One of the most controversial issues, is the DAY OF WORSHIP

[redleghunter]

Yes he truly did. He observed the holy days before and after and his observance was based on obedience to God & Christ, not violent Jews.

He was mostly in prison after the observing Jews tried to kill him. How was he to observe Temple Judaism if he was in and out of jail, under house arrest and continuing to plant churches and preach the Gospel?

 

[redleghunter]

Yet the same man writing this letter to the Galatians observed the very holy days you erroneously think he was teaching against. Irony is so ironic.

Which days was he speaking of if not according to the Law?

 

[Dkh587]

Which days was he speaking of if not according to the Law?

The verses you quoted are usually taught out of context, but in proper context, Paul is referring to days and times when they (the Galatians) didn’t know God. See for yourself

Galatians 4:8-11 NIV

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods.
But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces?
Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?
You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!
I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

Notice that he said FORMERLY, indicating that there was a period when they didn’t know God and God didn’t know them - they weren’t obeying God, they were disobeying the law, they weren’t celebrating God’s holy days. They were PAGAN.

How can the Galatians “go back” to celebrating the holy days of God when they were FORMERLY pagans and were without God & Christ, living in disobedience to God and His Law?

 

[BobRyan]

The exact quote is:
4And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
Was he trying to persuade them or they needed to keep the Law?

He was trying to persuade them that "what matters is KEEPING the commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
He was trying to persuade them to "Honor your father and mother" because "this is the first commandment WITH a promise" Eph 6:2 ...in that distinct unit of TEN.
He was trying to persuade them that "it is not the HEARERS of the LAW that are just before God but the DOERS of the LAW WILL be JUSTIFIED" Rom 2:13
He was trying to persuade them of the basics "Do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31
He was trying to remind them that it is only the lost who "do NOT submit to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they" Romans 8:4-11.

This was in the context of circumcision. Therefore, he specifically says don’t circumsize those who are not.

Is Paul then abrogating the portion of the Mosaic Law for circumcision? How can the Corinthians keep the commands of God given at Sinai if they are not to circumsize the Gentiles?

There was no command at Sinai to circumcise gentiles.

In 1 Cor 7:19 Paul contrasts ceremonial law (which ends at the cross) to moral law (which remains because it is the Commandments of God).

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

Another Bible detail agreed to by both the "Westminster Confession of Faith" section 19 and also the"Baptist Confession of faith" sectn 19.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
He was trying to persuade them to "Honor your father and mother" because "this is the first commandment WITH a promise"

Indeed and that is explicitly confirmed by him no? Where is the same for the Sabbath?

That same form does not exist for "Do not take God's name in vain" but in Heb 4 "there REMAINS therefore a SABBATH rest for the people of God" -- you are shooting your own argument in the foot again.

Your point only lasts if one does not recall that such an argument would never work for deleting "Do not take God's name in vain" and is not even valid as a means of deleting a commandment

Your point does not survive "the detail" in Eph 6:2 that the "UNIT of LAW" where the 5th commandment is the "first commandment with a promise" -- is the TEN Commandments. Because the 5th commandment is not the "first promise" in the Bible. or in Genesis or in Exodus.

Thus Paul has gone out of his way to pull in the context of ALL TEN when he makes that specific comment about the 5th commandment.

You skim past almost every detail as if "we simply aren't supposed to notice". Why do that??

 

[redleghunter]

BobRyan said: ↑
He was trying to persuade them to "Honor your father and mother" because "this is the first commandment WITH a promise"



That same form does not exist for "Do not take God's name in vain" but in Heb 4 "there REMAINS therefore a SABBATH rest for the people of God" -- you are shooting your own argument in the foot again.

Your point only lasts if one does not recall that such an argument would never work for deleting "Do not take God's name in vain" and is not even valid as a means of deleting a commandment

Your point does not survive "the detail" in Eph 6:2 that the "UNIT of LAW" where the 5th commandment is the "first commandment with a promise" -- is the TEN Commandments. Because the 5th commandment is not the "first promise" in the Bible. or in Genesis or in Exodus.

Thus Paul has gone out of his way to pull in the context of ALL TEN when he makes that specific comment about the 5th commandment.

You skim past almost every detail as if "we simply aren't supposed to notice". Why do that??

I’m not skimming. Just pointing out the premise you rely on “silence” makes your house of cards crumble as you try to apply weight to it.

 

[BobRyan]

The exact quote is:
4And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
Was he trying to persuade them or they needed to keep the Law?

He was trying to persuade them that "what matters is KEEPING the commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
He was trying to persuade them to "Honor your father and mother" because "this is the first commandment WITH a promise" Eph 6:2 ...in that distinct unit of TEN.
He was trying to persuade them that "it is not the HEARERS of the LAW that are just before God but the DOERS of the LAW WILL be JUSTIFIED" Rom 2:13
He was trying to persuade them of the basics "Do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31
He was trying to remind them that it is only the lost who "do NOT submit to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they" Romans 8:4-11.


Your opposition to Rom 2:13
"it is not the HEARERS of the LAW that are just before God but the DOERS of the LAW WILL be JUSTIFIED" Rom 2:13

Yes and what does he say in Romans 3:20?
20Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin.

Romans 3:20 uses the term "works of the Law" and not the term "doers of the Law" they are different. In Romans 3 the "Works of the Law" is in the context of "works without faith".

In any case your solution to Rom 2:13 is "not to look" and to read Rom 3:20 "instead" having not been informed by the context of Rom 2:13 for Romans 3.


Your opposition to "Do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31

This after verses 1-30. Kind of thinking the context here is the Righteousness of God which is explained in the next two chapters. If you want to use this as a proof text then it includes circumcision.

Paul points out the the ceremonial law of circumcision ends while the "Commandments of God" continue - in 1 Cor 7:19

1 Cor 7
18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.

Your argument has been "what does not matter - is keeping the Commandments of God" and hence your suggestion does not survive "the details" in 1 Cor 7:19 where Paul points out the contrast between the ceremonial law (that does not matter after the cross) and the moral law of God (the Commandments of God) that does matter.

 

[BobRyan]

Your opposition to the Bible fact in Romans 8 that it is only the lost who "do NOT submit to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they" Romans 8:4-11.

This is a total fail of context.

1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.a 2For in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life has set youb free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the Law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the righteous standard of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NASB)

What the Law failed to do in the flesh Christ conquered with His death and resurrection. Keep reading.

Keep reading and find out that it is only the lost who "do not submit to the Law of God neither indeed CAN they" Rom 8

4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

in each case your "solution" is not to deal with the point raised in the text at all (Rom 8:6-7) - and read something else instead.

 

[redleghunter]

The verses you quoted are usually taught out of context, but in proper context, Paul is referring to days and times when they (the Galatians) didn’t know God. See for yourself

Of course. And now that they were washed and believers what were they filling the old pagan void with of days weeks months etc? That’s right they were trying to fill the social and familial void left after renouncing organism with the Law and the Judaizers were more than happy to teach them the ways.

 

[Dkh587]

Of course. And now that they were washed and believers what were they filling the old pagan void with of days weeks months etc? That’s right they were trying to fill the social and familial void left after renouncing organism with the Law and the Judaizers were more than happy to teach them the ways.

That makes no sense. Paul said they were going back to doing things they were formerly doing.

You can’t go back to doing something that you were never doing in the first place(such as keeping God’s holy days)

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
He was trying to persuade them to "Honor your father and mother" because "this is the first commandment WITH a promise"

Indeed and that is explicitly confirmed by him no? Where is the same for the Sabbath?

That same form does not exist for "Do not take God's name in vain" but in Heb 4 "there REMAINS therefore a SABBATH rest for the people of God" -- you are shooting your own argument in the foot again.

Your point only lasts if one does not recall that such an argument would never work for deleting "Do not take God's name in vain" and is not even valid as a means of deleting a commandment

Your point does not survive "the detail" in Eph 6:2 that the "UNIT of LAW" where the 5th commandment is the "first commandment with a promise" -- is the TEN Commandments. Because the 5th commandment is not the "first promise" in the Bible. or in Genesis or in Exodus.

Thus Paul has gone out of his way to pull in the context of ALL TEN when he makes that specific comment about the 5th commandment.

You skim past almost every detail as if "we simply aren't supposed to notice". Why do that??

I’m not skimming. Just pointing out the premise you rely on “silence” makes your house of cards crumble as you try to apply weight to it.

Here again you refuse to address the "detail" in the text (in this case Eph 6:2) ... as if that is a "solution" when in fact it is that very detail that your argument does not survive.

The 5th commandment is the "FIRST" commandment WITH a promise. This statement is only true of the TEN Commandment unit of LAW -- and we all know it. it is obvious.

What is more - Paul did not need to do that -- He could simply say "I am an Apostle, I am writing under inspiration - so I command you to honor your father and mother as all good Christians should".

This (as we both know) is the way your particular view "needed" the text to read ... instead of that Paul does what in your argument - is the unthinkable. He specifically appeals to the TEN as a still-valid UNIT by pointing out that this is the "first" commandment in that UNIT - with a promise.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"?..

Your answer to that seems to be "yes... don't notice".

 

[BobRyan]

That makes no sense. Paul said they were going back to doing things they were formerly doing.

You can’t go back to doing something that you were never doing in the first place(such as keeping God’s holy days)

Bingo!

 

[redleghunter]

That makes no sense. Paul said they were going back to doing things they were formerly doing.

You can’t go back to doing something that you were never doing in the first place(such as keeping God’s holy days)

If that be the case the epistle would be about paganism and not the Law.

 

[redleghunter]

That makes no sense. Paul said they were going back to doing things they were formerly doing.

You can’t go back to doing something that you were never doing in the first place(such as keeping God’s holy days)

Going back to Law as stated in chapter 3 as well:

1You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed ascrucified? 2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

 

[Dkh587]

If that be the case the epistle would be about paganism and not the Law.

Paul discusses different things in his letter to the Galatians.

 

[Dkh587]

Going back to Law as stated in chapter 3 as well:

1You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed ascrucified? 2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

Here, Paul is not discussing the same thing as he is in Galatians 4:8-11

Context is key

 

[redleghunter]

That same form does not exist for "Do not take God's name in vain" but in Heb 4 "there REMAINS therefore a SABBATH rest for the people of God" -- you are shooting your own argument in the foot again.

Hebrews 4 is speaking of how Israel would not enter His rest. It is not a call to the 7th day observance but a plea to Hebrews to enter the rest that is in Christ and not the law.

 

[redleghunter]

That same form does not exist for "Do not take God's name in vain" but in Heb 4 "there REMAINS therefore a SABBATH rest for the people of God" -- you are shooting your own argument in the foot again.

Hebrews 4 is speaking of how Israel would not enter His rest. It is not a call to the 7th day observance but a plea to Hebrews to enter the rest that is in Christ and not the law.

Here, Paul is not discussing the same thing as he is in Galatians 4:8-11

Context is key

Then what is the context of days months years etc? Were the Galatians going back to paganism?

 

[mmksparbud]

Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

 

[redleghunter]

Paul discusses different things in his letter to the Galatians.

He does. Like

23Before this faith came, we were held in custody under the Law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the Law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

 

[klutedavid]

BobRyan said: ↑
He was trying to persuade them to "Honor your father and mother" because "this is the first commandment WITH a promise"



That same form does not exist for "Do not take God's name in vain" but in Heb 4 "there REMAINS therefore a SABBATH rest for the people of God" -- you are shooting your own argument in the foot again.

Your point only lasts if one does not recall that such an argument would never work for deleting "Do not take God's name in vain" and is not even valid as a means of deleting a commandment

Your point does not survive "the detail" in Eph 6:2 that the "UNIT of LAW" where the 5th commandment is the "first commandment with a promise" -- is the TEN Commandments. Because the 5th commandment is not the "first promise" in the Bible. or in Genesis or in Exodus.

Thus Paul has gone out of his way to pull in the context of ALL TEN when he makes that specific comment about the 5th commandment.

You skim past almost every detail as if "we simply aren't supposed to notice". Why do that??

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

The oldness of the written law said, you shall honor the Sabbath day. We serve under grace and not under the oldness of the written law.

You still do not understand what serving in the NEWNESS of the Spirit means.

Spirit is new, letter is old.