7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Is only a "holy" day to folks like catholics and mainline denominational people who think God requires them to keep it, as you feel God requires you to keep sabbath. The questing is whether a person feels God requires us to keep and given day. That should have been obvious. You're way off on this issue, brother.

You said if you don't think in your mind that a day is "holy" then you can't be said to "keep" that day, pretty much regardless of what you do on that day and/or why you do it.Therefore, according to YOUR REASONING, a person who, every Dec 25th, sets up a Christmas tree, goes caroling, gives gifts, puts up nativity scenes, and so on, but does not think in their mind the day is "holy", or that they are "obligated" to keep that day, can honestly and sincerely say they do not "keep" or "observe" or "celebrate" Christmas.

Who buys that? Nobody I know of.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You said if you don't think in your mind that a day is "holy" then you can't be said to "keep" that day, pretty much regardless of what you do on that day and/or why you do it.Therefore, according to YOUR REASONING, a person who, every Dec 25th, sets up a Christmas tree, goes caroling, gives gifts, puts up nativity scenes, and so on, but does not think in their mind the day is "holy", or that they are "obligated" to keep that day, can honestly and sincerely say they do not "keep" or "observe" or "celebrate" Christmas.

Who buys that? Nobody I know of.

Like a guy who wears pantyhose but keeps telling himself he's not wearing women's attire...

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Esaias,

I believe that ALL of the law was considered commandments from God. MANY were not individually recanted. So why the sabbath? Why not the many others?

I do not understand what you are trying to say here in the bolded?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Do you not believe the Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic law/Sinaitic covenant?

Of course they are. But look at the reasoning you appear to be following:

The Ten Commandments were part of the Sinai covenant. The Sinai covenant has expired. Therefore, we don't have to keep the Fourth commandment.

But this line of reasoning would also allow a person to say "therefore we don't have to keep the sixth commandment", or any other of the ten. Which is absurd. And therefore the original line of reasoning itself is erroneous.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I do not understand what you are trying to say here in the bolded?

Of a total of 613? Individual laws or commandments of God contained in the Sinaitic covenant, or Old Covenant, how many do you think are still in effect? Many have not been individually recanted in the Bible.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You said if you don't think in your mind that a day is "holy" then you can't be said to "keep" that day, pretty much regardless of what you do on that day and/or why you do it.Therefore, according to YOUR REASONING, a person who, every Dec 25th, sets up a Christmas tree, goes caroling, gives gifts, puts up nativity scenes, and so on, but does not think in their mind the day is "holy", or that they are "obligated" to keep that day, can honestly and sincerely say they do not "keep" or "observe" or "celebrate" Christmas.

Who buys that? Nobody I know of.

We are talking about HOLY DAYS. KEEPING HOLY DAYS. Thinking God wants us to keep a specific day HOLY. This is the issue because the disagreement came form whether or not DAYS to be kept are HOLY DAYS from Law or HOLY DAYS from PAGANISM.

Reach all you want, but that's the issue and you cannot dodge it.

And to answer your previous question about how LAW genders to bondage, despite the fact Paul plainly stated it does in verse 24, that's simple. Law demanded obedience to all its precepts at pain of death, for Lev 18:5 says you only LIVE if you keep all the law. Failure to keep the law meant loss of life.

The bondage of the elements of the world was strictly stated to be the tutors and governors that chapter 4 called the SCHOOLMASTER. You even agreed there was a PRISON like situation under LAW, by quoting scholars who referred to law as WARDERS, which I stressed was the same thing as calling them WARDENS of a PRISON.

And as scholars agree these gentiles were in paganism, came under law to Old Covenant living, and then found Christ. But they were JUDAIZED to go back into LAW-KEEPING. And the elements of the world that bring bondage were the keeping of days, months and years FROM LAW. You made a big ado about HOLY DAYS, which is why I focused on that, so it seemed a departure from you when you spoke of keeping days like Christmas and Sunday, when YOU started it off with HOLY DAYS we must keep.

At any rate, the BONDAGE of the elements of the world should have been easily understood when Paul said Jews were under law's tutors and governors which were clearly speaking of law, because chapter 3 said law was a schoolmaster.

Hence: Schoolmaster is Law.

Paul said tutors and governors were over the Jews which were the bondage of the elements of the world. Because tutors and governors are the same picture of a schoolmaster, then tutors and governors were the schoolmaster of law. And This means the elements of the world were LAW.

This, in turn, means the days and months and years to be kept were those of LAW, not paganism.

And this comes to the forefront most readily by continuing in the same chapter and reading verse 24 which actually says plainly that the old covenant genders to bondage.

They were DESIRING TO GO UNDER THE ELEMENTS OF THE WORLD>

Galatians 4:9.. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

And this corresponds to the SAME DESIRE as follows:

Galatians 4:21.. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

They were not reverting to PAGANISM. They were REVERTING TO LAW.

The BONDAGE of the elements of the world is not a different bondage in the same chapter and same context from the BONDAGE that the OLD COVENANT GENDERS TOWARD.

Galatians 4:24.. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Hagar represents the old covenant, not paganism.

If the bondage they were desiring to be under was paganism, and not old covenant law keeping, then Paul would not have stated they desired to be under LAW in verse 21. He would have stated they were desiring to be under paganism.

And Hagar represented the OLD COVENANT and was a BONDWOMAN from ARABIA. Mt Sinai was in ARABIA. The land of bondage. Paul said this was a type of the bondage law engendered. Gendering gives the concept of birthing children. And the CHILDREN of the bondwoman were adherents of LAW of MOSES, NOT PAGANISM, nor twisted pharisaical versions of law, but the genuine old covenant.

Sabbatarians always claim attacks against law by Paul were actually about twisted versions of law held by pharisees. No no no. Paul said LAW demanded works to live, which one could not fulfill in Gal 3:10-11, and quoted Lev 18:5, not some pharisaical textbook. And here again, Paul refers to the OLD COVENANT as gendering to bondage not to the twisted version of law by pharisees.

And the CHILDREN of the BONDWOMAN, LAW, were the jews who lived under law. Jerusalem in Paul's day was speaking about the Jews under Mosaic Law. Paul was putting the GALATIAN believers in the same category as the jewish people in bondage under law of Jerusalem below, which was the natural Jerusalem in his day. They were desiring to go under the same old covenant law that the jews remained under.

And the Jews who persecuted the church were the ISHMAELS who persecuted ISAAC. Isaac stands for the children of promise by faith of the new covenant. Ishmael stands for the Jews in bondage who kept old testament law.

Esaias, you're too sharp and smart to miss this, had it not been for the blinders of lawkeeping you managed to bind yourself with. You asked how LAW genders to bondage. You would be one of the first to know how, since an easy read of the ENTIRE chapter would show you enough along with what I know you know that the rest of the new testament teaches.

The way LAW genders to bondage is that it MAKES CHILDREN, like Hagar mothered Ishmael, who are all their lifetimes subject to BONDAGE by the law's coercion to keep rites and commandments for fear of being subject to disobedience and sin, which leads to death. the law kept people under perpetual fear of death because they were admonished to obey or die. Keep law or die. Of course sin leads to bondage and death, but LAW pushes mankind to sin and law, just as Paul described in Romans 7, when he said the commandment was ordained to life, BUT HE FOUND IT UNTO DEATH because he read where he was commanded not to covet, and then suddenly could not resist coveting, and thereby DIED, so to speak, by breaking that law. he called breaking the law a form of DEATH.

That's how law genders to bondage.

So, for you to say that the bondage of the elements of the world cannot be referring to law, despite the plain fact that law was a schoolmaster of WARDENS from a prison, that corresponds to the tutors and governors in chapter 4, and compound that with 4:21-24's clear reference to the old covenant as gendering toward BONDAGE, is for you to speak so contrary to the usual sharpness you have when it comes to reading the bible. That's what bewilders me!

You did the same distortion, albeit unintentionally, when you claimed the yoke of bondage in acts 15 was not law but a twisted pharisaical version of law, though Peter flatly stated LAW. You are exchange the actual reference to old covenant law with some twisted pharisaical version.

Like tithesmaster, I do not think you're dishonest, except when you were ignoring my reasoning of how this view DOES NOT lead to antinomianism, and you insisted it did. I think you honestly are wrong as wrong can be about this issue of sabbath keeping. It's not a sin, but you are bound according to Paul's teaching, as Galatians 4:21-24 clearly says you are.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You said if you don't think in your mind that a day is "holy" then you can't be said to "keep" that day, pretty much regardless of what you do on that day and/or why you do it.Therefore, according to YOUR REASONING, a person who, every Dec 25th, sets up a Christmas tree, goes caroling, gives gifts, puts up nativity scenes, and so on, but does not think in their mind the day is "holy", or that they are "obligated" to keep that day, can honestly and sincerely say they do not "keep" or "observe" or "celebrate" Christmas.

Who buys that? Nobody I know of.

Esaias, why do you repeatedly ignore my point of the idea that WHEN ONE THINKS GOD WANTS US TO KEEP A DAY HOLY, then and only then it is keeping a holy day? Like you think GOD wants you to keep sabbath. Do they keep christmas like you think GOD wants you to keep sabbath?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Of a total of 613? Individual laws or commandments of God contained in the Sinaitic covenant, or Old Covenant, how many do you think are still in effect? Many have not been individually recanted in the Bible.

First the "613" is a rabbinic statement based in Jewish numerology (different rabbis enumerate them differently but agree on the number for mystical reasons) and a lot of those mitzvot are found in the Talmud not the Bible. Just clarifying because I don't pay any mind to "613 commandments".

Second, your question gets to the heart of most every doctrinal matter. So it's a very good question. It amounts to this: "As a worshipper of God, which instructions in the Bible am I to follow?" Historically, most of Christendom answered that question by postulating the division of law into moral, civil, and ceremonial. Unfortunately, that is neither a Biblical classification scheme nor is it very helpful, as indicated by the fact there has been unending debate as to which category various laws belong.

The Westminster Confession says this:

BESIDE this Law commonly called Moral God was pleased to give the people of Israel as a Church under age Ceremoniall Laws containing severall typicall ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties, all which Ceremoniall Laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.
4

TO them also as a body politick he gave sundry judiciall laws which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now further then the generall equity thereof may require
5

THE Moral Law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience therof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it, neither doth Christ in the gospell any way dissolve but much strengthen this obligation.
6

ALTHOUGH true believers be not under the Law as a Covenant of Works to be thereby justified or condemned yet it is of great use to them as well as to others in that as a rule of life informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly discovering also the sinfull pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives, so as examining themselves thereby they may come to further conviction of humiliation for and hatred against sin together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions in that it forbids sin and the threatnings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them although freed from the curse thereof threatned in the Law. The promises of it in like manner shew them Gods approbation of obedience and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof although not as due to them by the Law as a Covenant of Works so as a mans doing good and refraining from evil because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other is no evidence of his being under the Law and not under Grace.

Again, though, this division of the law into moral, ceremonial, and civil has no basis in Scripture itself.

My understanding and take on all this is as follows:

1. The laws, commandments, statutes, judgments, ordinances etc of God are statements of God's will on whatever subject they speak of.

2. These laws were incorporated within and made the basis of the Covenant God made with Israel, to instruct Israel how to live. They were not wholly dependent on the Covenant, though, but exist by virtue of God's nature and will. Thus, for example, idolatry and murder were sins long before Sinai, and therefore are independent of that Covenant as an obligatory rule of behavior.

3. Included within the Sinaitic covenant were various ordinances peculiar to the Covenant, as the establishing of Levitical priesthood, the various regulations concerning offerings, the various regulations concerning washings etc etc. Also, there was specific legislation made concerning the land of Israel, such as the particular tribal allotments, the identity of the cities of refuge, etc.

4. There are also laws that, while specific to Israel in the land under the Old covenant, nevertheless demonstrate principles, such as laws regarding taking a chiton (cloak) for collateral, carrying a paddle (shovel) to dig latrines outside the camp, etc.

5. The inauguration of the New covenant meant the laws of God would be placed in the hearts and minds of His people. This would secure their obedience to His laws. The New covenant therefore is NOT about not being obligated to obey "those pesky old testament laws" but rather is all about obtaining pardon for not keeping them and power to obey.

6. Yet, it is undeniable that SOME are no longer in force: Levitical priesthood is not a function of the New covenant (rather it is Melchizedekian), the physical temple, animal sacrifices, etc.

The Big Question following from #6 is "What has expired, what has not?"

Many things have not simply expired, but rather been transformed. For example, the earthly temple and its ritual is transformed into the spiritual temple (ecclesia) and its divine service, incense and offerings are now done in the form of prayer, praise, and a life of obedience, and so forth.

Other commands, however, have undergone no change whatsoever except in the location where the law is written. Do no murder, for example, is just as valid now, everywhere, as it was in ancient Israel, in Noah's day, and before. The difference is it is not written on a stone table but in the new heart that God gives us.

So how do we determine what has changed, what has not? That is a primary subject of inquiry for every DISCIPLE (student) of Jesus.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So how do we determine what has changed, what has not? That is a primary subject of inquiry for every DISCIPLE (student) of Jesus.

One rule of thumb that seems to work is a Regulative Principle of worship: "That which is written stands, unless it is written that it is repealed." In other words, whatever God said to do, we must do, unless God (in His word) says otherwise.

Jesus, in this view of things, is NOT viewed as someone who abolishes the divine legislation, but rather as someone who PROPERLY EXPLAINS AND INTERPRETS the divine legislation. Thus, Jesus' doctrine (teaching) is the proper interpretation and application of the revealed will of God. And, as His doctrine is unknown except through the message of the apostles, the "apostles' doctrine" is nothing else than the doctrine of Christ.

So, looking at the new testament writings we see the doctrine of Christ, which contain the proper way to understand the "Torah" or DIVINE INSTRUCTION MANUAL FOR MANKIND.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by mfblume

We are talking about HOLY DAYS. KEEPING HOLY DAYS. Thinking God wants us to keep a specific day HOLY. This is the issue because the disagreement came form whether or not DAYS to be kept are HOLY DAYS from Law or HOLY DAYS from PAGANISM.

Reach all you want, but that's the issue and you cannot dodge it.

And to answer your previous question about how LAW genders to bondage, despite the fact Paul plainly stated it does in verse 24, that's simple. Law demanded obedience to all its precepts at pain of death, for Lev 18:5 says you only LIVE if you keep all the law. Failure to keep the law meant loss of life.

The bondage of the elements of the world was strictly stated to be the tutors and governors that chapter 4 called the SCHOOLMASTER. You even agreed there was a PRISON like situation under LAW, by quoting scholars who referred to law as WARDERS, which I stressed was the same thing as calling them WARDENS of a PRISON.

And as scholars agree these gentiles were in paganism, came under law to Old Covenant living, and then found Christ. But they were JUDAIZED to go back into LAW-KEEPING. And the elements of the world that bring bondage were the keeping of days, months and years FROM LAW. You made a big ado about HOLY DAYS, which is why I focused on that, so it seemed a departure from you when you spoke of keeping days like Christmas and Sunday, when YOU started it off with HOLY DAYS we must keep.

At any rate, the BONDAGE of the elements of the world should have been easily understood when Paul said Jews were under law's tutors and governors which were clearly speaking of law, because chapter 3 said law was a schoolmaster.

Hence: Schoolmaster is Law.

Paul said tutors and governors were over the Jews which were the bondage of the elements of the world. Because tutors and governors are the same picture of a schoolmaster, then tutors and governors were the schoolmaster of law. And This means the elements of the world were LAW.

This, in turn, means the days and months and years to be kept were those of LAW, not paganism.

And this comes to the forefront most readily by continuing in the same chapter and reading verse 24 which actually says plainly that the old covenant genders to bondage.

They were DESIRING TO GO UNDER THE ELEMENTS OF THE WORLD>

Galatians 4:9.. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

And this corresponds to the SAME DESIRE as follows:

Galatians 4:21.. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

They were not reverting to PAGANISM. They were REVERTING TO LAW.

The BONDAGE of the elements of the world is not a different bondage in the same chapter and same context from the BONDAGE that the OLD COVENANT GENDERS TOWARD.

Galatians 4:24.. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Hagar represents the old covenant, not paganism.

If the bondage they were desiring to be under was paganism, and not old covenant law keeping, then Paul would not have stated they desired to be under LAW in verse 21. He would have stated they were desiring to be under paganism.

And Hagar represented the OLD COVENANT and was a BONDWOMAN from ARABIA. Mt Sinai was in ARABIA. The land of bondage. Paul said this was a type of the bondage law engendered. Gendering gives the concept of birthing children. And the CHILDREN of the bondwoman were adherents of LAW of MOSES, NOT PAGANISM, nor twisted pharisaical versions of law, but the genuine old covenant.

Sabbatarians always claim attacks against law by Paul were actually about twisted versions of law held by pharisees. No no no. Paul said LAW demanded works to live, which one could not fulfill in Gal 3:10-11, and quoted Lev 18:5, not some pharisaical textbook. And here again, Paul refers to the OLD COVENANT as gendering to bondage not to the twisted version of law by pharisees.

And the CHILDREN of the BONDWOMAN, LAW, were the jews who lived under law. Jerusalem in Paul's day was speaking about the Jews under Mosaic Law. Paul was putting the GALATIAN believers in the same category as the jewish people in bondage under law of Jerusalem below, which was the natural Jerusalem in his day. They were desiring to go under the same old covenant law that the jews remained under.

And the Jews who persecuted the church were the ISHMAELS who persecuted ISAAC. Isaac stands for the children of promise by faith of the new covenant. Ishmael stands for the Jews in bondage who kept old testament law.

Esaias, you're too sharp and smart to miss this, had it not been for the blinders of lawkeeping you managed to bind yourself with. You asked how LAW genders to bondage. You would be one of the first to know how, since an easy read of the ENTIRE chapter would show you enough along with what I know you know that the rest of the new testament teaches.

The way LAW genders to bondage is that it MAKES CHILDREN, like Hagar mothered Ishmael, who are all their lifetimes subject to BONDAGE by the law's coercion to keep rites and commandments for fear of being subject to disobedience and sin, which leads to death. the law kept people under perpetual fear of death because they were admonished to obey or die. Keep law or die. Of course sin leads to bondage and death, but LAW pushes mankind to sin and law, just as Paul described in Romans 7, when he said the commandment was ordained to life, BUT HE FOUND IT UNTO DEATH because he read where he was commanded not to covet, and then suddenly could not resist coveting, and thereby DIED, so to speak, by breaking that law. he called breaking the law a form of DEATH.

That's how law genders to bondage.

So, for you to say that the bondage of the elements of the world cannot be referring to law, despite the plain fact that law was a schoolmaster of WARDENS from a prison, that corresponds to the tutors and governors in chapter 4, and compound that with 4:21-24's clear reference to the old covenant as gendering toward BONDAGE, is for you to speak so contrary to the usual sharpness you have when it comes to reading the bible. That's what bewilders me!

You did the same distortion, albeit unintentionally, when you claimed the yoke of bondage in acts 15 was not law but a twisted pharisaical version of law, though Peter flatly stated LAW. You are exchange the actual reference to old covenant law with some twisted pharisaical version.

Like tithesmaster, I do not think you're dishonest, except when you were ignoring my reasoning of how this view DOES NOT lead to antinomianism, and you insisted it did. I think you honestly are wrong as wrong can be about this issue of sabbath keeping. It's not a sin, but you are bound according to Paul's teaching, as Galatians 4:21-24 clearly says you are.

BINGO

I agree with this.

Especially the part about Esaias being WAY capable of seeing this at a glance.