The ten commandments

Overblood

What happens if you break one or two or all of them? Do you go to hell? Just wondering since nobody nowadays (even christians) seems to follow them.

Fanny Cradock

Short answer - no, you don't go to hell because you happen to break the one or a number of the commandments.

Overblood

I'm a bit confused! So what if you break all of them. You can still enter heaven?

wolfsbane

Overblood wrote: »

What happens if you break one or two or all of them? Do you go to hell? Just wondering since nobody nowadays (even christians) seems to follow them.

Yes, you go to hell, if you refuse to repent of your sins and trust in Jesus Christ. Hell is the punishment for breaking God's laws. We have all broken them, so are all by nature 'children of wrath' - condemned already.

The gospel - the good news - is that God has provided a way to be forgiven. His Son bore the punishment that was due for all who will believe in Him. We are called to forsake our sinful path and follow Christ, to trust Him as our Saviour and Lord.

Caveat:
I'm referring to God's law when I say The Ten Commandments - but that is not strictly true. The Ten Commandments were the basic precepts of the Old Covenant made with Israel. They contain God's eternal law, but many Christians like me argue that they are not identical with it. The Sabbath law is the difference. We argue that it was given to Israel as a covenant sign, and has been fulfilled in Christ - so there is no Sabbath Day anymore. That is a minority position; most hold that Sunday is the Sabbath, but have some difficulty in justifying their position.

Anyone who is a true Christian will be following, albeit imperfectly, at least nine of the Ten. Many who call themselves Christian are in fact mere religionists, with no desire to follow Christ. No wonder they ignore His commands.

studiorat

Basically you can kill and slaughter all around. As long as you repent and have unshakeable faith in the right God you're in like flynn!

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

Many who call themselves Christian are in fact mere religionists, with no desire to follow Christ. No wonder they ignore His commands.

And who judges who are the real Christians and who aren't?

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

And who judges who are the real Christians and who aren't?

If they deny fundamentals of the faith, we can say for sure they are not Christians. If not, we may well be unaware of a Judas in our midst.

God, of course, knows who is His. The wheat and the tares will one day be separated:
Matthew 13:24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

Basically you can kill and slaughter all around. As long as you repent and have unshakeable faith in the right God you're in like flynn!

True.

The catch is you have to be sincere in your repentance, so it's not something you can keep for a rainly day. Those who think they can do as they please and repent later are fatally mistaken.

Mickeroo

wolfsbane wrote: »

True.

The catch is you have to be sincere in your repentance, so it's not something you can keep for a rainly day. Those who think they can do as they please and repent later are fatally mistaken.

Wow.

studiorat

Of course there is always Eternal Sin which you cannot repent or be forgiven for according to Mark 3:28-29 for example.

So if anyone's ever doubted the Holy Spirit you may as well give the whole thing up 'cause you're going to hell either way.

whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Matthew 12:30-32

Heaven just seems to get smaller and smaller doesn't it?

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

Of course there is always Eternal Sin which you cannot repent or be forgiven for according to Mark 3:28-29 for example.

So if anyone's ever doubted the Holy Spirit you may as well give the whole thing up 'cause you're going to hell either way.

Matthew 12:30-32

Heaven just seems to get smaller and smaller doesn't it?

A truly Beamonesque leap of logic to jump from 'speaking against' the Holy Spirit to 'if anyone's ever doubted the Holy Spirit'.

If you seriously are interested in discussing what constitutes blasphemy against the Spirit then either start a new thread or resurrect one of the old ones on the subject. If you are just playing silly buggers then stop it.

studiorat

Since the concept of the Holy Spirit is man made, I think discussing Blasphemy in that context would be a pretty sterile pursuit.

The point I was making was there is even more daftness regarding the notion of sin in christian doctrine than just the Ten Commandments.

kelly1

Overblood wrote: »

What happens if you break one or two or all of them? Do you go to hell? Just wondering since nobody nowadays (even christians) seems to follow them.

From a Catholic point of view, to break any of the 10 commandments (and their related sins) with full knowledge of its gravity and with free will is to commit a mortal sin i.e. a sin which kills divine life/sanctifying grace in the soul.

A person dying in this state will for sure go to Hell. Thankfully sanctifying grace can be restored through the power of the Holy Spirit if a person confesses his/her sins and receives absolution. I also believe the sinner can be justified if their contrition is perfect i.e. if we are sorry for having offended God and we beg His forgiveness.

kelly1

studiorat wrote: »

Since the concept of the Holy Spirit is man made, I think discussing Blasphemy in that context would be a pretty sterile pursuit.

The point I was making was there is even more daftness regarding the notion of sin in christian doctrine than just the Ten Commandments.

Why are you trolling? Have you nothing better to do? If you're sincere, why don't you give support for your silly claims?

studiorat

Kelly and PDN,
Please don't accuse me of Trolling, I'm not, I actually believe the notion of a Holy Spirit is a man made device and for the Christian Doctrine regarding sin is also man made.

For instance Augustine's views were made up by him in accordance with platonic influence to fit specifically into his own view. His views on wheat and chaff illustrate that this was more intent on disproving points of view of previous sects he had been a member of rather than a rational doctrine.

Lets not forget are talking about a man who considered abortion to be permitted assuming it was before the soul developed with in the body. 40 days for men and 90 days for women. Not to mention "Just Wars" his distorted views on Lust un baptised babies going to hell etc.

I'm sorry for offending your sensibilities but I'm afraid I cannot stand by while sick and twisted beliefs such as these are being posted in the public domain without a rebuttal. Especially since they are moderated by someone who actually peddles these ideas professionally.

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

Kelly and PDN,
Please don't accuse me of Trolling, I'm not, I actually believe the notion of a Holy Spirit is a man made device and for the Christian Doctrine regarding sin is also man made.

For instance Augustine's views were made up by him in accordance with platonic influence to fit specifically into his own view. His views on wheat and chaff illustrate that this was more intent on disproving points of view of previous sects he had been a member of rather than a rational doctrine.

Lets not forget are talking about a man who considered abortion to be permitted assuming it was before the soul developed with in the body. 40 days for men and 90 days for women. Not to mention "Just Wars" his distorted views on Lust un baptised babies going to hell etc.

I'm sorry for offending your sensibilities but I'm afraid I cannot stand by while sick and twisted beliefs such as these are being posted in the public domain without a rebuttal. Especially since they are moderated by someone who actually peddles these ideas professionally.

I'm puzzled by your statement: I actually believe the notion of a Holy Spirit is a man made device and for the Christian Doctrine regarding sin is also man made.

As these doctrines are part of the Bible, I'm at a loss to see where Augustine comes in. I take it you mean he invented them. He certainly commented on them, but the Christian doctrine regarding the Holy Spirit and sin is evident in the Bible, especially clearly in the NT.

JimiTime

studiorat wrote: »

Kelly and PDN,
Please don't accuse me of Trolling, I'm not, I actually believe the notion of a Holy Spirit is a man made device and for the Christian Doctrine regarding sin is also man made.

For instance Augustine's views were made up by him in accordance with platonic influence to fit specifically into his own view. His views on wheat and chaff illustrate that this was more intent on disproving points of view of previous sects he had been a member of rather than a rational doctrine.

Lets not forget are talking about a man who considered abortion to be permitted assuming it was before the soul developed with in the body. 40 days for men and 90 days for women. Not to mention "Just Wars" his distorted views on Lust un baptised babies going to hell etc.

I'm sorry for offending your sensibilities but I'm afraid I cannot stand by while sick and twisted beliefs such as these are being posted in the public domain without a rebuttal. Especially since they are moderated by someone who actually peddles these ideas professionally.

Ah yes. The oul, 'Its just that I'm concerned'. Utter BS. You hate what Christianity teaches, so you come here to tell people how you feel. That is what we call 'trolling'. Wrap it up in nice language, concern, whatever, it still contitutes trolling. If I went to the GTA forum and said, your game sucks, I can't stand idlely by and watch you peddle this violent, masogynistic stuff on a public forum, I would be trolling. I might agree with what I said, but I'm trolling. Pretty much what you are doing here.

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

Kelly and PDN,
Please don't accuse me of Trolling, I'm not, I actually believe the notion of a Holy Spirit is a man made device and for the Christian Doctrine regarding sin is also man made.

For instance Augustine's views were made up by him in accordance with platonic influence to fit specifically into his own view. His views on wheat and chaff illustrate that this was more intent on disproving points of view of previous sects he had been a member of rather than a rational doctrine.

Lets not forget are talking about a man who considered abortion to be permitted assuming it was before the soul developed with in the body. 40 days for men and 90 days for women. Not to mention "Just Wars" his distorted views on Lust un baptised babies going to hell etc.

What the heck has Augustine got to do with anything?

I'm sorry for offending your sensibilities but I'm afraid I cannot stand by while sick and twisted beliefs such as these are being posted in the public domain without a rebuttal. Especially since they are moderated by someone who actually peddles these ideas professionally.

Sorry to disappoint you, but my sensibilities are nowhere near offended.

However, as the moderator of the forum it is my job to make sure the posters adhere to the rules and charter. You got a yellow card and, if you want to continue in a similar vein, then you will be banned.

BTW, I do not peddle Augustine's view on original sin, on abortion, on just war, on lust, or on the fate of unbaptised babies - so if you are determined to troll then maybe you could at least get your facts straight.

philologos

studiorat wrote: »

And who judges who are the real Christians and who aren't?

God, when we all come before Him for judgement.

As for the OP however, the Ten Commandments are by no means a definitive list of commandments, there are 613 Mitzvot in the Jewish Torah, however Christians are bound to the Moral Torah, the Gospels and the Apostolic Writings. Christians are under the New Covenant, and belong to the order of Melchizedek, and not to that of Aaron as the Jews did. The New Testament explains this well.

studiorat

I believe Jakass has indicated why Augustine came up. Like him I think it would be a bit pointless to discuss the issues of sin and the ten commandments without the other additions to the doctrine of which I believe Augustine had plenty to add. Wolfsbane also brought up the "wheat and tares" another Augustine reference I think.

As for Trolling, I said I believe Christanity has a pretty warped not to mention oblique view of what exactly constitutes sin. It would appear that what is a sin for one is completely normal behaviour for others. Before we even examine what was a sin in the past and what isn't now. That to me is pretty daft.

If you consider that trolling, well, send in the goats!

BTW PDN I was apologising to Mr. Kelly. You can take care of yourself ;o)

postcynical

Overblood wrote: »

What happens if you break one or two or all of them? Do you go to hell? Just wondering since nobody nowadays (even christians) seems to follow them.

Some/many people try to follow them. I do.

My thinking on it is similar to other posters; if you break the laws you are moving yourself away from God and thus towards "hell". God is always ready and happy to forgive so you make an act of contrition and the slate is wiped clean. The prodigal son story is the model here.

postcynical

studiorat wrote: »

I believe Jakass has indicated why Augustine came up. Like him I think it would be a bit pointless to discuss the issues of sin and the ten commandments without the other additions to the doctrine of which I believe Augustine had plenty to add. Wolfsbane also brought up the "wheat and tares" another Augustine reference I think.

As for Trolling, I said I believe Christanity has a pretty warped not to mention oblique view of what exactly constitutes sin. It would appear that what is a sin for one is completely normal behaviour for others. Before we even examine what was a sin in the past and what isn't now. That to me is pretty daft.

If you consider that trolling, well, send in the goats!

BTW PDN I was apologising to Mr. Kelly. You can take care of yourself ;o)

There is a very clear conception of what is right and wrong at every choice we make in our lives. Everybody has a conscience because God has written his laws in our hearts. The Christian has a duty to inform his/her conscience, and a desire to do so. Formalising what is spiritual will only ever be an approximation, so perhaps this is what confuses you.

I don't see why Augustine was brought in here at all either. Certainly he was a great thinker but we are no more bound to his words than we are to Newton's for explaining gravity.

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

I believe Jakass has indicated why Augustine came up. Like him I think it would be a bit pointless to discuss the issues of sin and the ten commandments without the other additions to the doctrine of which I believe Augustine had plenty to add.

I can't actually think of any Augustinian additions. Seriously.

Wolfsbane also brought up the "wheat and tares" another Augustine reference I think.

I think you'll find that Jesus thought of it first. (Matthew Chapter 13)

Húrin

Overblood wrote: »

What happens if you break one or two or all of them? Do you go to hell? Just wondering since nobody nowadays (even christians) seems to follow them.

Nobody? Come on, it's not that bad. Most people haven't broken 5, 6, or 7!

kelly1 wrote: »

Why are you trolling? Have you nothing better to do? If you're sincere, why don't you give support for your silly claims?

You're surely not surprised that an atheist thinks that the spirit is manufactured?

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

I can't actually think of any Augustinian additions. Seriously.


I think you'll find that Jesus thought of it first. (Matthew Chapter 13)

Augustine drew up the framework for Original Sin and pardoning of sinners, both inside and outside of the church. In fact, He defined many doctrines of the western church. He mergred Greek philosophy with the Jewish/Christian scripture. He also introduced concepts of Evil and of Free Will into the western church. Bearing these facts in mind I see no reason why mentioning him in a discussion on the 10 commandments or forgivness for transgressing them is seen as being so off topic.

I doubt if there is anybody who ever went to school in a christian country who didn't know the parabel of the sowing of the seeds.

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

Augustine drew up the framework for Original Sin and pardoning of sinners, both inside and outside of the church. In fact, He defined many doctrines of the western church..

Original sin as a doctrine is in the Bible. It was developed as a theological principle by Irenaeus 200 years before Augustine. Augustine developed a particular version of original sin that I, and most Christians today, would reject wholeheartedly.

He mergred Greek philosophy with the Jewish/Christian scripture.

As did every theologian since Clement of Alexandria 200 years earlier. Why not bring them into into the thread too? We might as well have a whole shoal of red herrings as just one.

He also introduced concepts of Evil and of Free Will into the western church.

The Western church was already studying such concepts as a result of Origen (again, nearly 200 years before Augustine). Augustine did develop the idea of a strict predestination - a doctrine rejected by hundreds of millions of Christians (myself included).

I doubt if there is anybody who ever went to school in a christian country who didn't know the parabel of the sowing of the seeds.

And, since that is a New Testament parable taught by Jesus, what the heck has that got to do with Augustine?

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

Original sin as a doctrine is in the Bible. It was developed as a theological principle by Irenaeus 200 years before Augustine. Augustine developed a particular version of original sin that I, and most Christians today, would reject wholeheartedly.


As did every theologian since Clement of Alexandria 200 years earlier. Why not bring them into into the thread too? We might as well have a whole shoal of red herrings as just one.


The Western church was already studying such concepts as a result of Origen (again, nearly 200 years before Augustine). Augustine did develop the idea of a strict predestination - a doctrine rejected by hundreds of millions of Christians (myself included).


And, since that is a New Testament parable taught by Jesus, what the heck has that got to do with Augustine?

Yeah, Origien, Irenaenus and all the rest. Well, I have no problem with you bringing them in. Without their input it's doubtful whether the doctrine would be as it stands. So I don't think it's a red herring.

I thought Clement was a Stoic but I'll take your word for it but, I'm truly suprised that you've missed the relavence of Augustine considering the his sermon on the seeds parable is probably one of his best known.

I'll give you Irenaeus but his concept is, as you know, quite different indeed could be considered as not being in sin at all. More of an imaturity and certainly not a sin in the way in which Augustine portrays it. However both Irenaeus and Augustine were actually writing in order to argue points against their opponents, Gnostics and Donatists respectively. In fact since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi, Irenaeus has been seen to be quite inflated and polemical.

Original sin in fact isn't in the Bible unless you characterize it as just plain "Un-holiness". Neither is it in either of the other Abrahamic faiths. In fact Ezekiel and Deuteronomy state quite the opposite. Everyone is responsible for their acts, so there is no original sin transfered between generations.

Deuteronomy 24:16:

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

Ezekiel 18:20:

"...The son shall note bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son:"

Kings 14:6 and Jeremiah 31:30 also states you cannot be punished for your ancestors wrong doing. The evidence against the original sin is pretty convincing.

Anyhow, if man is created in God's image how then can he have original sin?

Anyway I digress and am begining to tire of this subject.

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

Yeah, Origien, Irenaenus and all the rest. Well, I have no problem with you bringing them in. Without their input it's doubtful whether the doctrine would be as it stands. So I don't think it's a red herring.

I thought Clement was a Stoic but I'll take your word for it but, I'm truly suprised that you've missed the relavence of Augustine considering the his sermon on the seeds parable is probably one of his best known.

I'll give you Irenaeus but his concept is, as you know, quite different indeed could be considered as not being in sin at all. More of an imaturity and certainly not a sin in the way in which Augustine portrays it. However both Irenaeus and Augustine were actually writing in order to argue points against their opponents, Gnostics and Donatists respectively. In fact since the discovery of the Nag Hammadi, Irenaeus has been seen to be quite inflated and polemical.

Original sin in fact isn't in the Bible unless you characterize it as just plain "Un-holiness". Neither is it in either of the other Abrahamic faiths. In fact Ezekiel and Deuteronomy state quite the opposite. Everyone is responsible for their acts, so there is no original sin transfered between generations.

Deuteronomy 24:16:

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

Ezekiel 18:20:

"...The son shall note bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son:"

Kings 14:6 and Jeremiah 31:30 also states you cannot be punished for your ancestors wrong doing. The evidence against the original sin is pretty convincing.

Anyhow, if man is created in God's image how then can he have original sin?

Anyway I digress and am begining to tire of this subject.

Regardless of what later commentators taught about original sin, the OP was about sin, the breaking of God's commandments. The Bible has a great deal to say about that - in fact, it is an essential concept to the gospel and the need of a Saviour.

Sin was well understood in the OT and the NT clarified it even further. Augustine and the rest only commented on what the Bible laid out in detail. Some of their extrapolations were fanciful and nonsensical.

philologos

Original sin is discussed in Romans 5:12. We had a Christian only thread discussing it a while back, it may do you some good to look it up studiorat. I think that you misunderstand original sin as a concept. Many do take the view that original sin is a sin, however the passage seems to suggest that it is a sinful nature inherited by man not a tangible sin.

JimiTime

studiorat wrote: »

Anyhow, if man is created in God's image how then can he have original sin?

Anyway I digress and am begining to tire of this subject.

I'm not surprised you tire of it, you think you know about it, but you don't, and you're arguing with people that do. that would ineed be tiring.

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

Original sin in fact isn't in the Bible unless you characterize it as just plain "Un-holiness". Neither is it in either of the other Abrahamic faiths. In fact Ezekiel and Deuteronomy state quite the opposite. Everyone is responsible for their acts, so there is no original sin transfered between generations.

Deuteronomy 24:16:

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

Ezekiel 18:20:

"...The son shall note bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son:"

Kings 14:6 and Jeremiah 31:30 also states you cannot be punished for your ancestors wrong doing. The evidence against the original sin is pretty convincing.

Ah, I think I see what the problem is. You are arguing one particular variety of original sin, instead of about the doctrine as a whole.

Original sin is the doctrine that man is born with a sinful nature, not that he deserves punishment for anyone else's sins (although that is a subsection of the doctrine which is believed by some people).

So you accused me of peddling a doctrine that I neither believe nor teach.

Soul Winner

studiorat wrote: »

Original sin in fact isn't in the Bible...Neither is it in either of the other Abrahamic faiths.

Then pray tell what in God's name is Paul taking about here?

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:12-25

studiorat wrote: »

In fact Ezekiel and Deuteronomy state quite the opposite. Everyone is responsible for their acts, so there is no original sin transfered between generations.

Deuteronomy 24:16:

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

Ezekiel 18:20:

"...The son shall note bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son:"

Kings 14:6 and Jeremiah 31:30 also states you cannot be punished for your ancestors wrong doing. The evidence against the original sin is pretty convincing.

Anyhow, if man is created in God's image how then can he have original sin?

Anyway I digress and am begining to tire of this subject.

From Tektonics.org:

"Why should God be allowed to do what we can't and what He tells us not to do? Why do the innocent have to suffer because of the actions of the guilty?", referring to the standard as primitive, barbaric, etc. We can expect little else from those who think that there is no life beyond their narrow view in the first place, and who do not recognize the right of God to do with His creation as He pleases, but for the Christian, the matter is resolved with a single thought: If the innocent cannot die for the sake of or under the punishment of the guilty under God's justice, then the sacrifice of Christ could not be permitted either. The principle established thereby is far, far more important than our puny lives. But don't expect the "humanists" to agree with that."

Check here for a more detailed response to your cited verses:

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

So you accused me of peddling a doctrine that I neither believe nor teach.

damn you flanders. :mad:

chozometroid

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, you go to hell, if you refuse to repent of your sins and trust in Jesus Christ. Hell is the punishment for breaking God's laws. We have all broken them, so are all by nature 'children of wrath' - condemned already.

The gospel - the good news - is that God has provided a way to be forgiven. His Son bore the punishment that was due for all who will believe in Him. We are called to forsake our sinful path and follow Christ, to trust Him as our Saviour and Lord.

Caveat:
I'm referring to God's law when I say The Ten Commandments - but that is not strictly true. The Ten Commandments were the basic precepts of the Old Covenant made with Israel. They contain God's eternal law, but many Christians like me argue that they are not identical with it. The Sabbath law is the difference. We argue that it was given to Israel as a covenant sign, and has been fulfilled in Christ - so there is no Sabbath Day anymore. That is a minority position; most hold that Sunday is the Sabbath, but have some difficulty in justifying their position.

Anyone who is a true Christian will be following, albeit imperfectly, at least nine of the Ten. Many who call themselves Christian are in fact mere religionists, with no desire to follow Christ. No wonder they ignore His commands.

Oh, 9 out of 10 are still valid? How convenient that it's only the Sabbath that is abolished. It is one thing to say the Sabbath commandment was done away with, but just ridiculous to say it was changed to Sunday. The Sabbath is the seventh day, the day of rest. Those who worship on Sunday should hold the belief that it is the Lord's day, which was established by churches who believe Jesus's resurrection on Sunday, and some Sunday worship mentioned in the NT, establishes it as the new holy day of worship to replace the Sabbath entirely (although not stated so in the Bible). Sunday Sabbath, however, is purely a creation of the Catholic church, and is not biblical at all. There is no scripture denoting a change of the seventh day Sabbath, or the day of rest, to Sunday. The Church claims to have the authority to do so.
Problem is, many Sabbath keepers hardly keep the Sabbath holy. They still buy, sell, work, play, etc. The Sabbath is a time to rest and refresh physically and spiritually. It is a time to set aside your secular desires and commune with your Creator. It is not a burden, but an act of obedience and desire to draw closer to God.

wolfsbane

chozometroid wrote: »

Oh, 9 out of 10 are still valid? How convenient that it's only the Sabbath that is abolished. It is one thing to say the Sabbath commandment was done away with, but just ridiculous to say it was changed to Sunday. The Sabbath is the seventh day, the day of rest. Those who worship on Sunday should hold the belief that it is the Lord's day, which was established by churches who believe Jesus's resurrection on Sunday, and some Sunday worship mentioned in the NT, establishes it as the new holy day of worship to replace the Sabbath entirely (although not stated so in the Bible). Sunday Sabbath, however, is purely a creation of the Catholic church, and is not biblical at all. There is no scripture denoting a change of the seventh day Sabbath, or the day of rest, to Sunday. The Church claims to have the authority to do so.
Problem is, many Sabbath keepers hardly keep the Sabbath holy. They still buy, sell, work, play, etc. The Sabbath is a time to rest and refresh physically and spiritually. It is a time to set aside your secular desires and commune with your Creator. It is not a burden, but an act of obedience and desire to draw closer to God.

I agree with most of this - I think. But are you saying both the Sabbath and the Lord's Day are in force today?

If we look at the 10 Words, all but the Sabbath are reiterated in the NT. That fits with the 10 Words being the essence of the Old Covenant made with Israel - the Sabbath was a special sign of that covenant.

chozometroid

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree with most of this - I think. But are you saying both the Sabbath and the Lord's Day are in force today?

If we look at the 10 Words, all but the Sabbath are reiterated in the NT. That fits with the 10 Words being the essence of the Old Covenant made with Israel - the Sabbath was a special sign of that covenant.

I think the Sabbath is still in force, and that it was meant to be a sign of God's people for all time. I realize that it is the only commandment not reiterated in the NT, but Jesus did observe Sabbath, and is Lord of the Sabbath. I do not believe it was abolished, as it was one of the ten commandments written by God, and there is no specific mention of it being done away with.
The Sabbath/Lord's Day debate is frustrating to me, but I have no resentment toward evangelicals who feel they should observe the Lord's Day, and also primarily focus on Jesus Christ and his message of love. I do not agree with them on the Sabbath issue, but I cannot say all of them do not have the best intentions. I do feel however, that Satan is behind the confusion on this issue, among others.

wolfsbane

chozometroid wrote: »

I think the Sabbath is still in force, and that it was meant to be a sign of God's people for all time. I realize that it is the only commandment not reiterated in the NT, but Jesus did observe Sabbath, and is Lord of the Sabbath. I do not believe it was abolished, as it was one of the ten commandments written by God, and there is no specific mention of it being done away with.
The Sabbath/Lord's Day debate is frustrating to me, but I have no resentment toward evangelicals who feel they should observe the Lord's Day, and also primarily focus on Jesus Christ and his message of love. I do not agree with them on the Sabbath issue, but I cannot say all of them do not have the best intentions. I do feel however, that Satan is behind the confusion on this issue, among others.

I appreciate your considerate attitude on this. Many are much less understanding.

The Sabbath issue is complex. I started out holding to a Sunday Sabbath, but as I examined the New Covenant Scriptures I had to rethink.

As you say, Jesus did observe the Sabbath - the 7th day rest. But He also observed all the Mosaic Law - circumcision, diet, sacrifices, etc. We readily agree that those were abolished by His work for us - so why should the Sabbath be different, especially when it is not reiterated in the NT?

The assumption that the Ten Commandments are law for God's people in all ages is the issue. If they were given to Israel as the Old Covenant, then we need not seek a Sabbath today.

Difficulties in our understanding of the place of the Ten in the New Covenant, and in view of the fact that the Church met on the 1st Day, has given rise to the idea that the Sabbath was transferred to Sunday. I see no merit in that at all. It is only a device to keep the Ten Words as eternal law rather than as the summation of the Old Covenant.

I hold Sunday as the Lord's Day, the day for the Church to meet in worship and in remembrance of Christ. Providing that is fulfilled, how we spend the rest of the day is up to us. Like any other day, we are expected to make the best use of it. If we are free to do so, and not obligated to work, it seems best to use it for worship, fellowship, acts of kindness, and recreation of our bodies and minds.

Those who insist sunday is the Sabbath need to ask themselves what the apostolic Church did - did they take two days off work each week? They surely had to observe the Jewish Sabbath, at least in Israel. I doubt if more than a handful would have been able or allowed to take an extra day off.

What record we have tells us they met before work on the 1st Day to break bread. I assume they met after work too.

What do Saturday Sabbatarians do today about Sunday? Do they follow the Biblical example and meet then too? Do they observe the Sabbath in Biblical form - from 6.00pm Friday to 6.00pm Saturday?

chozometroid

wolfsbane wrote: »

I appreciate your considerate attitude on this. Many are much less understanding.

The Sabbath issue is complex. I started out holding to a Sunday Sabbath, but as I examined the New Covenant Scriptures I had to rethink.

As you say, Jesus did observe the Sabbath - the 7th day rest. But He also observed all the Mosaic Law - circumcision, diet, sacrifices, etc. We readily agree that those were abolished by His work for us - so why should the Sabbath be different, especially when it is not reiterated in the NT?

The assumption that the Ten Commandments are law for God's people in all ages is the issue. If they were given to Israel as the Old Covenant, then we need not seek a Sabbath today.

Difficulties in our understanding of the place of the Ten in the New Covenant, and in view of the fact that the Church met on the 1st Day, has given rise to the idea that the Sabbath was transferred to Sunday. I see no merit in that at all. It is only a device to keep the Ten Words as eternal law rather than as the summation of the Old Covenant.

I hold Sunday as the Lord's Day, the day for the Church to meet in worship and in remembrance of Christ. Providing that is fulfilled, how we spend the rest of the day is up to us. Like any other day, we are expected to make the best use of it. If we are free to do so, and not obligated to work, it seems best to use it for worship, fellowship, acts of kindness, and recreation of our bodies and minds.

Those who insist sunday is the Sabbath need to ask themselves what the apostolic Church did - did they take two days off work each week? They surely had to observe the Jewish Sabbath, at least in Israel. I doubt if more than a handful would have been able or allowed to take an extra day off.

What record we have tells us they met before work on the 1st Day to break bread. I assume they met after work too.

What do Saturday Sabbatarians do today about Sunday? Do they follow the Biblical example and meet then too? Do they observe the Sabbath in Biblical form - from 6.00pm Friday to 6.00pm Saturday?

Just a couple basic points for my view:
God rested on the seventh day in creation week, which established the Sabbath before sin entered the world.
Also, the ten commandments may have been part of the old covenant, but all of them are rules which are still to be followed. Or is it, strangely, if I might say, only 9/10(along with their equivalents in heart/thoughts only), plus the new universal command to love everyone?
It seems the text in Matthew where Jesus says he came to fulfill the law is what much of our belief systems hinge on.
I don't feel I can do my position justice by arguing about it still being in force using scriptures which everyone interprets differently, but I will mention a couple interesting verses from Jesus:
"The Sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:27)
"Pray that your flight will not be in the winter or on a Sabbath" (Matt 24:20)

What it comes down to for me, is that I see the Sabbath as a blessing, not a burden. I don't see why it would be abolished, as if it had become obsolete or meaningless because of Jesus' resurrection.
I think if this is something that you are not 100% sure was done away with, then why not observe it?

I do, however, appreciate and understand your view completely, which is why this is frustrating to me. I see where your position is coming from, and why it seems to make sense. I just don't think what the Bible says regarding this issue is enough to take a position which grants me the freedom not to observe one of God's commandments. It seems like one would have to be looking for that particular answer while reading the Bible, and I think that's too much effort for such a critical issue. I think most would rather the Sabbath not be in effect. Sadly, I think it often becomes a debate of "Jesus loves me" vs "I'm not a legalist" positions.

And to answer your question, I observe Sabbath from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday.

Soul Winner

chozometroid wrote: »

I think if this is something that you are not 100% sure was done away with, then why not observe it?

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Col 2:16

The Old Testament feasts or literally "Set Times" of the Lord were as Paul describes them "shadows" of things to come, but the substance which casts these shadows was Christ Himself. Once Christ fulfilled them they were not to be resurrected again in order for us to be entangled again with them as a yoke of bondage, that includes the Sabbath.

But the writer to the Hebrews says that there remains a rest for the people of God:

"For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief."

Only when we rest from our works are we in His rest. As long as we offer our own works of righteousness as a means of entering in are we in danger of not getting in at all. Jesus likens this type of entry to a thief and a robber in John 10.

"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice." Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them."

I don't expect many people to understand this even on this forum. The idea that we are not to offer our works of righteousness as a means of entering salvation is alien to most Christians. That's why "Faith alone" is all we need in order to have standing with God. Christ paid the price for that to be the case. It is by His works that we have salvation. As long as we offer our works we keep ourselves outside His grace, because we fail to recognize what He did for us is forever adequate for our salvation, there is nothing we can add to it. To add to it is to insult it, to add to it says that what he did was not good enough. We are to respond with faith, which is basically trust, not performance to what he has already done without our help. He alone purchased our redemption. As long as we offer our performance we are not acting in faith, 'and without faith it is impossible to please God...' Heb 11:6

chozometroid wrote: »

I just don't think what the Bible says regarding this issue is enough to take a position which grants me the freedom not to observe one of God's commandments.

OK try these out for size:

"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope." Galatians 5:1-5

"Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh" Col 2:23

"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Galatians 3:10

Those verses alone spell it out pretty clear. If you come under the law even by one command, then you are indebted to do the whole law. Now while you are observing the Sabbath are you also keeping every other part of the law? Because if you are not then you are under the curse of the law. You're best off resting from the works of the law by keeping faith in Christ, trusting in His performance and not your own, that is what laboring into enter into His rest is, which, once there, is what real Sabbath keeping is. Not observing days.

chozometroid wrote: »

And to answer your question, I observe Sabbath from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday.

Do you keep all the Sabbath days including the High Sabbaths and Feast days too? Or is it just the weekly Saturday Sabbath that you keep?

wolfsbane

chozometroid wrote: »

Just a couple basic points for my view:
God rested on the seventh day in creation week, which established the Sabbath before sin entered the world.
Also, the ten commandments may have been part of the old covenant, but all of them are rules which are still to be followed. Or is it, strangely, if I might say, only 9/10(along with their equivalents in heart/thoughts only), plus the new universal command to love everyone?
It seems the text in Matthew where Jesus says he came to fulfill the law is what much of our belief systems hinge on.
I don't feel I can do my position justice by arguing about it still being in force using scriptures which everyone interprets differently, but I will mention a couple interesting verses from Jesus:
"The Sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:27)
"Pray that your flight will not be in the winter or on a Sabbath" (Matt 24:20)

What it comes down to for me, is that I see the Sabbath as a blessing, not a burden. I don't see why it would be abolished, as if it had become obsolete or meaningless because of Jesus' resurrection.
I think if this is something that you are not 100% sure was done away with, then why not observe it?

I do, however, appreciate and understand your view completely, which is why this is frustrating to me. I see where your position is coming from, and why it seems to make sense. I just don't think what the Bible says regarding this issue is enough to take a position which grants me the freedom not to observe one of God's commandments. It seems like one would have to be looking for that particular answer while reading the Bible, and I think that's too much effort for such a critical issue. I think most would rather the Sabbath not be in effect. Sadly, I think it often becomes a debate of "Jesus loves me" vs "I'm not a legalist" positions.

And to answer your question, I observe Sabbath from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday.

I too believe at least 1 day in 7 is needed for a break from work. But must it be the 7th or the 1st? It must be if the religious observation of the day is meant. That would be the case if it is God's holy day.

However, if holy days were done away in Christ then the only example we have from the NT is that of meeting on the 1st day for worship. As pointed out, that could not have been a rest day.

Thanks for confirming you observe from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. Do you also meet on the Sunday to worship?

postcynical

Soul Winner wrote: »

The idea that we are not to offer our works of righteousness as a means of entering salvation is alien to most Christians. That's why "Faith alone" is all we need in order to have standing with God. Christ paid the price for that to be the case. It is by His works that we have salvation. As long as we offer our works we keep ourselves outside His grace, because we fail to recognize what He did for us is forever adequate for our salvation, there is nothing we can add to it. To add to it is to insult it, to add to it says that what he did was not good enough. We are to respond with faith, which is basically trust, not performance to what he has already done without our help. He alone purchased our redemption. As long as we offer our performance we are not acting in faith, 'and without faith it is impossible to please God...' Heb 11:6

Nice post. Do we not need an act of will to follow Christ? Do we not gain favour and then fall from favour? An extreme progression of your argument might idealise a situation where a believer having attained grace would desist from action or thought to capture eternally this spirited state. In the real world this would surely lead to some sort of sin of omission? I don't think anybody believes that we can curry God's favour through our works, but surely our works can be an effective form of prayer? Certainly humility requires that in retrospect we see that our actions were good, but in preparation we can only pray that they will be.

chozometroid

Soul Winner wrote: »

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Col 2:16

The Old Testament feasts or literally "Set Times" of the Lord were as Paul describes them "shadows" of things to come, but the substance which casts these shadows was Christ Himself. Once Christ fulfilled them they were not to be resurrected again in order for us to be entangled again with them as a yoke of bondage, that includes the Sabbath.


I don't expect many people to understand this even on this forum. The idea that we are not to offer our works of righteousness as a means of entering salvation is alien to most Christians. That's why "Faith alone" is all we need in order to have standing with God. Christ paid the price for that to be the case. It is by His works that we have salvation. As long as we offer our works we keep ourselves outside His grace, because we fail to recognize what He did for us is forever adequate for our salvation, there is nothing we can add to it. To add to it is to insult it, to add to it says that what he did was not good enough. We are to respond with faith, which is basically trust, not performance to what he has already done without our help. He alone purchased our redemption. As long as we offer our performance we are not acting in faith, 'and without faith it is impossible to please God...' Heb 11:6

All the scriptures you have presented bring forth one message: we are not justified by the law or by works.
This I know. Salvation is by grace.
We cannot obtain salvation by obeying the law. Salvation is a gift from God.

Also, those "sabbath days" are indeed feast sabbath days, and part of the old sacrifical system. They were a shadow of Christ's death on the cross which fulfilled all of those things.
The Sabbath rest is not included, and it is not a yoke of bondage. The ten commandments were not a burden. It was Moses' laws that were the burden. They made people just obey for the sake of obeying. Their heart was not in it. As we know, it's your intentions that truly matter, not the outward display like the Pharisees.

When we are transformed by Christ, we bear the fruit of one who is born-again.

So, obeying God's commandments is not about trying to do works to earn salvation. It is a direct result of your obedience and faith in Christ. The commandments provide a measuring stick so you know if you are messing up.
Sin occurs any time you do not do what God asks. People say pride was Lucifer's sin, but his sin occured the moment he thought in his mind to go contray to God's plan. The ten commandments are for us to know when we are sinning.

Genesis 2:2-3 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. {3} Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath day. It was special to Him.

Exodus 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. {9} Six days you shall labor and do all your work, {10} but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. {11} For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.
In the NT, Jesus said He is Lord of the Sabbath.
Six days God created the universe, and rested on the seventh. He blessed it and hallowed it. He expected us to follow His lead.
Doesn't this sound like an important day? Not just some "yoke of burden" to be later done away with along with the sacrificial system.

Isaiah 58:13: If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

Is it that strange that this burden is called a delight and honourable?

marabhfuil

Wow... If i had know that i could find the answers whichof i seek, here, expounded by such self-possesed knowers of the ultimate, absolute, eternel truths of existence i'd have stopped thinking for myself and holding an opinion a long time ago.

Question... How do you trap god in a definition?
Answer... You submit yourself body, mind and most treacherously soul, to dogmatic bigotry and discard your own true nature... pure and undefined and as close to god as close can be

Soul Winner

postcynical wrote: »

Nice post. Do we not need an act of will to follow Christ?

Yes I believe that the will is involved in coming to Christ as the following verse states but it is the worship of th will that Paul spoke against. Don't rely wholly on the will, that is will worship.

"And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” Revelation 22:17

But this statement must be somehow reconciled with this one:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" John 6:44

So even though the coming to God involves the will, the initiative starts with God. The fact that anyone who feels that they want to come to God can only mean that God wants them to come to Him. Anyone who does not want to come to Him must be the result of God not drawing them.

postcynical wrote: »

Do we not gain favour and then fall from favour?

What is favour? The word translated Grace in the Greek is 'Charis' (Χάρις). It is a gift. We get our word Charisma from it. 'Charis' means unmerited favour, it is a gift from God. It cannot be earned.

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9

As soon as you try to earn it then it is no longer a gift. This is how you fall from grace, trying to earn it or in some way merit it, or deserve it. You want your reward to be reckoned of debt and not as a gift, something owed to you. But if we step outside this grace then haven't we again come under sin? And the wages of sin is death. If we were to get what was owed to us then death would be our portion. To be rewarded by way of payment for services rendered then we must be paid according to our measure, which means to be measured under the perfect standard itself the Law. But the scripture is clear, all who want to be measured by that standard are the ones who reject the gift of God's grace in Christ, and are therefore cursed because all have sinned and fall short of that perfect standard of the Law.

postcynical wrote: »

An extreme progression of your argument might idealise a situation where a believer having attained grace would desist from action or thought to capture eternally this spirited state.

The only actions that need to be taken by the individual who is receiving this grace are acts of faith. The recipient is to trust the Giver of the grace with his/her life and act on His promises. That is all we have to do. God does the rest, including filling us with His spirit which in response to faith, which said indwelling enables us to do good works, but the most important thing is the connection of faith.

postcynical wrote: »

In the real world this would surely lead to some sort of sin of omission? I don't think anybody believes that we can curry God's favour through our works, but surely our works can be an effective form of prayer?

Good works are an inevitable outworking of the already indwelling spirit, which can only come into us by faith in God's promises. No amount of good works from a purely fleshly effort point of view can get God's spirit in us. The catalyst is faith. Once faith is operating on a promise of God then God puts His spirit in us and He sees us judicially as just-like Christ (justified), because He seen Christ as just like us when He poured out His wrath for sin (that we deserve) on Him.

But now that this penalty is paid, we are no longer viewed as sinners in His sight, but we must have faith in His performance that it was enough to pay the price and live by that faith every day. Good works are just the natural fruit of this way of life once we don't lose the connection of faith. It is a very thin line to walk and it is not easy because the temptation is always there to be brought back under some portion of the law in order to somehow justify our salvation by means of fleshy effort. Paul warned the Galatians about this.

"Having begun in the spirit are you now made perfect by the flesh?" Galatians 3:3

We remain the habitation of God through the spirit if we remain steadfast in the faith which got Him in us in the first place. Any deviation at all from this path even with the best of intentions, is to fall away from grace. Paul was astonished that this had happened to the Church of Galatia.

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ” Galatians 1:6-7

postcynical wrote: »

Certainly humility requires that in retrospect we see that our actions were good, but in preparation we can only pray that they will be.

“A truly humble man does not look back to see if he was.” I’m not sure who said that but I think it’s apt at this point. If you act in faith on God’s promises then it is up to God to be your supply and to lead you into every good work.

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Soul Winner

chozometroid wrote: »

All the scriptures you have presented bring forth one message: we are not justified by the law or by works.
This I know. Salvation is by grace.
We cannot obtain salvation by obeying the law. Salvation is a gift from God.

Excellent, we are agreed at least on that much.

chozometroid wrote: »

Also, those "sabbath days" are indeed feast sabbath days, and part of the old sacrifical system. They were a shadow of Christ's death on the cross which fulfilled all of those things.

Agreed again.

chozometroid wrote: »

The Sabbath rest is not included, and it is not a yoke of bondage.

Ok, here’s where we differ. The verses below show that is was part of the law to be observed and as such is part and parcel of the bondage that comes with observing the law. The Pharisees would have punished Jesus’ disciples for not observing the Sabbath and would have killed Jesus for healing someone on the Sabbath. Not a yoke of bondage?

”One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Mark 2:23-28

“On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was shriveled. The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath. But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Get up and stand in front of everyone." So he got up and stood there. Then Jesus said to them, "I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?" He looked around at them all, and then said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He did so, and his hand was completely restored. But they were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus." Luke 6:6-11

chozometroid wrote: »

The ten commandments were not a burden.

The ten commandments were part of the Law. Paul asks the question of those who want to be justified by the law, do you not hear the law? Then he points to a story in Genesis to tell them what the law is saying. This means the Paul included Genesis as part of the Law. To break any of the ten commandments is to break the law, which means that they too are part of the bondage and part of the burden. And Jesus goes even deeper when says that they are to be kept not only in deed but also in thought. If we even think about breaking them then we have broken them. Not a burden?

chozometroid wrote: »

It was Moses' laws that were the burden. They made people just obey for the sake of obeying. Their heart was not in it. As we know, it's your intentions that truly matter, not the outward display like the Pharisees.

I think you’ll find that it is God’s law that is the burden. Paul tell us in Galatians why God gave the law:

”Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Galatians 3:19

The key word here is ‘added’. Added to what? Before the Law came they had the promises given to Abraham. These promises were not annulled by the coming of the Law. God had never forgotten His promises to Abraham, but His people did, and they sinned against God without the Law. God gave them the Law in order to show up their sins and lead them to repentance so that He could forgive them. Without the Law they were ignorant of their sinful condition. But Christ fulfilled the Law and nailed it to a tree never to be taken down and used to hold men in bondage to it again. The New Testament of God is not observing an impossible Law but a relationship of faith and trust and love. Just like earthly relationships, it is a relationship with a person, not a checklist of do do this and don’t do that.

chozometroid wrote: »

When we are transformed by Christ, we bear the fruit of one who is born-again.

You can only be transformed by Christ if He dwells in you and He can only dwell in you if you are acting in faith on God’s promises and trusting Him.

chozometroid wrote: »

So, obeying God's commandments is not about trying to do works to earn salvation. It is a direct result of your obedience and faith in Christ. The commandments provide a measuring stick so you know if you are messing up.

You’re so nearly on the right track. The only messing up that we can do is to fall from grace, not fall from any performance to the law. We all fail miserably on that one and He knows it. Everyone sins or falls short of the law everyday, including every Christian. But the grace is there that if we confess our sins to Him He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. As long as we are acting in faith then God does not view us a messing up at all. That which is born of the spirit cannot sin. But we must remember that this new creation in us which cannot sin is in constant conflict with our old nature the flesh. Only when the flesh is laid down at death can this new nature be free to fly home, but until then it is in constant warfare. The two natures are dug in and are contrary to each other. To keep from being taken over by our old nature we must maintain the new nature in us by faith. That is the only force capable of delivering us from our own evil and contrary natures.

chozometroid wrote: »

Sin occurs any time you do not do what God asks.

Yes and in the New Testament God is asking for faith. "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, will he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

chozometroid wrote: »

People say pride was Lucifer's sin, but his sin occured the moment he thought in his mind to go contray to God's plan. The ten commandments are for us to know when we are sinning.

The whole law is for us to know when we are sinning. You are missing the whole point as to why Christ came. He came to deliver us from the curse of the law that we cannot keep. You fail to realize the seriousness of falling short of this standard of perfection. You miss it even once in your life, even in thought, then you are under the curse. Because only those who do these things shall live in them. Nobody except Jesus ever did these things. He lived the perfect life according to the Law and then He laid down His perfect life so that we, who deserve the penalty, death, might be saved from the curse that not perfectly keeping the Law brings. That is a gift.

chozometroid wrote: »

God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath day. It was special to Him.

His Son was even more special to Him and yet He loved us enough to give us His only begotten Son and for His own sake allow Him to pay the price of falling short of the Law, which is death. And His Son paid this debt with His own life to deliver us from the curse of not keeping the Law, death.

chozometroid wrote: »

The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.
In the NT, Jesus said He is Lord of the Sabbath.
Six days God created the universe, and rested on the seventh. He blessed it and hallowed it. He expected us to follow His lead.
Doesn't this sound like an important day? Not just some "yoke of burden" to be later done away with along with the sacrificial system.


Is it that strange that this burden is called a delight and honourable?

The Sabbath itself is not the yoke of bondage, rather the keeping of it as an outward mark of conformity to the Law will bring you into the bondage of having to keep the whole law, which is the yoke of bondage. I have already pointed out that the Sabbath was part of the Law and I’ve pointed out what Paul said to the Galatians in regards to conforming to any part to the law that they would be indebted to do the whole law.Put these two together and you will see the danger of keeping the Sabbath.

In the Old Testament God’s people in Egypt needed to be delivered from the bondage that they were in. This bondage was a type of the bondage to sin because when Abraham came to the place that God had promised he was to claim it. He didn’t do this and fled to Egypt, to a place of sin, i.e. not claiming God’s promises. He subsequently went back and did as God had said but his descendents became slaves in this land later on.

When God delivered Abraham’s descendents from this bondage through Moses He did it with power. He did it so that they could serve Him not themselves. He delivered them to claim the land that He had promised to them through their father Abraham. They failed to do this and even though they were delivered them from the bondage of sin in Egypt God eventually killed everyone of them over twenty years old for not claiming the promised land.

It is the same when we become a Christian, God delivers us from the bondage of sin (the Law) through the power of His spirit with the promise to sanctify us completely from your sinful nature in heaven. To not claim this and other promises in God’s Word is to dwell where the Israelites dwelt before God eventually destroyed all them over twenty, which was the wilderness. A Christian who does not act in faith on a promise of God everyday dwells in a spiritual wilderness under law and is in danger of being destroyed spiritually. God put up with this for forty years before He destroyed the Israelites:

“Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.” Psalm 95:10-11

“Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, they shall never enter into my rest.” Hebrews 4:1-3

postcynical

Soul Winner wrote: »

The only actions that need to be taken by the individual who is receiving this grace are acts of faith. The recipient is to trust the Giver of the grace with his/her life and act on His promises. That is all we have to do. God does the rest, including filling us with His spirit which in response to faith, which said indwelling enables us to do good works, but the most important thing is the connection of faith.

I couldn't agree more and I like this articulation. Of course I know from history that there's a debate lurking here which was one major fault line between Lutherans and Roman Catholics back in the day.

"Having begun in the spirit are you now made perfect by the flesh?" Galatians 3:3

We remain the habitation of God through the spirit if we remain steadfast in the faith which got Him in us in the first place. Any deviation at all from this path even with the best of intentions, is to fall away from grace. Paul was astonished that this had happened to the Church of Galatia.

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ” Galatians 1:6-7

I understand the Catholics' call for acts as well as faith to mean that acts are required to keep on this path and to keep this charism burning within us. And acts are required to seek this favour again if lost.

Furthermore, IMO, just as grace manifests itself not only in our spirit but in our actions, so our actions can help form our spirit. Good habits (eg healthy lifestyle, study, charity, prayer) can make us more sensitive to God, and thus more receptive to acquiring His grace and to preserving it within us. Without meriting it.

chozometroid

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ok, here’s where we differ. The verses below show that is was part of the law to be observed and as such is part and parcel of the bondage that comes with observing the law. The Pharisees would have punished Jesus’ disciples for not observing the Sabbath and would have killed Jesus for healing someone on the Sabbath. Not a yoke of bondage?

”One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Mark 2:23-28

“On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was shriveled. The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath. But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Get up and stand in front of everyone." So he got up and stood there. Then Jesus said to them, "I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?" He looked around at them all, and then said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He did so, and his hand was completely restored. But they were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus." Luke 6:6-11

The point Jesus made was that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. He was pointing out that the Pharisees were wrong, because they were serving the law for the sake of obeying the law, through their outward deeds. They did not get the true meaning of any commandment of God. They were the most extreme of legalists, hypocrites who only worried about putting on a show. They did not obey God in their heart.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The ten commandments were part of the Law. Paul asks the question of those who want to be justified by the law, do you not hear the law? Then he points to a story in Genesis to tell them what the law is saying. This means the Paul included Genesis as part of the Law. To break any of the ten commandments is to break the law, which means that they too are part of the bondage and part of the burden. And Jesus goes even deeper when says that they are to be kept not only in deed but also in thought. If we even think about breaking them then we have broken them. Not a burden?

Wait...
Jesus' comments about keeping them in thought was part of the message about how to truly serve God. It's our intentions that matter. You can refrain from murdering your brother, but still hate him. Jesus was getting us to focus on the inward spirit. He showed us how to observe them.

The Old Covenant is obsolete, but that does not mean God's law has become obsolete. The law is a standard of conduct. The covenant was an agreement between God and the people of Israel.
Christ did not come to destroy the law.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Before the Law came they had the promises given to Abraham. These promises were not annulled by the coming of the Law. God had never forgotten His promises to Abraham, but His people did, and they sinned against God without the Law. God gave them the Law in order to show up their sins and lead them to repentance so that He could forgive them. Without the Law they were ignorant of their sinful condition.

I think you mean "before the Old Covenant came, they had the promises given to Abraham." The Law was there before the promises given to Abraham. Abraham kept God's commandments.
The Old Covenant was to get Israel to recognize their wrongdoings.

Also, as a side note, the Sabbath command was given before the Old Covenant was proposed. Exodus 16

Soul Winner wrote: »

The New Testament of God is not observing an impossible Law but a relationship of faith and trust and love. Just like earthly relationships, it is a relationship with a person, not a checklist of do do this and don’t do that.

You can only be transformed by Christ if He dwells in you and He can only dwell in you if you are acting in faith on God’s promises and trusting Him.

You’re so nearly on the right track. The only messing up that we can do is to fall from grace, not fall from any performance to the law. We all fail miserably on that one and He knows it. Everyone sins or falls short of the law everyday, including every Christian. But the grace is there that if we confess our sins to Him He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. As long as we are acting in faith then God does not view us a messing up at all.

I can see this, but it doesn't mean we are not to follow God's commandments. Anything that is not of faith, is sin. Keeping His commandments doesn't mean you are not acting in faith. If we are His children, we will obey Him. The ten commandments are for our own good.

Jesus Christ is your Savior, yes, but also your Lord. That means you must obey Him out of love and respect. He lived up to the standards, and we are to follow His example.

Jesus said, "if you love me, you will keep my commandments."

Faith, trust, and love are the basis of our relationship with God, yes. How do you show you trust Him?