The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The law was not a means to get man to love God.

Yes it was. END in the next verse means GOAL.

1 Timothy 1:5 KJV Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

G5056
τέλος
telos
tel'-os
From a primary word τέλλω tellō (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly the point aimed at as a limit, that is, (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively or indefinitely], result [immediate, ultimate or prophetic], purpose); specifically an impost or levy (as paid): - + continual, custom, end (-ing), finally, uttermost. Compare G5411.

The commandments of God are the Divinely revealed standard of what is right and wrong, good and bad. But the law COVENANT could not produce people who followed right and eschewed wrong, did good and avoided bad. It could not do that because of the weakness of our flesh (the problem is us, not God's law).

No one said the problem was law, but at the same time law contained elements that were rude versions of the reality and fullness of what Grace does in the Spirit.

So God sent Christ who condemned sin in the flesh and died on a cross and rose again, to accomplish what the law could not do - produce righteousness in people's hearts and lives. It does this through the sanctifying Spirit regenerating and indwelling us. The result is that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those who walk in the Spirit of Christ.

The righteousness of the law is not necessarily the conclusion law sought to produce through the means law offered. It is simply the state of righteousness in and of itself. And that same righteousness is achieved apart from sabbath, apart from law and apart from foreshadowing ritual.

Romans 4:13-15

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

The contextual use of law in that passage is saying that Jews who were under the time of law-keeping had to be law-keepers throughout their lives. And if they failed to do so, merely possessing the Law as God's people did not excuse them from the penalty of being a law-breaker. To demonstrate that, Paul stated that non-Israelite people who never had law but did the righteous things law demanded were in states of what God desired in Israel, and more righteous than Israelites who failed to keep law.

This says nothing about what the Spirit of God moves one to physically do or not do.

Romans 8:2-4

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

1 John 5:3

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

These commandments are not the ten commandments, despite the many times law-keepers suggested they are.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

These commandments are not the ten commandments, despite the many times law-keepers suggested they are.

Many fine Christian writers accepted the centrality of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) from the Reformation era forward. Today, we have all sorts of easy grace doctrines, even the popular hip-pocket salvation of Acts 2:38, so we have virtually a brand new phenomenon:

the Decalogue as virtual irrelevancy.

A sign of the times.

Steven

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Many fine Christian writers accepted the centrality of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) from the Reformation era forward. Today, we have all sorts of easy grace doctrines, even the popular hip-pocket salvation of Acts 2:38, so we have virtually a brand new phenomenon:

the Decalogue as virtual irrelevancy.

A sign of the times.

Steven

No one said the decalogue was wrong. All I am saying is that every time the New Testament mentions the "commandments" it is not talking about the ten. Jesus compared HIS COMMANDMENTS with the ten and said that they heard Thou Shalt not Murder, but HIS commandment said to even hate without a cause is like murder, thereby contrasting the Ten with HIS.

[Raffi]

I just joined this forum, but as I said in my introduction of myself in the Welcome mat, I am a "Set-Apart Apostolic". We are Apostolic Pentecostals who keep the 7th-Day Sabbath, the Sacred Names, and Hebrew Roots. We do not agree that the Law of Moses has been done away with (Mat. 5:17), but a close reading of the Apostolic Writings ("New" Testament) everywhere tells us that the early Apostles continued to keep the Faith as it was taught and practiced by Messiah. Even the Apostle Paul kept The Law. As did the Apostle James (read Acts 21).

There are many Apostolics today who are abandoning Dispensationalism and Antinomianism, just as we abandoned Trinitarianism in the New Issue, and are coming to the realization that God is restoring a fuller Apostolic witness in these Latter Days, which includes the FULL practice of the WHOLE Bible. Apostolic Christianity IS a Sabbath-keeping Christianity. So I agree with the premise of the original supposition here.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Raffi

I just joined this forum, but as I said in my introduction of myself in the Welcome mat, I am a "Set-Apart Apostolic". We are Apostolic Pentecostals who keep the 7th-Day Sabbath, the Sacred Names, and Hebrew Roots. We do not agree that the Law of Moses has been done away with (Mat. 5:17), but a close reading of the Apostolic Writings ("New" Testament) everywhere tells us that the early Apostles continued to keep the Faith as it was taught and practiced by Messiah. Even the Apostle Paul kept The Law. As did the Apostle James (read Acts 21).

There are many Apostolics today who are abandoning Dispensationalism and Antinomianism, just as we abandoned Trinitarianism in the New Issue, and are coming to the realization that God is restoring a fuller Apostolic witness in these Latter Days, which includes the FULL practice of the WHOLE Bible. Apostolic Christianity IS a Sabbath-keeping Christianity. So I agree with the premise of the original supposition here.

very interesting Raffi, does this mean you are a preterist per chance?

[Raffi]

Preterist? Well, I have held Preterist positions in my past. Not entirely sure these days. I did hold a strong Full Preterist Post-Mill view for about ten years. These days I am swinging back around to a form of Pre-Mill, but not Pre-Trib. More a kind of Post-Trib. Or maybe Pre-Wrath. I still hold to a kind of moderate Preterism, though. I am willing to accept that The Revelation of John could be seen as having a dual-application, one for 70 CE, the other for our time. Truthfully, I dont like to make eschatology the lithmus test anymore as that very good people, better than me, have held every kind of position in the spectrum.

[Raffi]

Among other Set-Apart Apostolics, most tend to be Pre-Mill Post-Trib (Historic Pre-Mill). But because I have seen interpretations from other sides, I am not 100% sold on ANY particular eschatological position. But I am willing to say I can, and do hold a moderate Preterist position. Wish you could have asked me that four years ago, when I was a staunchly committed Full Preterist.

[Raffi]

Never agreed with Replacement Theology though.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Raffi

Preterist? Well, I have held Preterist positions in my past. Not entirely sure these days. I did hold a strong Full Preterist Post-Mill view for about ten years. These days I am swinging back around to a form of Pre-Mill, but not Pre-Trib. More a kind of Post-Trib. Or maybe Pre-Wrath. I still hold to a kind of moderate Preterism, though. I am willing to accept that The Revelation of John could be seen as having a dual-application, one for 70 CE, the other for our time. Truthfully, I dont like to make eschatology the lithmus test anymore as that very good people, better than me, have held every kind of position in the spectrum.

don't worry, some of my favorite people are preterists.

[Raffi]

LOL.