The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Again, it comes down to the surprise of Christians fighting the 10 commandments, which include the creation-7th-day sabbath. That is the story, morning glory.

Most professing Christians today are antinomian rather than theonomic. Just ask "should adulterers and sodomites be given the death penalty?" and you will discover just how much the professed people of God are against the idea of actual obedience. A lot of people are looking forward to a "millennium" but they would be among the most ardent dissidents during said millennium.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The Scripture is rather clear...

Romans 13:8-10 King James Version (KJV)
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; AND IF THERE BE ANY OTHER COMMANDMENT, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Transcend the carnality of the Law and live a life in the Spirit.

Or... keep the Law if you think Christ wasn't enough.

False dichotomy ( a fallacy).

The commandments are COMPREHENDED IN THIS SAYING, meaning the statement "love thy neighbour as yourself" CONTAINS the various commandments. You cannot love your neighbour if you are bearing false witness against him, coveting his stuff, stealing from him, committing adultery with his woman, or murdering him.

Thou shalt not steal is not "carnality". Your argument supposes a distinction and a difference between, for example, not stealing your neighbour's stuff on the one hand, and loving your neighbour on the other. Therefore, IF YOUR REASONING WAS VALID AND CORRECT (it is not) then it would be entirely possible to love your neighbour while stealing his stuff.

But it is not.

Therefore, your reasoning is incorrect.

It is not a choice between obeying the commandments of God on the one hand, and "love" on the other. Jesus made this clear:

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

As He said through Moses:

Deuteronomy 11:1 Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, alway.

You cannot "love God" by disobeying His commandments. So whatever "love of God" you have, if it does not produce obedience to His commandments then it isn't genuine love.

Likewise, you cannot love your neighbour by trespassing against him. If your "love" for your neighbour allows you to tresspass against him, it isn't love. Just like if your "love" for God allows you to tresspass against Him, it isn't love.

[mfblume]

Here we go again. Antinomian.


How about some honesty?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Here we go again. Antinomian.


How about some honesty?

Here's what I said:

Most professing Christians today are antinomian rather than theonomic. Just ask "should adulterers and sodomites be given the death penalty?" and you will discover just how much the professed people of God are against the idea of actual obedience. A lot of people are looking forward to a "millennium" but they would be among the most ardent dissidents during said millennium.

Can you please point out where I LIED?

[mfblume]

I speak about sabbath being spiritual, and you respond with ANTINOMIAN, which you did before as well in practically the same sequence of events and chat points, which pretty well cut off our communication between each other.

Meanwhile I post strongly that sin is still sin just as law said it was. However this ANTINOMIAN element always rises as a reaction.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I speak about sabbath being spiritual, and you respond with ANTINOMIAN ... Meanwhile I post strongly that sin is still sin just as law said it was.

Since the decalogue law is a relic sans authority to you, what is your foundational basis for literally restoring nine of the commandments? 10 - 1.

Thanks!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I speak about sabbath being spiritual, and you respond with ANTINOMIAN, which you did before as well in practically the same sequence of events and chat points, which pretty well cut off our communication between each other.

Meanwhile I post strongly that sin is still sin just as law said it was. However this ANTINOMIAN element always rises as a reaction.

Oh, I see where the confusion comes in. I was responding to brother Avery's statements about the reaction to Roy Moore's election campaign. That's why I quoted his post. I was not responding to you or in regard to your statements.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Since the decalogue law is a relic sans authority to you, what is your foundational basis for literally restoring nine of the commandments? 10 - 1.

Thanks!

I know a lot of Church of Christ™ people believe the Decalogue was abolished along with the OT, and replaced by the NT (scriptures) which they maintain is a "new law". They've literally got the idea of an actual legislative repeal and new legislation which conveniently dropped the Fourth Commandment.

I've found most evangelicals and antisabbatarians have a variation on that theme ("only what's commanded in the NT scriptures are obligatory") but the Campbellites have it systematized into a more consistent theological system.

Most Pentecostals and Baptists, however, don't seem to have a clue why they believe whatever it is they believe. At least that's been my experience.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Since the decalogue law is a relic sans authority to you, what is your foundational basis for literally restoring nine of the commandments? 10 - 1.

Thanks!

Still missing what I said. The sabbath is a shadow of Christ. So keeping the sabbath is being in Christ for one's rest. It's not saying the commandment is gone or is wrong if the day related to it was a shadow.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Still missing what I said. The sabbath is a shadow of Christ. So keeping the sabbath is being in Christ for one's rest. It's not saying the commandment is gone or is wrong if the day related to it was a shadow.

Oh, I do hear what you say.
However, it does not make sense, it is just an extrapolation, or eisegesis, of convenience.

If the commandment is not "gone" or "wrong", then it is "here and now" and "right".
Shouldn't you simply keep the commandment, like you try to do for the other nine?

However, keeping the sabbath is the harmony of scripture that is a beautiful spiritual-scriptural reality. Nobody who does not want to receive that pattern from God can be convinced otherwise, they will always have one answer or another (spiritualize, abrogate, shadowize, transfer, subsumed, trivialize etc.)

And you can tell how important a teaching or doctrine in the Bible is by how convoluted and difficult are the arguments that are marshaled in opposition.

Steven