looking for help reconciling the Sabbath with common observation?

[OMC]

Im just gonna say what i hear. If you want to reconcile the Sabbath, it pretty ez All you have to do is deny the Holy Spirit And Walk and talk text as a man that Sabbath was made for. And then you can leave the others alone and let them seek the Lord with all their heart all his soul by the Holy Spirit . I just hope you got some blood in you that makes you one of the promise Abram seed. Only way to see eternal life guaranteed is by the Holy Spirit.
NotThey that people off with Hold flesh old ritual ceremonial laws . The holy spirit is the Own Covenant fulfilled law prejudged with all authority . singular.

I think I understand the heart of what you're saying, but I would be careful about how it is expressed.

I agree that the New Covenant emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer.
Paul says: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2).
And: "If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law" (Gal. 5:18).

However, I would hesitate to say that someone who believes Christians should observe the Sabbath has therefore "denied the Holy Spirit."
That is a very serious charge.
Many sincere believers who love Christ, seek to obey Scripture, and walk in the Spirit disagree about the continuing significance of the Sabbath.

What I think Scripture teaches is that the Spirit does not lead believers back under the Mosaic Covenant as a covenantal system.
The Spirit writes God's law on the heart and produces obedience from within rather than through an external written code (Jer. 31:33; 2 Cor. 3:3).

I also agree with your emphasis on Abraham's seed, but the New Testament defines that in Christ: "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29).
The determining factor is not physical bloodline but union with Christ through faith.

So I would phrase the issue this way: The question is not whether believers should be led by the Holy Spirit or by the flesh.
They should be led by the Spirit.
The question is whether honoring a Sabbath day is required under the New Covenant.
That debate should be settled from Scripture, not by assuming that everyone who reaches a different conclusion has denied the Holy Spirit.
The strongest part of your argument is that the New Covenant is fundamentally Spirit-centered rather than Torah-centered.
The part I would challenge is equating disagreement over the Sabbath with rejection of the Spirit Himself.
Those are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[OMC]

HereBEHILD THE WILL FULL SIN
in The bible NT maybe never seen it as it was it's supposed to be understood .

This verse can sound terrifying on its own, but its true meaning is found by looking directly at the vocabulary used and the context of the entire chapter. The Two Meanings of "No More Sacrifice"
This chapter uses the concept of "no more sacrifice" in two completely opposite ways: one is the greatest promise in the Bible, and the other is a strict warning.


[th]The Verse (KJV)[/th][th]What it Actually Means[/th] [TR]
[td]Hebrews 10:18
"Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."[/td][td]The Ultimate Promise: Because the offering on the cross perfectly erased and blotted out sin forever, no more sacrifices are ever needed. The work is 100% finished.[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td]Hebrews 10:26
"For if we sin wilfully... there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,"[/td][td]The Warning Against Rejection: If a person intentionally walks away from the cross, there is no backup plan. God has no alternative sacrifice lined up to save them.


What is the "Willful Sin" Being Warned About?[/td]
[/TR]
The context of Hebrews was written to Hebrew believers who were facing intense persecution. They were being tempted to step away from the New Covenant and slip back into the old temple system of animal sacrifices to stay safe.
The "willful sin" here is not describing a believer falling into a moment of human weakness, slipping up, or struggling with a daily flaw. The text defines it further in verse 29:

1. Treading under foot the Son of God
2. Counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing
3. Doing despite unto the Spirit of grace

This describes a total, deliberate turning of one's back on the King and the indwelling Spirit. The author is warning them: If you reject the finished work on the cross, you cannot go back to the old temple altars for forgiveness, because those animal sacrifices are empty now. Apart from Him, there is absolutely no other place where forgiveness can be found.

The "willful sin" is not a Christian committing a particular act of disobedience after conversion.
It is the deliberate rejection of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice after receiving the knowledge of the truth.
The warning is that there is no alternative sacrifice beyond Christ.
If a person rejects Him, there is nowhere else to go for forgiveness.

 

[Journey_man]

I don't think you've actually addressed my central point.
I have no disagreement with the Analogy of Faith as a principle.
Of course Scripture interprets Scripture.
Of course John 3:16 must be read in light of John's Gospel and the rest of the Bible.
The question is whether your interpretation arises from those texts or is imposed upon John 3:16 by a theological system.

Notice what I actually said. I did not claim that John 3:16 settles every question about election, regeneration, or divine sovereignty.
I explicitly acknowledged that those doctrines are argued from other passages.
My point was much narrower: John 3:16 itself does not say "world means only the elect."
That conclusion must be established from elsewhere and then brought back to the verse.

Likewise, I don't think John 17 proves your case.
In John 17:9, Jesus says He is not praying for the world in that particular prayer.
But it does not follow that the word world everywhere in John's Gospel means "the elect."
In fact, John 17:6 says the Father gave people to Christ out of the world, which seems to distinguish the disciples from the world rather than redefine the world as the disciples.

I also agree that John 6 and John 10 teach important truths about divine initiative.
The Father gives people to the Son, the Father draws, and Christ's sheep hear His voice.
Those are real texts that must be accounted for.
But again, the existence of election passages does not automatically redefine every occurrence of world into elect.

In fact, the thing I find most striking is that your interpretation requires "world" to mean something very close to its opposite. Throughout John's Gospel, the world is often portrayed as the realm of unbelief, darkness, and rebellion.
John 3:16 is powerful precisely because God loved that world.
The wonder of the verse is not that God loved His elect people.
No one disputes that.
The wonder is that God loved a world in rebellion against Him.

So no, I am not isolating John 3:16.
I am reading it in its immediate context and allowing its language to speak before importing conclusions from elsewhere.
Then, after hearing what John 3:16 says, I ask how it fits with John 6, John 10, and John 17.
That is also an application of the Analogy of Faith.

The real issue between us is not whether Scripture interprets Scripture. We both agree it does.
The issue is whether the clearer passages should be used to explain John 3:16 or to redefine its ordinary language.
That is where I remain unconvinced by your argument.

Difficult Bible verses such as John 3:16 must always be understood in light of clearer, more explicit passages, and individual parts must be read through the lens of the whole canon (and vice versa).

Systematic theology is not an external grid forced onto the text from the outside; it is the orderly, coherent summary of what the entire Bible teaches on related topics (such as human inability, election, and the atonement).

Reading a verse "literally" often means reading it through modern individualistic or universalistic assumptions rather than paying attention to its immediate literary context (Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus in John 3) and the wider Johannine and Pauline theology of grace.

God's love and the giving of the Son have a definite, effective design to save a specific people (limited or definite atonement), while still recognizing John 3:16 as a genuine, sweeping evangelistic invitation commanded to be preached indiscriminately to all sinners.

Proper interpretation (exegesis) requires analyzing the grammatical structures, literary genre, historical setting, and the author's original intent. Pulling a verse away from its surrounding argument risks eisegesis (reading a foreign meaning into the text).

The entire Bible is one unfolding story of redemptive history (Heilsgeschichte) pointing to Jesus Christ. An Old Testament verse, for instance, cannot be fully grasped without understanding its place in covenant history and its fulfillment in the New Testament.

Treating individual verses as autonomous "proof-texts" detached from their literary or redemptive-historical framework often leads to distortion, misunderstanding, or the false pitting of one part of the Bible against another.

 

[OMC]

Difficult Bible verses such as John 3:16 must always be understood in light of clearer, more explicit passages, and individual parts must be read through the lens of the whole canon (and vice versa).

Systematic theology is not an external grid forced onto the text from the outside; it is the orderly, coherent summary of what the entire Bible teaches on related topics (such as human inability, election, and the atonement).

Reading a verse "literally" often means reading it through modern individualistic or universalistic assumptions rather than paying attention to its immediate literary context (Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus in John 3) and the wider Johannine and Pauline theology of grace.

God's love and the giving of the Son have a definite, effective design to save a specific people (limited or definite atonement), while still recognizing John 3:16 as a genuine, sweeping evangelistic invitation commanded to be preached indiscriminately to all sinners.

Proper interpretation (exegesis) requires analyzing the grammatical structures, literary genre, historical setting, and the author's original intent. Pulling a verse away from its surrounding argument risks eisegesis (reading a foreign meaning into the text).

The entire Bible is one unfolding story of redemptive history (Heilsgeschichte) pointing to Jesus Christ. An Old Testament verse, for instance, cannot be fully grasped without understanding its place in covenant history and its fulfillment in the New Testament.

Treating individual verses as autonomous "proof-texts" detached from their literary or redemptive-historical framework often leads to distortion, misunderstanding, or the false pitting of one part of the Bible against another.

I don't think we're nearly as far apart methodologically as you think.
I agree that difficult passages must be interpreted in light of clearer passages.
I agree that Scripture is a unified revelation.
I agree that individual verses should not be ripped out of their literary, historical, covenantal, or redemptive-historical contexts.

Where I continue to disagree is when you classify John 3:16 as a "difficult" passage that must be redefined by other texts.
On its face, John 3:16 is one of the simplest statements in Scripture: "God so loved the world..." and "whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
The burden is not on me to prove that "world" means world.
The burden is on the interpreter who argues that "world" means something more restricted than its ordinary meaning.

You repeatedly appeal to systematic theology, but my concern is that you've moved from: "Scripture interprets Scripture"
to "My systematic conclusions determine what this verse is allowed to mean."
Those are not necessarily the same thing.

For example, I fully agree that John 6 teaches the Father gives people to the Son.
I fully agree that John 10 teaches Christ's sheep hear His voice.
I fully agree that John 17 distinguishes the disciples from the world.
What I don't see is how those passages compel me to conclude that "world" in John 3:16 means "the elect."

In fact, John's Gospel often presents the world as the realm of darkness, unbelief, and rebellion.
That is why John 3:16 is so remarkable. God loved a world that did not love Him.

I also think there is a danger in describing a plain reading as merely "modern individualism."
Sometimes a word simply means what the author intended it to mean in context.
The fact that a doctrine of election exists elsewhere does not automatically narrow every universal-sounding statement.

My fundamental point remains unchanged: The doctrines of election, regeneration, divine drawing, and the perseverance of Christ's sheep may all be true.
But even if they are true, it does not automatically follow that John 3:16 is a coded reference to the elect alone.

So I agree that exegesis must consider grammar, context, theology, redemptive history, and the whole canon.
The question is whether that process explains the text or overrides it.
That is the point at which I remain unconvinced.
I continue to think the most natural reading is that God loved the world and that every believer receives eternal life, while the larger theological questions must be worked out around that statement rather than read back into every word of it.

 

[Davidstarr]

We are saved by grace through faith. Not of works... It is a free gift from God.
Only God can decide who is saved and who is not.
There is nothing we can do to EARN salvation.

Born into the sinful race of Adam and Eve we are already doomed to pay the penalty of our sins.
Children (before the age of accountability, before they can make intelligent, informed decisions of their own) are in God's hands.

Fact is sabatarians don't do the deeds of the law to GET saved. We do the deeds of the law because we are ALREADY saved.

James said (chapter 2 I believe) that Abraham was justified by his works. He also said faith without works is dead being alone. Show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith BY my works.

I cannot just look at a person and know if he/she is saved. Only God can look at the heart.
But I can tell from the works/deeds/fruits that they are doing if they might be on the right track or not.

 

[Davidstarr]

We are saved by grace through faith. Not of works... It is a free gift from God.
Only God can decide who is saved and who is not.
There is nothing we can do to EARN salvation.

Born into the sinful race of Adam and Eve we are already doomed to pay the penalty of our sins.
Children (before the age of accountability, before they can make intelligent, informed decisions of their own) are in God's hands.

Fact is sabatarians don't do the deeds of the law to GET saved. We do the deeds of the law because we are ALREADY saved.

James said (chapter 2 I believe) that Abraham was justified by his works. He also said faith without works is dead being alone. Show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith BY my works.

I cannot just look at a person and know if he/she is saved. Only God can look at the heart.
But I can tell from the works/deeds/fruits that they are doing if they might be on the right track or not.

And BTW, why have I stopped getting notifications about new comments on this watched thread?

 

[OMC]

We are saved by grace through faith. Not of works... It is a free gift from God.
Only God can decide who is saved and who is not.
There is nothing we can do to EARN salvation.

Born into the sinful race of Adam and Eve we are already doomed to pay the penalty of our sins.
Children (before the age of accountability, before they can make intelligent, informed decisions of their own) are in God's hands.

Fact is sabatarians don't do the deeds of the law to GET saved. We do the deeds of the law because we are ALREADY saved.

James said (chapter 2 I believe) that Abraham was justified by his works. He also said faith without works is dead being alone. Show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith BY my works.

I cannot just look at a person and know if he/she is saved. Only God can look at the heart.
But I can tell from the works/deeds/fruits that they are doing if they might be on the right track or not

Amen. Works do not purchase salvation, but neither are they irrelevant.
We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
Yet the faith that saves does not remain alone.
It produces fruit.
We cannot see the heart as God sees it, but we can observe the fruit that flows from it.
That is exactly why James points to Abraham's works as the evidence of a living faith rather than the cause of his salvation.

 

[Davidstarr]

Amen. Works do not purchase salvation, but neither are they irrelevant.
We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
Yet the faith that saves does not remain alone.
It produces fruit.
We cannot see the heart as God sees it, but we can observe the fruit that flows from it.
That is exactly why James points to Abraham's works as the evidence of a living faith rather than the cause of his salvation.

I'm sure you can understand then that keeping the 7th day sabbath of the 4th commandment is not an attempt to earn salvation through works but rather it is kept because we Love God with all our minds, hearts, etc.

BTW it is the only commandment in the 10 that actually tells us which God gave this law (Exo 20:11).
The other 9 do not say.
Any pagan government/religion can have good moral laws concerning murder, theft, adultery, worshiping other gods besides their own.
But without that 4th commandment the Creator is not there.

So how do you actually know you worship the Creator of all things if there is no law concerning His creation and the day of rest He kept after creation?

Obviously you can't if you reject the facts of a 6-day work week with a 7th day of rest.
Do you think there may be a possibility that all you are left with is to worship a counterfeit god, in a counterfeit temple, with his own counterfeit day of rest?