Why Sunday

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Are you convinced that you will have no other gods before God is a moral law?
The rule to not taking the Lord’s name in vain? Is that a moral law?

If moral law is law that is good for all people at all times, such as thou shalt not murder.

And if people were not obliged by moral law to worship on the 7th day until the Mosaic law was instituted.

Then, the Sabbath is not a moral law, unless it can be fulfilled as a spiritual principle such as offering yourself as a living sacrifice replacing literal animal sacrifices.

********

Also, if a minister on this forum would try to influence me to not meet with my church family because they meet on Sunday,
I would lose all respect for them. (not that that would matter to someone on a forum)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Also, if a minister on this forum would try to influence me to not meet with my church family because they meet on Sunday,
I would lose all respect for them. (not that that would matter to someone on a forum)

I’ll go you one better. If what is being discussed in these these threads are in opposition to your pastoral teachings? If these discussions will lead you to be at odds with those teachings. Then reading or being involved with this forum would not be wise. It’s not about any of the preachers here, it is all on the individual reading or participating in any of the discussions. Influence is our own choice. In the immortal words of my wise sister Pressing On “you haven’t convinced me, and I haven’t convinced you.” Something along those lines. You make your own life choices, you also live with the church family of your choice. You know what you need, and what you agree with and disagree with. Therefore you should be able to circumvent any bad or incorrect influences.

[Amanah]

Good advice

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The mistake that I think you're making is saying that God commanded man to have a day of rest on the 7th day back in Genesis when God himself rested on the seventh day. But we don't read a command ever given to man to rest at that time. Personally, I think, because Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, numbers, and Deuteronomy, that he inserted the point here that it was made sacred. But you don't read of God commanding any man to keep that day, anyway. You just read that God rested. But then in Moses day man is invited to rest that day for the first time. Never before that do you ever read of man being commanded to take that day and rest. Since Moses wrote Genesis, and commented that God had made it a holy day, that was to prepare people for the law that he was bringing to them in his day. But the fact remains, that God never commanded a man to keep that day when he rested himself on it. Man was invited for the first time to do so in the law of Moses.

I cannot find where anyone was told by God to not engage in bestiality or to honour their parents or to not bear false witness or to not take the Lord's name in vain or to not remove their neighbor's landmark or to not covet anything prior to the law of Moses. So I guess the fact remains that man was never invited to do those things until Moses? And what conclusion are we supposed to draw from this? "Therefore those are not moral laws, just like the Sabbath commandment"?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I cannot find where anyone was told by God to not engage in bestiality or to honour their parents or to not bear false witness or to not take the Lord's name in vain or to not remove their neighbor's landmark or to not covet anything prior to the law of Moses. So I guess the fact remains that man was never invited to do those things until Moses? And what conclusion are we supposed to draw from this? "Therefore those are not moral laws, just like the Sabbath commandment"?

Bestiality and things like that are well-known moral issues. But when it comes to resting, we're not talking about just resting one day a week which everybody knows to do. We're talking about resting specifically on the seventh day. Therefore this cannot be put into a category of morality. And that's why you've also argued that it's moral just to obey anything God tells us to do, including a rite of circumcision or whatever it happens to be amoral in itself, because the morality is starting to be emphasized that it's just obeying What God Says to be moral. This ritualistic Seventh-Day aspect is what makes it different from just resting. So, 7th day specificity makes it a ceremonial observation. This is resourcing so since it's being connected to the biblical note that it's the day God rested, and none others.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Are you convinced that you will have no other gods before God is a moral law?
The rule to not taking the Lord’s name in vain? Is that a moral law?

But who says that if it's in the Ten commandments, and moral laws are included, that every commandment must be a moral one?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Good, then you agree we are not free to fail to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

If you want the shadow, then go for it. It's certainly no sin. But that shadow was a shadow and foreshadowed the greater rest.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Thank you for the clarifications, brother Blume. I must say that I wholeheartedly disagree with your position that man has a natural inability to obey God, rather than a moral inability. The fact that you are not a full blown 5 point Calvinist is inconsistent with your denial of moral inability.

Calvinists evidently miss what I think you do as well. Oldness of letter is walking after the flesh. Check out The Normal Christian life.

Not sure how you reconcile the work of the cross to be the remedy for sinful living in Paul's context of Romans 6 if we can just refuse to yield to sin before Experiencing the cross in salvation.

I wish you could see it. It's my absolute most treasured biblical truth. And as park said, so many don't "know" about it.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Thank you! This is basically what I was hoping you would elaborate on.

When God said through Jeremiah that He was going to make a new covenant, it is clear that God reckoned the existing covenant as old. Not just old in age, or in the fact it was "before" the new covenant, but that it was old in the sense of - as Paul says - becoming old and feeble and ready to be set aside. The reason is because Israel was constantly breaking the covenant, it was basically doing them no good. They had themselves rendered it essentially useless by their shenanigans and disobedience. Thus, the need for a new one that could actually get something done.

Amen!!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But who says that if it's in the Ten commandments, and moral laws are included, that every commandment must be a moral one?

I already demonstrated what "moral law" is. The ten commandments are all moral laws.

If you want to redefine "moral law" that's okay, we can just drop the entire "moral law" terminology altogether since the Bible does not classify things as "moral law vs ___ law".

So then, the question is "Is anybody obligated to obey the ten commandments?" I think that has been answered solidly in the affirmative, numerous times in this thread, by none other than the apostle Paul, in his declarations that the new covenant produces obedience to the things commanded by the law.