So confused on the Sabbath...

[Zeena]

The senses of the spirit include communion, intuition and conscience. To go by one or two alone would not be a whole decision, based upon the entire truth of the matter..

Just like ignoring your soul or your bodily needs would not be a whole decsion based on the entire truth of the matter..

 

[JAL]

Sleaker,

Earlier you suggested that faith, not conscience, should be the basis for our decisions. To begin with, faith is a feeling of certainty - precisely what I have been describing, as opposed to doubt (uncertainty) as the opposite of faith. To act according to our current feeling of certainty is what I call "acting according to conscience." Now if you would prefer to call it, "acting according to faith," - fine, so long as it is also admitted that even a deluded person, if he acts according to his feeling of certainty (his faith), is doing the best he can do, and hence cannot be condemned for it. He may be condemned for prior actions, for instance his sin in Adam, but he cannot be chastized for acting "according to faith."

What about the suicide bomber? According to Paul, men are generally well aware that their deeds are evil (see Romans 1 and 2) in virtue of their conscience. But if we assume for the moment that the suicide bomber has a deluded conscience, that he feels 100% certain that he is doing the right thing, we cannot condemn him for it, nor can God. All we can ask of man is that he always do what is right to the best of his knowledge and ability. If he happens to have a deluded sense of morality, and if he is unable to recognize it as deluded or change it, we cannot blame him for his behavior. Even the courts recognize insanity as a defense. They might lock him up, but not because he is "guilty" but rather to protect society.

 

[Sleaker]

Sleaker,

Earlier you suggested that faith, not conscience, should be the basis for our decisions. To begin with, faith is a feeling of certainty - precisely what I have been describing, as opposed to doubt (uncertainty) as the opposite of faith. To act according to our current feeling of certainty is what I call "acting according to conscience." Now if you would prefer to call it, "acting according to faith," - fine, so long as it is also admitted that even a deluded person, if he acts according to his feeling of certainty (his faith), is doing the best he can do, and hence cannot be condemned for it. He may be condemned for prior actions, for instance his sin in Adam, but he cannot be chastized for acting "according to faith."

What about the suicide bomber? According to Paul, men are generally well aware that their deeds are evil (see Romans 1 and 2) in virtue of their conscience. But if we assume for the moment that the suicide bomber has a deluded conscience, that he feels 100% certain that he is doing the right thing, we cannot condemn him for it, nor can God. All we can ask of man is that he always do what is right to the best of his knowledge and ability. If he happens to have a deluded sense of morality, and if he is unable to recognize it as deluded or change it, we cannot blame him for his behavior. Even the courts recognize insanity as a defense. They might lock him up, but not because he is "guilty" but rather to protect society.

Ahh, but there is a big difference between conscience and faith. See I can have faith in what my conscience is telling me, because it is one kind of voice. I can also have faith in what God is telling me.
Why can't God condemn the man who breaks the Law? He is above the Law, He made the Law, and he is the judge of those who transgress it, not the consciounce.

The difference between the man who gives poisoned bread and the man who suicidally kills many people is this: The man who gives poisoned food is acting under a presupposition that the bread is indeed Good. This is clearly a lack of knowledge for indeed the bread is not good. So the lack of knowledge is Not in the morality of the action, it is in the knowledge of the gift that he is giving. For he already knows that giving is a good thing.

The man who suicidally bombs is not acting under the same lack of knowledge, for the conscience must have been given from God, and then altered. God does not create a broken conscience, it is man who corrupts it. And so the action the suicidal man is taking is directly related to the morality of the action, murder is not moral. But you are very right in the idea that we cannot blame him, We have no place to judge that. That is God's place. This is why determining conscience as a Judge over Sin is wrong, and unscriptural.

The reason there is this distinction here is because the conscience echoes the commandments and the Law. Without the commandments and the Law, the conscience would not exist.

Then what's the advantage of being a Jew? Is there any value in the Jewish ceremony of circumcision?

2 Yes, being a Jew has many advantages. First of all, the Jews were entrusted with the whole revelation of God.

3 True, some of them were unfaithful; but just because they broke their promises, does that mean God will break his promises?

4 Of course not! Though everyone else in the world is a liar, God is true. As the Scriptures say, "He will be proved right in what he says, and he will win his case in court."

5 "But," some say, "our sins serve a good purpose, for people will see God's goodness when he declares us sinners to be innocent. Isn't it unfair, then, for God to punish us?" (That is actually the way some people talk.)

6 Of course not! If God is not just, how is he qualified to judge the world?

7 "But," some might still argue, "how can God judge and condemn me as a sinner if my dishonesty highlights his truthfulness and brings him more glory?"

8 If you follow that kind of thinking, however, you might as well say that the more we sin the better it is! Those who say such things deserve to be condemned, yet some slander me by saying this is what I preach!

9 Well then, are we Jews better than others? No, not at all, for we have already shown that all people, whether Jews or Gentiles, are under the power of sin.

10 As the Scriptures say, "No one is good-- not even one.

11 No one has real understanding; no one is seeking God.

12 All have turned away from God; all have gone wrong. No one does good, not even one."

13 "Their talk is foul, like the stench from an open grave. Their speech is filled with lies." "The poison of a deadly snake drips from their lips."

14 "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."

15 "They are quick to commit murder.

16 Wherever they go, destruction and misery follow them.

17 They do not know what true peace is."

18 "They have no fear of God to restrain them."

19 Obviously, the law applies to those to whom it was given, for its purpose is to keep people from having excuses and to bring the entire world into judgment before God.

20 For no one can ever be made right in God's sight by doing what his law commands. For the more we know God's law, the clearer it becomes that we aren't obeying it.

21 But now God has shown us a different way of being right in his sight--not by obeying the law but by the way promised in the Scriptures long ago.

22 We are made right in God's sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we have done.

23 For all have sinned; all fall short of God's glorious standard.

24 Yet now God in his gracious kindness declares us not guilty. He has done this through Christ Jesus, who has freed us by taking away our sins.

25 For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us. God was being entirely fair and just when he did not punish those who sinned in former times.

26 And he is entirely fair and just in this present time when he declares sinners to be right in his sight because they believe in Jesus.

You suggest that conscience makes us void of sin if we carry no guilt, but I'd like to point out Romans 3, especially verse 19-20.

 

[JAL]

Why can't God condemn the man who breaks the Law? He is above the Law, He made the Law, and he is the judge of those who transgress it, not the consciounce.

Yes, but precisely what I am trying to tell you is that a person who acts in conscience is not breaking the law. You admit this a few sentences later when you say, "I agree, we cannot blame him for his behavior." A man who cannot be blamed (what Scripture calls a "blameless man") is not a lawbreaker, but the opposite thereof.

The difference between the man who gives poisoned bread and the man who suicidally kills many people is..

Why do you assume there is a difference? How do you KNOW that God didn't command him to kill people even as He tested Abraham. You don't KNOW this. You merely have an opinion. But for purposes of theological accuracy, that's not good enough. If this bomber feels the same feeling of certainty as the man who gives poisoned bread to his kids unknowingly, we must judge.them alike. We can't have a double-standard of ethics. If both men believe themselves to be acting according to the will of God, He should reward them both equally. Again, I admit that if the bomber arrived at this feeling of certainty by deliberate malice, for that he is guilty. But once the feeling of certainty is in place, he is now obligated to it, and God must reward him for his obedience to conscience even as He rewards the man who (unknowingly) feeds poisoned bread to his kids.

The man who suicidally bombs is not acting under the same lack of knowledge, for the conscience must have been given from God, and then altered. God does not create a broken conscience, it is man who corrupts it.

Yes, if he malicously altered his own concscience, he is guilty for altering it. But nonethless, once it is altered, it is obligatory. We must always heed our conscience, our sense of right and wrong. For if I do the opposite of what I think is right, this would be deliberate attempt on my part to do malice. Malice has nothing to do with the final outcome of the action (i.e whether people get killed). Malice has to do with the INTENT of the heart.

And so the action the suicidal man is taking is directly related to the morality of the action, murder is not moral. But you are very right in the idea that we cannot blame him, We have no place to judge that. That is God's place. This is why determining conscience as a Judge over Sin is wrong, and unscriptural.

Look, if you are saying that we don't REALLY know his heart's intent, and hence can't judge him, fine. But if we ASSUME (for the sake of argument, as a hypothetical), that he is acting according to conscience, then we can indeed declare him innocent in the bombing - although he is guilty for having pre-corrupted his conscience. You cannot convince me that acting according to conscience "is wrong" or even "might be wrong." It is NEVER wrong. Therefore, contrary to your conclusion, conscience IS INDEED the highest authority in a man's life.

Would you have men act CONTRARY to conscience? Make up your mind, please, so we can end this silly debate. I know of no theologian who would have men acting contrary to conscience.

You suggest that conscience makes us void of sin if we carry no guilt, but I'd like to point out Romans 3, especially verse 19-20.

Frankly I don't see anything in those verses that refutes my claim.

 

[JAL]

Oh, by the way, if you presume that God would never appoint a suicide bomber, take a look at Samson's experience. He prayed to God for a final restoration of his strength to kill the Philisitines, and God granted it, knowing that Samson's effort would even kill Samson himself.

So here we have an OT suicide bomber who is mentioned in the Great Men of Faith (Heb 11). I would say, if he acted according to conscience, he acted rightly. The fact that people died in the process does not alter my conviction that he acted rightly.

 

[JAL]

I think your concern, Sleaker, is that my paradigm SEEMS to allow conscience to usurp the Lord's Lordship. Your concern results from two oversights. (1) You are not realizing how sensitivie the conscience is even in the unbeliever. The Christian's conscience is especially sensitive in virtue of the Holy Spirit's influence. (2) The conscience warns us against presumption. The most ubiquitous sin of religious people is presumption, that is, pretending that it's okay to make decisions about how we should behave without seeking 100% certainty from the divine voice. Every false religion entails a set of religious beliefs and actions originating in presumption, for instance the suicide bomber who detonates even though he isn't 100% certain it's the right thing to do.. And the decisions, beliefs, and practices of most Christians also originate in presumption. In short, we have created our own religion. My paradigm is actually the ONLY one that doesn't usurp God's authority because it disdains all presumption.

Making 100% certainty the standard is precisely what allows God to be the authority. Suppose for example that we condone a criterion OTHER than 100% certainty, for example the maxim, "Act in accordance with what Scripture says." The problem is that sometimes God wants us to do things that DON'T seem to line up with Scripture. For example He might want us to to abstain from feeding our kids because He alone knows the food is poisoned. Or He may want us to do something whose justification is too complicated for men to comprehend. Or it may be that He needs IMMEDIATE obedience which means we won't have TIME to comprehend. In my paradigm, He merely has to issue a feeling of 100% certainty to us, He doesn't have to wait for us to comprehend, and this allows Him to rule even when we cannot comprehend. Thus my paradigm is the ONLY one that allows God to be authoritative in every imaginable situation.

When certainty is less than 100%, our conscience will lead us to choose the option that is MOST certain, but this doesn't justify presumption. We still have an obligation to continue avoiding presumption, that is, to continue seeking 100% certainty from God. It is to be pretty much our top priority. Hence prayer is pretty much the Christian's top priority, in my view.

I think I'm done here.

 

[JAL]

Looks like someone just made a post in agreement with me about the primacy of conscience.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=29172216&postcount=13


The post was from this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t4238879-literalism-and-original-sin.html

 

[bdarien]

bernergirl you may be correct in your thinking. We aren't told any law until the ten commandments in Exodus.

It wasn't until just recently though I discovered some things. We aren't told any laws concerning clean and unclean animals nor are we told how we can tell until Leviticus 11, yet why was it in Gen 7:2 Noah was told to take 7 pairs of clean animals and 1 pair of unclean animals?

Why is it that Cain and Abel, Abraham and Jacob, among others we know made offerings and alters to God, but its not until the nation of Israel leave Egypt that we see God giving anyone rules and regulations regarding them? Does that mean it wasn't required before then? Also why is it that Abel's sacrifice was accepted and Cain's was not? Theres nothing anywhere there explaining what God required of the sacrifice.

If there were no laws to say what was right or wrong then how would the world have known they were doing evil in the sight of God before the flood? In Gen 6:5-6 we are told that God was sorry he had made mankind and that their wickedness (which was evil continually) filled his heart with pain. Also if there were no laws, with what would God have had to judge their deeds against to show them they were doing evil?

What about Sodom and Gomorrah, would God have had no reason to destroy them as well because there was no law which told them they were doing the wrong thing (Gen 19)? God even promised Abraham that if he could find 10 people in Sodom who were righteous that he would spare the cities (Gen 18:32). that being the case, how do you tell who is righteous and who is not without a law? If you know of a way I would love to hear of it!

the ceremonial law which included the rules for not working on the sabbath and so many other conditions of the law including the death penalty for murder could not have existed before the time of Moses because if it did then God would be guilty of breaking His own law by not putting to death or ordering Cain to be put to death for the murder of Able.

And why are those who say we should follow the Mosaid Ceremonial laws for the sabbath are quiet about the rest of the Mosaic laws?

No one is made righteous by the law
Galatians 3:11 "for it is now clear that no one is justified before God by the law, because the righteous will live by faith"

 

[Sophia7]

This past week was really tough for me. My husband came down with a stomach virus and was sick for a couple of days. Then my son got it. Then I got it. I spent all week cleaning up puke and washing about 500 loads of laundry–well, not really 500, but it seemed like that many. By Thanksgiving Day, everyone was feeling somewhat better, but I was too tired to cook much, so we had pizza for Thanksgiving dinner. On Friday I had to catch up on all of the laundry and dishes that I hadn’t had time to finish yet. I hardly had a moment to myself all week.

Then, last night, we were driving to church to rehearse for our annual Christmas cantata. It was just getting dark, and the clear, cold sky was still pink by the horizon. The crescent moon was rising. As we left town, I could see a canopy of stars blanketing the sky. I was awestruck by the beauty of everything that God had created, as if I were seeing it for the first time. And I would have missed all of that if I hadn’t taken the time to notice it.

In the back seat of the van, my four-year-old daughter was singing songs of praise to God–songs that she made up herself as she sang. I was filled with thanksgiving because of all of the blessings that God has given me: a wonderful husband and three happy and healthy children, who all love Jesus and who pray all the time. And I would have missed that moment if I hadn’t taken the time to treasure it.

That’s what the Sabbath means to me. At the end of a long week (this one particularly long), I take time out from my mundane household tasks and all of my other obligations and just enjoy spending time with God and with my family and with other people. I have a whole day when I can pray and study and meditate on everything that God has done for me–all of the wonders of creation and the wonders of salvation. And I would miss out on a great blessing if I didn’t take advantage of that opportunity.

Sure, a person could do this any day of the week, but other days just don’t have the same spiritual significance to me. Many Christians choose to honor Sunday because of Jesus’ resurrection, and if that’s what they are convicted of, they should follow their convictions. There is nothing wrong with going to church on Sunday or any other day or every day, and it is certainly a good idea to worship God every day of the week. However, I choose to specifically set apart a whole day for spiritual rest–the day that God sanctified in the very beginning when He created the world. Before an Israelite or a written law or human sin even existed, God blessed that day and made it holy. He blessed it for our benefit. He gave it as a gift, not a law–a gift to help us remember Him as our Creator and Redeemer, a gift to help us refresh our spiritual lives. I rest in Him on the Sabbath, and I remember that His work for me has granted me the eternal life that I could never achieve myself.

Hebrews 4 connects God’s rest at the end of creation with our eternal rest. The Sabbath rest spoken of in Heb. 4:9 foreshadows our eternal rest. From the context of the rest of the chapter and the preceding chapter, God's rest clearly refers to the eternal rest that God entered after creation and that we enter by faith. For me as a Christian, experiencing the joy of the Sabbath rest gives me a foretaste of God's eternal rest, which I enter now by faith and which I will experience fully in heaven.

To me, the important thing about the Sabbath is not the law written on stone but the principles written on my heart. I think that sometimes we as Christians have the wrong idea about the law. The heart of the law is not the Ten Commandments. It is not the ceremonial requirements. It is not the 613 mitzvot that people keep saying that we Sabbath-keepers must follow in order to avoid hypocrisy. The law is summed up here:

MK 12:28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

MK 12:29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
​

Jesus wasn’t saying anything new here; He was quoting the Old Testament (Deut. 6:4-5; Lev. 19:18). Even the Jewish experts in the law during Jesus’ time understood that these were the great principles that lay at the foundation of the Torah. (See Luke 10:25-29–the setting for the parable of the Good Samaritan.) These were always the most important commandments, and they are still. The eternal principles of love for God and love for our neighbors are what God wants to write in our hearts. The written laws, including the Ten Commandments, are specific applications and interpretations of these principles. They were added because of transgressions (Gal. 3:19), because people had become so depraved that they could no longer discern God’s principles. They had erased them from their hearts, so God had to give them concrete reminders to show them their sin and their need to turn to Him for salvation. Jesus made it possible for us to once again have these principles written in our hearts and to live by them through the power of the Holy Spirit.

My point is that my concern is not with the letter of the law but with the spirit. God has convicted me to set aside the day that He made holy in the beginning as a day of spiritual renewal in remembrance of His creation and in anticipation of finally being able to spend eternity with Him. My Sabbath experience is fully in line with the principles of loving the Lord with all my heart and doing good to others, as Jesus taught.

These are my personal convictions, and I follow them because God has placed them in my heart as I have studied and prayed about this subject. I won’t judge anyone who is not convicted as I am, so to those who disagree: please do me the courtesy of not using Romans 14 or Colossians 2 or Galatians to condemn me and my fellow Sabbatarian Christians as legalists or self-righteous hypocrites.

 

[Iosias]

And why are those who say we should follow the Mosaid Ceremonial laws for the sabbath are quiet about the rest of the Mosaic laws?

No one says that we ought follow the Mosaic ceremionial laws for the sabbath. This is because they pointed to and were fulfilled in Christ.

Furthermore, the Mosaic Law is split into three: (1) Ceremonial, (2) Civil and (3) Moral.

(1) pointed to Christ and we fulfilled by him and so no longer apply.
(2) were specific to Israel and so no longer apply.
(3) these are binding upon all men at all times.

Back to the Sabbath. The sabbath is a creation ordinance and predates the giving of the Mosaic Law and so the people of God (in the OT the Israelites) were called to remember the sabbath day - the day upon which God rested (Genesis 1-3).

However specific to their ceremional laws they had many sabbaths. These were specific to Israel in the OT and went with the comming of Christ. However the single sabbath principle as creation ordinance remains.

Clarifications?

 

[holo]

Furthermore, the Mosaic Law is split into three: (1) Ceremonial, (2) Civil and (3) Moral.

(Where) do the scriptures say such a thing? How do you determine which laws are moral and which are civil or ceremonial?

 

[Iosias]

(Where) do the scriptures say such a thing? How do you determine which laws are moral and which are civil or ceremonial?

Try these:
1. http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/theology/threefold.pdf
2. http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/theology/promiseplan.pdf
3. http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/theology/morallaw.pdf

 

[holo]

Try these:
1. http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/theology/threefold.pdf
2. http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/theology/promiseplan.pdf
3. http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/theology/morallaw.pdf

I don't find those very convincing.

In fact, I think the entire concept of dividing the law is because people, contrary to Paul's teaching, assumes "well, we MUST be under some sort of law" - without even considering the alternative - that we're simply not under the law, but under grace instead. This deepfounded and common misunderstanding is the very basis for the christian confusion as to what's allowed, what's sin, what's required besides faith.

It all comes together once you lose the false (and very counterproductive) doctrine that we're under law. I used to belive it myself, and I know that kind of honest and well-meant legalism from the inside. The problem is, it doesn't work. And it's wrong to begin with.

Jesus fulfilled the one and only law there was. The entire concept of a covenant based on grace and us being new creatures removes the need for law altogether.

There is ONE law, and we're dead to it.

 

[bdarien]

No one says that we ought follow the Mosaic ceremionial laws for the sabbath. This is because they pointed to and were fulfilled in Christ.

Furthermore, the Mosaic Law is split into three: (1) Ceremonial, (2) Civil and (3) Moral.

(1) pointed to Christ and we fulfilled by him and so no longer apply.
(2) were specific to Israel and so no longer apply.
(3) these are binding upon all men at all times.

Back to the Sabbath. The sabbath is a creation ordinance and predates the giving of the Mosaic Law and so the people of God (in the OT the Israelites) were called to remember the sabbath day - the day upon which God rested (Genesis 1-3).

However specific to their ceremional laws they had many sabbaths. These were specific to Israel in the OT and went with the comming of Christ. However the single sabbath principle as creation ordinance remains.

Clarifications?

remembering the sabbath, and abiding by the mosaic laws concerning work on the sabbath are two different things with the mosaic laws adding a large number of ceremonial requirements to the sabbath.
In genesis God made the sabbath holy but all of the requirements concerning work on the sabbath and worship on the sabbath did not come until the mosaic law.