Should we still observe the sabbath?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I have never understood why Christians would prefer to follow a religious calendar based on Roman Catholic and pagan practices (Christmas, Easter, Halloween, etc) while rejecting God's calendar. I mean, the festivals of Jehovah are literally Divinely Inspired, God given, and God honouring. They are light years away from Christ-Mass, Santa, Yuletide, Samhain/Halloween, and Easter bunnies, and Day-of-the-Unconquerable-Sun aka Mithra aka Baal.

Even if one thought that God's calendar was no longer mandatory, still why would one prefer paganism to something God Himself had established? Makes no sense.

Instead of seeing the beauty in it people count the cost. To break from tradition and observe Gods calendar takes separation from the world to another level.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Wrong. There has been a change in the law of sacrifice and offering (as I already pointed out), so the instructions to go to Jerusalem et al are part of that law of sacrifice and offering which has been changed due to the change in the priesthood from Levi to Melchizedek.

The law that was changed was not delineated in Hebrews 7 as to how much of that law. I say the entire law was changed! Sabbaths and so forth included, with feasts. The arguments I hear from feast keepers is that we see Jesus as our passover and Paul words saying "we keep the feast" mean to literally do the feast rituals. But Paul said the leaven we deal with is not literal leaven in bread, but leaven of malice. So we keep it by having pure hearts.

The only times when we see anyone in the New Testament associated with sabbath is just to reach Jews in the best time available when they're free to hear the word in a synagogue in the sabbath. Paul said that Peter lived as a gentile in contrast to the Jews in the church from Jerusalem. How can he live as a gentile?

Galatians 2:14
(14).. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

There is no teaching to keep sabbath day anywhere in the New Testament, and people cannot use attendance to synagogues on sabbath as if to say they all kept sabbath, anyway, or else we need to go to synagogues, too!

For clarification, it's not keeping with a pagan calendar and adopting sun worship days to our faith by having church Sunday. There is no esteem of any days in the church. And the change of law can be limited by some to say ONLY PRIESTHOOD as though to stay strictly to context of Hebrews 7, while you include Sabbath but not trips to Jerusalem. Where did the Heb 7 say change of locations of feasts? Why not say feasts were of law as well and they're gone due to change of law? Why stop at location of feasts when the text did not say that, and yet keep feasts? We cannot just keep ART of the law with some fanciful explanations and retain other parts when neither are delineated as being things to keep or not.

However, it's not the day we worship on that is of any issue, as Amanah has stated in her most recent post. It's Paul words in Colossians and Galatians and Romans about esteeming days, sabbaths a shadow and Paul's words to not keep days, months or years. And I have demonstrated that Galatians' words that say nothing about paganism in Gal 1-3, nor anything from 5 onward -- and only mention it as a tenet of the gentile's past which can be understood as context of saying they went from bondage of paganism to bondage under law -- shows the vast weight of confirmation to be that LAW was the issue and not paganism at all. in Gal's days, etc. HE even strictly stated that the Old Covenant genders to bondage after saying Israel was the heir not intended to be under bondage since Christ came earlier.

That's nothing to do with following a pagan calendar in my heart. It's following the New Testament teachings. And due to this overwhelming weight of context, the New Testament made the fourth commandment different, not me.

The problem is you aren't keeping the Sabbath in any "greater manner" you simply aren't keeping the Fourth Commandment AT ALL, in any manner. Remember the Sabbath DAY to keep IT holy.

I already noted this before and have not since then, since we went into it in a lot of depth in chats, but I must mention it again.

The fact that I know Canadians who live up north where the sun does not even go down for weeks at a time in the summer, nor come up for weeks in the winter shows that sabbath day is not intended for the world's population, but localized under Law alone to Israel. Clocks are not the point. Sundown to sundown is the point. That, with the overwhelming weight of context from Galatians 1-5 pinpointing law as the issue, not paganism, simply blows any idea of our need to keep the sabbath away in as honest and as ojective of an an opinion as I can muster.

The Fourth Commandment has nothing in it about sacrifice and offering, Jerusalem, or the Levitical priesthood.

It is related to holy time periods as are feasts, which you also keep, the issue of Gal 4.

What does "by nature" mean? I think you believe it means they just instinctively do it without ever having heard about it. Like a baby "by nature" will attempt to latch on and suckle on its mother. But I think you are in error.

You are correct. BY NATURE means birth and culture. I used the incorrect point of emphasis, but my point still stands. Paul never said the gentiles keep righteousness of law BY NATURE. He just said they keep it and it seems to be by light that God had provided them. . I think I had Romans 1 more in mind when we read that "creation" teaches the glory of God, and even those Gentiles without the Old Covenant before Jesus could tell by creation some things that are righteous.

Romans 1:19-21
(19).. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
(20).. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(21).. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

I go that principle confused with the note of Romans 2.

Because if what you are saying is true, then we have a rather big problem. Namely, that people who instinctively - without any prior moral instruction - do certain things, are the people who are "circumcised in heart" and who "shew the work of the law in their heart". Which means anyone who practiced sin in their lifetime is excluded. Conversion to Christ requires instruction, it is not something that results from a "natural instinctive urge". So you basically would have all conversions from a life of sin to be spurious!

(Please think a moment about what I am saying here, your statement goes way beyond Sabbath keeping, and goes to the heart (!) of what the new covenant consists in. You are literally saying the new covenant is the result of an instinctive natural urge or force, and thus is entirely involuntary. I do not think you have thought through the implications of your assertion here about "by nature".)

Again, I made the mistake of confusing the points of Romans 1 and 2. I understand and agree with what you're saying.

At any rate, Gentiles keeping righteousness of law cannot allow them to keep a seventh day seeing as that needs to be taught.

As frustrated (and frustrating!) as I get sometimes in these discussions, I also respect the fact that you are certainly reasoning and explaining your position. I just think you are wrong in separating the Fourth Commandment from the Ten.

Let me also say, in the very earliest days of my Christian life I was exposed to and used a lot of the same kinds of arguments I see on a daily basis here. It was prayerful, deeper study that showed me those arguments are fatally flawed and do not make sense, create contradictions, etc. I believe the Fourth Commandment is valid for Christians today because it makes sense to me, and the counter arguments don't make sense to me. I hope that makes sense? lol I mean, I don't think your arguments are flawed because I am a Sabbath keeper. It's literally the other way around, I think the anti Sabbath arguments are flawed, THEREFORE I am a Sabbath keeper.

And what I have seen in these discussions is an issue that goes way beyond the Sabbath issue. It gets into the whole subject of theonomy, salvation, the very purpose for Christ coming, and the original intent God had when creating man (and thus it gets into eschatology as well). I think the anti Sabbath position is part of a larger package of errors.

And then there is the historical side. While the historical record doesn't ESTABLISH doctrine, it certainly PROVES certain things. History proves that trinitarianism was a later post apostolic development. History also proves that "going to church on Sunday" was a later post apostolic development. History also proves that BOTH had their origins in the same group - Rome and Alexandria. To put it simply, if the anti Sabbath arguments were correct, then I would expect history to demonstrate things OTHER than what it plainly and admittedly demonstrates (I mean admitted by all informed sides of the Sabbath debate).

I have to stand on the word of God. Context disallows a pagan thought to be the issue of holy time periods of Gal. 4, and that along with Col 2 simply disallows me from keeping any holy time periods. Church on Sunday of Saturday makes no difference to me. I do not regard the day other than the first day of the week was when the church gathered in Acts, and I found no arguments that say otherwise to logically stand as much as a trend they got into due to Christ's resurrection that day. It doe snot make the day more holy than others, but Just what they thought to do.

Blessings. Enjoying the chat!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Instead of seeing the beauty in it people count the cost. To break from tradition and observe Gods calendar takes separation from the world to another level.

Incorrect. I see the words of the New Testament that speak against it. The only cost I see is disobedience to Paul's teachings, which is serious, if we ant to talk about the cost.

[coksiw]

Esaias,
I posted long ago about extracting principles from commandments, but really, you are right that that it is dangerous in the sense that principles stand on their own by definition and people can go invent their own stuff with it.

We both agree that the commandments of God are applicable today unless explicitly discontinued in the NT. I also agree that commandments should be carefully study not to dismiss it as cultural relative or inapplicable, because first, they are the reflection of God's righteousness and holiness, and second they are applied to certain circumstances the correct way, which we as human, can misapply it and end up sinning if we try to "find the principle, and then reapply it".

I figured out that "finding the principle" is not the best way to study the commandments, but rather, finding the purpose of God behind, according to the righteousness and holiness.

This is an interesting one:

1Co 9:9-10 NKJV - (9) For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about? (10) Or does He say [it] altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, [this] is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Paul is teaching the purpose of God behind the commandment. The purpose is universal, even in the times of Moses. In the time of Moses they were expected to obey the commandment, but also this commandment, and probably other ones, as practiced, would put something in the commandment keepers heart, to shape its thinking according to God's righteousness and holiness. This is actually a beautiful thing: Jer 9:23-24 NKJV - (23) Thus says the LORD: "Let not the wise [man] glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty [man] glory in his might, Nor let the rich [man] glory in his riches; (24) But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I [am] the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight," says the LORD.

This is another one:

2Co 6:14-16 NKJV - (14) Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? (15) And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? (16) And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among [them]. I will be their God, And they shall be My people."

Comparing with this:

“Nor shall you make marriages with them. You
shall not give your daughter to their son, nor
take their daughter for your son. For they will
turn your sons away from following Me, to serve
other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be
aroused against you and destroy you suddenly.”
- Deuteronomy 7:3-4 NKJV

We are not called to marry only the people of Israel. However, understanding that we are in the new covenant where we are people of God, we ought to marry in the Lord.

God is giving the purpose of the commandment in the commandment itself already: For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly. And that's exactly what Paul warns about when joining in yoke with unbelievers. Paul doesn't use Deuteronomy but other Scriptures.

Studying the commandment of God is a very interesting subject.

But anyways, you are right, there is danger in "extracting principles". Staying closer to the commandment instead of looking for abstractions is much better. Looking for God's purpose, right in the Scriptures if available, is much safer, but yet, the purpose of God does not really invalidate the commandment, but can give you a better knowledge of God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Esaias,
I posted long ago about extracting principles from commandments, but really, you are right that that it is dangerous in the sense that principles stand on their own by definition and people can go invent their own stuff with it.

We both agree that the commandments of God are applicable today unless explicitly discontinued in the NT. I also agree that commandments should be carefully study not to dismiss it as cultural relative or inapplicable, because first, they are the reflection of God's righteousness and holiness, and second they are applied to certain circumstances the correct way, which we as human, can misapply it and end up sinning if we try to "find the principle, and then reapply it".

I figured out that "finding the principle" is not the best way to study the commandments, but rather, finding the purpose of God behind, according to the righteousness and holiness.

This is an interesting one:

1Co 9:9-10 NKJV - (9) For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about? (10) Or does He say [it] altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, [this] is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Paul is teaching the purpose of God behind the commandment. The purpose is universal, even in the times of Moses. In the time of Moses they were expected to obey the commandment, but also this commandment, and probably other ones, as practiced, would put something in the commandment keepers heart, to shape its thinking according to God's righteousness and holiness. This is actually a beautiful thing: Jer 9:23-24 NKJV - (23) Thus says the LORD: "Let not the wise [man] glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty [man] glory in his might, Nor let the rich [man] glory in his riches; (24) But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I [am] the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight," says the LORD.

This is another one:

2Co 6:14-16 NKJV - (14) Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? (15) And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? (16) And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among [them]. I will be their God, And they shall be My people."

Comparing with this:

“Nor shall you make marriages with them. You
shall not give your daughter to their son, nor
take their daughter for your son. For they will
turn your sons away from following Me, to serve
other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be
aroused against you and destroy you suddenly.”
- Deuteronomy 7:3-4 NKJV

We are not called to marry only the people of Israel. However, understanding that we are in the new covenant where we are people of God, we ought to marry in the Lord.

God is giving the purpose of the commandment in the commandment itself already: For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly. And that's exactly what Paul warns about when joining in yoke with unbelievers. Paul doesn't use Deuteronomy but other Scriptures.

Studying the commandment of God is a very interesting subject.

But anyways, you are right, there is danger in "extracting principles". Staying closer to the commandment instead of looking for abstractions is much better. Looking for God's purpose, right in the Scriptures if available, is much safer, but yet, the purpose of God does not really invalidate the commandment, but can give you a better knowledge of God.

The problem with "principles" is it is too easy to insert our own justifications and meanings that may not have been intended by the Author.

[good samaritan]

2Co 6:14-16 NKJV - (14) Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? (15) And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? (16) And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among [them]. I will be their God, And they shall be My people."

Deuteronomy 22:10
Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The problem with "principles" is it is too easy to insert our own justifications and meanings that may not have been intended by the Author.

Amen!

[mfblume]

Esaias, how was Peter living like a Gentile in Paul's words here?

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Esaias, how was Peter living like a Gentile in Paul's words here?

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

In what way was Peter compelling the gentiles to conduct themselves like Jews? By refusing to eat with them, which was the custom of Jews - they would not eat with gentiles nor even go into their houses (Acts 11:2-3). This was hypocritical, because he had previously learned the gospel truth about this (Acts 10:28). So Peter had dissimulated when certain Jews showed up and regressed by peer pressure to force the separation between Jew and gentile, as commonly practiced by Jews. Whereas previously, he treated Jew and gentile alike as equals before God.

[good samaritan]

I had a Bible study with a couple SDA ministers and this is a scripture that comes to mind.

Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

This to me is the whole debate of Sabbath observance. If you don't observe the Sabbath then you are in sin, and thus the reason for Sabbath observance. This whole debate insnares people to ritualism (observing days) and failure to do so is damnable.

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things:another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

This was another important issue on their agenda. I don't know if this is true for all SDA's, but these where religiously vegan. Ironically, they sold health food books and they where very expensive. They spoke at health seminars and it appeared that there dietary laws was providing for them monetarly.

3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth:for God hath received him.

We have been called unto liberty. I am free to eat meats or vegtables, but I should give thanks to God for it. I should be moderate in all things, therefore not committing gluttony. I should be mindful of nutrition for the sake of having a better quality of life. But, eating a hotdog is sin???

4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up:for God is able to make him stand.

These people approached me to win me to the Lord. They where teaching the ten commandments+ some as the gospel and I stood before them in that meeting as a sinner in need of salvation. They let me know that it was their job to let people know this adventist messsage.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another:another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks

I can say that I have church on Sundays because of tradition, but I truly don't view Sunday as a Sabbath. I believe that Jesus supplies the rest from all my works and I believe that we are to keep everyday holy unto the Lord. Everyday we live we should remember that God is our creator and we are his people. I have followed this thread all the way and I truly have prayed on this. I am not judging those who do observe the Sabbath and I have enoyed the dialogue, but I just don't see it.

In the case of those SDA's, there where 2 men and a lady that was in study with me. The lady seemed to be getting offended in her tone, but the men where very courteous and where kind to take turns speaking. There was no disrespectfullness or anything and I enjoyed the study. Although I disgreed, I enjoyed the discussion. They wanted to get together again to discuss the Holy Spirit, something that I kept bringing up.