Sabbath and bible feasts

[Amanah]

Coksiw:
"This is a better theology: we are still subject to keep the instruction of the law unless explicitly discontinued in the New Testament by the those that knew the right theology: Jesus and the apostles."

Great point, thank you.

[mfblume]

Galatians 1-3 speak of the LAW alone being an issue of problems with the Galatian believers. Not paganism. And that means Gal 4 has Paul specifically discontinuing keeping of holy time periods, along with Gal 2:16-17, but not because it would be sinful.

[good samaritan]

According to James, a Christian can still be found transgressor of the law. He uses the law to rebuke. See this passage in its context:

Jas 2:5-11 NKJV - (5) Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world [to be] rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? (6) But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? (7) Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called? (8) If you really fulfill [the] royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well; (9) but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. (10) For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one [point], he is guilty of all. (11) For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

Context??? You forgot to actually include the context. let me add that:

My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

Again we are not dealing with holy sacrements from the law, but we are dealing with how we are to treat people (moral issues). James is instructing in his letter to not have respect of persons, but to treat everyone with equality. Is that command even directly in the law of Moses? Let's look at the next verses:

12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

In other words we will be judged with the same measure that we judge others. If you want to hold people over the fire with endless commands and ordinances, well guess where that will leave you. We should be teaching people the things that Jesus taught (faith in his eternal sacrifice and love one another as he loved), not to keep feasts, sabbath days, dietary laws. If those laws where still required on the gentile church, why would we not have one reference of the apostles teaching these things, because we know that they would not know how otherwise? Evidently they held no priority if they where still obligations. Why not we believe what the apostles actually taught about the Sabbath.

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

[good samaritan]

Paul exhorts the Romans with the law of Moses:
Rom 13:8-10 NKJV - (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.

The law was the schoolmaster. No one is saying the law is some evil thing that we should abhor. We can learn from the Old Testament scripture, because it leads us to Christ. We no longer serve laws that where designed as shadows to lead us to Christ and his promises to the Church. We are serving in how they are fulfilled and not how they used to be applied. So yes we still are to love one another and it is forever gonna be required by God. Interesting thing is that these laws of love are good for people who have never even heard of God even though they have never received them by a letter. God will hold all people accountable for this law even infidels throughout history who have never heard of Jesus or Moses teaching.

[good samaritan]

Mat 4:4, 7, 10 NKJV - (4) But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' " ... (7) Jesus said to him, "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the LORD your God.' " ... (10) Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.' "

How do you reconcile your reasoning that because Jesus said that is a proof we are not "under the law" and the passage I posted above?

Easily, Jesus was a Jew under the law. Jesus observed all the commands of the Old Testament so perfectly that he could fulfill them for you and I. If he hadn't we would be spinning our wheels in this discussion, because we have not rights outside of Jesus Christ to the kingdom of God.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I never said the righteousness of the law doesn't carry over into the New covenant. In this verse you are citing, Paul is merely citing the law to establish that it wasn't a new command, but the command was initially in the law of Moses. what about the verses before an after the one you posted.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath:but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Paul was teaching the Ephesians to submit to one another in many of the different relationships we have with one another in the body. Husbands-wives, wives-husbands, Servants-master, masters - servants, fathers - sons, sons - fathers. Coincidently the father - son command carried over in its application.

This in no way has anything to do with feast days, Sabbaths, dietary laws, etc.. If you are advocating that we are still under Mosaic law because Paul makes a reference from the Law. Look what he has already told the Ephesians in the same letter:

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Give me one example in the entire New Testament where anyone is being instructed to not forget to observe the sabbath, not to eat certain foods, or to keep a jewish feast day? The only thing that Paul is commanding us to carry over from the law is the righteous of the law (that is the moral issues of serving God and one another). It has nothing to do with keeping Jewish days.

Btw if the law if is still in full operation, can we still participate in polygamy, because their is no prohibitions of it in the law. The New Covenant is far greater than the Old Covenant laws.

Where does the NT prohibit polygamy? If you can't find a "thou shalt not" in the NT, what are you going to do when someone asks you if polygamy is good or bad? I can teach against polygamy from the OT.

BTW, I'm not defending Sabbath-keeping, just presenting the correct place All Scripture should have in our lives and in our preaching.

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Context??? You forgot to actually include the context. let me add that:

My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

Again we are not dealing with holy sacrements from the law, but we are dealing with how we are to treat people (moral issues). James is instructing in his letter to not have respect of persons, but to treat everyone with equality. Is that command even directly in the law of Moses? Let's look at the next verses:

12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

In other words we will be judged with the same measure that we judge others. If you want to hold people over the fire with endless commands and ordinances, well guess where that will leave you. We should be teaching people the things that Jesus taught (faith in his eternal sacrifice and love one another as he loved), not to keep feasts, sabbath days, dietary laws. If those laws where still required on the gentile church, why would we not have one reference of the apostles teaching these things, because we know that they would not know how otherwise? Evidently they held no priority if they where still obligations. Why not we believe what the apostles actually taught about the Sabbath.

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Yeah, James is doing this:

2Ti 3:16 NKJV - (16) All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The law was the schoolmaster. No one is saying the law is some evil thing that we should abhor. We can learn from the Old Testament scripture, because it leads us to Christ. We no longer serve laws that where designed as shadows to lead us to Christ and his promises to the Church. We are serving in how they are fulfilled and not how they used to be applied. So yes we still are to love one another and it is forever gonna be required by God. Interesting thing is that these laws of love are good for people who have never even heard of God even though they have never received them by a letter. God will hold all people accountable for this law even infidels throughout history who have never heard of Jesus or Moses teaching.

So you don't use the law of Moses as the Apostles did to teach even righteousness and holiness?

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Easily, Jesus was a Jew under the law. Jesus observed all the commands of the Old Testament so perfectly that he could fulfill them for you and I. If he hadn't we would be spinning our wheels in this discussion, because we have not rights outside of Jesus Christ to the kingdom of God.

That reasoning is pretty messed up, Good Samaritan, when you come to the conclusion that you don't have to keep the commandments of God in your heart and in your mouth, as our Lord Jesus Christ did.

[good samaritan]

I personally don't agree 100% with that reasoning. The extrabiblical categorization theologians do between "ceremonial" and "moral" has been beyond abused.

I don't either, that is why I keep affirming that we are not under the law of the Old covenant. when you start categorizing that this law is moral and this one is ceremonial it gets controversial, because they are interwoven as ceremonial and moral. For a Jew to not obey a ceremonial law, it becomes a moral issue because disobedience to God is immoral. Jesus never violated any ordinance of God and became our substitute and our salvation is his free gift. I don't do good to get saved or even stay saved, but I do it because I am saved. I no longer have that old stony heart that I once. Sure the flesh is still present, but for a child of God that is not living up to their calling they are the most miserable person on earth.

For example, in the name of "it is not a moral law", modern Christians tattoo themselves. The point (3) in that quote, IIRC, refers to the judgment (e.g. stoning) people were supposed to do when someone sinned.

Can you clarify these, because I am not sure of what you are talking about.

What is IIRC?

I don't agree with his theology that people didn't have the assistance of the Spirit to overcome sin in the OT either, but that's a topic for another thread.

The Holy Spirit has always been at work, but man had never received atonement (until Christ) for the baptism we now know to occur.

Anyway, Bernard does not follow your reasoning that "the commandments must be in the NT as well to keep it, otherwise, it is not applicable". That's not the UPCI official stand either.

I don't know any two Christians who agree on Bible doctrine. I am going to say we are not that far off as far as the Sabbaths, feast days, dietary laws are concerned. Jesus and the apostles taught everything we need to be victorious over sin, and there are still things to be gleaned in old Testament scripture without making a reviving of the law.

This is a better theology: we are still subject to keep the instruction of the law unless explicitly discontinued in the New Testament by the those that knew the right theology: Jesus and the apostles.

[Esaias]

A common root of antinomianism is the idea that "Jesus obeyed the law of God in our place", as if He was the substitute for obedience. This is a doctrine of demons calculated to coddle sinners in their continued disobedience under religious pretenses.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

A common root of antinomianism is the idea that "Jesus obeyed the law of God in our place", as if He was the substitute for obedience. This is a doctrine of demons calculated to coddle sinners in their continued disobedience under religious pretenses.

2 Peter 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

This is not at all what I am saying. I am not saying that we are lawless and free from the law of God.

The NT scriptures makes it clear that we are not under the Mosaic law (that was explicitly for the physical nation of Israel in order to fulfill messianic prophecies fulfilled in Jesus Christ). Jesus warns us of those supposed teachers of the law; He teaches us of His purpose to fulfill the law and to baptize us with the Holy Ghost, that will lead us and guide us in all truth.

The apostles laid no foundation for us to observe Sabbath days, feasts days dietary laws. Instead they taught us that Christ came to fulfill the law and we are now to be holy and separated unto Him. We are not holy because of observances to religious sacrements, but because we have the love of Christ abounding in us.

John 13:33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Love pretty much sums up the law. I am not anti whatever you called it, but I am anti casting a stumbling block before my brethren. Through out history there have been sects of religious groups that have been extreme disciplinary and make the gospel about restrictions and bondage. It seems all these groups have one thing in common and that is a lack of the love of God.

Circumcision was a big thing of the first century church. God's law commanded his people to be circumcised or they where not the people of God. Sabbath keepers are teaching that unless you obey Gods law (Moses commandments to Israel) then you are not a part of his kingdom. essentially telling people that they do not have the true Holy Ghost, because they don't view the mosaic laws as they do.

4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up:for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another:another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord:whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. 10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

Tares will come up among the wheat, but God will sort it out.

[coksiw]

good samaritan,
IIRC = if I recall correctly. That entire paragraph was referring to Bernard's writing I quoted.