Why Sunday

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.

I think I should provide an explanation of my reaction that prompted the above response.

If someone were to be convinced that the Sabbath is moral law, then they would also have to consider Whether a church service should be held on Saturday or Sunday.

And I had to think that surely if you and Bro Esaias had concern for my spiritual welfare that you would realize that It would not be in my interest to be convinced not to go to church on Sunday.

While I realize that we are not church family, and we are just posting on a forum, still, I know I care about the welfare of people that we post with, and I assume that there is some level of care that we have for each other as fellow Apostolics.

There are some things that are hard not to personalize. And I know there are subjects that are personal for each and every one of us on this forum.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I think I should provide an explanation of my reaction that prompted the above response.

If someone were to be convinced that the Sabbath is moral law, then they would also have to consider Whether a church service should be held on Saturday or Sunday.

And I had to think that surely if you and Bro Esaias had concern for my spiritual welfare that you would realize that It would not be in my interest to be convinced not to go to church on Sunday.

While I realize that we are not church family, and we are just posting on a forum, still, I know I care about the welfare of people that we post with, and I assume that there is some level of care that we have for each other as fellow Apostolics.

There are some things that are hard not to personalize. And I know there are subjects that are personal for each and every one of us on this forum.

I would never tell someone not to go to some particular church unless there was obvious blatant nonsense going on. But then I'm sure you wouldn't need anyone to tell you what to avoid in such a case to begin with. You know your situation better than anyone online. You don't answer to me or anyone else online, either, but to God and the people He has put in your life.

We post and discuss the Word. Each of us has to decide prayerfully what they are going to do or not do with whatever they get out of it.

That being said, let me be honest about how I feel concerning Sunday meetings. While I believe every congregation ought to corporately keep the Sabbath (ie have a meeting on the Sabbath), I find no prohibition against other days. Most churches meet on Sunday without any thought at all as to "Why Sunday", it's just how they've always done it and they just don't think about doing it differently. My objections aren't about a believer meeting with the assembly on a particular day. But rather about the believer disregarding the 4th commandment in their personal life, and the ASSEMBLY carrying on human tradition AS IF it were of divine origin, sanction, or authority.

Would I want your assembly to acknowledge the Sabbath? Of course. Would I want YOU to personally break off fellowship with them? Or anyone else? NO because I'm not your dad or husband and Ive seen no reason to think your church is a wack-job dangerous cult or something.

You know your current situation and environment better than I do. I am just not in a position to tell anyone what to do, other than "obey the Bible" at all times in all cases. We should ALL be encouraging one another to do THAT, right?

When I visit another church, it's usually on a Sunday.

So, NO, I am not telling anyone to disfellowship or withdraw from their local assembly.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I would never tell someone not to go to some particular church unless there was obvious blatant nonsense going on. But then I'm sure you wouldn't need anyone to tell you what to avoid in such a case to begin with. You know your situation better than anyone online. You don't answer to me or anyone else online, either, but to God and the people He has put in your life.

We post and discuss the Word. Each of us has to decide prayerfully what they are going to do or not do with whatever they get out of it.

That being said, let me be honest about how I feel concerning Sunday meetings. While I believe every congregation ought to corporately keep the Sabbath (ie have a meeting on the Sabbath), I find no prohibition against other days. Most churches meet on Sunday without any thought at all as to "Why Sunday", it's just how they've always done it and they just don't think about doing it differently. My objections aren't about a believer meeting with the assembly on a particular day. But rather about the believer disregarding the 4th commandment in their personal life, and the ASSEMBLY carrying on human tradition AS IF it were of divine origin, sanction, or authority.

Would I want your assembly to acknowledge the Sabbath? Of course. Would I want YOU to personally break off fellowship with them? Or anyone else? NO because I'm not your dad or husband and Ive seen no reason to think your church is a wack-job dangerous cult or something.

You know your current situation and environment better than I do. I am just not in a position to tell anyone what to do, other than "obey the Bible" at all times in all cases. We should ALL be encouraging one another to do THAT, right?

When I visit another church, it's usually on a Sunday.

So, NO, I am not telling anyone to disfellowship or withdraw from their local assembly.

Awesome post

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I would never tell someone not to go to some particular church unless there was obvious blatant nonsense going on. But then I'm sure you wouldn't need anyone to tell you what to avoid in such a case to begin with. You know your situation better than anyone online. You don't answer to me or anyone else online, either, but to God and the people He has put in your life.

We post and discuss the Word. Each of us has to decide prayerfully what they are going to do or not do with whatever they get out of it.

That being said, let me be honest about how I feel concerning Sunday meetings. While I believe every congregation ought to corporately keep the Sabbath (ie have a meeting on the Sabbath), I find no prohibition against other days. Most churches meet on Sunday without any thought at all as to "Why Sunday", it's just how they've always done it and they just don't think about doing it differently. My objections aren't about a believer meeting with the assembly on a particular day. But rather about the believer disregarding the 4th commandment in their personal life, and the ASSEMBLY carrying on human tradition AS IF it were of divine origin, sanction, or authority.

Would I want your assembly to acknowledge the Sabbath? Of course. Would I want YOU to personally break off fellowship with them? Or anyone else? NO because I'm not your dad or husband and Ive seen no reason to think your church is a wack-job dangerous cult or something.

You know your current situation and environment better than I do. I am just not in a position to tell anyone what to do, other than "obey the Bible" at all times in all cases. We should ALL be encouraging one another to do THAT, right?

When I visit another church, it's usually on a Sunday.

So, NO, I am not telling anyone to disfellowship or withdraw from their local assembly.

Bro Esaias, thank you for your considerate, thoughtful response.

Sorry for my unfiltered and awkward comments.

I have learned much of value from reading your posts over the years. And yes, I certainly want to obey the scripture and live a life that pleases God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Bro Esaias, thank you for your considerate, thoughtful response.

Sorry for my unfiltered and awkward comments.

I have learned much of value from reading your posts over the years. And yes, I certainly want to obey the scripture and live a life that pleases God.

Nothing wrong with your comments, sister.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Bro Esaias, thank you for your considerate, thoughtful response.

Sorry for my unfiltered and awkward comments.

I have learned much of value from reading your posts over the years. And yes, I certainly want to obey the scripture and live a life that pleases God.

No way sister you are the best.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Heathen nations understood idolatry was sinful?

Sorry, you're grasping at invisible straws here.

You miss the context of chapter 1. Yes, they originally did know idolatry was wrong. But that is why we read that they CHANGED THE GLORY OF GOD.

Romans 1:20-23.. 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. ..(22).. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, ..(23).. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You are mistaken.

I disagree. You flatly stated that it is moral to obey God just because it is God telling us to do something. You do not believe that now? You changed your stance? Explain.
previously you said this:

post 254

What is "morality"? What is "moral law"?

Morality is doing what you ought to do.

Moral law is the law that governs moral agents. It is the obligations they have. It is "what people ought to do."

If people ought to keep the Sabbath, it is moral law. Period. It's oughtness is what makes it moral.

Morality or moral character is the condition of the person in regard to their fulfilling or failing to fulfill their duty, what they ought to do. It is immoral to disobey God because obedience to God consists in doing what God wants us to do. What God wants us to do is called "moral law", a code of conduct.

I am not mistaken.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by esaias

Some people are on a boat, on a cruise. They shipwreck on a deserted tropical island. They realise they are going to be there for awhile, so they decide to get organised. They vote on an agreement to govern how they are going to live. This agreement includes laws, like "no stealing" and "no murder".

Question: Did they invent ex nihilo (out of nothing) "no stealing" and "no murder"? They made a social compact, and passed legislation, but what exactly happened? The laws they passed, was the CONTENT of those laws utterly nonexistent prior to them passing the legislation?

Or was "no stealing" and "no murder" already a pre-existing moral law, regardless of whether it was codified in any formal legislation?

Ancient cultures had what amounts to most of the ten commandments.

The 42 principles of Ma’at in Egypt centuries before Moses:

Include these 8 notes:

1. Thou shalt not kill, nor bid anyone kill.
2. Thou shalt not commit adultery or rape.
3. Thou shalt not steal nor take that which does not belong to you.
4. Thou shalt not bear false witness, nor support false allegations.
5. Thou shalt not lie, nor speak falsely to the hurt of another.
6. Thou shalt not take God’s name in vain.
7. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.
8. Thou shalt remember and observe the appointed holy days.

It is wrong to say the heathen did not have any morality. It came from God through way of creation as Romans 1 says. These people changed the glory of God, though, after somewhat knowing of Him through creation. Of course, creation cannot perfectly relate truth. But it did relate much truth.

Romans 1:19-20 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:

Romans 2:14.. 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:

When God made a covenant with Israel, He gave them His laws. His laws were already in existence, they are moral law, they are a part of His moral character and His will for mankind. The codification of those laws as part of a covenant with a nation does not mean those laws popped into existence ex nihilo.

Many of the Laws that were ritualistic like the various manners of sacrifices and rituals concerning the way the high priest would be cleansed to offer them on atonement, and even sabbath days were not in existence before Moses’ time.

The codified legislation came into existence when the legislation was passed, but the CONTENT of those laws had always been around.

What about Leviticus 14? What about Leviticus 23 and feasts? They are ritualistic amoral laws. All of them. You agree as follows:

Now, the covenant with Israel included certain things specific to that covenant, and to that nation. For example, that a tabernacle was to be built, that all sacrifice was to take place only at the tabernacle, that the liturgical service was allotted to the tribe of Levi exclusively, and similar such things. The allotments of Canaan by tribe is obviously exclusive to that nation at that time. But most of those exclusivities can be clearly discerned, they are self evident. They require certain conditions in order to be practiced. There must be a verifiable tribe of Levi, and verifiable house of Aaron, and legitimate Tabernacle/Temple, etc. Without those conditions, those particular ordinances cannot be obeyed try as anyone might.

Here is where you slip..

But the universal moral law is different. It pre-exists any formal codification or "giving of the law". Moral law derives its existence from the fact that people exist. Moral law is the law that governs moral agents.

All law is either physical (or "natural") law, or moral law.


Moral law however is NOT the law of necessity, but the law of choice. It is the law that governs moral agents. It is the rule of conduct, designed to direct and guide actions (choices). It is obligation, that moral agents ought to do certain things. It is not physical or a law of necessity, because moral law does not operate automatically to produce its intended effect, whereas physical law necessarily produces its effect. Gravity operates regardless of anyone's desires, unless God himself intervenes to suspend that law. The laws of logic are similar, in that what one chooses is irrelevant to whether or not a conclusion follows from certain premises. But moral law does not automatically produce the intended effect, because it requires the subject to voluntarily submit to it.

That is error. You have a degree of truth here. But there is nothing moral in and of itself in keeping the 7th day as opposed to the first, third or fifth, for example. The only morality you can say is that God demanded it and it is moral to obey him. But the choice of the 7th day as opposed any of the others of the week is not a moral issue in and of itself, as the demand to not murder is moral in and of itself. Sabbath has a NOTE OF RITUALISM involved.

That you ought not to murder does not in itself cause you to not murder, you have to agree with the law, value it as the correct course of action, choose to follow its command. Otherwise, there could not possibly be any murder, all that is required is for moral law to exist saying "thou shalt not murder" and no murder could ever possibly happen. But that is not how it actually is, murders do happen, because thou shalt not murder is not a physical or natural law of necessity but a moral law governing free agents.

It is mor for far more than you present. It is moral because the conscience knows it is WRONG. Every culture has this morality. Even the NAZI’s knew murder was wrong. They had to denigrate some people to the level of animals to get around it.

If people were raised alone, without any influence of a law, human emotion would draw those of opposite sex to desire the other. They would know it is wrong to kill the other. Otherwise, there would be some cultures that value killing and avoid love, etc. MORALS would be drastically changing between cultures.

Moral law comes into existence the moment free agents come into existence. God is a free agent, therefore there has ALWAYS been moral law. God has ALWAYS "ought" to do certain things. If this were not the case then God is not a moral agent and can never be truthfully called "good" or "righteous". But God is good, and righteous, and therefore a moral agent. As a moral agent, he is subject to moral law, He has moral obligations.

This moral law arises from His very nature and existence, rather than from His arbitrary will. What is right is right because it is right, not simply because God wants it to be right.

So what is “RIGHT” about resting the seventh day as opposed to the second, and the second or any of the first to 6 days should be used to rest but just the 7th? How is that “right” in the sense you describe?

Moral obligation does not arise simply from the arbitrary will of God, but from the nature of relations between existing things, as a consequence of the Divine nature itself. God is love, therefore it is a moral obligation for God to love, and once humans exist it becomes a moral obligation for them to love both God and each other as well. We are not obligated to love simply because God SAID so. Rather, the obligation to love arises because of the existence of things that bear a certain relationship to one another. Moral law arises from the relations of things (including people) and not from the mere will of any being, including God. Otherwise, God could arbitrarily change everything and declare that adultery and murder and theft are good and holy and that failure to commit such things is sinful and wrong. Yet even if God spoke from heaven and said "Thou shalt steal from thy neighbour all thou canst", theft would still be wrong. The only thing that would change would be God's moral character, from one of goodness and holiness to one of evil and badness and unrighteousness. Thankfully, God is in no danger of changing His mind about obeying the moral law that derives from His very essence and nature.

Right! So, how does 7th day alone for rest fit into this?

Sabbath was inserted in the ten commandments as an amoral law in and of itself, and it served to foreshdaow a greater truth and experience of spiritual rest. It interestingly sits between the first three that relate to God and the last six that relate to man.

• Thou shalt have no other gods before me
• Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
• Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
  
  SABBATH - MAN RESTS AS GOD DID - MAN AND GOD COME TOGETHER in sharing something, A foreshadow of entering into Christ's rest, where we experience what He did in more than death burial and resurrection, but in KINGDOM REST on this throne.
  
  
• Honour thy father and thy mother
• Thou shalt not murder
• Thou shalt not commit adultery
• Thou shalt not steal
• Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
• Thou shalt not covet

Love God in first three.
Love man in last six.

AND SABBATH BETWEEN showing a distinction in itself that should perk up our ears.

Between issues that relate to GOD and to MAN is the sabbath co-experience of MAN AND GOD.

God was known to manifest in 3s. Man's number is 6.

[Amanah]

What about Deut 5:15 which says that the Sabbath was instituted as a remembrance of being delivered from Egyptian bondage? doesn't that show that it was not observed prior to the exodus?