When is good, not good enough?

[BobRyan]

I am not saying you do not have the free will to select some fringe position opposing not only the Bible texts I keep pointing out for you - but also opposing the scholarship in almost every Christian denomination known to mankind.

You can choose that path "if you wish".

For a few minutes there you seemed to be claiming that you do not want to take that path.

Either way you can choose what you wish.

 

[DamianWarS]

for all mankind... the moral law of God that defines what sin is -- just like all these other denominations I keep pointing you to??

When I say --

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

And of course 7th day groups

Seventh-day Baptists
Seventh-day Adventists
(and 100's of others)


-- so "now" you are saying you are fully on board with them on that point and that I have falsely accused you as doing otherwise??

Where are your sources that the 4th commandment is moral law? Where does it say this in the bible? Can you broadly define moral law and how does the 4th commandment fit into this

Ok - I am fine with that -- but it is hard for me to tell from looking at your posts on this thread - that this really has been your position all along.

You've accused me of having an opposition to the 10 commandments. Is this because I say we are not under the law? How is this having an opposition? The law points to Christ and I value every jot and tittle of the law because it points to Christ and in no way do I have an opposition to it.

Something I never do.. you only have your quote "of you" for that sort of position on this thread.

Surely we both see that.

You have said v6 is law and v7 is Christ with no real reason why except that you want v6 to point to Sabbath law. In this view they are contrasted and not working together as they were before you've interpreted them. One is extracted into a different context and the other is left and so they work in competition to each other.

Well not according to all those Christian denominations you keep saying you are now in agreement with.

And not according to 1 Cor 7:19
And not according to Hebrews 10:4-12

You're going to have to be more clear. What do all these "Christian denominations" say? Do they keep the Sabbath? If so what part of the law do they throw out and what part do they keep?

You also broadly take the term "God's Law" or "God's Commandments" and then conflate them with... I suppose the 10 Commandments (I infer) or even more specifically the 4th commandment. Where does Paul tell us to do this? Hebrews 7 tells us "He does away with the first in order to establish the second" so I'm not really sure what point you are making here. I of course agree with Hebrews but how does this build your case?

look at the texts I keep showing you - the ones that all of your own pro-sunday groups affirm for that point -- that you now say you are in agreement with.

I don't know why you are identifying me with "pro-sunday" groups. Who are these people are why am I agreeing with them? I am defending the bible not a position of a group.

I am not saying you do not have the free will to select some fringe position opposing not only the Bible texts I keep pointing out for you - but also opposing the scholarship in almost every Christian denomination known to mankind.

You can choose that path "if you wish".

For a few minutes there you seemed to be claiming that you do not want to take that path.

Either way you can choose what you wish.

I'm not sure what your point of this post is. What are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to tell me I don't belong so I can't be trusted or discredit me? It's difficult to track with your arguments... what happened to the Isaiah text? Is that no longer your argument or have you abandoned it? Perhaps it's my own limitations but can I request we conclude the points from a passage before moving on.

 

[BobRyan]

Where are your sources that the 4th commandment is moral law? Where does it say this in the bible? Can you broadly define moral law and how does the 4th commandment fit into this



You've accused me of having an opposition to the 10 commandments. Is this because I say we are not under the law? How is this having an opposition? The law points to Christ and I value every jot and tittle of the law because it points to Christ and in no way do I have an opposition to it. .

you have said you are in agreement with the Bible
in Eph 6:1-2 where it is the "unit of TEN" specifically referenced -
and in 1 Cor 7:19 the contrast between moral law and ceremonial law in the case of circumcision ceremony --
and in James 2:8-11 where "HE who said" is the criteria
and in Heb 4 "there REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God"
and in Isaiah 66:23 "ALL Mankind" is to come before God "from Sabbath to Sabbath"
and in Mark 2:27 "Sabbath made for mankind

- and that you are also in agreement with the Christian scholarship noted below -- that the moral Law of God includes the TEN Commandments, applies to all mankind - both Christian and non- Christian and is written on the heart under the NEW Covenant...


but now you ask why it is not "just the NINE commandments"?

Seriously - that is where you accuse me of misrepresenting you and yet -- here you actually do the very thing I claim you do?

 

[BobRyan]

I don't have an opposition to the 10 commandments or to the 4th commandment

for all mankind... the moral law of God that defines what sin is -- just like all these other denominations I keep pointing you to??

When I say --

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

And of course 7th day groups

Seventh-day Baptists
Seventh-day Adventists
(and 100's of others)


-- so "now" you are saying you are fully on board with them on that point and that I have falsely accused you as doing otherwise??

...

Pointing the finger and repeating the same passage trying to show me that law and Christ are in competition is counter gospel.

Something I never do.. you only have your quote "of you" for that sort of position on this thread.

Surely we both see that.

You have said v6 is law and v7 is Christ

vs 6 and vs 7 ... of what?

with no real reason why except that you want v6 to point to Sabbath law. In this view they are contrasted and not working together as they were before you've interpreted them. .

That is your version of "extreme inference" it is not you showing me to say that "Christ is in opposition to the LAW of God" how is it that you do not notice that not-so-subtle detail?

 

[BobRyan]

I don't have an opposition to the 10 commandments or to the 4th commandment

for all mankind... the moral law of God that defines what sin is -- just like all these other denominations I keep pointing you to??

When I say --

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm all TEN of the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

I don't know why you are identifying me with "pro-sunday" groups. Who are these people are why am I agreeing with them?

how "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

I want to interprete the passage responsibly and consistently so I can't ignore how we understand v7 without it effecting the reading of the entire passage. If how we look at v7 is an absolute (Christ ends the sacrifice) then the entire passage needs to be re-evaluated based on this absolute

Well not according to all those Christian denominations you keep saying you are now in agreement with.

And not according to 1 Cor 7:19
And not according to Hebrews 10:4-12

You're going to have to be more clear. What do all these "Christian denominations" say?

Is the point above about these Sunday groups admitting that "all ten of the ten commandments apply to all mankind including Christians" statement above too vague in your POV?

You also broadly take the term "God's Law" or "God's Commandments" and then conflate them with... I suppose the 10 Commandments (I infer) or even more specifically the 4th commandment.

So when even the Sunday groups admit that this is the case with Eph 6:1-2 and 1 Cor 7:19 you find it hard to understand what they are saying?

Where does Paul tell us to do this? Hebrews 7 tells us "He does away with the first in order to establish the second"

A tiny snip-out-of-context where Paul is speaking of the Law regarding priests coming from the tribe of Levi.

I'm sorry I can no long longer follow your logic

Well it was nice to have the conversation even if you are not following the posts

 

[DamianWarS]

for all mankind... the moral law of God that defines what sin is -- just like all these other denominations I keep pointing you to??

When I say --

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm all TEN of the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.




how "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.



Well not according to all those Christian denominations you keep saying you are now in agreement with.

And not according to 1 Cor 7:19
And not according to Hebrews 10:4-12





Is the point above about these Sunday groups admitting that "all ten of the ten commandments apply to all mankind including Christians" statement above too vague in your POV?



So when even the Sunday groups admit that this is the case with Eph 6:1-2 and 1 Cor 7:19 you find it hard to understand what they are saying?



A tiny snip-out-of-context where Paul is speaking of the Law regarding priests coming from the tribe of Levi.

I'm sorry I can no long longer follow your logic and I don't know how to reply to you any more. Having to sort through these constant copy and pasted messages makes if difficult to track and follow what new points you're trying to make, it feels disingenuous not to mention quite fatiguing. It's just not the sort of discussion I'm interested in.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm sorry I can no long longer follow your logic

It will be interesting to see how often the same questions surface and the same answer is given on these threads as if "we call cannot see " the obvious nature of the answer as soon as one of us claims not to "see" it.