Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Sanctuary > Deep Waters
Facebook

Notices

Deep Waters 'Deep Calleth Unto Deep ' -The place to go for Ministry discussions. Please keep it civil. Remember to discuss the issues, not each other.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #621  
Old Yesterday, 04:46 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Happily "off the chain"


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 14,294
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

I just wanted to address certain falsehoods:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
So, don't let anyone demand you to keep a sabbath day, which is a form of salvation by works.
Obeying the Fourth Commandment is no more "salvation by works" than obeying the First Commandment or any other commandment. People get upset when the word antinomian appears, but it is curious that this is exactly how antinomians think and speak: "Don't tell me I HAVE to obey something, that's legalism and works salvation."


Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
When the shadow is still intact, and we see Christ as fulfillment at the same time, it's not as severe as outright not seeing sabbath as shadow of Christ's accomplished like Esaias claims, but it is still removing one somewhat from full position in Christ which Col 2 warns us to never let anything do to us.
I assume he meant "sabbath as shadow of Christ's accomplishments". Anyway, Paul said the holy days are (present tense) a shadow of things to come (future tense), not were (past tense) a shadow of things that came (past tense). But this claim that Sabbath keeping "is removing one from full position in Christ" is curious.

Previously, brother Blume attempted to argue that Romans 14 applied, and that keeping or not keeping Sabbath was a matter of personal preference. But now it is "removing one from full position in Christ." Earlier he also claimed "I keep Sabbath more than you do". These latter statements strike me as somewhat hypocritical. On the one hand, it's "a matter of personal preference, we are not to judge, and do not judge the non sabbath keeper" but yet on the other hand it's "sabbath keepers are removed from full position in Christ" and "you don't even really keep the sabbath as good as *I* do."

I have seen this type of flip-flopping double standard before from antisabbatarians and it's just another indicator to me that they are in error.

It is the antinomian spirit that threatens "obeying the Word of God will remove you from Christ". I do not know why people fall prey to such deceptions, but when confronted with those claims I always ask myself, "Is it the Holy Ghost encouraging me NOT to obey the Word of God? Or is it something else?"

The issues are usually clarified by that approach, for me anyway.
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!

Instead of google, use www.yandex.com


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - http://www.robertwr.com/

Reply With Quote
  #622  
Old Yesterday, 04:50 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Happily "off the chain"


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 14,294
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raffi View Post
Esaias, I believe you have made a very good explanation in this simple point as to HOW "Christ as Sabbath" should be properly understood. The Sabbath, in it's intrinsic "shadow" DOES point to Messiah, and Messiah IS the SUBSTANCE of the Sabbath. But the Messiah's having come does not ABROGATE the "shadow" apparent in Sabbath, but rather gives it its fullest expression and exposition.

You make so many powerful points in such brief one-line interjections. I would that I had that gift, to sum up such profound depth of meaning in short, to-the-point answers. You have over the months given me LOTS of material to use in my teaching.

Thank you
Thank you for the kind words. Honestly I think I'm too wordy and a poor communicator, so its good to hear that I'm not as bad as I thought I might be.
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!

Instead of google, use www.yandex.com


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - http://www.robertwr.com/

Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old Yesterday, 05:19 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Happily "off the chain"


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 14,294
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Concerning the Divine Appointments and the subject of "shadows", it should be pointed out that there are (at least) four layers of typological application to the Divine Appointments. I wrote about this on another thread somewhere, but in short it works like this:
  1. Historical
  2. Christological
  3. Personal
  4. Eschatological

The historical meaning refers to the memorial aspect. Ex. Passover was a memorial of the historical event of the Exodus and deliverance from Egypt.

The Christological meaning refers to the prophetic aspect as it pertains to the work of Christ. Ex. Passover pointed to Christ as the Lamb whose blood causes the wrath of God to "pass over" us.

The personal meaning refers to the individual believer's experience, the salvific aspect. Ex. Each person must experience a personal Passover, where the cross is applied to their personal life.

The eschatological meaning refers to the prophetic aspect as it pertains to the Consummation of the Divine Plan. Ex. Passover represents the final eschatological deliverance of the saints from the bondage and persecution of this corrupt world order (kosmos) that will be consummated at the Lord's return.

The historical aspects occurred prior to the establishment of the Appointments. The Christological aspects were partially fulfilled in Christ's first advent and ministry, and are ongoing and will continue until the end. The personal aspects occur during the life of each believer, both at conversion and throughout their walk with God. The eschatological aspects will occur around the Second Advent and afterwards.

Thus, as the apostle declared, they are (still) a shadow of coming things.
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!

Instead of google, use www.yandex.com


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - http://www.robertwr.com/

Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old Yesterday, 06:35 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Happily "off the chain"


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 14,294
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
Concerning the Divine Appointments and the subject of "shadows", it should be pointed out that there are (at least) four layers of typological application to the Divine Appointments. I wrote about this on another thread somewhere....
Here's that other thread post:


The Feasts or Appointed Times of the Lord have four levels of signification. The first of course is the historical. Passover was a commemoration of the Exodus from Egypt, for example. The second is Christological. The Passover looked forward to the cross as Christ became soteriological Passover Lamb accomplishing our deliverance, for example. The third is experiential. We must each of us have a personal Passover or Calvary experience, whereby not only do we 'eat' the Passover (the cross applied to our lives) but we must also take up our own cross and 'die to self' on our personal, God-ordained Golgotha, ie we identify with Christ in his death, for example. And the fourth is eschatological. Paul says the feasts are 'shadows of things coming', ie still future from when he wrote those words. (I understand this last point will be debatable by my preterist friends, but that's not what this thread is about, so bear with me a moment.)

Now, we know that Christ died on Passover. As such, he fulfilled the Passover. Yet, in Hebrews we read that Christ also fulfills the Atonement. Now, the Day of Atonement was in the fall, and did not take place during Passover. For years I had wondered 'Why, if Christ fulfills the Day of Atonement, did he not die on the day of Atonement?'

First of all, he had to die on a particular day, so it couldn't be both. It would have to be one or the other.

Second, the Day of Atonement was meant to secure the ongoing atonement of the nation. But without Passover there would be no nation to be atoned for. So, the Day of Atonement depends on the Passover.

Third, the Day of Atonement occurs in the seventh month. The Passover occurs in the first month. To determine the seventh month, one has to know when the first month is. Thus, again, Atonement depends on Passover.

Fourth, the Passover is merely part of a larger Feast, the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This feast is a seven day feast that actually spans eight days. The first day is the Passover day itself, when the lamb is killed and roasted. That night, the Lamb is eaten. This would be the 'first day of unleavened bread' properly speaking. This day was a Sabbath, and the day after that would be the presentation and waving of the 'omer' or 'sheaf of the firstfruits'. So the third day, technically speaking, of the whole festal period is the 'omer' day. Then, the last day, or seventh day of the week of Unleavened Bread, is also a Sabbath.

What we see here is a pattern: The first, the third, and the seventh. The first is when the Lamb is slain. The third is the presentation of the representative firstfruit. The seventh is the culmination or completion.

The Feasts themselves follow a similar pattern of first, third, and seventh. The first month is Passover/Unleavened Bread, the third month is Pentecost or feast of firstfruits, and the seventh month is Trumpets (announcing the beginning of the seventh month), Atonement, and Tabernacles (another 8 day feast).

So then, within the first Feast period of Passover/Unleavened Bread, there is contained in a seed form the entire cycle of yearly Feasts. Or to put it another way, the Passover/Unleavened Bread cycle is a typological representation or template for the entire Feast calendar for the whole year.

So, in conclusion, the Day of Atonement is contained in seed form within the Passover cycle, and is dependent upon the Passover for it's existence and timing. Thus, when Christ died at Passover, he fulfilled in typological form the entire yearly Feast cycle.

This corresponds not merely to the day he died, but to the entire week.

On Passover he died. He was in the tomb during the first Sabbath of Unleavened Bread. He rose the third day as the 'omer' of the resurrection, the proto-typical firstfruit signalling the Pentecost harvest of 'firstfruits' would be acceptable. Likewise, his resurrection is a type of the new life we receive by the gift of the Spirit, which was poured out on the feast of firstfruits aka Pentecost. He appeared to his disciples several times over the next week much to their amazement, signifying a 'Tabernacles' experience much as God tabernacled with Israel in the wilderness (which is what Tabernacles' historical purpose was to commemorate).

So, in a sense, the Passover week was a Christological fulfillment of the whole yearly Feast cycle. And thus, he was able to fulfill the Atonement without having to actually die on the actual Day of Atonement.

Note1: I realise some hold to either a Wednesday crucifixion or a Thursday crucifixion. This thread is not designed to debate that issue (we can do that in another thread if anyone wants?) but merely to point out how Atonement is satisfied even though his death was not on the Day of Atonement.

Note2: During the Exodus event, Israel wound up at Marah on or right about what would be the seventh day of Unleavened Bread. Then they arrived at Sinai shortly before the day of what would be Pentecost. Pentecost is fifty days from Passover (technically from the omer day). Jesus stayed with the apostles for forty days after his resurrection, leaving them ten days to wait in preparation and prayer until Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out. The time he spent with them he spoke to them about the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. Israel's history in those first fifty days between the Exodus and Sinai give interesting lessons concerning the kingdom of God: The tree making the bitter waters sweet, the twelve wells and seventy palm trees of Elim, the giving of manna in the wilderness of Sin, the striking of the Rock at Rephidim, the coming of Amalek, the appointment of lesser judges (governmental structure) after the arrival of Jethro, and the arrival at Sinai and preparations to receive the Law and Covenant.

Note3: Jesus was with his disciples forty days after his Passover. Israel wandered in Sinai for forty years after their Passover.

Note4: It is likely that when Jesus was baptised by John, he fulfilled much of the typology of the Day of Atonement. This by the way leads into the question of whether Jesus died in the middle of the seventieth week of Daniel, or at the end of the seventieth week. I am starting to see that Jesus did not die in the midst of the seventieth week, but that he was baptised in the midst of the seventieth week, thus (from God's perspective) ending all sacrifice and offering for sin, then completing the seventieth week with his death. I admit this is something I am not certain about, and may be a dead end rabbit trail, but I am currently looking into this to see where it goes.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=50138
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!

Instead of google, use www.yandex.com


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - http://www.robertwr.com/

Reply With Quote
  #625  
Old Yesterday, 10:55 PM
Esaias's Avatar
Esaias Esaias is offline
Happily "off the chain"


 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Zion aka TEXAS
Posts: 14,294
Re: The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
That would leave the "outs" as:

abrograted (gone-sabbath)
transferred (often connected to the resurrection)
trivialized (simply not important, majoring in minors)
spiritualized (Jesus is our sabbath)

Have I missed anything?
How about the idea that the new love is just the two Love commandments?

reduced (sabbath is reduced to love)

Maybe reconstructed (referring to the idea that the decalogue law is now the nine thought to be affirmed in the NT, that is a little different than abrogated, which refers more easily to a full antinomian position). That was said to be the position of many CoC.
So we have a list of objections to Sabbath keeping categorized by the basic premise of each, as follows:
Trivialised (God doesn't care, so we shouldn't care, either)
Reconstructed (Two versions: 1 - The OT scriptures have been abrogated and replaced with the NT scriptures as a new replacement law, thus anything not "repeated" in the NT is abolished; 2 - The commands of the OT scriptures have been abrogated and replaced with two commands - love God, love your neighbour)
Transferred (Sabbath has been transferred to Sunday via the resurrection and early church practice)
Judaised (Sabbath is for the Jews only, not Gentile Christians)
Idealised (Sabbath DAY was a carnal and temporary representation of the Ideal sabbath, which is either Christ, our position in Christ, or the baptism with the Holy Spirit)
The refutations follow a simple path, as follows:
Trivialised - God counts the hairs on our heads so nothing is unimportant to God. This is essentially a cop-out argument for not even caring about investigating doctrine.
Reconstructed - There is no stated abrogation or repeal of the Fourth commandment or of the Decalogue, in fact NT Scripture teaches the perpetuity and continuity of the Decalogue into the new covenant era. There is no stated "new law" whereby it is made clear that Sinai has been repealed and a new law has been instituted. The NT Scriptures never make a claim about themselves that the reconstructionists/new law proponents make. "Love" is too generic a term that requires definition in terms of righteous behaviour, otherwise one could love while stealing their neighbour's stuff.
The standard of righteousness cannot be defined by some nebulous personal opinion as to what "common sense" would affirm. This is essentially a rationalisation for sabbath breaking while trying to avoid charges of antinomianism.
Transferred - There is no statement that Sabbath has been transferred to any other day of the week. It is illogical and a logical impossibility for this supposed transference to occur, since the seventh day of the week cannot become the first day of the week by anything other than a divine promulgation of a new calendar system. The early church never considered or declared the first day of the week to be Sabbath, instead all through the apostolic writings the Sabbath is still called the Sabbath and the first day is still called the first day, proving the early church considered the Sabbath to be the seventh day of the week. This is essentially an attempt to maintain theonomy and the perpetuity and continuity of the Decalogue while avoiding conflict with man made tradition, avoiding charges of Judaising, and perpetuating Sun worship.
Judaised - The Sabbath was made before any Hebrew walked the earth, the Fourth commandment was delivered to all twelve tribes of Israel, and Christ Himself affirmed the Sabbath was made for "man" (ie Adam), thus establishing its universality. This is an attempt to perpetrate Talmudic (Pharisaic) doctrine which asserts a gentile who keeps Sabbath should be put to death and that Sabbath and Torah are only for Jews.
Idealised - There is no Scripture which states "Jesus is the Sabbath" or that Christ is our Sabbath. It is patently absurd to affirm that Jesus is the seventh day of the week. Proponents of this view hold that Sabbath is a separable thing, distinct from the day. But God Himself declared "the seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah". Sabbath is not something that can be transferred from one day to another, or from the seventh day to a person, activity, or event. A Divinely instituted Sabbath is what it is, and cannot be transferred to something else by the very nature of the case. And the seventh day Sabbath is just that - the seventh day itself. When God established the Sabbath, He did it by sanctifying the seventh day itself, because in it He rested. The rest and the day are two different things. One was an action, the other is a time. The time was declared holy by God because of His action on that original seventh day. All the talk of "shadows pointing to Christ" do nothing but avoid the simple truth that the seventh day IS the Sabbath. This is an attempt to avoid actual Sabbath observance based on the theory that as a Christian one is freed from obedience to certain specific commands that require actual actions.

Of these various theories, the two most difficult to address are the Reconstructed and Idealised views, since both of them rely upon numerous Biblical (especially New Testament) passages for their support, whereas the other three rely on scant or even no biblical passages. Also, both the Reconstructed and Idealised views incorporate an entire paradigm (each), rather than being strictly limited to Sabbath questions per se. Refutation usually requires deconstructing each paradigm to its presuppositions and foundational assumptions, a task that (as this thread proves) can be rather convoluted and difficult to follow. In other words, lots of rabbit trails to hunt down.

The simplest answer to all of the theories, of course, is simply this: God commanded observance of the Sabbath, Jesus affirmed it's perpetuity and the NT writings confirm its continuity. To suggest the fourth commandment was changed, or abrogated, or that its observance was changed in such a way that actual cessation of work on the seventh day and actually keeping it separated from the other six days as devoted to Father is no longer obligatory would have required MASSIVE amounts of apologetics on the subject by Christ and His apostles - of which there is literally NONE. (Consider the amount of material contained in the New Testament concerning the subject of circumcision for a glimpse of the controversy such Sabbath-changing would have introduced, and the amount of direct teaching that would have been necessary on the subject that is curiously missing...) Therefore, Sabbath observance remains.

The historical record confirms this understanding, as Sabbath observance continued well into the medieval period, and was vigorously opposed by the rising catholic trinitarian sun worshipping cult.
__________________
Visit the Apostolic House Church YouTube Channel!

Instead of google, use www.yandex.com


Biblical Worship - free pdf http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/02/21/biblicalworship4/

Conditional immortality proven - http://www.robertwr.com/


Last edited by Esaias; Yesterday at 10:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Our Sabbath Rest is only in Jesus Christ Iron_Bladder Sunday School 6 05-03-2007 03:28 AM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by Salome
- by houston
- by mfblume

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.