Sabbath Observance: 3 Views

[Guest]

Does God want us to obey the Law, which simply shows us our sin since none are capable of perfection in the Law, or does God call us righteous because of His Son?

NEITHER! ---- Unless by "the Law" we mean "the LAW which is above the Law (of Moses) ---- the LAW of God underlying the Law of Moses --- which is tantamount to "the LAW of Christ. ---- God does want us to obey that LAW, and he has provided the enabling grace to do so.

God doesn't "call us righteous because of his Son." God wants a REAL righteousness from his people --- not a pretending "imputed" righteousness.

He has made a real righteousness possible through his enabling grace ---made possible by the death of his son. It's true we aren't capable in ourselves of obedience, that is, by self-effort. But through that enabling grace (Titus 2) God has made it possible for us to be righteous. With this provision we ARE capable!

[Guest]

Hello Sean,

Personally, I liked what parts of the book I've read. I'm still digesting the material and have taken an hour or so to study certain sections more in-depth. You say the whole book is proof-texting and taking Paul out of context, and so on. I disagree.

However, I can't comment on what you (and also Homer and others) have posted because I honestly think you are 'missing' the issues; not understanding what they really were in NT times, as well as what the issues are for us today.

I don't mean anything personal about this.

Ever since I posted to this thread I've felt "We aren't on the same page!" I could potentially quote and reply but don't think it wouldn't help anything or do any good.
Sometimes this happens...and there's not much we can do but agree to disagree.

I certainly appreciate the book Rick, but I have discussed this issue many times on other forums and am familiar with the arguments made in the book. I agree that we aren't on the same page and don't get me wrong, I'm not offended.

I just am concerned that we take the scriptures for what they say, and not what we want them to say. One of the greatest strengths of Calvinism and Dispensationalism is their claim that you are misunderstanding them if you disagree. They then take you to their foundational beliefs to make their case. For Calvinists it's God controls all things and no one resists His will (O' man ). This leads to regeneration before belief. But neither it taught in scripture. The dispensationalist claims the church and Israel are forever seperate. Again, this is not taught in scripture. So on to the discussion about the Law of Moses. We are not on the same page because you (don't get offended by this, I could be wrong) apparently are bringing assumptions to the text and re-reading Paul's statements to mean what you think they should mean.

Realize that my interpretations of scripture revolve around an exegetical approach. It if says it, it says it. If it doesn't it doesn't. If Paul says we don't serve God by the written code, then we don't. The fact that Paul rebukes Peter publically when he starts to act "Jewish" in front of James' men only drives this point home. Romans chapters 1-11 all hang together and answer most all the questions raised about the law and it's purpose and use in the Christian life. The book you link to starts with the premise that Jesus and Paul would never not keep the law of Moses and it is good for us as well. Did they even read the bible? Seriously. Look up their scripture references and tell me if the texts they quote say what they conclude them to say.

We can't just make an assertion about the times they lived in so to override the statements we have to work with. I just can't do biblical exegesis that way. So in that respect, I agree that we probably won't come to an agreement, because were using different methods to interpret scripture.

No offense is meant, nor have you offended me Rick!
Peace! 8)

[Guest]

[]Wow, dmatic, God gave you a spiritual application for a very clear and precise law. How convenient; I'm sure that keeps you out of trouble with the SPCA. And tell me, the rest of the horses - do you just let them run wild? How are these first-born going to be any different?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with these comments and questions Michelle.

Maybe you haven't read God's instruction at Exodus 13 (I think it's there?) where He says that first-born males that "break the mother's womb" (in other words, the first baby that a new mother delivers in her life) is to be the LORD's. He then says that if it's a donkey, that it may be redeemed with a lamb, otherwise it's neck should be broken.

I had always assumed that this meant that the new stud colt's neck should be "broken", if there was no lamb to redeem it; or, in other words, Killed....until I looked up the word for "break" and it means "bending the neck"...or in other words, possibly, it means to train the colt to bend it's neck, and not be so wild and untamed and rebellious.

Or, if you had studied this law, are you mocking me with your "How convenient." comment? In other words, upbraiding my ignorance as to how this law applied to me?

I'm also not familiar with the "SPCA". What is that?

And no, the other horses are not free to run wild either.

If you desire, i can give you more thoughts concerning the application of this righteous Law from God. God claims the first-born of all the males of "Israel"...and He installed the Levite tribe to fulfill this requirement for all the rest of the Tribes. Thus, the Levitical Priesthood had a geneological attachment to it.

Maybe I can ask you if you know what the "Church of the first-born" means?

If I haven't answered your questions and comments correctly, please rephrase them, and i'll try again.

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

I'm sorry Sean, but I don't remember what you wrote, concerning Mt. 5:19, and I have read all of your posts, even more than once. And I don't remember your satisfactory comments relating to Matthew 5:19, but I will go back and try to find them. Thank you for participating. it has been nice talking with you.

This is all I had said:

Matt 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Maybe all is fulfilled. Jesus said he had done everything His Father sent Him to do:

John 17:4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do.

And on the Cross Jesus said "It is finished". The new covenant was confirmed with the shedding of His blood, not long after he made the verbal declaration of the new covenant. The "old" covenant was thus fulfilled as the new one took it's place. Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. When He fulfilled it, He said "It is done".

Anyway, Peace bro! 8)

Thank you Sean, I did find your referenced comments yesterday while re-reading one of your posts. I had only time to respond to the first part of it then, and did read it later, but did not comment then.

you suggest that the "it" as in "It is finished", was the "Old Testament Law", or Covenant, whereas I believe it was referring to Jesus' work on earth, then. This does not mean that I think Jesus no longer is doing anything. Actually, I believe he is serving in our stead as our High Priest.

He taught us to not think that the Old had passed away. He said that it would not pass away until heaven and earth passed away and all was fulfilled. I understand that much of it has not yet been fulfilled, whereas you seem to think it all has been. Further, He commanded that whosoever broke or taught others that it was okay to break even the least of those "Old" commandments, would be called least in the kingdom of heaven.

So, if the council at Jerusalem determined to teach the gentiles that they could break the Laws of God as given through Moses, I believe that they were in error. But, as I've tried to show, I don't think they determined that!

In the same post that had your comment about Mt.5:18,19, you suggested that the reason the council determined to give the Gentiles the four laws from moses that they did give them, that it was so that they wouldn't offend the Jews, as they tried to win them for Christ. Interesting. I've never heard that slant. It is possible, I suppose, but highly unlikely, in my opinion.

You asser that circumcision of the foreskin has passed away, but I believe that it is highly common in the U.S. and other parts of the world.

Your suggestion that the Law has passed away goes against my understanding and what I see and hear with my own eyes and ears. For example, the fact that there are still murders in the world shows that this prophetic law has not yet been fulfilled. Certainly, Jesus fulfilled it, but the rest of us haven't yet. Indeed, I'm still working on not getting angry with my brethren! I do look forward in hope and faith, that someday, all will be fulfilling this prophetic law of "Thou shalt not murder."

If you are saying that the law prohibiting murder has passed away, I'm afraid I don't understand what it is that you are saying. Do you think it wrong to teach gentiles that it is not Godly to murder? If this Law was finished, is it now legal in your system to murder someone who makes you mad or despitefully uses you?

I am trying to understand the application of your counsel not to teach the Laws of Moses.

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Allyn wrote:

I feel your pain, Sean but I don't understand the confusion. You said:
Quote:
Put simply, my Lord is Christ and my obedience is to Him and His commands.


But yet we cannot can we? So what provision Has God made for us? Is it to keep trying and soon come to perfection in the Law by our efforts or is it to submit to His will that all believe upon His Son and be saved? Does God want us to obey the Law, which simply shows us our sin since none are capable of perfection in the Law, or does God call us righteous because of His Son? His command is to love one another.

Of course we can! What makes you think we can't? Indeed, Jesus says that those that keep His commands will be loved by The Father, and that He and Jesus will come and make their abode with that obedient one.

With God all things, even obedience to His righteous commands, is possible!

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

dmatic,

I think you caught my drift just fine, however I wasn't "upbraiding your ignorance," I was just commenting on the fact that you are at liberty to spiritualize whichever laws you seem to feel led to, while at the same time criticizing others for less than strict adherence to your favorites. That's convenient, no?

The SPCA is the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I suppose to be more current I should've used PETA.

I never use the term, and I don't know what you mean when you use the term "church of the first born," so go ahead, tell me.

[Guest]

Allyn wrote:

I feel your pain, Sean but I don't understand the confusion. You said:
Quote:
Put simply, my Lord is Christ and my obedience is to Him and His commands.


But yet we cannot can we? So what provision Has God made for us? Is it to keep trying and soon come to perfection in the Law by our efforts or is it to submit to His will that all believe upon His Son and be saved? Does God want us to obey the Law, which simply shows us our sin since none are capable of perfection in the Law, or does God call us righteous because of His Son? His command is to love one another.

Of course we can! What makes you think we can't? Indeed, Jesus says that those that keep His commands will be loved by The Father, and that He and Jesus will come and make their abode with that obedient one.

With God all things, even obedience to His righteous commands, is possible!

peace, dmatic

That is where you are missing the whole shabang dmatic. You are not able to keep the whole Law nor am I or anybody. But Christ did, and I am in Christ so therfore I am a law keeper in Christ. But you go ahead and try to get yourself justified however you wish. As for me, I love it that God knows me so well that He gave me righteousness through His Son and not by what I attempt to do.

[Guest]

This does not mean that I think Jesus no longer is doing anything. Actually, I believe he is serving in our stead as our High Priest.

He taught us to not think that the Old had passed away. He said that it would not pass away until heaven and earth passed away and all was fulfilled. I understand that much of it has not yet been fulfilled, whereas you seem to think it all has been. Further, He commanded that whosoever broke or taught others that it was okay to break even the least of those "Old" commandments, would be called least in the kingdom of heaven.



dmatic, You say correctly that Jesus is our high priest but the law of Moses required the Aaronic priesthood , therefore isn't either Jesus breaking the law of Moses or perhaps TRANSFORMING it which BTW is what he did in Matt 5.19.
You see it's like those statements Jesus said right after Matt 5.19 "BUT i say to you" I shall be your new high priest. By using the word BUT , it's like saying "therefore" which means the thoughtstream is continuing. And this means Matt 5.19 should not be read without the "But i say to you" statements because they all are part of the same context. So THEREFORE when we read Matt 5.19 with the 6 "BUT" statements we can see Jesus is transforming the Law of Moses into the Law of Christ.

[Guest]

As for me, I love it that God knows me so well that He gave me righteousness through His Son and not by what I attempt to do.

Still saying this, are you Allyn? How does God "give you righteousness through his Son? Is it something that's just sort of poured into you?
Or are you covered by "robes of righteousness" which the Son wraps around you so that God is blinded to your sin and sees only Christ's righteousness?

These concepts have been invented by the imaginative mind of man.

I have no doubt that we become righteous only through Christ, but it is a real righteousness, that is your own --- and yet, not your own. For it did not have its origin in you, but in God. However, you won't have even that from God unless you coōperate with his enabling grace, made available through his Son.

[Guest]

An aside post to Sean, on hermeneutics:

At one time, Sean, I, too, was a fundamentalist in how I read and interpreted the Bible. This was my background in the church I grew up in, and was the 'position' I had when I entered Bible college (sort of by default, as I really didn't know otherwise).

After taking a course in Hermeneutics, I realized that what the Bible 'says' or might seem to say on a 'first reading' may--or may not--be correct. In other words, "It says what it says" in the reader's eye might be on the money or entirely off base.

This is why I no longer take a fundamentalist approach and use the historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation, which says: "We must ascertain what the Bible "said" first in order to understand and apply it for today." This method centers around authorial intention and meaning: What the Bible writers meant to say, and did say, to their original readers.

At the same time, much of the Bible can be understood in a fundamentalist or "plain reading" way. It depends on the context (what passage) and if what we think it says matches up with what the author originally meant to say.

So, to sum up this post, I can agree with my fundamentalist brothers and sisters on many and most Christian things. But when it comes to more technical matters of theology, I have differences with them. I respect scholars like Dr. Moseley, who studied at Princeton Theology Seminary; scholars who (obviously) know more about what they've studied than I do. Your comment asking if he has read the Bible was uncalled for, when I first read it. However, after reconsidering it, I took this simply to reemphasize the basic differences in our approach to the Bible and don't want to contest {debate} the way you read and understand it. On that note, I'll close.

Rick