Sabbath Observance: 3 Views

[Guest]

James agrees with Paul's first statement above where he says at James 1:22-25 "But, be ye doers of the Law and not hearers only..."



dmatic, The phrase "the law" in the NT ususally does not refer to the Law of Moses but to the law written in our hearts through the New Covenant known by several different names.
If you read ahead in James a few more verses he calls it "the law of liberty" which is not the "law of Moses" and this law is known by several other names in the NT like "the law of the Spirit", "the law of Christ", "the law of God", "the law of liberty", "the royal law."
There are about 53 commands, if you would like me to list them just let me know.

[Guest]

I suggest a bit of caution, Paul, before affirming Luther's emphasis on "justification by faith alone". Luther even went so far as to add the word "alone" in the text of his Bible.

We need to also consider carefully the words of the apostle James:

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?

If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?

So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,
and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:14-24

Luther was so disturbed with the letter of James, that he called it "an epistle of straw" and relegated it to the last place in his Bible.

[Guest]

I read somewhere, or heard it somewhere, that "we are saved by faith, not works, but we are not saved unless our faith works."

TK

[Guest]

Justification is another discussion altogether. I have heard James 2 explained that there are two justifications: One before God, (faith), and one before men (works). I have not yet made up my mind though.

Matt. 5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

Thanks for the reminder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

We are being saved from sin (a continuous process) in this life by grace (the enablement of God made possible by the death of Christ) through faith. Faith is the means by which we appropriate the grace of God.

Having become a disciple of Christ, having left the old life and having begun the new, there are many things we do ("works") if you will.
We are able to do them by the enablement of grace. If we refuse to do them, we are not on the right track.

We cannot travel the narrow path of righteousness by self-effort (trying to be good). But neither can we travel it if we sit back and do nothing.

We are not being saved by works, but neither are we being saved without them.

[_Sean]

There is, it seems, much confusion as to what Paul actually taught about God's Law.

Did he teach that it was put away...or annulled? Or did he teach that man's additions and subtractions from it was to be put away?

There is much confusion about this issue. Let's see what Paul stated about the law here:

Romans 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

It seems that Paul makes his case quite clear. Paul (speaking to those who know God's law) states that just as one is released from their spouse at death and is in no way further bound that (those who know God's law) are now also dead to the law but alive toward God, meaning we no longer serve "in the oldness of the letter" but "in the newness of spirit".

We also know that this is God's law Paul is speaking about because he quotes on in verse 7 "Do not covet".

Paul also states this in Romans 13:

Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

and in Galatians;

Galatians 5:14
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

So if you wonder if I endevour to keep the entire law of God, yes I do. Love is the fulfillment of all the law. The "written code", however, is not the way we are to serve.

[Guest]

Dmatic-

you havent addressed the NT story of the prodigal son, or the woman caught in the act of adultery.

Please tell us how you interpret those passages.

TK

Thanks TK for the invitation.

I will try. The prodigal, as far as I know, was not disobedient to his father, even though the father would have probably preferred for him to stay at home, instead of asking for his inheritance.

I thought I made it clear that God would most certainly rather that children were obedient to their parents. He would prefer that no one would ever have to use the commandment to have their children stoned by the elders.

He even declares that it is better to obey than to sacrifice. Though He had accepted sacrifices, for those sins done unintentionally, He would have preferred that people obey Him.

So, too, would everyone concerned desire that children obey their parents.

As for the woman caught in the act of adultery.....

When the people tried to ensnare Jesus with this case, He, knowing the Law better than they, and the spirit of the Law, saw that the people had not broguth the man involved too. This cast suspicion on the people's case. Jesus then wrote the judgments of the Law, possibly? on the ground, saying that those without sin could be the first to cast the stone...They, were guilty themselves of showing partiality to the man in this case...there was a penalty for that too.

Jesus then used the Law of Jealousy to try the woman, entrusting God to judge her.

I have to get off this computer now, but will try to access another.

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

TK, sorry for the interuption. When the scribes and Pharisees realized that Jesus had given the matter to the Divine Court, they realized that God would judge all the participants fairly, including the witnesses. They decided to leave, when they realized this, before they fell into the judgment of Gopd themselves, Who judges everyone impartially.

With no witnesses left, in the case, Jesus freed the woman while, saying, "Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on, sin no more." Deut. 19:15 clarifies that no one can be convicted of any sin without at least two witnesses. The woman had no witnesses to accuse her, so the case was dismissed.

This is an example of how Jesus used the law to bring mercy, rather than judgment. This is the underlying spirit of the law. The law can be used either for judgment alone or with an underlying desire for mercy if at all possible. The scribes and Pharisees did not know the mind of the law's Author. Jesus did.

Similarly, there would be rejoicing if the rebellious son repented and began listening to the voice of his parents. Obviously, they would have not brought him to the elders if he had done so. However, if the son continued to stubbornly refuse to submit to them, the merciful thing would have been to stone him to death. He would then be committed unto God's judgment and correction, and would not further infect others with his evil.

Hope this helps.

peace, dmatic

[Guest]

It looks like there are many opinions to respond to, which I will try to do, in the future, Lord willing, after I print the page and read them later.

In the meantime, i'd like to further address Col. 2:16-17, since it is often used by those who believe that we should disregard God's commandments.

Reading the context of the verses, indeed, reading the whole letter, reveals that Paul is encouraging the Colossians in their new-found faith, saying that he was praying for them with a desire for them to be filled with the knowledge of God's will for them, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding, and that they might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God. (1:9,10)

whereas, Paul acknowledged that they were sometime (in the past) alienated and enemies in mind by wicked works...so now, he declares them reconciled to God through the blood of His Son, and that God is not counting their tresspasses against them. So, he admonishes them to continue in th faith grounded and settled, not moved away from the hope of the gospel, by the enticing words of men. So far, he has not mentioned what those enticing words may be, or what the philosophies or vain deceits are, exactly, but in verse 8 of chapter two, he starts to describe them as teachings, or traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ. These 'rudiments" or "elements" of the world are, according to Strong's, the delusive speculations of gentile cults and of Jewish theories.

Further, at Col. 2:20-22, Paul again describes these rudiments of the world, as doctrines and commandments of men, which, he warns, we should not follow.

Sandwixhed between these two descriptions of the "doctrines of men" we find Paul's admonition to "Let no man 'krino' you regarding the teachings of Christ, coming through his body, about meat and drink, new months, Feasts and sabbaths., because these are things yet to come.

No man knows what is in the future, unless God shows it to him, so we are not to let men give their opinions of the rightness of God's insturctions regarding these things, because they reveal the shadow of what is actually coming.

once again, paul is being consistent with his earlier and succeeding statements about not letting the doctrines of men spoil us. One of those doctrines from men, is that we should not obey God's commandments regarding meat and drink, sabbaths, etc.!

This is in agreement with Jesus' teaching too, when He chastized the Pharisees and other "churchmen" about their negating the commandments of God, while teaching the commandments of men!

This, by the way, also agrees with Moses and Isaiah, and their counsel not to follow those who tell us not to keep God's commandments.

I will try to continue next time, Lord willing....with this, as I have a few more things to add regarding this oft mistaught portion of Paul's writing.

Peace, dmatic