Jump to content

The Christian Protestant Community Forums

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Community Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Trist

Why do most modern Christians only follow 9 of the 10 commandments? [Sabbath Day]

Recommended Posts

Staff

@Ben Asher said From the very little I know of the SDA I see no evidence to suggest that the alleged incident is indicative of the common behavior of all SDA members, nor for that matter of the official theology or guidelines of the SDA denomination as a whole.

 

Mostly agree and  The same can be said of most denominations 

 

From the very little I know of the  ____________ I see no evidence to suggest that the alleged incident is indicative of the common behavior of all ________members, nor for that matter of the official theology or guidelines of the _________denomination as a whole.

 

As in not every member of the AofG  is Jim Bakker or Gene Scott. 

  • Toast 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I agree. 

 

 When though a church teaches that something is a huge sin when it isn't even a sin at all it is not surprising to see some/half/many/all of its members view actual sins lightly and the activity that isn't even a sin with high regard.

 SDA's with the 7th day Sabbath.

 Roman Catholics with avoiding meat on Friday's during Lent.

 etc., etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, IchimaruGin said:

 

...

I could also go on about how no scripture in the bible supports this claim you have that a commandment (or a loose derivative in many cases) must be repeated in the new testament, after Christ's ascension, for it to be considered still binding... but I won't.

Good.  It's pointless.  Whether or not that is a valid inference from the change of Covenants, we have the *explicit* statements of Paul that "Love your neighbor" fulfills the entire Law (Rom. 13 and Gal. 5); we have his teachings of liberty in regard to special days (where there is no hint that he excludes Sabbaths) in Rom. 14; we have his dismay that the Galatians had returned to observing special days (Gal. 4), again with no hint that he excluded Sabbaths; we have his forceful exhortations to the Colossians (ch. 2) to not yield to those who would impose the law of "Don't touch that!  Don't taste that!" or who would pass judgment regarding Sabbath observance.

 

19 hours ago, IchimaruGin said:

 

I could remind you that by reading Hebrews 9 and 10, where Paul clarifies what is meant by the old and new covenant, you would see that he was not speaking of the commandments becoming obsolete, but the system of daily sacrifices, so that now we pray to God directly... but I won't.

Good, because you're not going to move many of us, especially when we see in Heb. 7 that there is also a change of LAW.  The priesthood changed.  The law changed (ch. 7).  The Mosaic Covenant was found to be obsolete and faulty, and was replaced (ch. 8).  It is frankly silly to read all that was said in the first eight chapters, and how emphatically it was said, and then decide that ch. 9 and 10 limit the change to only a few ceremonial trappings.

 

 

19 hours ago, IchimaruGin said:

 

I could go over the point that Matthew 5:17-18 states that the law cannot be changed until 'Heaven and earth passes' and that although we did not know what the laws this decree encompassed, we agreed that the 10 commandments were included, but I'm sure you remember this so I won't.

Good, because you're not going to convince many of us that Jesus did not do away with the food laws in Mark 7:19, even before the change of Covenants had been inaugurated with the Covenant Meal.

 

19 hours ago, IchimaruGin said:

 

Finally, Col 2:14: ' Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross' is not referring to the 10 commandments, as 2 Chronicles 33:8 and Deuteronomy 4:13-14 clearly distinguishes the law (or 10 commandments) from the statutes, ordinances, and judgments written by Moses. These were removed, fulfilling the prophecy of the renting of the temple veil, signifying an end to sacrifices the old covenant) and the ushering in of the new. But no one should take my word for it. Everyone should read Hebrews 9 and 10 and judge the matter for themselves.

You are focusing on that one word "dogma" (decrees, ordinances), ignoring the context, which shows that what was removed was the entire list of broken rules -- "all your transgressions."  Also, as I'm sure has been noted somewhere in this thread, there is the matter of Eph. 2:15, which says He nullified the Commandments as well as the decrees/ordinances.

 

And yes, Hebrews is very useful.  Many of us *have* read it, and have come to an understanding quite unlike yours.

  • Best Answer 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NorrinRadd said:

Good, because you're not going to convince many of us that Jesus did not do away with the food laws in Mark 7:19,

On another thread it may be interesting to explore the questions:

 

(a) Did, Jesus do with the food laws in Mark 7:1 ~ Mark 7:23?

(a2) If, so why did Peter later claim to never have eaten anything unclean(Acts 10:14)?

Since Jesus spent time with Peter and they obviously shared the same meals wouldn't Peter have know that the food laws had been done away with by the types of food Jesus and the Discipline could now in theory eat?

 

(b) What types of food did Jesus eat? Did he keep kosher or after the event described in Mark chapter 7 did he immediately stop observing the Torah?

 

(c) where does Jesus in the text of Mark chapter 7 mention food laws of the Torah? The pharisees mention the washing of hands (Mark 7:2, Mark 7:3) and the text makes mention of other extra Biblical traditions concerning washing (,Mark 7:4) but none of those seem to have anything to do with the food laws of the Torah?

 

(d) Jesus takes issues with the Pharisees extra Biblical traditions (Mark 7:8 and Mark 7:9) are those what are meant by food laws?

 

Disclaimer: Now, having stated the above, the food laws of the Torah (at least in my understanding) were never binding on anyone other than the Children of Israel the Jews therefore most modern Christians were never under the food laws unless of course they came from a observant Jewish background. I am far more concerned about how various individuals go about the process of interpretation than the food laws, the sabbath, and theology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
14 minutes ago, Ben Asher said:

Disclaimer: Now, having stated the above, the food laws of the Torah (at least in my understanding) were never binding on anyone other than the Children of Israel the Jews therefore most modern Christians were never under the food laws unless of course they came from a observant Jewish background. I am far more concerned about how various individuals go about the process of interpretation than the food laws, the sabbath, and theology.

 

The gentiles who left Egypt with the Children of Israel were under those laws correct? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
20 minutes ago, Ben Asher said:

) If, so why did Peter later claim to never have eaten anything unclean(Acts 10:14)?

Is Peter the man speaking or Peter the guy in the vision. ? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2019 at 10:17 PM, Faber said:

Then you failed either to read or understand post #387.

 You also failed to answer my questions from post #263.

 

You keep repeating like a parrot. I fully understand what you said in post #387, I just don't agree with it. I answered your questions in post #263 in my post #272. Let us both move on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, deade said:

 

You keep repeating like a parrot. I fully understand what you said in post #387, I just don't agree with it. I answered your questions in post #263 in my post #272. Let us both move on. 

 

  I see you reject the Trinity, but you never answered if the Father and and the Son are two distinct beings, because according to the link in #3 it affirms that the Father "is a separate being from his son, Jesus."

 

 

 I keep repeating myself because you refuse to answer my questions but then have the gumption to come back later on and address me about other things.

Let's try this again:

1. Are the Father and the Son two distinct beings? In post #296 you said they are "entities" and according to definition #2 this means they are distinct beings which would mean they are two Gods (polytheism).

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entity?s=t

2. From post #257 in which you again did not answer:

 Adam was created on day 6. The Sabbath is day 7. Did Adam rest the very next day?

3. Do you believe the Holy Spirit is a personal being?

 I ask because of the following:

 We believe the Father and the Son are separate beings with separate consciousnesses and that the Holy Spirit is not a conscious being but instead the power of God.

http://www.churchofgod-7thday.org/FAQs.html

 

 The underlined above is mine.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ben Asher said:

On another thread it may be interesting to explore the questions:

 

(a) Did, Jesus do with the food laws in Mark 7:1 ~ Mark 7:23?

(a2) If, so why did Peter later claim to never have eaten anything unclean(Acts 10:14)?

Since Jesus spent time with Peter and they obviously shared the same meals wouldn't Peter have know that the food laws had been done away with by the types of food Jesus and the Discipline could now in theory eat?

 

(b) What types of food did Jesus eat? Did he keep kosher or after the event described in Mark chapter 7 did he immediately stop observing the Torah?

 

(c) where does Jesus in the text of Mark chapter 7 mention food laws of the Torah? The pharisees mention the washing of hands (Mark 7:2, Mark 7:3) and the text makes mention of other extra Biblical traditions concerning washing (,Mark 7:4) but none of those seem to have anything to do with the food laws of the Torah?

 

(d) Jesus takes issues with the Pharisees extra Biblical traditions (Mark 7:8 and Mark 7:9) are those what are meant by food laws?

 

Disclaimer: Now, having stated the above, the food laws of the Torah (at least in my understanding) were never binding on anyone other than the Children of Israel the Jews therefore most modern Christians were never under the food laws unless of course they came from a observant Jewish background. I am far more concerned about how various individuals go about the process of interpretation than the food laws, the sabbath, and theology.

Virtually everything we can say will be speculative.

 

Regarding a, c, and d -- Jesus Himself did not make any direct reference to food laws.  The "all foods are clean" statement was a parenthetical statement by the author, presumably Mark, some years after the fact.  If we accept the text as inspired, we accept his interpretation of the events as inspired.

 

Regarding b -- I assume Jesus continued to be Torah observant, although at the very least reinterpreting His final Passover meal as the ceremonial meal inaugurating and commemorating the New Covenant.

 

Regarding a2 -- Tradition holds that Mark was a disciple of Peter, which makes the question even more interesting.  My "take" is that Peter (and possibly the other disciples as well) had not immediately grasped the full significance of Jesus's teaching in Mark 7.  The events in Acts 10-11 may have helped bring the point home to him.  IMO, the controversy Paul alludes to in Gal. 2 suggests it was something he continued to wrestle with.

 

Regarding your conclusion -- I don't believe the Torah is "binding" on *anyone* who is "in Christ," including believing Jews.  The choice of whether to continue to practice as a means of cultural identity and solidarity is completely a matter of individual preference and conscience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Becky said:

The gentiles who left Egypt with the Children of Israel were under those laws correct? 

The  Ger toshav / resident aliens (Exodus 12:45 / Exodus 12:48) could could not partake of the Passover unless he was circumcised thus becoming a member of the camp. Although speculative it seem to me the rest of did actually become member as the term Toshav in its normal meaning may hint at such.

 

Moving on we notice Exodus 12:49  as well continues use the term Ger, rather than the term goy / goyim that is almost always translated as nations or gentiles. We find that there is one Torah for  the Ger (foreigner born) and one for the Ezrach (natural born /citizen). The text however does not say that there was on Torah for the Gentile Goy/Goyim and the children of Israel.

 

8 hours ago, Becky said:

Is Peter the man speaking or Peter the guy in the vision. ? 

Peter is the one who states that he has never eaten anything common or unclean up until that point of course. No interpretation or guess work need Acts 10:14 specifically attributes the statement to Peter.

 

 

Grace and Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NorrinRadd said:

Virtually everything we can say will be speculative.

@NorrinRadd I wish I could shake you hand! you are exactly right and this something I wish more would recognize!

 

2 hours ago, NorrinRadd said:

Regarding your conclusion -- I don't believe the Torah is "binding" on *anyone* who is "in Christ," including believing Jews. 

Then we are in agreement! SMILE! This is why in my disclaimer I used of the past tense indicative of be verb  'was' as meaning used to be in past time. And before a person of Jewish ethnicity becomes a Christian he/she can be said to be under the Torah, but not after.

 

Grace and Peace

 

 

POST SCRIPT

..................................................................................................................................................

By the way what you referred to as my conclusion was a my disclaimer not a conclusion.

Edited by Ben Asher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Thanks @Ben Asher I was wondering what your thoughts were 🙂

 

Sheesh a glossary would be helpful 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Faber said:

 

  I see you reject the Trinity, but you never answered if the Father and and the Son are two distinct beings, because according to the link in #3 it affirms that the Father "is a separate being from his son, Jesus."

 

 

 I keep repeating myself because you refuse to answer my questions but then have the gumption to come back later on and address me about other things.

Let's try this again:

1. Are the Father and the Son two distinct beings? In post #296 you said they are "entities" and according to definition #2 this means they are distinct beings which would mean they are two Gods (polytheism).

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entity?s=t

2. From post #257 in which you again did not answer:

 Adam was created on day 6. The Sabbath is day 7. Did Adam rest the very next day?

3. Do you believe the Holy Spirit is a personal being?

 I ask because of the following:

 We believe the Father and the Son are separate beings with separate consciousnesses and that the Holy Spirit is not a conscious being but instead the power of God.

http://www.churchofgod-7thday.org/FAQs.html

 

 The underlined above is mine.

 

 

 

Like I said their (CofG-7thday) doctrines are not mine. You are still trying to get me to use labels like "trinity" and "distinct/personal/separate beings" for the Godhead. I said I do not label, period. That is your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deade said:

Like I said their (CofG-7thday) doctrines are not mine. You are still trying to get me to use labels like "trinity" and "distinct/personal/separate beings" for the Godhead. I said I do not label, period. That is your answer.

 I am not trying to get you to use anything. If you don't want to that's your choice. The place you worship at uses those descriptions in describing what they do and don't believe. It is a disgrace though that they deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.

 

 Not sure how question #2 from post #408 fits in this category in that you also dodged that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ben Asher said:

On another thread it may be interesting to explore the questions:

 

(a) Did, Jesus do with the food laws in Mark 7:1 ~ Mark 7:23?

(a2) If, so why did Peter later claim to never have eaten anything unclean(Acts 10:14)?

Since Jesus spent time with Peter and they obviously shared the same meals wouldn't Peter have know that the food laws had been done away with by the types of food Jesus and the Discipline could now in theory eat?

 

(b) What types of food did Jesus eat? Did he keep kosher or after the event described in Mark chapter 7 did he immediately stop observing the Torah?

 

(c) where does Jesus in the text of Mark chapter 7 mention food laws of the Torah? The pharisees mention the washing of hands (Mark 7:2, Mark 7:3) and the text makes mention of other extra Biblical traditions concerning washing (,Mark 7:4) but none of those seem to have anything to do with the food laws of the Torah?

 

(d) Jesus takes issues with the Pharisees extra Biblical traditions (Mark 7:8 and Mark 7:9) are those what are meant by food laws?

Jesus came to fulfill the Law (every jot and tittle), so that those in Christ did not have to ... we have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us.  (That was part of the lesson that Peter had to learn in Acts 10 and later when Paul confronted his hypocrisy, which Peter affirmed at the Jerusalem council).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, Becky said:

Thanks @Ben Asher I was wondering what your thoughts were 🙂

Greetings @Becky !

 

And thanks for asking

13 hours ago, Becky said:

Sheesh a glossary would be helpful 🙂

Sorry about that! I wrote in a bit of a hurry as I saw the question about the 20 minutes before I needed to go to work. I will take my time to elaborate and full define my terms next time around.

 

I should probably also make clear or reveal some my presupposition and assumptions.

Concerning Jesus while I believe he has the power and every right to change the Torah/Law while also holdding to the concept that Jesus did not cheat his way to fulfilling the Law during is ministry on earth, I believe he fulfilled the law perfectly and completely as it was.

 

Grace and Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, atpollard said:

Jesus came to fulfill the Law (every jot and tittle)

@atpollard thank you for chiming in!

 

What you state has also been been one of my strongly held assumptions or beliefs about what Jesus did.

On the other hand the idea that Jesus roamed around breaking the law or that he changed the law and thus made it easier for him to fulfill is neither persuasive nor appealing.

 

 

Grace and Peace

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
1 hour ago, Ben Asher said:

 

Greetings @Becky !

 

And thanks for asking

Sorry about that! I wrote in a bit of a hurry as I saw the question about the 20 minutes before I needed to go to work. I will take my time to elaborate and full define my terms next time around.

 

I should probably also make clear or reveal some my presupposition and assumptions.

Concerning Jesus while I believe he has the power and every right to change the Torah/Law while also holdding to the concept that Jesus did not cheat his way to fulfilling the Law during is ministry on earth, I believe he fulfilled the law perfectly and completely as it was.

 

Grace and Peace

Totally agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2019 at 7:43 PM, NorrinRadd said:

Good.  It's pointless.  Whether or not that is a valid inference from the change of Covenants, we have the *explicit* statements of Paul that "Love your neighbor" fulfills the entire Law (Rom. 13 and Gal. 5); 

 

I respectfully disagree with several of the positions you take. Firstly, the idea that the 10 commandments were abolished and replaced by the commandment 'Love thy neighbor' is highly unlikely for the following reason :

Romans 13:8 actually states, 'Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.' Not the entire law as you wrote. In Matthew 22:35-40, Jesus states that all the 10 commandments hang on 2 commandments, saying 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Romans 13 begins with an appeal for the brethren to obey those that are in charge, because God ordained them. Afterwards, it describes the manner in which they should relate to each other, clearly showing that this is the focus of the chapter. The directive to 'love one another' is referencing the second of the two commandments stated in Matthew 22, and that if it is done, then the second law is fulfilled. It is not proof that this law has replaced the 10 commandments, as in the following verse, the commandments pertaining to how we treat each other are recited and again grouped under the second law. The chapter does not mention the first because it is not an issue needing to be addressed. Galatians 5 is even more supportive of this notion, as it too mentions the law to 'love thy neighbor', but in the latter verses it mentions additional sins unrelated to that law. These include Idolatry, and witchcraft, which reference the second and first commandments, as well as other sins like drunkenness and revellings which if you do, you cannot enter the kingdom of God. If fulfilling the entire law truly meant only 'loving your neighbor', why would these sins be an issue?

 

On 9/5/2019 at 7:43 PM, NorrinRadd said:

Good, because you're not going to move many of us, especially when we see in Heb. 7 that there is also a change of LAW.  The priesthood changed.  The law changed (ch. 7).  The Mosaic Covenant was found to be obsolete and faulty, and was replaced (ch. 8).  It is frankly silly to read all that was said in the first eight chapters, and how emphatically it was said, and then decide that ch. 9 and 10 limit the change to only a few ceremonial trappings.

My response to this, is that Paul was not referring to the 10 commandments, but to the law which only allowed Levites to perform the duties of a Priest in Israel. The entire chapter begins talking about Melchisedec who, 'abideth a priest continually', before introducing the Levites. Hebrews 7:5, sheds more light on the commandment in question stating, 'And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:' The law here could not be the 10 commandments as it mentions nothing of tithes, so it has to be another law- the ceremonial law. I advise all interested parties to read Hebrews 7,8,9 and 10 with this in mind and judge for yourself.

 

On 9/5/2019 at 7:43 PM, NorrinRadd said:

Good, because you're not going to convince many of us that Jesus did not do away with the food laws in Mark 7:19, even before the change of Covenants had been inaugurated with the Covenant Meal.

Why are you bringing up food laws when I was clearly addressing the 10 commandments? We may discuss this later if you wish.

 

On 9/5/2019 at 7:43 PM, NorrinRadd said:

ing on that one word "dogma" (decrees, ordinances), ignoring the context, which shows that what was removed was the entire list of broken rules -- "all your transgressions."  Also, as I'm sure has been noted somewhere in this thread, there is the matter of Eph. 2:15, which says He nullified the Commandments as well as the decrees/ordinances.

 

I am not ignoring the context, Colossions 2 shows that an issue regarding circumcision was at the time being spread through the church of Colossi, prompting Paul to reassure the gentile brethren that, 'ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ '. He continues with, 'And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;' How is Christ able to forgive a people whom he has no covenant with if His covenant was with Abraham and his descendants? The next verse tells us he did this by, 'Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;'. These ordinances included circumcision, and other ceremonial laws, which is why Jews and Gentiles are seen as the same before God. Ephesians 2:15 shows that, 'Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; '. Because of this, Christians no longer observe things like feast days. However the 4th commandment is not referring to an annual sabbath as in Col 2, which was celebrated yearly, but the weekly Sabbath, which is why it was not a part of the ceremonial law.

 

It is my strong belief that wherever words like 'ordinances', 'statutes', and 'judgments' are mentioned, they are referring to the writings of Moses, reasons for which I have explained in post #394. While we have also seen how the use of words like 'commandment' and 'law' were not only reserved for referring to the 10 commandments, what most supports my theory is that it will contradict other scripture like Matthew 5:17-18.

 

As you can see, I have tried to address the main issues I had with what you've said. To give an explanation or counterpoint to everything you touched on would be quite exhausting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Seems as if   @IchimaruGin wishes to ignore verse 40 

 

 Mat 22:38  This is the first and great commandment. 
Mat 22:39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 
Mat 22:40  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Using SDA as an example here. 

I would not go to a home of a SDA follower and demand coffee or meat . IF the day of the visit was Saturday i would attend services with them. In keeping with verse 40 and Col 2:16  Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: etc. 

Years ago when my M-I-L observed meatless Fridays i did not complain . Way back when husband asked  me to fix fish on Friday i did so . I am free in Christ 

1Co 6:11  And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 
1Co 6:12  All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 
 Pointing out what i see as a lack of understanding of Scripture is not a judgement of anyone. I can get bugged when some one points things out to me YET i have learned from them doing so .. So thank the Lord for the lesson  . 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Being polite does not mean i am in agreement . The claim that Christ did not fulfill the Law paints a defeated picture of Christ, as if He was some how incomplete. Or He did not finish what He was sent to do even though He said "It is Finished" . Dispensationalism  teaches a low view of Christ and His Cross. I find that  so sad. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
1 hour ago, Becky said:

Being polite does not mean i am in agreement .

And neither being polite or rude means anyone is closer to the truth.

 

What is the goal of these debates? To win or to bring all parties closer to the truth?

 

From my experience these guilty by association arguments and ad hominem attacks are used to cut down the opposition (discredit) to the attackers level when they can't win a debate.

 

This thread is full of horrible arguments and pitiful debate tactics.

 

@IchimaruGin sent you a PM.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
3 minutes ago, William said:

This thread is full of horrible arguments and pitiful debate tactics.

season 1 duel of destiny GIF by Star Wars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 21 7-8:

 

7. As it is of the law of nature that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him:a which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week,b which in Scripture is called the Lord’s day,c and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.d

a. Exod 20:8, 10-11; Isa 56:2, 4, 6-7. • b. Gen 2:2-3; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:1-2. • c. Rev 1:10. • d. Exod 20:8, 10 with Mat 5:17-18.

 

8. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts, about their worldly employments and recreations;a but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.b

a. Exod 20:8; 16:23, 25-26, 29-30; 31:15-17; Isa 58:13; Neh 13:15-22. • b. Isa 58:13; Mat 12:1-13.

 

Some resources on the Christian Sabbath:

https://heidelblog.net/2010/10/do-reformed-christians-confess-the-sabbath/

https://www.monergism.com/search?keywords=christian+sabbath&format=All

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...