GOD'S SABBATH AND THE REAL TRUTH OF COL 2:14-17 WHO DO WE BELIEVE GOD or MAN?

[Stunnedbygrace]

Yes, but it does not allow you to potentially cause a brother to stumble who's conscience doesn't allow him to ignore it. In fact, the law of the Spirit of life DEMANDS that you not cause him to stumble because the law of the Spirit is based on the law of love. Paul said you sin against Christ when you cause people to go against their conscience:


"take care that this liberty of yours (for example, to not keep Sabbath) does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
11For through your knowledge (that we don't HAVE to keep Sabbath) he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
12And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ."-1 Corinthians 8:9,11-12

I remember these verses to be about eating food offered to idols. I don't recall him mentioning the sabbath in them at all...

And I think if any man had begun to preach there was no saving for a man who chose a certain day, Paul would have opposed him to his face.

You are a lawyer, Ralph. In everything you speak about with us, you are a lawyer.

 

[Ralph-]

I have copied and pasted the reply to a very similar post from you on another thread because it is absolutely relevant:

lovegodforever spent his EVERY waking moment on this forum trying to convince the rest of us to violate our conscience and worship exclusively on a Sunday!

I speak as someone who devoted a lot of time to countering his lies and deceptions.
I can say that I never had a problem with him worshipping on the Sabbath - but I objected strongly to his ongoing, aggressive and very insistent claims that Sunday worshippers would be condemned as carriers of the Mark of the Beast.

LGF also spent a lot of time ridiculing everyone's beliefs who did not agree with his by openly mocking them as not being biblically based....
I decided to use this very issue to challenge his doctrines, and found, surprise surprise, that the basis of his doctrines have NO Biblical foundation whatsoever.
(I already knew the basis of his doctrines having undertaken plenty of research into the history and theology of the SDA church.)
In the process I also discovered that LGF would resort to every tactic of lies, subterfuge, and deception to hide this uncomfortable fact!
This was done in a cynical and calculated fashion - he knew he was lying!
His actions were NOT the actions of a sincere, if misinformed, individual acting according to his conscience....

So, I think you should find a more deserving object for your sympathy!

It's not about sympathy. It's about not sinning against Christ by causing a brother to stumble.


And you have little argument from me about the more militant people in the literal law keeping movement (which are few). But Paul explains that we who are strong are to bear with the failings of the weak. We are the ones in the more knowledgeable position to take the high road and bear with patience them and what they believe.

I personally rarely bother to dissuade them from being observant because so many of them have fantastic testimonies of finding joy and life in Christ in their observances ('in', not 'by'). Who am I to take away from them what we wish we had in our meetings?

 

[Ralph-]

I remember these verses to be about eating food offered to idols. I don't recall him mentioning the sabbath in them at all...

And I think if any man had begun to preach there was no saving for a man who chose a certain day, Paul would have opposed him to his face.

You are a lawyer, Ralph. In everything you speak about with us, you are a lawyer.

Ah, yes. Just as expected.

I will explain when I return.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I think he is saying we should let a man speak about how we all will not see the kingdom if we don't go to church on Saturday and that we should not bother him and just let him keep preaching it because to counter him might cause him to sin regarding his conscience.

How bizarre is it that HRFTD and ralph BOTH liked my post. I know HRFTD is laughing over that and I know I am laughing over it, but am pretty sure Ralph isn't! sometimes you gotta lol...

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Ah, yes. Just as expected.

I will explain when I return.

We're on the edge of our seats.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

You can share why you personally believe that you do not HAVE to keep a literal Sabbath, and move on. What you can not do is insist he give up his claims about Sabbath keeping. There are some in this forum who think they need to do that for the sake of the church. Paul does not agree with that.

Then sabbatarians need to share what they believe and move on as well. It's not a one way street.

And no one is telling any sabbatarian what to do or not to do. That's their business.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

It DOES go both ways, as HRFTD said. Because some one with a weaker conscience might be persuaded from their own conscience, by the man who was banned, to not follow their own freedom to follow their conscience in the matter.

 

[blue_ladybug]

Speak for yourself, girl. I'm actually on the edge of my bed..

We're on the edge of our seats.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

It's not about sympathy. It's about not sinning against Christ by causing a brother to stumble.

And you have little argument from me about the more militant people in the literal law keeping movement (which are few). But Paul explains that we who are strong are to bear with the failings of the weak. We are the ones in the more knowledgeable position to take the high road and bear with patience them and what they believe.
[/I]

According to your logic, Paul should not have opposed the Christian pharisees who traveled from Jerusalem to Galatia to tell the disciples there that they needed to follow the law (Acts 15) because that would have caused them to stumble and sin against their conscience. But he opposed them vehemently and had choice words for them.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Speak for yourself, girl. I'm actually on the edge of my bed.. View attachment 179934

If I lived near you, I would bring you a cup of coffee.
(After you put your pants on.)

 

[blue_ladybug]

I don't wear pants. I wear jammie bottoms.. and I've had 2 cups of coffee this morning..

If I lived near you, I would bring you a cup of coffee.
(After you put your pants on.)

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I don't wear pants. I wear jammie bottoms.. and I've had 2 cups of coffee this morning.. View attachment 179935

Drinking coffee WHILE in bed seems counterintuitive to me...I drink it TO get out of bed and get moving.

 

[blue_ladybug]

I'm not IN bed. I'm ON the bed. Watching an episode of American Justice on Youtube..lol

Drinking coffee WHILE in bed seems counterintuitive to me...I drink it TO get out of bed and get moving.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

According to your logic, Paul should not have opposed the Christian pharisees who traveled from Jerusalem to Galatia to tell the disciples there that they needed to follow the law (Acts 15) because that would have caused them to stumble and sin against their conscience. But he opposed them vehemently and had choice words for them.

Yes. And whose consciences were being bothered and disturbed? Was it those who came to teach that or the ones they were teaching it to?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I'm still waiting for Ralph to acknowledge that he is framing the argument with the false characterization that people here are telling sabbatarians what to do with their lives. If he thinks otherwise, he needs to provide evidence.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Besides, it's just kind of silly to me to argue against preaching the gospel which frees a man...in order to not bring harm to the man...!!

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I'm still waiting for Ralph to acknowledge that he is framing the argument with the false characterization that people here are telling sabbatarians what to do with their lives. If he thinks otherwise, he needs to provide evidence.

Yes, it is a false characterization of what was happening in the thread. As you said, it would be like paul telling the Pharisees to continue rather than opposing them to their faces.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Have to go. Be back later to see what ralph has to say.
Love one another. Love covers a multitude of sins.

 

[Jackson123]

No The handwriting to the ordinances, not the ordinances themselves and only those that were against us. Not those that showed us what righteousness is. The Life GOD has for us in Christ.

Only Those that dealt with when we sin; the judgments and ceremonial writings tied to the sacrificial system.

The Ordinances; the Word; the Law; Christ is of the New Covenant.

These; HE is nigh unto us. In our hearts, minds, mouths and hands that we do it. The engrafted Word; the new Ministration.

Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God. For Christ (the Word in our hearts, minds, and mouths that we do it [Rom 10:6-8; Heb 8:10] ) is the end of the (written) Law for righteousness for everyone that believeth.(2Co 3:3-5; Rom 10:4 KJV)

Dear, this is a copy of your statement:

Verse 16 makes it clear that the writer of Colossians is referring to the book of law.
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:
(Col 2:16 KJV)

jackson

you say verse 16 indicate what being blotting.

The He book of law.

Than you say not , it confused dear.

now you say only those that dealt when we sin, judgement, ceremonial, being blotted.

so now when we sin and not observe sabbath, no judgment / punishment anymore?

If make no difference whether observe sabbath or not than why we discuss if no punishment for sabbath violators.

 

[Endoscopy]

My translation of that verse you quote is good (in my opinion.) Its NLT. It says, wisdom is shown to be right by her results.

Now I better go look it up because I'm going from memory...

More correct is the following.

We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus.
1. Grace is a free unearned gift.
2. Faith in Jesus as our savior.
3. The result of this faith is works. (Faith without works is dead )

While works doesn't save us without them there is no real faith in Jesus.