Sabbath and bible feasts

[good samaritan]

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

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

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

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

What is IIRC?

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

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

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

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

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

[Esaias]

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

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[coksiw]

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

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I personally don't agree 100% with that reasoning. The extrabiblical categorization theologians do between "ceremonial" and "moral" has been beyond abused. For example, in the name of "it is not a moral law", modern Christians tattoo themselves.

The threefold categorization of the law into moral, civil, and ceremonial was invented by Thomas Aquinas (Roman Catholic theologian) in the 13th century. It was upheld by most of the Reformers and is commonly used by both catholic and protestant theologians. Prior to Aquinas, some early catholic theologians divided the law into two parts: moral and symbolic/Jewish. Irenaeus argued the former was the Decalogue, then as a result of the golden calf incident all the rest was added. Augustine held similarly (expressly using the terms moral and symbolic).

Biblically, no such distinctions exist. Instead, there are commandments, statutes, judgments, ordinances, precepts, etc, and the divisions are not exact. Jesus Himself identified as the two greatest commandments two general instructions, one in the Shema and the other in Leviticus, which are not even part of the Decalogue.

The closest I have been able to identify as a genuine Biblical division of the law would be simply by subject matter. For example, the law of marriage or the spouse:

Romans 7:2 KJV
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.

The law(s) of divine service (liturgical offerings, rites, priestly duties, etc):

Hebrews 9:1 KJV
Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

Etc.

The judgments appear to function as judicial law or "precedent" and concern punishments for violations of the law.

Statutes and ordinances and commandments appear to be terms sometimes used interchangeably and refer to generally any command of God.

[Esaias]

By the way, it's the Day of Trumpets!!!

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The threefold categorization of the law into moral, civil, and ceremonial was invented by Thomas Aquinas (Roman Catholic theologian) in the 13th century. It was upheld by most of the Reformers and is commonly used by both catholic and protestant theologians. Prior to Aquinas, some early catholic theologians divided the law into two parts: moral and symbolic/Jewish. Irenaeus argued the former was the Decalogue, then as a result of the golden calf incident all the rest was added. Augustine held similarly (expressly using the terms moral and symbolic).

Biblically, no such distinctions exist. Instead, there are commandments, statutes, judgments, ordinances, precepts, etc, and the divisions are not exact. Jesus Himself identified as the two greatest commandments two general instructions, one in the Shema and the other in Leviticus, which are not even part of the Decalogue.

The closest I have been able to identify as a genuine Biblical division of the law would be simply by subject matter. For example, the law of marriage or the spouse:

Romans 7:2 KJV
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.

The law(s) of divine service (liturgical offerings, rites, priestly duties, etc):

Hebrews 9:1 KJV
Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

Etc.

The judgments appear to function as judicial law or "precedent" and concern punishments for violations of the law.

Statutes and ordinances and commandments appear to be terms sometimes used interchangeably and refer to generally any command of God.

The enumerations in places like Gen 26:5 make me think there is a meaning to those words more than just synonyms. The problem is that like with all languages, they are used very accurately in some places, and more loosely in others. Translations don't help either sometimes. It is definitely a challenge.

Gen 26:5 NKJV - (5) "because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."

charges mišmereṯ: warnings?
commandments miṣvâ: things you perform, acts of righteouness?
statutes ḥuqqâ: rituals?
laws tôrâ: direction of what to do in special cases?

I think the answer is by looking first into the meaning Moses used in his 5 books, and then the other uses by other authors, taking into account the context, and how in some cases it may have a more generic meaning overlapping with other concepts (becoming synonyms).

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

The enumerations in places like Gen 26:5 make me think there is a meaning to those words more than just synonyms. The problem is that like with all languages, they are used very accurately in some places, and more loosely in others. Translations don't help either sometimes. It is definitely a challenge.

Gen 26:5 NKJV - (5) "because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."

charges mišmereṯ: warnings?
commandments miṣvâ: things you perform, acts of righteouness?
statutes ḥuqqâ: rituals?
laws tôrâ: direction of what to do in special cases?

I think the answer is by looking first into the meaning Moses used in his 5 books, and then the other uses by other authors, taking into account the context, and how in some cases it may have a more generic meaning overlapping with other concepts (becoming synonyms).

I attempted this a while back, to categorize and index the law, commands, statutes, judgments, ordinances, etc. Each word - in Hebrew, Greek, and English - is distinct, but also loosely synonymous in certain ways. The end result of my study was that in the Scripture they are used the same way in English. For example, a statute is a law, it is also an ordinance and a rule and a precept. Each term emphasises different aspects, but the terms themselves do not necessarily denote specific divisions of the divine legislation into distinct categories.

I am of course open to another more in depth look, though.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I attempted this a while back, to categorize and index the law, commands, statutes, judgments, ordinances, etc. Each word - in Hebrew, Greek, and English - is distinct, but also loosely synonymous in certain ways. The end result of my study was that in the Scripture they are used the same way in English. For example, a statute is a law, it is also an ordinance and a rule and a precept. Each term emphasises different aspects, but the terms themselves do not necessarily denote specific divisions of the divine legislation into distinct categories.

I am of course open to another more in depth look, though.

One approach I recently read about suggests that "law" is all encompassing, "commands/commandments" are directions to do something, "statutes" and "ordinances" are synonymous and give more detail on how to perform a commandment, and "judgments" are judicial decisions that decide between two or more options or otherwise create a distinction between two courses of action usually in response to a particular situation or act.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

One approach I recently read about suggests that "law" is all encompassing, "commands/commandments" are directions to do something, "statutes" and "ordinances" are synonymous and give more detail on how to perform a commandment, and "judgments" are judicial decisions that decide between two or more options or otherwise create a distinction between two courses of action usually in response to a particular situation or act.

That's an interesting topic. I just need to find a time to study it . Now, I'm way too deep into Habakkuk.