7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[Esaias]

One thing I have noticed is antisabbatarians, and antinomians in general, seem utterly confused as the meaning of the word "law". They seem oblivious to the fact the word has different meanings and applications depending on context.

If obeying the fourth commandment is being under the law, and being under the law is bondage, falling from grace, etc, then obedience to any command of God whatsoever is being under the law, in bondage, fallen from grace, etc.

Antisabbatarians need to study the various uses and meaning of the term law as used in the Bible. Then they will articulate a much more consistent and rational antisabbatarian doctrine.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The Ten Commandments are the representation of all the law of God proposed to mankind. They correctly showed man what was required of man in order to be righteous. .... So, they’re all in effect today....the fourth commandment... a shadow of the day of rest in Christ’s new creation, rendering the older shadow fulfilled and expired..

Thanks.

So the 4th commandment is in effect, but shadowized or transformed (spiritualized into Christ) and thus the original understanding, purpose and pattern is abrogated, "expired".

Is there any specific pattern by which you keep the "new creation" 4th commandment? (I will presume you reject any transference to Sunday.) Or is it more or less .. be a Christian.

The other 9 are in effect, or does the Spirit lead to additional transformations?

Steven

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Thanks.

So the 4th commandment is in effect, but shadowized or transformed (spiritualized into Christ) and thus the original understanding, purpose and pattern is abrogated, "expired".

Is there any specific pattern by which you keep the "new creation" 4th commandment? (I will presume you reject any transference to Sunday.) Or is it more or less .. be a Christian.

The other 9 are in effect, or does the Spirit lead to additional transformations?

Steven

The word only referred such a fulfilled Notion to the fourth. Nothing else.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

We are a new creature in Christ, our old life is over with, we have risen anew with Christ, the old man is dead and crucified, we live by a new impulse (the Spirit, instead of the old impulse of the flesh), Jew and gentile (Judean and Greek) have become one new man (that is, united as one people in Messiah, no longer separated), our sins have been pardoned, etc etc.

But that is not the same as saying Christ did a new creation (as, in a new cosmos, a parallel to the original creation of the universe) that has superceded the original created universe, so that we can dispense with the command to remember the Sabbath DAY to keep IT holy.

And anyways, the Bible specifies universal Sabbath keeping in the new heavens and the new earth, as I already showed.

I sabbath keeping is not at all to occur in any new earth. That's is what I feel is a fused interiors of those passages you base this on, along with the idea animal Sacrifuces will commence again in a Millennium.

You're changing your arguments when I respond. You said salvation is not a new creation and I showed where it was.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"...which are a shadow of things to come..."

Please parse the phrase, and point out where the preterite tense is found. Thanks!

I already said more than once that it was plain to me, before I ever heard your view, that it was speaking from the perspective of when they were instituted as per context.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by mfblume

And that's saying the same thing that chapter 7 said when it said Paul could not keep the law of God of the old covenant because the law of sin and death stopped him. But the law of the Spirit of life is not the law of the old covenant.

The righteousness of the law is real. It would have been gained by successfully keeping law if one could do that. But Romans is teaching no one could do that. So... the Lord did, through the law of the Spirit of life what the law of the old covenant could not do. Cause us to do the good things the law of the old covenant failed to get us to do. But the SABBATH issue is unique, as I have been maintaining, since we are NOT to keep a shadow which Sabbath is.

Agreed. But not in the way you claim it is when speaking of bondages. Gal 3's bondage under law by being SHUT UP and KEPT away from Christ is not the bondage of Romans which is sinful living.

NO NO NO . ELEMENTS of the world are NECESSARY FUNDAMENTALS under which THE FATHER APPOINTED the heirs, Israelites, to live under before Christ came, to keep them there for Christ., from which he would bring them out when he came. How are pagan days NECESSARY FUNDAMENTALS that the FATHER APPOINTED HEIRS to be under? For that is what you are claiming they were appointed by the father to be under, since Gal 4:2 says the FATHER appointed them to be under the tutors of the elementary things.

Strawman. I never said it was. You not only have MY words mixed up as saying we can live lawlessly, but you mix up Galatians 4:1-3 and get it all wrong.

Amen. Being dead to sin means there is no effort of law keeping to live right. There is empowerment of the Spirit through faith to do so. Though we are not under law, we will fulfill what the law tried, but failed, to get us to do, when the Spirit leads us to do righteousness. That is a far cry from lawkeeping.

Romans 7:6 is your lifestyle of serving god in oldness of the letter. Walking after the flesh is more than murder and adultery. What you 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 idea. Walking after the flesh is trying to make yourself do good using God, which is bound to fail. Paul compared trying to do goo, which always failed, with ceasing from using the flesh to serve God which always causes one to fail, anyway. So much of context you miss in both Romans 7 and Gal 4. I know you cannot see it. But you totally miss it.

AGREED!

But they're not the heirs of 4:1! The ISRAELITES, of WHOM PAUL WAS, was the HEIR. You miss that because you totally miss the "WE" Paul used in speaking of heirs, while the "YOU" is speaking of gentile GALATIANS.
No no no.

They were leaving one bondage, which was evil, to another bondage, which was not evil, but was still bondage. They were going to the kindergarten that jews were under, but graduated from, when the time appointed of the father arrived.

They were GENTILE CHRISTIANS WHO SOUGHT JEWISH LAW that even JEWS were freed from!

No. They were legalistic people who never left law and Sabbath keeping, who were getting former gentiles who were idolators to come under HEBREW OLD COVENANT RITUALS that were done away with Christ's coming.

They were Israelites who confessed Christ who were getting gentiles converts to keep Sabbaths and suchlike.

IT IS USED RIGHT HERE in Galatians to refer to it, as is clearly seen by redcognizing the plain context that HEIRS under LAW are Israelites before Christ, while SERVANTS under IDOLLS were gentiles before Christ. And

That is not how the sense of the word WORLD is used here at all. And you would see that if you connected the tutors and governors, which Paul said were the elements, with the schoolmaster of law in chapter 3.

Not at all. Totally wrong due to how I explained context above.

Bump for sabbath keepers.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I sabbath keeping is not at all to occur in any new earth. That's is what I feel is a fused interiors of those passages you base this on, along with the idea animal Sacrifuces will commence again in a Millennium.

Where did I mention the Millennium, let alone renewed animal sacrifices? Anyway, it says the new heavens and the new earth, with universal Sabbath keeping. Whatever it means, it does NOT mean "no Sabbath keeping in the new heavens and new earth." This is like Baptists who read 1 Peter 3:21 and conclude "baptism does not save us", 180 degrees from the plain text.

You're changing your arguments when I respond. You said salvation is not a new creation and I showed where it was.

Show me where I said "salvation is not a new creation". I said there is no Bible verse that speaks of Jesus doing "a new creation on the cross". I then identified the new creation verses, which speak of a new life given to the believer, NOT a new cosmic creation event that replaces and/or supercedes the original Creation week. I then finally pointed out the Bible speaks of a new heavens and a new earth, which would correspond to a new cosmic creation, BUT one of the key passages on the new heaven and earth specifically mentions Sabbath keeping as being universal.

Game, set, match on the "new creation" argument.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I already said more than once that it was plain to me, before I ever heard your view, that it was speaking from the perspective of when they were instituted as per context.

So, no preterite tense in the verse, then? Thanks!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Brother Blume

Amen. Being dead to sin means there is no effort of law keeping to live right. There is empowerment of the Spirit through faith to do so. Though we are not under law, we will fulfill what the law tried, but failed, to get us to do, when the Spirit leads us to do righteousness. That is a far cry from lawkeeping.

And what did the Law "try to get us to do" in the Fourth Commandment?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Brother Blume

Romans 7:6 is your lifestyle of serving god in oldness of the letter. Walking after the flesh is more than murder and adultery. What you 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 idea. Walking after the flesh is trying to make yourself do good using God, which is bound to fail. Paul compared trying to do goo, which always failed, with ceasing from using the flesh to serve God which always causes one to fail, anyway. So much of context you miss in both Romans 7 and Gal 4. I know you cannot see it. But you totally miss it.

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. 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.

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

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.