Clarifying the Debate "basics" on Sabbath and the TEN Commandments

[Leaf473]

So also does D.L.Moody, C.H.Spurgeon, R.C.Sproul and many other denomination scholars that are not Bible-Sabbath keeping.

What about #2 above?

I think they are wrong because they are relying too much on church tradtition being guided by the Holy Spirit, imo.

Those same traditions also strongly support the Real Presence at the altar and infant baptism.

My question for those Protestant theologians, then, would be Why aren't you Catholic or Eastern Orthodox?

 

[BobRyan]

That is also true of the Command of God "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7
And it is also true of the Command of God "honor your father and mother" Eph 6:1-2, Ex 20:12

But has never been justification for taking God's name in vain or dishonoring parents.

Context... you have to love it.

========= I think I may know what the problem is here - lets take time to read one of the Ten commandments to avoid confusion ===========

8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord (YHWH) your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

So hmmm.. what does that mean?

Lev 23:3
3 ‘For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is the Sabbath of complete rest, a holy convocation. You shall not do any work; it is the Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwellings.

Is 58:13
“If, because of the Sabbath, you restrain your foot
From doing as you wish on My holy day,
And call the Sabbath a pleasure, and the holy day of the Lord honorable,
And honor it, desisting from your own ways,
From seeking your own pleasure
And speaking your own word,

Is 66:23 for all eternity after the cross in the new Earth ... "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to bow down"

Is 56:6-7
8 “Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
To attend to His service and to love the name of the Lord,
To be His servants, every one who keeps the Sabbath so as not to profane it,
And holds firmly to My covenant;
7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain,
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar;
For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.”

Mark 2:27 "the Sabbath was made for mankind"

Gen 2:1-3 And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights. 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 on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

I think they are wrong because they are relying too much on church tradtition

So then you view all those Bible texts as "church tradition" ? or you think that "only church tradition" would lead someone to accept the Bible fact that "taking God's name in vain" is a sin?

My question for those Protestant theologians, then, would be Why aren't you Catholic

Is it your view that if Bible scholars admit that God's ten commandments define what sin is for "Sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 Jon 3:4 - even in the NT - then they might as well be Catholic theologians?

 

[BobRyan]

Why did Paul tell the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage" in Galatians 4:24-31?

Do you think it is because Paul thought that if you stop taking God's name in vain as God's Word commands in Ex 20:7 (since the Law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-34) -- that then you are "under bondage"?

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not sure what you mean by "moral living".

It was a term in your list where you listed the ten commandments ...

Did you see your list?

"Moral" is usually used to talk about Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, imo.

Paul says it defines what sin is - Rom 3:19-20
John says it defines what sin is - 1 John 3:4

All those Bible scholars mentioned in post #1, and #2, agree.

Paul says it includes the TEN where "the first commandment with a promise" is the one that says "honor your father and mother".

Is this "still" pretty difficult?

Paul says what defines what sin is? The Ten or the entire law?

Were you able to read Rom 3:19-20 and Eph 6:1-2?

What unit of Law has "honor your father and mother" in it (as per Paul's statement) - as "the FIRST commandment WITH a promise" - in "your Bible"?

again.. "the easy part"

 

[BobRyan]

Paul says what defines what sin is? The Ten or the entire law? I think he is talking about the entire law.

Were you able to read Heb 10:4-12 about animal sacrifices ended -- or do you find that still to be "Confusing"?

Were you able to read 1 Cor 7:19 where "circumcision does not matter but what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" or is that still "confusing"?

1 Corintians is a different context, imo.

1 Cor 7:19 shows Law ended "circumcision is nothing" and it shows moral law continued "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" -- I think you said that when Bible scholars notice these Bible details - they may as well be Catholic scholars... for some reason.

 

[BABerean2]

Do you think it is because Paul thought that if you stop taking God's name in vain as God's Word commands in Ex 20:7 (since the Law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-34) -- that then you are "under bondage"?

Lets see what Paul said to find out.

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Do you think it is because Paul thought that if you stop taking God's name in vain as God's Word commands in Ex 20:7 (since the Law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-34) -- that then you are "under bondage"?

Lets see what Paul said to find out.

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

A good example of NOT saying "it is ok now to take God's name in vain" and violate Ex 20:7.
Paul says the LAW of God known to Jeremiah is "written on the heart" in Heb 8:6-12

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Where
"the FIRST commandment with a promise" in that still-binding unit of TEN is "honor your father and mother" Eph 6:1-2

The point remains.

 

[BABerean2]

A good example of NOT saying "it is ok now to take God's name in vain" and violate Ex 20:7.
Paul says the LAW of God known to Jeremiah is "written on the heart" in Heb 8:6-12

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Where
"the FIRST commandment with a promise" in that still-binding unit of TEN is "honor your father and mother" Eph 6:1-2

The point remains.

Are you trying to say Paul did not tell the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage" in Galatians 4:24-31?

.

 

[Leaf473]

So then you view all those Bible texts as "church tradition" ? or you think that "only church tradition" would lead someone to accept the Bible fact that "taking God's name in vain" is a sin?

No, those Bible scholars that say that the Bible clearly teaches that the seventh day was to be a day of rest and worship,
and then go on to say that church has the authority to change that
can then provide no valid reason to not be Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, imo.

Is it your view that if Bible scholars admit that God's ten commandments define what sin is for "Sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 Jon 3:4 - even in the NT - then they might as well be Catholic theologians?

Not at all, though if they are saying that only the Ten do that, then I would want to know how they arrived at that conclusion.

 

[Leaf473]

It was a term in your list where you listed the ten commandments ...

Did you see your list?



Paul says it defines what sin is - Rom 3:19-20
John says it defines what sin is - 1 John 3:4

All those Bible scholars mentioned in post #1, and #2, agree.

Paul says it includes the TEN where "the first commandment with a promise" is the one that says "honor your father and mother".

Is this "still" pretty difficult?

I believe you ask these same questions in post 170, and I responded in post 175.

Were you able to read Rom 3:19-20 and Eph 6:1-2?

Yes

What unit of Law has "honor your father and mother" in it (as per Paul's statement) - as "the FIRST commandment WITH a promise" - in "your Bible"?

again.. "the easy part"

You could say the Ten Commandments, or you could say the entire Law, or you could say the unit of law given at Sinai, probably other units as well.

 

[Leaf473]

Were you able to read Heb 10:4-12 about animal sacrifices ended -- or do you find that still to be "Confusing"?

I believe you were asking about Romans 3:19-20, not Hebrews 10. I don't think Paul wrote Hebrews, so they may be using the word "law" differently.

Were you able to read 1 Cor 7:19 where "circumcision does not matter but what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" or is that still "confusing"?

It isn't confusing if only the Ten are meant there. But if the Ten plus some others are meant, then my question is, "Which others?"

1 Cor 7:19 shows Law ended "circumcision is nothing" and it shows moral law continued "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" -- I think you said that when Bible scholars notice these Bible details - they may as well be Catholic scholars... for some reason.

Paul may have had other commandments in mind, such as these:

1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him recognize the things which I write to you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.

1 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the commandment of God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ our hope.

If Bible scholars say that the Church has the authority to modify the teachings of scripture, then yes, they may as well be Catholic or Orthodox. The same is true if they beleive that only the Church as a whole can correctly interpret scripture.

 

[Leaf473]

@BobRyan, my man,

The main reason I came on this thread was to see if you had a list, especially a list you would post, of those laws you say are Active today.

I think you talked earlier about dividing the law up into Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil categories. And I think you said you wanted to focus on the Ceremonial and Civil ones.

1 Cor 7:19 speaks of keeping the commandments of God. My understanding is that you believe that "the commandments of God" refers to some of the laws contained in Genesis through Deuteronomy.

My question continues to be, "Which ones?"

If you want to answer a similar question of, "Which ones are not the commandments of God in 1 Cor 7:19", that works just as well for me. Either way, though, I'm looking for specific laws, not categories. Categories are fine to start with, but would you like to talk about particular laws now?

Peace, my man, and looking forward to continuing a great discussion!

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan, my man,

The main reason I came on this thread was to see if you had a list, especially a list you would post, of those laws you say are Active today.

I started with the TEN - a group of commandments that almost all scholars on both sides of the Sabbath debate affirm - and so also does Paul in Eph 6:1-2 where even you had to admit that the only unit of Law where "honor our father and mother" is "the FIRST commandment WITH a promise" -- is in fact "the TEN". So clearly the TEN remain included n that Law of God that define what sin IS - the "Law of God written on the hear and mind" in the Jer 31:31-34 NEW COVENANT

But you then began to claim that it somehow became "unclear" that Paul was really affirming the TEN in Eph 6:1-2 for Christians and you wanted to go back to Genesis to "get a list in order from Genesis onward". A rather odd twist to the initial statement.

I think you talked earlier about dividing the law up into Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil categories.

As we see Paul do in 1 Cor 7:19 where circumcision is in one category and "Commandments of God" in another - so he says "circumcision does not matter - but what matters is keeping the Commandments of God". Clearly the moral law "Commandments of God" that John says "defines what sin IS" 1 John 3:4 vs the ceremonial laws like circumcision.

And Paul again reminds us of this in Heb 10:4-12 where animal sacrifices and offerings end at the cross "He takes AWAY the first to establish the second" Heb 10.

Two great examples of various kinds of Law that end at the cross vs the moral law of God that defines what sin IS - continuing.

As for civil laws -- commandments TO the GOVERNMENT - the theocracy about civil punishments (like the death penalty for gluttony) - well as all Bible scholars agree - this ended when that theocracy ended. Another obvious detail where you claimed to be "confused" yet you admit you are not killing people that you think overeat and suspect you don't ask people to do that either.

So given that today Christian nations are not doing it now in "real life" and neither are you - it makes one wonder just how "confused" you really are when you claim to be confused about there not being a theocracy on earth to which that command was given -- just how confused are you "really" on that point.?

Just what is this in our POV ? because it is starting to look like "a game".

 

[BobRyan]

1 Cor 7:19 speaks of keeping the commandments of God. My understanding is that you believe that "the commandments of God" refers to some of the laws contained in Genesis through Deuteronomy.

1 Cor 7:19 says circumcision does NOT matter but what matters is "Keeping the Commandments of God" where Paul tells us in Eph 6:1-2 that those commandments include the ones where "honor your father and mother" is the "First commandment with a promise" -- as pointed out about half-a-dozen times already.

My question continues to be, "Which ones?"

1. Paul tells you in Eph 6:1-2 about the TEN as we saw almost a dozen times now.
2. Jesus is asked the very same "which ones" question in Matt 19 and gives the same answer Paul gives in Rom 13.. --- a focus on THE TEN.

It just does not get any easier than this - even though you are circling back to the question already answered without really dealing with the answer outside of some suggestion of "confusion".

If you want to answer a similar question of, "Which ones are not the commandments of God in 1 Cor 7:19", that works just as well for me.

1 Cor 7:19 shows that some are still applicable and some are not -- even if you were so confused as to not be able to read Paul's example of "circumcision" being one that no longer matters. That "some are in and others are not" detail is one you are stuck on even BEFORE we get to any list before the simple example Paul gives in 1 Cor 7:19 because you are denying even the simplest example details. Why do we need to move past this most simple case when it is right here where you say you begin to struggle?

Either way, though, I'm looking for specific laws, not categories. Categories are fine to start with

Paul just gave a specific one in 1 Cor 7:19 that ends and a specific group of TEN in Eph 6:1-2 that continue - you are stuck even with the specifics at this point. How does "adding a list" to each category help once you say you are stumbling on the explicit examples Paul gives??

 

[BobRyan]

Are you trying to say Paul did not tell the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage" in Galatians 4:24-31?

.

No I am telling you that you are mixing apples and oranges. Paul makes it clear in Eph 6:1-2 that the TEN are applicable to Christians today -- as Bible scholars in almost all denominations freely admit.

You seem to be claiming that "do not take God's name in vain" is "old covenant" but in fact the LAW that defines what sin IS - remains the same between covenants -- what changes IS THE COVENANT.

The covenants change so that the Jer 31:31-34 NEW COVENANT writes the LAW of God "on heart and mind" - the LAW of commandments known to Jeremiah and his readers and that includes the unit of law where "the firs commandment with a promise" was and still is "honor our father and mother" according to Paul in Eph 6.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul says what defines what sin is? The Ten or the entire law? I think he is talking about the entire law.

Were you able to read Heb 10:4-12 about animal sacrifices ended -- or do you find that still to be "Confusing"?

I believe you were asking about Romans 3:19-20, not Hebrews 10. I don't think Paul wrote Hebrews, so they may be using the word "law" differently.

if you had imagined that Paul did not write the book of Hebrews - would that change anything at all?

you seem to have lost the point of your own statement above because in 1 Cor 7 we see that it is NOT the entire Law remaining - rather "God's commandments" remain and circumcision "does not matter".

In Heb 10 we see "animal sacrifices and offerings" is "taken away".

So it does not matter who you imagine wrote these chapters since they both give explicit examples of what they are talking about and they are both scripture AND your entire assumption of "entire law" fails as soon as Paul shows one continuing and one ending as he does in 1 Cor 7:19. The fact that he does that AGAIN in Heb 10 must makes it all the more obvious as to why this is so incredibly easy for all Bible scholars in all denominations.

 

[klutedavid]

Were you able to read Heb 10:4-12 about animal sacrifices ended -- or do you find that still to be "Confusing"?



if you had imagined that Paul did not write the book of Hebrews - would that change anything at all?

you seem to have lost the point of your own statement above because in 1 Cor 7 we see that it is NOT the entire Law remaining - rather "God's commandments" remain and circumcision "does not matter".

In Heb 10 we see "animal sacrifices and offerings" is "taken away".

So it does not matter who you imagine wrote these chapters since they both give explicit examples of what they are talking about and they are both scripture AND your entire assumption of "entire law" fails as soon as Paul shows one continuing and one ending as he does in 1 Cor 7:19. The fact that he does that AGAIN in Heb 10 must makes it all the more obvious as to why this is so incredibly easy for all Bible scholars in all denominations.

Christians are not under the law and never will be under the law.

Romans 3:21
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe.

Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Romans 4:15
For the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Romans 6:15
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?

Romans 7:4
Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

 

[BABerean2]

No I am telling you that you are mixing apples and oranges. Paul makes it clear in Eph 6:1-2 that the TEN are applicable to Christians today -- as Bible scholars in almost all denominations freely admit.

You seem to be claiming that "do not take God's name in vain" is "old covenant" but in fact the LAW that defines what sin IS - remains the same between covenants -- what changes IS THE COVENANT.

The covenants change so that the Jer 31:31-34 NEW COVENANT writes the LAW of God "on heart and mind" - the LAW of commandments known to Jeremiah and his readers and that includes the unit of law where "the firs commandment with a promise" was and still is "honor our father and mother" according to Paul in Eph 6.

If a man is not having sex with someone who is not his wife, he is not committing adultery according to the ten commandments.

Do you think it would be OK for him to download and view pornography from the internet?


Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Is the Sinai Covenant your standard of conduct, or is it the words of Christ above?

.

 

[Leaf473]

I started with the TEN - a group of commandments that almost all scholars on both sides of the Sabbath debate affirm - and so also does Paul in Eph 6:1-2 where even you had to admit that the only unit of Law where "honor our father and mother" is "the FIRST commandment WITH a promise" -- is in fact "the TEN". So clearly the TEN remain included n that Law of God that define what sin IS - the "Law of God written on the hear and mind" in the Jer 31:31-34 NEW COVENANT

Paul may have the Ten in mind in Eph 6, or the entire Law, or the law given at Sinai, maybe some other possibilities as well.

But you then began to claim that it somehow became "unclear" that Paul was really affirming the TEN in Eph 6:1-2 for Christians and you wanted to go back to Genesis to "get a list in order from Genesis onward". A rather odd twist to the initial statement.

If we're not able to communicate, that's fine. We can stop.
From the beginning of my time on this thread, I have been interested in seeing if you (or anyone, really) were able to list the actual laws. I know that lots of people talk about categories. But I haven't seen anyone actually list the laws from Genesis to Deuteronomy that they believe are for today.

Jewish people today have no problem listing the laws they believe are to be kept today, if at all possible. They may not all agree, but at least it's a starting point. Can you do the same thing with laws you believe are Active?

As we see Paul do in 1 Cor 7:19 where circumcision is in one category and "Commandments of God" in another - so he says "circumcision does not matter - but what matters is keeping the Commandments of God". Clearly the moral law "Commandments of God" that John says "defines what sin IS" 1 John 3:4 vs the ceremonial laws like circumcision.

And Paul again reminds us of this in Heb 10:4-12 where animal sacrifices and offerings end at the cross "He takes AWAY the first to establish the second" Heb 10.

Two great examples of various kinds of Law that end at the cross vs the moral law of God that defines what sin IS - continuing.

As for civil laws -- commandments TO the GOVERNMENT - the theocracy about civil punishments (like the death penalty for gluttony) - well as all Bible scholars agree - this ended when that theocracy ended. Another obvious detail where you claimed to be "confused" yet you admit you are not killing people that you think overeat and suspect you don't ask people to do that either.

Yes, categories.
And yes, I don't physically do the actions of the laws from Genesis to Deuteronomy, at least not on purpose. And I believe yourself and some others criticize me for that. We both agree that at least some of the laws aren't Active today. So I'm asking if you would like to list what laws (actual laws, not categories) you believe are Active today. Or the ones that are Not Active, that will work as well.

So given that today Christian nations are not doing it now in "real life" and neither are you - it makes one wonder just how "confused" you really are when you claim to be confused about there not being a theocracy on earth to which that command was given -- just how confused are you "really" on that point.?

I don't know if confused is the right word. I'll try putting it this way: If someone were to ask me if you, BobRyan, wear clothes of mixed fabric, I wouldn't be able to tell them.

Just what is this in our POV ? because it is starting to look like "a game".

My question continues to be, "Which ones?"
That is, what laws are you talking about? Not categories, specific laws.

 

[Leaf473]

1 Cor 7:19 says circumcision does NOT matter but what matters is "Keeping the Commandments of God" where Paul tells us in Eph 6:1-2 that those commandments include...

Include but are not limited to? If there are more, please list them.

...the ones where "honor your father and mother" is the "First commandment with a promise" -- as pointed out about half-a-dozen times already.

Please list the rest of the commandments you believe Paul is including in "keeping the commandments of God".

1. Paul tells you in Eph 6:1-2 about the TEN as we saw almost a dozen times now.

Is Paul saying that only the Ten are the Active laws today?

2. Jesus is asked the very same "which ones" question in Matt 19

I assume you mean this?

18 He said to him, “Which ones?” (Hey, he's asking the same thing I am, but in a different context )

Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder.’ ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ‘You shall not steal.’ ‘You shall not offer false testimony.’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ And, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Jesus lists six commandments. Does He intend that as the complete list?

and gives the same answer Paul gives in Rom 13.. --- a focus on THE TEN.

Yes, a focus. And the rest of the Active laws that are not in focus there? Please list them, if you wish.

It just does not get any easier than this - even though you are circling back to the question already answered without really dealing with the answer outside of some suggestion of "confusion".

My question is "Which ones?", a complete list, not categories. If you have posted you list somewhere, please post a link to them, if you wish.

1 Cor 7:19 shows that some are still applicable and some are not -- even if you were so confused as to not be able to read Paul's example of "circumcision" being one that no longer matters. That "some are in and others are not" detail is one you are stuck on even BEFORE we get to any list before the simple example Paul gives in 1 Cor 7:19 because you are denying even the simplest example details. Why do we need to move past this most simple case when it is right here where you say you begin to struggle?

Because moving past 1 Cor 7:19 will show that you have an incorrect interpretation of that passage, imo. But I think the only way we can see that is if we move on to specific laws. Or maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised that you are able to deal with all those particular laws.

Paul just gave a specific one in 1 Cor 7:19 that ends and a specific group of TEN in Eph 6:1-2 that continue - you are stuck even with the specifics at this point. How does "adding a list" to each category help once you say you are stumbling on the explicit examples Paul gives??

Because seeing the list, if one can be reasonably produced, will show us how we are to deal with the entire law, imo.