Sabbath Observance: 3 Views
There is justification and there is sanctification. We can't argue for the inclusion of one to the exclusion of the other.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
But, if I understand you, your position is that it doesn't matter in the least what a "Chrisitan" does, it only matters whether or not he/she is sincere.
dmatic, I'm getting the impression that you don't know what the Law of Christ is, which may be part of the reason you hang on to the Law of Moses so tenaciously by your mistaken understanding of Matt 5.17. Jesus and his Apostles gave over 50 commands , which do not exist concurrently with the Law of Moses because many are different. These commands are the commands to the New Covenant believer and my offer still stands if you want me to list them.
As to salvation it's like what the angel said to Mary, "He will save men from their sins."
Note HE WILL SAVE, not we will save ourselves, but Jesus WILL SAVE US. That's an inference to "imputed righteousness" which i believe is biblical. As to sincere faith , that means we sincerely want to follow JESUS'S commands. Remamber in Matt 28 Jesus said "Remamber to follow all that I COMMANDED YOU" , that refers to HIS law not the Law of Moses. The people who claimed to be believers in Jesus whom he rejected were clearly hypocrites, out for themselves.
dmatic, I'm getting the impression that you don't know what the Law of Christ is, which may be part of the reason you hang on to the Law of Moses so tenaciously by your mistaken understanding of Matt 5.17. Jesus and his Apostles gave over 50 commands , which do not exist concurrently with the Law of Moses because many are different. These commands are the commands to the New Covenant believer and my offer still stands if you want me to list them.
As to salvation it's like what the angel said to Mary, "He will save men from their sins."
Note HE WILL SAVE, not we will save ourselves, but Jesus WILL SAVE US. That's an inference to "imputed righteousness" which i believe is biblical. As to sincere faith , that means we sincerely want to follow JESUS'S commands. Remamber in Matt 28 Jesus said "Remamber to follow all that I COMMANDED YOU" , that refers to HIS law not the Law of Moses. The people who claimed to be believers in Jesus whom he rejected were clearly hypocrites, out for themselves.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Amen, Steve, and those Commands of Christ come only to understanding when one is born again. Not born again into the Law but born again into Christ.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
dmatic,
The main problem I see with what you are advocating is that it merely leads to regulated and controlled behavior. That is the best that the letter (which kills) can do. It can tell you all the things that you are to do and not do, but it doesn't give you the ability to comply. Furthermore, once you do not comply with that which you are to do and not do, the very thing that tells you to do this and not do that condemns you. You continue to propagate keeping the commandments of God, and thats wonderful. However, in doing so, you are missing the voice of the Commander Himself, which seeks to change the heart and make keeping the commandments flow from regeneration and union with the indwelling Christ, who becomes the law-keeper in the heart. You are advocating a life of principles and laws, whereas the ministry of the Spirit in the New Covenant seeks to establish God's people in principles of life. This ministry of the Spirit is the heart of Paul's labors i.e. to get Christ formed in his disciples. (Gal. 4:19) In fact, your propaganda bears much resemblance to that which was advocated by those who followed Paul around saying "faith in the completed work of Christ's death and resurrection, plus ______ (fill in the blank) for justification, sanctification, spiritual maturity etc. Some scholars say that this is what Paul had in mind when he talked about his thorn in the flesh. If you are interested in understanding more of where I am coming from, check out the book called "Silent Killers of Faith: Overcoming Legalism and Performance Based Religion by Dr. Stephen Crosby.
The main problem I see with what you are advocating is that it merely leads to regulated and controlled behavior. That is the best that the letter (which kills) can do. It can tell you all the things that you are to do and not do, but it doesn't give you the ability to comply. Furthermore, once you do not comply with that which you are to do and not do, the very thing that tells you to do this and not do that condemns you. You continue to propagate keeping the commandments of God, and thats wonderful. However, in doing so, you are missing the voice of the Commander Himself, which seeks to change the heart and make keeping the commandments flow from regeneration and union with the indwelling Christ, who becomes the law-keeper in the heart. You are advocating a life of principles and laws, whereas the ministry of the Spirit in the New Covenant seeks to establish God's people in principles of life. This ministry of the Spirit is the heart of Paul's labors i.e. to get Christ formed in his disciples. (Gal. 4:19) In fact, your propaganda bears much resemblance to that which was advocated by those who followed Paul around saying "faith in the completed work of Christ's death and resurrection, plus ______ (fill in the blank) for justification, sanctification, spiritual maturity etc. Some scholars say that this is what Paul had in mind when he talked about his thorn in the flesh. If you are interested in understanding more of where I am coming from, check out the book called "Silent Killers of Faith: Overcoming Legalism and Performance Based Religion by Dr. Stephen Crosby.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Sean, I'm not sure what you mean to imply here, but if I have done so, I must apologize because that was not my intent!Sean wrote:There is justification and there is sanctification. We can't argue for the inclusion of one to the exclusion of the other.
I believe there are actually at least three stages to our "completion", which are Justification, Sanctification and Glorification, which are pictured in the three main feasts of the LORD!
Peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
STEVE7150 wrote:
Thanks, dmatic
Yes, that would be nice, if it isn't too much trouble Steve. I'd appreciate it. I don't know of any New testament commands that contradict any from God's Law given through Moses. I'm trying to answer Homer's post so maybe you could read it too, and see where you think I'm missing it.Jesus and his Apostles gave over 50 commands , which do not exist concurrently with the Law of Moses because many are different. These commands are the commands to the New Covenant believer and my offer still stands if you want me to list them.
Thanks, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Troy, I'll try to answer your post tomorrow, Lord willing, but right now I need to type a bit to Homer who, I hope, is patiently waiting... 
Homer, thank you for your effort putting together that response. I will begin here, to try to answer your objections. thanks for your patience.
First, you quoted the passages you cited from the New King James version, but I believe we'll need to dig a bit deeper to find the meanings of their messages.
Your talk of "food laws" is understandable based on a reading of the English versions. It is apparent that God has always been concerned with what humans "eat". Right away, in the garden He instructed Adam and Eve that they could eat of most all of the trees except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and, I may be mistaken, but I don't think they were supposed to eat from the tree of Life either. But, they didn't listen to God's instructions, and thought that they could eat from the "unclean" tree, though i know that it was not called "unclean". they thought they knew better than God apparently. Remind you of anyone in these days? People come up with all sorts of reasons they think it's OK to eat from things that God has told us are unclean.
Anyway, god mercifully kicked them out of the garden with "skin on",so that they wouldn't eat from the tree of life and live "forever" in a sinful state!
He declared that from then on, that Adam would get his food from the sweat of his brow, laboring for it amongst the weeds and in the soil.
We then find the story of Cain and Abel and of Abel sacrificing the best lamb from his herd, even though, to my knowledge there is not a record of instructions for him to do so. Nor do we know, I think, that he ate it.
A few chapters later are the story of the flood and Noah's instructions for the clean and unclean animals that were going to be brought into the boat. Pairs of the unclean but sevens of the clean, so he would be aware of God's instructions for what he would be allowed to eat when the flood receded.
So, we come to your Gen. 9:3 verse where God seems to tell Noah that he could eat of "every moving thing that liveth"....At least that is what it seems to say in some English versions. the Septuagint renders it something like "every reptile that moveth". If God really meant that Noah could eat, legally, every living thing that moves, that would also include permission to eat humans, and I hope that you would agree that God did not mean that. But what did He mean?
I meant to bring my copy of Strong's exhaustive Concordance and copy the definition of Hebrew number "398", but I don't have it here, now....so, first, I want to discuss the word rendered "Every" which is from #3605 in Strong's and one of its defintions is given as: "Kawl, can signify everything in a given unit whose members have been selected from others of their kind." The "given unit" selected from others, I believe, is these same "clean animals" that God had delineated for Noah in the Ark, out from amongst all the other animals (the unclean ones). I'm not making this up!
Hopefully, you'll see that this means that since God gave permission for man to eat animals, that He has not changed in His defintion of what is clean and can be eaten, and what is unclean and cannot be eaten. These are the same ones that you pointed out by quoting the Lev 11, and Deuteronomy 14 passages.
I am suggesting, Homer, that your interpretation of Gen. 9:3 may be wrong. Since we know that Noah knew which animals God had declared clean and which God had declared unclean, signified by the Hebrew word "Kawl" or "Kal", which speaks of those clean ones that had been selected out from among all the animals.
your suggestion that the food laws were only given to the children of Israel may also be wrong, because of Passages like Lev.24:22 and Numbers 15:14-16
Sadly, it appears that I will not be able to finish my thoughts in answer to yours in this one sitting, but I will try to complet them tomorrow, Lord willing. I have but 12 minutes left. Sorry.
So, let's look at Jesus' teachings concerning food laws, and what was clean and unclean.
In the Mark 7 passage, we find Jesus correcting the Pharisees, i think. They had, in an effort to keep from being defiled, came up with extraneous rules for doing so, which included the ceremonial washing of their hands so as not to get dirt inside them when they ate clean animals, and other vegatables etc. They were surprised that Jesus, nor His disciples did the ritual washing before they ate. This ritual, i am told, involved pouring water from a pitcher over one hand and then the other and then once again, or something like that. they wer teaching this to their disciples as if it was a commandment from God!
Jesus corrected them by saying that it doesn;t even matter if some "dirt" gets inside you, because the body will clean it up and eliminate it. What defiled a man were such things as wicked thoughts etc, that came from within him. With this statement He did not declare all unclean animals clean! He was correcting the "Jews" teaching that eating with dirty hands would defile them.
Now, those who eat unclean animals, after knowing God's instructions prohibiting them, are like Adam and Eve in the garden, and it is these thoughts that they think pigs, for example, look good to eat, that defile them. Not heeding God;s instructions is what is the arrogance that defiles a man. These somehow think that they are above God's laws.
I wanted to address your Ephesians passage too, but I won't have time...now. if you have time though, look up the greek for the passage you cite. particularly the word "dogma" #1378 in Srong's. This should clear up your confusion about the meaning of it. dogmas are the "opinions" of men. these have been nailed to the tree! God's Laws have not been abolished!
Peace,
dmatic
Homer, thank you for your effort putting together that response. I will begin here, to try to answer your objections. thanks for your patience.
First, you quoted the passages you cited from the New King James version, but I believe we'll need to dig a bit deeper to find the meanings of their messages.
Your talk of "food laws" is understandable based on a reading of the English versions. It is apparent that God has always been concerned with what humans "eat". Right away, in the garden He instructed Adam and Eve that they could eat of most all of the trees except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and, I may be mistaken, but I don't think they were supposed to eat from the tree of Life either. But, they didn't listen to God's instructions, and thought that they could eat from the "unclean" tree, though i know that it was not called "unclean". they thought they knew better than God apparently. Remind you of anyone in these days? People come up with all sorts of reasons they think it's OK to eat from things that God has told us are unclean.
Anyway, god mercifully kicked them out of the garden with "skin on",so that they wouldn't eat from the tree of life and live "forever" in a sinful state!
He declared that from then on, that Adam would get his food from the sweat of his brow, laboring for it amongst the weeds and in the soil.
We then find the story of Cain and Abel and of Abel sacrificing the best lamb from his herd, even though, to my knowledge there is not a record of instructions for him to do so. Nor do we know, I think, that he ate it.
A few chapters later are the story of the flood and Noah's instructions for the clean and unclean animals that were going to be brought into the boat. Pairs of the unclean but sevens of the clean, so he would be aware of God's instructions for what he would be allowed to eat when the flood receded.
So, we come to your Gen. 9:3 verse where God seems to tell Noah that he could eat of "every moving thing that liveth"....At least that is what it seems to say in some English versions. the Septuagint renders it something like "every reptile that moveth". If God really meant that Noah could eat, legally, every living thing that moves, that would also include permission to eat humans, and I hope that you would agree that God did not mean that. But what did He mean?
I meant to bring my copy of Strong's exhaustive Concordance and copy the definition of Hebrew number "398", but I don't have it here, now....so, first, I want to discuss the word rendered "Every" which is from #3605 in Strong's and one of its defintions is given as: "Kawl, can signify everything in a given unit whose members have been selected from others of their kind." The "given unit" selected from others, I believe, is these same "clean animals" that God had delineated for Noah in the Ark, out from amongst all the other animals (the unclean ones). I'm not making this up!
Hopefully, you'll see that this means that since God gave permission for man to eat animals, that He has not changed in His defintion of what is clean and can be eaten, and what is unclean and cannot be eaten. These are the same ones that you pointed out by quoting the Lev 11, and Deuteronomy 14 passages.
I am suggesting, Homer, that your interpretation of Gen. 9:3 may be wrong. Since we know that Noah knew which animals God had declared clean and which God had declared unclean, signified by the Hebrew word "Kawl" or "Kal", which speaks of those clean ones that had been selected out from among all the animals.
your suggestion that the food laws were only given to the children of Israel may also be wrong, because of Passages like Lev.24:22 and Numbers 15:14-16
Sadly, it appears that I will not be able to finish my thoughts in answer to yours in this one sitting, but I will try to complet them tomorrow, Lord willing. I have but 12 minutes left. Sorry.
So, let's look at Jesus' teachings concerning food laws, and what was clean and unclean.
In the Mark 7 passage, we find Jesus correcting the Pharisees, i think. They had, in an effort to keep from being defiled, came up with extraneous rules for doing so, which included the ceremonial washing of their hands so as not to get dirt inside them when they ate clean animals, and other vegatables etc. They were surprised that Jesus, nor His disciples did the ritual washing before they ate. This ritual, i am told, involved pouring water from a pitcher over one hand and then the other and then once again, or something like that. they wer teaching this to their disciples as if it was a commandment from God!
Jesus corrected them by saying that it doesn;t even matter if some "dirt" gets inside you, because the body will clean it up and eliminate it. What defiled a man were such things as wicked thoughts etc, that came from within him. With this statement He did not declare all unclean animals clean! He was correcting the "Jews" teaching that eating with dirty hands would defile them.
Now, those who eat unclean animals, after knowing God's instructions prohibiting them, are like Adam and Eve in the garden, and it is these thoughts that they think pigs, for example, look good to eat, that defile them. Not heeding God;s instructions is what is the arrogance that defiles a man. These somehow think that they are above God's laws.
I wanted to address your Ephesians passage too, but I won't have time...now. if you have time though, look up the greek for the passage you cite. particularly the word "dogma" #1378 in Srong's. This should clear up your confusion about the meaning of it. dogmas are the "opinions" of men. these have been nailed to the tree! God's Laws have not been abolished!
Peace,
dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I'm not really "in" on this thread but....
dmatic,
I think you're probably right about the ritual washing regarding the clean/unclean foods (Pharisaical washing: Jesus in [his] Jewish context).
Not to sidetrack y'all but, I have a quick question.
If Jesus ever taught anything about homosexuality, there's no record of it in the Gospels. How can we know if Jesus sees it as an acceptable practice?
dmatic,
I think you're probably right about the ritual washing regarding the clean/unclean foods (Pharisaical washing: Jesus in [his] Jewish context).
Not to sidetrack y'all but, I have a quick question.
If Jesus ever taught anything about homosexuality, there's no record of it in the Gospels. How can we know if Jesus sees it as an acceptable practice?
Last edited by _Rich on Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
If Jesus ever taught anything about homosexuality, there's no record of it in the Gospels. How can we know if Jesus sees it as an acceptable practice?
Would'nt we go by what Paul said about men not laying with men?
Would'nt we go by what Paul said about men not laying with men?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Steve, How can we know if what Paul taught is what Jesus thinks about homosexuality? Was Paul given a new revelation about homosexuality from Jesus?
I'm making a point, if anyone sees it.
(Please allow me to 'borrow comments' only by way of illustration).
So, is Bishop's Robinson's problem because he is not born again? If he got born again---'Not born again into the Law but born again into Christ'---how would he know Jesus thought homosexual practice was wrong, if in fact Jesus does? Does the Holy Spirit and/or Paul teach us things Jesus didn't speak about? Is Robinson "free from the Law"...as he, and some of you also, seem to be saying? (but I think and hope non-intentionally).
*Btw, I know you (Steve and Allyn) believe homosexual practice is a sin and so do I. How do we know this? From Paul? and the Holy Spirit? Yes. But what about Jesus?
We know Jesus thinks homosexual practice is a sin from the Law of Moses which the Lord believed in.
My point is, we need to be very careful about saying we're "free from the Law", define and explain exactly what we mean when we say that, and be aware of what we might be conveying: "Gene Robinson is a fine example of a good Christian" (???).
Please, please, please, think about it.
I'm making a point, if anyone sees it.
(Please allow me to 'borrow comments' only by way of illustration).
The homosexual Bishop Gene Robinson of the ECUSA believes we should love God and our neighbor as ourselves, just as Jesus taught. He also believes that laws against homosexuality in the Law of Moses no longer apply for today. You see, "Jesus never 'COMMANDED' against it. I follow 'HIS law not the Law of Moses'"...is exactly what Robinson says.STEVE wrote:As to sincere faith , that means we sincerely want to follow JESUS'S commands. Remamber in Matt 28 Jesus said "Remamber to follow all that I COMMANDED YOU" , that refers to HIS law not the Law of Moses. The people who claimed to be believers in Jesus whom he rejected were clearly hypocrites, out for themselves.
Allyn replied: Amen, Steve, and those Commands of Christ come only to understanding when one is born again. Not born again into the Law but born again into Christ (underline, mine for emphasis).
So, is Bishop's Robinson's problem because he is not born again? If he got born again---'Not born again into the Law but born again into Christ'---how would he know Jesus thought homosexual practice was wrong, if in fact Jesus does? Does the Holy Spirit and/or Paul teach us things Jesus didn't speak about? Is Robinson "free from the Law"...as he, and some of you also, seem to be saying? (but I think and hope non-intentionally).
*Btw, I know you (Steve and Allyn) believe homosexual practice is a sin and so do I. How do we know this? From Paul? and the Holy Spirit? Yes. But what about Jesus?
We know Jesus thinks homosexual practice is a sin from the Law of Moses which the Lord believed in.
My point is, we need to be very careful about saying we're "free from the Law", define and explain exactly what we mean when we say that, and be aware of what we might be conveying: "Gene Robinson is a fine example of a good Christian" (???).
Please, please, please, think about it.
Last edited by _Rich on Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:09 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth