Trappists?

[EastCoastRemnant]

I agree it is Semantics, it is lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations. That's what I've done with the words of your post many years ago. That's why I was on board with you until the last sentence. So 'unpack' your 'Semantics' for me in light of the scripture you quoted;

1JO 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.


Scripture doesn't list them, all three, in many verses because they are as one 'theologian' told me, in defense of his ignorance as to a real answer; "We were taught in divinity school that they are 'a heaping of terms'." I had to explain to him that I live in farm country and once worked in a cattle feedlot...and I fully understood 'a heaping of things' better than he did, regarding his divinity school answer...IMO.

EXO 34:7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation."

EZE 21:24 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye have made your iniquity to be remembered, in that your transgressions are discovered, so that in all your doings your sins do appear;

I don't think the bible is resting on semantics for an understanding of these terms.



The last line wasn't hard for me to 'comprehend', but it appears to one you are having difficulty trying to 'defend'. But if I'm wrong, you can just clear it up in your next post, and explanation of those three terms from your POV.

Now why would I need to defend the Commandments? To an atheist maybe but to a professed Christian??

 

[Hillsage]

Now why would I need to defend the Commandments? To an atheist maybe but to a professed Christian??

You're disappointing me. I had much better discussions with my SDA neighbor and his pastor every Wednesday for about a year until neighbor moved. Pastor so trusted the neighbor that he gave him the pulpit one day, when he was going to be gone. Neighbor trusted me so much he invited me to be on the altar with him and open the service in prayer that SATURDAY morning. And pastor approved. Lively discussions indeed during that year. Loved them both AS BROTHERS, and they returned it.

Never was about the commandments it was about your verse on sin and transgression.

Galatians 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the offspring/JESUS should come to whom the promise had been made;...

P.S. Neighbor Jeff ran a used internet book business out of his home. Even gave me a 100 year old original hardbound copy of a book which was anti eternal hell called 'Origin and History of the doctrine of endless punishment' by Thomas Thayer. It came with an estate purchase he made. I'm proud of it.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

You're disappointing me. I had much better discussions with my SDA neighbor and his pastor every Wednesday for about a year until neighbor moved. Pastor so trusted the neighbor that he gave him the pulpit one day, when he was going to be gone. Neighbor trusted me so much he invited me to be on the altar with him and open the service in prayer that SATURDAY morning. And pastor approved. Lively discussions indeed during that year. Loved them both AS BROTHERS, and they returned it.

Never was about the commandments it was about your verse on sin and transgression.

Galatians 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the offspring/JESUS should come to whom the promise had been made;...

P.S. Neighbor Jeff ran a used internet book business out of his home. Even gave me a 100 year old original hardbound copy of a book which was anti eternal hell called 'Origin and History of the doctrine of endless punishment' by Thomas Thayer. It came with an estate purchase he made. I'm proud of it.

You friends Jeff's last name wouldn't happen to be Woods would it? From Paradise?

Well, I guess Jeff's year long discussions didn't bear fruit as far as your beliefs go... I'm not going to be able to do better I'm afraid.

 

[Hillsage]

You friends Jeff's last name wouldn't happen to be Woods would it? From Paradise?

Well, I guess Jeff's year long discussions didn't bear fruit as far as your beliefs go... I'm not going to be able to do better I'm afraid.

No, his name wasn't Woods. Oh no, it still bore lots of fruit, we were all blessed with nuggets not held before. But more importantly we bore 'the Fruit of the Spirit', which the three of us deemed 'most important' once we'd shared testimonies of our coming to faith in Christ, confirming each as a brother in Christ. And our relationships also fulfilled the "unity of the Spirit" which Ephesians cries out for. But you're right, we visited and shared and discussed many SDA and Hillsage beliefs. In the end the closest thing to change, which I've not forgotten, was when Jeff said; "I don't think you are right, but I hope that you are." That was good enough for me to believe that his heart was open to hear God, if ever he wanted to pursue truth, wherever the Spirit might lead.

But they were SDA last time I saw them, and I was a Charismatic in a Charismatic church. A church which God told us to leave years later. Home churched for 4 more. For the last 3 years, my wife and I have been in a 'Baptist' church, still in the same town....and the only two Charismatics there. Funny how God works to grow his kids up.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

No, his name wasn't Woods. Oh no, it still bore lots of fruit, we were all blessed with nuggets not held before. But more importantly we bore 'the Fruit of the Spirit', which the three of us deemed 'most important' once we'd shared testimonies of our coming to faith in Christ, confirming each as a brother in Christ. And our relationships also fulfilled the "unity of the Spirit" which Ephesians cries out for. But you're right, we visited and shared and discussed many SDA and Hillsage beliefs. In the end the closest thing to change, which I've not forgotten, was when Jeff said; "I don't think you are right, but I hope that you are." That was good enough for me to believe that his heart was open to hear God, if ever he wanted to pursue truth, wherever the Spirit might lead.

But they were SDA last time I saw them, and I was a Charismatic in a Charismatic church. A church which God told us to leave years later. Home churched for 4 more. For the last 3 years, my wife and I have been in a 'Baptist' church, still in the same town....and the only two Charismatics there. Funny how God works to grow his kids up.

My wife and I have been home churching for 10 years now as we can't find a church that holds to the tenets and pillars of our faith. Seeing what has become of our denomination and the apostasy they are teaching (not all mind you but it's systemic) makes me think that most denominational churches fall in to this category. I believe home churches, as were set up by the apostles, will be the Remnants only sanctuary in the times to come and the only place truth will be found.

 

[Light of the East]

If God changed the manner in which we keep the 4th Commandment, please show us where He did that? You can't because He didn't....

The comparison to an ordinance being changed is not apples to apples. Now if you wanted to show me that another of the 10 Commandments was done away with proving the Sabbath could be as well, then please do. The Commandments, written on stone with God's own finger were permanent and kept inside the Ark... the ordinances you referred to with circumcision and such was written by Moses on parchment to show their temporary nature and stored outside the Ark. Why twist scripture so badly to prove something that is unprovable? God did not change the Sabbath to Sunday... there is zero evidence of this and we would do well to be obedient to the Fathers Commands... ALL of them.

I have shown it to you repeatedly. You are in a state of presuppositional blindness in which you simply cannot see.

The Sabbath is said to belong to the Covenant which was with the Jews. That Covenant is over, therefore, the requirement of the Sabbath on Saturday is also over.

The Sabbath points to the rest we find in Christ. That rest is accomplished upon the Cross, therefore, just as circumcision pointed to the coming of Christ and therefore was improper to keep once He has come, so the Saturday Sabbath is improper because we are now recipients of the rest that is in Christ.

The SDA church appears to be a variant of leftover Judaism by the way in which you observe dietary laws. It appears to the outsider that you have not moved from Judaism to Christianity. You appear to be keeping the Old Covenant and not the New.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I have shown it to you repeatedly. You are in a state of presuppositional blindness in which you simply cannot see.

No you have not... please, one scripture where Jesus changed the day that was Sanctified and Hallowed to another?

The Sabbath is said to belong to the Covenant which was with the Jews. That Covenant is over, therefore, the requirement of the Sabbath on Saturday is also over.

The Sabbath is part of the 10 Commandments written on stone with God's own finger... as a unit. What special power do you have to pluck one of those Commandments away from the rest? Break one, break them all... show me different.

The Sabbath points to the rest we find in Christ. That rest is accomplished upon the Cross, therefore, just as circumcision pointed to the coming of Christ and therefore was improper to keep once He has come, so the Saturday Sabbath is improper because we are now recipients of the rest that is in Christ.

Resting in the Lord is not new to the NT...
Psalm 37:7
Rest in the Lord...

Psalm 132:13,14
For the Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation.
This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it.

The rest in Christ we received has nothing to do with Sabbath rest. Please provide scripture that shows the Holy seventh day Sabbath was ceremoniously transferred to the first day of the week. It wasn't...

The SDA church appears to be a variant of leftover Judaism by the way in which you observe dietary laws. It appears to the outsider that you have not moved from Judaism to Christianity. You appear to be keeping the Old Covenant and not the New.

That statement reminds me of the change that Constantine made in 321AD declaring the day of the sun be honoured and not the Judaizing Sabbath. Tell me, did Constantine have the authority to do that? Why would he have to enact that law almost 300 years after the cross? Christians were still honouring God on the seventh day Sabbath, that's why?

 

[Light of the East]

No you have not... please, one scripture where Jesus changed the day that was Sanctified and Hallowed to another?

Exo 31:16

Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

It belongs to the Jews as part of their covenant - the Old Covenant.

The Old Covenant is passed away Hebrews 8:13.

This is called "Bible Study" and it is profoundly different from plucking a single verse or two out of the Bible and building an entire doctrinal structure on it. That is how Protestantism started with Luther and his single verse in Romans regarding "justification by faith alone." It is how all cults get a start. Someone sees a single verse, thinks they have found something new that 2,000 years of Christians have missed, and all of a sudden, you have yet another "church."

Lev 24:8

Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
Isa 56:6

Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbathfrom polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

We also see, as we study the Bible properly, that the Old Covenant is the shadow of the New. We see that the feasts of the Lord were transformed when the New Covenant came into being - for instance, the Passover Meal, one of the most holy meals of Judaism, was replaced by the Eucharist. In the Upper Room, Jesus did this when He said "This is my Body...this is my Blood."

Circumcision likewise became baptism. Who gave the Church the right to do that, since circumcision was the way that one entered into the very Covenant Kingdom of Israel? Without circumcision, you had no relationship to God. To be uncircumcised was to be cut off from the nation of Israel, which was no small thing. Yet in Colossians, Paul speaks of this change.

Finally, you act as if the first Christians did not understand these issues at all, that only when Ellen White read the Bible was this truth finally discovered. This again is how all cults get their beginning. They find some "truth" that was buried for 2,000 years and claim that now finally, all of God's truth is revealed to the world, as if no one knew those truths before.

Your special pleading to the words and acts of Jesus alone (i.e. "sola scriptura") falls on deaf ears. Not everything that Jesus said or did was recorded in the Scriptures. And He gave the Church His own authority to lead the flock of His people after His departure. What you infer by your statements is that A.) the Holy Spirit did not lead the first bishops of the Church. B.) the men who were appointed to these positions were dishonest and liars who perverted the truth C.) the Holy Spirit was unable to keep the Church in the truth.

Such inference is insulting to the men who died rather than change the truth to keep their lives and is an insult to the Holy Spirit and His ability to keep the Church free from error.

I will look up some information on Constantine and address that later, but as always, it is most likely a false statement that has been passed down from generation to generation, such as the "Donation of Constantine" or the "facts" we get from those ugly little Chick Tracts.

But thank you for responding.

PS ... You ask where it is that Jesus said to change the Sabbath. This is another common ploy of those who want to establish their own doctrines. Jesus did not say directly and word for word "You shall baptize babies" yet that was the practice from the beginning.

How do we know this? Because in "cutting covenant" we see that baby males were circumcised without having to "make a decision for Jehovah." We see the principle that babies are not excluded, that membership in the covenant is not restricted to those who "understand God."

The first Christians were exclusively Jews, so they would have understood this principle. And as Scott Hahn said, if the Apostles had changed this principle with the new believers in "the Way," they would have had a riot on their hands, and certainly very few converts. The principle of infant baptism was understood as a carry-over from the Old Covenant, even though there is nothing specific recorded in the NT books.

Where in the Bible do we find definitions of the two natures of Christ? We don't. The Church is the teaching instrument of the Holy Spirit, not the mind of the individual.

 

[~Anastasia~]

How did a thread about meditations get turned around to yet another argument about Sabbath-keeping requirements?

 

[Light of the East]

How did a thread about meditations get turned around to yet another argument about Sabbath-keeping requirements?

My fault. My bad.

Sorry.

 

[~Anastasia~]

My fault. My bad.

Sorry.

OT posts aren't always automatically bad. We are 70 posts in, and I don't know how the OP feels about it.

I just wondered if there was an actual connection?

Especially to a topic that seems to derail a lot of threads.