Vatican's challenge to Protestants. Bible truth vs. protestant theology

[directline2iam]

I do not know of any other passages of holy Scripture which Protestants are in the habit of quoting to defend their practice of keeping holy the first day of the week instead of the seventh; yet, surely

What a waste of bandwidth....

How about this one that covers your SDA nonsense: Matt22:36-40

You should step out of the box you're in and take God's grace out too as it's too cramped in there for it to expand in your matchbox thoughts.

 

[Nick01]

For the purposes of having an actual discussion, instead of a flame war, I'll give an actual response. A hopefully shorter one, though - most of the letter in the OP is only tangentially relevant. Christforme, are you actually a Catholic? It would help in terms of me giving you an adequate response for you personally, as opposed to just the letter.

First of all, the thrust of the letter (= because there is no clear instruction from Scripture to worship on Sunday, therefore worshipping on Sunday is not Scriptural but a human tradition, therefore other Catholic doctrines are also ok) rests on a number of faulty premises.

First of all, most Protestants would not debate the fact that their theology is 100% Scriptural. By this, I mean that not every single thing Protestants do is from Scripture. To take a really basic example, many protestant churches use projection screens in their church services. Nowhere does it mention projection screens in the Bible. Nor serving communion using white bread, or wafers, or wine in a metal cup. Nor does it use the word Trinity (although Catholics and Protestants would of course agree the concept is taught). Plainly, there is no church that only does what Scripture explicitly mandates - in fact, I think it would harm the Great Commission to only do such things today!

However, that does not mean that anything can be taught. For instance, the typical Protestant issue with purgatory is not that it simply isn't taught in Scripture (because it isn't), but that it also twists biblical teaching on the need to repent now, the fact of a judgement following death, etc. So the argument isn't really "Is it in the Bible". It is ultimately "Does it agree with biblical teaching"

Anyway, to the actual case made against Sunday worship:

1. The first text which I find quoted upon the subject is this: "Let no man judge you in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days" (Colossians ii. 16). [That refers to the ceremonial—sacrificial—yearly sabbaths of Leviticus 23, which were done away at the cross.]

There is no case made for why Colossians is referring to yearly Sabbaths, whether Leviticus 23 itself is actually referring to yearly sabbaths (a particularly extravagant claim given the first 3 verses of Lev 23 explicitly refer to weekly sabbaths), or whether a 'yearly sabbath' actually exists as an important feature of the Jewish sacrificial calendar over and against the weekly ones. Until such a case is made, this point can be entirely disregarded.

2. Secondly, the words of St. John are quoted, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day (Apocalypse [Revelation] i. 10). Is it possible that anybody can for a moment imagine that here is a safe and clear rule for changing the weekly day of worship from the seventh to the first day? This passage is utterly silent upon such a subject; it only give Scriptural authority for calling some one day in particular (it does not even say which day) "the Lord’s day."

I believe the Lord's Day comes up in the Didache and Ignatius, meaning Sunday, and became a day of worship by the second century. Short history lesson - it seems Jewish Christians continued to go to synagogue on Saturday, and then had a more explicitly Christian meeting (increasingly with Gentiles on the Lord's Day. Gentiles were rarely allowed into synagogues, unless they judaized (hence the letter to the Galatians), and so worshipped on Sunday instead. When the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, and the Christians were eventually kicked out of synagogues for being heretics, it seems the church as a whole transitioned to Sunday. I have never seen any evidence from antiquity that there was any controversy about this move within the church.

Anyway, no, Revelation doesn't give evidence on its own for Sunday worship. It simply shows the significance attached to Sunday, which is expounded in other patristic writings.

. Next we are reminded that St. Paul bade his Corinthian converts, "upon the first day of the week, lay by them in store, that there might be no gatherings" when he himself came (1 Corinthians xvi. 2). How is this supposed to affect the law of the Sabbath? It commands a certain act of almsgiving [doing one’s finances at home] to be done on the first day of the week. It says absolutely nothing about not doing certain other acts of prayer and public worship on the seventh day.

Yep, I mostly agree with this appraisal. It is interesting that he chooses Sunday, again, but there's nothing about corporate worship, as far as I can see.

4. But, you will say, it was "on the first day of the week" when the disciples were assembled within closed doors for fear of the Jews, and Jesus stood in the midst of them" (John xx. 19). What is there in these facts to do away with the obligation of keeping holy the seventh day? Our Lord rose from the dead on the first day of the week, and on the same day at evening He appears to many of His disciples. Let Protestants, if they will [in obedience to Catholic tradition], keep holy the first day of the week in grateful commemoration of that stupendous mystery, the Resurrection of Christ, and of the evidences which He vouchsafed to give of it to His doubting disciples; but this is no scriptural authority for ceasing to keep holy another day of the week which God had expressly commanded to be kept holy for another and altogether different reason.

Well, again, it shows why there was an early change. But yes, you need to go later to find the actual change. Otherwise this argument is only partially relevant to begin with.

5. But lastly, we have the example of the Apostles themselves. "Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight" (Acts xx. 7). Here we have clear proof that the disciples heard a sermon on a Sunday. But is that not proof they had done the same on the Saturdays also? [Acts xiii. 14, 42-44; xvi. 12-13; xvii. 1-2; xviiii. 1-4, 11]. [After the night meeting on the first day in Troas (Acts xx. 7), Paul held a meeting on Tuesday in Miletus (Acts xx. 17-38). But no one considers that meeting sacred.]

Really tangential, but what is happening at the beginning of Acts 20 is different to the end of Acts 20. The beginning has disciples come together, break bread (a distinctly communal and sacramental act), and Paul essentially preach to them. The second part has Paul meeting with the elders of Ephesus and explaining what he is going to do. Very different scenarios. Also, it's not at all clear that the second part happens on a Tuesday, though I agree it's likely not a Sunday either.

So really, most of the argument in toto is on points that don't matter. The NT clearly gives freedom on which day to rest, and to worship. The early church exercised that freedom without controversy.

Would you like to worship on Saturday? Go for it! Would you prefer Sunday? Go nuts! Wednesday? Be my guest. Let's give thanks to the Lord!

5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”


12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

Why is this? Because, although they talk so largely about following the Bible and Bible only, they are really guided in this matter by the voice of [Roman Catholic] tradition. Yes, much as they may hate and denounce the word [tradition], they have in fact no other authority to allege for this most important change.

I don't hate tradition. There's plenty of tradition that I love. What I don't love is tradition that teaches untruth, distracts from making disciples, or places stumbling blocks in front of people preventing them from receiving saving faith in Christ. Sunday teaching isn't one of those, because Scripture gives freedom, its authority ultimately coming from the Lord of the Sabbath. Does the Catholic Church really REALLY need to get kudos for having brought about the Sunday tradition? Ok, they can have it. I really don't care. It actually doesn't matter.

 

[Christforme]

Just throw CHosenbyhim and his King James Only Cult at the Vatican, as they claim to be the only true "Bible Believers" and everyone else is wrong.

Sorry i did not understand you.

 

[Christforme]

How wonderful to read about believing God! And when you say The Sabbath was made for man, so often that is quoted to mean man owns it, he can treat it as man wants. You read it as God meant it, Sabbath is to be kept as He gave it, and respect it as a gift. All that comes from God is Shalom. How delightful!

well yeah. God sancitied the seventh day for me. I was counted so worthy in Jesus' eyes that He died for me on the cross, and saved me from my sins.
Hey, there's this SDR church: remnantofgod.org
This SDR movement is the last movement in Bible prophecy before Jesus comes back. I am going to join it. Because now i see, and know. While they make their determination to trample upon God's Sabbath which Jesus specificaly said it was made for MAN, not just for the Jews only, while they attempt to do that, they cannot find one word of authorisation from the Holy Bible, to change the Sabbath to Sunday.

 

[Christforme]

so christforme regards the pope as the antichrist and the roman catholic church as babylon...

...and then he just -takes their word for it- when they claim that they were the ones who 'replaced the sabbath'?

it seems like logical inconsistency is a way of life for some people...

Have you never read how this little horn power thinks that he change times and laws?
That letter from the Vatican is proof to you that sunday sacredness is not found in the Bible, but rather the church thought she can change times and laws.

 

[Christforme]

I do not know of any other passages of holy Scripture which Protestants are in the habit of quoting to defend their practice of keeping holy the first day of the week instead of the seventh; yet, surely

What a waste of bandwidth....

How about this one that covers your SDA nonsense: Matt22:36-40

You should step out of the box you're in and take God's grace out too as it's too cramped in there for it to expand in your matchbox thoughts.

Why are you talking to me like this? How's it my fault Jesus told you His coming here on earth was not to destroy it? I am obeying Christ. The Bible supports me.

 

[Christforme]

I do not know of any other passages of holy Scripture which Protestants are in the habit of quoting to defend their practice of keeping holy the first day of the week instead of the seventh; yet, surely

What a waste of bandwidth....

How about this one that covers your SDA nonsense: Matt22:36-40

You should step out of the box you're in and take God's grace out too as it's too cramped in there for it to expand in your matchbox thoughts.

Plus what you quoted was what the Vatican wrote in a letter to the protestans. Not me. The little horn power thinks he change times and laws, and the papacy power does that.

"The Pope is of great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine laws... The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth." -Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Ribliotheca, "Papa," art. 2, translated.

"The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ." "The Pope has the authority and often exercised it, to dispense with the command of Christ." Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop. Cap. (The Pope can modify divine law.) Ferraris' Ecclesiastical Dictionary.

 

[Christforme]

For the purposes of having an actual discussion, instead of a flame war, I'll give an actual response. A hopefully shorter one, though - most of the letter in the OP is only tangentially relevant. Christforme, are you actually a Catholic? It would help in terms of me giving you an adequate response for you personally, as opposed to just the letter.

First of all, the thrust of the letter (= because there is no clear instruction from Scripture to worship on Sunday, therefore worshipping on Sunday is not Scriptural but a human tradition, therefore other Catholic doctrines are also ok) rests on a number of faulty premises.

First of all, most Protestants would not debate the fact that their theology is 100% Scriptural. By this, I mean that not every single thing Protestants do is from Scripture. To take a really basic example, many protestant churches use projection screens in their church services. Nowhere does it mention projection screens in the Bible. Nor serving communion using white bread, or wafers, or wine in a metal cup. Nor does it use the word Trinity (although Catholics and Protestants would of course agree the concept is taught). Plainly, there is no church that only does what Scripture explicitly mandates - in fact, I think it would harm the Great Commission to only do such things today!

However, that does not mean that anything can be taught. For instance, the typical Protestant issue with purgatory is not that it simply isn't taught in Scripture (because it isn't), but that it also twists biblical teaching on the need to repent now, the fact of a judgement following death, etc. So the argument isn't really "Is it in the Bible". It is ultimately "Does it agree with biblical teaching"

Anyway, to the actual case made against Sunday worship:



There is no case made for why Colossians is referring to yearly Sabbaths, whether Leviticus 23 itself is actually referring to yearly sabbaths (a particularly extravagant claim given the first 3 verses of Lev 23 explicitly refer to weekly sabbaths), or whether a 'yearly sabbath' actually exists as an important feature of the Jewish sacrificial calendar over and against the weekly ones. Until such a case is made, this point can be entirely disregarded.



I believe the Lord's Day comes up in the Didache and Ignatius, meaning Sunday, and became a day of worship by the second century. Short history lesson - it seems Jewish Christians continued to go to synagogue on Saturday, and then had a more explicitly Christian meeting (increasingly with Gentiles on the Lord's Day. Gentiles were rarely allowed into synagogues, unless they judaized (hence the letter to the Galatians), and so worshipped on Sunday instead. When the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, and the Christians were eventually kicked out of synagogues for being heretics, it seems the church as a whole transitioned to Sunday. I have never seen any evidence from antiquity that there was any controversy about this move within the church.

Anyway, no, Revelation doesn't give evidence on its own for Sunday worship. It simply shows the significance attached to Sunday, which is expounded in other patristic writings.



Yep, I mostly agree with this appraisal. It is interesting that he chooses Sunday, again, but there's nothing about corporate worship, as far as I can see.



Well, again, it shows why there was an early change. But yes, you need to go later to find the actual change. Otherwise this argument is only partially relevant to begin with.



Really tangential, but what is happening at the beginning of Acts 20 is different to the end of Acts 20. The beginning has disciples come together, break bread (a distinctly communal and sacramental act), and Paul essentially preach to them. The second part has Paul meeting with the elders of Ephesus and explaining what he is going to do. Very different scenarios. Also, it's not at all clear that the second part happens on a Tuesday, though I agree it's likely not a Sunday either.

So really, most of the argument in toto is on points that don't matter. The NT clearly gives freedom on which day to rest, and to worship. The early church exercised that freedom without controversy.

Would you like to worship on Saturday? Go for it! Would you prefer Sunday? Go nuts! Wednesday? Be my guest. Let's give thanks to the Lord!





I don't hate tradition. There's plenty of tradition that I love. What I don't love is tradition that teaches untruth, distracts from making disciples, or places stumbling blocks in front of people preventing them from receiving saving faith in Christ. Sunday teaching isn't one of those, because Scripture gives freedom, its authority ultimately coming from the Lord of the Sabbath. Does the Catholic Church really REALLY need to get kudos for having brought about the Sunday tradition? Ok, they can have it. I really don't care. It actually doesn't matter.

I will answer you. What does it mean to you Luke 16:17? What about romans 3:31 and romans 6:15? How can after these three verses still claim you are free?
Second i hope you realized this was the catholic church's attempt to prove that sunday was something they put as the Lord's day. They KNOW that the real Lord's Day in the Bible is not the sunday, it's the seventh day.

You can't play with the Decalogue. Almost 70 years after Christ's cross john wrote that whosoever abideth in God, sinneth not. In his first epistle. And sin is breaking that law. 1 john 3:4
Now you may tell me as others have told me, "so then you are no sinner?" But by this attempt , they are not attacking me, they attack the Bible. Wasn't it John who wrote the above verse? Why not go to John and the Holy Spirit with this issue? John knows, and the Holy Spirit knows, and I know, that i am a sinner in need of the grace of Christ. But you are not free, after you are saved! You are free from sin! "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." Free from breaking the law, and not free from the law itself. We are sinners, under the condemnation of God's law. Christ saved us from this condemnation, but if you sin, you are making yourself again a transgressor and a breaker of God's Law. If you sin, you are a servant of sin again! This runs true because That Law in Heaven cannot pass away and will endure luke 16:17.
No i am not a catholic. But the letter the vatican wrote echoes loudly the daniel 7:24-25 of "he...shall think to change times and laws."
The vatican itself got proof that sunday sacredness is not in the Holy Bible. None of the passages prove sunday is holy. But i used the above verses to prove that you are not free from the law. If that's the case then all the Christians knew that obedience to the law is still necessary.
Hebrews 4 also. Verse 9, the word rest is sabbatismos. Talking about the seventh day. Which God rested on , when He finished creating. He even made an analogy between us ceasing from work in that rest just as God ceased from His.
As for sunday creeping into christianity. Paul saw it , and said "even now the mystery of iniquity(sin) doth already work"- 2 thess 2:7
Resting on any day of the week is not a sin. But you MUST rest on the Sabbath.
As for the Romans 14 thing, paul does not contradict himself. He won't say we establish the law, but then say oh you can keep any day you want. Look closely, he's talking about eating vs not eating! Those that keep the day are those who don't eat and those that eat are those who are not regarding the day. You can't use romans 14 because it would make the Bible contradict itself. That's the problem i find with protestants, they use certain scriptures which contradict other parts of scripture. If the law will endure to the end, then my reasoning is, that every single passage that seems to be saying you are free from the law, must be misunderstood because the Bible does not say one thing, and then tell you another. That's my reasoning. And if you reread the points above i wrote you can see that this reasoning runs true with matthew 7. Paul's writings cannot be used to claim we are no longer to keep the law, else he's a worker of iniquity, and a false prophet.

 

[Nick01]

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure you've significantly addressed what I actually brought up, and seem to instead have posted a number of references to passages that are only barely relevant.

I will deal with Romans 14 first, then I'll briefly try to deal with some of the other material.

Your argument from Romans 14, such as it is, runs like this. [The Bible teaches that all of the law, including Saturday observance, is all still equally binding on all Christians + Paul does not contradict scripture, THEREFORE, The Bible teaches that all of the law, including Saturday observance, is all still equally binding on all Christians, and therefore Paul does not contradict scripture]. Do you see the problem? Your argument is entirely circular. You are assuming that Paul will not 'contradict' previous teaching (because such is your belief, that for Paul to teach such a thing makes him a heretic), and therefore you read the text in such a way so he does not, in order to prove that he is not. It begs the question, and so proves nothing.

It should be clear to all what Paul is saying in Romans 14. v.1 Paul says there are disputable matters, v.3 the basis of not battling over disputable matters is that God has already accepted people who differ on certain things, mostly aspects of Jewish ceremonial law. v4. God is the judge, not people. v5 Paul moves to another example, sacred days v.6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, etc.

In other words, Paul is giving two separate examples to illustrate his point, that on such 'disputable matters' there is no need for argument if both are done for the Lord. It's not at all clear that eating and days are at all related other than that they are both prominent parts of Jewish ceremonial law. There's no explicit mention of the Sabbath in this particular passage, but it is certainly implicit, and would be well understood by the largely Jewish readership. Similar language emerges in Colossians 2, where he makes the same point in different terms to a different audience.

I will answer you. What does it mean to you Luke 16:17? What about romans 3:31 and romans 6:15? How can after these three verses still claim you are free?

I did not say I was free. I am a slave to God, to righteousness, not to the law, but to the Spirit of Christ. Hence why I hear him when he says the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Hence why he went out and healed people on a day when many Jews would otherwise have been in their homes on in synagogue. Do I seek to sin? NO! But neither do I seek to be legalistic, when the revelation of Christ, particular to the Gentiles, in the NT presents another path.

The other verses you mentioned are red herrings, though if you actually want to fashion an argument from them, please do

Second i hope you realized this was the catholic church's attempt to prove that sunday was something they put as the Lord's day. They KNOW that the real Lord's Day in the Bible is not the sunday, it's the seventh day.

Well, please, if you have some evidence from Scripture or from the writings of the early church that show the Lord's Day is actually Saturday, please show it to us.

No i am not a catholic. But the letter the vatican wrote echoes loudly the daniel 7:24-25 of "he...shall think to change times and laws."

Thanks for letting me know. I'm glad you cleared that up.

Hebrews 4 also. Verse 9, the word rest is sabbatismos. Talking about the seventh day. Which God rested on , when He finished creating. He even made an analogy between us ceasing from work in that rest just as God ceased from His.

Yep. And what do you think is the point that Hebrews 4 is making about sabbatismos? I'm going to assume you've read the whole chapter (if not the whole book)?

As for sunday creeping into christianity. Paul saw it , and said "even now the mystery of iniquity(sin) doth already work"- 2 thess 2:7

That's a long bow to make that connection. Care to tell us how you happen to know Paul's highly specific mind in that verse?

That's my reasoning. And if you reread the points above i wrote you can see that this reasoning runs true with matthew 7. Paul's writings cannot be used to claim we are no longer to keep the law, else he's a worker of iniquity, and a false prophet.

Ah, so here we are. I think even you realise your reasoning is circular. If you look at the actual texts, friend, are you actually convinced by your own argument? Or do you actually believe so vehemently that Paul cannot possibly be saying that for this new people that God is fusing together, from Jew AND Gentile, there is no need for strict Saturday observance, that you cannot consider the possibility that he might be saying exactly that? God himself needs no rest, but rested so that we would have the divine seal of approval on a day of rest. Sabbath is for us, not us for the Sabbath, and ultimately there is a full sabbath rest for us in the future (Hebrews 4), found only in the High Priesthood of Christ. Don't lose sight of that rest for the fuller rest, friend. Have a day of rest, by all means. Please, do so on Saturday. I'm not commentating on what you personally do at all. But it is plain from Scripture and from church history that Saturday Sabbath was NEVER bound on the Gentile church. If you have any evidence to the contrary, again, I will be pleased to see it.

Again, if you want to give an actual argument from Matthew 7, please do.

Peace.

 

[Tintin]

Holy Moses, that's a long Original Thread! Christmas, Easter and the sign of the cross aren't Christian? How exactly? What a load of bollocks.

 

[Christforme]

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure you've significantly addressed what I actually brought up, and seem to instead have posted a number of references to passages that are only barely relevant.

I will deal with Romans 14 first, then I'll briefly try to deal with some of the other material.

Your argument from Romans 14, such as it is, runs like this. [The Bible teaches that all of the law, including Saturday observance, is all still equally binding on all Christians + Paul does not contradict scripture, THEREFORE, The Bible teaches that all of the law, including Saturday observance, is all still equally binding on all Christians, and therefore Paul does not contradict scripture]. Do you see the problem? Your argument is entirely circular. You are assuming that Paul will not 'contradict' previous teaching (because such is your belief, that for Paul to teach such a thing makes him a heretic), and therefore you read the text in such a way so he does not, in order to prove that he is not. It begs the question, and so proves nothing.

It should be clear to all what Paul is saying in Romans 14. v.1 Paul says there are disputable matters, v.3 the basis of not battling over disputable matters is that God has already accepted people who differ on certain things, mostly aspects of Jewish ceremonial law. v4. God is the judge, not people. v5 Paul moves to another example, sacred days v.6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, etc.

In other words, Paul is giving two separate examples to illustrate his point, that on such 'disputable matters' there is no need for argument if both are done for the Lord. It's not at all clear that eating and days are at all related other than that they are both prominent parts of Jewish ceremonial law. There's no explicit mention of the Sabbath in this particular passage, but it is certainly implicit, and would be well understood by the largely Jewish readership. Similar language emerges in Colossians 2, where he makes the same point in different terms to a different audience.



I did not say I was free. I am a slave to God, to righteousness, not to the law, but to the Spirit of Christ. Hence why I hear him when he says the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Hence why he went out and healed people on a day when many Jews would otherwise have been in their homes on in synagogue. Do I seek to sin? NO! But neither do I seek to be legalistic, when the revelation of Christ, particular to the Gentiles, in the NT presents another path.

The other verses you mentioned are red herrings, though if you actually want to fashion an argument from them, please do



Well, please, if you have some evidence from Scripture or from the writings of the early church that show the Lord's Day is actually Saturday, please show it to us.



Thanks for letting me know. I'm glad you cleared that up.



Yep. And what do you think is the point that Hebrews 4 is making about sabbatismos? I'm going to assume you've read the whole chapter (if not the whole book)?



That's a long bow to make that connection. Care to tell us how you happen to know Paul's highly specific mind in that verse?




Ah, so here we are. I think even you realise your reasoning is circular. If you look at the actual texts, friend, are you actually convinced by your own argument? Or do you actually believe so vehemently that Paul cannot possibly be saying that for this new people that God is fusing together, from Jew AND Gentile, there is no need for strict Saturday observance, that you cannot consider the possibility that he might be saying exactly that? God himself needs no rest, but rested so that we would have the divine seal of approval on a day of rest. Sabbath is for us, not us for the Sabbath, and ultimately there is a full sabbath rest for us in the future (Hebrews 4), found only in the High Priesthood of Christ. Don't lose sight of that rest for the fuller rest, friend. Have a day of rest, by all means. Please, do so on Saturday. I'm not commentating on what you personally do at all. But it is plain from Scripture and from church history that Saturday Sabbath was NEVER bound on the Gentile church. If you have any evidence to the contrary, again, I will be pleased to see it.

Again, if you want to give an actual argument from Matthew 7, please do.

Peace.

It seems to me that i am purposely misunderstood. Did not Jesus teach that the law will endure forever, how can Paul who is a disciple of the Lord teach otherwise? Paul is not contradicting luke 16:17 and matthew 5:17-19. How can protestants pull up verses when verses as clear as these that Jesus said are totally ignored? Romans 3:31 and romans 6:15 prove that paul does not contradict in his writings the teachings of Jesus.
In matthew 7 Jesus relates the fate of false prophets and teachers. He said He never knew them, and that they were sinners. What is sin in the Bible? It's breaking God's Law 1john3:4 what is knowing God in the Bible? It's keeping His commandments 1john2:4.
How did that seem to you a circular reasoning? The reasoning is:
Since Jesus is teaching that not a letter of the law would fail, and since Paul is the Lord's disciple, then Paul does not contradict Jesus' teachings! That's the argument i am sharing. And it is by no means circular! Even Paul knew the difference between the ceremonial laws and the Decalogue:
"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. -1 Corinthians 7:19"
Circumcision to Paul meant nothing. But keeping the commandments did mean to Paul.
All that time, NONE of those that have replied to me have been able to explain to me what romans 3:31 and romans 6:15 is saying. They ignore it altogether, while it's right there under their noses! Paul taught that you don't make the law empty because of your faith? How long will protestants endure in ignoring that verse?
They claim , you christforme, are a legalist. How am i legalist? Did i ever tell you you are save by your own works? But how am i legalist? Did not paul write these two verses? Does that make Paul a legalist? How about John? Sin is breaking God's Law, whether it be the first or the third, or the fourth, or the eight! Having that in mind, John said "whosoever abideth in Him, sinneth not"- 1 john 3:6
What any more convincing proof is necessary? Now do you see that paul's writings are being twisted?
And how can men claim sunday is holy when God never authorized it in His Word? And according to the Holy Bible ONLY as the sole rule of faith, the Lord's day is not the first day of the week. It is the Sabbath. Isaiah 58:13
The beast has set its mark on sunday, in direct contradiction to the Word of God.
Did you know Jesus never once sinned? Never once will He sin in the future? On earth Jesus perfectly kept the Ten Commandments. Healing on saturday is not a sin! That was the issue. Jesus proved His point that losing a woman from a spell of satan on the Sabbath is NOT a sin. He was keeping the no work on Saturday fourth commandment.
He could ask unchallenged "which of you convinceth Me of sin?"
That Decalogue is holy and just and good. We are the ones who broke it and suffer the penalty. But Jesus took that penalty. He destroyed sin. That is He destroyed "transgression of the law", He did not destroy the Law itself. He made it clear that His mission on earth was not to destroy the Law. Jesus gives you the power to overcome sin. That's a basic Bible fact.
Need I say more?
And if the Sabbath is not important to Jesus, why was He worried about it in matthew 24:20?
Plus Jesus said "sabbath was made for MAN". The Sabbath is for everyone, gentiles are men too. Before there even was a Jewish nation, God sanctified the seventh day and hallowed it.

As for history
Remnantofgod.org/sabhist.htm
There has always been Sabbath keeping Christians.

And hebrews 4 is sabbatismos, associtated with the seventh day. Whosoever enters into that rest, ceases from work as God did from His!

Being under the law is being under the curse of the law. Being under grace is being under the Spirit right? Does the Spirit work with sin? And if sin is breaking God's Law, then the Spirit does not work with breaking God's law. Sin and Spirit are against each other!
What is it left that i can say?
Do you even know what righteousness is? How do you define righteousness?
The new covenant is writing that law on our mind and hearts! That Decalogue, among which the fourth commandment is shown, is in the new covenant, now written on your mind and heart! You are not free from the law. That law endures forever. It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than a letter of the law to fail. Luke 16:17
Revelation 22:14.
Revelation 14:12
Prove your love to God, by keeping His commandments, 1 john 5:3

 

[Christforme]

Holy Moses, that's a long Original Thread! Christmas, Easter and the sign of the cross aren't Christian? How exactly? What a load of bollocks.

Why not study about it, before you claim its bullocks?
Did you know that the Roman catholic church is called "BABYLON THE GREAT". Prophecy fulfilled. Roman catholic teachings is 80% + pagan doctrine.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Hebrews 4 also. Verse 9, the word rest is sabbatismos. Talking about the seventh day. Which God rested on , when He finished creating. He even made an analogy between us ceasing from work in that rest just as God ceased from His.

Chapters 3 and 4 in the book of Hebrews deal with the critical importance of persevering in the faith of Christ in order to enter into GOD's eternal rest from our earthly labors.

Hebrews 4:9 says:

There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. Hebrews 4:9 (KJV)

Consequently a sabbath rest remains for the people of God. Hebrews 4:9 (LEB)​

A literal translation of this verse says:

Consequently, a keeping of a sabbath is left to GOD's people. Hebrews 4:9 ​

The Greek word translated rest and sabbath rest above is σαββατισμός (sabbatismos, G4520), which is a noun meaning a keeping of a sabbath. It can refer to a kept weekly sabbath (Exodus 20:8), a kept 7-year land sabbath (Leviticus 25:2), or a kept festival (appointed time) sabbath (Leviticus 25:32). Scriptural context determines the type of sabbath.

It is an unusual word that is used only one time in the NT (Hebrews 4:9), not at all in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), and very rarely in other ancient writings. The verb form of this word is σαββατίζω (sabbatizo), which means to keep a sabbath. It is not used in the New Testament, but is used in the LXX to refer to keeping all three types of sabbaths listed above (weekly, 7-year land, appointed time).

The context of chapters 3 and 4 in Hebrews is not a weekly sabbath, nor a 7-year land sabbath, but the sabbath rest of the land promised to Israel, which many under Moses were not able to enter into because of unbelief. The context of these chapters also centers around faith.

The most interesting usage of σαββατίζω (sabbatizo, to keep a sabbath) in the LXX is in Leviticus 23:32 where Israel is commanded yearly to keep the sabbath of the day of atonement. This appointed time was a sabbath of sabbaths (essentially a most holy sabbath), and was the holiest day of the year in which Israel's sins were removed for a year. The appointed time of Tabernacles began on the 15th day of the month, 5 days after the day of atonement, and was a time set apart for Israel to rest from their yearly labors. The first day of this festival was a sabbath, and the day following this festival was a sabbath; so it was bracketed by special sabbaths that were distinct from any weekly sabbaths that occurred during that time.

Genesis 7:11 states that Noah’s ark rested on the 17th day of the 7th month. This day falls within the 7-day festival of Tabernacles, which is the 7th festival (or appointed time) of YHWH. The number 7 always signifies rest from labor.

Additionally, the children of Israel were originally supposed to enter into rest in the promised land during the time of first ripe grapes. That harvest occurs in the fall of the year, as do the appointed times of the day of atonement and Tabernacles.

And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan ... Now the time was the time of the first ripe grapes. Numbers 13:17-20​

In other words, GOD's original plan for their entering into rest corresponded with these appointed times in the fall.

However, they did not enter in under Moses because of unbelief, and subsequently wandered in the desert for 40 years. Afterwards they entered the promised land under Joshua just before Passover in the first month of the year. But they did not enter into the true rest that GOD has planned for his people from the foundation of the world, as indicated in Hebrews 4:8:

For if Joshua had caused them to rest, he would not have spoken about another day after these things. Hebrews 4:8​

This change of entering the promised land (which symbolizes rest) from the appointed times in the 7th month to the appointed time of Passover in the first month signifies GOD's postponement of his people's true rest until Christ, our Passover, could accomplish and establish the more excellent way that would allow GOD's people to forever enter into their final rest in the (as of yet) unfulfilled appointed times of YHWH.

So, IMO, the future fulfillments of these appointed times (what he calls another day) are what the writer of Hebrews is referring to in Hebrew 4:8-9. The example of disobedient Israelites not entering into rest in the promised land through unbelief warns us to always strive through faith to enter into Christ's rest, that culminates in the keeping of the sabbath of the fulfilled day of atonement and subsequent festival of Tabernacles, when those who do believe fully enter into GOD's promised eternal rest.

So let us strive daily to enter into this keeping of a sabbath that is left for GOD's people when Christ returns to give them rest.

Come to me, all of you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke on you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. Matthew 11:28-29
​

 

[Christforme]

I do not know of any other passages of holy Scripture which Protestants are in the habit of quoting to defend their practice of keeping holy the first day of the week instead of the seventh; yet, surely

What a waste of bandwidth....

How about this one that covers your SDA nonsense: Matt22:36-40

You should step out of the box you're in and take God's grace out too as it's too cramped in there for it to expand in your matchbox thoughts.

Obeying the first four commandments proves your love to God, obeying the last six proves your love to your neighbour. On these two laws hang all the law and the prophets.

 

[Christforme]

Chapters 3 and 4 in the book of Hebrews deal with the critical importance of persevering in the faith of Christ in order to enter into GOD's eternal rest from our earthly labors.

Hebrews 4:9 says:

There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. Hebrews 4:9 (KJV)

Consequently a sabbath rest remains for the people of God. Hebrews 4:9 (LEB)​

A literal translation of this verse says:

Consequently, a keeping of a sabbath is left to GOD's people. Hebrews 4:9 ​

The Greek word translated rest and sabbath rest above is σαββατισμός (sabbatismos, G4520), which is a noun meaning a keeping of a sabbath. It can refer to a kept weekly sabbath (Exodus 20:8), a kept 7-year land sabbath (Leviticus 25:2), or a kept festival (appointed time) sabbath (Leviticus 25:32). Scriptural context determines the type of sabbath.

It is an unusual word that is used only one time in the NT (Hebrews 4:9), not at all in the Greek Septuagint (LXX), and very rarely in other ancient writings. The verb form of this word is σαββατίζω (sabbatizo), which means to keep a sabbath. It is not used in the New Testament, but is used in the LXX to refer to keeping all three types of sabbaths listed above (weekly, 7-year land, appointed time).

The context of chapters 3 and 4 in Hebrews is not a weekly sabbath, nor a 7-year land sabbath, but the sabbath rest of the land promised to Israel, which many under Moses were not able to enter into because of unbelief. The context of these chapters also centers around faith.

The most interesting usage of σαββατίζω (sabbatizo, to keep a sabbath) in the LXX is in Leviticus 23:32 where Israel is commanded yearly to keep the sabbath of the day of atonement. This appointed time was a sabbath of sabbaths (essentially a most holy sabbath), and was the holiest day of the year in which Israel's sins were removed for a year. The appointed time of Tabernacles began on the 15th day of the month, 5 days after the day of atonement, and was a time set apart for Israel to rest from their yearly labors. The first day of this festival was a sabbath, and the day following this festival was a sabbath; so it was bracketed by special sabbaths that were distinct from any weekly sabbaths that occurred during that time.

Genesis 7:11 states that Noah’s ark rested on the 17th day of the 7th month. This day falls within the 7-day festival of Tabernacles, which is the 7th festival (or appointed time) of YHWH. The number 7 always signifies rest from labor.

Additionally, the children of Israel were originally supposed to enter into rest in the promised land during the time of first ripe grapes. That harvest occurs in the fall of the year, as do the appointed times of the day of atonement and Tabernacles.

And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan ... Now the time was the time of the first ripe grapes. Numbers 13:17-20​

In other words, GOD's original plan for their entering into rest corresponded with these appointed times in the fall.

However, they did not enter in under Moses because of unbelief, and subsequently wandered in the desert for 40 years. Afterwards they entered the promised land under Joshua just before Passover in the first month of the year. But they did not enter into the true rest that GOD has planned for his people from the foundation of the world, as indicated in Hebrews 4:8:

For if Joshua had caused them to rest, he would not have spoken about another day after these things. Hebrews 4:8​

This change of entering the promised land (which symbolizes rest) from the appointed times in the 7th month to the appointed time of Passover in the first month signifies GOD's postponement of his people's true rest until Christ, our Passover, could accomplish and establish the more excellent way that would allow GOD's people to forever enter into their final rest in the (as of yet) unfulfilled appointed times of YHWH.

So, IMO, the future fulfillments of these appointed times (what he calls another day) are what the writer of Hebrews is referring to in Hebrew 4:8-9. The example of disobedient Israelites not entering into rest in the promised land through unbelief warns us to always strive through faith to enter into Christ's rest, that culminates in the keeping of the sabbath of the fulfilled day of atonement and subsequent festival of Tabernacles, when those who do believe fully enter into GOD's promised eternal rest.

So let us strive daily to enter into this keeping of a sabbath that is left for GOD's people when Christ returns to give them rest.

Come to me, all of you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke on you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. Matthew 11:28-29
​

I will see more about that. But in context i find paul talking of the seventh day. Laying all preconceived opinions aside he talks of God resting on the seventh day, which we also should enter into.
And we cease from work as God did from His. That's in context of hebrews 4.
I will see more about that.
But if i now got to assume what you are saying, it does not nulliy luke 16:17 and matthew 5:17-19 which strictly and clearly says, this law is still binding on all MEN.

 

[Tintin]

Why not study about it, before you claim its bullocks?
Did you know that the Roman catholic church is called "BABYLON THE GREAT". Prophecy fulfilled. Roman catholic teachings is 80% + pagan doctrine.

Babylon the Great was Babylon. Why complicate things?

 

[zone]

Obeying the first four commandments proves your love to God, obeying the last six proves your love to your neighbour. On these two laws hang all the law and the prophets.

proves your love to God...
proves your love to your neighbour...

okay.
what happens according to the Law of you fail to love God and neighbour as He commanded (not as you pick and choose)?
how is your record?
if you are obeying those commandments, Christ died for no reason.

Galatians 2:21
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

God already told you, you will not be extended the grace of the Gift of His Righteousness if you attempt to establish your righteousness before Him according to the Law.

you might be able to pull it off (God said no one will, but keep trying if you want to).

Romans 3:20
There is No One Righteous
19Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

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

~

Galatians 2:18
If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

Galatians 2:19
"For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.

Galatians 3:1
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?

 

[Nick01]

It seems to me that i am purposely misunderstood. Did not Jesus teach that the law will endure forever, how can Paul who is a disciple of the Lord teach otherwise? Paul is not contradicting luke 16:17 and matthew 5:17-19. How can protestants pull up verses when verses as clear as these that Jesus said are totally ignored? Romans 3:31 and romans 6:15 prove that paul does not contradict in his writings the teachings of Jesus.

Yes, and what is it exactly that Jesus means when He says not one jot or dot will pass away from the Law? What does it actually MEAN, particularly in the full context of the passage from Matt 5:17-20, and then the rest of the sermon and its treatise on the law? Luke 16 is the parallel account in that gospel, so we don't need to enter into a separate discussion on that passage.

Romans 3 and Romans 6 don't 'prove' anything. Romans 6:15 makes it explicit that we are not under the law, and then makes that distinct from sin. Romans 3 depends entirely on what is meant by uphold, and simply HAS to be read in the full context of chapters 3 and 4, which is none to subtly arguing about salvation by faith and righteousness apart from the law.

You haven't provided an argument from either passage, you've simply cited them as if it were obvious what they meant. This is what I mean by a circular argument - it is not at all obvious, or we would not be having this discussion. Asserting that things are x or y does not mean that you have proven them to be x or y - you need to substantiate that. I'm more than happy to spell out in detail what I think those verses are actually saying, but I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and the first opportunity to put your case.

In matthew 7 Jesus relates the fate of false prophets and teachers. He said He never knew them, and that they were sinners. What is sin in the Bible? It's breaking God's Law 1john3:4 what is knowing God in the Bible? It's keeping His commandments 1john2:4.

Yes, they were. Even their good works were not enough to get them in. On what criteria were they ultimately rejected? They were evildoers, and Jesus never knew them.

Lawlessness is not necessarily the breaking of the 'Law'. Otherwise, there would not be sin before the Law. Clearly, the Old Testament, and particularly Paul in Romans, deal with this idea. Lawlessness if more fundamentally rebellion against God. 1 John 3:4 establishes nothing specific about the relationship of the Christian to the Mosaic Law. And obviously what God's commandment to us as as post-Christ Gentiles is is exactly what we're discussing

Since Jesus is teaching that not a letter of the law would fail, and since Paul is the Lord's disciple, then Paul does not contradict Jesus' teachings! That's the argument i am sharing. And it is by no means circular!

Please look again. What are we discussing? Whether or not strict Sabbath observance is still binding on the whole church. You have already said you are assuming that Jesus is teaching that not a letter of the law would fail (by which you mean that the whole law is binding, therefore we must observe the sabbath), and using that to prove Paul teaches what you say he teaches, in order to prove that Jesus is teaching that not a letter of the law would fail (i.e. sabbath observance). That is a circular argument. You cannot assume as part of your argument that which you are trying to actually prove. If you address the questions I've put to you, as opposed to simply asserting what you believe the texts to say, then that will go someway to justifying your position on textual terms.

Even Paul knew the difference between the ceremonial laws and the Decalogue:
"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. -1 Corinthians 7:19"
Circumcision to Paul meant nothing. But keeping the commandments did mean to Paul.
All that time, NONE of those that have replied to me have been able to explain to me what romans 3:31 and romans 6:15 is saying. They ignore it altogether, while it's right there under their noses! Paul taught that you don't make the law empty because of your faith? How long will protestants endure in ignoring that verse?

Well, I've addressed those two verses, so there's that. But I'm interested in why you seem happy to accept that circumcision is done away with, but not other laws. I'd appreciate your insight.

Did you know Jesus never once sinned? Never once will He sin in the future? On earth Jesus perfectly kept the Ten Commandments. Healing on saturday is not a sin! That was the issue. Jesus proved His point that losing a woman from a spell of satan on the Sabbath is NOT a sin. He was keeping the no work on Saturday fourth commandment.

So I have a bit of clarity on your actual position, what to you would constitute a properly observed Sabbath. What is acceptable work, and what is unacceptable work? Do I need to go to synagogue/church on that day, or not. Is it about rest, or is it about formal worship? etc.

And if the Sabbath is not important to Jesus, why was He worried about it in matthew 24:20?
Plus Jesus said "sabbath was made for MAN". The Sabbath is for everyone, gentiles are men too. Before there even was a Jewish nation, God sanctified the seventh day and hallowed it.

I'm not saying Sabbath rest is not important to Jesus. It's vitally important. What we're discussing is what constitutes acceptable observance of that rest, and who it is for.

As for history
Remnantofgod.org/sabhist.htm
There has always been Sabbath keeping Christians.

Thats not what we're arguing. Again, I am more than happy for people to observe the Sabbath however they deem acceptable. But that's not the point of this discussion.

And hebrews 4 is sabbatismos, associtated with the seventh day. Whosoever enters into that rest, ceases from work as God did from His!

An association does not mean the writer of Hebrews is by it referring to the literal weekly sabbath, any more than me saying someone comes across as 'saccharine sweet' requires that they actually taste like sugar. Indeed, the whole thrust of Hebrews 4 (entering rest because of faith, Israel failing to enter a rest so another enters instead,a setting of another 'today', a remaining sabbath rest that Joshua was not able to give the people) is concentrating not on a literal, specific Saturday, but the true Sabbath rest, that comes from faith (v.14), ably supported by the great high priest Jesus.

Do you even know what righteousness is? How do you define righteousness?
The new covenant is writing that law on our mind and hearts! That Decalogue, among which the fourth commandment is shown, is in the new covenant, now written on your mind and heart!

Righteousness is being in the state of right and holy standing before God. This righteousness does not come from the law, but has been revealed in Christ, and is always by God's declaration, because he is the Righteous One.

I'm interested in this focus on the decalogue. Why do you think it is specifically the Decalogue that is written on our hearts and minds? Why not any other law, or commandment?

Most of the other points you make are either repetitions of points you have already made, and/or are covered by my other reply material. Let me know if there's anything important I missed.

Peace.

 

[fredjames]

Peace be with you, hypocritical spirit of the Pharisees of the old yoke of slavery teachings and practices which is still visible in the compromised Catholic church and every other compromised church against the Word of GOD until today. You don't give up do you in the wisdom doctrine of men? You spirit of deception to the Lambs and Sheeps of GOD the FATHER of our LORD JESUS CHRIST.
In the name of LORD JESUS CHRIST, i rebuke you, "STOP you deceitful liars! Wolves in sheep's clothings"o

 

[Angela53510]

Babylon the Great was Babylon. Why complicate things?

Actually, from what I have read, Babylon the Great was a euphemism for Rome.