How Do You Honor the Sabbath?

[jocor]

Scripture says the law is spiritual and the Spirit is against the flesh.

Do the math.

What does that have to do with being "sinless in the flesh"?

 

[smaller]

What does that have to do with being "sinless in the flesh"?

Sin dwells in the flesh and evil is present with all people.

The only exception was God Himself in flesh.

 

[jocor]

Sin dwells in the flesh and evil is present with all people.

The only exception was God Himself in flesh.

OK, so sin dwells in the flesh. Does that mean we should not even try to obey the commandments? Most Christians will not willfully steal (I hope). Why can't I not willfully break the Sabbath?

 

[smaller]

OK, so sin dwells in the flesh. Does that mean we should not even try to obey the commandments? Most Christians will not willfully steal (I hope). Why can't I not willfully break the Sabbath?

Legal compliance isn't determined from the outside. Sin indwells the flesh. Evil is present with us. Are either empirically or forensically derived? No.

 

[jocor]

Legal compliance isn't determined from the outside.

They why do Yahweh, Yeshua and Paul say "do not steal"? If we obey them, that means we must legally comply.

 

[smaller]

They why do Yahweh, Yeshua and Paul say "do not steal"? If we obey them, that means we must legally comply.

Sin dwelling in the flesh and evil present with us can't be legal, period. That's really all there is to the subject.

 

[jocor]

Sin dwelling in the flesh and evil present with us can't be legal, period. That's really all there is to the subject.

1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
​

John is speaking to believers who you would say have sin dwelling in their flesh, yet they are to be "legal" by obeying Yahweh's commandments. We are commanded to be legal. Yeshua will say to those who refuse to be legal, ". . . DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS." Mt 7:23 NASB (capitals theirs). We either practices lawlessness or legally comply.

 

[smaller]

1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
​

John is speaking to believers who you would say have sin dwelling in their flesh, yet they are to be "legal" by obeying Yahweh's commandments. We are commanded to be legal. Yeshua will say to those who refuse to be legal, ". . . DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS." Mt 7:23 NASB (capitals theirs). We either practices lawlessness or legally comply.

The laws are assuredly NOT grievous in them being against sin dwelling in the flesh and evil present with us. On the contrary, we expect that to be so.

 

[ezrider]

If you had to choose only one would you choose the blood of Christ or the Grace of God? I choose Grace: for his mercy endurath forever....

Surely you jest. Grace comes through faith in Messiah's atoning blood. You cannot separate the two. Without Messiah's shed blood there is no grace unto salvation.

There is no jest on my part. It was a serious question and I asked you to choose one or the other. You avoided choosing one or the other by stating that they can not be separated, but I can separate them, and for the sake of this question I have separated them and asked which one you would choose and why. As I already stated: I choose Grace.

You say that grace comes through faith in the atoning blood of Christ, or in other words, without the blood of Christ, there is no Grace. I on the other hand might look at it the other way around, and say the the Grace of God provided a blood atonement for those who were under the law, because the law demand atonement. So I might then conclude that without the Grace of God, there would have been no atoning blood sacrifice.

Kind of like the old chicken and the egg thing: which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the Grace of God make for the blood atonement, or did the blood atonement make for the Grace of God? If you had to choose one or the other, which would it be and why? Surely you can give a well reasoned answer for your choice other than saying that the choice can not be made.

 

[jocor]

The laws are assuredly NOT grievous in them being against sin dwelling in the flesh and evil present with us. On the contrary, we expect that to be so.

I was not addressing them not being grievous. I was addressing the need to be legally compliant to them.

 

[jocor]

There is no jest on my part. It was a serious question and I asked you to choose one or the other. You avoided choosing one or the other by stating that they can not be separated, but I can separate them, and for the sake of this question I have separated them and asked which one you would choose and why. As I already stated: I choose Grace.

You say that grace comes through faith in the atoning blood of Christ, or in other words, without the blood of Christ, there is no Grace. I on the other hand might look at it the other way around, and say the the Grace of God provided a blood atonement for those who were under the law, because the law demand atonement. So I might then conclude that without the Grace of God, there would have been no atoning blood sacrifice.

Kind of like the old chicken and the egg thing: which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the Grace of God make for the blood atonement, or did the blood atonement make for the Grace of God? If you had to choose one or the other, which would it be and why? Surely you can give a well reasoned answer for your choice other than saying that the choice can not be made.

Of course grace came first, but that is not what you asked. You are asking us to choose one or the other.

I did not say, " without the blood of Christ, there is no Grace." I said there is no grace "unto salvation". Yahweh's people in the OT received grace, but not unto salvation. That kind of grace only comes through Yeshua and his shed blood. I can receive grace from Yahweh when I need help (Heb 4:16), but that will not save me from eternal death. Only grace through Yeshua's blood can do that. So I cannot separate the two. There is no other way for saving grace to work.

 

[GodsGrace]

There is no jest on my part. It was a serious question and I asked you to choose one or the other. You avoided choosing one or the other by stating that they can not be separated, but I can separate them, and for the sake of this question I have separated them and asked which one you would choose and why. As I already stated: I choose Grace.

You say that grace comes through faith in the atoning blood of Christ, or in other words, without the blood of Christ, there is no Grace. I on the other hand might look at it the other way around, and say the the Grace of God provided a blood atonement for those who were under the law, because the law demand atonement. So I might then conclude that without the Grace of God, there would have been no atoning blood sacrifice.

Kind of like the old chicken and the egg thing: which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the Grace of God make for the blood atonement, or did the blood atonement make for the Grace of God? If you had to choose one or the other, which would it be and why? Surely you can give a well reasoned answer for your choice other than saying that the choice can not be made.

What came first? Are you serious?
I'll take the blood of Jesus, thank you.
Of course God Is Love and His grace falls on us, and all that good stuff - but is that enough?
He's also a just God and cannot stand to be in the presence of sinful man.

So - where did the faithful of Hebrews 11 go before Jesus' sacrifice on the cross?
With God?
No.

They went to wait for their sin debt to be paid by Jesus. Luke 16:19-27
When He was on the cross, the veil was torn and the people waiting in Abraham's Bossom were released to go to heaven.

Now, God is full of grace, He's love and He cares for us, but there's no way we could be with Him if Jesus hadn't shed His blood and unless WE'RE under the blood. So trusting in God's grace is good and you won't be damned, but you won't see His face either or be with Him.

So, if you want to see God's face, the blood is absolutely necessary.
So since God's grace is there ANYWAY, I'll take the blood.

Wondering

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Believers might recognize that the law does prompt every manner of internal resistance from these conditions of sin that dwells in the flesh and evil present withIN us that we currently travel with in our flesh.

If the law arouses sin in a person then they are not born again. They are still 'in the flesh' and do not have the Spirit of God.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

And thus the gap in understanding. You obvious believe there is no virtue in recognizing sin apart from repentance, and that is your shortcoming, because you refuse to seek any virtue from sin.

“Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just. (Romans 3:8 NASB italics mine)

So much for the argument for 'virtue in sin'.

you can not seek for the virtue of it (sin) if all you do is reach for a covering to hide from your sins, which is what you end up doing by repenting of it over and over and over again.

Actually you're the one who has a gap in understanding.
The 'covering' from sin is the forgiveness of God. What you can't see is the forgiveness of God over and over and over again.

you can't find virtue by hiding your sins under the blood of Christ so you don't have to look upon them.

Pure unadulterated blasphemy. If you can't see the virtue of Christ's blood, but see it in sin, then that pretty well seals it as a futile matter to discuss with you.

If you are repenting over and over and over again, then that to me is akin to crucifying Christ anew

This is absolutely ridiculous. That's doesn't jibe with Jesus' own teaching in Matthew 18:21-22 NASB.

 

[smaller]

If the law arouses sin in a person then they are not born again. They are still 'in the flesh' and do not have the Spirit of God.

I align with Paul's sights on these matters, as you know. We can see from his statement of fact, "sinners of whom I am chief" from 1 Tim. 1:15, that your sight above can't match up and more than likely won't.

The opening post asks a question, how do we honor the Sabbath?

Perhaps the question resides in another sight? Is it mandatory?

 

[smaller]

I was not addressing them not being grievous. I was addressing the need to be legally compliant to them.

Of course we "keep" them exactly as they were intended for.

Romans 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 7:13
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

1 Corinthians 15:
56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Many, if not most believers land in a place where they believe, now that they are dead to/in the flesh, they can "law keep" to Gods satisfaction. That is a deception of the flesh, still quite active. But whether believers see this or not, this condition remains our reality:

Romans 8:10
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

The above shows a TWO FOLD state. The body is and remains dead because of sin dwelling in it and evil present with us. The Spirit is Christ in us.

Colossians 3:3
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

 

[ezrider]

If you are repenting over and over and over again, then that to me is akin to crucifying Christ anew,

This is absolutely ridiculous. That's doesn't jibe with Jesus' own teaching in Matthew 18:21-22 NASB.

You seem to be confused. What does Matthew 18:21-22 have to do with the blood of Christ. The teaching in those verses are about sinning against YOUR BROTHER, and forgiving the sins against YOUR BROTHER. Does forgiving your brother require the blood of Christ? Is a sin against my brother a sin then against God? And yet if my brother forgive me, what is left for God to forgive; for i is done.

Hebrews 6:4-6
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

 

[ezrider]

So, if you want to see God's face, the blood is absolutely necessary.
So since God's grace is there ANYWAY, I'll take the blood.

Wondering

Hebrews 10:26
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.

But his mercy endures forever......

 

[ezrider]

Pure unadulterated blasphemy. If you can't see the virtue of Christ's blood, but see it in sin, then that pretty well seals it as a futile matter to discuss with you.

Shame on you. If you can't deal honestly with what I have stated, then you are correct, discussion with you is futile. But apparently you only hear what you want irregardless of what was actually said; then you have the audacity to accuse me of "unadulterated blasphemy" while it was you who transposed a discussion about finding virtue in sin to claiming that I see no virtue in Christ blood when I said no such thing. It would be best if you stop assuming things that I have not said.

To he whom does no murder, what does the law say about bearing false witness?

 

[jocor]

Hebrews 10:26
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.

But his mercy endures forever......

You seem to be saying the blood can fail us if we sin wilfully, but mercy won't fail us. Is that correct? If so, then consider James 2:13. If not, then explain your point.