Martin Luther

[thereselittleflower]

I would be a Catholic, if I didn't feel that I would be cast out as a heretic for not believing in Papal Infallibility and not believing that stuff like the Ever-Virginity or Assumption of Mary matter. Before the Orthodox jump on me, I'm just saying I don't think that it is important in matters of faith.

Rion, are these something that you find difficult to believe, but are open to being shown how they are true, whenever that might happen? Or do you catagorically reject them outright?

The idea of being cast out as a heretic seems to me that it comes from some misunderstanding. My DH struggled with these doctrines, still does, but he is open to understanding them at some point and he is welcomed in the Catholic Church with open arms. . . .

Luther was the fruit of the corrupted Church of his time, and I believe that the Reformation was needed to create the great falling away. Not that Protestants have fallen away, but that it was the excuse people had been seeking to go "look! They don't even agree among themselves!" thereby justifying their rejection of Christ.

An interesting hypothesis . . . . .



.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

How can Jesus be separate from the bread and wine so the bread and wine is not worshipped when He is worshipped in the Eucharist, but joined to the bread and wine when the bread and wine is consumed?

Either He is joined to the bread and wine or He is not and then cannot be received with the bread and wine . .

You're reading far too much into the word 'joined' and 'union.'

The bread and the wine are like a glass. Christ's real presence is like water. That's the union- not a hypostatic union whereby we can't differentiate between the adoration of the real presence and the bread.

GCC, I am the biggest non-Catholic defender of Catholicism and Orthodoxy on this forum. I am usually arguing with people like CaliforniaJosiah and BrightCandle, yet I don’t think that TLF has a single valid point. I think that most of her points here are ludicrous.

Thank you Mike. I, like you, love Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I defend them a lot.

But this is, indeed, ludicrous...

red herring . .you are not making logical comparisons . . .

Yes, they really are logical.

You are misrepresenting Lutheran doctrine, and then arguing against the misrepresentation.

If I misrepresented Catholic Marian dogma, and then argued against the misrepresentation, that would be the same thing.

Ever single Lutheran on here says you misunderstand the Lutheran doctrine. Accept it. You're wrong.

We do not view the sacramental union as a hypostatis in the same sense as a hypostatis in the incarnation.

The bread and wine are like a container for the real presence, and I can desire water without desiring the glass. I'd have to be a freakin' idiot to desire the glass.

So you agree that the Lutheran Church teaches Sacramental Union, yet above you told me I was dead wrong to say so . . . which is it?

You're dead wrong in understanding what Lutherans mean by sacramental union!

Again, now you deny what you just affirmed.

No I'm not! I'm dening that 'sacramental union' = hypostatic unity.

I'm denying that sacramental union means the bread and the wine are joined to the body and blood in such a way as to be indistinguishable.

You have this crazy belief that that's what we believe. It's not.

. .. the water is not joined to the glass . . . you don't drink the glass with the water . . .

But the bread is joined to Christ and you eat the bread to eat Christ. . . . .

Fine, then think of it as soup in a bread bowl!

Seriously, engage what we actually believe.

Sacramental union does not equal hypostatic union.

Sacramental union does no equal 'joined' in such as fashion as they cannot be distinguished.

Sacramental union only means joined inasmuch as they are united to serve a single purpose- the consumption of the real presence. But only inasmuch.

They are not joined insofar as it would make distinguishing the real presence which we adore and the host which we do not indistinguishable.

I put soup in a breadbowl. I consume them both at the same time. Does that mean I can't distinguish between the two? Am I an idiot?

Let's say I want peanut butter. But the only peanut butter available is in a Reeses Pieces Peanut Butter Cup. And they're minis. Does the fact that I have to eat the chocolate mean I can't distingush between the peanut butter and its delectable chocolate shell?

Something can be joined for a purpose within making it indistingushable. I can love the soup while eating a breadbowl. I can love the peanut butter even if the only way I can eat it is in a chocolate shell. That doesn't mean I like the chocolate shell. Heck, I could hate the chocolate shell and still love the peanut butter.

Is this so hard to understand??

 

[Rion]

Rion, are these something that you find difficult to believe, but are open to being shown how they are true, whenever that might happen? Or do you catagorically reject them outright?

I am always open to learning and being enlightened about the Lord, but if I do not see them in line with the RCC at this time, and possibly never if God doesn't show me otherwise, then where do I fit in?

The idea of being cast out as a heretic seems to me that it comes from some misunderstanding. My DH struggled with these doctrines, still does, but he is open to understanding them at some point and he is welcomed in the Catholic Church with open arms. . . .

Not to bash, I'm just going by what I've read here. Not everyone in RCC or Orthodox, just some of the bigger supporters seem to suggest that.

And what about the Apocrypha? I consider them uninspired but haven't read anything that's really counter-Scripture. I don't say this cause so-and-so thought so, but because when I read the OT and NT, I feel the Spirit in me react. I feel nothing with the Apocrypha. I view them as Jewish folklore or history. Wasn't there a Catholic who said that they were not divine, but worthy of reading anyhow?

An interesting hypothesis . . .

I'm not saying it's accurate. I'm just bigger on the Logos of God than anything else. When I pray for enlightenment on something that's bothering me, I often pray to understand the underlying reason of things, not because I think I'm smarter or more logical than anyone else, it's just how my brain's always worked. The destruction of the Cannanites, for example, didn't bother me once I understood why. Not that I did not care, but that I understood the basics of why God ordered it. For the Reformation, this is what I was given. If you look at it, much of what this schism of the church brought was giving the political rulers the guts to cast off Rome. I don't think the vast majority of "Protestants" were out to cause trouble when they split, it was a chain reaction God knew of well in advance.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I am always open to learning and being enlightened about the Lord, but if I do not see them in line with the RCC at this time, and possibly never if God doesn't show me otherwise, then where do I fit in?

Much closer than you seem to think. Seriously, may I make some suggestions?

Go speak to a priest about where you are and your feelings. Attend an RCIA Class . .they usually start in August or September and go on till Easter, so they are going on now. The first part is the inquiry part, and all are welcome even if they have no intention of joining the Church that year or ever. My DH had no intention, but went to learn about what I was embracing . .. gradually, he came to understand things he had not understood before . . but there was God's grace at work that opened his understanding . . again, his understanding is not complete, and he still has difficulty, but he was able to understand enough to be able to give his assent and enter the Church . . what an incredible transformation in his attitude and understanding of Catholicism in just 6 months. I would highly recommend talking to a priest and perhaps sitting in on the rest of RCIA if that works out, or at least starting next fall. I believe you will find you truly enjoy it and who knows what God may do.

Not to bash, I'm just going by what I've read here. Not everyone in RCC or Orthodox, just some of the bigger supporters seem to suggest that.

This is why you need to talk to a priest regarding your particular situation rather than rely on what you are told on the internet. Some are very fundamentalist in their approach to Catholicism and take things farther than approved by the Church. There can also be misunderstanding, and we don't know your particular situation . . . a Priest can best advise you.

And what about the Apocrypha? I consider them uninspired but haven't read anything that's really counter-Scripture. I don't say this cause so-and-so thought so, but because when I read the OT and NT, I feel the Spirit in me react. I feel nothing with the Apocrypha. I view them as Jewish folklore or history. Wasn't there a Catholic who said that they were not divine, but worthy of reading anyhow?

They are indeed inspired scripture . . . . they were canonized as inspired scripture by the Early Church and the Catholic Church today still accepts them as inspired scripture. Some Catholics don't seem to understand this. . . . but I can understand your position coming from a Protestant perspective as I experiened what you are also. But the Holy Spirit did show me that they are indeed to be accepted as inspired scripture.

Have you ever read the book of Wisdom? In it is one of the most profound prophecies of the passion of Christ . . .


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

You're reading far too much into the word 'joined' and 'union.'

The bread and the wine are like a glass. Christ's real presence is like water. That's the union- not a hypostatic union whereby we can't differentiate between the adoration of the real presence and the bread.



Thank you Mike. I, like you, love Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I defend them a lot.

But this is, indeed, ludicrous...



Yes, they really are logical.

You are misrepresenting Lutheran doctrine, and then arguing against the misrepresentation.

If I misrepresented Catholic Marian dogma, and then argued against the misrepresentation, that would be the same thing.

Ever single Lutheran on here says you misunderstand the Lutheran doctrine. Accept it. You're wrong.

We do not view the sacramental union as a hypostatis in the same sense as a hypostatis in the incarnation.

The bread and wine are like a container for the real presence, and I can desire water without desiring the glass. I'd have to be a freakin' idiot to desire the glass.



You're dead wrong in understanding what Lutherans mean by sacramental union!



No I'm not! I'm dening that 'sacramental union' = hypostatic unity.

I'm denying that sacramental union means the bread and the wine are joined to the body and blood in such a way as to be indistinguishable.

You have this crazy belief that that's what we believe. It's not.



Fine, then think of it as soup in a bread bowl!

Seriously, engage what we actually believe.

Sacramental union does not equal hypostatic union.

Sacramental union does no equal 'joined' in such as fashion as they cannot be distinguished.

Sacramental union only means joined inasmuch as they are united to serve a single purpose- the consumption of the real presence. But only inasmuch.

They are not joined insofar as it would make distinguishing the real presence which we adore and the host which we do not indistinguishable.

I put soup in a breadbowl. I consume them both at the same time. Does that mean I can't distinguish between the two? Am I an idiot?

Let's say I want peanut butter. But the only peanut butter available is in a Reeses Pieces Peanut Butter Cup. And they're minis. Does the fact that I have to eat the chocolate mean I can't distingush between the peanut butter and its delectable chocolate shell?

Something can be joined for a purpose within making it indistingushable. I can love the soup while eating a breadbowl. I can love the peanut butter even if the only way I can eat it is in a chocolate shell. That doesn't mean I like the chocolate shell. Heck, I could hate the chocolate shell and still love the peanut butter.

Is this so hard to understand??

I understand perfectly what you are saying . . . but you are not understanding me evidently. . .

None your examples are legitimate, for in none of them must you consume what is the holder of what you want to consume . . . not even the reeses pieces, for you can separate out the peanut butter from the chocolate. . . not even the bread bowl . . .

And no, not every single Lutheran here says any such thing. . one thanked me for accurately representing Lutheran theology . . . perhaps you should go back and read through the thread . . such a claim as you just made is what is ludicrous.

The only Lutheran I am having difficulty with is you right now. You continue to misrpresent what I say, and argue against things I have never said . giving inappropriate examples to illustrate your position, and never really answer my questions . . just red herrings and strawman arguments. . . .

I don't know what more to do here . . . . . .


You need to learn to debate your theology without becoming so emotional about it and to try to really understand what another is saying to you instead of going off like this . . . OK?



.

 

[ksen]

I didn't know he was called a prophet, but being a sinner doesn't disqualify one from being a prophet either.

.....or from being Pope for that matter.

 

[ksen]

There is no bread!


.

"There is no spoon." - Child to Neo, from The Matrix

 

[BeforeThereWas]

You're assuming that the text of Genesis 1 is literal, rather than allegorical, in nature.

I'd say that that taking it literally is a far better position, given that, for example, if those days were actually long ages rather than literal days, we have a serious dilemma on our hands.

The word of God says that when He created everything, He stated that it was good, which disqualifies the existence of suffering, disease and death.

We also know that suffering and death in the world are the result of sin, which came into the world through one man...Adam.

Now, if the fossil record is millions of years old, a fossil record that records suffering, disease and death, long before Adam brought suffering, disease and death into the world only some 6000 years ago, then we have a problem.

We also can observe another serious problem, in that that sun was created the day after all the vegetation of the sea and the land. HOw, then, could vegetation survive without the sun for millions of years?

The text states that the evening and the morning were the first day, second day, etc. That's pretty straightforward language that defies any attempt at allegoricalizing its actual meaning.

So, I'd say that there's good reason to take that text literally, because doing otherwise creates more problems than it solves.

If Adam and Eve were created during the sixth set of millions of years, and we therefore have millions of years of generations being born since that time, the earth would have been overpopulated (filled with people) and starving due to depleted resources long before Noah came along, who recorded that those people were heavy into partying and marrying. (There must have been a lull in the overpopulation and food shortage problems with millions of years of generations filling the earth's entire surface at that time...) The surface of the earth would have been, according to statisticians/mathematicians, covered with the bones of the dead at least twelve feet thick, even taking into consideration disease, famine, wars, murder, etc.

Dr. Hugh Ross, who isn't a lingual scholar, is a theistic evolutionist, just like Dr. James Dobson. They both avoid these and other difficulties, stating, "Well, I'm not a theologian, I only know what the evidence from science has indicated to me." What a copout. They both claim to believe in God, but choose to force the Bible into conformity to the pseudo intellect of many modern scientists who routinely force findings and observations into the framework of a preconceieved evolutionary theory.

The church fathers disagreed as to whether the days of Genesis were 24 hours in duration.

They were fallible men, just like you and me. They also didn't have evolutionary theory as a competing explanation for the origin of man. Those men grappled with many problems just as we do today. The argument that their proximity in time to the apostles is little more than a straw man. Competing, inferior belief systems were already well established before those men were even twinkles in their respective daddy's eyes.

BTW&DM

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.



Some thoughts...



THE HOLY EUCHARIST/COMMUNION:



Matthew 26:26-28

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when ee was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."


Some notes:


1. St. Paul, writing inerrantly by divine-inspiration, seems to disagree that there is not bread and wine.


2. Lutherans believe that the meaning of "is" is is.


3. We beleive that we literally receive Christ, in both natures (Real Presense).


4. We believe that in some sense, bread and wine are present - but we leave the physics of that completely to mystery. I know nothing of Lutherans and a "sacramental union" - that's not anything known to ME.


5. There is much in this thread about "what if's" and human logic and the dogmatic (and therefore unquestionable) proclaimations of the Catholic denomination. IMHO, Lutherans just don't go that far - at least as dogma.





Consubstantiation?


"Consubstantiation" as I understand it is a term Luther used a few times early on, but it is NOT the theology of the Lutheranism and never has been (nor did Luther retain the uses of that term).

Lutherans and Catholics (as well as Anglicans, Orothodox and traditionally Methodist) have the same view of the Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist. We all believe that the Eucharist IS His true, literal, physical Body and Blood in both natures. It's called Real Presense and we all agree on that.

Where the Catholic Church departs from all the rest and from historic Christianity is with respect to the bread and wine. The rest of all (and the CC prior to 1215) left the "presense" of the bread and wine to mystery; they are "there" in SOME sense but we don't get dogmatic about the physics here - we leave all that to mystery (seems moot anyway). The CC however, altogether uniquely, departed from that in 1215 by embracing as Dogma Aristotle's theory of "accidents" thus declaring - as a matter of highest importance and certainty - that the bread and wine are an "accident" (right from Aristotle) and thus stress the "appearance" (also right from Aristotle) of the bread and wine. Occasionally, a lay Catholic will even go so far as to deny the bread and wine entirely.

Lutherans may certainly accept this theory as pious opinion I suppose but Lutherans do not teach Aristotle's theory as Christian Dogma. Only the CC does, as dogma, and only since 1215.



My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Well, God did create the earth in seven days, but I have heard that the Hebrew word for "day" also means "a span of time" so while God did create the world in seven days, it was not the 24 hour day we all know and love.

Well, that certainly seems plausible when all the difficulties created by a non-literal understanding is brought to bear.

Straddling a fence, ignoring the spikes along its top edge, only creates problems.

BTW&DM

 

[BeforeThereWas]

It is nice to clear the air isn't it?

Yep.

And your representaiton of Pope John Paul II on evolution is equally erroneous

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory (Excerpted from the October 30 issue of the English edition of L'Osservatore Romano).

See also:


NEWSBRIEF: Chicago Tribune, Friday, 10/25/96, "POPE BOLSTERS CHURCH SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION", by Stevenson Swanson, Tribune Staff Writer, Dateline: New York.

"In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is 'more than just a hypothesis' and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith. In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin ... "It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge', the pope said in his message Wednesday. 'The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favor of this theory..."


"If taken literally, the Biblical view of the beginning of life and Darwin's scientific view would seem irreconcilable. In Genesis, the creation of the world, and Adam, the first human, took six days. Evolution's process of genetic mutation and natural selection-the survival and proliferation of the fittest new species-has taken billions of years, according to scientists ..."


"The Pope's message went much further in accepting the theory of evolution as a valid explanation of the development of life on Earth, with one major exception: the human soul. 'If the human body has its origin in living material which preexists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God', the Pope said."

(You can see the rest of this article, which outlines the 1994 catechism, at:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html)

BTW&DM

 

[Rion]

Er... there's several references in the Bible that mention that we are still in the day of His Rest. In fact, Genesis never says that the seventh day ended.

The word of God says that when He created everything, He stated that it was good, which disqualifies the existence of suffering, disease and death.

Good is not perfect.

 

[thereselittleflower]

"There is no spoon." - Child to Neo, from The Matrix

RFLOL! When I said that I just KNEW SOMEONE was going to come up with that! (I almost posted it myself! LOL)


But the difference between the spoon in the Matrix and the Echarist isi that where there is nothing in place of the "no spoon", there is Jesus in place of the bread.



.

 

[thereselittleflower]

It is nice to clear the air isn't it?

Yep.



Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory (Excerpted from the October 30 issue of the English edition of L'Osservatore Romano).

See also:


NEWSBRIEF: Chicago Tribune, Friday, 10/25/96, "POPE BOLSTERS CHURCH SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION", by Stevenson Swanson, Tribune Staff Writer, Dateline: New York.

"In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is 'more than just a hypothesis' and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith. In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin ... "It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge', the pope said in his message Wednesday. 'The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favor of this theory..."


"If taken literally, the Biblical view of the beginning of life and Darwin's scientific view would seem irreconcilable. In Genesis, the creation of the world, and Adam, the first human, took six days. Evolution's process of genetic mutation and natural selection-the survival and proliferation of the fittest new species-has taken billions of years, according to scientists ..."


"The Pope's message went much further in accepting the theory of evolution as a valid explanation of the development of life on Earth, with one major exception: the human soul. 'If the human body has its origin in living material which preexists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God', the Pope said."

(You can see the rest of this article, which outlines the 1994 catechism, at:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html)

BTW&DM

I wouldn't take dateline as an authoritative source for accurate reporting on what the Pope said.

All the Pope is saying is that we don't know HOW God created the different animals, etc . . . But that when it came to man, man, in the image of God, did not evolve. . . He is created in God's image. And the Church firmly comes down against any suggestion that Man, a being made in God's image, simply evolved from lower life forms.

The Church does not make doctrine out of science. A Pope, or any other leader of the Catholic Church, does not make doctrine out of science. The Pope is allowed to speculate on scientific theories just as much as you or I . . . . focusing on the scientific speculation of the pope is rediculous . . it holds no weight in regards to the faith or morals of Catholics, and so you are making an tremendous mountian out of an insignificant mole hill . . . and this is all because of negative attitudes against Catholicism . . I am calling a spade a spade. There is no other reason for this . . . . . .



.

 

[A. believer]

Good is not perfect.

Right, God was just pronouncing His creation to be above average.

 

[Rion]

Right, God was just pronouncing His creation to be above average

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but realize that without death, there'd be no break down of enzymes, meaning that the entire universe wouldn't work.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Er... there's several references in the Bible that mention that we are still in the day of His Rest.

References please.

In fact, Genesis never says that the seventh day ended.

Not trying to engage tit-for-tat, but Genesis also never states that the day of rest would never end.

Good is not perfect.

Indeed? Hmm. You better tell that to Jesus, Who stated in Mark 10:18, "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

BTW&DM

 

[Melethiel]

The Hebrew word in Genesis translated as "good" is NOT the same, nor does it carry the same connotation, as the word for "perfect."

 

[BeforeThereWas]

without death, there'd be no break down of enzymes, meaning that the entire universe wouldn't work.

That's a very subjective system of logic from which you're drawing your conclusion. You appear to have bought into the thinking of people like Dr. Hugh Ross.

It's theorized by many that there are three kinds of life:

1) life that man has because he is a living soul and spirit who received that life from the very breath of God

2) life that animals have, although with a conscious awareness of their environment, completely apart from the breath from God, therefore without spirit

3) the growth and multiplication of plant cells, not really life by comparison to that of man, or even animal, but mostly a mechanism, again, without soul or spirit.

When the word of God addresses life in the text, He at no time refers to plants or animals as living souls, such as He did in reference to humanity.

So, when enzymes are broken down, is that really life passing from life to death? Nope. Those cells aren't really alive in the same sense as we're alive. We're more than a mere mechanism that functions in accordance with the information in its genetic code.

My car is a mechanism that functions in accordance with its design. If it gets smashed, it doesn't die. Its form was altered, and parts might be removed for use in other vehicles, but it wasn't alive, therefore it didn't die.

I'm not going to say that animals don't have a form of life, because they obviously do, based upon their awareness of the environment around them. However, The Lord never declared it murder for me to go out and shoot a deer for meat. If I did that to a human, then I have committed murder.

Thus the fallacy behind the subjective application of the term life to what it clearly has no application.

BTW&DM

 

[Rion]

Pslam 95

10 For forty years I was angry with that generation;
I said, "They are a people whose hearts go astray,
and they have not known my ways."
11 So I declared on oath in my anger,
"They shall never enter my rest."

Hebrews 3:

18And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed[c]? 19So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

Hebrews 4:

1Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. 3Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
"So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall never enter my rest.' "

In other words, God's day of rest is eternal. The seventh day is, from God's PoV, eternal.