The Sabbath. Exploring Its Meaning, Purpose, and Practice with Love

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Is "not taking God's name in vain", or "not bowing down before images" a high hill to stand on and preach down to other Christians -- in your POV?

No, people take God's name in vain all the time without ever swearing or cussing.

And so you are in favor or ..

Or is it your claim that to accept God's Command to not take His name in vain is somehow evil??

They call themselves Christians and then do not accept the power God offers them in grace.

And your proof in that case is that they are taking God's name in vain while calling themselves Christians? Do you see that is "preaching down to them"??

They deny the saving power of Christ and instead stand upon their claims of obedience.

Their claims of obedience to the command "do not take God's name in vain"?
Or are you saying that in the example I give - the people who take God's name in vain are also saying "I do not take God's name in vain"?

Is so - then how did you know to make that accusation against them - in the scenario you are changing this to fit.

Too many "lawkeepers" stand in judgment of other Christians

Ok so now you switch to "they are NOT taking God's name in vain" and the idea is "that's a bad thing. that makes them law keepers"??

Have you read Rom 3:31 or 1 John 5:3-4?? Rev 14:12? Rom 2:13? in that regard?

Many would never bow to an image, bow to a day, bow to a church denomination, or bow to their righteousness.

Many would never keep a day holy in respect to God's Word? Would never belong to a Christian denomination? would never consider righteousness to be a "good thing"?

Are these the supposed evils in Christianity you are seeking to oppose?

No, if someone is taking God's name in vain, telling them to stop, that it is bad, or that they need to clean up their act will not address the sin from which their profanity flows.

Agreed. But CHOOSING not to take God's name in vain - and ADMITTING that the Bible actually does speak to that topic is not "a bad thing" even though it means someone else who sees that you choose not to take God's name in vain, and sees that you choose to admit that the Bible speaks to that subject - my view their own choices as not being the same as yours in that regard.

under the New Covenant the Law is written on the heart.
And as Rom 3:31 says "what then? Do we make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! in fact we establish the Law"
Rev 14:12 "The saints KEEP the Law of God AND their faith in Jesus"

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

BobRyan said:

Is "not taking God's name in vain", or "not bowing down before images" a high hill to stand on and preach down to other Christians -- in your POV?

And so you are in favor or ..

Or is it your claim that to accept God's Command to not take His name in vain is somehow evil??


And your proof in that case is that they are taking God's name in vain while calling themselves Christians? Do you see that is "preaching down to them"??

Their claims of obedience to the command "do not take God's name in vain"?
Or are you saying that in the example I give - the people who take God's name in vain are also saying "I do not take God's name in vain"?

Is so - then how did you know to make that accusation against them - in the scenario you are changing this to fit.

Ok so now you switch to "they are NOT taking God's name in vain" and the idea is "that's a bad thing. that makes them law keepers"??

Have you read Rom 3:31 or 1 John 5:3-4?? Rev 14:12? Rom 2:13? in that regard?

Many would never keep a day holy in respect to God's Word? Would never belong to a Christian denomination? would never consider righteousness to be a "good thing"?

Are these the supposed evils in Christianity you are seeking to oppose?

Agreed. But CHOOSING not to take God's name in vain - and ADMITTING that the Bible actually does speak to that topic is not "a bad thing" even though it means someone else who sees that you choose not to take God's name in vain, and sees that you choose to admit that the Bible speaks to that subject - my view their own choices as not being the same as yours in that regard.

under the New Covenant the Law is written on the heart.
And as Rom 3:31 says "what then? Do we make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! in fact we establish the Law"
Rev 14:12 "The saints KEEP the Law of God AND their faith in Jesus"

Yes Jesus Kept the Law and asks us to follow him.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

To disagree with you I'd have to abolish God?? What makes you think temporal laws are eternal? Laws that governed elements that perish cannot be eternal.

Col 2.16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ...
20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.

You're advocating Legalism, a return to the Law of Moses. Paul spoke strongly against any need to return to the Law. So no, to recognize God's righteousness we do not have to uphold an outdated Law that only concerned perishable elements, which were a shadow of things are are eternal.

The Law was a guide to avoid sin, yes. But it was based on a temporary legal structure focused on temple, priesthood, and animal sacrifice, all of which were temporary things foreshadowing the spiritual reality of Christ. Christ is the eternal priest, the eternal sacrifice, and the eternal temple--not those that belonged to the Law that were only shadows.

Your Legalism is anti-Paul and anti-New Testament. So you must belong to some semi-Christian cult.

No he is right on so many points if not all of them. was Jesus legalistic for following the Law and teaching it? Yes he was, Jesus was following the Will of the Holy Father in heaven and fulfilled all of the prophecy about his birth and actions during his ministry. Jesus was teaching the law with Love as it's basis not like the pharisees that added to the law so many extra requirements that it became a burden and was devoid of forgiveness, love and compassion.

Jesus was teaching, the 10 Commandments that were written by God himself and are eternal, they are spiritual laws and are forever.

Now you wrote that Paul was so against the law, now then, why did he write the following;
Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

I admit Paul as confirmed in 2 peter 3 is difficult to understand. Paul was explaining that the penalty of the law was abolished not the law itself.

there is a major reason why Paul cannot have said the Holy Commandments were abolished;

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 (KJV)​

"1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. 5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee."

The primary test here is whether the prophet's message leads people away from worshiping the true God (Yahweh) and toward other gods. This is a foundational principle: any message that contradicts or leads away from the worship of the one true God is to be rejected.
Even if signs or wonders accompany the prophet's words, if they advocate for worshiping other gods or departing from God's commandments as revealed in Scripture, they are false.
As well, this passage teaches us to be discerning of messages claiming divine authority. Even miraculous signs are not sufficient proof of a true prophet if their message deviates from God's revealed will.

If Paul said the law is abolished he would have to Die; ""shall be put to death"" according to Deuteronomy 13:1-5

Remember, Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments! John 14:15

Blessings.

 

[Mercy Shown]

BobRyan said:

Is "not taking God's name in vain", or "not bowing down before images" a high hill to stand on and preach down to other Christians -- in your POV?

If you preach that way, you make works your God and the source of salvation. Instead preach Christ and him crucified.

And so you are in favor or ..

Or is it your claim that to accept God's Command to not take His name in vain is somehow evil??

How can you confuse preaching something with practicing something? Do you tell people how they should keep the sabbath, or do you practice keeping it according to your convictions?

Do you find rice Christians in your church and scold them for taking God’s name in vain, or do you practice not taking his name in vain?

Works seem to still be at the forefront when it should be grace. We are ambassadors of God’s reconciliation.

And your proof in that case is that they are taking God's name in vain while calling themselves Christians? Do you see that is "preaching down to them"??

No, I did not preach this to them; I brought it up in our discussion as a rhetorical example.

Their claims of obedience to the command "do not take God's name in vain"?
Or are you saying that in the example I give - the people who take God's name in vain are also saying "I do not take God's name in vain"?

Most Christians who have a form of Godliness but deny the power of it would never admit to taking His name in vain.

Is so - then how did you know to make that accusation against them - in the scenario you are changing this to fit.

I made no actual allegation against anyone. I made hypothetical allegations as illustrations.

Ok so now you switch to "they are NOT taking God's name in vain" and the idea is "that's a bad thing. that makes them law keepers"??

No one is a lawkeeper. We all screw up. Why focus on the law instead of the righteousness apart from the law gifted to us by Christ. His perfection for our sinful,l degraded, hopelessness?

Have you read Rom 3:31

Do you know what this text means? It does not mean we get our righteousness from the law, but instead, it means that God's supposed dilemma was how to pardon man and still uphold His law. Of course, it was not a dilemma for Him at all. He sent his son to take our place and satisfy the demands of the law, standing in our place. His son kept the law perfectly and yet suffered the punishment for all lost and rejected sinners. So where did His reward for perfect behavior go to? And thus, the law was upheld, and we were pardoned.

or 1 John 5:3-4??

Many who focus on the law read this text through a legalistic lens, but look at what it says. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

First point: keeping his commandments is not necessarily the ten commandments. Jesus issued more than 1,000 commands, recorded in the gospels. Jesus wants us to hear his commands to us every day, every hour, every minute. If we love Him, we will hear His voice because we are his sheep, and we will obey, but one who does not love Him cannot hear him and thus cannot obey to love him. Love comes first. Secondly, we overcome the world because God gives us victory through our lord Jesus Christ. We lay hold of that victory through faith. The just shall live by faith.

Rev 14:12?

Here is what this verse says: Here is the patience of the saints: "here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." Here are they that keep the commandments of God. These people already know God and hear His voice. It is a delusion to think that this refers to just keeping the Ten Commandments; anyone can do that, as the Rich Young Ruler did. But it is the daily communing with God and following the things He says to us in our everyday life that shows that we know Him and He knows us.

We must be in Christ to have the Faith of Christ. It is not our faith but Jesus' faith imputed to us by believing.

Rom 2:13? in that regard?

Again, the more one tends toward focusing on the law, the more one reads the Bible through a legal lens. This text says, "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified." If you read Romans, in Chapters 1 and 2, Paul lays out the legal requirements of the law for salvation. But then, in Chapter 3, he drops the hammer in Chapter 3 and tells us that no one has been able to do it, and He is correct. Yet, the legal requirements remain.

How will we meet these legal requirements and be perfect doers of the law? Since we can't, who will deliver us from this body of death? Jesus Christ will be taking our punishment and imputing His perfect law-abiding onto us.

Many would never keep a day holy in respect to God's Word? Would never belong to a Christian denomination? would never consider righteousness to be a "good thing"?

We don't achieve righteousness by keeping the sabbath. We receive righteousness from Christ alone. He must be our alpha and omega.

Are these the supposed evils in Christianity you are seeking to oppose?

No, it is the evil of spiritual pride that destroys

Agreed. But CHOOSING not to take God's name in vain - and ADMITTING that the Bible actually does speak to that topic is not "a bad thing" even though it means someone else who sees that you choose not to take God's name in vain, and sees that you choose to admit that the Bible speaks to that subject - my view their own choices as not being the same as yours in that regard.

It is moot. What do you suppose to achieve by reprimanding people when considering taking God's name in vain?

under the New Covenant the Law is written on the heart.
And as Rom 3:31 says "what then? Do we make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! in fact we establish the Law"
Rev 14:12 "The saints KEEP the Law of God AND their faith in Jesus"

If the law is written on the heart, why preach it? Do we assume we have to write it on other people's hearts?