Sabbath Observance: 3 Views

[Guest]

Paidion,

Perhaps they they read their bibles and get the idea here:

Revelation 7:9-17 (New King James Version)

9. After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10. and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” 11. All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12. saying:


“ Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom,
Thanksgiving and honor and power and might,
Be to our God forever and ever.
Amen.”

13. Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?”
14. And I said to him, “Sir, you know.”
So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15. Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them. 16. They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat; 17. for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.”


And here:

Galatians 2:20-21 (Amplified Bible)

20. I have been crucified with Christ [in Him I have shared His crucifixion]; it is no longer I who live, but Christ (the Messiah) lives in me; and the life I now live in the body I live by faith in (by adherence to and reliance on and complete trust in) the Son of God, Who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

21.[Therefore, I do not treat God's gracious gift as something of minor importance and defeat its very purpose]; I do not set aside and invalidate and frustrate and nullify the grace (unmerited favor) of God. For if justification (righteousness, acquittal from guilt) comes through [observing the ritual of] the Law, then Christ (the Messiah) died groundlessly and to no purpose and in vain. [His death was then wholly superfluous.]


And here:

Romans 3:23-28 (New King James Version)
23. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24. being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25. whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26. to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


And here:

Romans 4:4-8 (New King James Version)

4. Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
5. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6. just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7. “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8. Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”

[Guest]

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.

That's a great ideal, I encourage it as well. The problem is, who are you going to believe? NT Wright, or the author of this book, etc. when they tell you what the original hearers would have understood? How can we know with 100% certainty what a first century hearer had going through their head? Maybe they get it right, maybe they don't. Maybe I don't get it right either, but that's my own fault. More to a specific point, you are arguing methodology yet have not overthrown my original point in this thread made by Paul in Romans 7 or the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Your answer seems to be: "I don't see it that way". I understand that, I just don't know how one would know that Paul or the council said one thing and meant something else. One of your first comments to me was that I sounded antinomian. This is exactly what Paul anticipated his readers would think and responds that not under law does not mean lawlessness! It means under grace. This groundwork is laid out in Romans 3 & 6 to lead up to Romans 7.

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.

Here are some examples from the book:

Actually, Paul only directs his seemingly negative comments concerning the Law toward two groups: (1) Those non-Jews who thought they needed to keep the Law for salvation, and (2) some fundamentalist Jews who tried to make it a prerequisite that non-Jews must keep the Law for salvation.

First, this is missing the point. Paul is not against the law, Paul is against the observance of the law as a way to serve God. Why? Because the law brings wrath, death, and increases transgression. It was in place until faith was revealed, now that faith is come we are no longer under the supervision of the law. People freak out at these statements I lifted right out of Paul's letters. They think that no-law means lawless. This is not because people don't understand the law, but because people need to understand grace. Grace is what we live under now, not law. Just as the law condemned sin, grace does as well. But grace does more, it empowers us to serve God, something the law could not do (Rom 8:3-4). So I would say Rick, that what we disagree with is what it means to be "under grace".

Actually, Paul only directs his seemingly negative comments concerning the Law toward two groups: (1) Those non-Jews who thought they needed to keep the Law for salvation, and (2) some fundamentalist Jews who tried to make it a prerequisite that non-Jews must keep the Law for salvation.

The author keeps referring to Paul's comments as "seemingly negative". Paul wasn't being negative, he was being instructive as to the purpose of the law. Second, my response is: Is this who Romans was written to (one of the two choices above)? Or what about Peter being rebuked in Galatians? Was Peter being rebuked because he was a fundamentalist Jew?

You see, the book tries to nudge you to their conclusion, subtly doing so and using unfounded statements that are simply wrong. This is exactly what Calvinism and Dispensationalism do.

When some Christians suddenly appear defensive at the mention of God's Law, there is a temptation to ask, "Which law makes you feel uncomfortable?" This is a rather startling reaction for the Law only condemns law-breakers.

I agree with them there. Paul also agreed. But a Christian does not live to serve God by keeping the law of Moses. If I sin by murdering someone, I've not only violated what God's grace has taught me, I've also violated God's law given by Moses. That's true. But that is no argument for serving God by the law of Moses. Nor does the law of Moses teach me what grace does.

Often Jesus went beyond the letter of the Law and instructed His disciples in the spirit of the Law. A couple of obvious examples of this can be seen as He cautioned that if any lusted they had already committed adultery, and if they called a brother a fool they were in danger of Hell fire [Matthew 5:19-30]. Each of the above examples are far beyond anything the Law ever suggested.

This is exactly why the law of Moses has no affect for Christians, it not the law but the intent (spirit) that is important. Once we have the grace of God to teach us this, the law of Moses becomes obsolete. It can no longer guide us in such matters. I agree that we keep the spirit of the law, but that is not done by keeping the letter of it. If it were, Jesus wouldn't have to save anyone. He would have just kept teaching more law.

What was Paul's intent when he taught that the letter of the Law kills? It is obvious that he did not mean the Law of God is bad and will put one in bondage, as is suggested by these words today. Paul kept the Law and encouraged Jews everywhere to do the same [I Corinthians 7:18]

Of course Paul didn't say the law is bad, he did say that we are bad and that's why it kills us. Paul also said that being under the law is bondage and we should be freed from it so we can serve God!

Rom 7:6 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.

Paul does not say we are now free and able to keep the written code of Moses as if we are now "grace enabled" to do so. Rather Paul says we keep the righteous requirements of the law by serving (not by the written code) but by the Spirit (Rom 8:4).

And amazingly, the book states that Paul kept the law! And encouraged other Jews to do the same! I guess this slipped his mind when he was rebuking Peter.

Act 24:17 "Now after many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my nation

Did the law say to make offerings just kinda whenever you feel like it every so many years? Doesn't the law of Moses require annual gatherings? Nor can you read Galatians or Romans and come away with the belief that Paul kept or taught others to keep the law of Moses.

Is There A Different Covenant For Jews As Opposed To Gentiles?...

...Sure, there always has been!

WOW! Read Galatians 4 and Ephesians 2.

The Old Covenant And The New Covenant

The fact that the terms Old and New Covenant combined are only found a total of four times in the biblical text reflects the reality that they have the same basics and we are to fulfill the Old by obeying the New Covenant. In the New Covenant nothing has been replaced. The difference, as well as the advantage, is seen in that the manifestation is far better in Christ in that He opened the flood gates of the kingdom for all mankind.

When Hebrews 8:13 speaks of a new covenant that made the first covenant old and ready to vanish, we must remember the subject of this letter was the old priesthood and sacrificial system, which was about to change for two reasons. First, because the Temple and this present sacrificial system, was about to be destroyed, or already was destroyed acccording to when this letter was actually written. Second, because Christ had become a different manifestation of the sacrifice and high priesthood. But under no circumstances did Paul or any Jewish Christian writer suppose that God's unchanging nature, which stands behind the Old Covenant, was about to vanish. Even Christians whose theology opposes the Mosaic Law have to admit that God's moral and spiritual principles of the Law are still active. Obviously, the writer of Hebrews referred to the old system of sacrifices and priesthood that were about to vanish, and not the spiritual principles of the Old Covenant.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

I'm sorry but you can't say nothing changed and then go on to list the changes that the "unchangeable" God made.

Ok, I'm hungry so I'm gonna stop typing.
Rick, I just don't see how the author can make some of the claims he does, when they seem unfounded. That doesn't mean I disagree with some of his statements, like:

In Paul's day the Tenak, which was the Law, the prophets, and the Old Testament writings, were all the Scriptural text that was available. Both Jesus and Paul taught that believers should be guided by the Spirit of God to fulfill the Law through faith and love. Although Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial or sacrificial part of the Law by dying on the cross, we still see the principles of the Law, such as the priesthood and the atonement, evidenced today in the ministry of the church. In short, the manifestation has changed, but the spirit of the Law that exposes sin and produces light and life is the center of New Testament teaching.

Depending on how one reads this, I can't say I disagree. Especially with this statement: "Both Jesus and Paul taught that believers should be guided by the Spirit of God to fulfill the Law through faith and love."

Faith and love is not the written code, but the way.

[Guest]

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

And this is exactly where we aren't seeing eye to eye. Under "grace" we are taught not to sin:

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age

Grace teaches us to live Godly, the law did too, to an extent, but it didn't go far enough, nor were we able to keep it all. If it did, Jesus wouldn't have taught us that the real concern is with our heart. If we keep the letter of the law but hate our brother, God still sees us as a murderer in the heart. Grace goes where the law of Moses did not, it changed us by changing our heart and teaching us to live like Christ. Once that is done, how do external regulations help, if your heart already belongs to God?

Paul new this would be misunderstood:
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.


This is what I have maintained, you responded:

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?

You are misunderstanding grace. Grace is not "May we sin so grace may increase". Nor does it do any good to put Gentiles under law so they don't murder since that has not worked. The Jews didn't stop murdering because the law said not to. One stops murdering when thier heart is changed by grace.

Paul answered the question this way:
Rom 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!
Rom 6:16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

But obedience to God, not the law because the law is only a tool for condemnation, not justification.

Anyway, you are still refuting your own position by understanding Jesus the way you do because you believe the sacrificial system has changed. But how can that be if not one jot or tittle will pass until heaven an earth pass away? Your still breaking your understanding of Jesus statement by not keeping the sacrificial systems' prescribed laws.

[Guest]

Sean,

I mentioned that I probably don't agree with Moseley's eschatology and can see he's dispensationalist, which I am not. Other than this, what I said in my last post about not wanting to debate anything still stands. So there's no point in getting into it, if you know what I mean (I'm just trying to save you some time and effort, Sean),
____________________________

Whomsoever,

I won't be able to discuss or debate this either, but am offering it for anyone's information:

Jesus Creed:
Scot McKnight's blog discussion of Romans based on N.T. Wright's commentary

I have it linked at the "I" of Romans 7 but you can visit the pages and see the whole discussion. Lots of good information here. McKnight presents really good, short summaries.

Btw, I'm starting to read & post on blogs more lately and am working at getting my own blog going. I'm also still in a study of Romans 7. Not saying I won't post on the forum any more. Just not on this thread....

[Guest]

Sean,

I mentioned that I probably don't agree with Moseley's eschatology and can see he's dispensationalist, which I am not. Other than this, what I said in my last post about not wanting to debate anything still stands. So there's no point in getting into it, if you know what I mean (I'm just trying to save you some time and effort, Sean),

Ok, I'll try and stop now.

[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.

To quote a line from I Robot, "You are the" (pause) "dumbest smart person I have ever met!"

[Guest]

Allyn wrote:

To quote a line from I Robot, "You are the" (pause) "dumbest smart person I have ever met!"

This is an interesting response. Why quote from a movie? Does it say it better than you could? Or, is there something we should all know about the movie's context, that will help us better understand your comment? What if we haven't seen the movie? Or maybe you're afraid to just say what you mean, and need to hide behind your robe of righteousness, otherwise known as make-believe?

More Later.

dmatic

[Guest]

This response by Allyn, to Sean's excellent confession is disturbing:

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.

I read Sean's statement and was very encouraged for Sean. I believe him to be sincere in his journey to find the door that leads to life. I think he has been misled in his understandings of scripture, but I believe him to be sincerely trying to obey Jesus' command to "make every effort to enter through the narrow door..." (Lk. 13:24, NIV) I have tremendous hope for him and believe that he will find the way, by God's grace.

Allyn, on the other hand, is another story. Why would he want to discourage a young man who is intent on obeying Jesus, with the "But yet, we cannot, can we?" comment?

Allyn ends his devilish discouragement with "His command is to love one another." What, praytell, prohibits Sean from loving one another by trying to keep Jesus' commandments?

The exact opposite of Allyn's implication is true. We can only truly love God and our neighbors as ourselves, when we are keeping His commandments! By breaking even one, or even the least of them, we are, at that exact point, not loving either God or our neighbor, by definition.

I applaud Sean in his faithful hope and desire to keep Jesus' commands. Please continue to make every effort to do so Sean! Do not listen to, nor heed Allyn's lie that you cannot do so! According to Rev. 22:14, by keeping God's commandments, you will be permitted to enter through the gates, into the city, and have the right to eat from the tree of life!

May you be successful in your desire to obey His commands!

Peace, dmatic

[Guest]

Allyn ends his devilish discouragement with "His command is to love one another." What, praytell, prohibits Sean from loving one another by trying to keep Jesus' commandments?


dmatic, Nothing prevents Sean from trying to keep Jesus's commandments and he should, but his salvation does'nt hinge on how well he does this. That's what "imputed righteousness" is , that's why we are judged by our works for rewards but our salvation depends on our sincere faith in Christ.

[Guest]

Allyn ends his devilish discouragement with "His command is to love one another." What, praytell, prohibits Sean from loving one another by trying to keep Jesus' commandments?


dmatic, Nothing prevents Sean from trying to keep Jesus's commandments and he should, but his salvation does'nt hinge on how well he does this. That's what "imputed righteousness" is , that's why we are judged by our works for rewards but our salvation depends on our sincere faith in Christ.

Thank you Steve, well put. I found a long time ago that when I focus on the Law the appearance of the Law shines brighter than the appearance of Christ in my life. I find that simply loving others by caring about their needs and being a servant in those areas of need far more exhibit Christ then my futile attempt at keeping the Law. I have to say that I have not seen Christ in dmatic at all. I see a person obsessed with works and a denial of Christs perfect completion of the law which satisfies all the requirements that even the Jews could not satisfy (how much less is a gentile able to satisfy them?).

God is pointing His finger in a direction but there are those who like a puppy only smell at the end of the finger not realizing that God is pointing towards His Son. Christ is the direction we should be looking and not towards the Law.