Should we still observe the sabbath?

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Did you not read what I said about flat top roofs? No, of course not. Because that's what you have been doing throughout this thread - not reading.

Nobody can agree which day of the week is the Sabbath? Hey, nobody can even agree on the baptismal formula, or the mode of baptism, or the purpose of baptism, or the timing, or the necessity.

And there you go again with your misrepresentation of what "fulfilled" means. At this point, it's obviously willful. Hey look, you do you. Good luck and top o'the mornin' to ya.

I am reading your posts, I simply disagree. You are correct people do disagree on much of doctrine. What I mean is people wouldn’t know what the Sabbath day would even be. My whole life, the first day of my week has begun Monday morning. Sunday has always been the last day regardless of what a calendar says. Your teaching, (from my understanding) is that people are breaking the commands of God because their calendar days do not align with what is the precise historical seventh day. Even if it is Saturday, does it begin at 12am Saturday or does it begin on our Friday at sundown? If a Sabbatical day is a law that we must keep, then to not do so would be sin. The Bible teaches if we are the children of God do not live in sin. Your position makes people sinners based upon technicalities that are not derived from a simple rendering of the Bible.

Colossians 2:16-17
Let No One Disqualify You
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

These verses are pretty simple to comprehend, but you have continued to explain that they don’t mean what is simply understood.

[good samaritan]

And yes, I am aware of the David and the shewbread example, but that is an exception that proves the rule anyway. The exception doesn't abolish the rule, David wasn't allowed to just continue eating the shewbread whenever he felt like having a snack, just like the priests working on the Sabbath didn't give anyone carte blanche to work on the Sabbath as they saw fit.

Out of desperation David and his men took the shewbread. God’s righteousness far exceeds the law of Moses. The law of Moses doesn’t change peoples hearts, but is often used as a mere attempt to validate one’s own self righteousness. Many Sabbath keepers I know personally demonstrate extreme pride in their devotion to keeping their perceived commands of God.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Pagan calendars were devoted to these elemental powers (as evidenced in their survival in the modern Gregorian calendar with days and months

It is not elemental POWERS. It is ELEMENTS which are necessary building blocks. Paul would never refer to paganism as ELEMENTS and true and good and necessary BUILDING blocks to bring people to Christ. But after Christ comes, a student under schoolmastery of law LEAVES the elementary things. ELEMENTS is considered correctly as ELEMENTARY in the schooling sense since Paul explicitly USES SCHOOLING to work his context of thought.

It is ELEMENTARY AS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL due to the context of law as a schoolmaster in ch 3, and tutors and governors MAINTIANING THAT CONTEXT in chapter 4, where we read this elementary schoolmastery of tutors and governors, Law, is bondage, JUST AS THE OLD COVENANT was explicitly shown to gender to BONDAGE, without one thought of ANY statement anywhere in the entire context of anyone MINGLING PAGANISM WITH OLD COVENANT as law-keepers must force the context to say.

Where do we read any note of mixing law with paganism? We only read gentiles were once pagans! We read NOTHING of MINGLING. When Paul spoke of bondage of shutting up and keeping under of the Jews in LAW they were BINDING terms and bondage terms in the Greek under a WARD, or WARDEN. In fact, chapter 3 BEGINS by speaking of receiving Spirit by LAW (not law mingled with paganism) or by faith.

Chapter 3 is law versus grace.

Chapter 4 is law versus grace.

Chapter 5 is law versus grace.

3 mentions receiving Spirit by law or faith.

3 mentions law as a schoolmaster for Jews before Christ came.

4 mentions tutors and governors or 3's LAW as schoolmaster.

4 mentions elements that bind using 3's schoolmaster that kept under and shut up the Jews with Law, indicating an ELEMENTARY SCHOOLLING thought of the term ELEMENTS, not some extrabiblical reference to ELEMENTAL POWER of pagans that Paul never mentioned at all.

4 mentions days, months and years IN THAT CONTEXT of law's elementary school. In fact LAW is synonymous with OLD COVENANT in ch 4 where Paul explicitly stated that HAGAR represents the OLD COVENANT FROM SINAI that GENDERS TO BONDAGE. He did not say it only genders to bondage if one mixes it with paganism.

Ch 5 says be loosed and not bound under LAW with circumcision etc. .... NOT with LAW PLUS PAGANISM.

Galatians 4:24
(24).. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Not one word is mentioned anywhere in the entire epistle about mingling paganism with Law. Not one. But we plainly see the Old Covenant gendereth to bondage, in and of itself.

I will respond to Esaias layout of context in Galatians later.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I

Not one word is mentioned anywhere in the entire epistle about mingling paganism with Law. Not one. But we plainly see the Old Covenant gendereth to bondage, in and of itself.

This is enough reason for me to disregard what you teach concerning Galatians. The Galatians were pagans prior to becoming Christians. That is fact. They were returning to what they were before. Therefore, they were returning to paganism. That is fact. Judaizing (demand for circumcision) was involved. That is fact. Whether the Galatians were joining a gnostic Jewish sect, or whether the Galatians were rejecting the Judaizers and returning to paganism en toto is debatable.

You however are unlearned in the situation but are instead latching to familiar words and spooling out conclusions that you think support your antisabbatarian position. This is a common thing among oneness pentecostals, they see a word and draw unwarranted and illogical conclusions from it without regard to the contexts. Just like Baxter sees the beast with feet like a bear and concludes modern Russia is involved because the bear is used as a symbol of Russia in 20th century political cartoons.

Quite simply you haven't kept up with the exegetical study of the Galatian heresy.

Moreover, ONCE AGAIN you are ignoring your own logic and its necessary conclusions. According to YOU Paul does in Galatians the very thing he teaches against in Romans.

In another thread you admitted and I quote "Whatever was sin before the cross is sin after the cross" and yet you refuse to believe your own words when it comes to the Fourth Commandment. (Insert the antisabbath gymnastics about muh changes and muh rest here.)

The truth is you reject the Fourth Commandment because it isn't convenient for you to obey it, you are too invested in moderate Sunday keeping to backtrack now, plus it would interfere with your personal Saturday enjoyments and plans.

EVERY SINGLE ANTISABBATARIAN ARGUMENT IS SELF REFUTING AND CREATES INSURMOUNTABLE CONTRADICTIONS WITH THE REST OF SCRIPTURE. The more I read the antisabbath "reasoning" the more I am convinced antisabbatarianism is error. And I know full well you guys are set like a flint against giving up your Saturdays to God. Cool. Y'all do y'all. Not. My. Problem. I answered the claims, provided the truth, addressed questions. Everybody can make their choices about what they are going to believe.

As for me? I believe the Ten Commandments are valid and in force. I believe the Sabbath was made by Christ for mankind's benefit. So I gladly accept His gift. Others can do what they want.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I am reading your posts, I simply disagree. You are correct people do disagree on much of doctrine. What I mean is people wouldn’t know what the Sabbath day would even be. My whole life, the first day of my week has begun Monday morning. Sunday has always been the last day regardless of what a calendar says. Your teaching, (from my understanding) is that people are breaking the commands of God because their calendar days do not align with what is the precise historical seventh day. Even if it is Saturday, does it begin at 12am Saturday or does it begin on our Friday at sundown? If a Sabbatical day is a law that we must keep, then to not do so would be sin. The Bible teaches if we are the children of God do not live in sin. Your position makes people sinners based upon technicalities that are not derived from a simple rendering of the Bible.

My position doesn't make anybody anything. I just repeat what the Bible says: Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.

The Biblical day begins in the evening:

Genesis 1:5 KJV
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

This is well known by practically everybody except maybe brand new converts and baptists. How you aren't aware of this is beyond my ability to speculate.

"Your teaching, (from my understanding) is that people are breaking the commands of God because their calendar days do not align with what is the precise historical seventh day."

Seriously? You have to be trolling. People are breaking the Fourth Commandment because they do not separate the seventh day from the rest of the week, they work on that day and do not treat it as holy and thus distinct from the other days. THEY ALL ADMIT IT, right here in the thread. They, you, whoever all readily admit they are NOT Sabbath keepers and see no point in being one. The debate in this thread is NOT "which day is the Sabbath" and never was.

I mean, come on, man!

People know what the seventh and last day of the week is. And you do too. You claim you always thought Monday was the first of the week but here, I'll prove you are not being truthful:

What day did Jesus rise from the dead? Monday? Or Sunday?

What day do you have your main service? Monday? Or Sunday? When do you do Easter?

If you really thought Monday was day 1 of the week then you'd have been quick to say "Wow then we do church on the Sabbath on the seventh day" because you'd be thinking the seventh day is Sunday (the day before Monday).

"...regardless what a calendar says." Unreal. So basically you go by your own personal calendar and then judge the entire world by your own ignorance of time? How were you able to keep a job? Meet an appointment?

I mean for realz, dude, you are out there!

Colossians 2:16-17
Let No One Disqualify You
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

These verses are pretty simple to comprehend, but you have continued to explain that they don’t mean what is simply understood.

I haven't explained anything about these verses and told you why and when that would happen. There you go not reading the thread again. So sad, many such cases.

[Esaias]

(Brother Blume is typing and copying and pasting furiously as we read...)

I remember there was an Epleyism about brother Blume keeping reams of material on hand ready to be cut and pasted to overwhelm the unsuspecting opposition.

[Esaias]

I think there is a larger issue here than just Sabbath keeping. I think the issue has to do with what I call "inconsistent antinomianism".

Antinomianism is from two Greek words, "nomos" meaning "law" and "anti" meaning "against/instead of". By "law", in theology, is meant "moral law" (as opposed to natural or "physical" law), that is, a rule of conduct, a rule that regulates the choices and actions of free-will people, a code of ethics and morals.

There are two camps, one called theonomy (meaning "God's law") and one called autonomy (meaning "self law"). Theonomy is the idea that man should be regulated by God's law. Autonomy means that man should be regulated by his own law. A person who subscribes to theonomy looks to God's law for guidance as to "what to do". A man who subscribes to autonomy looks to himself for guidance as to "what to do". That is, the autonomist (autonomous individual) will make his choices based on his own desires, wants, reasons, etc. The theonomist will make his choices based on the Word of God.

Autonomy is primarily observed when God's law conflicts with a person's desire, and the person chooses to follow their desire rather than submit to the Divine law.

Within the theological context of the term "antinomianism", the "nomos" or law part is generally understood to be referring to God's law.

So what does "anti" mean? It means both "against" (as in opposition to), and "instead of". And in fact both meanings are derived from the same concept. For exampe, take the word "antitype". Antitype comes from anti and tupos. Tupos means "place" or "topic". In fact, it is where we get the word topic from, as well as "topography" (a graph or map of the "place"). So an antitype is something that is "against the place or topic". By"against" it means in position, like a mirror is placed against a wall. So "against the topic or place" means something that is set up over and against in opposition to a topic or place or thing, as a mirror, that answers to the thing.

We often use the phrase "type and antitype", but I think that is a slight grammatical faux pas when you think about it. But, we all know basically what is being implied - there is a "type" or topic or place or thing, and there is the antitype, something that is set up in opposition to the type like a mirror is set up against the wall and is "against" you when you look at it. By against is not meant some kind of moral opposition, but simply opposition of placement. "Over against", in other words. So the antitype is something that in some manner corresponds to the type and takes its place.

This is why anti means both against and instead of. That is, in place of, a substitute. Antinomianism then means a position that is against the nomos (God's law) and puts itself in place of God's law. By opposing God's rule of conduct, it sets itself up as a replacement or substitute rule of conduct. Another word for antinomianism is "lawlessness". By rejecting God's law, the antinomian is "lawless". That is, "without God's law". So when we speak of lawlessness, we do not mean pure and perfect "anarchy" (truly no law whatsoever of any kind), but rather the substitution of self law (autonomy) in place of God's law (theonomy).

I mentioned "inconsistent antinomianism". The reason I say inconsistent, is because I find many Christians are antinomians, that is, they oppose God's law and choose autonomy over theonomy, YET they attempt to retain some portion of God's law. So basically they have a "partial theonomy" at work.

The Fourth Commandment debate is a perfect example. Many will uphold the moral obigatory nature of 9 of the Ten Commandments, but jettison the Fourth Commandment. They will insist on being antinomian by exclaiming "We are not subject to the law" while simultaneously championing the obligatory character of various and sundry of God's commandments (like Deut 22:5, for example). In short, they pick and choose.

As a result, this is both antinomian (contrary to and substituted for God's law) as well as autonomy (self law). God's law is subordinated to their own law, rather than the other way around.

Now, we ALL make our decisions. God doesn't make our decisions for us in a direct manner. We choose what we will do, whether to obey God or something else. So in a strictly technical sense we are all autonomous. This is just saying we are endowed with free will. But God intended and intends for our will (law) to be subordinated to His. So that theonomy is on top and autonomy is underneath it in the hierarchy of choices. Or to put it another way, His will directs our will by voluntary submission on our part.

The autonomous antinomian however has it reversed. Self law (self will) is on top and God's law is subordinated to self. The man will pick and choose which of God's commands he will submit to. The ones he doesn't want to submit to, he simply chooses not to. And then he usually comes up with all sorts of justifications and rationalisations, to justify his antinomian autonomy, or lawlessness. By picking and choosing which of God's commands are "valid" for him, he is inconsistent in his antinomianism. He will submit to God here and there, but not over there and here.

What are the causes of this inconsistent antinomianism?

Usually, from what I have seen, it is the direct result of two things in combination.

First, it is the result of tradition and peer pressure. Tradition and peer pressure go hand in hand. When raised in a tradition, or when one enters into a tradition, with a body of people who likewise embrace that tradition, there is a peer pressure exerted demanding continued conformity to the tradition. A man in a corporate society that maintains the tradition of "barbecue on Saturday and church on Sunday" will be find it difficult to swap the traditional practice for "church on Sabbath and barbecue on Sunday". There will be strong peer incentives not to, such as being questioned by one's peers, disfellowship and shunning, loss of camaraderie, etc. In addition to the peer pressure, there is the self pressure of maintaining a tradition. Old habits are hard to break. What you have been doing (and believing) is comfortable and familiar and not to be let go of lightly. It is difficult to break free of a tradition. And of course, not all traditions are bad. Some are definitely to be maintained because of their utility (or even their Divinely instituted obligation). But if a tradition is contrary to the faith and practice of the apostolic church, it ought to be jettisoned, no matter how difficult it may be.

Second, it is the result of ignorance of the Scripture. Not knowing the scripture causes one to err. Many are ignorant as to what "under the law" means s used in the Bible. They do not really understand what "justified by the works of the law" means, as opposed to "justified by faith". They do not understand what "God's law" even means. They confuse and confound things like the old covenant, the old testament (scriptures), the law of Moses, the law of God, and so on and so forth. As a result of this general lack of education concerning the subject, they make all sorts of wild and erroneous conclusions, and wind up in various errors of varying degrees, some being mild misunderstandings, and some being wild and damnable heresies that jeopardize the soul.

The inconsistent antinomian, because they are inconsistent, utilize inconsistent hermeneutics and inconsistent reasonings. They live inconsistent lives, believe inconsistent doctrines, and say inconsistent things. They are simply put double minded and unstable.

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
(Jas 1:8)

They are double minded because they try to simultaneously hold both a theonomic and an autonomic position. The result is antinomianism that is inconsistent. They are unstable because they do not have a solid and sure foundation upon which their doctrines, beliefs, and lives are based. As a result, they believe many things that are inconsistent with one another.

I say they "Try to hold both a theonomic and an autonomic position". But when the rubber meets the road, what often comes out is they are really autonomous and antinomian while trying to maintain the pretense of being theonomic and following God. They reject the command of God but fancy themselves to be doing the will of God. Much like the trinitarian tries to be both a polytheist and a monotheist at the same time, when what is usually really happening is they are in fact a polytheist trying to maintain the pretense of monotheism. The inconsistency is within their own mind, the truth is they are simply lawless antinomians:

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
(Jas 2:10-11)

[Esaias]

So where does one begin to educate the inconsistent antinomian?

Let's try this:

Luke 4:4 KJV And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Here, Jesus affirms that every word of God is the rule of faith and practice. Man is to be governed by "every word of God". What is "law"? It is a rule of conduct, a rule that governs activity. If every word of God is to govern man's activity, then every word of God constitutes the "law of God."

James 1:21-25 KJV Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. (22) But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. (23) For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: (24) For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. (25) But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.



Here, the word of God is identified as the "perfect law of liberty". This "perfect law of liberty" is further identified as "the royal law":

James 2:8-12 KJV If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: (9) But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. (10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (11) For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. (12) So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.


The Scripture referred to is Leviticus 19:18. Obeying Leviticus 19:18 is fulfilling the "royal law", which is also identified as the "law of liberty". We saw in chapter 1 of James that the "law of liberty" is the word, which we are to DO and not just hear.

Paul said something about hearing vs doing:

Romans 2:13 KJV (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Thus, the law of God is the entire word of God, which we must do, and not merely "hear" (or read, study, concoct wonderful sermons and bible studies from, etc). We must do the word of God, we must live by every word of God. This means that everything the word of God has to say about any particular subject is the sum total of God's law on that subject. And this of course means the law of God is not restricted merely to the Pentateuch, or various portions thereof, but includes the entire Old Testament scriptures as well as the New Testament scriptures (which may be considered as an authoritative commentary on the law of God, since the "word of God" according to the new testament would be what we today call the old testament scriptures).

Hence it necessarily follows, that anything not expressly repealed or altered in the new testament stands as written in the old testament.

[good samaritan]

Ephesians 2:15-16
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:

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Ephesians 2:15-16
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:

Thanks for the scripture! It's a good one.