Forget the Sabbath day, it's no longer Holy... (2)

[VictorC]

When in Romans 11 Paul says all Israel will be save he speaks of Jew and Gentiles who believe in Jesus.

You have to come to terms with the fact that Jesus was Jewish, and those who believe in Jesus are part of spiritual Israel.

"Spiritual" does not refer to literal, and it is those who are literally adopted by God as His own children who have the promise of eternal life. That promise is never conveyed to those who are not God's children.

You had completely dismissed the promise made by Jesus (Matthew 17:24-26) that the law was not applicable to the children of the King Who created it. Here, you dismiss the summary of the Gospel that Paul wrote in Galatians 4:

1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all,
2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.
4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.​

If you remain a legal offspring of Israel, you are charged with the law that renders all under it "guilty before God" (Romans 3:19).
If you have been redeemed as God's purchased possession and His son, then your relationship under the law is in the past tense.

The choice is yours.
Why a pastor would want to remain unreconciled to a Holy God is a thought that eludes me, and I really don't want to know why you don't want God's redemption. I have something as a gift you have not attained and never will by your works.

The rejection of the Sabbath came about because of anti-semitism, and today the same reason is behind its rejection. Those who identify themselves with Israel will be despised, just as Jesus was rejected and despised. Yet he calls us to go outside the camp and bear the cross with him.

Now you resort to concluding God anti-semitic as the reason He redeemed us from the law that contained the sabbath. I don't even want to comprehend the tortured process you employed to get to this conclusion.

 

[VictorC]

The Sabbath helps us find rest in Jesus. If we worked 24/7 it would lead us away from Christ and make us self centered. We need the Sabbath as a time to reflect on the week and appreciate the blessing God has given during the week, and to remember that God, not us is supreme.

"Helps" is your rendition of the law's purpose, when Christianity affirms the law's role as "helped" us find rest in Jesus in the past tense.

Galatians 3
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.​

Our rest in Jesus came in His redemption, and His redemption purchased us from the law that contained the sabbath. If you're still bound to the sabbath, there is nothing you have that will bring you to God's "My rest" the sabbath was a shadow of.

Hebrews 4:11
Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.​

I'm becoming more convinced each day that Adventism is historically rooted in rebellion, and Ellen White's departure from the Gospel of God's redemption is illustrated by the ramblings of her adherents.

 

[tall73]

As to the church fathers the longer reading of Ignatius and other texts show that some were still keeping the sabbath, but not in the same way as the Jews.

Others were already beginning to not keep it as Justin and Barnabas show.

Even the quote from Scholasticus indicates that in Rome and Alexandria they had abandoned even assembly earlier than the other churches.

So when Rasell says:

None of the early church fathers of the 2nd century claimed that Jesus or the apostles had changed the Sabbath.

There is no recorded change in the NT from Sabbath to Sunday. When Sunday keeping began in the 2nd century, it was not seen as a replacement for the Sabbath. The Sabbath was not abandonded till about the 6th century because of anti semitism and an influx of pagan sun worshippers.

The schism between the RCC and Orthodox church over the Sabbath fast, showed that neither side at that time regarded Sabbath as obsolete. The RCC said people had to fast on Sabbath, the Orthodox church rejected this.

it is clear he is not correct in regards to all the church fathers. Some did begin even in the second century to argue that the sabbath was done away with, and to argue for the first day.

Others did not.

 

[nahtino]

To demand a statement that we're to observe Sunday as a holy day shows a lack of faith. You're reliant on a command to the flesh.

Its called testing things with scripture ...

No, I do not. He didn't command Sunday worship.
quote]

But Paul describes us as spiritual Israel ingrafted in the stock. And clearly some aspects of the law were continued into the New Covenant as you seem to recognise. The question is whether the Sabbath is part of the eternal moral law

It seems to me that my position and yours is not that far apart.

The point at question then is whether the weekly Sabbath is moral or ceremonial.

In support that it is moral:
1) its origin at Creation (Gen. 2:2-3; Ex. 16:28)
2) its inclusion in the 10 commandments (Ex. 20:8-11)
3) its added meaning of salvation or deliverance from sin (Dt. 5:15)
4) as a sign of sanctification and a perpetual covenant (Ex. 31:16-17)
5) its link to the 5th commandments (Lev. 19:3)
6) the inseparability of the moral code (James 2:10-11)
7) its further solemnity that Christ rested on the Sabbath when the work of salvation was complete (Jn. 19:30; Lk. 23:53-36), as He did when Creation was finished
8) its observance in the new earth (Isa. 66:22-23)
9) it was written by God on the tablets of stone and spoken by Him (Ex. 31:18)
10) it is part of the Abrahamic covenant which is the eternal covenant or new covenant (Gal. 3; Gen. 26:5)

AMEN SIR !

So is Paul going to each home and recieve the offereing when he comes? Another problem with your response is the word threasury as used in the theGreek. The treasury was not a piggy bank at home.

Is Paul going to each house and having a church service, and taking an offering from each house?

The controversy wasn't about only circumcision. It was about circumcision and observing the whole law:

Acts 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."
______________________________________________

Galatians 5:3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

Law of Moses/Ceremonial Law is separate from the LAW OF GOD/ROYAL LAW/MORAL LAW

You dont have to even be an Adventist to know that, thats THEOLOGY 101 ...

If you somehow believe your statement then, you probly see it as a BURDEN the Law NOT to KILL?

What exactly are you saying ..?Are you saying you do not want to keep all of the 10 commandments...?
​

.

Mark 2:28

 

[BrightCandle]

As to the church fathers the longer reading of Ignatius and other texts show that some were still keeping the sabbath, but not in the same way as the Jews.

Others were already beginning to not keep it as Justin and Barnabas show.

Even the quote from Scholasticus indicates that in Rome and Alexandria they had abandoned even assembly earlier than the other churches.

So when Rasell says:



it is clear he is not correct in regards to all the church fathers. Some did begin even in the second century to argue that the sabbath was done away with, and to argue for the first day.

Others did not.

What you posted is proof that there was no new Sabbath Commandment issued changing the Sabbath to Sunday right after Jesus died on the cross. Thanks for the affirmation of the validity of the Sabbath in the NT period.

 

[VictorC]

What you posted is proof that there was no new Sabbath Commandment issued changing the Sabbath to Sunday right after Jesus died on the cross.

What was posted was a sample of opinion gleaned from early church fathers, and not a proof of anything. It hasn't been a tenet of Christianity that claims a change in the sabbath to Sunday, but rather our redemption from the entire law that codified the sabbath.

Thanks for the affirmation of the validity of the Sabbath in the NT period.

This is a conclusion that isn't related to anyone's post. You first need to demonstrate that the sabbath was reinstated after our redemption from the law that contained it. The sabbath isn't a binding ordinance conveyed into the new covenant dispensation at all.

 

[VictorC]

Its called testing things with scripture ...

Try as I do, I cannot make sense of whatever it is you mean to add to this thread.

 

[mrasell]

C. This is what the priest did on the Day of Atonement. He made cleansing of sins for the whole camp, corporately. They still either accepted or rejected that provision individually.

Now before you said Hebrews spelled out no timing. But now you are even referencing timing. Did you change your mind?

Leviticus establishes a two phased system: sins forgiven in the daily rites (Lev. 4-6) and transferred to the sanctuary then a final blotting out of ALL sins at the end of the year when the sanctuary itself is cleansed (Lev. 16:16, 21).

A righteous person who forsakes the Lord, none of his righteous deeds are remembered (Ezek. 33:13). So a person who forsakes God at the end, all of his sins will count against him. Conversely a sinner who repents at the end, all of his sins are blotted out (Ezek. 33:16). Therefore a record must be kept until the judgement (Dan. 7:9-10; 8:13-14).

The forgiveness of sins in the ritual system was conditional on a person not later forsaking the Lord. This was why the Day of Atonement was so important. To fail here was to be cut off from the congregation (Lev. 23:29).

In Hebrews 9, Christ is presented as being superior to the whole ritual system, both daily and yearly; his sacrifice was once for all in contrast to the repeated annual rite.

In terms of timing, it is clear that the rite was not completed at Calvary because it says of Christ that “he is the mediator” and “now to appear in the presence of God for us” vss. 15, 24. Clearly the rite involved intercession for the people, yet Hebrews presents that as an ongoing work. The eschatological meaning and timing of the rite is not discussed here because it was irrelevant to the context; however a future judgement is spoken of in verses 27-28.

Adventist theologians conclude that Hebrews neither affirms nor denies the concept of a two phased ministry; it simply does not address that issue.

 

[mrasell]

Again, Jesus was referring to the whole law in the sermon on the mount, not to only the ten commandments. Likewise, James refers to the whole law, not to only the ten commandments.

If you accept that NT Christians are to keep the 2 greatest laws referred to in Matthew 22, then you have to accept that all the laws which hang on these two are also still valid.

 

[mrasell]

The fall isn't even germane to the narrative. Neither is there any evidence that mankind ever rested on the seventh day of creation, and Adam was only one day old on the seventh day.

That is impossible because it implies either:
(i) God did not intend Adam to enter His rest OR
(ii) Adam was created faulty and so could not enter His rest

 

[mrasell]

So is Paul going to each home and recieve the offereing when he comes? Another problem with your response is the word threasury as used in the theGreek. The treasury was not a piggy bank at home.

If there had been an abolition or change of the Sabbath we would expect some clear statement, yet there is none.

The other main verse used to support Sunday is Acts 20:7 which speaks of breaking bread on the 1st day of the week. The problem with this text is that the Jewish day begins at sunset and we know the meeting went on all night and ended at day break when Paul continued his journey.

Therefore it was speaking of Saturday evening after sunset, which is the 1st day of the week by Jewish reckoning.

It was not a regular type of meeting because it went on all night. And Paul continued his journey on Sunday, showing he did not regard it as a day of rest.

 

[nahtino]

"Spiritual" does not refer to literal, and it is those who are literally adopted by God as His own children who have the promise of eternal life. That promise is never conveyed to those who are not God's children.

Amen to that ...but end of the day, God still calls us ALL part of ISRAEL...The Gentiles..are were literally grafted in by Curcumsision or are we literally grafted in by FAITH.

You had completely dismissed the promise made by Jesus (Matthew 17:24-26) that the law was not applicable to the children of the King Who created it.

This passage is regards TEMPLE TAX....Are you saying that since Jesus says this, he stated at that very point that Peter did not any longer need to keep the 10 commandments(sabbath included?)
Doesnt make sense Sir

Here, you dismiss the summary of the Gospel that Paul wrote in Galatians 4:

1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all,
2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.
4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
​

If you remain a legal offspring of Israel, you are charged with the law that renders all under it "guilty before God" (Romans 3:19).

If you have been redeemed as God's purchased possession and His son, then your relationship under the law is in the past tense.

Which DOES NOT MEAN you can not obey the 10 Commandments ...but if you are of Faith, you are redeemed from the PENALTY of the LAW...Not from observing the LAW itself ...


Now you resort to concluding God anti-semitic as the reason He redeemed us from the (PENALTY OF) law that contained the sabbath. I don't even want to comprehend the tortured process you employed to get to this conclusion.

CORRECTION ABOVE

Our rest in Jesus came in His redemption, and His redemption purchased us from the law that contained the sabbath. If you're still bound to the sabbath, there is nothing you have that will bring you to God's "My rest" the sabbath was a shadow of.

Hebrews 4:11
Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.
​

Sir, Jesus gave us the Commandment to observe HIS HOLY DAY ...It is HIS Day of REST AND BLESSING ...which as much as you would love Sunday to be that day, it is not ...but ONLY THE LORD OF THE SABBATH has Set for us a place a time of HIS rest .. NOT by WORKs of Man, but by HIS GRACE and Mercy ...
[/quote]

If you accept that NT Christians are to keep the 2 greatest laws referred to in Matthew 22, then you have to accept that all the laws which hang on these two are also still valid.

AMEN !

 

[Sophia7]

Law of Moses/Ceremonial Law is separate from the LAW OF GOD/ROYAL LAW/MORAL LAW

You dont have to even be an Adventist to know that, thats THEOLOGY 101 ...

If you somehow believe your statement then, you probly see it as a BURDEN the Law NOT to KILL?

What exactly are you saying ..?Are you saying you do not want to keep all of the 10 commandments...?

Perhaps you need to retake Theology 101 because the Bible doesn't support your statements. Galatians 5 makes it clear that circumcision bound people to observe the whole law. And you have taken the term "royal law" out of context. I already addressed James 2 in this post. This is how James 2 uses that term:

8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well.​

The "royal law" is Jesus' commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself," which He quoted from the law, but not from the ten commandments:

Leviticus 19:18 'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.​

The royal law is not the ten commandments, and the Bible never calls the ten commandments "the moral law."

The ten commandments are not the standard of moral behavior for the Christian. It is the Spirit living in us who enables us to discern right and wrong and who works His fruit in us:

Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.
26 Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.​

The whole law is fulfilled in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." There's that "royal law" again, which is not part of the ten commandmendments. Notice as well that many of the things listed above as deeds of the flesh are not listed in the ten commandments either. The Spirit leads us to love each other and not to do things that are contrary to love. We don't need a written code of law when the Spirit of God dwells in our hearts.

 

[Sophia7]

What you posted is proof that there was no new Sabbath Commandment issued changing the Sabbath to Sunday right after Jesus died on the cross. Thanks for the affirmation of the validity of the Sabbath in the NT period.

Who said there was? We agree that the Sunday is not the Sabbath. However, that does not mean that the Sabbath is an eternally binding moral commandment for everyone.

 

[mrasell]

The whole law is fulfilled in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Jesus said I came NOT to abolish BUT to fill (Matt. 5:17).

"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17

 

[Sophia7]

If you accept that NT Christians are to keep the 2 greatest laws referred to in Matthew 22, then you have to accept that all the laws which hang on these two are also still valid.

The whole law is still binding unless Jesus really did accomplish all, in accordance with Matthew 5:17-18.

As Christians, we are commanded to love one another, which is the fulfillment of the law, according to Paul:

Galatians 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
_________________________________________________________________

Romans 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.​

 

[Sophia7]

Jesus said I came NOT to abolish BUT to fill (Matt. 5:17).

"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17

If Jesus didn't accomplish all, then the whole law is still binding, according to Matt. 5:17-18. In that case, you have no justification for ignoring the "ceremonial" jots and tittles.

 

[Sophia7]

If there had been an abolition or change of the Sabbath we would expect some clear statement, yet there is none.

The other main verse used to support Sunday is Acts 20:7 which speaks of breaking bread on the 1st day of the week. The problem with this text is that the Jewish day begins at sunset and we know the meeting went on all night and ended at day break when Paul continued his journey.

Therefore it was speaking of Saturday evening after sunset, which is the 1st day of the week by Jewish reckoning.

It was not a regular type of meeting because it went on all night. And Paul continued his journey on Sunday, showing he did not regard it as a day of rest.

We agree that the Sabbath was not transferred to Sunday. That does not mean that Gentile Christians are obligated to observe the Sabbath. The council in Acts 15 settled that in their decision on circumcision. Gentiles are not required to be circumcised and to keep the whole law. The two go together.

 

[tall73]

What you posted is proof that there was no new Sabbath Commandment issued changing the Sabbath to Sunday right after Jesus died on the cross. Thanks for the affirmation of the validity of the Sabbath in the NT period.

Once again for all those who haven't caught it yet, I don't think the sabbath was changed to sunday. He made an inaccurate statement about history and I corrected him on it.

 

[from scratch]

Its called testing things with scripture ...

In this instance I don't agree. Show one, just one verse that states we are obligated to the Sabbath in any way from any place in the Bible you wish.

Is Paul going to each house and having a church service, and taking an offering from each house?

I guess so. Paul said that there be no collection when I come. If it is not in one place it must be collected. So yes you mademy point for me with your retort. I understand you might think I am being a smartaleck with my question. I really am not. I just am trying to point out that the collection was in one place when Paul arrives in Corinth. If it were at everybodies home it would have to be collected.