Why Sunday

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jeremiah 31:31-34 KJV
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: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord : [33] 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. [34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord : for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Jeremiah says nothing about anyone's ability to keep the covenant, only that Israel and Judah broke it (did not keep it).

Not true.

Hebrews rephrases it so we get the true meaning.

Hebrews 8:9.. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

And if that was the problem with the old covenant, since it had fault, then the writing of the law in our hearts is the solution so WE CAN CONTINUE IN IT.

Paul describes the inability to keep it since he describing one who tried, had the will to perform but not the power to perform. He could not continue in it. Just read Romans 7.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Spiritual is NOT the opposite of physical. NATURAL is the opposite. I do not agree with sabbath keepers by a long shot. But spiritual is not the opposite of physical. The error is the NATURAL, not the physical.

Thanks for the correction. You understand what I was pointing to.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Do you eliminate the physical nature of the 2nd commandment? Third? 5th? 6th? 7th? 8th? 9th?

If Jesus fulfilling the law equates to no need to actually do what the 4th commandment says to actually do, then it also equates to no need to actually honour our parents in any real actual or "physical" sense, nor do we need to actually physically refrain from idolatry, murder, bearing false witness, etc.

If I’m wrong correct me. The law pointed to the natural man, touch, taste, etc. The Lord commanded through the law not to do certain sin, for time sake we all understand what they are. In the Old Covenant you could hate your brother and not be charged as a murderer, you could lust after a women while not being in Adultery. You could loathe your parents but as long as you did what they said you were ok. You could be sitting down on the sabbath and think about work but as long as you were not physically working your in obedience.
In the New Covenant,
If you hate your brother, will you be guilty of murder?
If you lust after a women, will you be guilty of adultery?
If you dishonor your parents in your heart, will you be guilty of not honoring them?
When Jesus fulfilled the law, it doesn’t have the same meaning as it did in the old covenant.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

If I’m wrong correct me. The law pointed to the natural man, touch, taste, etc. The Lord commanded through the law not to do certain sin, for time sake we all understand what they are. In the Old Covenant you could hate your brother and not be charged as a murderer, you could lust after a women while not being in Adultery. You could loathe your parents but as long as you did what they said you were ok. You could be sitting down on the sabbath and think about work but as long as you were not physically working your in obedience.
In the New Covenant,
If you hate your brother, will you be guilty of murder?
If you lust after a women, will you be guilty of adultery?
If you dishonor your parents in your heart, will you be guilty of not honoring them?
When Jesus fulfilled the law, it doesn’t have the same meaning as it did in the old covenant.

The 5th commandment doesn't say "Thou shalt honour your parents in an outward appearance only while loathing them in your heart." Paul said the law is spiritual. The problem isn't God's instructions, but carnal loophole-seeking sinful men.

The law covenant included a system of civil governance, therefore punishments were meted out in an equitable fashion: two witnesses were required. It is impossible to equitably enforce civil legislation that punishes people for internal thoughts or attitudes (though the communists running America are sure trying). This is why God put a mark on Cain as a warning to others not to kill him. Even though he was guilty of murder, and would stand before his Judge on Judgment Day, there were no human witnesses to his crime. So executing him (by human hands) would have been bad. Not to mention contrary to God's own standard of righteous judgment for humans, aka His law.

Under the law, as under the Gospel, sinners who escaped civil punishment had an opportunity to repent. If the law commanded death for anyone who coveted in their heart, for example, not only would everyone be under Divine condemnation (which they are anyway for all have sinned) but there would be no room for repentance at all. Besides, how could fallible man be entrusted with judging and sentencing a person for thinking bad thoughts? How could that not result in greater abuses than might result from the system that was in fact set up?

The "deeper spiritual meaning and application" does NOT abolish the actual instruction. Just because Jesus said hating your brother is a type of murder for which God holds you accountable doesn't mean actual "physical" murder is somehow now okay. Just like any "spiritual" application of the 4th commandment doesn't mean it's okay to forget the Sabbath day, to keep it profane.

[Esaias]

The law covenant addressed the inner heart issues in several ways. Here's one:

Deuteronomy 29:18-20 KJV
Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the Lord our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood; [19] And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst: [20] The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Not true.

Hebrews rephrases it so we get the true meaning.

Hebrews 8:9.. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

And if that was the problem with the old covenant, since it had fault, then the writing of the law in our hearts is the solution so WE CAN CONTINUE IN IT.

Paul describes the inability to keep it since he describing one who tried, had the will to perform but not the power to perform. He could not continue in it. Just read Romans 7.

They did not continue in His covenant does not equate to they could not obey Me by a natural inability.

Neither Jeremiah 31 nor Hebrews 8 says anything about ability, they only state the obvious: Israel and Judah failed to keep the covenant. I'm not arguing that God didn't promise to write His laws in the hearts of His people in order to cause them to be faithful and obedient. I am saying neither verse you posted speaks about ability.

Paul describes the bondslave of sin in Romans 7. But explains how the bondslave became enslaved in chapter 6. Here, read it:

Romans 6:16-23 KJV
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? [17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. [18] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. [19] I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. [20] For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. [21] What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. [22] But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. [23] For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The sinner is in bondage because he yields himself to obey sin. Sin is voluntary, otherwise it wouldn't be a crime but a mere disease, and since God wills that none perish, universalism would be the necessary conclusion. Either that or limited atonement and election of the majority to damnation, aka Calvinism.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Spiritual is NOT the opposite of physical. NATURAL is the opposite. I do not agree with sabbath keepers by a long shot. But spiritual is not the opposite of physical. The error is the NATURAL, not the physical.

Is there an error in naturally honouring your natural parents? Whatever that might mean...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Is there an error in naturally honouring your natural parents? Whatever that might mean...

What are you talking about? He said that people think physical instead of spiritual, and I said that is a faulty dichotomy.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

They did not continue in His covenant does not equate to they could not obey Me by a natural inability.

Neither Jeremiah 31 nor Hebrews 8 says anything about ability, they only state the obvious: Israel and Judah failed to keep the covenant. I'm not arguing that God didn't promise to write His laws in the hearts of His people in order to cause them to be faithful and obedient. I am saying neither verse you posted speaks about ability.

No no no.

Paul clearly described INABILITY when he said to will was present but how to perform was not, and I recall that you changed the obvious reading to mean the point was actually NOT WILLING, which habit of changing plain reading is most common with sabbath keepers, as in 2 Cor 3, Col 2, and Gal 4.

Paul describes the bondslave of sin in Romans 7. But explains how the bondslave became enslaved in chapter 6. Here, read it:

Romans 6:16-23 KJV
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? [17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. [18] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. [19] I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. [20] For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. [21] What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. [22] But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. [23] For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

No, you have that all wrong. Romans 6 is speaking about saved people who do not have to yield to sin unlike those unregenerated and not saved who must. After he tells them the truths of what happened to them in their deaths with Christ he lets them know that being saved a dn sinning was actually YIELDING to sin. For sinners it most certainly is not a yielding. And it is a yielding to sin when it does not have to be becuase sin shall not have dominion over the saved ones who are dead indeed to sin and alive to God through Jesus. Verse 13 cannot be understood with tout verses 11 and 12 before it. Saved people often are bound by sin, because they do not KNOW, RECKON and YIELD in the manners Paul explained. Saints who never learn these truths, and most rarely ever do (!!), will not be able to resist sin, like Rom 7 describes. Most yield to sin because they think they can't resist. they don't know it's a yield, unlike a must for sinners, because they "KNOW YE NOT?" as Paul repeated so much in this chapter.

The sinner is in bondage because he yields himself to obey sin. Sin is voluntary, otherwise it wouldn't be a crime but a mere disease, and since God wills that none perish, universalism would be the necessary conclusion. Either that or limited atonement and election of the majority to damnation, aka Calvinism.

No. The sinner cannot help it and believers who do not know the truths of Rom 6 cannot help it either. Potentially, saved people CAN But they do not because they do not KNOW.


It is crime because the person still did it and it is still wrong.

And let's not go on with the conclusion you claim when you're talking to someone who denies such a conclusion altogether.... again. Just because you cannot see another conclusion does not mean there is none.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What are you talking about? He said that people think physical instead of spiritual, and I said that is a faulty dichotomy.

You reaffirmed your opposition to Sabbath keeping, and referenced "natural" as opposed to Nicodemus' use of the term "physical". Thus, you are saying Sabbath keeping is a "natural" keeping of the 4th commandment as opposed to a "spiritual" keeping of the commandment. Hence my question about the 5th commandment. If I misunderstood what you were conveying, my apologies, but that is what you seemed to be saying.

It just hit me... this reminds me of the "spiritual communion" belief. (Not that you are into that, it's just that I see practically the same basic argument here as with those folks.)