Take note how this post does not address mine but rather tries to sidetrack it and bring in other material and topics to derail the post. That is a sure sign of a weak argument.
For evidence simply read my post and then his and ask yourself is this really addressing the points made? clearly no.
Your claims regarding the Sabbath are based on your definition of sin, which are fundamental to the arguments of most Sabbath keepers on this topic. Sabbathkeepers in general claim that the rest of Christianity is in sin due to non-observance of the Sabbath. I was addressing inconsistencies with your view of sin, knowing that you are a Seventh Day Adventist pastor.
I address these inconsistencies from the standpoint of a former Sabbath/festival keeper so my position is not uninformed. I am addressing the same sorts of inconsistencies I held as an Armstrongite.
The claim that most Sabbathkeepers make is that breaking the Sabbath is a sin, due to inclusion in the Ten Commandments, in your case, or, alternatively, the entire Old Covenant for "Torah observers".
If I look at the "patchwork quilt" of requirements, based on their definition of sin, for each group of individuals I see inconsistencies in their view of "the law".
For the Seventh Day Adventist church, they claim that the Ten Commandments still apply to New Covenant believers, including the Saturday Sabbath, but that the "book of the Covenant" does not. However, they pull the clean/unclean meat laws from the "book of the Covenant" and claim they still apply, so their theology is inconsistent. Why do they claim that the Book of the Covenant doesn't apply, and then pull portions from it and claim that they do apply?
In addition, they deny that the weekly Sabbath is included in Colossians 2:16-17, even though the Greek word
sabbaton used in these verses for the weekly Sabbath is used 59 other times where it is translated always as the Sabbath in a weekly sense, and the SDAs would agree with that. Besides that, the word
sabbaton is translated "week" in other verses, and it is well known that there is a weekly context to the word. For instance, the phrase in Greek for Sunday is basically "first of week" where the word week is
sabbaton. So, the word Sabbath used in Colossians 2:16-17 definitely applies to the weekly Sabbath and not annual festivals like the SDAs claim.
in addition to their view on the Sabbath, they add to it extra-biblical requirements such as vegetarianism and non-consumption of items such as ketchup, pickles, eggs, coffee, tea, chocolate, spices. So, the fact that they reach outside the Bible to create their list of requirements which describe holiness is very problematic, especially based on such arbitrariness..
in reality these things came from quackery that was taught in the nineteenth century that Ellen G. White affirmed as truths..she related consumption of meat to masturbation and nymphomania and claimed that the base desires of the creatures consumed affected the consumer spiritually, which is nonsense.
For the Torah observers, they claim the whole Torah applies, including the Sabbaths, festivals, and clean/unclean meat laws, but they don't make their women live outside of the home during her impurity period such as when she is menstruating. They don't throw away sofas that she may have sat upon as unclean. I can query each individual Torah observer and find similar inconsistencies on other points of their observances...such as wearing mixed fibers or tassels on the corners of their garments.
But..back to your assertions concerning Romans 3:20....with regards to the word
law, the Greek word generally used is
nomos.Lawbreaking comes from the word
anomia. Depending on the context where the word is used, it can have a number of meanings. Sabbath or Torah people pick the meaning that best suits their theology and insists that it is the only possible meaning.
For the Seventh Day Adventist, where it suits his doctrinal position, such as when it is talking about binding requirements for Christians or the definition of sin, he is going to claim that the phrase "the law" is talking about the Ten Commandments and not the entire Torah. For the Torah observer in the same verses, he is going to claim that "the law" is talking about the entire Torah. Each wants to foist upon others their definition of sin so that they can assert that their doctrinal positions are accurate.
In such verses, I will assert with strong conviction that when talking about definitions of sin for New Covenant believers,
nomos is talking about
God's moral law, and not about the Ten Commandments OR the entire Torah. God's moral law includes all commandments, instructions, and laws that He gives us. It is obvious that such commandments, instructions, and laws don't include the Old Covenant, except where it is intuitive that such things are moral or spiritual principles that still apply, or are reiterated in the apostolic writings. We cannot assume that something applies if it is mentioned before the New Covenant was initiated at the Crucifixion, as the Old Covenant was still in effect.
Verses like Romans 3:20 refer to the law. The reason that such verses cannot be referring to the Ten Commandments or the Torah alone is because Colossians 2:16-17 says that the Sabbath (and yes, it is talking about the weekly Sabbath despite SDA claims) is a mere shadow and it is grouped with food and drink offerings and new moons which virtually no one claims is applicable to New Covenant believers. Comparing these verses with Hebrews 10:1-2 and Hebrews 9:9-11 will show that these verses associate the Sabbath with inapplicable things that were part of the Old Covenant. The mere language of "shadows" tells us that.
So, to summarize, Sabbath and Torah observers make assertions that reflect their doctrinal bent with regards to their view of 'the law' in a given verse. In reality, the phrase "the law" can be used in a number of ways. For instance, the same Greek word
nomos can be used to describe the law of a man over his wife, as it is used in Romans 7:2.
For a word study on
nomos, see this word study:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3551&t=KJV
For a word study on a
nomia see this word study:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G458&t=KJV
Realize that I John 3:4 is one of the primary verses that Sabbathkeepers will quote to try to claim others are in sin due to non-observance of the Sabbath. The phrase "transgression of the law" in the KJV version is the Greek word
anomia. Note that they almost always quote it in the KJV because the KJV rendering supports their claims better.
Anomiais a state of lawlessness or rebellion against God...the state of mankind after the Fall in the Garden. When Christians sin, they are rebelling like Adam and Eve did. It is not stating that sin is breaking the Ten Commandments or the Torah in specific. As I showed above, the word
nomos which is the root of
anomia is even used in regards to the law of a man over his wife. Sin is basically rebellion against God...against things you know appiies to you. The Old Covenant does not apply to Christians, and neither does the Sabbath command. Both of those were given to Israel in the Old Covenant which was temporary and preparatory to Jesus Christ (Galatians 3 and 4, II Cor 3, Acts 15, Hebrews 7 and 8).
If anyone has a sound Greek background and would like to challenge the above assertions, feel free. By the way, a sound Greek background doesn't mean picking up Strong's concordance and looking at it. it means someone who has had a few years of formal Greek training. I have checked out my assertions with someone who teaches biblical Greek and another student of Biblical Greek with multiple years and they both agreed with them.
I can think of at least five different ways the Greek word
nomos is used: 1) the entire Old Covenant 2) any law that applies
to a given individual such as Romans 7:2 talks about the law of a husband over his wife 3) the concept of works righteousness
rather than faith righteousness and 4) God's moral law which is similar to point 2. I don't really see that
nomos is used in relation to the Ten Commandments SPECIFICALLY, although it may be used in a manner that would include the Ten Commandments, as there is one unified law.
As I have said before, the Old Covenant has spiritual and moral principles which underlay the specific applications to the nation of Israel. In addition, there are types or shadows of future realities that are part of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant offers a lot in terms of moral guidance if someone reads it with spiritual eyes, aware that the specific applications may not apply. One must realize that the Old Covenant was an agreement between God and Israel, not God and the individual Christian.
Christians are beneficiaries under the New Covenant. The covenant parties are God and Jesus Christ, and the purpose of the covenant is to redeem a specific people for Himself; those who place their faith in Jesus Christ. The conditions of the new Covenant are perfect obedience, which Christ rendered to the Father. Christians are included in Christ if they place their faith in Jesus Christ for their salvation. The New Covenant is basically the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, as Christ is the "seed" by which many will be blessed.
Are there behavioral standards for Christians? Obviously..love is the highest one (John 13:34-35). There are tons of requirements for New Covenant Christians. The Sabbath isn't one of them according to Colossians 2:16-17, and its inclusion in the Old Covenant which is abolished is indicative of that. In addition, one must ask why Sabbath-breaking or eating unclean meats was never mentioned in any of the sin lists to the Gentiles. The issue should have came up, as many more obvious sins were discussed. Why is there no instruction in the epistles as to the proper keeping of the Sabbath?
Let me ask this question as well to gotime..for a slave in the Roman Empire..if he had an unconverted master, and this master would not allow him to rest on Sabbath, would he forfeit his salvation if he worked on the Sabbath until his last day of life? Or, would you say that he should have simply refused to work on the Sabbath even if it meant forfeiting his life? This would not be an unrealistic situation given that your assertions that the early Church observed the Sabbath..why no discussion of such incidences? Do you think that there were no such individuals in the early Church who were saved with unbelieving masters?
These are the sorts of questions I asked myself as a Sabbathkeeper. Obviously you guys know the side I came down on..I think the position is absurd, given the verses which plainly say the old Covenant was done away with. Examining the claims of Sabbathkeepers regarding church history and how their views don't line up with history is another reason why I moved away from it. Basically it's one massive conspiracy theory..and I find it interesting that many Sabbatarians also believe other such conspiracy theories about the Illuminati, etcetera. So, the ones who teach such things have no credibility with me. While claiming others to be "ignorant and unstable" I find that they are.
