How Do You Honor the Sabbath?

[ezrider]

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.

In your covenant relationship with the Lord, are you living under the covenant of Law, the Old Covenant, or are you living under the New Covenant? The blood of Christ redeemed those who were under the law to atone for sin under the law. But I was born under Grace. I was born under the New Covenant. I was not born under the Law.

Galatians 4:4-5
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

What sacrifice does the new covenant demand of you?

 

[ezrider]

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.

The crucifixion and the blood of Christ served more than one purpose, but people typically only focus on one, that being the sacrifice for sin.

For those that were born under the Law according to the covenant made with Moses, a covenant with death (Isa 28:18), a blood sacrifice was required to cover their sins. The blood sacrifice of Jesus was the one time atonement for sins under the covenant of Law.

For those that were not born under the law, for sin, the death of Jesus was the condemnation of sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3) for all. Those born under the law and those who were not, all covered by the single blood atonement.

The blood of Christ and his sacrifice on the cross was the fulfillment of the Promise made with Abraham (which was made before the covenant with Moses) according to the oath which the Lord did swear, the Blood of Christ confirming the Covenant made with Abraham, of which we call the New Covenant.

Hebrews 9:14-20
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

Which Covenant have you enjoined yourself to. The Covenant of Law that demands a sacrifice to cover your sins? Or the Covenant of Grace which needs no covering for you sins, as they have already been condemned in the flesh. If you continue to repent of sins according to the law by covering them under the blood of Christ, then are you not doing the works of the law? And at the same time, would you not be crucifying Christ afresh as the scriptures say?

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.

There is still at least one more reason that Christ was put to death in the flesh, but it is something that I shall not discuss at this time.

 

[ezrider]

Galatians 4:6-11
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

 

[Malachi]

Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years

This is very pertinent. Paul clearly identified sabbaths as SHADOWS, and the reality as Christ. There are too many Christians today who are more focused on the shadows than the substance. It is a part of the end-time apostasy.

 

[GodsGrace]

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......

I'm sorry EZ
I don't see what the above has to do with my answer.
You asked me to pick between grace and blood,
I gave you my explanation,
you quote that His mercy endures forever, so?
His mercy was here before too - as I stated in my post.
O course His mercy is forever - that was the whole point I was making.
I said, IF you want to see God's face, the BLOOD was necessary...

But it's a hypothetical question and not worth a lot of time...

W

 

[GodsGrace]

In your covenant relationship with the Lord, are you living under the covenant of Law, the Old Covenant, or are you living under the New Covenant? The blood of Christ redeemed those who were under the law to atone for sin under the law. But I was born under Grace. I was born under the New Covenant. I was not born under the Law.

Galatians 4:4-5
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

What sacrifice does the new covenant demand of you?

Okay. Now we're out of the hypothetical realm.
I'm living under the New Covenant, EZ. As I'm sure you are. This post could become very long.
The O.C. was establised by Moses and the 10 Commandments.
The N.C. was established by Jesus and the writing of the commandments on the heart.

The commandments are not abolished Mathew 5:17-19 -- they are only removed from cold stone to the heart Jeremiah 31:31-33

In fact Jeremiah 32:37-39 says that God will give His people one heart and one way (Jesus' sacrifice) that they may fear Him for their own good and for the good of their children. We know that fear means a healthy respect and not a "being afraid of."

The O.C. could not be kept. The Law was able to reveal transgression but it could not change behavior.
God does want a change of behavior. We are to be transformed into a new man Romans 12:2, we are to transform our very mind.

And how do we do this? How is it possible to keep the N.C. if it was not possible to keep the O.C.?
The remedy is Jesus. He cuts all 613 laws into 2. If we follow those two laws, all the others will also be followed
Mathew 22:37-40

And the power to do the above comes from our love for Jesus who went to the cross for us and whom we desire to follow and become into the likeness of Him - even if it takes our entire life and even if the goal is never accomplished - that is to be the desire of our heart.

So, as Jesus commanded us to call God "Father" as was never done in the O.T., we surely have become sons and brothers of Christ. Jesus has paid our debt and we are now free to go with God in heaven (I spoke about this in my previous post to which you're responding).

He paid our debt - He didn't say we're not to keep the commandments. We're under the New Covenant because Jesus has furnished the way for us to keep the commandments - not because they are abolished. We now WANT to keep the commandments whereas before we felt OBLIGATED to keep them. This is the big difference.
Romans 6:1-2
Are we to continue in sin? May it never be!

And what sacrifice does the N.C. demand of me? Many. If I'm to follow Jesus.
Mathew16:24
Yes. That cross must be picked up daily - but I don't mind doing it! Again, the difference. Between doing as a slave under the O.C. and doing as a friend under the N.C.

Are you a follower of Jesus if you go see the movie instead of staying home with your sick dad?
Is that not picking up a cross?
Are you allowed to do whatever you want to under the N.C.?

You mean, just because God is nice and has a lot of grace
I could do whatever I want to??

I hope I've misunderstood you...

W

 

[GodsGrace]

EZRider

Just saw this in your post no. 161:

Which Covenant have you enjoined yourself to. The Covenant of Law that demands a sacrifice to cover your sins? Or the Covenant of Grace which needs no covering for you sins, as they have already been condemned in the flesh. If you continue to repent of sins according to the law by covering them under the blood of Christ, then are you not doing the works of the law? And at the same time, would you not be crucifying Christ afresh as the scriptures say?

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.

There is still at least one more reason that Christ was put to death in the flesh, but it is something that I shall not discuss at this time.

What does Hebrews 6:4-6 have to do with what's being discussed?
I usually apply this scripture to fallen away Christians, as it clearly states.

As far as covering our sins. You don't think our sins need to be covered?? Are you saying we're so perfect in God's eyes that we could stand before Him based on our own performance? Or are you saying it's NOT based on our performance and we better figure out a different way of being able to stand before Him ---
Well, that way would be to be covered with Jesus.
Romans 13:14
Galatians 3:27

We are covered by Jesus so that God will see HIS righteousness. He is our righteousness and our covering.

W

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Shame on you.

No, shame on you for saying there is glory in sin, but not in the blood of Christ.

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?

The person for whom the law arouses sin in them is not born again:

"5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death." (Romans 7:5 NASB)

"9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." (Romans 8:9 NASB)

That doesn't mean they don't sin. It means the law is not is what is making them sin and, therefore, the law is a bad thing and should not be followed, as you so confidently affirm. If the danger of obeying a literal Mosaic Sabbath is that it arouses sin in you then you are simply not born again, because Paul said we died to the law's power to do that when we died to sin.

 

[smaller]

The person for whom the law arouses sin in them is not born again:

Unlikely. Paul termed himself "sinners, of whom I am chief" after salvation.

That doesn't mean they don't sin.

Well of course not. It's not possible for the flesh to be FOR the Spirit. It is and remains contrary and against the Spirit.

The law is upheld precisely to PROVE this fact, of sin dwelling in the flesh and evil present with us.

It means the law is not is what is making them sin

Paul is abundantly clear that sin dwelling in the flesh, and evil present with him, reacts ADVERSELY to the law in Romans 7. This does NOT mean the law causes the SIN. It means that SIN reacts adversely to the LAW.

Big difference.

and, therefore, the law is a bad thing and should not be followed, as you so confidently affirm. If the danger of obeying a literal Mosaic Sabbath is that it arouses sin in you then you are simply not born again, because Paul said we died to the law's power to do that when we died to sin.

The adverse reactions between sin indwelling the flesh and evil present with us REMAIN after salvation.

We are to rule OVER it, but to say this does not exist in our flesh puts us OUT of TRUTH.

The issue is that few people care to deal with this aspect of their flesh. And rather like their tummies tickled, thinking their "whole flesh package" is hunky dory in Christ.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

Christ gave the disciples the authority to forgive sin on his behalf. When they forgive, heaven will forgive. That means every time a brother sins, then asks forgiveness, sins again, asks forgiveness, etc. heaven is right there forgiving every instance of repentance of the offender. But you say God won't do that.

You say it is impossible to come back to repentance after you've done it once, and therefore should not be done again, and that to think you can repent over and over again is crucifying Christ all over again. Matthew 18, for one, proves your interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6 NASB and Hebrews 10:26-31 NASB to be entirely false. Those passages are not teaching us to not repent of sin and seek God's forgiveness again when we sin because that would be crucifying Christ all over again and robbing God of the 'glory' of your sin.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Unlikely. Paul termed himself "sinners, of whom I am chief" after salvation.

Are you incapable of 'hearing' anything?
I said, not being a slave to sin DOESN'T mean you won't sin. It means the law is not what is making you sin. The desires of the flesh are what are drawing you into sinning. Since the sin nature is dead, so is the power of the law to make you sin. Therefore, the argument that the law can not be followed, and should not be followed, since it makes you sin, is a false teaching.

 

[smaller]

Are you incapable of 'hearing' anything?
I said, not being a slave to sin DOESN'T mean you won't sin. It means the law is not able to make you sin. The desires of the flesh are what are drawing you into sinning.

The desires of the flesh REMAIN in the flesh after salvation. Indwelling sin reacts ADVERSELY to the Laws and is CONTRARY to the Spirit.

Flesh, by it's LYING nature will say this isn't so, and will also SEEK to justify itself in the pews by legalism.

Here is what sits in the pews on the Sabbath:

Philippians 3:21
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

No flesh likes to hear this reality. Flesh prefers the lie to say otherwise.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The issue is that few people care to deal with this aspect of their flesh. And rather like their tummies tickled, thinking their "whole flesh package" is hunky dory in Christ.

I have NEVER met a single Christian who thinks this. What I think is you are justifying ongoing unrepentant sin and OSAS with this doctrine that to my experience speaks to a belief about being sinless and in glorified bodies that doesn't exist in the church. It's more of this hyper-grace doctrine, born out of the church's ignorance of the law in this New Covenant.

 

[smaller]

I have NEVER met a single Christian who thinks this. What I think is you are justifying unrepentant sin and OSAS with this doctrine that to my experience does not speak to any actual people in the church. It's more of this hyper-grace doctrine, born out of the church's ignorance of the law in this New Covenant.

Do you really think our vile body sits justified in the pew?

lol.

We wait in Christ for our CHANGE of this fact.

Do you really think the vile body is ever LEGAL?

again, lol. It ain't happening until we are CHANGED. That change can only come from ONE Direction.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Do you really think our vile body sits justified in the pew?

You apparently do not know what 'justified' means, as Paul uses the term.

 

[smaller]

You apparently do not know what 'justified' means, as Paul uses the term.

There is NO justification for the vile body.

Not by law and not by sitting in a pew on Saturday or Sunday or any other day of the week.

All the phony religious acting will not change the fact of a vile body.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Do you really think our vile body sits justified in the pew?

lol.

We wait in Christ for our CHANGE of this fact.

Do you really think the vile body is ever LEGAL?

again, lol. It ain't happening until we are CHANGED. That change can only come from ONE Direction.

As I said before, I did finally figure out that what you were arguing is that some people in the church think we are in glorified, sinless bodies now. I have NEVER once ever heard that argument made by a Christian. Not once. You're defending a doctrine for an argument that is not even being made in the church. And, as I say, it's simply a hyper-grace defense of OSAS.

 

[smaller]

As I said before, I did finally figure out that what you were arguing is that some people in the church think we are in glorified, sinless bodies now.

I point out the obvious. That no amount of "works" salvation doctrines will make sin dwelling in the flesh and evil present with us GO AWAY. That is precisely why we are only saved by Grace, through faith, and receive our ever needful DIVINE MERCY, because of this factual condition of the flesh.

No flesh sits justified in Gods Eyes, period. Not by LAW, and not by FAITH.

I have NEVER once ever heard that argument made by a Christian. Not once. You're defending a doctrine for an argument that is not even being made in the church. And, as I say, it's simply a hyper-grace defense of OSAS.

Every pseudo religious swami never tells the truth about their own flesh. It just never happens.

Every pew sitter who sits, justified in the flesh by whatever means or rituals or laws is pulling their own flesh leg.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There is NO justification for the vile body.

Do your homework and find out what 'justification' actually means for the believer in Paul's teaching. It DOESN'T mean sinless perfection in the life of the believer. You're arguing against an argument for sinless perfection that no one in the church has. And worst of all, doing that to defend unrepentant sin in the believer. It's all part of this hyper-grace movement sweeping through the church right now. My unsaved son told me about a so-called 'Christian' sitting in a bar with him one night getting drunk off his butt telling him about all about this hyper-grace that allows him to do that (get drunk) and still be saved.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I point out the obvious. That no amount of "works" salvation doctrines will make sin dwelling in the flesh and evil present with us GO AWAY. That is precisely why we are only saved by Grace, through faith, and receive our ever needful DIVINE MERCY, because of this factual condition of the flesh.

No flesh sits justified in Gods Eyes, period. Not by LAW, and not by FAITH.



Every pseudo religious swami never tells the truth about their own flesh. It just never happens.

Every pew sitter who sits, justified in the flesh by whatever means or rituals or laws is pulling their own flesh leg.

Stop talking and go find out what 'justification' means in Paul' letters. It does not mean what you think it does.