day - they are not taking Col 2 to mean " and don't keep the Sabbath commandment".

Only option 3 in your 3 option list uses Col 2 to say "and by that I mean delete the 4th commandment"

 

[BobRyan]

What both you and I should do is promote Sunday not as a "rest" day (people today cannot understand this concept) but as a "family" day for gathering with family, neighbors, and friends and hopefully worshipping together.

which is fine with me ... and we could agree on that for Tuesday or for Thursday or for week-day-1. I would be fine in either case.

Although no text in the Bible says "select Tuesday as your family day" or "select week-day-1 as your family outing day" -- still we can do that if we wish.

And we can always have a prayer and worship service any day of the week we wish.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not against 7th day Sabbath so long:

1) It is to be understood that Sunday is the day of worship, it's the Lord's Day as called in the NT.

There is no text that I know of in NT or OT that says week day 1 is the weekly day of worship or that week day 1 is the Lord's Day.

I can prove two things that are irrefutable.

1. those who choose to keep the 7th day as the Sabbath among Christians are in the minority.

2. those who claim that there is no Bible text saying that the Lord's Day is week-day-1 or that the Sabbath is changed to point to week-day-1 are in agreement on that one single point with those Christians that keep the 7th day as the Sabbath AND they far outnumber all Protestant groups combined.

(hence a lot of the enthusiasm you see in this forum area for keeping the 7th day as the Sabbath among those with high sola-scriptura-testing focus and affinity because that last detail above would be hugely impacting for them)

2) Saturday rest should not be enforced by law.

Agreed in fact no day should be enforced by law as the day of worship - "religious liberty" would allow all to select whatever day their conscience demanded.

3) People who believe in keeping the Sabbath (Saturday or Sunday) can work together to convince group #3 (above).

agreed. Maybe not fully convince them but at least present the information for it.

 

[Andrewn]

There is no text that I know of in NT or OT that says week day 1 is the weekly day of worship or that week day 1 is the Lord's Day.

Joh 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb while it was still dark and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

Act 20:7 On the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to leave the next day, preached to them and continued his message until midnight.

1Co 16:22 On the first day of the week let every one of you lay in store, as God has prospered him, so that no collections be made when I come.

Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a great voice like a trumpet,

Indisputable patristic support is summarized in the following article:

Lord's Day - Wikipedia

 

[SwordmanJr]

I take position #2 in agreement with Christians of previous generations as noted in your signature line.

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one judge you regarding food, or drink, or in respect of a holy day or new moon or sabbath days. 17 These are shadows of things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

As you've probably already seen. the legalists will try to force a distinction between the days of rest sabbath from the "other" sabbath days. They fixate on commands given to a specific nation, specific peoples at a specific time, under a specific covenant not offered nor commanded of anyone else, as if all those promises pertain to us today, as well as the requirements. They have empowered themselves, by their own authority, to draw a bridge from those times and those requirements, bridged over to us today. It's a magic trick no magician today can possibly match. They ignore the words of the apostles, and charge headlong through the multitude of follies like a bull in a china shop....never minding that they themselves are violating many, many of the Laws in their daily lives. It's all about picking and choosing by way of subjective application.

So, rest assured you will never convince them of what is written throughout ALL of scripture on the subject.

Jr

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
There is no text that I know of in NT or OT that says week day 1 is the weekly day of worship or that week day 1 is the Lord's Day.

Joh 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb while it was still dark and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

ok we agree - Jesus was resurrected on Sunday - first day of the week. No issue with that. The gospels tell us of things that happened on each day of that passion week and also of that following Sunday -- but they do not ask that we setup a seven-day-cycle-observance for each event on its respective day or that any of the events is to be used to update the Sabbath commandment that had pointed to the 7th day.

Act 20:7 On the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to leave the next day, preached to them and continued his message until midnight.

We also agree that there is a one time meeting in Acts 20 as it is the day before Paul is departing. But it is not saying that Paul always departed on week day 2 or that they always met on week-day-1 or that week-day-1 was being called "the Lord's Day" or that the Sabbath commandment was then changed to point to week-day-1

1Co 16:2 On the first day of the week let every one of you lay in store, as God has prospered him, so that no collections be made when I come.

2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. (KJV)

2 On the first day of the week, each of you is to set something aside and save in keeping with how he prospers, so that no collections will need to be made when I come.(HCSB)

Ok so we also agree that on the first day of every week they were to set funds aside for giving at a later time.

But we don't see that week-day-1 was being called "the Lord's Day" or that the Sabbath commandment was then changed to point to week-day-1

Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a great voice like a trumpet,

ok - we agree that John was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day - but the text does not say week-day-1 is the Lord's Day -- in fact no text makes that assignment. We do have "the 7th day is the Sabbath" in the Bible but not "the first day is the Lord's Day"

=======================================
Now one might say "well it is true that the Bible does not actually say that the first day is the LORD's day but this is not something that would occur to someone if they weren't already keeping the 7th day as the Lord's Day -- as the Sabbath".


''The [Roman Catholic] Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of the divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the Seventh-day Adventist is the only consistent Protestant.'' The Catholic Universe Bulletin, August 14, 1942, p. 4.

"Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. "The Day of the Lord" (dies Dominica) was chosen, not from any directions noted in the Scriptures, but from the Church's sense of its own power. The day of resurrection, the day of Pentecost, fifty days later, came on the first day of the week. So this would be the new Sabbath. People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy." Sentinel, Pastor's page, Saint Catherine Catholic Church, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995

“If Protestants would follow the Bible, they would worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church.” Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the Cardinal, in a letter dated February 10, 1920.

“Tradition, not Scripture, is the rock on which the church of Jesus Christ is built.” Adrien Nampon, Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent, p. 157

"The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine law". The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts a vicegerent of God upon earth" Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art. Papa, II, Vol. VI, p. 29.

"When St. Paul repudiated the works of the law, he was not thinking of the Ten Commandments, which are as unchangeable as God Himself is, which God could not change and still remain the infinitely holy God."-Our Sunday Visitor, Oct. 7, I951.

"If we consulted the Bible only, we should still have to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is, Saturday, with the Jews, instead of Sunday; ..." -- A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, by Rev. John Laux M.A., Benzinger Brothers, 1936 edition, Part 1.

"Sunday is a Catholic institution, and... can be defended only on Catholic principles.... From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first." Catholic Press, Aug. 25, 1900

''Reason and sense demand the acceptance of one or the other of these alternatives: either Protestantism and the keeping holy of Saturday, or Catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible.'' John Cardinal Gibbons, The Catholic Mirror, December 23, 1893.


=========================
“The Faith Explained” by Leo J. Trese
The Catholic Commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II
1965 -- first published 1959
(from "The Faith Explained" page 243

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day- which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

“nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholics who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church”

 

[BobRyan]

Indisputable patristic support is summarized in the following article:

Lord's Day - Wikipedia

I believe it is true that a number of sources in some of the centuries following the first century -- provide evidence of a change from the 7th day to the first day of the week.

 

[BobRyan]

As you've probably already seen. the legalists will try to force a distinction between the days of rest sabbath from the "other" sabbath days.

so then you call all these groups "legalists" because they differ with you?

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith

Where they freely admit to the distinction between ceremonial law vs the moral law of God - the TEN... all TEN.

 

[Andrewn]

@BobRyan

The arguments I gave you from Act 20:7, 1Co 16:2, and Col 2:16 show that Christians held their weekly meetings to celebrate the 1st day of the week, which is the Lord's Resurrection Day, rather than the 7th day.

SDA's literalist approach to the subjects of the Sabbath and Soul Sleep, which depends entirely on the OT, sets them apart from orthodox Christianity of the past 2000 years.

 

[BobRyan]

@BobRyan

The arguments I gave you from Act 20:7, 1Co 16:2, and Col 2:16 show that Christians held their weekly meetings to celebrate the 1st day of the week,

Did any of your texts identify a "weekly meeting" on week day 1? I was looking for it - what did I miss?

the 1st day of the week which is the Lord's Resurrection Day,

I agreed with you that the first day of the week is the day of the Lord's resurrection. Did you have a text that said "we meet on the Lord's Resurrection Day?" or "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Resurrection Day"? --- I was looking for it... did I miss it?

SDA's literalist approach to the subjects of the Sabbath and Soul Sleep

Granted that we have differences on a few doctrines besides the Ten Commandments - but specifically on the points I listed in my previous post... I was looking for the "sola scriptura" case that says exactly what you have said --

1. Week day 1 is the Lord's Day
2. The Sabbath commandment now points to week-day-1 instead of the 7th day
3. We meet weekly on week-day-1 (however you want to call the name of it.)
4. From now on we will not use the term week-day-1 but rather "The Lord's Day" to refer to week-day-1... or possibly the "Lord's resurrection Day" to refer to it.

You are responding to this point as if these are just so many inconvenient details that only people who keep the 7th day Sabbath would even notice. I have already pointed out that it is the majority of Christians on Earth that agree with me on this one point.. Resorting to "going after SDA's as a group" does not solve the issue.

You yourself used some of that language in your own responses as if it would be a great help to find that detail in actual scripture. When I point out that what you said is missing -- you can't then solve it by saying that what you said was there -- does not really matter if it is really there or not.

As I said before - the groups with a heavy emphasis on "sola scriptura testing" -- have within them - some folks who would be bothered by not having even one of those key statements - actually in scripture.

Not saying that differences do not exist or that people do not have free will to choose as they wish.

I am saying that not only SDAs but all 7th day keeping groups AND the largest 1st day keeping group (the Catholic Church) all admit that those key details as listed above are missing from scripture.

 

[SwordmanJr]

so then you call all these groups "legalists" because they differ with you?

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith

Only those who constantly and only point to the letter that killeth, which was a burden the forefathers nor the aspostles could bare, as Peter stated.

Act 15:10 KJV - Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:24 KJV - Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

@BobRyan

The arguments I gave you from Act 20:7, 1Co 16:2, and Col 2:16 show that Christians held their weekly meetings to celebrate the 1st day of the week, which is the Lord's Resurrection Day, rather than the 7th day.

SDA's literalist approach to the subjects of the Sabbath and Soul Sleep, which depends entirely on the OT, sets them apart from orthodox Christianity of the past 2000 years.

The religion of separatism has a strong lure to many a human heart. It gives them a feeling of being special from all others, and exclusively correct in all things.....at the exclusion of what's written where it demands that all men are liars, and God be true.

Jr

 

[BobRyan]

As you've probably already seen. the legalists will try to force a distinction between the days of rest sabbath from the "other" sabbath days.

so then you call all these groups "legalists" because they differ with you?

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith

Where they freely admit to the distinction between ceremonial law vs the moral law of God - the TEN... all TEN.

Only those who constantly and only point to the letter that killeth, which was a burden the forefathers nor the aspostles could bare, as Peter stated.

Peter did not give any part of the Word of God as that which is to be condemned n Acts 15. This is a not-so-subtle detail that the groups listed in my signature line all affirm.

As Acts 15 points out there was never a command in scripture OT or NT for gentiles to be circumcised in order to be saved. that was a "new tradition" made up by the Christian Jews and was being put down in Acts 15.

(And of course Paul immediately has Timothy circumcised in Acts 16.. and the Jerusalem church in Acts 21 tells Paul to "prove to all" that he is not teaching that Jewish Christians should not be circumcised).

I am not arguing in favor of the ceremonial law - just that the text in question is not condemning it and Acts 21 proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. My point is about the TEN being included in the moral law of God.

Not the topic of this thread - but you bring it up for some inexplicable reason at this point. Maybe it "sounded good" at the moment?

 

[BobRyan]

The religion of separatism has a strong lure

The religion of "sola scriptura testing of all doctrine" has a strong lure that cannot simply be "insulted" out of existence. Rather - we affirm it.

Hopefully we can agree on something.

 

[SwordmanJr]

so then you call all these groups "legalists" because they differ with you?

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith

Where they freely admit to the distinction between ceremonial law vs the moral law of God - the TEN... all TEN.

Don't flatter yourself.

Peter did not give any part of the Word of God as that which is to be condemned n Acts 15.

You keep applying the term "condemned" as if it has anything whatsoever to do with what I actually said. Your bent upon misrepresenting my statements and those of the quote verses from the Bible speaks to your agenda to warp and twist things to your rules. Well, I'm not playing by your rules.

If you want to continue with your dishonest misrepresentations of what I said, then you may as well find some other playmate, because I'm not biting your bait.

This is a not-so-subtle detail that the groups listed in my signature line all affirm.

You are your own authority.

As Acts 15 points out there was never a command in scripture OT or NT for gentiles to be circumcised in order to be saved. that was a "new tradition" made up by the Christian Jews and was being put down in Acts 15.

Yeah, and that context ALSO states circumcision ALONG WITH the Law of Moses.....something you keep ignoring. Nice try, dude, but it isn't going to work.

Act 15:10 KJV - Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:24 KJV - Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:

All your denials of the truth are your own words, because the words of the apostles say what they say without your false injections being capable to turning aside the real meaning from what's actually said.

(And of course Paul immediately has Timothy circumcised in Acts 16.. and the Jerusalem church in Acts 21 tells Paul to "prove to all" that he is not teaching that Jewish Christians should not be circumcised).

Good. No problem. That further affirms that the Law of Moses was indeed a burden too great to be yoked with by their forefathers and them as well.

I am not arguing in favor of the ceremonial law - just that the text in question is not condemning it and Acts 21 proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. My point is about the TEN being included in the moral law of God.

Where does scripture distinguish such things as "ceremonial law" and "moral law?"

Not the topic of this thread - but you bring it up for some inexplicable reason at this point. Maybe it "sounded good" at the moment?

Again, I never said anything about or with those distinctions. You must be confusing me with someone else.

Jr

 

[BobRyan]

As you've probably already seen. the legalists will try to force a distinction between the days of rest sabbath from the "other" sabbath days.

so then you call all these groups "legalists" because they differ with you?

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith

Where they freely admit to the distinction between ceremonial law vs the moral law of God - the TEN... all TEN.

Don't flatter yourself.

for those who read those documents - the evidence confirms the statement above.

For those who don't read the document ... well then "they can say whatever they wish" as if that makes the data go away.

contrasting the difference is left as an exercise for the unbiased objective reader.

 

[BobRyan]

Only those who constantly and only point to the letter that killeth, which was a burden the forefathers nor the aspostles could bare, as Peter stated.

Peter did not give any part of the Word of God as that which is to be condemned n Acts 15. This is a not-so-subtle detail that the groups listed in my signature line all affirm.

As Acts 15 points out there was never a command in scripture OT or NT for gentiles to be circumcised in order to be saved. that was a "new tradition" made up by the Christian Jews and was being put down in Acts 15.

(And of course Paul immediately has Timothy circumcised in Acts 16.. and the Jerusalem church in Acts 21 tells Paul to "prove to all" that he is not teaching that Jewish Christians should not be circumcised).

I am not arguing in favor of the ceremonial law - just that the text in question is not condemning it and Acts 21 proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. My point is about the TEN being included in the moral law of God.

Not the topic of this thread - but you bring it up for some inexplicable reason at this point. Maybe it "sounded good" at the moment?

You keep applying the term "condemned" as if it has anything whatsoever to do with what I actually said.

If this is your way of agreeing with me that no part of scripture is being "condemned" in Acts 15... then I am somewhat surprised at the change - but I welcome it.

Your bent upon misrepresenting my statements and those of the quote verses from the Bible speaks to your agenda to warp and twist...<obligatory rant deleted here>

Act 15:10 KJV - Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:24 KJV - Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:

1. Makes no reference to a single text of scripture being deleted/condemned/abolished. But does speak to the ceremonial law not applicable to gentiles - just as we see in Acts 21

2. Acts 21
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

And here we see that same ceremonial law contrasted to the moral law of God called "the Commandments of God"

1 Cor 7:19 "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God".

that would be the moral law of God WHERE
"the first COMMANDMENT with a promise" is the 5th commandment - Eph 6:1-2

So then:

Rom 3:31 31 "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? God forbid! On the contrary, we establish the Law."

the point remains.

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

Notice that no amount of bad manners on my part would make this post "more compelling". It would not help in any way at all.

 

[SwordmanJr]

so then you call all these groups "legalists" because they differ with you?

You're flattering yourself again.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith

Those are not the Bible for Christians to follow.

Where they freely admit to the distinction between ceremonial law vs the moral law of God - the TEN... all TEN.

So? What' that supposed to mean in relation to true spiritual authority? They're just confessions someone else wrote down for their followers to agree with. That means nothing to those of us who are not supporting members.

for those who read those documents - the evidence confirms the statement above.

I'm sure it does to those who follow after the wrintings of men not inspired by God. So what?

For those who don't read the document ... well then "they can say whatever they wish" as if that makes the data go away.

You really do have a complex when it comes to you meeting up with those who are not swayed by your personal beliefs and your religion.

contrasting the difference is left as an exercise for the unbiased objective reader.

That would have meaning if only you were pointing at something infallible. Confessions are not infallible.

Jr