Sabbeth Keepers

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jito463

To be fair, it's so deeply rooted into our culture, it doesn't make much sense to change it to another day if we do indeed believe the specific day is irrelevant (which I do). It's not about the RCC in any way, shape or form, it's about our culture. You can argue that Sunday worship was effected by the RCC, but that doesn't mean we are following them just because we use the same day.

Cause and effect, brother, cause and effect. Not effect and cause.

That is true, considering most churches advertise themselves to other professing christians who have a "sunday church day" background.

I don't know if the current (and growing) crop of lost unchurched people care about sunday traditions, tho...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jito463

To be fair, it's so deeply rooted into our culture, it doesn't make much sense to change it to another day if we do indeed believe the specific day is irrelevant (which I do). It's not about the RCC in any way, shape or form, it's about our culture. You can argue that Sunday worship was effected by the RCC, but that doesn't mean we are following them just because we use the same day.

Cause and effect, brother, cause and effect. Not effect and cause.

Right, because if it does not matter which day, and no one is using sunday as a pagan day or due to the catholic church, it's a non-issue.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Galatians 3:23-24, clearly tells us that that Law was our school master to teach us the basic principles of the faith.

When a person learns in 1st grade that 1 + 1 is equal to 2 that is a principle that stands forever.

Right, but you don't use apples and oranges the rest of your life just because 1+1=2 and we used apples to teach that.

Paul said the "apples" were the days and months and years that were kept under the elementary schoolmaster. He said drop the days and months and years now. The lesson of the apples of the days and so on was a spiritual message that days and months and years merely foreshadowed. Leave elementary school with its days and months behind.

just because in the future a person goes to college and learns algebra does not make invalid the fact that 1+1 = 2

Right, but there's no more apples to place on a table and remove to use that mathematical basis any more.

the Law taught us the Sabbath and the proper way to keep it, we have graduated to Christ, but that does not mean that the Ten Commandments are thrown into the trash, otherwise Jesus would have instructed his Apostles to burn the Old Testament and start again brand new.

Paul flatly said stop keeping days. That doesn't mean we can murder now since do not murder was in the ten commandments as well. But he specifically said stop keeping days.

It's amazing how a statement can be right there as plain as day and folks can still wiggle around it.

No Jesus used the Old Testament to teach the Apostles everything about him, the early church used the Old Testament to teach about Christ.

if everything preceding Christ is not longer valid, then we need to do like the heretic Marcion, who rejected the Old Testament and only believed in some of the New Testament documents.

Who said everything before Christ is invalid? Nobody. But Paul DID SAY keeping days is elementary schooling for the Jews before Christ and is gone now.

Come on those who reject the Old Testament, get a match and start burning the Old Testament pages of your Bible.

As if...

Please, let's be honest here. If you heard any of my teachings you know I spend likely more time using Old Testament to show the truth of the new more than anything else I do in my ministry. That's a far cry from trashing the old testament to say the days are no longer meant to be kept.

For Paul to talk about the error of keeping days after the context speaks of Old Testament Law-keeping as a schoolmaster, come on....

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Ok, one final post lol.

I will make a few points about the passage you referenced.

\

Finally getting to the point. THANKS! Why'd it take so long?

1. It does not "say it all" as if there is no need for the rest of scripture.

\

Once again I never meant that. I meant what I continued to explain elsewhere already when no one responded. It lays out the thought in plain terms that keeping old testament days is doing something that is not necessary. It is Old Covenant elementary school issues. The principle behind the need to keep the days in elementary school was taught, and the principle remains, It's spiritual, though, as opposed to continuing to see it through carnal commandments. They were object lessons, as it were. the object lessons are gone. Paul said even the Jews are not supposed to be under those elementary school issues any more, much more the saved gentiles should not be touching it at all.

Galatians 4 We must take the entirety of scripture as the authority, not one passage.

Of course. Col 2:16-17 says more as well about the same thing. But my point is that Gal 4 says it so plainly it can only be denied by ostrich head-and-hole syndrome.

Especially a passage in one of Paul's epistles which according to Peter contain things "hard to understand" and which the unlearned misunderstand to their detriment.

You can say that again!

2. You ended your citation at verse 11. But verse 12 contains an important concludibg point: Paul says "Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am, for I am as you are, ye have not injured me at all." Paul requests the Galatians to be as he was. Paul often set himself forth as an example to be imitated, as an example of apostolic Christianity. So, did Paul keep the Sabbath, or no? http://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_...SabbathDay.htm

He did so due to an explanation elsewhere which we also discussed and no one responded to once again.

1 Corinthians 9:20 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;

Paul knew it was not SIN to keep sabbath, but not necessary as a Christian either. But he knew the Jews would be unreachable (and unfortunately some christians) unless he kept the day. That means he did not do it because he felt God wanted him to keep sabbath day in and of itself. Paul also refrained from meat offered to idols WHEN AROUND those whose consciences were weak in the faith, when in actuality Paul saw nothing wrong with it!

Which reminds me -- gentiles were ordered to stop eating meat offered to idols in Acts 15 when 1 Cor 8 said it's only meat and food if one has no conscience of the idol. So, we have an example from both sides of the weak-conscienced believers. For Jews who knew no better and kept keeping sabbath when it was gone, he kept it so as not to offend them and reach them with more major issues. For gentiles who still retained conscience of their idols they used to worship, he refused to eat meat offer to them when in reality he knew it was innocent since only One God exists and the meat is just meat, whether offered to a carved piece of wood or stone or not. (Not sure why I'm writing this since it will likely be oignbored anyway. But here's hoping someone might read it).

3. The context of the epistle is not Sabbath-keeping, but Judaising.

And sabbath keeping was undeniably included in the statement hat he was afraid for them since they were keeping days and months and years (hello? sabbath day is the keeping of a day), and they shouldn't have been.

Chapter 4 verse 21, chapter 5 verse 2, chapter 3 verses 1-13, the entirety of chapter 2, and the first half of chapter 1, indeed the entire epistle, is about being justified by grace through faith in Christ vs. being justified by the works of the law. Chapter 5 teaches the importance of walking in the Spirit as opposed to walking in the flesh. Chapter 6 concludes with the same theme of justification under the new covenant by faith vs. justification by the works of the law, and the conclusion is "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."

These are themes mirrored in Romans and elsewhere. Romans 6 - 8 deals with the same dichotomy, and includes the following teachings: Christians are to walk in newness of life (6:4), so that we do not sin (6:6-7, 11-14), that being "not under the law" means sin will not rule in us (6:14), that because we are not under law but under grace we are nevertheless not to sin (6:15), and that the righteousness of the law will be fulfilled in those walk according the Spirit (8:4). Further, we read in 7:7 that the law is not sin, that the law is spiritual (7:14), holy, just, and good (7:12), that it is the carnal mind which is not submitted to the law of God(8:7) and such disobedient people do not please God (8:8).

Further still, we read in Galatians 5:6 "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which works by love. In 1Corinthians 7:19 Paul says "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing" and tells us what is: " but the keeping of the commandments of God". And in Romans this thought is likewise explained thus: "Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision, if it fulfill the law judge thee who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law ? For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh, but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter whose praise is not of men but of God. (Romans 2:26-29)

Therefore it would be error to conclude Paul's teaching in Galatians to mean we can transgress God's law.

Strawman! I never said anything about transgression of the law. And you totally skirted verses 10-11. He plainly spoke of keeping days in the context of LAW KEEPING.

Are believers transgressing law just because they believe the law was a schoolmaster under which they should not live since Christ has come? Of course not! Otherqwise you are saying all of Christianity is a transgression of the law, which, by the way, was exactly what Paul was trying to say was not the casae in Romans over and over again...

Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Paul made it clear that being under the law, being a Jew, being circumcised, was irrelevant.

And he made it clear that keeping days was unnecessary and urged them to stop. Amazing how you can talk about context here and skip the very detail that is the issue of this thread.

Instead, what matters is being in Christ, under grace, a new creature, where faith works by love, where the righteousness of the law is kept by the Spirit, where it is fulfilled, where the commandments of God are kept. The dichotomy is not between obedience to the commandments as opposed to being in Christ under grace. Rather it is between being disobedient regardless if one is a Jew or Gentile as opposed to being obedient through the Spirit by faith because of grace, regardless whether one is a Jew or Gentile.

4. Galatians 4:8-9 indicate the Galatians were previously pagans, and were returning to pagan observances of "days, months, times, and years" (v. 10). These cannot be the Biblical feasts because these are the "elements of the world" that they were previously in bondage to as pagans. This is the same terminology Paul used in Colossians, referring to pagan superstitions about "elements of the world", which were viewed by Jewisu Gnostics as elemental beings or emanations of the Divine Essence manifesting as angelic orders which needed to be venerated at appropriate times. The problem in Galatia was essentially the same as in Colossae: Judaizing gnostic heretics subverting the gospel by requiring circumcision as well as syncretistic "mystery religion" elements, ascetic practices, etc. The phrase "days, months, times, and years" describes a pagan calendar, not the biblical calendar. http://www.truthontheweb.org/whyfeast.htm

So, in conclusion, Paul is arguing against those who promote conversion to Judaism - becoming a Jew via circumcision - as necessary to salvation. He is NOT arguing against obedience to God's commandments, but against justification by works.

Obeying the commandments of God is not the opposite of justification by grace through faith, otherwise Christians would be expected to sin as evidence of their faith!

A PAGAN CALENDAR! That's absolutely out of the question! The CONTEXT was LAw-keeping. These folks weren't confusing paganism with Christianity. they were confusing LAW with Christianity. And NOTHING in the context from chapter 3 on into chapter 4 before he spoke of keeping days said ANYTHING ABOUT PAGAN INFLUENCE in the fray. NOTHING.

Sorry, but talk about twisting scripture. It's right there in black and white and it gets twisted. I mean, what could Paul have said to stop people from keeping sabbath that he did not say in Romans 14 and Gal 4 and Col 2? He even NAMED sabbaths and you folks STILL say that's not the certain KIND OF SABBATH.

Sorry, this closed-mindedness is too crazy for me.

[Esaias]

Twisting scripture? This is why I said I was done with this thread.

You do not actually interact with points raised and explanations offered that are contrary to your own view. Instead you dismiss them, repeat your unfounded and unproven assertions as if simply asserting a thing is proof enough, introduce new "proof texts" in an effort to hurry along and then pretend none of your points are being answered. Like I said this is just going in circles. You have failed to actually rebut anything except by claiming my points are in error, without actually demonstrating (assertion alone is not demonstration or proof). Case in point the Galatian heretical calendar. I pointed out it is a PAGAN calendar and why, I believe I even included a link to an article which more fully deals with that very topic, and your response was to simply to repeat your claim without interacting with the evidence itself.

lol

More importantly I have pointed out the underlying premise and conclusion of your antinomian view: ANY argument you make against the fourth commandment applies equally against all the other commandments, and for exactly the same reasons.

One other thing: you accuse me of "avoiding verses" when I did in fact DIRECTLY address not only the specific verses you say I ignored, but YOU have in fact cut your citations short and ignored parallel passages to avoid the gaping holes in your case, as in your "to the Jew I became as a Jew" quote. What does the passage go on to say?

1Cor 9:22
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.

My premise is very simple: sabbath breaking is a sin, because sin is the transgression of the law, and being under grace is not to be construed as permission to transgress, as Paul plainly taught and as I plainly proved. There is not one verse in all the Bible where Jesus said "the sabbath is abolished, repealed, done away with" nor did any apostle teach likewise. The only argument possible against the fourth commandment is that the law has been abolished which Jesus specifically warned us not to think is the case! And that argument will render EVERY COMMAND OF GOD invalid, making idolatry, adultery, murder etc as passe as sabbath-keeping supposedly is. THAT IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM YOU AND CERTAIN OTHERS CONTINUOUSLY AVOID.

Furthermore I have supplied proof that sabbath keeping was believed and adhered to for centuries until the rise of catholicism tried to stamp it out. Them's the facts of history (a subject you always seem to want to dismiss).

Anyway, there it is, everybody make of it what they will.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Right, because if it does not matter which day, and no one is using sunday as a pagan day or due to the catholic church, it's a non-issue.

again, shades of the "Easter" argument, imo...and Paul did not say not to keep days, in my interpretation; in fact, the passage even affirms that there are Sabbath days, imo--just to not let it become a point of contention.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

again, shades of the "Easter" argument, imo...and Paul did not say not to keep days, in my interpretation; in fact, the passage even affirms that there are Sabbath days, imo--just to not let it become a point of contention.

Well, he said they were keeping days, and then said he feared for them. Even sabbath keepers claim Paul preached against keeping days in this chapter, only they think it's pagan days. My thoughts.

[mfblume]

Esaias, first of all, you said Rom 14 is about fasting, and when I asked you to prove it you stopped talking. I debated folks for literally years who disagreed with me. But they never threw in a zinger and then ran off and never really responded to questions I asked in response, and vice versa. You have not done that. I proved your accusation is incorrect. Then you simply threw pagan days in Gal 4 and failed to show us all where the issue of paganism arose in the context between the reference to law being an unemployed schoolmaster and the word against keeping days.

If you can deal with these questions then please do so. But you aren't and haven't.

Sabbath keeping is one of the most plainly laid out issues that the New Testament says is over with. It flatly states it in Col 2 and Rom 14 and Gal 4. And if you can still keep sabbath after that, then there's no discussion.

I mean, you did not even get the point that the BODY casts the SHADOW, and the BODY is Christ and the shadow was sabbath days in Col 2!

[shazeep]

i heartily disagree that any of your refs dismiss the Sabbath, Mr Blume--one should def be fully persuaded in their own mind, and one should not be put to death for ignoring the Sabbath, agreed. But, the Sabbath is no more?

Originally Posted by mfblume

Well, he said they were keeping days, and then said he feared for them. Even sabbath keepers claim Paul preached against keeping days in this chapter, only they think it's pagan days. My thoughts.

I'm curious your--or anyone's--opinion of the Sabbath-keeping in the New Jerusalem? And, i wonder where i read this? The Revelation, i was sure...


"for the son of man is lord even of the sabbath"
"and pray ye that your flight may not be in winter, nor on a sabbath"
"The sabbath for man was made..." (not man for the Sabbath)

these are all red-letter. Who of you can truly say the Sabbath is no more? There was a time, at least, when i might have loved to have my Saturdays back but you are sure braver than me

"After the Sabbath ends, each of you should set aside and save something from your surplus in proportion to what you have..."

because doing this on the Sabbath would be violating the Sabbath, perhaps?

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Esaias

More importantly I have pointed out the underlying premise and conclusion of your antinomian view: ANY argument you make against the fourth commandment applies equally against all the other commandments, and for exactly the same reasons.

No law has been done away with. They have been fulfilled by Jesus, and now the LAW OF THE SPIRIT is the one that guides us. THAT is the elephant in the room that you are trying very hard to ignore.

Originally Posted by Esaias

My premise is very simple: sabbath breaking is a sin, because sin is the transgression of the law, and being under grace is not to be construed as permission to transgress, as Paul plainly taught and as I plainly proved. There is not one verse in all the Bible where Jesus said "the sabbath is abolished, repealed, done away with" nor did any apostle teach likewise.

Neither is there a scripture that says "KEEP THE SABBATH HOLY AS UNTO THE LORD" anywhere found in the NT either... lol

Originally Posted by Esaias

The only argument possible against the fourth commandment is that the law has been abolished which Jesus specifically warned us not to think is the case! And that argument will render EVERY COMMAND OF GOD invalid, making idolatry, adultery, murder etc as passe as sabbath-keeping supposedly is. THAT IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM YOU AND CERTAIN OTHERS CONTINUOUSLY AVOID.

The law was fulfilled, completed, abolished, and CHANGED at Calvary.

Ephesians 2:15-16 "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace, and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby."

Jesus not only fulfilled the law, but abolished it, and then was permanently CHANGED into a new man, so making PEACE.