looking for help reconciling the Sabbath with common observation?

[NightTwister]

Nobody is stating "By our works we are saved from future sins."

Was the work of salvation completed at the cross? Then why did Jesus tell His followers on the day of ascension to spread the gospel message throughout the entire world?

Just what was completed at the cross when Jesus said, "It is finished"?
For one thing Jesus' life on the earth was finished.
For another thing there was a sign that the temple services were finished. The veil dividing the Holy from the Most Holy in the temple was torn.
Jesus put an end to the sacrifices and oblations. Those were finished.
We no longer kill animals for redemption from sin.

Was the work of salvation finished?
No
God's people even still today carry on that work to give knowledge to the world that Jesus is our sacrifice.

His work was finished. Since then He works through us to continue building His Kingdom. It's still all of Him.

 

[Davidstarr]

His work was finished. Since then He works through us to continue building His Kingdom. It's still all of Him.

Your post sounds contradictory.
If His work was finished what is the point of continuing that work through His followers?

 

[NightTwister]

Your post sounds contradictory.
If His work was finished what is the point of continuing that work through His followers?

Because that's how scripture says His Will is accomplished. Who are you to question how Jesus saves and keeps?

 

[Davidstarr]

The 8day is The first day Aaron in the Old Testament blessing and Mary on the first day of the week in the New Testament

OK if Sunday is both the 8th day AND the 1st day of the week then Monday must be the 2nd and 9th day of the week.
How far do you want to go with this?
How many actual days have there been since creation?
And you think all those days are all part of one week?

So what is it; a 7-day weekly cycle, an 8-day weekly cycle or nearly an eternity of days inside one week?
You think Jesus was raised from the dead on the 8th day of the week?

Please show in scripture (anywhere) where it talks about an 8th day of the week

 

[JemimaJade]

By that argument, where is the commandment saying, "Thou shalt not kill/murder"?
Or thou shalt not commit adultery before the 10 commandments were given on Mt. Sinai?

I do not believe that humans were unaware of God’s righteous principles before the Law was written. We are all endowed with a conscience which means we have an innate sense of right and wrong.
God’s communication with his servants before the Law (in the era of the Patriarchs) was personal. Moses was commanded to put into writing what God’s requirement were.
God communicated with Moses on the mountain, and gave him the stone tablets inscribed by God’s own hand. The laws associated with the Ten Commandments were communicated to Moses directly.

Was murder wrong before the law was written on stone? Adultery?
Sin is the transgression of the law.
Where no law is there can be no transgression. By the law is the knowledge of sin.
Do you need those NT references?

Will this do?
“For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.” (Rom 12:2-15 ESV)

So please explain how Cain sinned when he killed his brother.

God warned Cain personally that his attitude towards his brother was wrong….Cain ignored a direct warning….and committed pre-meditated murder….showing that his heart was wicked.

Why was the antediluvian world destroyed?

Noah warned the people of his day that God was going to act to stop their wickedness…not a soul believed him, until the water began to swirl around their ankles and high ground was running out.

Sodom and Gomorrah.

Did God bring that punishment on those people without due acknowledgment that even if 10 righteous people were in those cities, he would spare them? Was his punishment justified when all those men wanted to do was rape his angels?

Joseph knew it was a sin against God to sleep with Potiphar's wife.

What did Joseph say to her?
“But he refused and said to his master's wife, “Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge. He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” (Gen 39:8-9 ESV)

He was the head of Potiphar’s entire household and was not willing to betray his Master’s trust, knowing in his heart that marriage was instituted by his God. Although he was a slave, he was educated in his youth by his father Jacob, to know God’s principles about marriage.

How can such things be wrong if there was no law before Moses?

The Law of Moses was simply a written statement of the laws that God’s servants already knew….but hundreds of years in a foreign environment had dulled Israel’s perceptions of their God. Which is why Moses was commissioned to write them down. We see what happened when Moses was delaying in the mountain…the people decided to hold a festival to “Yahweh”, but they included the idol of a golden calf in their festival….God was furious with them because they had already agreed to abide by the 10 commandments before Moses had ascended the mountain…this included the law on idolatry.

Rather there was no WRITTEN law until Mt. Sinai.

Yes, but only Israel were bound by their oath to willingly obey that law…..no one else was accountable to it…do you understand why?

BTW the 10 commandments say nothing about circumcision, temples services or killing animals for the redemption from sin.
It was a different law from the Mosaic/Levitical laws.

The 10 Commandments were the 10 most important elements of the whole law. The other things were added so that Israel were commanded to be as separate from the nations as it was possible to be.

Circumcision, temple service and the animal sacrifices were given to show Israel that as a separate people, they were to be obedient to God in all things….it was a perfect law given to an imperfect people and it demonstrated that every one of them was in a debt of sin to God, and the blood of animals was a temporary way to gain forgiveness for their sins….a daily reminder of their need for the Messaih to come and pay the debt that none of them could pay. All the laws in the world would not save them, because none could keep it perfectly. Jesus did.

And yes, all 10 of the 10 commandments are fully endorsed and commanded for God's people to keep in the NT.
This would include the 4th (sabbath) precept.

The Law was only binding on Jews, not Gentiles. When a Gentile convert to Judaism was accepted into the Jewish community, they were under the same laws as Israel. But Jesus, as a Jew under law, kept it perfectly because he had no sin to impede him in his service to God. The Law imposed no such thing on Gentile Christians because they were not Jewish converts…..

When the circumcision issue was causing divisions in the Christian congregations, the apostles and older men in Jerusalem sought a solution to this divisive issue. Were Gentile Christians under obligation to keep Jewish laws? Their answer was NO!

They sent a letter to all the congregations stating their conclusions and the reasons for them….

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch, and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. And when they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement.” (Acts15: 28-31 ESV)
There is no mention of a Sabbath in those “requirements”….so Gentiles did not have to abide by Jewish law and neither did the Jewish Christians, because the “requirements” had changed due to Christ’s sacrifice and the implementation of the “new covenant”, which was not like the old one at all. (Jer 31:31-33)

The principles of the law still applied but these were now written on hearts….if any Christian wanted to have a quiet day of worship and rest, no specific day was now required to do so. Every day could be a day to honor God and to worship him by their actions in upholding his righteous principles in their every day lives.

 

[Davidstarr]

I do not believe that humans were unaware of God’s righteous principles before the Law was written. We are all endowed with a conscience which means we have an innate sense of right and wrong.
God’s communication with his servants before the Law (in the era of the Patriarchs) was personal. Moses was commanded to put into writing what God’s requirement were.
God communicated with Moses on the mountain, and gave him the stone tablets inscribed by God’s own hand. The laws associated with the Ten Commandments were communicated to Moses directly.

Will this do?
“For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.” (Rom 12:2-15 ESV)


God warned Cain personally that his attitude towards his brother was wrong….Cain ignored a direct warning….and committed pre-meditated murder….showing that his heart was wicked.

Noah warned the people of his day that God was going to act to stop their wickedness…not a soul believed him, until the water began to swirl around their ankles and high ground was running out.

Did God bring that punishment on those people without due acknowledgment that even if 10 righteous people were in those cities, he would spare them? Was his punishment justified when all those men wanted to do was rape his angels?

What did Joseph say to her?
“But he refused and said to his master's wife, “Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge. He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” (Gen 39:8-9 ESV)

He was the head of Potiphar’s entire household and was not willing to betray his Master’s trust, knowing in his heart that marriage was instituted by his God. Although he was a slave, he was educated in his youth by his father Jacob, to know God’s principles about marriage.

The Law of Moses was simply a written statement of the laws that God’s servants already knew….but hundreds of years in a foreign environment had dulled Israel’s perceptions of their God. Which is why Moses was commissioned to write them down. We see what happened when Moses was delaying in the mountain…the people decided to hold a festival to “Yahweh”, but they included the idol of a golden calf in their festival….God was furious with them because they had already agreed to abide by the 10 commandments before Moses had ascended the mountain…this included the law on idolatry.

Yes, but only Israel were bound by their oath to willingly obey that law…..no one else was accountable to it…do you understand why?

The 10 Commandments were the 10 most important elements of the whole law. The other things were added so that Israel were commanded to be as separate from the nations as it was possible to be.

Circumcision, temple service and the animal sacrifices were given to show Israel that as a separate people, they were to be obedient to God in all things….it was a perfect law given to an imperfect people and it demonstrated that every one of them was in a debt of sin to God, and the blood of animals was a temporary way to gain forgiveness for their sins….a daily reminder of their need for the Messaih to come and pay the debt that none of them could pay. All the laws in the world would not save them, because none could keep it perfectly. Jesus did.

The Law was only binding on Jews, not Gentiles. When a Gentile convert to Judaism was accepted into the Jewish community, they were under the same laws as Israel. But Jesus, as a Jew under law, kept it perfectly because he had no sin to impede him in his service to God. The Law imposed no such thing on Gentile Christians because they were not Jewish converts…..

When the circumcision issue was causing divisions in the Christian congregations, the apostles and older men in Jerusalem sought a solution to this divisive issue. Were Gentile Christians under obligation to keep Jewish laws? Their answer was NO!

They sent a letter to all the congregations stating their conclusions and the reasons for them….

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch, and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. And when they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement.” (Acts15: 28-31 ESV)
There is no mention of a Sabbath in those “requirements”….so Gentiles did not have to abide by Jewish law and neither did the Jewish Christians, because the “requirements” had changed due to Christ’s sacrifice and the implementation of the “new covenant”, which was not like the old one at all. (Jer 31:31-33)

The principles of the law still applied but these were now written on hearts….if any Christian wanted to have a quiet day of worship and rest, no specific day was now required to do so. Every day could be a day to honor God and to worship him by their actions in upholding his righteous principles in their every day lives.

That's what I am trying to say.
Without the law how can there be any sin or any knowledge of right from wrong?
Yes, every day is a day to honor God.
Yet still the commandment says to work 6 days and rest from our labours on the 7th day.
How does this conflict with worshiping God 24/7 every day?

 

[frederickdoc]

That's what I am trying to say.
Without the law how can there be any sin or any knowledge of right from wrong?
Yes, every day is a day to honor God.
Yet still the commandment says to work 6 days and rest from our labours on the 7th day.
How does this conflict with worshiping God 24/7 every day?

It taking One day from Seated King Sabbath Rest of cleanse . e still anointing to the next Day The First day ot would be the 8 =the first the pouring of His Spirit The Highest ever Seated Priest is still celebrating the Sabbath Eternal Rest completion From the Day before ! Why would anyone want to disrupt that? Where's the Faith to hear people have in Jesus has Lord God and high priest? Well know this one thing everything Everything Jesus did to the laws and the prophets known and unknown Jesus did it for One purpose so you and I can receive the Holy spirit of God.

 

[JemimaJade]

That's what I am trying to say.
Without the law how can there be any sin or any knowledge of right from wrong?
Yes, every day is a day to honor God.
Yet still the commandment says to work 6 days and rest from our labours on the 7th day.
How does this conflict with worshiping God 24/7 every day?

The difference is that Israel’s laws were mandated and had serious consequences if violated….the death penalty was administered by those authorized by God to do so…..but under the law of Christ, it is governed by conscience, and if someone in the congregation was violating Christ’s commands, they would be dealt with by the elders who are authorized by Jesus to remove such a person who may be disrupting the peace of the congregation, promoting false teachings, or guilty of sexual immorality or even theft, drunkenness or extortion…

Paul’s admonition was…
“I wrote to you in a letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. I did not mean the immoral people of this world or the greedy and swindlers or idolaters; otherwise you would have to leave the world. But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or verbally abusive, a drunkard or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person. For what business is it of mine to judge outsiders? Don’t you judge those who are inside? But God judges outsiders. Put away the evil person from among yourselves.” (1 Cor 5:9-13. HCSB)

Those in positions of oversight in the congregations were to remove wrongdoers…excommunicating them. Whereas God was going to judge those outside of his arrangement for Christian worship.

There is no mention of Sabbath violation…..why do you think that was missing, if it was so important?

 

[Journey_man]

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.

You may not think that we're methodologically far apart, but we don't believe the same gospel message so we're actually poles apart.

You previously agree with me that scripture interprets scripture (the analogy of faith) and that isolating a single verse actually distorts its true meaning. But then you claim that John 3:16 is a simple stand alone verse that doesn't need to line up with what other scriptures say, and it doesn't require any interpretation.

The fact that you reject systematic theology, tells me you don't know what it means. The Bible is like a puzzle, systematic theology is not adding external rules; it is simply looking at how all the puzzle pieces fit together perfectly without contradicting one another.

Your theology is full of contradictions, because you pluck bible verses out of their intended context and interpret them in isolation.

When you isolate John 3:16 and claim that God loves every single individual in the exact same way and desires to save everyone unconditionally, you create a contradiction with verses like Romans 9:15 ("I will have mercy on whom I have mercy") or Psalm 5:5 ("You hate all evildoers"). Systematic theology honors the whole counsel of God by harmonizing these truths.

If God loved every single person, and everyone does not believe, then either (a) God fails to save everyone He loves and offers to save (universalism vs. frustrated divine desire), or (b) "believing" is a purely human work that unlocks an otherwise impotent divine love. The Bible teaches that God's intentions are never frustrated.

While God shows goodness, patience, and provision to all creation (Matthew 5:45), even those who perish. He has a unique, unbreakable, covenantal affection and saving commitment set upon His elect (Ephesians 1:4–5; Romans 8:32)

John 3:16 does not comment on the natural inability of fallen humanity to produce faith on their own. But other texts (like John 6:37, 44) clarify that no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws them, and faith itself is a gift of grace (Ephesians 2:8–9). The "whoever" describes the class of people who are saved (believers), not a declaration that all possess the independent capacity to believe.

 

[OMC]

You may not think that we're methodologically far apart, but we don't believe the same gospel message so we're actually poles apart.

You previously agree with me that scripture interprets scripture (the analogy of faith) and that isolating a single verse actually distorts its true meaning. But then you claim that John 3:16 is a simple stand alone verse that doesn't need to line up with what other scriptures say, and it doesn't require any interpretation.

The fact that you reject systematic theology, tells me you don't know what it means. The Bible is like a puzzle, systematic theology is not adding external rules; it is simply looking at how all the puzzle pieces fit together perfectly without contradicting one another.

Your theology is full of contradictions, because you pluck bible verses out of their intended context and interpret them in isolation.

When you isolate John 3:16 and claim that God loves every single individual in the exact same way and desires to save everyone unconditionally, you create a contradiction with verses like Romans 9:15 ("I will have mercy on whom I have mercy") or Psalm 5:5 ("You hate all evildoers"). Systematic theology honors the whole counsel of God by harmonizing these truths.

If God loved every single person, and everyone does not believe, then either (a) God fails to save everyone He loves and offers to save (universalism vs. frustrated divine desire), or (b) "believing" is a purely human work that unlocks an otherwise impotent divine love. The Bible teaches that God's intentions are never frustrated.

While God shows goodness, patience, and provision to all creation (Matthew 5:45), even those who perish. He has a unique, unbreakable, covenantal affection and saving commitment set upon His elect (Ephesians 1:4–5; Romans 8:32)

John 3:16 does not comment on the natural inability of fallen humanity to produce faith on their own. But other texts (like John 6:37, 44) clarify that no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws them, and faith itself is a gift of grace (Ephesians 2:8–9). The "whoever" describes the class of people who are saved (believers), not a declaration that all possess the independent capacity to believe.

I think you've just illustrated my point.

I do not reject systematic theology.
Everyone has a systematic theology, whether formal or informal.
The question is whether our system is derived from Scripture or whether it begins controlling what Scripture is allowed to say.

For example, I have never argued that John 3:16 stands in isolation or that it should be interpreted apart from John 6, Romans 9, Ephesians 1, or any other passage.
My point has been that those passages must inform our reading of John 3:16, not redefine its words before we arrive.

You say that "world" cannot mean world because of your understanding of election.
I would simply observe that John repeatedly uses "world" to describe humanity in rebellion against God, making God's love all the more remarkable, not less.

Nor do I think the alternatives are as limited as you suggest.
Scripture can teach both God's sovereign election and His genuine love for the world without contradiction, just as it teaches both human responsibility and divine sovereignty.

Most importantly, I don't believe John 3:16 says God loved the elect.
It says: "God so loved the world..."
The burden of proof therefore rests with the person narrowing the term beyond its ordinary meaning in John's Gospel.

So I agree that all the puzzle pieces must fit together.
Where we differ is that I think John 3:16 should be allowed to remain one of those puzzle pieces rather than being reshaped to fit a system before the puzzle is assembled.

 

[Journey_man]

316 It is difficult if you understand the real meaning,it especially when it comes to Begotten or Begotten again and then realize it is also a blinding scripture by making it look like it's simple just to believe when Mark 16:16 tells you the rest it's just a matter where you're looking in Scripture and for overlooking

Yes John 3:16 is a short verse, but there's a lot there to unpack. Many consider it to be the most controversial verse in the Bible.

 

[frederickdoc]

Yes John 3:16 is a short verse, but there's a lot there to unpack. Many consider it to be the most controversial verse in the Bible.

Believe & begotten are two words in that scripture, to be looked at . Believe is weak & begotten is to really look at. a short ,
think on begotten & begotten Again Son of man jesus is begotton . Know scripture says, we are begotten again sons of man . Im not say more but just think on that i actually started a thread that didn't take off it called
Begotten to Begotten
look at it like Glory to Glory etc

 

[Davidstarr]

The difference is that Israel’s laws were mandated and had serious consequences if violated….the death penalty was administered by those authorized by God to do so…..but under the law of Christ, it is governed by conscience, and if someone in the congregation was violating Christ’s commands, they would be dealt with by the elders who are authorized by Jesus to remove such a person who may be disrupting the peace of the congregation, promoting false teachings, or guilty of sexual immorality or even theft, drunkenness or extortion…

Paul’s admonition was…
“I wrote to you in a letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. I did not mean the immoral people of this world or the greedy and swindlers or idolaters; otherwise you would have to leave the world. But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or verbally abusive, a drunkard or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person. For what business is it of mine to judge outsiders? Don’t you judge those who are inside? But God judges outsiders. Put away the evil person from among yourselves.” (1 Cor 5:9-13. HCSB)

Those in positions of oversight in the congregations were to remove wrongdoers…excommunicating them. Whereas God was going to judge those outside of his arrangement for Christian worship.

There is no mention of Sabbath violation…..why do you think that was missing, if it was so important?

Straw man argument.

There is also no mention of murder, theft, idolatry, cursing God.

So, by your argument those things are OK to do?
Because they are not mentioned in the text?

 

[JemimaJade]

Most importantly, I don't believe John 3:16 says God loved the elect.
It says: "God so loved the world..."
The burden of proof therefore rests with the person narrowing the term beyond its ordinary meaning in John's Gospel.

Can we unpack this a bit?
I agree that “the world” in this context means the world of humanity….(Strongs lists “kosmos” as such) so, of course God loves the human family….he created them…..He just doesn’t love what they do a good deal of the time….yet he is giving us all an opportunity to prove our trust and loyalty to Him.

Now, what I find amazing, is the contrast used in this whole verse, not just the opening statement.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His onlybegotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” (NASB)

What does the whole verse say as understood by the one who wrote it, and the audience who received it?

God’s love, moved him to send his “only begotten Son” into that world, to save those who would “believe in him”.
The Greek is “pisteuō” and we know what it means to “believe” in something or someone. It involves faith and trust.

So when we look at James 2:19 for e.g….
“You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.”

What does “believe” mean in this context? (same word) What do the demons “believe” about God, from their own personal experience? They are not in any doubt about the power of their own Creator, and yet they did not fear to disrespect and actively oppose his will, knowing that nothing good would ever come of it.

So what does “believe” mean in the context of John 3:16? It means more than just accepting something that is true…..we have to support that acceptance by letting it govern our actions. The demons did not do that….they wanted to do their own will, in imitation of their self centered leader.

So what does the next part of John 3:16 mean? It is just as important as the opening statement because this is the consequence of NOT allowing our beliefs to govern our actions.
Those “believing” in the Son of God, would be a contrast to those not believing, as well as those believing but not demonstrating that belief by their actions. They talk the talk but they don’t live it.

As Paul wrote to the Thessalonians…..
“For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.” (1 Thess 1:6-10 NASB)

So the second part of John 3:16 is also about God’s love….he will rid the world of those who fail to live up to the standards that the Creator set from the very beginning…..”the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” represented God’s exclusive right to dictate the terms of human life…..and it was taken without his permission…the penalty was death. And as Rom 5:12 says “death spread to all men” because sin was now in their DNA.

The only way for “the world” of sinful mankind to survive, was to accept the sacrificial blood of the Lamb and follow his teachings. The contrast in John 3:16 is to “perish” or to gain “eternal life”….

Strongs definition of “perish” (apollymi) is….

“to destroy

1. to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin”

So to “perish” means to lose your life completely….”eternal destruction”….to go back to the dust as Adam was told….to be eliminated from life altogether….eternal death is the opposite of eternal life.

This is what God placed before his people. (Deut 30: 19-20) He told them to “choose life”….by obeying him.
No heaven or hell…just life or death.

Where we differ is that I think John 3:16 should be allowed to remain one of those puzzle pieces rather than being reshaped to fit a system before the puzzle is assembled.

It’s not a puzzle at all if we allow the rest of the Bible to paint the bigger picture.
Without the big picture no one knows where the pieces fit….this is why we must be Bible students and know what God’s word teaches in its entirety. It all logically fits together….unless false beliefs get in the way.

Life is a gift, but it is conditional and always was. It requires obedience to our Creator and respect for his ‘terms and conditions’…..free will can only exist if it is controlled by God…..we are living in the life lesson that proves how beneficial it is to just obey and trust that the Creator knows what he is doing.

Imagine the life Adam and his wife would have lived, if they had just trusted and obeyed the one who gave them life and a beautiful start in paradise? They would still be here with all their children enjoying creation with them. God will restore what they took away. (Rev 21:2-4)

 

[JemimaJade]

Straw man argument.

There is also no mention of murder, theft, idolatry, cursing God.

So, by your argument those things are OK to do?
Because they are not mentioned in the text?

Did you miss the bit about the conscience, mate?

God’s law is now written on Christian hearts….we know right from wrong, so the principles of the original laws still stand because they were included in Christ’s teachings. (“do unto others”)

The Law governed people’s lives, but being a perfect Law, not a soul could keep it….it was a daily reminder of their need for the promised Saviour. They had only temporary sacrifices for the forgiveness of their sins.

It is the heart that is the seat of motivation, so if God’s laws are written there, we will obey willingly….

Spreading the gospel (good news) is an obligation, even if we find it personally challenging as Paul stated…
“For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.” (1 Cor 9:16-18 NASB)

This “Stewardship” is entrusted to all Christians…but we have to know what the gospel is before we can impart it to others.

 

[Churchgoer]

I would like to hear from those who insist on 4th law, what is your practice on obeying this law?

 

[JemimaJade]

I would like to hear from those who insist on 4th law, what is your practice on obeying this law?

And also the justification of moving a Saturday Sabbath to Sunday?

 

[OMC]

Can we unpack this a bit?
I agree that “the world” in this context means the world of humanity….(Strongs lists “kosmos” as such) so, of course God loves the human family….he created them…..He just doesn’t love what they do a good deal of the time….yet he is giving us all an opportunity to prove our trust and loyalty to Him.

Now, what I find amazing, is the contrast used in this whole verse, not just the opening statement.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His onlybegotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” (NASB)

What does the whole verse say as understood by the one who wrote it, and the audience who received it?

God’s love, moved him to send his “only begotten Son” into that world, to save those who would “believe in him”.
The Greek is “pisteuō” and we know what it means to “believe” in something or someone. It involves faith and trust.

So when we look at James 2:19 for e.g….
“You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.”

What does “believe” mean in this context? (same word) What do the demons “believe” about God, from their own personal experience? They are not in any doubt about the power of their own Creator, and yet they did not fear to disrespect and actively oppose his will, knowing that nothing good would ever come of it.

So what does “believe” mean in the context of John 3:16? It means more than just accepting something that is true…..we have to support that acceptance by letting it govern our actions. The demons did not do that….they wanted to do their own will, in imitation of their self centered leader.

So what does the next part of John 3:16 mean? It is just as important as the opening statement because this is the consequence of NOT allowing our beliefs to govern our actions.
Those “believing” in the Son of God, would be a contrast to those not believing, as well as those believing but not demonstrating that belief by their actions. They talk the talk but they don’t live it.

As Paul wrote to the Thessalonians…..
“For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed—for our testimony to you was believed.” (1 Thess 1:6-10 NASB)

So the second part of John 3:16 is also about God’s love….he will rid the world of those who fail to live up to the standards that the Creator set from the very beginning…..”the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” represented God’s exclusive right to dictate the terms of human life…..and it was taken without his permission…the penalty was death. And as Rom 5:12 says “death spread to all men” because sin was now in their DNA.

The only way for “the world” of sinful mankind to survive, was to accept the sacrificial blood of the Lamb and follow his teachings. The contrast in John 3:16 is to “perish” or to gain “eternal life”….

Strongs definition of “perish” (apollymi) is….

“to destroy

1. to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin”

So to “perish” means to lose your life completely….”eternal destruction”….to go back to the dust as Adam was told….to be eliminated from life altogether….eternal death is the opposite of eternal life.

This is what God placed before his people. (Deut 30: 19-20) He told them to “choose life”….by obeying him.
No heaven or hell…just life or death.

It’s not a puzzle at all if we allow the rest of the Bible to paint the bigger picture.
Without the big picture no one knows where the pieces fit….this is why we must be Bible students and know what God’s word teaches in its entirety. It all logically fits together….unless false beliefs get in the way.

Life is a gift, but it is conditional and always was. It requires obedience to our Creator and respect for his ‘terms and conditions’…..free will can only exist if it is controlled by God…..we are living in the life lesson that proves how beneficial it is to just obey and trust that the Creator knows what he is doing.

Imagine the life Adam and his wife would have lived, if they had just trusted and obeyed the one who gave them life and a beautiful start in paradise? They would still be here with all their children enjoying creation with them. God will restore what they took away. (Rev 21:2-4)

I agree that John 3:16 is more than a statement about God's love.
It also says something about the kind of faith that saves.
James 2:19 makes it clear that mere intellectual agreement is not enough.
The demons believe certain truths about God, yet remain in rebellion.
So biblical faith certainly involves trust, allegiance, and obedience, not just mental assent.
Where I would make a distinction is that obedience is the fruit of genuine faith rather than the basis of salvation.
In John's Gospel, those who truly believe in Christ follow Him, abide in Him, and obey Him.
So I don't think we're looking at two different groups, "believers" and "obedient believers."
In John's thinking, genuine belief produces obedience.
I also agree that the contrast in John 3:16 is important: perish or have eternal life.
That's the heart of the verse.
Where we still differ is that I don't see the second half narrowing the first half.
God loved the world, sent His Son into the world, and those who believe receive life.
The verse tells us who receives the benefit of that love, but I don't think it redefines "world" to mean only a smaller group within humanity.
So yes, faith is more than agreeing with facts.
On that point I think we agree.
My only caution is against reading later theological conclusions back into John's wording when the text itself already presents a very powerful and straightforward message: God loved a fallen world, gave His Son, and those who trust in Him have eternal life.

 

[frederickdoc]

And also the justification of moving a Saturday Sabbath to Sunday?

Go back to Aaron high priest The day after the sabbath was the pureing out of The Spirit of God that is The 8th day by scripture. Jesus was alive and quickened The First Day if the week that would also be The 8th day. Plus we are talking about The High Sabbath when jesus had to be takin down ,so that the Jews could stay Clean to That commanded mandatory High Sabbath . Anyways all of Jesus disciples basically became unclean especially those who touched the Dead body.
Hours before All this, you see Jesus made sure they were All clean For The fulfilled Sabbath and the next day blessing, you could still say .we are in that same day sabbath! because the high priest is now seated & blessing I'm not an expert don't claim to be but I know the Lord by the Holy Ghost which is He his Exact!

 

[TMS]

the ultimate shift from the old covenant to the new.
Under the law of Moses, high priests like Aaron and his sons had infirmity—they were weak, mortal men who sinned and eventually died. Because of this, their seven-day consecration had to be repeated for every new generation of priests, and they constantly had to offer sacrifices for their own sins before they could bless anyone else.
But the word of the oath, which came after the law, changed everything:

• It established a permanent King and Priest: The Father swore an unchangeable oath: "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek" (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 7:21).
• It is Consecrated For Evermore: The king does not need a weekly reset or a repeating ritual. His consecration was finished once and for all through the cross and the resurrection.

Because He is consecrated for evermore, He stands eternally on the eighth day—the day of permanent blessing, permanent life, and permanent rest. He doesn't just step out of the Tabernacle once a week to bless the people; He lives eternally to pour out His Spirit into the hearts of those who rest in His finished work.

Don't answer lol
Help me understand how you get the 8 th day Blessing without a high Priest? See you all looking over all God set up !picking shoes like you do Post. You want to know what faithless meeans ,? look really @ a bunch of these posts! And then peg by name to it just like pegging me to be a murderer because the world accepts killing unborn

The priesthood was set up as a shadow.
The order of melchizedek was set up as a shadow..

JESUS is the antitype.. the shadow perfectly represents what Jesus did and is doing.

The shadows are removed by the real deal. The shadow services and systems were given for the people to understand how sins are dealt with and how salvation works.

The sabbath was made before sin..
It is not a shadow law
There are many laws in the old testament that are not shadows, but moral laws.

All you said above, does nothing to say the sabbath is a shadow law.