So confused on the Sabbath...

[JAL]

EVERY single member of my church is a sinner. The place is FULL of them. We each have our own issues. Should my church not mention that lieing is a sin just becasue it MIGHT make someone who has lied uncomfortable???? Sould we not speak against aduterly because there my be and adulter in the congregation??? Should we accept someone profaning God's name because it MIGHT offend them to point out in a sermon that profaning God's name is sin?? Should we ignore idol worship because the idol worshipper MIGHT feel disdain if we preach that idol worship is wrong?? I think not.

What you want is just surgar coat every thing so we can a feel good as we sin? Right???

You act as if we place a scarlet letter S on those who don't observe the sabbath. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I doubt anyone would say a word to your hypothetical single mom's concerning working on the Sabbath allthough the issue of Sabbath observace is GENERAL for all members would likely be mentioned in a sermon by the pastor from time to time. But all forms of sin are discussed in sermons the single mom's weakness may be Sabbath related but mine may be another issue. I certainly don't want the preacher to stop speaking on a subject that might speak to my flaws and failures, my toes should be stepped on if I'm still not following God's will. Nor do I want him to stop giving sermons on the issue of sabbath observance.


Helping a neighbor nail plastic over his roof for a few minutes for free before a rain storm before going to church in a singular emergency situtation is a lot different from working every Sabbath and not gathering with the Church body. We go to church to help strengthen our faith by whorship and fellowship. Those who don't attend church regularly and participate frequently backslide to a point of have little or no relationship with God. Satan is very good at placing obsticals in our way and God is good at over coming those obsticals.

I guess it comes down to who do you have more faith in God's ability to provide for your needs of your own ability to provide for those needs. We are told that it is our faith in God that saves us.

What bewilders me is how you can hold your perspective without seeing in it a double standard. The command states, "Ye shall do no work on the sabbath."
(1) Now the man who fixes is his roof, is he doing work? Yes. You say this is fine. (This is at odds with Moses claim that NO work shall be done on the sabbath).
(2) The woman who, as yet, has no roof, takes the Saturday job so she can GET a roof. Is she doing work? Yes. You say this is wrong.

Given your claim that #1 is okay, why do feel that #2 is wrong? You say that the woman should have faith that God will take care of her needs. But shouldn't the man in #1 have that same faith? Why doesn't he have enough faith to believe that God will take care of his roof? In fact, you seem to say that faith is the root of the issue, "I guess it comes down to who do you have more faith in God's ability to provide for your needs of your own ability to provide for those needs."

And frankly, I think you're correct that the Mosaic sabbaths - both the whole-year sabbaths and the weekly sabbaths - calls upon men to exercise faith in God to provide for their needs. Therefore your condoning the man who fixes his roof seems to me inconsistent. You should regard both #1 and #2 wrong for consistency's sake. Where the sabbath (rest) is in force, work is NOT in force.

Whereas in my view, the sabbath is in force only where and when the divine voice dictates. If early Saturday morning God tells me that the Sabbath is currently in force, I will do no work. But if two hours later He tells me it is no longer in force for me, I will feel free to begin working again. Thus, my view would allow a man to fix his roof on a Saturday. You say that we should have faith in God's willingness to provide for our needs. I say that faith cometh by hearing (as opposed to blind faith) If the voice tells me that the Sabbath is in force for me, I should have faith that He will provide for my needs. If it tells me, two hours later, that the sabbath is NOT currently in force for me, I'd better consider looking for a job!

In sum, a rule-based paradigm does not allow flexibility. To be flexible is to break the rule as proof that a book of rules cannot define morality. If a book of rules cannot define morality, you cannot justifiably PRESUME that the woman is in the wrong. I understand that you are saying that you wouldn't literally point the finger at her. But nonetheless the sabbatarian doctrine DOES point its finger at people.

Earlier you said that God gave us 1 to 6 days to do our work. Here again you are trying to incorporate flexibility into a rule-based paradigm. You cannot do this with consistency. The rule states, "Men are to follow God's example at creation". What was God's example? He worked six days and rested one. If we do not have to follow His example on the six days, then we do not have to follow His example on the seventh day.

I think the reason you try to allow some flexibility into your theology (for instance you allow a man to fix his roof on the sabbath) is that you see at least some degree of flexibility in Christ's behavior on earth. So to avoid contradicting Christ's NT example, you allow some flexibility. But a rule-based paradigm really doesn't allow for such flexibility. Flexibility is permitted only in a situational ethics such as mine which says, "Morality cannot be a bunch of rules set in stone (pun intended) because ethics depends on the current situation." This is not to say that the stone is useless (earlier I said its purpose is to help us form tentative rules when we cannot hear God loud and clear).

In my next post, I will argue that the inflexibility of a rule-based paradigm has proven very effective at breaking God's heart.

 

[JAL]

Let's suppose you are a king whose heart is broken because his two kids can't get along. They are always fighting. In fact you're worried that they are going to kill each other some day. This goes on for years and years and years. Finally, your heart heart is so broken that you simply cannot stand it any longer. As an act of desperation, you make a rule. You decree, "The two of you must try to get along. Therefore every Saturday you must both go to a football game together in an effort to have friendly fellowship together. Maybe you will finally come to enjoy each other's company."

Note, that it is not that you think that Saturday is an inherently "better day" than all the other days. You frankly couldn't care less about Saturday. The real issue is that fellowship was wanting, and Saturday is just as good a day as any to get the ball rolling. So off the two kids go, every Saturday, to the football game. As it turns out, however, football provides a poor chemistry for them, for one reason or another. It becomes yet another arena of competition between them, and the hostility seems to get worse. Soon, they desist going to the games, in disobedience to your command.

There happens to be a Sundays-only bowling alley in town. One Sunday, one of your two kids shows up there with his friends. Shortly afterwards, the other son shows up with his own friends. Amazingly enough, a chemistry forms between your two kids in the bowling alley. After a few weeks, your two sons have a deep love for one another! Your broken heart is mended! Not only that, but also your public shame is ended! (You used to feel embarrassed in public when your kids' would fight).


Now one of your servants comes along and preaches to your two kids, one Sunday, "What are you guys doing? Don't you know the rule that your father laid down? Didn't he tell you guys to go to the football game on Saturday! How dare you make Sunday your day of fellowship! Isn't he the King? And has he not commanded you?" Suddenly your kids feel ashamed of themselves. They decide to BREAK APART THE EXISTING SUNDAY FELLOWSHIP. The kids return to a Saturday fellowship and, in so doing, DAMAGE THE EXISTING CHEMISTRY BETWEEN THEM. Once again, the heart of the King is broken over his kids.

The doctrine of Sabbatarianism appeared (or reappeared?) on the scene at a time when Sunday worship was in vogue. It has possibly done untold damage to the Sunday fellowship of believers and, in so doing, has probably broken God's heart. Many Sabbatarians PRESUME, especially to the extent that they see God blessing them, that they walk in the very spirit of obedience and in the fullness of His favor. The reality is that He generally WILL NOT pour out the fullness of His blessings (such as miraculous healings) upon the church. Why not? Because it walks in presumption. Were He to pour out a grand measure of His blessing upon them, they would conclude, "Now we REALLY have proof that we have been doing everything right. The things we are doing, we are going to now do them with even more determination and zeal than ever before." Generally, a church that walks in presumption cannot be effective. Trouble is, that's pretty much all denonimations. I attended various denominational churches for about 12 years, and all I saw was a lack of real Power, real Sanctification, the real Presence. It's not for lack of effort. Many Christians work hard - in fact they work much harder than they need to work. With a little of God's power, we could get a lot more done with a lot less work - they call it revival.

I no longer atttend church. I lost motivation because I see how ineffective we are. And I'm sick of all the presumption. I'm sick of so-called "pastors" who stand in the pulpit pretending to KNOW what the Bible teaches instead of admitting that they merely have an opinion.

 

[ThreeAM]

Let's suppose you are a king whose heart is broken because his two kids can't get along. They are always fighting. In fact you're worried that they are going to kill each other some day. This goes on for years and years and years. Finally, your heart heart is so broken that you simply cannot stand it any longer. As an act of desperation, you make a rule. You decree, "The two of you must try to get along. Therefore every Saturday you must both go to a football game together in an effort to have friendly fellowship together. Maybe you will finally come to enjoy each other's company."

Note, that it is not that you think that Saturday is an inherently "better day" than all the other days. You frankly couldn't care less about Saturday. The real issue is that fellowship was wanting, and Saturday is just as good a day as any to get the ball rolling. So off the two kids go, every Saturday, to the football game. As it turns out, however, football provides a poor chemistry for them, for one reason or another. It becomes yet another arena of competition between them, and the hostility seems to get worse. Soon, they desist going to the games, in disobedience to your command.

There happens to be a Sundays-only bowling alley in town. One Sunday, one of your two kids shows up there with his friends. Shortly afterwards, the other son shows up with his own friends. Amazingly enough, a chemistry forms between your two kids in the bowling alley. After a few weeks, your two sons have a deep love for one another! Your broken heart is mended! Not only that, but also your public shame is ended! (You used to feel embarrassed in public when your kids' would fight).


Now one of your servants comes along and preaches to your two kids, one Sunday, "What are you guys doing? Don't you know the rule that your father laid down? Didn't he tell you guys to go to the football game on Saturday! How dare you make Sunday your day of fellowship! Isn't he the King? And has he not commanded you?" Suddenly your kids feel ashamed of themselves. They decide to BREAK APART THE EXISTING SUNDAY FELLOWSHIP. The kids return to a Saturday fellowship and, in so doing, DAMAGE THE EXISTING CHEMISTRY BETWEEN THEM. Once again, the heart of the King is broken over his kids.

The doctrine of Sabbatarianism appeared (or reappeared?) on the scene at a time when Sunday worship was in vogue. It has possibly done untold damage to the Sunday fellowship of believers and, in so doing, has probably broken God's heart. Many Sabbatarians PRESUME, especially to the extent that they see God blessing them, that they walk in the very spirit of obedience and in the fullness of His favor. The reality is that He generally WILL NOT pour out the fullness of His blessings (such as miraculous healings) upon the church. Why not? Because it walks in presumption. Were He to pour out a grand measure of His blessing upon them, they would conclude, "Now we REALLY have proof that we have been doing everything right. The things we are doing, we are going to now do them with even more determination and zeal than ever before." Generally, a church that walks in presumption cannot be effective. Trouble is, that's pretty much all denonimations. I attended various denominational churches for about 12 years, and all I saw was a lack of real Power, real Sanctification, the real Presence. It's not for lack of effort. Many Christians work hard - in fact they work much harder than they need to work. With a little of God's power, we could get a lot more done with a lot less work - they call it revival.

I no longer atttend church. I lost motivation because I see how ineffective we are. And I'm sick of all the presumption. I'm sick of so-called "pastors" who stand in the pulpit pretending to KNOW what the Bible teaches instead of admitting that they merely have an opinion.

Sorry to hear this. I sensed this from some of your comments. The problem with this is, to spread the message to the entire world will require the efforts of an orginized Church body.

 

[BrightCandle]

What bewilders me is how you can hold your perspective without seeing in it a double standard. The command states, "Ye shall do no work on the sabbath."
(1) Now the man who fixes is his roof, is he doing work? Yes. You say this is fine. (This is at odds with Moses claim that NO work shall be done on the sabbath).
(2) The woman who, as yet, has no roof, takes the Saturday job so she can GET a roof. Is she doing work? Yes. You say this is wrong.

Given your claim that #1 is okay, why do feel that #2 is wrong? You say that the woman should have faith that God will take care of her needs. But shouldn't the man in #1 have that same faith? Why doesn't he have enough faith to believe that God will take care of his roof? In fact, you seem to say that faith is the root of the issue, "I guess it comes down to who do you have more faith in God's ability to provide for your needs of your own ability to provide for those needs."

And frankly, I think you're correct that the Mosaic sabbaths - both the whole-year sabbaths and the weekly sabbaths - calls upon men to exercise faith in God to provide for their needs. Therefore your condoning the man who fixes his roof seems to me inconsistent. You should regard both #1 and #2 wrong for consistency's sake. Where the sabbath (rest) is in force, work is NOT in force.

Whereas in my view, the sabbath is in force only where and when the divine voice dictates. If early Saturday morning God tells me that the Sabbath is currently in force, I will do no work. But if two hours later He tells me it is no longer in force for me, I will feel free to begin working again. Thus, my view would allow a man to fix his roof on a Saturday. You say that we should have faith in God's willingness to provide for our needs. I say that faith cometh by hearing (as opposed to blind faith) If the voice tells me that the Sabbath is in force for me, I should have faith that He will provide for my needs. If it tells me, two hours later, that the sabbath is NOT currently in force for me, I'd better consider looking for a job!

In sum, a rule-based paradigm does not allow flexibility. To be flexible is to break the rule as proof that a book of rules cannot define morality. If a book of rules cannot define morality, you cannot justifiably PRESUME that the woman is in the wrong. I understand that you are saying that you wouldn't literally point the finger at her. But nonetheless the sabbatarian doctrine DOES point its finger at people.

Earlier you said that God gave us 1 to 6 days to do our work. Here again you are trying to incorporate flexibility into a rule-based paradigm. You cannot do this with consistency. The rule states, "Men are to follow God's example at creation". What was God's example? He worked six days and rested one. If we do not have to follow His example on the six days, then we do not have to follow His example on the seventh day.

I think the reason you try to allow some flexibility into your theology (for instance you allow a man to fix his roof on the sabbath) is that you see at least some degree of flexibility in Christ's behavior on earth. So to avoid contradicting Christ's NT example, you allow some flexibility. But a rule-based paradigm really doesn't allow for such flexibility. Flexibility is permitted only in a situational ethics such as mine which says, "Morality cannot be a bunch of rules set in stone (pun intended) because ethics depends on the current situation." This is not to say that the stone is useless (earlier I said its purpose is to help us form tentative rules when we cannot hear God loud and clear).

In my next post, I will argue that the inflexibility of a rule-based paradigm has proven very effective at breaking God's heart.

JAL:

What breaks God's heart more than anything else is human beings who willfully and knowinly sin, because that crucifies Jesus afresh and dooms the sinner to the Lake of Fire. While, if those same sinners would just humble themselves and repent of their sinful ways, and keep God's Ten Commandments they could live forever with God!


So why not just put away your lame excuses and start keeping the 7th day Sabbath, and all the nine Commandments as well, and start fellowshipping with those who want to do likewise (Seventh Day Adventists), you will not regret it!

 

[Jerrysch]

JAL:

What breaks God's heart more than anything else is human beings who willfully and knowinly sin, because that crucifies Jesus afresh and dooms the sinner to the Lake of Fire. While, if those same sinners would just humble themselves and repent of their sinful ways, and keep God's Ten Commandments they could live forever with God!

There is one thing that puts a person in the lake of fire, I suggest you read it. Rev 20. Doesn't say one thing about keeping the Law there does it?

Why do you reject God's other 603 commands? I mean if you want to be under God's Law (which I might add was only given to ethnic Israel), why do you not keep the 613? There were 613 you know. What about the rest?

 

[Jerrysch]

JAL:




So why not just put away your lame excuses and start keeping the 7th day Sabbath, and all the nine Commandments as well, and start fellowshipping with those who want to do likewise (Seventh Day Adventists), you will not regret it!

There are 613 commands!! Why are you missing the rest of them? If you are seeking to to under the Mosiac Law, well get under it!! Keep all 613 of them, what makes you think ther are only 10, and by the way how does your group enforce the observance of the Sabbath? Do they comply with the Biblical revelation regarding those who break the Sabbath? If not why? If you are going to keep the Mosiac Law, you better keep it!! All 613 not just 10.

 

[JAL]

Sorry to hear this. I sensed this from some of your comments. The problem with this is, to spread the message to the entire world will require the efforts of an orginized Church body.

Agreed, but the crucial epistemological question here is, how do we know that a particular congregation is a church? Here too must we walk in PRESUMPTION? If it is not a church, AS GOD DEFINES CHURCH, it will not accomplish the will of God (worldwide evangelism). You speak of spreading the gospel to the world. Isn't it interesting that Paul nearly accomplished that feat single-handedly while MILLIONS of your so-called church members and leaders have failed? Maybe it's time to start asking whether what WE call a church is how Paul defined it?

Let's make it crystal clear. Jesus sent the disciples out to heal the sick. Guess what? It worked! WHY did it work? Because a church begins with one or more leaders to whom the divine Voice has given exousia (authority). Now suppose a group of Bible scholars got together, that same day, and said to themselves, "Hey guys, don't we know the Bible well? And doesn't it SEEM to us that God has called us to be missionaries? Let's get out there and preach the gospel and heal the sick!" Guess what? I can almost guarantee you that not one sick person will be healed. There will be virtually no power (dunamis) in their endeavor. Trouble is, that same dunamis is needed to spread the gospel EFFECTIVELY.

Maybe I can put it this way. Suppose you were walking by a gay bar and a few people tried to wave you in, "Cmon in, we're having church in here!" Most likely you woudn't step inside because it doesn't meet YOUR definition of a church. Each denomination say, "We model our church after the Bible." Ok, where did you pastor come from? Did a true apostle elect him, as in Scripture? "No," they reply, "since apostles can no longer exist today." Well, if that's what you believe, then don't pretend to model your church after the Bible. I mean, perhaps you are correct, perhaps apostles were supposed to cease (although I disagree) - but in that case, I would say, can't you be honest enough to admit that your ecclesiology is NOT a mirroring of the Bible?

In a nutshell, just as you are not likely to believe that a gay-bar church will be effective, so too do I lack faith in dishonest churches. The dishonesty is a leadership that pretends to BE 100% CERTAIN of what the Bible teaches instead of admitting that only an inspired, infallible person could justifiably claim to KNOW what it says.

One more example of the cruciality of Voice - the cruciality of authority/exousia. Jesus compared evangelism to fishing for men. The disciples had been casting out nets (evangelizing) all night long - no luck. Then Jesus SAID to them, "Cast them out one more time." BOOM! This is revival. The nets apparently represent the churches, each one now overflowing with members. (By the way, Jesus did this fish-thing twice, for further emphasis, and yet the church still doesn't get it).

You speak of spreading the gospel to the world. You have a choice - you can either keep casting out the nets, as the church has done for 2000 years without succeeding in the Great Commission, or you can begin seeking God for Exousia. I can virtually say that I KNOW your traditional methods will fail, you guys have been proving that for 2000 years. I can virtually say that I KNOW Christ can succeed where ordinary nets fail. So, why waste my time with these congregations that call themselves "churches? Isn't that almost like going to a gay bar church?

And it's not that I see zero value in these "churches." But until I see more integrity in the pulpit, it's just hard to get motivated to attend. Did you know that the largest congregation in the world (over 1 millions members) is in Koria and is Voice-centric? The pastor argues, in one of his books, for the cruciality of Voice. He once built a congregation up to 80,000 members - and then walked away! People thought he was crazy. Why did he walk away? Because the voice told him to start another one - the one that is now a million strong.

Why aren't many pastors in other countries examining what he has to say? Because they have told themselves that they already KNOW what a church is and how to run it. They don't want to have to admit either to themselves or to others that they might be in the wrong. Apparently, they would prefer to risk letting billions go to hell needlessly than risk having to admit that their approach is wrong.

 

[JAL]

JAL:

What breaks God's heart more than anything else is human beings who willfully and knowinly sin, because that crucifies Jesus afresh and dooms the sinner to the Lake of Fire. While, if those same sinners would just humble themselves and repent of their sinful ways, and keep God's Ten Commandments they could live forever with God!

So why not just put away your lame excuses and start keeping the 7th day Sabbath, and all the nine Commandments as well, and start fellowshipping with those who want to do likewise (Seventh Day Adventists), you will not regret it!

Opinions are a dime a dozen. I value them precious little. What interests me is the logical consistency of a position. I entered this discussion at post 159 and, since then, have been charging sabbatarianism with logical contradictions. Show your work, for if I do not see evidence that you can be exonerated of that charge, your admonitions to me fall on deaf ears.

 

[BrightCandle]

Opinions are a dime a dozen. I value them precious little. What interests me is the logical consistency of a position. I entered this discussion at post 159 and, since then, have been charging sabbatarianism with logical contradictions. Show your work, for if I do not see evidence that you can be exonerated of that charge, your admonitions to me fall on deaf ears.

The evidence I based my statements are on what was written by the finger of God himself: The Ten Commandments! Can you find anything stronger than that to base your conduct of life with Jesus?

 

[holo]

The evidence I based my statements are on what was written by the finger of God himself: The Ten Commandments! Can you find anything stronger than that to base your conduct of life with Jesus?

The Spirit is certainly stronger and superior to the letter, and the salvation that was bought for all mankind is surely greater than the ministry given only to Israel.

 

[Bernergirl]

Here's a question:

When the New Testament makes reference to works (or as the NIV translates it, deeds), does it mean works of the law? For if that is the case, than our theology may need a bit of fine tuning...

Consider this passage from James:

22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.

Ah, but then I did not consider this passage:

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

In that passage, it was not deeds of the law that justified Abraham because a) it was pre-law and b) it was obedience to the voice of the angel who had told him to sacrifice his son to test him.

 

[JAL]

The evidence I based my statements are on what was written by the finger of God himself: The Ten Commandments! Can you find anything stronger than that to base your conduct of life with Jesus?

Absolutely. The Bible was never intended to be the authority in the Christian life - as I have discussed on other threads. Shall I point you there? It's not even necessary. I can easily show that your own assumptions lead to logical inconsistencies.

Your position is basically this, "Follow the ten commandments verbatim. Just take them at face value. It's that simple." I call this law-based ethics.

My position is this, "It's not that simple. Ethics is situational. Therefore as circumstances changer, the rules of God change (although the main rule, Love, remains constant." I refer to this as situational ethics.

So which oneof us is correct? It seems easy to show that you are incorrect. Just look at the ten commandments. One of them states, "Thou shall not kill." Now, if you are correct, we can just take it face value.

But not even Moses took it at face value. Shortly after he gave this command, he was commanding Israel to murder SEVEN NATIONS to gain possession of Canaan. At one point he even got ANGRY at some Israelites who had tried to show mercy on those citizens. Moses told them, "What are you doing? Kill them right now!"
Furthermore, I would also ask you, is killing ever justified, for example in the military or in self-defense? You would probably agree, "Yes, it depends on the situation." This is what I call situational ethics.

You need to abandon your silly law-based ethics because both Moses and God believed in situational ethics. The very fact that you don't observe ALL the Mosiac laws supports a situational ethics.

Earlier you implied that I "knowingly" break God's sabbath commandment. Let me assure you, if such a coommandment is in force, I do not know it to be the case. You assume that I have such a doctrine in my conscience and am currently violating my conscience. I assure you this is not the case. Saturday after Saturday goes by without my giving any thought at all to "the sabbath." I have no qualms or compunctions about how I spend my Saturdays. The only time "the sabbath" ever gave me pause was the first time I examined sabbatarianism (it was all new to me back then) wondering if perhaps I had missed something. Within a few days, I concluded this doctrine was false (some years ago) and since then I honestly spend my Saturdays without this doctrine occurring to my mind at all. I never feel any guilt on Saturdays.
I do, however, occasionally feel guilty about missing church on Sundays.

Especially if your initial indoctrination was sabbatarian, I can well understand how you might feel guilty for violating "the sabbath." But rest assured, we Sunday-worshipers honestly feel NOTHING on Saturedays because, contrary to your assumptions, we do not "knowingly" violate "the sabbath." We honestly do not believe sabbatarianism to be true. I allow for the possibility that I might be incorrect in my opinions about the issue. But as for your insinuation that I "knowingly" stray, you are quite mistaken.

 

[mystery4]

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!

 

[Zeena]

Hebrews 4:9
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

 

[bdarien]

For those who want to say that keeping the sabbath implies following the ceremonial law that did not come about till the time of Moses then they are ignoring the facts that before the time of moses the sabbath was set aside as a memorial but they are transposing the ceremonial law where it did not yet exist.

the sabbath existed since the time of Adam yet before Adam sinned from what work would he have been setting aside as the ceremonial law Moses was given commands?

As Paul taught if we are to keep the ceremonial law then we must keep all of it, every little bit including the sacrifices and feasts, yet so often for those legalists who are determined to force the law onto others they ignore the rest of the ceremonial law and just latch onto that one part. the Ceremonial part of the law has been fulfilled. It was there just for the jews to show their place as a set aside people, not for the gentiles of today to drag us down under the weight of legalists and their false burdens.

Galatians 4:
9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

romans 14

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

 

[bdarien]

Rom 14:1 And receive him who is weak in the faith, but not to judgments of your thoughts.
Rom 14:2 For indeed one believes to eat all things; but being weak, another eats vegetables.
Rom 14:3 Do not let him who eats despise him who does not eat; and do not let him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has received him.
Rom 14:4 Who are you that judges another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. But he will stand, for God is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:5 One indeed esteems a day above another day; and another esteems every day alike. Let each one be fully assured in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He who regards the day regards it to the Lord; and he not regarding the day, does not regard it to the Lord. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, does not eat to the Lord, and gives God thanks.

Romans 14 has nothing to do with days of worship. The context of the verse you quoted is talking about fast days and how those observing them regarded those that didn't.

romans 14 Paul was talking about not just fast days but all days that some would hold as holy which only makes sense to include the sabbath, it is to add into and ignore what the scripture says to say that Romans 14 is only talking about fast days.


Romans 14:
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (says nothing of fast days here)6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

 

[Zeena]

Hebrews 4:11
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

 

[ThreeAM]

Agreed, but the crucial epistemological question here is, how do we know that a particular congregation is a church? Here too must we walk in PRESUMPTION? If it is not a church, AS GOD DEFINES CHURCH, it will not accomplish the will of God (worldwide evangelism). You speak of spreading the gospel to the world. Isn't it interesting that Paul nearly accomplished that feat single-handedly while MILLIONS of your so-called church members and leaders have failed? Maybe it's time to start asking whether what WE call a church is how Paul defined it?

Let's make it crystal clear. Jesus sent the disciples out to heal the sick. Guess what? It worked! WHY did it work? Because a church begins with one or more leaders to whom the divine Voice has given exousia (authority). Now suppose a group of Bible scholars got together, that same day, and said to themselves, "Hey guys, don't we know the Bible well? And doesn't it SEEM to us that God has called us to be missionaries? Let's get out there and preach the gospel and heal the sick!" Guess what? I can almost guarantee you that not one sick person will be healed. There will be virtually no power (dunamis) in their endeavor. Trouble is, that same dunamis is needed to spread the gospel EFFECTIVELY.

Maybe I can put it this way. Suppose you were walking by a gay bar and a few people tried to wave you in, "Cmon in, we're having church in here!" Most likely you woudn't step inside because it doesn't meet YOUR definition of a church. Each denomination say, "We model our church after the Bible." Ok, where did you pastor come from? Did a true apostle elect him, as in Scripture? "No," they reply, "since apostles can no longer exist today." Well, if that's what you believe, then don't pretend to model your church after the Bible. I mean, perhaps you are correct, perhaps apostles were supposed to cease (although I disagree) - but in that case, I would say, can't you be honest enough to admit that your ecclesiology is NOT a mirroring of the Bible?

In a nutshell, just as you are not likely to believe that a gay-bar church will be effective, so too do I lack faith in dishonest churches. The dishonesty is a leadership that pretends to BE 100% CERTAIN of what the Bible teaches instead of admitting that only an inspired, infallible person could justifiably claim to KNOW what it says.

One more example of the cruciality of Voice - the cruciality of authority/exousia. Jesus compared evangelism to fishing for men. The disciples had been casting out nets (evangelizing) all night long - no luck. Then Jesus SAID to them, "Cast them out one more time." BOOM! This is revival. The nets apparently represent the churches, each one now overflowing with members. (By the way, Jesus did this fish-thing twice, for further emphasis, and yet the church still doesn't get it).

You speak of spreading the gospel to the world. You have a choice - you can either keep casting out the nets, as the church has done for 2000 years without succeeding in the Great Commission, or you can begin seeking God for Exousia. I can virtually say that I KNOW your traditional methods will fail, you guys have been proving that for 2000 years. I can virtually say that I KNOW Christ can succeed where ordinary nets fail. So, why waste my time with these congregations that call themselves "churches? Isn't that almost like going to a gay bar church?

And it's not that I see zero value in these "churches." But until I see more integrity in the pulpit, it's just hard to get motivated to attend. Did you know that the largest congregation in the world (over 1 millions members) is in Koria and is Voice-centric? The pastor argues, in one of his books, for the cruciality of Voice. He once built a congregation up to 80,000 members - and then walked away! People thought he was crazy. Why did he walk away? Because the voice told him to start another one - the one that is now a million strong.

Why aren't many pastors in other countries examining what he has to say? Because they have told themselves that they already KNOW what a church is and how to run it. They don't want to have to admit either to themselves or to others that they might be in the wrong. Apparently, they would prefer to risk letting billions go to hell needlessly than risk having to admit that their approach is wrong.

Paul encourage people to gather together to worship God. Paul built churches. Paul preached week after week on the sabbath. Paul encouraged people to participate not to stay at home because of this reason or that reason. We as Christians are to spread the Gospel of Christ to the entire world. This takes the efforts of an entire Church body its the efforts of millions of members to together to spread the light of the gospel to area that have never heard Christ's name. What have you done lately to spread the gospel to people in africa etc. etc.

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

 

[JAL]

Paul encourage people to gather together to worship God. Paul built churches. Paul preached week after week on the sabbath. Paul encouraged people to participate not to stay at home because of this reason or that reason. We as Christians are to spread the Gospel of Christ to the entire world. This takes the efforts of an entire Church body its the efforts of millions of members to together to spread the light of the gospel to area that have never heard Christ's name. What have you done lately to spread the gospel to people in africa etc. etc.

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Evangelism unauthorized by the divine voice is not what Scripture would call "witnessing" and will be largely ineffective.

A Bible scholar did an important redactive analysis of Luke-Acts which is 25% of the NT in size, written by one author, and found that witnessing, as Luke understood, was inspired speech, what the OT and NT refer to as "prophesying." That's how Scripture defines evangelism (Spirit-inspired witness). Thus Christ's words at Acts 1:8, "Ye shall receive power to be my witnesses" anticipate verse 2:17-18, "I shall pout out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy." On Pentecost the 120 believers who received the outpouring prophesied in tongues because Scripture defines witnessing as propetic utterance. MANY scholars agree with this thesis, along with my next one, that John the Baptist - the quintessential evangelist of his day - is defined as a prophet in the order of Elijah (see Luke 1) precisely because biblical witnessing can only be done by prophetic utterance. Actually he WAS Elijah returned (but I cannot discuss that here).

It is an unbiblical fantasy of the modern world that any ordinary Christian can witness at any time. That's not witnessing,and it explains why most of our evangelism is ineffective.

 

[ThreeAM]

Evangelism unauthorized by the divine voice is not what Scripture would call "witnessing" and will be largely ineffective.

A Bible scholar did an important redactive analysis of Luke-Acts which is 25% of the NT in size, written by one author, and found that witnessing, as Luke understood, was inspired speech, what the OT and NT refer to as "prophesying." That's how Scripture defines evangelism (Spirit-inspired witness). Thus Christ's words at Acts 1:8, "Ye shall receive power to be my witnesses" anticipate verse 2:17-18, "I shall pout out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy." On Pentecost the 120 believers who received the outpouring prophesied in tongues because Scripture defines witnessing as propetic utterance. MANY scholars agree with this thesis, along with my next one, that John the Baptist - the quintessential evangelist of his day - is defined as a prophet in the order of Elijah (see Luke 1) precisely because biblical witnessing can only be done by prophetic utterance. Actually he WAS Elijah returned (but I cannot discuss that here).

It is an unbiblical fantasy of the modern world that any ordinary Christian can witness at any time. That's not witnessing,and it explains why most of our evangelism is ineffective.

Rationalization in its purest form.