Why Sunday

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No no no.

Paul clearly described INABILITY when he said to will was present but how to perform was not, and I recall that you changed the obvious reading to mean the point was actually NOT WILLING, which habit of changing plain reading is most common with sabbath keepers, as in 2 Cor 3, Col 2, and Gal 4.

Changing "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy...the seventh day is the Sabbath" to "remember to rest in Jesus...Jesus is the Sabbath" seems quite common for antisabbatarians.

Romans 6 is speaking about saved people who do not have to yield to sin unlike those unregenerated and not saved who must.

Talk about "changing the plain reading" lol. Let's read it again:


Romans 6:16-17 KJV
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? [17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Paul states a truism: you are the slave of whoever you submit to, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness. He then says "you were the slaves of sin" - keeping in mind that "you are the slave of what you yield yourself as a slave to". Therefore, they were the servants of sin because they had yielded themselves as servants unto sin. He then says "But you have obeyed the teaching that was delivered to you, from the heart". This is clearly the pre-conversion and post-conversion states of the readers being contrasted.

Romans 6:18 KJV
Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

See? This is the effect of conversion. Therefore they were servants of sin prior to conversion.

Romans 6:19 KJV
I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

This is the very next verse. He makes it plain: AS YOU HAVE YIELDED YOURSELF TO BE A SLAVE TO SIN, SO NOW YIELD YOURSELF AS A SLAVE TO RIGHTEOUSNESS. Very simple and straightforward.

After he tells them the truths of what happened to them in their deaths with Christ he lets them know that being saved a dn sinning was actually YIELDING to sin. For sinners it most certainly is not a yielding. And it is a yielding to sin when it does not have to be becuase sin shall not have dominion over the saved ones who are dead indeed to sin and alive to God through Jesus. Verse 13 cannot be understood with tout verses 11 and 12 before it. Saved people often are bound by sin, because they do not KNOW, RECKON and YIELD in the manners Paul explained. Saints who never learn these truths, and most rarely ever do (!!), will not be able to resist sin, like Rom 7 describes. Most yield to sin because they think they can't resist. they don't know it's a yield, unlike a must for sinners, because they "KNOW YE NOT?" as Paul repeated so much in this chapter.

Romans 6:1 KJV
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

The believer is not to CONTINUE in sin. That means there is a hypothetical uninterrupted condition of sinning, begun in the unregenerate state and (hypothetically here) CONTINUING into the regenerate state. Therefore, the "servant to sin" condition spoken of in the verses following apply first to the unregenerate, then to the regenerate who fails to act like he has in fact been regenerated. The voluntary nature of sin is clearly established here (and elsewhere).

No. The sinner cannot help it

How then is the sinner ACCOUNTABLE for his sin?

It is crime because the person still did it and it is still wrong.

If a person with Tourrette's cusses their mom, are they guilty of cursing their mother and DESERVING OF DEATH?

And let's not go on with the conclusion you claim when you're talking to someone who denies such a conclusion altogether.... again. Just because you cannot see another conclusion does not mean there is none.

No, rather, let's not ignore the logical conclusions of faulty reasoning just because the faulty reasoner chooses to believe their conclusion follows from their premises.

If sin is transgression of the law, and sin is involuntary (as you seem to be asserting), then is that why you do not obey the 4th commandment? You can't help it?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias
They did not continue in His covenant does not equate to they could not obey Me by a natural inability.

Neither Jeremiah 31 nor Hebrews 8 says anything about ability, they only state the obvious: Israel and Judah failed to keep the covenant. I'm not arguing that God didn't promise to write His laws in the hearts of His people in order to cause them to be faithful and obedient. I am saying neither verse you posted speaks about ability.


Originally posted by mfblume
No no no.

Paul clearly described INABILITY when he said to will was present but how to perform was not, and I recall that you changed the obvious reading to mean the point was actually NOT WILLING, which habit of changing plain reading is most common with sabbath keepers, as in 2 Cor 3, Col 2, and Gal 4.

I notice you shifted the goalpost there from Jeremiah and Hebrews to Romans. I said Jeremiah said nothing about ability, you denied that and promptly left Jeremiah in the dust. That's a common tactic I've seen with antisabbatarians. They get pinned on a point or scripture and jump to another as if nobody will notice what just happened.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Brother Avery, this is a specimen of the writing at the link you gave from ten-commandments.org. I have to say this article is erroneous, and commits the error of asserting the law of Moses is NOT the law of God. If the author's claim is true, then the NT is wrong in affirming many things are sinful which are NOT identified as such by the decalogue: sodomy, extortion, witchcraft, envy, pride, drunkenness, fornication (including incest), and so forth. According to the author's logic, the only sins possible are those which transgress the decalogue.

It is easy to see any, or all, of these as covered within the 10.

Beyond that, many of the Mosaic ordinances were God's wisdom to man, such as the prohibition on unclean animals. The list of animals can be summarized as avoiding the eating of garbage-collection scavenger animals, which God created for purposes other than our food. The draining of blood likely has a major health component, in addition to the spiritual.

While the daily living of the New Testament covenant should include such wisdom, the core of the New Testament covenant is the decalogue, confirmed by the blood of the Lord Jesus, which landed on the mercy seat.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And speaking of "written on stones"...

Deuteronomy 27:1-9 KJV
And Moses with the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, Keep all the commandments which I command you this day. [2] And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, that thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaister them with plaister: [3] And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over, that thou mayest go in unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, a land that floweth with milk and honey; as the Lord God of thy fathers hath promised thee. [4] Therefore it shall be when ye be gone over Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaister them with plaister. [5] And there shalt thou build an altar unto the Lord thy God, an altar of stones: thou shalt not lift up any iron tool upon them. [6] Thou shalt build the altar of the Lord thy God of whole stones: and thou shalt offer burnt offerings thereon unto the Lord thy God: [7] And thou shalt offer peace offerings, and shalt eat there, and rejoice before the Lord thy God. [8] And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly. [9] And Moses and the priests the Levites spake unto all Israel, saying, Take heed, and hearken, O Israel; this day thou art become the people of the Lord thy God.

==========================

Allen Walker has this interesting section:

Another very important distinction between the Ten Commandments and all the others is the fact that the Ten Commandments were placed inside the ark; and the others, in the side of the ark. In Deuteronomy 10:5 we read concerning the Ten Commandments: “I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the Lord commanded me.” Deuteronomy 31:26 tells where the other law was placed: “Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God.” Here we have one law “in the ark,” and the other “in the side of the ark.” - p. 60
https://www.adventbeliefs.com/assets...alker-1953.pdf

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

That’s a common tactic I've seen with antisabbatarians. They get pinned on a point or scripture and jump to another as if nobody will notice what just happened.

You can often tell how fundamental and important is a Bible belief by noticing how convoluted and shifty and illogical are the arguments marshaled in opposition.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

You can often tell how fundamental and important is a Bible belief by noticing how convoluted and shifty and illogical are the arguments marshaled in opposition.

Like two old covenants, and the Ministration of death written and engraved on stones not being the Commandments written and engraved on stones?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Like two old covenants

It is only your confused, circular, ignorant fantasy that the Ten Commandments atr called the “old covenant”.

Hebrews 8:13
In that he saith,
A new covenant, he hath made the first old.
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

It is only your confused, circular, ignorant fantasy that the Ten Commandments atr called the “old covenant”.

Hebrews 8:13
In that he saith,
A new covenant, he hath made the first old.
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

No, it's 2 Corinthians 3.

Do you agree there were two old covenants between Ex 19 and Ex 20??

[mfblume]

Changing "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy...the seventh day is the Sabbath" to "remember to rest in Jesus...Jesus is the Sabbath" seems quite common for antisabbatarians.

Of course! Because Col 2 said sabbaths are a shadow of Jesus. And Restng in Jesus is what Hebrews 4 was all about!

Talk about "changing the plain reading" lol. Let's read it again:
Romans 6:16-17 KJV
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? [17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Paul states a truism: you are the slave of whoever you submit to, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness. He then says "you were the slaves of sin" - keeping in mind that "you are the slave of what you yield yourself as a slave to". Therefore, they were the servants of sin because they had yielded themselves as servants unto sin. He then says "But you have obeyed the teaching that was delivered to you, from the heart". This is clearly the pre-conversion and post-conversion states of the readers being contrasted.

You forget to whom he is writing. He is writing to saved people who already read his words from 6:3-13. And speaking of saved people, there is a truism that does not apply to sinners. Saved people do not have to YIELD to sin, and it is quite a revelation for saved people to realize that it indeed is a YIELDING, because these kinds of saved people think they HAVE TO SIN seeing as sinners HAVE TO sin. But God made a difference to saved people.

Verse 17 is referring to pre-conversion states of people when they were servants and then obeyed from the heart the doctrine of salvation. I agree with that. However, there is a disconnect between the state of a sinner, who cannot but commit sin, and a believer. And you are making this out as though sinners did never really need the cross, for they were merely yielding to sin anyway. As if they were not bound in sin. They willingly gave way to it. So, this makes the cross unnecessary, and we should instead tell the world that a simple refusal to yield to sin any longer. Don't read verses 3-13, just go from 1, actually not even 2, down to verse 16. That is not the case.

The entire chapter is about dying to sin through Christ, so as to render the power of sin over us ineffective if we take the time to learn and understand the sequence of thoughts Paul outlined about our death's, burials and resurrections with Jesus, and act on the. We would not be reading about our need to die with Christ so that sin should not have dominion over us anymore. We should only read about a refusal to yield to it. But the gospel is not about the refusal to yield, but about dying to sin.

Romans 6:11-14.. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. ..(12).. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. ..(13).. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. ..(14).. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.


This puts yield in its proper perspective. The body of sin being destroyed is body of reason that we do not have to serve sin...

Romans 6:6.. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.


..not a refusal to yield to it. If the simple refusal to yield to sin is the answer like you claim it is, then this entire HUGE work of God in causing Christ to die for our sins and for us to die with Him, so as to not have to serve sin anymore, was a grand waste of time!, let alone Paul's whole context from 6:3-13.

Did Romans 6:6 say, "Knowing this, that our old man is put in its place by refusing to yield to sin, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin"?

Of course not. But that's what you are implying. Tell me, using Paul's reasoning in Romans 6, what is the benefit of the cross in regards to our compulsion to sin if we merely need to refuse to yield to it? Why did Paul claim the death of the cross experienced in us by our unions to Christ is the reason that we should no longer serve sin in verse 6?


We don't read: "Likewise reckon yourselves to be strong enough to merely refuse to yield to sin, and yield instead to God as those capable of yielding without the help of the cross. ..(12).. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. ..(13).. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those who don't need any such resurrection from the dead, and your members as instruments of your will-power to merely refuse to yield to sin. ..(14).. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are able to merely refuse to yield to it, rather than go through the huge work of God to offer us freedom from sin through the unnecessary anguish, torment and suffering of Christ to free us from sin as though we were unable to merely refuse to yield to it."


How does the cross free us if we always had to power to merely refuse to yield to sin? Why does Romans 8:1 says that those who walk after the Spirit are not condemned instead of those who simply walk by refusing to yield to sin? Why did not Paul write about the oldness of the letter as opposed to the newness of refusing to yield to sin, instead of opposing to newness of Spirit? When was a walk after the Spirit humanized to be mere power of refusal to yield?


It might appear that verses 16 and 17 say what you claim. However, the overall chapter says quite different in a very clear manner. And this is where taking two verses away and from the overall context, that already clearly showed the that he compulsion to commit sin is too powerful for us to simply refuse to yield to it, is indicating a required deliverance as much as God's miraculous power had to deliver Israel from the clutches of Pharaoh. Israel could not simply choose to not yield to Pharaoh any longer! Israel required supernatural power through the blood of the lamb to move God to cover their doors and keep out the destroyer, instead of the sign on their homes saying "WE REFUSE TO YIELD." And then his power drowned out the sin-typifying soldiers of Egypt by opening and closing the Red Sea in on them, as much as we need to be baptized into Jesus' death as the reason to no longer serve sin.

Romans 7 also shows us, as, again I say, you insisted was not the case, when it stated that Paul shows the sincerely WILL to not sin, but the inability to carry that out. When we understand the context of Romans 6 through 7, we see the absolute need of the cross, whereas your view says the cross is not that unnecessary, and that Paul should have stuck with verses 16-17's emphasis on mere yielding instead of point to the great cause of deliverance from sin being the co-crucifixion and co-resurrection with Jesus. That concept ultimately weakens the point of the cross.

False teaching always is betrayed as such by a study of how the cross fits into the picture. And the refusal to realize that people cannot but commit sin, without any ability to refuse to simply yield to it in order to do so, is weighed by the truth of the cross and found wanting.


Paul wrote:


Romans 7:15-19.. For that which I do (THE SIN HE COMMITTED) I allow not (HE DOES NOT WANT TO COMMIT IT, BUT CANNOT HELP IT): for what I would (WANTING TO LIVE SINLESSLY), that do I not (HE CANNOT DO); but what I hate (HE HATED TO SIN), that do I (HE OCULD NOT HELP BUT SIN). ..(16).. If then I do that which I would not (COMMIT SIN THAT HE HATES TO DO), I consent unto the law that it is good (THE LAW HE TRIED TO OBEY WAS WHAT HE AGREED WITH TO BE GOOD). ..(17).. Now then it is no more I that do it (SINCE HE HATES TO COMMIT SIN AND WANTS TO OBEY LAW IN HIS MIND, THE MIND THAT WANTS TO DO LAW IS NOT THE ELEMENT THAT ACTUALLY IS COMMITTING THE SIN), but sin that dwelleth in me (SIN INSIDE HIM IS FORCING HIM TO COMMIT IT). ..(18).. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing (SIN IS IN HIM): for to will is present with me (TO HAVE THE FILL DESIRE TO NOT SIN); but how to perform that which is good I find not (HE IS NOT ABLE TO STOP SINNING). ..(19).. For the good that I would (THE OBEDIENCE TO LAW) I do not (HE IS UNABLE TO DO): but the evil which I would not (SINS THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO COMMIT), that I do (HE CANNOT HELP COMMITTING).


Therefore, Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness..... is not as simple as you think.

continued...

[mfblume]

...continued.

See? This is the effect of conversion. Therefore they were servants of sin prior to conversion.

Romans 6:19 KJV
I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

This is the very next verse. He makes it plain: AS YOU HAVE YIELDED YOURSELF TO BE A SLAVE TO SIN, SO NOW YIELD YOURSELF AS A SLAVE TO RIGHTEOUSNESS. Very simple and straightforward.

It does appear so, if you do not get the prior truths mentioned in this chapter established in your heart first, such as Romans 6:3-12. But that cannot be the case if you read and catch the entire context in the chapter. Here's why:

Your thoughts are, in effect, telling us that to get to the state where Jesus arrived, where sin does not have dominion over him any more, we do not have to go the route that Jesus took, which is the death, burial and resurrection. He did that but we have another route? Human power to refuse to yield! With or without the Spirit! We merely have to go the route of refusing to yield to sin, and skip past Romans 6:3-12 and simply read verse 1 and drop down to verse 13, but remove the all-important aspect of verse 13's statement that says "AS THOSE ALIVE FROM THE DEAD." Simply replace that clause with "AS THOSE WHO KNOW HOW TO REFUSE TO YIELD TO SIN.

Paul's entire argument stated that the death of Jesus frees us from sin. And you gloss over all those verses and stress the point of verses 14-18.

This shows you are missing the actual point in those verses you focus on. When you read them with the previous verses 3:13 in mind, then you should understand that he is actually saying that, from a believer's perspective only, their current state is one in which they can look at the picture of "yielding" or "not yielding" to sin, to emphasize his point for BELIEVERS. He cannot be saying that when they were servants, they merely yielded to sin. Now that they are saved, they do indeed merely yield to it if they are sinning. Verse 19, therefore, can only mean that as believers they yielded to sin, which is the entire reason that he wrote to them, and gave rise to the question, "Know ye not?"

Romans 6:1 KJV
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

The believer is not to CONTINUE in sin. That means there is a hypothetical uninterrupted condition of sinning, begun in the unregenerate state and (hypothetically here) CONTINUING into the regenerate state. Therefore, the "servant to sin" condition spoken of in the verses following apply first to the unregenerate, then to the regenerate who fails to act like he has in fact been regenerated. The voluntary nature of sin is clearly established here (and elsewhere).

Only for saints, not sinners. Again, how do you reconcile the answer for the life of continuing in sin to be death with Christ instead of refusal to yield to it in Paul's earlier context that leads up to this point?

How then is the sinner ACCOUNTABLE for his sin?

If a person with Tourrette's cusses their mom, are they guilty of cursing their mother and DESERVING OF DEATH?

I never said death. lol. But, you are comparing someone who cannot help cussing due to a mental illness with the compulsion to sin that's in every sinner, and saying it is wrong for God to say they are judged and condemned for hell because they are doing something they cannot stop doing, anyway. Romans 5 clearly stated that Adam's act made us sinners. It was not a sinful act that made us sinners, but Adam's act.

Romans 5:19.. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, ...


So, the truth is that Adam put sin and death, both, onto our lives and we are lost for it.


Romans 5:12.. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


Death passed on us all because of one man, Adam.


But the rest of the verse 19 says, "so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."


It is true that we are lost because of things we cannot control. We are judged But by the same token that is the basis of salvation, because we are saved by the righteousness of Jesus and not our own by our own acts.


Here is where people get confused and think the only conclusion that they can contrive is all that anyone can contrive, by saying this teaching leads to Calvinism. No, it does not.


By remaining in the place in which God put us when He saved us, which is in Christ, we must learn to abide by the power of the Spirit by walking after the Spirit, which is what 6:13 describes in a nutshell. so as to stop committing sin. Until we get there, when we sin we must repent, or else we have lost that sanctified position in Christ. And if we fail to repent when we sin, then we are as bound for hell as we were before we were placed in Christ.


The difference between our lives now and before we were saved is that we can now either yield to sin or not yield to it, and instead yield to obedience with the grace-power of the Spirit.

No, rather, let's not ignore the logical conclusions of faulty reasoning just because the faulty reasoner chooses to believe their conclusion follows from their premises.

No, my conclusion follows Paul's overall context, and your failure to insert with reason that context from 6:3-13 into your explanation of verses 16-19 shows that this conclusion presented to me is the actual faulty reasoning that can only stand if that context is bypassed.

If sin is transgression of the law, and sin is involuntary (as you seem to be asserting), then is that why you do not obey the 4th commandment? You can't help it?

You keep forgetting that the 4th commandment is not violated by keeping it spiritually and resting in Christ, but fuflilled. Let's at least try to remember that after so many weeks of it being emphasized.

The truth is that if you think that we are sinners BY OUR OWN ACTIONS and not those of Adam's, then by the same token YOU MUST DENY that you can only be righteous by Jesus' righteousness having been given to you as a gift. We can only deny that HIS WORK is the only works that save us, and indulge in salvation by works. Calvinism simply does not see the seriousness of committing sins after salvation as being grounds for loss of salvation if repentance is not involved.

It's about the cross, not about refusing to yield, for sinners. For saints, it's refusing to yield.