7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The grammar is crystal clear, the things are (present tense) a shadow of things to come (future tense). Acknowledging the grammar of what is actually written would of course refute your position, thus your vague referring to "context" as a means to rewrite the text with a past tense. You do not seem to realize this is, once again, a case of eisegesis: you assume what is going on in the verse, then interpret the phrases to support the assumption, even to the point of contradicting the plain grammar. Just like the Baptists do with 1 Peter 3:21, or trinitarians do with 1 John 5:7.

The critical assumption you make is "the Sabbath Commandment is changed to allow for not keeping the Sabbath DAY holy", although you have no such declarations in the Bible which would serve as the record of such a momentous change. Then, you appeal to passages like Colossians in order to "prove" your assertion, BUT are oblivious to the fact that you must first make the aforementioned assumption in order to interpret these passages as supporting the assumption.

That's called circular reasoning, and is qualitatively no different than trinitarians, who find all sorts of "supporting passages", but who have to have the doctrine in place FIRST and use it as a lens through which they interpret the so called supports.

No it is not like that at all.

To prove your reasoning of the present tense requirement for us to keep sabbaths today is incorrect let me ask you what Col 2:15 includes when it says "meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.".. If you insist that all these things must be kept TODAY because they currently are shadows of things that have not yet come, then we must include ALL HOLY DAYS, and not just sabbath days. Correct?

And if all holy days from Law are meant to be kept, that includes PASSOVER.

We know the Passover was something that pointed to Jesus who was still yet to come during the Old Testament times.

Paul clearly stated that when he wrote this: "1 Corinthians 5:7.. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:"

Paul stated that Passover was pointing ahead to Christ, not pointing back, being crucified in sacrifice.

If you keep Passover today, and you believe Passover is included in the holy days of Col 2:15, then you have to insist you are LOOKING AHEAD to Christ's sacrifice for us by keeping Passover. Passover does not LOOK BACK to His sacrifice, but LOOKS AHEAD.

What LOOKS BACK to his death and sacrifice is is COMMUNION SUPPER where we REMEMBER that Christ WAS crucified for us.

WHAT ELSE would PASSOVER be a shadow of that has not yet come in your estimation, seeing as PASSOVER is a holy day? Is it a holy day or is it not? If it is, then I assume you keep it, since you do not agree Paul dissuaded believers from keeping such holy days in Gal 4:11, then what is it a shadow of that has not yet come?

Why would not PASSOVER be included in Col 2:15?

Thus, your entire argument is defeated, and the only conclusion we can come to, as a result of considering ALL holy days in 2:15, keeping in mind what Paul said about the Passover holy day, is that Paul wrote from the perspective of people who lived BEFORE Christ came while the old covenant was still in place, and the new had not yet come.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

No problem, I've been using my phone exclusively as well, which is a huge pain.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1. If elements of the world are "necessary fundamentals appointed by God" then the elements in Gal 4:9 to which gentiles were RETURNING were "necessary fundamentals appointed by God." Which means that heathen gentile religion (devil worship) included "necessary fundamentals appointed by God." Which is ridiculous.

Scholars feel this indicates the gentiles came from heathenism to Judaism, and then from Judaism to Christianity.

3. Galatians 4:1-7 is not about being redeemed from obligation to obey God, but is about being redeemed from sin. God did not redeem people FROM the law, but from SIN.

God redeemed those who were under the law from sin.

Isaiah 50:1 says God's people (under the law) were sold because of their sins (transgressions, ie violations of God's commandments), and Isaiah 52:3 promises redemption to them apart from money. This is confirmed in 1 Peter 1:18, which says the church was redeemed apart from silver and gold. It further says they were redeemed from their empty lifestyle inherited by tradition from their ancestors, which cannot possibly mean they were redeemed from the empty lifestyle of God's commandments received by a direct visible manifestation of God and mediated by a true prophet of God. All have been redeemed from sin, it doesn't say or even imply anyone was redeemed from obligation to obey God's commandments.

4. Romans 7 proves that those under the law were in bondage - not to the law of God, but to the l1aw (rule, dominion, power) of SIN (lawbreaking).

Incorrect.

Law was a bondage because Paul said they were SHUT UP and KEPT FROM, which indicates terms of bondage, in describing Jews under Law.

Thus, the elements of the world are not the commandments of God. Paul is not saying the elements of the world ARE the "tutors and governors that are the commandments of God." Paul is saying that just like a child, though he is destined to be heir of all, is under BONDAGE (subject to the power of another),]

That breaks context and continuity from chapter 3 where LAW was a SCHOOLMASTER. The schoolmaster that KEPT them SHUT UP from faith in Christ was the tutors and governors. And it was appointed by God for them to be under that UNTIL Christ should come. God instituted Law and its binding keeping and shutting up, which is the tutors and governors of law, just as schoolmaster was law.

likewise we, though destined to be heirs of all, were also in bondage. The parallel he is making is between the heir under bondage and not free to enjoy the inheritance living no differently than a slave, and the redeemed who likewise were previously in bondage TO SIN AND THE STOICHEION OF THE COSMOS/WORLD ORDER.

That again breaks context of how two people are bring discussed. Jews and Gentiles who are now both in Christ. Jews were heirs. Gentiles were servants.

To suggest that the elements of the world are the "necessary fundamentals of the Divinely ordained law of God" is to stretch the analogy too far, because it contradicts everything ELSE he said about God's law, about what exactly people are in bondage to, and what our redemption actually results in. In other words, your interpretation violates the hermeneutic laid down by Christ Himself in John 10:35, which directs to harmonize all Scripture on any given topic.

No it does not. It maintains hermeneutic context in saying Law SHUT UP and KEPT FROM faith, as is said about schoolmaster in chapter 3, and maintains the analogy of schoolmaster in chapter 3 with tutors and governors in chapter 4.

5. Galatians 4:10 uses phraseology which is neither Scriptural nor even Jewish. That is, "days, months, times, and years" is neither a Biblical nor Jewish phrase referring to the moedim of God. This has been recognized by various scholars, who see here a definite Pauline reference to a nonbiblical religious calendar.

You miss the emphasis. OBSERVE. OBSERVANCES is very much a Biblical and Jewish term.

Some have suggested this is referring to the voluminous feast and fast days of rabbinic or Essene Judaism (which added as obligatory numerous festivals and fasting days, rules, etc to the religious calendar, or in some sectarian cases involved a completely different calendar altogether purportedly of Divine origin; cf. the book of Jubilees), while others have suggested the phrase (and context) are likely to be referring to either Jewish, Gnostic or wholly heathen astrological observances. The well accepted Biblical term, thoroughly familiar to all Jews of the time, for the holy days and moedim (appointments) of God is "feast days (holy days), new moons, and Sabbaths" (Hosea 2:11, Ezekiel 45:17, other passages have shortened forms of the same phrase). Furthermore, the majority of original apostolic GENTILE believers were already quite familiar with the phraseology, as most early gentile Christians often attended synagogues and kept Sabbath (at least as far as attending synagogue worship) prior to becoming Christians. It is therefore no objection to this that Paul would invent a term unknown to Scripture, himself, Jews, Jewish Christians, Gentiles, and Gentile Christians, to describe something for which a clear, well known, well used Biblical and religious term already existed, just because he was writing to a largely gentile group of believers.

Observances.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

We've discussed this before, but I must reiterate that I disagree with your entire philosophy and understanding of Romans 7 and the subject of flesh directed vs Spirit directed living. I also must say you misrepresent my views on the subject. You assert that what I "miss about walking after the flesh is that it is also not relying on the power of the Spirit through the state God put us in as those alive from the (dead)." Which, as anyone who has read my posts can plainly see, is patently false.

I have repeatedly affirmed here and everywhere that the Holy Ghost works in the true believer both to will and to do God's pleasure (the will of God). That the essence of the New Covenant involves the power of God through His Spirit working in the believer to actually obey the will of God. That it is through the Spirit that believers do in fact please God by faith, and perform His will. That it is the (genuine) Holy Ghost baptism that purifies the heart (Acts 15:9), which must of necessity result in a new life of obedience (in contrast to the old pre-conversion life of disobedience), and that new life is nothing less than Jesus living out the will of God in us by His indwelling Spirit.

So you do greatly err, not knowing my beliefs. Which I cannot account for, as I have never suggested my belief and understanding might be otherwise.

Getting back to your philosophy concerning Romans 7, I find it contradictory, not only to Romans 7, and the rest of the Bible, but to simple reason as well as to itself. You said walking after the flesh = trying to make yourself do good using God.

That was one of the typos I spoke about. I meant to write it is trying to make yourself good using flesh. I could not fix it after I noticed it since editing time expired.

I don't know if you left off a word there ("using God's law" maybe?), but in either case, the end result is the same: you essentially are arguing for people to do nothing and just pray and God will by a direct operation just mysteriously "cause" people to do right, as if a person checking the Word to see if there is any thing they need to correct in their lifestyle is somehow "the bondage of legalism" and "walking after the flesh". I know that is not your intention, but that is how your words come across.

No, I believe we are to COOPERATE with God, and I actually used that term in my explanations before about this issue. Romans 6:13 teaches us this principal. It corrsponds to Romans 8:10-11

Romans 8:10-12.. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. ..(11).. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. ..(12).. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

We do not have to live after the flesh because we are able to seek God in faith (Rom 6:13) and thereby see the Spirit respond to our prayers by empowering us to no longer live after the flesh. And when the Spirit empowers us, we act and obey. We don't just await some magical act to occur as if we were puppets. WE COOPERATE. We are workers TOGETHER with Him. That means we move and we act, but WITH HIM.

This is what amounts to an extreme pietism, what Watchman Nee and Evan Roberts and Jessie Penn-Lewis all referred to as "passivity", which they argued was extremely dangerous and opened the individual up to counterfeits and deceptions.

Watchman Nee taught everything I am saying about Romans 7 in his book the NORMAL CHRISTIAN LIFE. And I agree totally that passivity is evil. Did you read THE NORMAL CHRISTIAN LIFE? You should.

This is essentially the same error that Wesley encountered among the German Pietists. In its ultimate form, taken to its logical conclusion, it results in either extreme antinomianism, or else fanaticism due to unverified "inspirations" perceived to be direction(s) from God, apart from the Word.

There is nothing wrong with one's life being directed by the Word. Jesus affirmed man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Neither Romans, nor any other Bible passage, supposes a dichotomy or conflict between "obeying the Spirit vs obeying the Word." The conflict, per Romans 8 (as I repeatedly pointed out) is between the flesh or carnal mind WHICH IS NOT IN REALITY SUBMITTED TO THE LAW OF GOD vs the Spirit or those spiritually minded IN WHOM THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE LAW IS FULFILLED.

Romans 8 is speaking about the effort to do good using reference to law and no reliance on the Spirit for empowerment to COOPERATE WITH HIM. This is what Paul described in Romans 7:214-25.

It is not, as you seem to propose, a conflict between "following the Spirit vs following the Bible".

You twist my words. The conflict is between serving God in the oldness of the letter and serving God in newness of the Spirit. What do you think OLDNESS OF THE LETTER refers to?

Romans 7:6.. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

If, however, this is not at all what you mean, then please explain your understanding of the role of the Word of God in a Spirit filled believer's life.

The word of God is abosolutely vital in all of this. I wrote a book all about the issue of serving in oldness of letter versus newness of Spirit called SIN LESS. The word teaches us how to believe in the work of the cross that rendered us dead to sin and alive unto God. This is why Ro 6:134 says we must present ourselves to God with that frame of mind that we are alive from the dead to God. We face a situation or temptation, and we then meditate on the words of truth that say we died with Christ, and are alive from the dead with Him, seated over all powers. We meditate on the truth that we are empowered with the same power that both resurrected and enthroned Christ. 3rd-day and 40th-day experiences of Jesus. And we then believe God for the empowerment or his use of our very bodily parts as instruments to accomplish righteous works and move on to do them.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I disagree. Just as prophecies of animal sacrifices in a new temple in Ezekiel are not meant to be literally carried out, due to the fact that Christ ended sacrifices on the cross, making these prophecies a set of imagery depicting spiritual blessings of Christ's sacrifice that are intended to be understood, the sabbath day is not meant to be carried out in any future time, neither now or in a new heaven and earth seeing as Paul already stated that such days are not meant to be kept in Galatians 4, despite your difference of interpretation of that passage of Paul.

You said the Spirit causes us to do what the Law tried, but failed, to get us to do. The Law, in the Fourth Commandment, instructed folks to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, explaining that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and no ordinary work was to be done on that day. THAT is what the Law, in the Fourth Commandment, tried to get people to do. Therefore, your own statement requires that the Spirit causes people to remember the Sabbath DAY to keep IT holy. But that, of course, is contrary to your position. Which means you are making statements (like "the Spirit causes us to the things the Law tried to get us to do") that not only do not support your position, but contradict it.

We have to understand everything in the bible concerning what we must do, or what's prophesied to be done, through the statements in the New Testament that directly deal with such things, and see a harmony between them. Since Paul said we must not keep Law's holy days, months or years,

And here you are begging the question once again. Pail never said "do not keep the Sabbath". It is not written anywhere. It is an interpretation you have, through which you read the NT. But you seem oblivious to the simple fact that such an attack on the Fourth Commandments requires him to have some kind of AUTHORISATION, a clear and undeniable proof that God had abolished Sabbath keeping. The noble minded Bereans would never believe or accept your version of Paul, because they would never have found IN THE SCRIPTURES any favorable support for Sabbath breaking.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No it is not like that at all.

To prove your reasoning of the present tense requirement for us to keep sabbaths today is incorrect ...

...you would need to show the grammar is not present tense but past. Which is of course impossible. No matter what gymnastics you might enjoy, "which ARE a shadow things TO COME" remains unaltered. Paul did not say "which were a shadow of things that came", or "which were a shadow of things to come". He said they ARE a shadow of coming things. That present tense "ARE" is what refutes your position, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it, except to simply accept what it very plainly says: these things are a shadow of things to come (that is, when Paul said that, the things were then at that time shadows of things that were still future).

Sorry, but the TEXT IS PLAIN.

[Esaias]

;

Originally Posted by mfblume

You miss the emphasis. OBSERVE. OBSERVANCES is very much a Biblical and Jewish term.




Observances.

Already dealt with here:

Originally Posted by Esaias

5. Galatians 4:10 uses phraseology which is neither Scriptural nor even Jewish. That is, "days, months, times, and years" is neither a Biblical nor Jewish phrase referring to the moedim of God. This has been recognized by various scholars, who see here a definite Pauline reference to a nonbiblical religious calendar. Some have suggested this is referring to the voluminous feast and fast days of rabbinic or Essene Judaism (which added as obligatory numerous festivals and fasting days, rules, etc to the religious calendar, or in some sectarian cases involved a completely different calendar altogether purportedly of Divine origin; cf. the book of Jubilees), while others have suggested the phrase (and context) are likely to be referring to either Jewish, Gnostic or wholly heathen astrological observances. The well accepted Biblical term, thoroughly familiar to all Jews of the time, for the holy days and moedim (appointments) of God is "feast days (holy days), new moons, and Sabbaths" (Hosea 2:11, Ezekiel 45:17, other passages have shortened forms of the same phrase). Furthermore, the majority of original apostolic GENTILE believers were already quite familiar with the phraseology, as most early gentile Christians often attended synagogues and kept Sabbath (at least as far as attending synagogue worship) prior to becoming Christians. It is therefore no objection to this that Paul would invent a term unknown to Scripture, himself, Jews, Jewish Christians, Gentiles, and Gentile Christians, to describe something for which a clear, well known, well used Biblical and religious term already existed, just because he was writing to a largely gentile group of believers.

And here:

Originally Posted by Esaias

Galatians 4 is cited to prove that Sabbath keeping is bondage and not for Christians. But then so would the Lord's Supper and Sunday church services be bondage and not for Christians! You all (who bother having church at all, that is) attend meetings (holy convocation, sacred assembly) on a recurring regular basis (almost always Sunday). Most oneness Pentecostals celebrate the Lord's Supper once a year on New Year's. This is observing a day, a year, a "time". So if Galatians 4 teaches against religious time keeping and regularly recurring religious celebrations, like Sabbath keeping, it means you Sunday church goers and those of you who celebrate the Lord's Supper once a year or however often are in the same boat.

Does it not strike anyone as strange, that they should believe a doctrine that makes room for, allows, and even promotes the observance of pagan holy days (Baal/Mithra's birthday aka Christmas, the weekly Day of the Sun God, the mid winter New Year's Day, etc,) while supposedly condemning the holy Sabbath of God, a sacred, sanctified day of God's own choosing? Strange indeed.

"Oh, I don't observe Sunday, Christmas, or New Year's." Of course not. You just go to church to worship your God every Sunday, celebrate the birth of your God every Christmas, and celebrate the death of your God every mid-winter New Year's. The protestations ring a bit hollow, though.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

...you would need to show the grammar is not present tense but past. Which is of course impossible. No matter what gymnastics you might enjoy, "which ARE a shadow things TO COME" remains unaltered. Paul did not say "which were a shadow of things that came", or "which were a shadow of things to come". He said they ARE a shadow of coming things. That present tense "ARE" is what refutes your position, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it, except to simply accept what it very plainly says: these things are a shadow of things to come (that is, when Paul said that, the things were then at that time shadows of things that were still future).

Sorry, but the TEXT IS PLAIN.

You never responded to my reasoning whatsoever about the example of passover that disproves your insistence that the use of present tense can't be from a previous perspective. Which doesn't need to show the tense is not present.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

;

Already dealt with here:

And here:

Sorry but that doesnt deal with what I said about observing. It is an old testament term that is common, to show that the days, months and years are observances. That's unrelated to the Lord's supper, since paul spoke of days, months and years to be observed.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You said the Spirit causes us to do what the Law tried, but failed, to get us to do. The Law, in the Fourth Commandment, instructed folks to remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, explaining that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and no ordinary work was to be done on that day. THAT is what the Law, in the Fourth Commandment, tried to get people to do. Therefore, your own statement requires that the Spirit causes people to remember the Sabbath DAY to keep IT holy.

not when the same Spirit inspired Paul to say that we're not meant to observe Sabbath days. So the spirit is going to get us to do what the Sabbath day foreshadowed. The spirit will move us to enter into that greater rest than just a mere 24-hour day. All must be harmonized.

But that, of course, is contrary to your position. Which means you are making statements (like "the Spirit causes us to the things the Law tried to get us to do") that not only do not support your position, but contradict it.

And here you are begging the question once again. Pail never said "do not keep the Sabbath". It is not written anywhere.

Your exact-phrase theology is lacking. Revelation never said that Jesus is the Lamb with seven horns and seven eyes either. You need to be consistent in your arguments, because you're shooting yourself in your own foot.

It's common sense that when the same idea is proposed, without having to use the word Sabbath, knowing that Sabbath is also mentioned in other places of the Bible of Colossians chapter 2, then we realize we put it all together and we know it's talking about not keeping Sabbath days.

It is an interpretation you have, through which you read the NT. But you seem oblivious to the simple fact that such an attack on the Fourth Commandments requires him to have some kind of AUTHORISATION, a clear and undeniable proof that God had abolished Sabbath keeping. The noble minded Bereans would never believe or accept your version of Paul, because they would never have found IN THE SCRIPTURES any favorable support for Sabbath breaking.

it's not sabbath-breaking to keep a fulfillment of a shadow, like Sabbath was, and no longer maintain the shadow. Your view requires hoop jumping that I was able to avoid years ago when I just made a plain contextual reading of Colossians chapter 2, without having any previous doctrine that I was trying to support. I was learning what Paul was talking about directly from his words, and not using them to support anything I already believed.

You have to overlook the plain meaning of the handwriting of ordinances, just before we read about sabbaths.