7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Tithesmeister, thank you for taking the time to respond. Just a quick question:

If, as you say, the Ten Commandments were given only to Israel, and therefore only applied to Israel, then how does it not follow that nobody but Israelites could be guilty of, say, murder, or adultery, or bearing false witness, etc?

Your understanding seems to say "the Fourth Commandment was only given to Israel, as part of the old covenant. Only Israelites were obligated to those commandments, and besides that covenant has been replaced, so none of those Ten Commandments apply to me." Is that not an accurate restatement of your position?

This is correct.

Originally Posted by Esaias

If so, then why does idolatry, adultery, murder, theft, coveting, bearing false witness, etc, produce guilt in non Israelites, that is, anyone with whom the covenant was not made?

Good question.

The reason these sins produce guilt in Gentiles is that they are part of the New Testament teachings founded on the apostles doctrine.

Like the Apostle Paul who said this in . . .

Romans 1

[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
[26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
[27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

And again . . .

Galatians 5

[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

And the Apostle Peter here . . .

[15] But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.


Annnd John here . . .

1John.3
[15] Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.


And here . . .

Rev.21
[8] But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

See? Idolatry is sin. Murder, coveting, sorcery, lying etc. are sin. They have been reiterated in the doctrine of the apostles. They have been identified for us, you know, just in case we think that since the Old Covenant is done, that we can now go out and commit murder.

Usually the first question people ask when I say that the Ten Commandments are part of the Old Covenant is "Is it then okay to murder?" Of course not. Because the apostles taught us that these things were not okay! They are sin.

Notice what is conspicuously absent from this list of sins? Did you notice?

What is missing is failing to keep the sabbath!!!

[Steven Avery]

First, I generally agree with you, especially when the emphasis is on the Decalogue.

Originally Posted by Esaias

What Scriptures did the Bereans have, to search through, to verify that the things they were being told was correct? The only Scriptures they had were what we call the Old Testament.

Not exactly.

1 Timothy 5:17-18 (AV)
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour,
especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
For the scripture saith,
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.
And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

Deuteronomy 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

Luke 10:7
And in the same house remain,
eating and drinking such things as they give:
for the labourer is worthy of his hire.
Go not from house to house.

Even around 60 AD, when many Pauline Epistles were written, Luke's Gospel from c. 40 AD (when Theophilus was the most excellent high priest) was viewed as scripture.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Since you said you do not intend to spend 3-5 days here with us (I guess if we were discussing tithing you would?)

A couple of things I'd like to say here. One you seem to be a little snarky about me and the tithes subject. You have thrown plenty of hints in the past about me being a one trick pony etc.. Get over it. I happen to believe that more pastors will go to hell for lying about tithes than for "ministering" to the piano player. Should I know the truth and not share it? The other thing is that I should have been more clear in retrospect. Just to clarify, I think I said that I was not going to spend 3-5 days arguing with you about this subject. I didn't say I wouldn't spend three to five days discussing this subject. I may very well do that.

Originally Posted by Esaias

let me point out to the readers - what few there may be - that I believe you have confounded the commandment with the covenant. This confounding then forms the entire basis of your line of reasoning.

I'm assuming that you said confounded, when what you really meant is conflated, but I'm not sure. At any rate I am not conflating the commandments of the Old Covenant with the Old Covenant. They are part of a package. It really would be like me conflating my arm with my body. As long as they are together it is really not possible. In the case of the law of Moses and the Old Covenant, there is really no covenant without the law. There is no covenant without the land. If I sold you land for $100,000.00 and you gave me the money, and I didn't deliver the land (my part of the covenant or contract) would you believe we had a deal? You probably would not be happy. This is in essence what you are saying. Take away part of the covenant, and the remainder still stands. What part? Well . . . some parts.

Originally Posted by Esaias

I would also like to point out that the question you asked, which you say I did not answer, was not "how much of the old covenant applies to us", but rather it was "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? " Notice, the question was "how many of the commandments contained within the old covenant are still in effect?" That is, as I have been trying to explain throughout this thread, different than "how much of the old covenant is still in effect".

All of the laws were commandments. NONE were mere suggestions. All of the laws were part of the covenant package. You cannot pick this one and that one and still have a valid covenant. It is NOT a smorgasbord. If you are guilty of violating one law, you are guilty of violating the WHOLE law.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Like this: Many (if not almost all) of the components of English Common Law were incorporated into American Common Law in 1776 and after. Thus, the English Common Law formed the basis of much of post Revolutionary American jurisprudence. Nevertheless, those laws still existed in England, because although a part of American jurisprudence, they are not wholly dependent on it. And should America just go away, or repudiate the Common Law (which we pretty much have done, in a lot of ways), the English Common Law itself is unaffected, because those laws in themselves are not wholly dependent on American jurisprudence.

And, I actually DID answer the question:

Thanks for the history lesson. Now let me ask you a direct question.

Is eating pork a sin?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And lastly, just for free, you are confounding "Jews" with "Israel", as if the two words are synonyms. They are not.

But that's another discussion.

Okay. Here's that confounding word again. If you mean conflating, I think I understand the difference between Jews and Israelites. I hope this analogy helps.

The Jews were originally part of the tribe of Judah. Later they became the nation of Judah. Still later the tribe of Benjamin were considered Jews.

You see it's kind of like the covenant and the Mosaic law. They aren't the same, but one is part of the other. As time goes on people believe that the law was the covenant, later they believe that the law stands without the rest of the covenant. Because they are confused!

There how'd I do?

Feel free to teach me all the nuances and differences between Jews and Israelites, and Levites and Levitical priests etc..

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

First, I generally agree with you, especially when the emphasis is on the Decalogue.

Not exactly.

1 Timothy 5:17-18 (AV)
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour,
especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
For the scripture saith,
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.
And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

Deuteronomy 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

Luke 10:7
And in the same house remain,
eating and drinking such things as they give:
for the labourer is worthy of his hire.
Go not from house to house.

Even around 60 AD, when many Pauline Epistles were written, Luke's Gospel from c. 40 AD (when Theophilus was the most excellent high priest) was viewed as scripture.

Interesting point. I will look into that further. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

This is correct.



Good question.

The reason these sins produce guilt in Gentiles is that they are part of the New Testament teachings founded on the apostles doctrine.

Like the Apostle Paul who said this in . . .

Romans 1

[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
[26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
[27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

And again . . .

Galatians 5

[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

And the Apostle Peter here . . .

[15] But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.


Annnd John here . . .

1John.3
[15] Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.


And here . . .

Rev.21
[8] But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

See? Idolatry is sin. Murder, coveting, sorcery, lying etc. are sin. They have been reiterated in the doctrine of the apostles. They have been identified for us, you know, just in case we think that since the Old Covenant is done, that we can now go out and commit murder.

Usually the first question people ask when I say that the Ten Commandments are part of the Old Covenant is "Is it then okay to murder?" Of course not. Because the apostles taught us that these things were not okay! They are sin.

Notice what is conspicuously absent from this list of sins? Did you notice?

What is missing is failing to keep the sabbath!!!

So murder is sin because Paul said so? Which would mean it was not sin until Paul said so, because "sin is not imputed where there is no law".

Paul said of that list of sins "knowing the judgment of God that they who do such things are worthy of death". Paul's words show an a priori preexisting judicial decree of God upon those sins, thus proving they were sins before Paul ever said anything.

Murder is sin and always has been.the ten commandments simply iterate that fact. it did not become sin just because the ten commandments said so, nor did it cease to be sin because (supposedly) the ten commandments "ceased to apply" to someone. They reveal right and wrong, which applies to all.

Including the Fourth Commandment.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

A couple of things I'd like to say here. One you seem to be a little snarky about me and the tithes subject. You have thrown plenty of hints in the past about me being a one trick pony etc.. Get over it. I happen to believe that more pastors will go to hell for lying about tithes than for "ministering" to the piano player. Should I know the truth and not share it? The other thing is that I should have been more clear in retrospect. Just to clarify, I think I said that I was not going to spend 3-5 days arguing with you about this subject. I didn't say I wouldn't spend three to five days discussing this subject. I may very well do that.



I'm assuming that you said confounded, when what you really meant is conflated, but I'm not sure. At any rate I am not conflating the commandments of the Old Covenant with the Old Covenant. They are part of a package. It really would be like me conflating my arm with my body. As long as they are together it is really not possible. In the case of the law of Moses and the Old Covenant, there is really no covenant without the law. There is no covenant without the land. If I sold you land for $100,000.00 and you gave me the money, and I didn't deliver the land (my part of the covenant or contract) would you believe we had a deal? You probably would not be happy. This is in essence what you are saying. Take away part of the covenant, and the remainder still stands. What part? Well . . . some parts.



All of the laws were commandments. NONE were mere suggestions. All of the laws were part of the covenant package. You cannot pick this one and that one and still have a valid covenant. It is NOT a smorgasbord. If you are guilty of violating one law, you are guilty of violating the WHOLE law.



Thanks for the history lesson. Now let me ask you a direct question.

Is eating pork a sin?

Don't be snarky then complain about snark. Once again you confused covenant with commandment: "You cannot pick this one and that one and still have a valid covenant. " Thus proving you are blurrings together, which produces error.

Pork? Did you not read this thread? I already addressed this, and more importantly, whether eating pork is a sin or not won't help the fact you are lost in a maze of confusion concerning the subject of moral obligation. Just about every statement you make on the subject leads to error upon error. I notice you AVOID when it's pointed out to you.

Explain how Israelites outside of Palestine who didn't own land and who weren't Levite's weren't subject to the Ten Commandments (as I pointed out, that is a necessary conclusion of your claims).

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The idea that the Ten Commandments were temporary instructions unique to Israel under the old covenant, as if they did not express universal, moral obligation, and as if the nations were not to follow the example given to Israel, is, in my opinion, seriously flawed and unbiblical.

Okay Esaias,

I've finished responding to the little nit picking about the difference in Jews and Israelites etc.. I'm sorry if I missed some. Maybe I can go back and cover them later. If I missed something that is important to the discussion I will try to cover it if you remind me.

Generally you are wrong about this. What bothers me most about you being wrong is that you are an effective (and affective) teacher. You are dong a great job teaching a doctrine that is false, and that bothers me. Once again, I don't question that you are sincere, or that your intentions are good, but false doctrine has consequences, and a teacher of false doctrine bears responsibility for what he teaches.

Having said all of that, this post is going to be a response to your desire for OLD TESTAMENT scripture. More specifically, it will be about how Paul interpreted the scripture from the Old Testament that is specific to the Sabbath. It is polar opposite to what you are teaching. If this doesn't concern you, I think it should.

At your behest, I will show my work.

Exodus 34
[29] And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
[30] And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.
[31] And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them.
[32] And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in mount Sinai.
[33] And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face.
[34] But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded.
[35] And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.

This describes Moses after he came down with the ten commandments, and if you notice his face was so bright that he had to wear a vail before the children of Israel (some of which were Jews, or would later become Jews, and ALL of which would eventually be accused of being Jews possibly in error).

Just for continuity, allow me to post the next few verses of . . .

Exodus 35

[1] And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them.
[2] Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
[3] Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.

I'm putting sabbath in bold type to emphasize that this is relevant to the discussion. Moses actually leads off with the sabbath commandment.

Now let's see how Paul uses this passage to teach, exhort, etc..

2 Corinthians 3

[12] Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
[13] And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

Notice that the reason Paul says that Moses wore the vail, was so that the Israelites could not see the end of that which is abolished. Paul is saying that the ten commandments are (or is) present tense, two thousand years ago, ended, or abolished yet you say that the commandment that he leads with is still in effect. One of you is obviously wrong. Let us continue.

[14] But their minds were blinded: Esaias, do you remember Brother Blume saying you were blind to this subject? for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; Do you remember wanting us to read from the OLD TESTAMENT? Brother, we are the church of the NEW Testament! which vail is done away in Christ. Jesus took away the vail that blinds us to the truth of the ten commandments brother.
[15] But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
Even today, when you read the Old Testament, you are putting the vail over your own eyes, as well as the eyes of them that you teach. Brother, you can read and comprehend. I don't need to continue with the commentary, please consider this passage prayerfully.
[16] Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
[17] Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Brother, this is not a game of tit for tat. I'm not trying to even pretend that I know more than you do, I'm sure your knowledge is greater than mine. But you're wrong on this doctrine.

My knowledge is like a teacup (what I do know) compared to the Pacific Ocean (what I don't know). The more I learn, the more I realize how little I really do know. It's not about me or you. It's about truth. I know you think you have it, but I'm convinced that you don't.

I'll be back later. There is more.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Okay Esaias,

I've finished responding to the little nit picking about the difference in Jews and Israelites etc.. I'm sorry if I missed some. Maybe I can go back and cover them later. If I missed something that is important to the discussion I will try to cover it if you remind me.

Generally you are wrong about this. What bothers me most about you being wrong is that you are an effective (and affective) teacher. You are dong a great job teaching a doctrine that is false, and that bothers me. Once again, I don't question that you are sincere, or that your intentions are good, but false doctrine has consequences, and a teacher of false doctrine bears responsibility for what he teaches.

Having said all of that, this post is going to be a response to your desire for OLD TESTAMENT scripture. More specifically, it will be about how Paul interpreted the scripture from the Old Testament that is specific to the Sabbath. It is polar opposite to what you are teaching. If this doesn't concern you, I think it should.

At your behest, I will show my work.

Exodus 34
[29] And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
[30] And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.
[31] And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them.
[32] And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in mount Sinai.
[33] And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face.
[34] But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded.
[35] And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.

This describes Moses after he came down with the ten commandments, and if you notice his face was so bright that he had to wear a vail before the children of Israel (some of which were Jews, or would later become Jews, and ALL of which would eventually be accused of being Jews possibly in error).

Just for continuity, allow me to post the next few verses of . . .

Exodus 35

[1] And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them.
[2] Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
[3] Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.

I'm putting sabbath in bold type to emphasize that this is relevant to the discussion. Moses actually leads off with the sabbath commandment.

Now let's see how Paul uses this passage to teach, exhort, etc..

2 Corinthians 3

[12] Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
[13] And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

Notice that the reason Paul says that Moses wore the vail, was so that the Israelites could not see the end of that which is abolished. Paul is saying that the ten commandments are (or is) present tense, two thousand years ago, ended, or abolished yet you say that the commandment that he leads with is still in effect. One of you is obviously wrong. Let us continue.

[14] But their minds were blinded: Esaias, do you remember Brother Blume saying you were blind to this subject? for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; Do you remember wanting us to read from the OLD TESTAMENT? Brother, we are the church of the NEW Testament! which vail is done away in Christ. Jesus took away the vail that blinds us to the truth of the ten commandments brother.
[15] But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
Even today, when you read the Old Testament, you are putting the vail over your own eyes, as well as the eyes of them that you teach. Brother, you can read and comprehend. I don't need to continue with the commentary, please consider this passage prayerfully.
[16] Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
[17] Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Brother, this is not a game of tit for tat. I'm not trying to even pretend that I know more than you do, I'm sure your knowledge is greater than mine. But you're wrong on this doctrine.

My knowledge is like a teacup (what I do know) compared to the Pacific Ocean (what I don't know). The more I learn, the more I realize how little I really do know. It's not about me or you. It's about truth. I know you think you have it, but I'm convinced that you don't.

I'll be back later. There is more.

The "end" does not mean "abolishing", it means the purpose or intent. If Christ is the abolishing of the commandment, then Christ is the abolishing of moral obligation. Which means Christ came to eliminate the moral laws that generate obligation. Which means Christ came so that people no longer have to keep the Sabbath, or do anything else stated in the Ten Commandments.

From the very passage you cite in 2 Cor 3:

3 forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Which refers back to these passages:

Ezek 11:

19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: 20 that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

And Ezek 36:

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Paul is speaking of that which is written on tables of stone vs that which is written on the heart by the Spirit, which hearkens to this:

Jer 31

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.

Paul goes on to talk about "the ministration death" which was "written and engraven on stones", and contrasts that with "the ministration of the Spirit" which corresponds with that which was "written in the hearts" or "tables of flesh". Clearly, that which was written on stones refers to the old covenant ("Moses"), and the contrast is with the new covenant work of the Spirit, which writes something in the heart. What is written in the heart, according to the Scriptures? The laws, statutes, and judgments of God.

The law of God was given through Moses and written on stone tables, but through Christ (who is that Spirit) the law of God is written on fleshy tables of the heart. The former did not produce obedience, but the latter does. Therefore Paul calls that latter, new covenant ministration of the Spirit "the ministration of righteousness".

The latter ministration excels in glory because it succeeds where the former did not (see Romans 8:1-10).

In no case is Paul trying to tell people "Therefore you don't have to obey the commandments of God."

[Esaias]

A summation of Tithesmeister's argument, and its necessary, logical conclusions.

The doctrine being promoted is that the Ten Commandments were given only to Israel at Sinai, and were only obligatory upon Jews who owned land in Palestine (or who were Levites) and who lived in Palestine. Tithesmeister, not being a Jew, not owning land in Palestine, not being a Levite, not living in Palestine, is therefore not obligated to obey the Ten Commandments, any of them. Nor is anyone else who is not a Jew, not living in Palestine, etc.

This of course produces the necessary consequence that not only does no one, before Sinai, nor anyone during or after Sinai (anyone not a Jew living in and owning land in Palestine, etc) have to keep the Sabbath, but that all such exempted persons likewise had and have no obligation to obey ANY of the other nine commandments, like the prohibitions against idolatry, murder, theft, etc. Even Israelites, as soon as they crossed the border of Israel into a foreign land, were suddenly not under obligation to obey any of the Ten Commandments. Not just the Sabbath, mind you, but they would be free to worship idols, murder, steal, etc, as long as they were outside Palestine. Indeed, even within Palestine, they were free to do such things as long as they didn't own any land! Gentiles, meanwhile, were likewise not under obligation to obey the Ten Commandments. Not only were Gentiles under no obligation to keep Sabbath, they were under no obligation to avoid idolatry, murder, theft, adultery, etc. Because, remember, the Ten Commandments were strictly and only for Israelites owning land in and living in Palestine, etc.

To avoid this clear and necessary conclusion (which all would reject), he posits that moral obligations stem from Romans 1. And, since Romans 1 does not mention Sabbath keeping, Sabbath keeping is gone as an obligation.

But notice:

To whom was Romans 1 written? To Christians. Therefore, by the logic employed by Titgesmeister, only Christians are subject to the alleged law given in Romans 1! And, possibly, only Christians in Rome, at that!

Further, nobody was subject to the moral code of Romans 1 prior to its writing, that is, prior to the mid first century AD. How could they be?

But that Tithesmeister's doctrine is error should be readily apparent to any and all.

Romans 1 is clearly asserting people long before Paul's writing had committed these sins. Which means moral obligation, and thus moral law, promulgated by God, existed long before Romans 1 was written. So, Romans 1 does not create moral obligation as Tithesmeister imagines, but rather instead affirms preexisting moral obligation.

Much ado is made about Sabbath breaking being absent from the list of sins in Romans 1. Yet, neither is theft mentioned in Romans 1. Upon the antisabbatarian line of reasoning, not only may Christians violate the Sabbath, they may also steal, with no moral guilt!

Strange doctrine this is.

Clearly, Tithesmeister's line of reasoning is seriously flawed, as are his conclusions and application. The whole doctrine is contrary to Scripture, reason, and common sense.