7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Man will not discover his duty to God and his neighbour strictly by "conscience", which is why God gave His Word.

I agree. I did not say otherwise. But conscience does instruct us in many ways. And it is enhanced by Spirit baptism, or even the word of God

Man is not to be trusted with determining right and wrong, it requires Divine revelation because the heart of man is desperately wicked. To suggest God didn't specify an obligation because it is already known to everyone is to suggest the 5th commandment and most others were originally irrelevent and superfluous.

Heathen nations know enough to not kill and not commit adultery. Morality is built into the human conscience. It simply is. Not as fine-tuned as it should be, though, due to the fall. But there are pagans who fulfilled the one part of law that forbids adultery without knowing about it each and every time they refused to commit adultery.

Some things were known by conscience, but not everything, such as the sabbath day. But all that is moral was simply known by conscience, though perhaps in a far more vague way than they were commanded in Law.

Moreover, it assumes the error that the NT Scriptures are a replacement legislation. Which basically reduces Christianity to a type of legalism (just NT legalism instead of OT legalism).

I do not follow how you arrive at that conclusion, whatsoever.

Also, you are misapplying Romans 2 to heathen idolaters. The uncircumcised in Romans 2 are gentile CHRISTIANS WHO KEEP THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE LAW.

That is pure assumption. How do you know that? Gentiles in Chapter 1 were by no means believers. The context shows Paul talking about gentiles in Romans chapter 1, because Chapter 2 begins by referring to the Jews, by contrast, are no less guilty. And this makes the Gentiles that are mentioned later in the same chapter to be heathens. If Paul contrasted the people of Romans Chapter 1, whom he said were sunken into homosexuality and idolatry, and then tells the Jews in Chapter 2 that they are just as sinful as those Gentiles if they do not obey what the Law told them to obey, then we understand that the contrast noted later in verses 26 to 29, where holier living gentiles are putting to shame the Jews who know law but do not obey it, must be also between heathen gentiles and Jews.

He is still comparing the heathen Gentiles of chapter 1 with the Jews in chapter 2:26-29, that He compared with the Jews in Romans 1:18 – 2:24.

In fact, Paul referred to heathen gentiles when he wrote this:

Romans 2:19-21 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, (20) An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. (21) Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? (22) Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? (23) Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? (24) For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

The reference to Gentiles in verse 24 is certainly not believers in the church who are of gentile descent. And nothing in the context changes from that to believers in verse 26.

The contrast is lost when the reference to gentiles is changed from heathens from Chapter 1 through 2:24 if we say that verse 26 speaks of gentile believers.

Paul contrasted heathen gentiles without the Law from the Jews who knew the Law, and said that possession of the law means nothing if those same Jews do the same things that the lawless Gentiles do in their sins. Then he flipped the tables and offered the hypothetical scenario of heathen gentiles knowing enough in their consciences to do what the law said about moral living while the Jews who possessed law continued in sinful activity. This is how the context is laid out, but is lost when we cut off the reference to the heathen gentiles of Romans 1;18 - 2:24 from the gentiles mentioned verses later in verse 26.

They show the work of the law written in their hearts, a reference to Jeremiah 31:33. This is not referring to heathens whose "conscience" directs their morality, but to Christians in the new covenant even if they are not circumcised physically.

Sorry, but Romans 1:18 – 2:24 says otherwise.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is pure assumption. How do you know that?

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Romans:2:14

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Romans:2:15

The only place Scripture talks about the law being written in the heart, causing people to perform the law ("do the things contained in the law"), is in reference to the New Covenant. Heathen gentiles do not have God's law written in their heart. Only those in the new covenant:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jeremiah:31:31

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jeremiah:31:33

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.
Ezekiel:36:27

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Romans:2:14

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
Romans:2:15

The only place Scripture talks about the law being written in the heart, causing people to perform the law ("do the things contained in the law"), is in reference to the New Covenant. Heathen gentiles do not have God's law written in their heart. Only those in the new covenant:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jeremiah:31:31

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jeremiah:31:33

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.
Ezekiel:36:27

I see where you are coming from, but still do not agree with you. I agree that the New Covenant has the law written in our hearts by the Spirit, but simply because we read here of the law written in hearts does not mean it is referring to that. If, again, we keep context from chapter 1 where there is a repeated comparison of heathen gentiles and Jews who had law, we see this verse:

Romans 1:20.. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Creation wrote some of the things of God in their hearts, though not nearly, by far, as the Spirit does in the New Covenant.

With the contrast in the context that I laid out in my previous post, and the 20th verse of chapter 1 relating to 2:14, it is still speaking about heathen gentiles.

[mfblume]

My new book on the issue is almost complete. About 240 pages so far.

Here is an excerpt from it, proposing a thought that I'd like to present here.:

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Some have claimed that New Testament Jews in the Church are meant to continue in the Old Covenant’s observances, so long as they do not believe these works save them. They state that these things are cultural and meant to be carried on, but not among Gentile converts in the Church. This cannot be the case, seeing as Paul told Peter that he lived after the manner of the Gentiles and not the Jews, and compelled Gentiles to live as the Jews. If Peter lived as the Gentiles, and that was contrasted from demanding the Gentiles live as Jews, what can living like the Gentiles be, other than not abiding by Jewish Old Covenant customs?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I see where you are coming from, but still do not agree with you. I agree that the New Covenant has the law written in our hearts by the Spirit, but simply because we read here of the law written in hearts does not mean it is referring to that. If, again, we keep context from chapter 1 where there is a repeated comparison of heathen gentiles and Jews who had law, we see this verse:

Romans 1:20.. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Creation wrote some of the things of God in their hearts, though not nearly, by far, as the Spirit does in the New Covenant.

With the contrast in the context that I laid out in my previous post, and the 20th verse of chapter 1 relating to 2:14, it is still speaking about heathen gentiles.

So unregenerate heathen gentiles have the law written in their heart and do the things commanded in the law.... Uh... Okie dokie. Not sure what to say to that.

As for chapter 1, Paul describes those who knew God but rejected Him, and were thus given up to a rejected ("reprobate") mind or mentality. This is a statement of the general character of the heathen, whether Israelite or not, by the way. It is exactly opposite to obedient gentiles mentioned in ch 2. How you identify heathen idolatrous reprobates as doing the things commanded in God's law and demonstrating the work of the law written in their hearts is, quite simply, rather strange to me.

The whole context of chapter 2 is the contrast between the saints and the wicked:

Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Romans:2:6

To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
Romans:2:7

But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Romans:2:8

Whereupon he introduces the idea that Jew vs gentile is ultimately irrelevant:

Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Romans:2:9

But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Romans:2:10

For there is no respect of persons with God.
Romans:2:11

The wicked, whether Jew or gentile, will be punished:

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Romans:2:12

Because what matters isn't circumcised status but obedience:

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

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Romans:2:14

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Romans:2:15

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Romans:2:16

So the contrast is between all sinning commandment-breakers, whether Jew or gentile, and all obedient commandment-keepers, whether Jew or gentile. As he says elsewhere:

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
1 Corinthians:7:19

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Galatians:5:6

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Galatians:6:15

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

My new boom on the issue is almost complete. About 240 pages so far.

Here is an excerpt from it, proposing a thought that I'd like to present here.:

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Some have claimed that New Testament Jews in the Church are meant to continue in the Old Covenant’s observances, so long as they do not believe these works save them. They state that these things are cultural and meant to be carried on, but not among Gentile converts in the Church. This cannot be the case, seeing as Paul told Peter that he lived after the manner of the Gentiles and not the Jews, and compelled Gentiles to live as the Jews. If Peter lived as the Gentiles, and that was contrasted from demanding the Gentiles live as Jews, what can living like the Gentiles be, other than not abiding by Jewish Old Covenant customs?

Judaism isn't now, and wasn't then, about "old covenant customs". Peter's hypocrisy was in the fact that he (and Barnabas) SEPARATED FROM GREEK NON JEWISH BELIEVERS when certain Jewish guys showed up. That is NOT "old covenant custom" but PHARISAIC TALMUDIC HALACHA. Peter living as do the gentiles does NOT mean Peter lived in disobedience to the Word of God. Peter certainly did not live like a heathen. So he was conducting himself like a gentile CHRISTIAN which Pharisees disapproved of. When Peter visited Cornelius he was questioned about going into a gentile's house, which was contrary to JEWISH but not Biblical precepts.

By compelling gentiles to live as do Jews Peter was enforcing JEWISH but not Biblical requirements, creating separation between Jewish and gentile believers.

This is not about Peter being a hypocrite by adhering to God's Word as if Christians had thrown off such obedience. It is about Peter being a hypocrite by adhering to UNSCRIPTURAL PHARISAIC TRADITIONS whenever the phylactery gang came around.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So unregenerate heathen gentiles have the law written in their heart and do the things commanded in the law.... Uh... Okie dokie. Not sure what to say to that.

lol. Paul, not me, said CREATION shows the things of God even to heathen gentiles. In fact PAUL said the things are clearly seen, including God's power and godhead. If you're right then Paul was wrong in saying these people have no excuse due to the light gleaned from creation, not the gospel. You totally glossed over Rom 1:20 after I referenced it.

Read it again.

Romans 1:18-21.. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; ..(19).. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. ..(20).. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: ..(21).. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

How did they know the truth> From the gospel? No From creation. God revealed it to them by creation in this context.

As for chapter 1, Paul describes those who knew God but rejected Him, and were thus given up to a rejected ("reprobate") mind or mentality. This is a statement of the general character of the heathen, whether Israelite or not, by the way. It is exactly opposite to obedient gentiles mentioned in ch 2.

He did not talk about obedient gentiles in chapter 2 from the church. They rejected what they knew of God from creation, not from the Gospel. After we read they knew truths of God, Paul explained how they knew in verse 20.

How you identify heathen idolatrous reprobates as doing the things commanded in God's law and demonstrating the work of the law written in their hearts is, quite simply, rather strange to me.

Brother, how you can misunderstand context that clearly shows he is speaking of gentiles who were heathen in chapter 1 is beyond me. Read some commentaries on the issue from people who can explain it better than me:

BARNES on Rom 1:18: The truth - The truth of God, in whatever way made known, and particularly, as the apostle goes on to say, what is made known by the light of nature. The truth pertaining to his perfections, his Law, etc. They hold it back. or restrain its influence.

Verse 19: Because - The apostle proceeds to show how it was that the pagan hindered the truth by their iniquity. This he does by showing that the truth might be known by the works of creation; and that nothing but their iniquity prevented it.

That which may be known of God - That which is “knowable” concerning God. The expression implies that there may be many things concerning God which cannot be known. But there are also many things which may be ascertained. Such are his existence, and many of his attributes, his power, and wisdom, and justice, etc. The object of the apostle was not to say that every thing pertaining to God could be known by them, or that they could have as clear a view of him as if they had possessed a revelation. We must interpret the expression according to the object which he had in view. That was to show that so much might be known of God as to prove that they had no excuse for their crimes; or that God would be just in punishing them for their deeds. For this, it was needful only that his existence and his justice, or his determination to punish sin, should be known; and this, the apostle affirms, was known among them, and had been from the creation of the world. This expression. therefore, is not to be pressed as implying that they knew all that could be known about God, or that they knew as much as they who had a revelation; but that they knew enough to prove that they had no excuse for their sins.

In them - “Among” them. So the preposition “in” is often used. It means that they had this knowledge; or it had been communicated to them. The great mass of the pagan world was indeed ignorant of the true God; but their leaders, or their philosophers, had this knowledge; see the note at Rom_1:21. But this was not true of the mass, or body of the people. Still it was true that this knowledge was in the possession of man, or was “among” the pagan world. and would have spread, had it not been for the love of sin.

God hath showed it to them - Compare Joh_1:9. He had endowed them with reason and conscience Rom_2:14-15; he had made them capable of seeing and investigating his works; he had spread before them the proofs of his wisdom, and goodness, and power, and had thus given them the means of learning his perfections and will.

Verse 20: or the invisible things of him - The expression “his invisible things” refers to those things which cannot be perceived by the senses. It does not imply that there are any things pertaining to the divine character which may be seen by the eye; but that there are things which may be known of him, though not discoverable by the eye. We judge of the objects around us by the senses, the sight, the touch, the ear, etc. Paul affirms, that though we cannot judge thus of God, yet there is a way by which we may come to the knowledge of him. What he means by the invisible things of God he specifies at the close of the verse, “his eternal power and Godhead.” The affirmation extends only to that; and the argument implies that that was enough to leave them without any excuse for their sins.

From the creation of the world - The word “creation” may either mean the “act” of creating, or more commonly it means “the thing created,” the world, the universe. In this sense it is commonly used in the New Testament; compare Mar_10:6; Mar_13:19; Mar_16:5; Rom_1:25; 2Co_5:17; Gal_6:15; Col_1:15, Col_1:23; Heb_4:13; Heb_9:11; 1Pe_2:13; 2Pe_3:4; Rev_3:14. The word “from” may mean “since,” or it may denote “by means of.” And the expression here may denote that, as an historical fact, God “has been” “known” since the act of creation; or it may denote that he is known “by means of” the material universe which he has formed. The latter is doubtless the true meaning. For,


It is not to state an historical fact, but to show that they had the means of knowing their duty within their reach, and were without excuse. Those means were in the wisdom, power, and glory of the universe, by which they were surrounded.

Are clearly seen - Are made manifest; or may be perceived. The word used here does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament.

Being understood - His perfections may be investigated, and comprehended by means of his works. They are the evidences submitted to our intellects, by which we may arrive at the true knowledge of God.

Things that are made - By his works; compare Heb_11:3. This means, not by the original “act” of creation, but by the continual operations of God in his Providence, by his doings, ποιήμασιν poiēmasin, by what he is continually producing and accomplishing in the displays of his power and goodness in the heavens and the earth. What they were capable of understanding, he immediately adds, and shows that he did not intend to affirm that everything could be known of God by his works; but so much as to free them from excuse for their sins.

His eternal power - Here are two things implied.

(1) That the universe contains an exhibition of his power, or a display of that attribute which we call “omnipotence;” and,

(2) That this power has existed from eternity, and of course implies an eternal existence in God.

It does not mean that this power has been exerted or put forth from eternity, for the very idea of creation supposes that it had not, but that there is proof, in the works of creation, of power which must have existed from eternity, or have belonged to an eternal being. The proof of this was clear, even to the pagan, with their imperfect views of creation and of astronomy; compare Psa_19:1-14. The majesty and grandeur of the heavens would strike their eye, and be full demonstration that they were the work of an infinitely great and glorious God.

And here is what he said about 2:15

Written in their hearts - The revealed Law of God was written on tables of stone, and then recorded in the books of the Old Testament. This law the Gentiles did not possess, but, to a certain extent, the same requirements were written on their hearts. Though not revealed to them as to the Jews, yet they had obtained the knowledge of them by the tight of nature. The word “hearts” here denotes the mind itself, as it does also frequently in the Sacred Scriptures; not the heart, as the seat of the affections. It does not mean that they loved or even approved of the Law, but that they had knowledge of it; and that that knowledge was deeply engraved on their minds.

You do not agree with me about a passage, and then speak like I am a moron and you cannot see how I can come up with that. Well, I just showed you a respectable scholar who claimed the same thing that I did. Is he a moron, too?

Brother...

The whole context of chapter 2 is the contrast between the saints and the wicked:

EXACTLY! That is why the wicked are said in chapter 1 to have actually known of God THROUGH NATURE, and rejected it in their hearts to pursue sin, anyway. And after comparing the jews with the wicked gentile heathens, he then gives a hypothetical as if the tables were turned, which in some cases WAS THE CASE with heathen gentiles, who refused things like adultery because of their consciences and what they learned from nature of God.

ADAM CLARKE said the same thing.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, etc. - Nor does it follow that the Gentiles who have not had a Divine revelation, shall either perish, because they had it not; or their unrighteous conduct pass unpunished, because not having this revelation might be considered as an excuse for their sins.

Do by nature the things contained in the law - Do, without this Divine revelation, through that light which God imparts to every man, the things contained in the law - act according to justice, mercy, temperance and truth, the practice of which the revealed law so powerfully enjoins; these are a law unto themselves - they are not accountable to any other law, and are not to be judged by any dispensation different from that under which they live.

Rabbi Tanchum brings in the Supreme Being as saying: When I decreed any thing against the Gentiles, to whom I have not given laws and statutes, and they know what I have decreed; immediately they repent; but the Israelites do not so. Tanchum, fol. 43. 2.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Judaism isn't now, and wasn't then, about "old covenant customs". Peter's hypocrisy was in the fact that he (and Barnabas) SEPARATED FROM GREEK NON JEWISH BELIEVERS when certain Jewish guys showed up. That is NOT "old covenant custom" but PHARISAIC TALMUDIC HALACHA. Peter living as do the gentiles does NOT mean Peter lived in disobedience to the Word of God. Peter certainly did not live like a heathen. So he was conducting himself like a gentile CHRISTIAN which Pharisees disapproved of. When Peter visited Cornelius he was questioned about going into a gentile's house, which was contrary to JEWISH but not Biblical precepts.

By compelling gentiles to live as do Jews Peter was enforcing JEWISH but not Biblical requirements, creating separation between Jewish and gentile believers.

This is not about Peter being a hypocrite by adhering to God's Word as if Christians had thrown off such obedience. It is about Peter being a hypocrite by adhering to UNSCRIPTURAL PHARISAIC TRADITIONS whenever the phylactery gang came around.

The point is that nothing pagan was involved in Paul's introductory remarks about his insistence that Believers are not under Law, in order to lead up to the issue of what the days, months and years were in Gal 4. You have to resort to an extrabiblical source outside of context to claim that Paul dealt with paganism mixed with Law in Gal 4. Whatever the case about eating with gentiles in chapter 2, the issue of days months and years does agree with the fact that actual Law in the Old Covenant had holy days, months and years. And PAGANISM is not even so much as hinted at until Gal 4:9.

[Esaias]

Why did you introduce the term "moron" into the discussion?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Why did you introduce the term "moron" into the discussion?

It was the impression I got from your response to me, by the way you worded it, that you had that opinion of my thought that I presented.