Posted on 09/29/2006 8:27:34 AM PDT by Buggman
As Buggman pointed out, obedience goes both ways. Scripture is pretty clear that there is an active part of obedience, choice, in what do. And if it were an automatic thing, then there wouldn't be any need for admonishing or overcoming. Scripture would basically be "just wait, and it will be okay.":
Rom 6:16 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?
Rom 6:17 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.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
We "yield ourselves", obey, God's commandments.
I noticed how you subtly switched the verse to suit your theology.
If you recall, the Sabbath is the 7th day of the week: Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah your God.
I suppose you want to debate what the meaning of the word "is" is next. The sentence structure is irrelevant when read in context:
Exo 20:11 For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.
or this one
Lev 23:3 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, a holy convocation. You shall not do any work. It is a sabbath to Jehovah in all your dwellings.
Did Jehova bless any day other than the 7th? He worked 6 days and rested on the 7th, then He blessed the day He rested.
Since you believe that Jesus was resurrected on the 1st day, then does that mean He rested on the 7th as well? Wouldn't that be something, huh?
So, if you are declaring that there was absolutely no change in the law from Old Testament to New, and that somehow a bare reading of Acts 17:11 refutes the change of the sabbath details, I'm afraid you are incorrect.
Dude, the 10 Commandments were written in STONE. Why do you guys always jump to the dietary laws when confronted with the truth about the Sabbath? Why don't you point to Rome's idolatry and say "see, that one isn't binding either". Why don't you point to Harry Reid's thievery and say, "that one is gone, too!"? Or Mark Foley's love life? Of Bill Clinton's love life? Or Hinduism? Heck, for that matter, it wasn't even a sin for Saddam to gas the Kurds! The only religion that says they can change the 10 Commandments is Catholicism. In fact, they brag about it. Now, the Bible does mention someone changing laws....
Dan 7:25 And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and plot to change times and laws. And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and one-half time.
Everything but the greek.
My electronic Bible does not have a number for "might", thus I don't have the word. Do you? Since I don't have it in the Greek, I posted a bunch of translations. However, my point does not hinge on this one verse. There are a ton of them that indicate it is hard to be saved and that there are some who don't make it.
Joh 3:18 He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
Before I go on, are you saying that everyone is going to be saved? I don't want to "waste the bandwidth" if you aren't saying that.
Here's what I have for numbered verses, if it is even relevant:
Joh 3:17 For1063 God2316 sent649 not3756 his848 Son5207 into1519 the3588 world2889 to2443 condemn2919 the3588 world;2889 but235 that2443 the3588 world2889 through1223 him846 might be saved.4982
Should read:
There are a ton of them that indicate it is hard to stay saved and that there are some who don't make it.
I'll repeat: I do not seek to keep the Torah in order to be saved. I seek to keep the Torah because I am saved, and I want to be like my Savior in every way
And now I have you telling me that:
Now I'm confused. Which is it?
If you feel your obedience is in addition to God's grace, then TC is correct; this is what the Judeizers were all about and I would suggest listening to his excellent sermon (the gentleman also picks on the Presbyterians). On the other hand, if your obedience is something you just wish to do to illustrate your love for God then have at it.
I would suggest that since both you and Buggman posted opposite views and you reference him, that a conference is in order to straighten out this confusion. It's no wonder TC is scratching his head.
We didn't post opposite views. When I said:
"As Buggman pointed out, obedience goes both ways. Scripture is pretty clear that there is an active part of obedience, choice, in what do"
I was responding to your post #167. I was referencing Buggmans post #170 in reference to obedience, in which he said
"there's a bit of both, Harley. The Spirit transforms us from within, giving us a new heart of flesh on which is written God's Torah--but we also have to continually, day-by-day and decision-by-decision yield to the Spirit, and we always have the choice to disobey.."
You quoted Buggmans post #176, in which he offered that he kept the torah because he was saved.
And for the record, I agree with Buggmans post #176. I keep God's commandments because God has granted me his holy spirit, his grace, and I want to obey and be in line with his will.
To avoid confusion you should have realized that there were two separate topics being discussed.
A good example in scripture about obedience in regards to being saved can be found in the parable of the prodigal son.
The prodigal son left (was lost) and lived a hard life. When he finally returned to the father, his fervant desire was to obey his father's commands:
Luk 15:18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
Luk 15:19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
So though the son was given grace by the father he desired to make up for his past behavior by becoming his fathers servant and obeying his commands.
Here are some scriptures that the good Pastor must have overlooked in his studies. They shed some light on whether or not a "saved" person must do something:
Jam 2:15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, Jam 2:16 and if one of you says to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them those things which are needful to the body, what good is it? Jam 2:17 Even so, if it does not have works, faith is dead, being by itself. Jam 2:18 But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith from my works. Jam 2:19 You believe that there is one God, you do well; even the demons believe and tremble. Jam 2:20 But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Jam 2:22 Do you see how faith worked with his works, and from the works faith was made complete?
Joh 5:14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, Behold, you are made whole. Sin no more lest a worse thing come to you.
Joh 8:11 And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I give judgment. Go, and sin no more.
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was enraged over the woman, and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Mat 5:20 For I say to you that unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
Mat 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven.
Mat 18:3 and said, Truly I say to you, Unless you are converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
Mat 19:23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, Truly I say to you that a rich man will with great difficulty enter into the kingdom of Heaven. Mat 19:24 And again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Mat 19:25 When His disciples heard, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? Mat 19:26 But Jesus looked on them and said to them, With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. Mat 19:27 Then answering Peter said to Him, Behold, we have forsaken all and have followed You. Therefore what shall we have? Mat 19:28 And Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of His glory, you also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Mat 19:29 And everyone who left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Mat 19:30 But many who are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
Mar 9:47 And if your eye offends you, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes to be cast into hell fire
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Act 14:22 confirming the souls of the disciples, calling on them to continue in the faith and that through much tribulation we must enter into the kingdom of God.
I heard once that Billy Graham is the best preacher in the world, so long as you die on the way home from the revival. I absolutely agree that the gift of salvation is free, but we must accept it. We must believe, repent, and be baptized in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. But the challenge then comes on the way home from church. Are you really saved if you just add Jesus to your sinful life? Or will you allow the Holy Spirit to guide you to as righteous a life as one can lead?
Check this one out:
Mat 9:20 And behold, a woman, who had a flow of blood for twelve years, came up behind Him and touched the hem of His garment. Mat 9:21 For she said within herself, If only I shall touch His robe, I will be whole. Mat 9:22 But turning and seeing her, Jesus said, Daughter, be comforted; your faith has saved you. And the woman was saved from that hour.
Now, Jesus says her faith saved her, and it did, but she risked a whole lot touching a Rabbi while being in a constant state of menstruation, huh?
Here you have a filthy, despised Gentile woman risking her kneck to approach the Lord. Again, her works demonstrate her faith!
Mat 15:22 And behold, a woman of Canaan coming out of these borders cried to Him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is grievously vexed with a demon. Mat 15:23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and begged Him, saying, Send her away, for she cries after us. Mat 15:24 But He answered and said, I am not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mat 15:25 Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, Lord, help me! Mat 15:26 But He answered and said, It is not good to take the children's bread and to throw it to dogs. Mat 15:27 And she said, True, O Lord; but even the little dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' tables. Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said to her, O woman, great is your faith! So be it to you even as you wish. And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
You should have been pinged to 187.
Thank you...and blessed Sabbath to all.
I don't think so. I just think you are wrong.
Dude, the 10 Commandments were written in STONE.
Fair enough, and I take that to mean the moral principles are still binding on all men. But some of the details are not, e.g., "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you." Has the Lord given you any land recently? Isn't it "literally" referring to the promised land that God was about to give Israel? Didn't even Paul alter the meaning in Eph. 6:2,3?
The point being, of course, that the apostles were charged to upodate and renew the convenat stipuation for the new covenant era. The last day sabbath, just like the "land promise", was pecular to old covenant Israel and was part of what was decaying and passing away, as we are tld in Heb. 8:13.
Clearly from the NT and early church history we know that the apostles had the church worshipping on the first day of the week, not the last. The church had moved from the shadows to the substance, as the early church testimony records:
"And on the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure." (The Didache)
"Everything but the greek."
My electronic Bible does not have a number for "might",
That's because it is not in the Greek. That was my point. The aorist passive of "save" does not indcate a "maybe it will be saved but maybe it won't" sort of relationship, which is the way you read it. That's not the meaning of what the English translators have given us as "might be saved". As I said, the English is actually closer to "may be being saved", but that does not map well to English grammar.
Before I go on, are you saying that everyone is going to be saved?
Nope, but neither am I saying that the kosmos will be lost.
Yes, the Lord has given me land recently, and, coincidentally, my folks are considering retiring on it. The Lord has been incredibly good to me, far more than a sinner like me deserves. I pray nightly that I use these blessings to give Him Glory and that He makes my path plain before my face.
Incidentally, my folks are Catholic. Here is a very fine line I must navigate. I must honor them per the commandment, but I also have to live according to this precept:
Mat 10:34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. Mat 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Mat 10:36 And a man's foes shall be those of his own household. Mat 10:37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
However, the land God gave me is no where near the Holy Land. I ask, does the lattitude and longitude of Israel matter today, or is it more a state of mind?
Gal 6:13 For they themselves, having been circumcised, do not even keep the Law, but they desire you to be circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. Gal 6:14 But may it never be for me to boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world. Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision has any strength, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God.
Heb 8:10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Laws into their mind and write them in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
If you are a believer in Christ, isn't it logical that you would want to follow the Commandments of God?
"And on the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure." (The Didache)
The Didache, huh. I thought you were Sola Scriptura.
Yes, and today the commandments of God are found in the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments. So when we read about the fact that the church -- baptized Jews and gentiles -- in Acts met on the first day of the week to worship by hearing the apostles teach about Jesus and to break bread (observe the Lord's Supper) and we read nothing about the church -- baptized Jews and gentiles -- meeting on the last day of the week for worship, it tells us something very important about the commandments of God.
The Didache, huh. I thought you were Sola Scriptura.
I am, but I'm not a solo Scriptura person. I respect the testimony of the church through the centuries when it is agreement with the word of God. I have found no ggod reason to challenge the view regarding first day worship. It agrees with all the Bible. That is what I confess.
That appears to be the difference between those who are part of the true catholic (little "c") church, and those who are part of cults, like the one formed by Ellen White and other castoffs from the Millerite movement.
Actually your interpretation here isn't correct. Here's why:
Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
For starters, it doesn't say they were there for the "Lord's Supper". It says they came together to "break bread", a common term for eating. If the author of Acts wanted to say "Lord's Supper", he would of. But he didn't. So your supposition that it's the "Lord's Supper" is unwarranted.
Second, they met on Saturday night, after the sabbath had ended at sundown:
Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
We know it's Saturday night because it's after the sabbath ended at sundown. The literal translation of "first day of the week is "first of the sabbaths". Now this alone shows that the author, Luke, a gentile Christian, still considered the sabbath binding because he is marking time by it. In fact, the "Good News" bible translates the passage as:
Act 20:7 On Saturday evening we gathered together for the fellowship meal. Paul spoke to the people and kept on speaking until midnight, since he was going to leave the next day.
Not a Sunday service at all, but a fellowhip meal. There are countless sabbatarians today, myself included, who meet with the brethren every week after sabbath services for fellowship meals. As a matter of fact, I had one tonight with about 16 members of my church, disciples of Christ. We talked, reasoned together about God, Christ, the scriptures and a variety of other topics for 3 1/2 hours. We literally broke bread, hard dinner rolls. By your reasoning, this would have been an example of Sunday worship by a group of sabbatarians. Nope.
Third:
Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
The word translated "preach" in the King James is rendered in other translations variously as "reasoned", "talked", "discoursed", "discussion", and "addressed". Now if you want to make the case that it means "preached" as how a Christian minister preaches, then you have to accept the fact that this very same greek word is used in the following verses:
Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with(preached to) them out of the Scriptures,
Act 18:4 And he reasoned in(preached in) the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
So Paul, according to the greek, did the same exact thing on the sabbath MUCH more often then he did on Saturday night.
and we read nothing about the church -- baptized Jews and gentiles -- meeting on the last day of the week for worship, it tells us something very important about the commandments of God.
Absolute nonsense. Example after example has been cited from scripture of sabbath observance and worship of God on the sabbath by Christians.
Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
When does Paul preach? Why, we've already seen that it was his custom to preach ON THE SABBATH.
Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
The whole city comes to hear the word of God preached on the day that God commanded his followers to gather on...the sabbath.
We've been over this before. You're whole argument is built on the shifting sand of denial and suppositions. The entire argument of sabbatarians is based on the commadments of God, the creator of the universe. We win.
Solo Scriptura is nothing but poor grammar. Latin words have gender. a=feminine o=masculine.
I respect the testimony of the church through the centuries when it is agreement with the word of God. I have found no ggod reason to challenge the view regarding first day worship. It agrees with all the Bible. That is what I confess.
TC, if I post any more scriptures that plainly refute switching God's Sabbath to Rome's, I risk infringing on copywrites. The fact is, you keep moving the bar. When I post this:
Act 13:42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath. Act 13:43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God. Act 13:44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.
You say "well, they weren't Baptized". But you post this at other points:
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." Act 10:15 Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
Which you know full well ends up with Gentile believers receiving the Holy Spirit before they were Baptized!
Act 10:47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" Act 10:48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.
Then you say that, "well, Sunday has been the "Christian" Sabbath for 2000 years." Well, we are coming up on the 1900th aniversary of the first time Sunday worship was documented, but just because someting is old, doesn't make it right:
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
At any rate, if you are going to use the longevity of the error to justify the error, why are you Protestant? The logical conclusion of that line of thinking ought to lead you to marionism, transubstantiation, infant Baptism, the Sacramnent of Confession, et. al. Are you prepared to admit your error and convert to the One Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and adjective generating Church?
That appears to be the difference between those who are part of the true catholic (little "c") church, and those who are part of cults, like the one formed by Ellen White and other castoffs from the Millerite movement.
It warms my heart to see such an attack, TC. There is a HUGE difference between Ellen White and John Calvin. That difference is body count. I can't believe that you guys, in all seriousness, take the theology of Grace Alone from a man who actually murdered people who disagreed with him. How exactly was that "trading up" from Rome?
And always another good indicator is this. A comparison of King James to Young's Literal.
The "King James" says it is the "first day of the week." "Young's literal" says it is the "first of the week"....both correct, but "first" is more descriptive of the first day beginning at sundown and Paul continuing to preach until midnight.
Many lights being on would indicate an evening, after Sabbath fellowship meal, as they are breaking bread and listening to Paul speak..... until midnight. We also know that the upper room had windows to allow light to enter (if there had been any) because a young man went to sleep and fell out one. (Now we know why the Holy Spirit inspired Luke to tell us the lights were on!)
As a young man, my Grandparents (both sets from the old country) inviting someone over for dinner would say, "Come and Break Bread with Us."
Excellent post, Douglas!
Sorry, 1 Cor. 10:16 tells us precisely what was meant by the phrase "break bread" in the context of the church gathering, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"
One other reason we know this was the Lord's Supper and not simply the Jewish passover was the use of the Greek word artos which refers to leavened bread.
We know it's Saturday night because it's after the sabbath ended at sundown.
If it was after sundown on Saturday, then it would be "Sunday" according to our reckoning. The "first day of the week" would have run from subdown on Saturday to sundown on Sunday.
So Paul, according to the greek, did the same exact thing on the sabbath MUCH more often then he did on Saturday night.
Of course the difference, which you seem to be missing, is that he did it in the Jewish synagogues -- among unbaptized Jews -- on the sabbath, but he did it in the church -- with the baptized Jewish and gentile brethren -- on the first day.
We've been over this before.
Yep, we have. Your arguments are no better now than they were before, and these same arguments have been rejected by the church for 2000 years simply for this reason: they do not fit will all that the Bible teaches on the subject.
My friend, I'm sorry you cannot see this, but you have not posted one single verse that teaches the church -- baptized Jews and gentiles -- ever came together to worship on the Jewish last day sabbath. Not one!
The only thing you have done is to prove that unconverted Jews continued to worship on the last day sabbath as was their custom, and that Paul went into their assemblies to preach Christ to them.
Until you can manufacture such a verse to the contrary, I think you ought to admit the case.
But it was still the "first day of the week", not the last, according to Jewish reckoning. The last day was from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
This contrivance only indicates how desperate the last day sabbatarians have become.
Well, I'm glad you are admitting you are a cultist after the likes of EG White and other former Millerites, and your disdain for the catholic (universal) church.
from a man who actually murdered people who disagreed with him.
Since Calvin never murdered anyone (according to the historians) I have no clue what you are talking about. And I'm sure neither do you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.