Are we are under the commands of the first 5 books

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Where did I say that the Spirit led us to change any day of the week?

First of all, I didn't say anything about you supporting any "change the Sabbath to another day of the week."

Secondly, you said "There are several references to the church coming together on the first day of the week biblically and historically before there was a roman catholic org. I don’t think that means there is a changing to another Sabbath day, instead it is the changing from following the letter to following the Spirit."

You said there was evidence the church met on Sunday, and this doesn't mean a change to another Sabbath INSTEAD "it is changing from following the letter to following the Spirit." Thus, you are literally saying the early church met on Sunday BECAUSE THEY CHANGED FROM FOLLOWING THE LETTER TO FOLLOWING THE SPIRIT. You are asserting the early church met on Sunday because they were following the Spirit. Thus, you are claiming the Holy Ghost led the early church to meet on Sunday.

Thirdly, your response shows you not only aren't paying attention to what others are saying, but you aren't paying attention to what YOU YOURSELF are saying!

How can there possibly be a reasonable discussion under such conditions?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by loran adkins

Exo_20:8.. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

This was the command that was given to the children of Israel. It was about remembering God.

It says remember the Sabbath day, not "remember God" as if remembering God dispenses with remembering the Sabbath DAY.

But today as the days of the past, we are to remember God every day of the week not just on Saturday/Sunday, and that is the problem with keeping one day of the week above the other.

Absolute falsehood. Remembering the Sabbath day does not cause or lead anyone to FORGET GOD the other six days of the week. Pure baloney with no basis in reality, and in fact impossible since the 4th commandment is about getting our regular work done in 6 days and leaving the 7th day to rest from that work, thus imitating God in our daily and weekly life. Clearly you have ZERO idea what you are talking about and are just making things up out of whole cloth.

To many, Christians are just Christians on Sunday/Saturday and the rest of the Christians need to hold God up and worship him every day of the week not just when we come to service.

More silly made up nonsense. Real Christians hold God up (???) every day, all day.

This is why Jesus said "I am the rest"

No wonder you are in error, you are making up nonexistent Bible verses to support your weird views. Jesus never said that and I sure hope you aren't in any teaching position.

we need to rest in Christ every day of the week not just one day of the week. Yet this is what we do when we hold one day of the week over every other day.

So you don't hold a job, do chores, etc, at all then? Doesn't that mean you shouldn't eat, either? According to the apostle, yea verily, your diet is way past due.

The fourth commandment regulates our WORK/REST SCHEDULE IN IMITATION OF JEHOVAH GOD our CREATOR who made all things and incarnated as Jesus Christ. Resting in Christ does NOT mean ceasing from ORDINARY LABOR. Otherwise Christianity is a religion of busybody bumhood.

The willful ignorance of basic common sense in this and similar threads is astounding. How do you guys sleep at night? Or are people really this incapable of basic reason?

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

First of all, I didn't say anything about you supporting any "change the Sabbath to another day of the week."

Secondly, you said "There are several references to the church coming together on the first day of the week biblically and historically before there was a roman catholic org. I don’t think that means there is a changing to another Sabbath day, instead it is the changing from following the letter to following the Spirit."

You said there was evidence the church met on Sunday, and this doesn't mean a change to another Sabbath INSTEAD "it is changing from following the letter to following the Spirit." Thus, you are literally saying the early church met on Sunday BECAUSE THEY CHANGED FROM FOLLOWING THE LETTER TO FOLLOWING THE SPIRIT. You are asserting the early church met on Sunday because they were following the Spirit. Thus, you are claiming the Holy Ghost led the early church to meet on Sunday

.

Us being led of the Spirit is what is important, not the day of the week. Coincidently, there are many examples where the early church met on the first day of the week. I never intended to suggest that it was a Sabbath replacement or institutioned day of worship. As LA said, that every day belongs to the Lord.

Thirdly, your response shows you not only aren't paying attention to what others are saying, but you aren't paying attention to what YOU YOURSELF are saying!

I am aware of what I am saying, but I maybe having trouble following some of your posts.

How can there possibly be a reasonable discussion under such conditions?

We seem to be managing. I have enjoyed the discussion and wish there where more people posting on AFF to share.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I would assume there was multiple reasons for this:

1) Paul was a Jew. Just because Paul became a Christian didn't mean that he just threw away all his teachings. Naturally, he would have continued in much of Jewish tradition and was at liberty to do so.

Philippians 3:4-6
4......Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5......Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6......Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Continue with the quote from Philippians 3 and what do you find? That Paul considered his entire heritage as a Jew as "dung". Further, he wrote in Galatians that there is "neither Jew nor Greek". In Romans 2, Paul wrote that only the one who is inwardly circumcized, in the heart, is "a Jew".

There is nothing to suggest that Paul's ethnic Jewishness had any impact on his theology or manner of life. Rather, it was his respect and obedience to the Torah that matters, and Paul referred to it liberally, even decades after the New Covenant at Pentecost, as the guiding force for his behavior, like when he quoted from it regarding not reviling the High Priest.

2) Reverence to leadership is a timeless concept This Old Testament command (like many mosaic laws) was reiterated in the apostles' teaching. Therefore we have it as apostolic doctrine.

Romans 13:1-7
1......Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2......Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3......For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4......For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5......Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath but also for conscience sake.
6......For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7......Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

This is a cop-out. Reverence to leadership exists within the Judeo-Christian worldview because it comes from the Torah. Without the law commanding it, there is no principle or precedent for it within the Judeo-Christian worldview.

3) Paul employed wisdom in dealing with the views of those that he accompanied. Paul encouraged Timothy to be circumcised, although he had previously contended that it was unnecessary for believers.

1 Corinthians 9:19-21
19......For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20......And unto the Jews, I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21......To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

You have quoted multiple times from Galatians and elsewhere attempting to show that his doctrine requires the belief that the law is, or engenders bondage. This means any attempt at keeping the "law" is therefore a fall from grace, a return to Hagar, as it were. And yet, the man who wrote these texts, to which you have referred, frequently quotes from the law, that is, from the Torah, in order to demand action and govern behavior in the church, up to and including, his own.

You can't have it both ways. Either the law is abrogated, since if you don't keep it all, you are then guilty of all, such as you've presented it, or the law, all of it, is still in effect.

You can't seem to make up your mind.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I am sorry but I am missing where Paul appealed to Deuteronomy 13:5.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5
1......If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2......And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3......Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4......Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
5......And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

Deuteronomy 13:5 is a totally different context. It deals with a false prophet who entices Israel to go after strange gods.

Ya’ll are trying to fit a square block in a round whole. He does use the law concerning the feast of unleavened bread as a principle.

1 Corinthians 5:13 quotes from Deuteronomy, in 13:5, but also Deuteronomy 17:7, and Deuteronomy 24:7, all of which stipulate the same thing: removal of a wicked person from the assembly of Israel. Paul is very much indeed referring to this law in his approach to the fornicator, despite whatever OT contexts those quotes from Deuteronomy otherwise maintain. Several prominent commentaries clearly show this to be the case.

Here is a list:

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_...hians/5-13.htm

This is therefore, not us, or me, attempting to fit a square block in a round whole, such as you accuse.

1 Corinthians 5:6-9
6......Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

The old leaven is to be purged out
7......Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8......Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9......I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

This in no way brings us under mosaic law. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus is the law we serve. We are not to be mixed up with anyone that lives in a way that would jeopardize that relationship with Him.

How do you suppose the otherwise ignorant Gentile Corinthians, so far removed from Jerusalem, ignorant of the Jewish laws and customs, would be so well-informed regarding Passover, that they'd easily understand the reference Paul makes above, if there was no celebrating of Passover in and among the Corinthians believers?

Nothing that Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6 makes sense to anyone not well-versed in the Exodus and the keeping of Passover. In fact, there isn't even a point to be made to compare Christ to being our Passover Lamb, if Passover as a festival, was and is, forever done away with in the New Covenant.

Interestingly those Judaizers that was troubling the church in Galatia Paul said the same thing.

Galatians 5:10-12
10......I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
11......And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
12......I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

The Judaizers were attempting to circumcise the Galatian believers, as a token of the Old Covenant at Sinai, in order for them to be able to enter into the New Covenant. The belief was that Gentiles had to convert to Judaism first, by way of the Old Covenant requirements for Gentile proselytes, in order to then enter the New Covenant by way of faith in the Christ.

Paul's whole point of the letter to the Galatians is to show that Gentiles had no need of submitting themselves to the Old Covenant, since Christ had already welcomed them into the New.

It's not about whether the Torah of God is of no import or consequence, that is, that Gentile believers have a freehand in behaving any way they please.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

You are 100% correct we must love our wives. It was taught in the first 5 books and all the rest of our Bible. The law of love is a law that is timeless and established all throughout the whole Bible. Paul goes on from there to show us the representation that marriage has with the bride of Christ. I am thankful that our walk with Jesus is no longer a list of rules to only be punished by our failures, but we now have a faith relationship with Him.



Another law of love. It will always be right for children to obey their parents. I don't see where any of this proves we are under the mosaic law? Because of this we must observe feast days, Sabbath's, dietary restrictions, etc....

Again, you still aren't getting it. You can't have it both ways. You can't make blanket statements about the law engendering bondage, or that the apostles didn't require the Gentile believers to under the law, and they affirm and agree, as you've done above, with the laws that mandate love and honor. Those laws come from the OT, from the Pentateuch, from the Torah itself.

If the Torah engenders bondage and anyone who remembers the Sabbath or celebrates the festivals is a fallen from grace slave to Hagar, then all of us who leave father and mother, love our wives and become one flesh with them, and also honor our parents are likewise slaves, because, according to you, if you obey one law, but fail in others, you're guilty of all, and cursed is the man who does not do all the law.

You are introducing an un-resolvable conflict, whether you see it or not.

How can you not see that Paul would not quote from the Decalogue commanding honoring of parents, without implicitly acknowledging the validity and import of the other 9 commandments?

[votivesoul]

Here again is Paul quoting from Deuteronomy in order to govern church norms:

2 Corinthians 13:1 (ESV),

1 This is the third time I am coming to you. Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

1 Timothy 5:19 (ESV),

19 Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

Deuteronomy 17:6 (ESV),

6 On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.

Deuteronomy 19:15 (ESV),

15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established...

I guess Paul is in bondage, a slave to Hagar, fallen from grace, guilty of all the law, cursed, etc., and oh, that's right: A HYPOCRITE.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Continue with the quote from Philippians 3 and what do you find? That Paul considered his entire heritage as a Jew as "dung". Further, he wrote in Galatians that there is "neither Jew nor Greek". In Romans 2, Paul wrote that only the one who is inwardly circumcized, in the heart, is "a Jew".

There is nothing to suggest that Paul's ethnic Jewishness had any impact on his theology or manner of life. Rather, it was his respect and obedience to the Torah that matters, and Paul referred to it liberally, even decades after the New Covenant at Pentecost, as the guiding force for his behavior, like when he quoted from it regarding not reviling the High Priest.

There is no possible way for it to not have impact. Does your childhood not effect your adult life? God doesnt erase our memories when he calls, instead he uses our life experiences. Some things we must be delivered from and somethings become a strength to us. You keep saying the word Torah, but my English bible doesnt use the term Torah. Instead, Paul references it as simply the law.

This is a cop-out. Reverence to leadership exists within the Judeo-Christian worldview because it comes from the Torah. Without the law commanding it, there is no principle or precedent for it within the Judeo-Christian worldview.

I am not debating there is no principle or precedent contained in the law.

Galatians 3:24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

The law leads us to Christ. The moral teachings still have applications, but not according to the letter. Those laws have been fulfilled and to say otherwise is to make the cross in vain.

Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Galatians 2:21
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

You have quoted multiple times from Galatians and elsewhere attempting to show that his doctrine requires the belief that the law is, or engenders bondage. This means any attempt at keeping the "law" is therefore a fall from grace, a return to Hagar, as it were. And yet, the man who wrote these texts, to which you have referred, frequently quotes from the law, that is, from the Torah, in order to demand action and govern behavior in the church, up to and including, his own.

Yes, he quotes often from the OT as a reference to establish NT doctrine. He does not insist the NT church go back and learn the law in order to know how to be Christian. The law was righteous, yet it was just shadow of what was to come (Jesus).

You can't have it both ways. Either the law is abrogated, since if you don't keep it all, you are then guilty of all, such as you've presented it, or the law, all of it, is still in effect.

You can't seem to make up your mind.

I don’t want it both ways and I have made up my mind. I don’t seek the righteousness that comes from the law, but from Jesus Christ.

ab·ro·gate
/ˈabrəˌɡāt/
Learn to pronounce
verbFORMAL
past tense: abrogated; past participle: abrogated
1.
repeal or do away with (a law, right, or formal agreement)./
Learn to pronounce
verbFORMAL
past tense: abrogated; past participle: abrogated
1.
repeal or do away with(a law, right, or formal agreement).

2 Corinthians 3:6-7
6......Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7......But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

I will stick with what is plainly stated by scripture.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

1 Corinthians 5:13 quotes from Deuteronomy, in 13:5, but also Deuteronomy 17:7, and Deuteronomy 24:7, all of which stipulate the same thing: removal of a wicked person from the assembly of Israel. Paul is very much indeed referring to this law in his approach to the fornicator, despite whatever OT contexts those quotes from Deuteronomy otherwise maintain. Several prominent commentaries clearly show this to be the case.

Here is a list:

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_...hians/5-13.htm

This is therefore, not us, or me, attempting to fit a square block in a round whole, such as you accuse.

Commentary is not the same as Gods word. Just because some agree on a view doesnt make it true. The context of those passages where not the same. To add, the law required for the guilty to be put to death. If we are under the law then do what the law says.

How do you suppose the otherwise ignorant Gentile Corinthians, so far removed from Jerusalem, ignorant of the Jewish laws and customs, would be so well-informed regarding Passover, that they'd easily understand the reference Paul makes above, if there was no celebrating of Passover in and among the Corinthians believers?

Nothing that Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6 makes sense to anyone not well-versed in the Exodus and the keeping of Passover. In fact, there isn't even a point to be made to compare Christ to being our Passover Lamb, if Passover as a festival, was and is, forever done away with in the New Covenant.

.


There was a large number of Jews all throughout the church. There is no doubt that much of the readers where Jews. Matter of fact the synagogues where some of the apostles target places to go preach the gospel. Gentiles where not being taught to keep the feast of Passover.

The Judaizers were attempting to circumcise the Galatian believers, as a token of the Old Covenant at Sinai, in order for them to be able to enter into the New Covenant. The belief was that Gentiles had to convert to Judaism first, by way of the Old Covenant requirements for Gentile proselytes, in order to then enter the New Covenant by way of faith in the Christ.

Paul's whole point of the letter to the Galatians is to show that Gentiles had no need of submitting themselves to the Old Covenant, since Christ had already welcomed them into the New.

It's not about whether the Torah of God is of no import or consequence, that is, that Gentile believers have a freehand in behaving any way they please.

I have not said anywhere we can behave anyway we please.

The problem here is that you believe we cannot have righteouness without the law. That is contrary to the apostles doctrine.

Romans 7:6
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Ephesians 5:9
(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The problem here is that you believe we cannot have righteouness without the law. That is contrary to the apostles doctrine.

Romans 7:6
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Ephesians 5:9
(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
(Rom 7:1-6)

The woman was bound by the law to her husband. If her husband dies, she is "loosed from the law of her husband". Does that mean she is loosed from the law of God altogether? So that she may disregard the actual commandments of the law of God? Of course not, yet that is what your "logic" is demanding we believe. The woman who is loosed from the law of her husband is still subject to the law of God, she may not go out and fornicate, she may not marry another man and then commit adultery with impunity, she may not forget about the Sabbath or choose to dishonour her father and mother. Serving in the newness of spirit and not in oldness of the letter does NOT mean we may violate the letter of the law with no consequences. Here is what serving in the newness of spirit means:

Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
(Eze 36:25-27)

Just as Paul said in the verse you quoted without context in Romans chapter 8:

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
(Rom 8:1-9)

According to the apostle Paul, if you are not subject to the law of God you are carnal and in the flesh. Whereas the one who is spiritual, who walks after the Spirit and not the flesh, and who thus has no condemnation, is the one in whom the righteousness of the law is actually fulfilled, who is indeed subject to the law of God, and who thus pleases God.

You quoted Ephesians, here let's look at some more of what is in Epheshians:

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
(Eph 4:17-24)

Renewed in the spirit of your mind, kind of like this:

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
(Heb 8:10)

Righteousness and true holiness? What is the standard? How does a person examine themselves and their life to see if they are indeed walking in righteousness and true holiness?

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
(2Ti 3:15-17)

The "All scripture" Paul was referring to was what we today call "the Old Testament" (scriptures). THAT, according to the apostle Paul, is what provides instruction in righteousness. It is from the SCRIPTURES that we learn what righteousness and true holiness is. We do not appeal to "common sense" or public opinion or majority vote or "how I feel inside spiritually". We appeal to the WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD. As Jesus declared:

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
(Mat 4:4)

Arguing that "we are under grace not law, in the Spirit and not the letter, in the new and not the old" as some kind of proof that we can disobey the fourth commandment (for example) is nonsense. If that were true, then we can disobey ANY commandment we choose to, or ALL of them. And when this is pointed out, the antinomian will claim "oh no, not so, there are many commands we must obey, why common sense and my spiritual gut feelings wouldn't allow for certain behaviours" yada yada yada. Yet this is EXACTLY the same ground the sodomite "affirming" so called Christians stand on. It is CONFUSION, it is the result of a darkened understanding stemming from IGNORANCE.

God's holy law is the standard for what is right and what is wrong:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
(Rom 7:7)

And again:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
(1Jn 3:4)

If sin is the transgression of the law, and if we know what is sin by the commandments of the law, and if the law says "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy", then it is sin to forget the Sabbath day and make it decidedly NOT holy. Sabbath breaking is therefore, according to the New Testament scripture teaching on "what is sin", most decidedly SIN.