I suggest that (get this) Luther's blood regarding the sabbath is on Luther's hands. And frankly, I do not know what was in Luther's heart. It is obvious the man was given an understanding of the sabbath and rejected it. He also hated Jews.mikew wrote:You suggest that there is blood on Luther's hands. You have endorsed a judgment against Luther in that such statement. What do you think of Jesus' words that those who believe upon Him pass from judgment into eternal life? (John 5:24 paraphrased)
On the Jews and Their Lies
Does another Christian call people names like whore and sluts? Did Jesus?
Clarity is a good thing!hmm. Not exactly.
I didn't understand what your were talking about. Now I have seen that you explain your thought a little further into your response -- so after seeing that explanation I have edited this answer.
Come again? I never condemned Luther he condemns himself by rejecting the truth that was brought to him. I never said he was saved or any such thing. Pay closer attention to what is being stated.I assume that you are confused on the statement about you being a judge -- the confusion probably occurs from the problems we encounter in textual discussions.
I was saying that you were condemning Luther based on your opinion of the Sunday or Sabbath concept. You gave preferential treatment to the opponent of Luther because that opponent had your view. Are you advocating that doctrine is now established by democracy?
Excuse me? I point out that Luther rejected the sabbath and somehow that condemning him?Your attempt to condemn Luther on this shows your interest in condemnation (an attribute of those who follow the Law of Moses) rather than on proper dialogue
You have a woeful understanding of Hebrews 3 and 4.Ok. Finally something we can agree upon. But now also note that Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath rest. There is no further action we could do to fulfill the Sabbath any further beyond complete fulfillment.
But if you need to relax some, you have the freedom in Christ to do that.
There is no change of what the Sabbath meant or when it was.
That's having you cake and eating it too theology.
The Sabbath was a requirement upon Israelites.
Read Exodus 20:10. Still think so? Remember, "One law...."
Abraham saw Jesus' coming an was glad. He was the first "Christian."Christians never were obligated to Sabbath or Sunday.
That's just it. There are no scriptures that say Christians don't have to keep the sabbath and there are none that authorize the solemnity of Sunday.I must have slept through that wonderful statement.
So if scripture shows no basis for believers to follow Sunday or Sabbath how does that make me a follower of the Cardinal?
Isa 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger (that's you), that join themselves to the LORD (by acceptance), to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; (taking hold of the covenant by serving the Lord and recognizing the sabbath).
I'm saying exactly what Cardinal Gibbons stated. If you stand solely on scripture (sola scriptura) and reject the authority of the RCC as Luther did, and yet you reject the lesson of the sabbath then yes, you are paying homage to Rome.Are you saying that anyone who doesn't have perfect doctrine is paying homage to Rome?
Hey, don't take my word for it....read the scriptures.This is not very convincing to me that your view on Sabbath is correct.
Not possible. They don't keep the true sabbath.If you like the Cardinal and his ilk. You can join the Catholics.
I see your view and the Cardinal's and Luther's view as incongruent with scripture.
No doubt.
So where does that leave you if you and the Cardinal and Luther were all wrong?
Maybe you should try wrestling with Cardinal Gibbons statements then.This discussion isn't quite bringing us to a similar viewpoint.