Why is it that many Christians

[2consider]

I would say people focus on these individual sins because many churches and denominations still judge their congregation on these things.

Indeed.

 

[tatteredsoul]

No, this actually was addressed:

It doesn't sound addresses. It still insinuates that those who follow the law are doing it out of the idea that their salvation will be justified by it. "Legalists" don't follow God''s law because they are scared He will judge and damn them for an infraction. They do it out of love.

If they read the OT law to LEARN what not to do and what to do, that is spiritual enrichment, not a sign of a legalistic mind exchanging works for salvation. After all, the LAW is written on all of our hearts as per the new covenant. That is, the Law of God that not one iota or jot diminishes from it.

 

[1John2:4]

What about them? Are you suggesting God's word contradicts itself? I hope not.

Selah.

I am not suggesting that the word contradicts itself my friend. I am suggesting that you may be misintupreting Paul. Peter did say he was difficult to understand and not to be lead away with the error of the lawless 2 Peter 3:14

 

[Serving Zion]

It doesn't sound addresses. It still insinuates that those who follow the law are doing it out of the idea that their salvation will be justified by it. "Legalists" don't follow God''s law because they are scared He will judge and damn them for an infraction. They do it out of love.

If they read the OT law to LEARN what not to do and what to do, that is spiritual enrichment, not a sign of a legalistic mind exchanging works for salvation. After all, the LAW is written on all of our hearts as per the new covenant. That is, the Law of God that not one iota or jot diminishes from it.

You and I are describing two different types of person with the term "Legalist". I agree the type of person that you describe might be pursuing a valid path of salvation.

 

[Hank77]

When do you think the Sabbath was ordained?
The very first week, after God finished creation.

How do we know when the 7th day was in the Garden compared to the 7th day now? I don't think that Adam, Job, Noah, etc. were keeping a running calendar from the first day of creation. Therefore, your 7th day may not be the same day as say Noah's 7th day. There is absolutely no way, that I know of, to know for sure that the 7th day when God rested is the day we call Saturday.
Does the scripture tell us anything about the position of the moon, what phase it was in, what month, or season it was on the 7th day of creation? That is a serious question, I don't know, do you?

 

[1John2:4]

How do we know when the 7th day was in the Garden compared to the 7th day now? I don't think that Adam, Job, Noah, etc. were keeping a running calendar from the first day of creation. Therefore, your 7th day may not be the same day as say Noah's 7th day. There is absolutely no way, that I know of, to know for sure that the 7th day when God rested is the day we call Saturday.
Does the scripture tell us anything about the position of the moon, what phase it was in, what month, or season it was on the 7th day of creation? That is a serious question, I don't know, do you?

I do not think there was any great catastrophic event that made the whole world forget what day of the week it was like some world wide amniesia. Plus the Jews keep Saturday and they have been I trusted with the Oricals of God.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, please forgive me if I come across that way.

 

[Soyeong]

All I am doing is pointing out the flaw in reasoning thus:

1. God is holy, righteous, and unchanging;
2. The Law of Moses comes from God;
3. Therefore the Law of Moses has to be eternal.

There really should be no argument here: one cannot argue that just because the Law of Moses is the edict of an eternal, unchanging God this means that the Law of Moses can never be repealed. You are effectively denying God the "right" to do something holy and good for a limited period of time with a specific goal in mind.

I am not denying that God can do something that is holy and good that lasts for a limited period of time, I'm deny that that implies that what is good can change. For instance, when Jesus healed people, it was a good that was temporary because they could eventually become injured or sick again, but that does not imply that whether or not it is good to heal people can change. It is not necessary for me to argue that God's law is eternal because the Bible straight out says that it is:

Psalms 119:160 The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

At the time that Timothy was a child, the books of the NT hadn't even been written yet, so Paul was referring to OT Scripture and specifically God's law. So in order to say that God's law has been repealed, you would need to denying that the OT still is God's word, deny that it endures forever, and deny that it is still Scripture. However, my additional argument looks like this:

1.) God is unchangingly holy, righteous, and good.
2.) The way to do what is holy, righteous, and good is based off of God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness.
3.) Therefore, the way to do what is holy, righteous, and good does not change.
4.) God's law instructs the way to do what is holy, righteous, and good.
5.) As part of the New Covenant, we are told to do what is holy, righteous, and good.
6.) Therefore people in the New Covenant should live according to God's law.

Well, Paul says we are no longer under the tutor:

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

If we follow your reasoning, while honouring the clear logic of Paul's statement, we have to say that we put faith back on the shelf or otherwise concede that faith is ineffectual - Paul clearly has faith replacing the Law as tutor - and go back to the tutelage of the Law. Do you really want to have to own that position?

Saying that we are no longer under an teacher is not at all the same thing as saying that we are disregard everything they taught us. For example, after someone learns what their first-grade teacher has to teach them, they are no longer under that teacher and move on to a new second-grade teacher. In the process, they aren't to forget everything they were taught by their previous teacher, but rather their second-grade teacher incorporates what they learned and builds upon that. For instance, a student can not moved on to more advanced math classes by disregarding what they were taught about math in previous classes. In the same way, we have a better teacher who can teach us more advanced lessons, but these lessons build off of what we have previously been taught rather than invalidating it.

The righteous shall live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4), or in other words, the righteous shall live by depending on God's instructions, not by rebelling against them. God's law is the way to live by faith and putting our faith on the shelf would be to say that we know better than God how to live and there is a better way to live than depending on Him for instructions.

 

[aiki]

I am not suggesting that the word contradicts itself my friend. I am suggesting that you may be misintupreting Paul. Peter did say he was difficult to understand and not to be lead away with the error of the lawless 2 Peter 3:14

I think I understand Paul's teaching quite well. Can you show me this misinterpretation you think I'm making? How are you sure you're not the one misinterpreting Paul?

Selah.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

In any case, to those who just posted with less than 50 posts, welcome to christian forums.

 

[Hank77]

I do not think there was any great catastrophic event that made the whole world forget what day of the week it was like some world wide amniesia. Plus the Jews keep Saturday and they have been I trusted with the Oricals of God.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, please forgive me if I come across that way.

When Adam was created man didn't comprehend letters, numbers, days of the week, etc. All those things were developed over time. So I don't see how we can know for sure.
Yes, they were given the law which established the 7th day but is there any scripture that says that Noah, Abraham, etc. observed this particular 7th day, Saturday, before the Law of Moses? I can't remember any.

You didn't come across as sarcastic, but thank your concern. I hope I don't either, this is just something that I have thought about in the past.

 

[Light of the East]

Read the new covenant. It isn't in effect yet.
It won't be until the millennial reign, if not
after that.

Once a year, the Old Covenant was renewed with a sacrifice known as Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur made atonement for the sins of the nation and kept it in covenant with God as His covenant people.

When Jesus died, the place where the Old Covenant was held was desecrated. The veil of the Temple, which hid the Holiest of All from the view of human eyes, was rent in two, thus making it unfit for use ever again. This showed that the Old Covenant was over, since there was no longer a place in which to offer Yom Kippur.

Secondly, Matthew 21: 33-46 shows us that the Hebrew nation has been cast out of the Kingdom (vineyard) of God and replaced. Jesus prophesied this happening, and in AD 70, with the destruction of Jerusalem, this change was finalized. The Jews were given one last chance to repent and did not, thus sealing the doom of the nation.

Finally, if you know what it means to be in covenant, as in the analogy of marriage and the marriage covenant, God identifies Himself as the Spouse of Israel. This is particularly clear in the book of Hosea, where national Israel is compared to an unfaithful wife.

Now if a wife kills her husband, do they still have a covenant of marriage? The nation of Israel killed her divine Spouse, thus ending the covenant relationship.

And there is no such thing as a "millenial reign" That is a pre-millenialist fantasy.

 

[Light of the East]

Common mistake.
Go read what Jesus said again.
This never happened, and NO ONE in the BIBLE ever thought so, nor said so.
Mixed up ?
Yes.
Why ?
men screwed up.
What did Jesus say ?
He said "My Words are Spirit, and they are LIFE" (Jesus could NEVER SIN, NEVER eat blood, NEVER SAY to eat(physical) blood. NEVER SAID TO.)
Glad we got that cleared up.
The other mistakes , maybe later.

Jesus clearly said that unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have not life. So clear was He on this, that most of His followers turned from Him. He was also so clear about it to His Apostles that they went out and as part of evangelizing the world, they taught everyone they met that this is a necessity. For 15 centuries, this was the only belief until Anabaptist heretics began to teach something else because they thought that they were smarter than the Apostles.

You need to prove that the very first Christians didn't believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Have at it!


Glad we cleared that up.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, all 3 , disagree with you and those who think that it says that.

Neither I nor you nor anyone you know can prove that the first Christians did not believe that blue is prettier than grey.

Even more so, no one can prove that anything you think they think is what they thought.

That's why it is so important to learn directly from God and from God's Word, not from fallible men, what God says and what God means. Fallible men mess it all up.

 

[Light of the East]

Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, all 3 , disagree with you and those who think that it says that.

Neither I nor you nor anyone you know can prove that the first Christians did not believe that blue is prettier than grey.

Even more so, no one can prove that anything you think they think is what they thought.

That's why it is so important to learn directly from God and from God's Word, not from fallible men, what God says and what God means. Fallible men mess it all up.

If you are addressing that to me, then you are dead wrong. We have copious writings from the Early Fathers which show us that they believed and taught and preached that the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of Christ. We know quite clearly what they thought, and your strawman about colors is particularly silly and off point.

 

[aiki]

Jesus clearly said that unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have not life. So clear was He on this, that most of His followers turned from Him.

Two things:

1.) Why could it not have been that the people who heard Jesus' words turned from him because they mistook a figurative, spiritual declaration for a literal one?
2.) I know of no place in all of Scripture where any apostle says explicitly (or implicitly, for that matter) that he has eaten the actual flesh and has drunk the actual blood of Christ. Can you show me where an apostle makes this claim?

Selah.

 

[Light of the East]

Two things:

1.) Why could it not have been that the people who heard Jesus' words turned from him because they mistook a figurative, spiritual declaration for a literal one?
2.) I know of no place in all of Scripture where any apostle says explicitly (or implicitly, for that matter) that he has eaten the actual flesh and has drunk the actual blood of Christ. Can you show me where an apostle makes this claim?

Selah.

I will show it to you when you show me that everything we believe must come from the Bible alone. The fact of the matter is that the Christian disciples of the second century were writing that the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of the Lord. These were men who were discipled by the Apostles, therefore, we know that the only place they could have gotten such a belief is from the Apostles themselves.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you are addressing that to me, then you are dead wrong. We have copious writings from the Early Fathers which show us that they believed and taught and preached that the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of Christ. We know quite clearly what they thought, and your strawman about colors is particularly silly and off point.

I'm not surprised who you trust in and believe.
I trust in God, and believe in His Word, directly. Not in fallible men who oppose Him.
A whole other Kingdom.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Jesus never went after anyone who didn't want to follow Him directly.
Everyone who followed other men or other gods, He let them go.
He never once tried to get them to believe the truth, when they rejected Him.

 

[1John2:4]

When Adam was created man didn't comprehend letters, numbers, days of the week, etc. All those things were developed over time. So I don't see how we can know for sure.
Yes, they were given the law which established the 7th day but is there any scripture that says that Noah, Abraham, etc. observed this particular 7th day, Saturday, before the Law of Moses? I can't remember any.

You didn't come across as sarcastic, but thank your concern. I hope I don't either, this is just something that I have thought about in the past.

I really do appreciate your ideas. I have thought about it too I just wonder why the commandment starts with the Word remember Exodus 20:8? I wonder why the calendar still has Saturday as the 7th day of the week even though the Gregorian calendar origionated from Pope Gregory in the 1500s, just a thought, could God be preserving the Shabbat?

 

[1John2:4]

In any case, to those who just posted with less than 50 posts, welcome to christian forums.

Thank you brother!!