Bible Study Why Sunday can NOT be the Lord's Day

[Elijah message]

Colossians 2:15-17



15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

*********

Hi, I don't think that anyone is judging you??? Perhaps it needs to be asked the other way around?? Christ told me that if I love Him, to keep His commandments! (that is my 'IF', OK??)

Now, about the other stuff in verse 15-16? Surely you should know by reading the posts here that those laws are the ones that Moses wrote 'in a book' and they were placed in the 'side of the Ark' [Not inside the Ark where the ten Commandment Everlasting Coventant was and is kept]?

---Elijah

 

[guibox]

*********

Hi, I don't think that anyone is judging you??? Perhaps it needs to be asked the other way around?? Christ told me that if I love Him, to keep His commandments! (that is my 'IF', OK??)

Now, about the other stuff in verse 15-16? Surely you should know by reading the posts here that those laws are the ones that Moses wrote 'in a book' and they were placed in the 'side of the Ark' [Not inside the Ark where the ten Commandment Everlasting Coventant was and is kept]?

---Elijah

elijah, I encourage you to look at the link I gave and see that the word 'law' isn't even spoken of here. The law of Moses or the moral law of God is not the issue here at all.

 

[awisherofgrace]

We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. Here are the reasons we hold this view.

In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.
The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.
The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.
In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).
Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle.
There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.
When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers.
The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them.
In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath).
In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers).
The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century).
Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11).
So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath."
John Calvin took a similar position. He wrote,

There were three reasons for giving this [fourth] commandment: First, with the seventh day of rest the Lord wished to give to the people of Israel an image of spiritual rest, whereby believers must cease from their own works in order to let the Lord work in them. Secondly, he wished that there be an established day in which believers might assemble in order to hear his Law and worship him. Thirdly, he willed that one day of rest be granted to servants and to those who live under the power of others so that they might have a relaxation from their labor. The latter, however, is rather an inferred than a principal reason.
As to the first reason, there is no doubt that it ceased in Christ; because he is the truth by the presence of which all images vanish. He is the reality at whose advent all shadows are abandoned. Hence St. Paul (Col. 2:17) affirms that the sabbath has been a shadow of a reality yet to be. And he declares else-where its truth when in the letter to the Romans, ch. 6:8, he teaches us that we are buried with Christ in order that by his death we may die to the corruption of our flesh. And this is not done in one day, but during all the course of our life, until altogether dead in our own selves, we may be filled with the life of God. Hence, superstitious observance of days must remain far from Christians.

The two last reasons, however, must not be numbered among the shadows of old. Rather, they are equally valid for all ages. Hence, though the sabbath is abrogated, it so happens among us that we still convene on certain days in order to hear the word of God, to break the [mystic] bread of the Supper, and to offer public prayers; and, moreover, in order that some relaxation from their toil be given to servants and workingmen. As our human weakness does not allow such assemblies to meet every day, the day observed by the Jews has been taken away (as a good device for eliminating superstition) and another day has been destined to this use. This was necessary for securing and maintaining order and peace in the Church.

As the truth therefore was given to the Jews under a figure, so to us on the contrary truth is shown without shadows in order, first of all, that we meditate all our life on a perpetual sabbath from our works so that the Lord may operate in us by his spirit; secondly, in order that we observe the legitimate order of the Church for listening to the word of God, for admin-istering the sacraments, and for public prayers; thirdly, in order that we do not oppress inhumanly with work those who are subject to us. [From Instruction in Faith, Calvin's own 1537 digest of the Institutes, sec. 8, "The Law of the Lord"].

 

[Elijah message]

Elijah here:

And about the day that 'some' question me about, which God commanded 'me' to worship Him on? Exodus 16 shows how He proved (tested) the whole professed group on just His one 7th. day Sabbath commandment to see if they were sincerely obedient in all of His commandments! v. 4-5 & 27-28. And this history was just before they were to enter their land of Canaan! (is that not what we are looking to do today? See the Ecc. verses with this testing!!)

These are [spiritual Jews]! There will be NO one in the kingdom that as Inspiration states, that are not: ["For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly]; ... [but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly;] and the circumcism [is that of the heart,] ... and [not in the letter]; .."]

The letter of the law [alone] killeth, the Spirit giveth life! It takes CONVERSION. Both united, as the Word of God say in Rev. 14:6 & Heb. 13:20. This is not only Gospel, it is ETERNAL GOSPEL UNITED TO MAKE UP ETERNAL COVENANT. One without the other is [nothing but d-e-a-d (killeth) 'g'ospel.

One thinks of a race of people, what is that?? What race's' were before Babylon?? The [SPIRITUAL JEW by definition are NOT the above ones]. How does the foolish professed educated 'arm of flesh man, bring about a breed of anything? THINK!! Horses, dogs, birds, or whatever? (or even Hitler's aim)

But now [Add] the ETERNAL Moral law, the Real ETERNAL Gospel together, and one has the [REAL CHRIST]. Christ CANNOT be cut in/two pieces and still be [TOGETHER!] Most want, and are satisfied with a professed belief of him. Surely at least one can learn from Rom. 2:14-15? (compare 2 Cor. 3:3)God of the Jews?? Hardly! A Law for the Jews only, Hardly! The Heb. 11:13 ones are made up of many others that were saved by the faith of obedience, other than Jews! Including these of Rom. 2:14-15!

And even [Abram] before he was called of God in Gen. 12 had already gotten 'many souls that 'they' had gotten in HARAN'. Not the Jewish kind either!! And Ex. 12:38? "And a [mixed multitude] went up with them.." (see verse 29 on 48 for these strangers!)
..And in the bottom line some tell the Universe that, ['that was written for Jews and not Christians'.] What in the thinking process do you think the From Gen. 3:15 on the 'ETERNAL LAMB SACRIFICE' means???

Cain's rejection of the lamb sacrifice in Gen. 4:7 meant that he REJECTED CHRIST!!! (by future faith) Does one say that the [name Christian] because it only was used by the 'arm of flesh' in writing descriptive words in the N.T., mean that there were NO Christians, NOR 'Spiritual' Zion Jews in eternity's heavenly Zion?? AWAKEN MY FRIENDS! And any willful known Covenant breaking still rejects Christ ETERNALLY! James 2:8-12!! And Heb. 6:6. :

OK: Can one be awakened & see Truth today besides the ones who are the Remnant of Rev. 12:17? (you know, ALL ELSE ARE mostly the Rev. 17:5 lost ones, so far, huh?)

There is a quick way for these few 'sincere' ones to do so, if they [REALLY BELIEVE THE WORD OF GOD]!? They need to start all over again as did Saul. (Paul) God NEVER plays games, He never states false Truth for scare tactics, He NEVER CHANGES! nor does He EVER is any way err with such stuff as showing that He is a respecter of the outside of any persons makeup's! (Jews for the direct conversation) Nor can He EVER BE PROVEN TO MAKE A MISTAKE!!

The verses of Eccl. 1:9-10 & Eccl. 3:15 can check out any & ALL JUNK that needs trashing! If one REALLY IS SINCERE & LED (Rom. 8:14) by the Holy Spirit that INSPIRED THE WRITING of these verses, they can TEST all of mans Gen. 4:7's desired junk. The danger is in going back over & over on the devil's forbidden ground to think that we can learn something! (see Psalms 19:13)

In this last repeated history, there will once again be found but very few by the same method as seen by God's Spirit in Zeph. 1:12.. "I will search Israel with CANDLES.." Just Jew huh?

---Elijah

 

[guibox]

In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.

:roll: Apparently, you made no effort to look at the link to explaining this verse (and the same reasoning applies to Galatians 4:10-11. As far as Romans 14:5 goes, you're stretching it pretty thin to make this verse apply to the seventh day Sabbath. Paul mentions eating and drinking in the same breath. There was a specific issue that is addressed in other parts of scripture as well. These were Jewish issues of holy days and eating food sacrificed to idols, strict vegetarianism (see also verses 14-21). I highly doubt Paul would take festivals like Passover, Pentecost, and the 4000 year old Sabbath and reduce it to a personal choice for all to "let everyone be convinced in his own mind". Again, contextand cultural issues are ignored by all the Sunday supporters when it comes to these texts.

The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.

Of course not. That's like telling kids at school that they have to bring a pencil to write with. It is a given. By both Christ and Paul's example, we see that the Sabbath was already taken for granted as there was no controversy over it, therefore no need to be commanding it. However, we see that this was indeed the case over circumcision. Verse afte verse we see the controversy the Jews were making with Paul over circumcision. Yet, not one hint of any controversy of Paul saying the Sabbath was done away with, a much more important issue than circumcision.

In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

Again, if this is the only verse you have, there are serious issues. It is great assumption to say that this 'breaking of bread' was a weekly occurence. It is even more of an assumption (nay, fabrication without proof) that by doing this on this particular first day that this was their day of worship.

And theycontinued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers... And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple and breeaking bread from house to house,...Acts 2:42, 47

They always met to break bread. Breaking bread was a fellowhip issue, not the religious sacrament of the Lord's Supper. They met because Paul was going away, not to worship. As a matter of fact, according to Jewish reckoning of days, Paul's trip takes place on the Sunday. A strange thing to be doing on a day of worship.

He didn't say anything to the Jews about a new day, even with all the synagogues and Sabbaths "as was his custom" he attended. Never mind the Jews, the Gentiles weren't even told about Sunday worship/Sabbath abrogation even while they were learning about freedom in Christ! We actually see that Paul preached to Gentiles continually on the Sabbath, even when there were no Jews around. This is a perfect time to tell the Gentiles that there is a new day to honor the resurrection. And yet even when Paul mentions the resurrection and what it did for the Christians, there is not one hint of a new day. Rather, the Gentiles tell Paul to come back the NEXT Sabbath and tell them more! Acts 13:14,42,44; Acts 16:13

There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.

That's because Genesis is a book of origins, not of commands. Abraham kept God's statutes and commands. As for Moses, the Israelites were keeping the Sabbath BEFORE Mt. Sinai. It did not originate there. It was already common knowledge, "Remember the Sabbath".

The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century).

Church fathers don't mean squat over the Bible. We know that many of the Church fathers were influenced by Greek philosophers and we know where the Catholic Church went apostate. For another, Sunday didn't become an issue until 135 AD when Barnabas and Justin Martyr wanted to disassociate themselves from the Jews due to anti-Semetic beliefs and Roman persecution. The Sabbath was kept by the christian head church in Jerusalem well into the 4th century. Sabbath was kept side by side with Sunday by many Christians until this time as well. Strange thing for the head church of Christendom to do when its been done away with.

Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11).

For a proper interpretation of Hebrews 4, I recommend you read Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi's book, "Sabbath Under Crossfire". You can access several chapters on line and this one that deals with Hebrews 4 here:

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/boo ... fire/3.htm

 

[awisherofgrace]

guibox,

Sorry, nothing you posted makes a compellng argument.

It is interesting, however, that every one of ten commandements are repeated somewhere in the new testament accept the commandment regarding the keeping of the Sabbath.

 

[guibox]

guibox, Sorry, nothing you posted makes a compellng argument.

I guess it is more comforting to believe unproved and unsupportive assumptions and consider them the 'truth', while ignoring other arguments that do away with the assumptive reasoning, or at the least, provide the alternative in just as convincing light. The fact that the head Christian church in Jerusalem was keeping the Sabbath is more convincing that the Sabbath was binding for Christians than any mistranslation of Paul's meager, amiguous texts trying to support Sunday. Its not there. You cannot support Sunday observance from the NT. Most scholars will recognize this, but people still insist they are there. People will believe anything they want whether the scriptures truly say that or not.

I guess if you stretched the concept of the "Sabbath for the Jews" argument, you could make an argument for the Sabbath not being valid. But Sunday worship? Nope. The evidence proves more that both Christ and Paul kept the Sabbath.

Anybody can ignore the texts. Most Sunday supporters would rather be 'right in their own mind' then accept any truth, or even the fact that they might wrong.

And more and more scholars, leaders and laity outside the SDA or SD Baptist faiths are becoming Sabbath keepers. Why? Because the 'abrogation of the Sabbath' arguments are weak and full of holes and the case for Sabbath observance is in the scriptures.

 

[awisherofgrace]

guibox,

You miss the point.

Christians are to keep all days holy. We are called to holy living. If you want to keep the Sabbath on Saturday, be my guest.

 

[Elijah message]

It is also interesting to note that God says that He does not change..'The SAME FOREVER'! In Rev. 1:10 he still declares His Lords day through Johns pen! John's years of the past up until this time of AD 96 never once even hinted that Rev. 12:17 ones, + many other verses, ever needed to be touched up and corrected. Even the Master's Words in the prophecy of 70 AD's destruction and of the prayer of the Sabbath flight would necessitate an eraser? And in AD 90 the beloved John was very strongly telling all eternity that if one did not keep the Covenant commandments, that the person was a 'liar and that there was no truth in him'. 1 John 2:4

Surely while in vision on the Lord's Day, the Holy Spirit would have brought to John's knowledge or 'remembrance', that his doctrine was flawed and needed changing if that were the case. But instead, God gave the closure of the book over in Rev. 22:8-10 that even the angels .. for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, [and of them that keep the sayings of this book]: worship God."

---Elijah

 

[awisherofgrace]

Elijah message,

Great...keep all the OT requiremnets. I'll send you some sheep to sacrifice.

 

[Elijah message]

Elijah message,

Great...keep all the OT requiremnets. I'll send you some sheep to sacrifice.

_______________________

Elijah here:

Just what are you confused about? Are you telling me that Paul is talking about Gods 10 Commandments being a curse??

If so, you best check out Gal. 2:11-13 to see what 'the subject' being addressed was about? 'of the circumcism'! Then 16-18 was still pointing to this same topic!

And if that is not clear, read verse 11 for where Paul called Peter down? The reference is seen in Acts 5:1-2 & has absolutely NOTHING to do with God Royal Law or ten commandments written in stone!
Notice the verse:

"And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, [and said,] Except ye 'be circumcised' after the MANNER OF MOSES, [YE CANNOT BE SAVED]." Can you even suggest that, that was found in the 10 Commandments of God???

But not only was this the Subject, but verse 5 also includes 'other's than just Peter' as well, and take notice that it C-L-E-A-R-L-Y
states in this 'inspired' verse.. COMMAND them to keep 'THE LAW OF Moses'!

"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them [AND] to command them to keep the [Law of Moses]."

It goes on to say that the apostles and the elders came together to consider this matter! What matter was that? READ IT AGAIN until you get it right! (no offence meant!) But you, my friends seem to be just as dense as they? You remind me of Peter's Vision of Acts 10, with the reams & reams of PhD stuff penned! And it seems that most of these come out with tainted understanding. Now: What were the Laws of Moses?

Paul stated that:
'But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are [found sinners], is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For [if I build the things which I destroyed, I make myself a trangressor].'

[This verse] tells of the Universal Covenant 10 commandment law. For where 'NO LAW IS, THERE IS NO TRANGRESSION'. (Rom. 4:15) How could Paul say we could be 'found sinners' if there were [now], no law?
With no law, one can readily [see] what the world has become, huh?

OK: Back in Deut. 31 were see Moses with a LAW contained in a book. Called the [Book of the Law!] We also see it placed in the side of the Ark of God! Not inside of the Ark of God, where His 10 Commandments Royal Universal Covenant was & IS LOCATED!!

It was the law of Moses that was nailed to the Cross! [ALL of the CEREMONIAL LAWS] that pointed to Christs death on the Cross. These were all added because of sin. Gal. 3:19. What were these law?? God does not leave us ignorant if we will search as He commanded. (2 Tim. 3:16-*Matt. 4:4-Matt. 28:20)

Paul also includes Col. 2:9-20 & Eph. 2:12-15 with these Laws of 'ordinances' and 'holy day' and 'the new moons, and the Sabbath day's'! These 'holy days' are the Sabbath of Moses law. NEVER ARE THEY THE 4TH COMMANDMENT OF THE TEN!!Notice Deut 30:10 for the [plural] of commandment's'! "If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep [his commandments] and His statues which are written [in THIS BOOK of the law, ..." (both the statues & these commandments are written in the BOOK OF THE LAW)

Again take note in Deut. 31:9 & verses 24-26. And note verse 26 closes with .. "Take [this book of the law] and [put it in the 'side of the Ark'] of the covenant of the Lord (notice these Words, & the Col. 2:14's Words of 'Against us') your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee".

And Paul's choice of Words.. Sabbath day's' plural, feast day's' plural, holy day's' plural? We even see in Acts 12:1-5 that Herod had James killed & Peter was locked up, and it was the Jews of old Israel that were keeping [this Feast Day] that you all keep today, you call it EASTER! (verse 3-4 ibid..) And you say that you are.. 'cursed with a curse'. Gal. 1:6-9??

One can understand Paul if you become the spiritual Jew of Rom. 2:28-38! Born Again.

Notice the law of Moses:
"Even after a certain rate [every day], offering according to the [*commandments of Moses], on [the Sabbath's], and on [the new moon's'], and on THENotice again the Law of Moses!! 2 Chron.. 8:13e [solemn feast's'], (Easter, huh?) three times in the year, even the [feast of unleavened bread] and the [feast of week's'] and the feasts of [tabernacle's']."

These laws ALL pointed to the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin's of the world. When the Vail rent from top to bottom by an unseen hand, these laws of Moses were FINISHED, (Gal. 3:19) and the way was made into the Most Holy Place itself! Here is where the Ark of God was seen that had His 'TESTIMONY inside of His Ark! See Rev. 11:19.

NOW: Bottom line! Notice real good.
"And hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a SIGN between [Me and you], that ye [may know that I am the Lord your God]. Notwithstanding the children rebelled [against me: they walked not in my 'STATUES' ... WHEREFORE I GAVE THEM [ALSO] STATUES THAT WERE NOT GOOD, AND JUDGEMENTS WHEREBY THEY SHOULD *NOT LIVE.." Eze. 20:verse 20 & verse 25.What did that say?? Read it AGAIN!

---Elijah

 

[awisherofgrace]

Elijah - Are you on some medication?

P.S. Where do you want me to send the sheep?

 

[Elijah message]

Elijah - Are you on some medication?

P.S. Where do you want me to send the sheep?

*********

Hi, no need to be concerned about being critical of me . :fadein:

But any real Christian would just attack the message perhaps? But, how then would we know that they were a Christian, if that were the case, huh??

And the question following your post is also interesting. Saul had just received letter's no doubt for the killing of Stephen. So it makes sense that when Christ 'met' Saul on the road Damascus & said that it was hard for him (Saul) to kick against the 'pricks', (of the Holy Spirit) and that he was persecuting Jesus through His Church. See from Acts 6:10 on to where Stephen was finally murdered, then no doubt that Saul was at his supposed trial, and heard the TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT FILLED STEPHEN also? This was the 'pricks' that Christ was referring of late, too? I say 'of late', because Saul was a devote Jew and ALL THE SEED had been sown before hand.

Now: I would not venture to know how close Saul came to the sin against the Holy Ghost? Yet, this was CHRIST TALKING WITH SAUL PERSON TO PERSON! And, Saul could have gone either direction in making a FATAL [MATURE] DECISION. (see Gen. 4:7) Even such as the Rich young ruler had? Perhaps Saul replaced him? Think of Saul from a real killer, and then in just a few short verses later, of becoming Born Again?? See if you can locate how it came about]!! (Acts 9:6)

Another thought is about your question, why did not Christ just speak the Words of healing to the 'blinded' Saul?? Christ had just a short time earlier gave the 'keys to ZION'S HEAVENLY KINGDOM' to HIS ESTABLISHED CHURCH! And that is where Saul was COMMANDED to go to be TOLD WHAT 'YOU MUST DO' Again, NO LOOSE CANNONS SEEN HERE!!

----Elijah

 

[Vic C.]

Elijah - Are you on some medication?

P.S. Where do you want me to send the sheep?

Please refrain from posting insults like this. Thank you. :-?

 

[awisherofgrace]

vic,

There are many people who are on medication...it is no disgrace to be on medication.

Thanks!

 

[awisherofgrace]

Elijah,

Last post on the matter:

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

....

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

 

[guibox]

awisherofgrace, please read the following commentary on this verse. You can't just take the verse and apply it to the Sabbath the way you are. You're ignoring so much of the context. That is not how you study the bible. It is long, but important. Do you want to be informed, or do you just want to keep on believing what you are believing?

Sincerely,

guibox
_____________________________________________________________

The Sabbath is not specifically mentioned in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. However, in chapter 14, the Apostle distinguishes between two types of believers: the "strong" who believed "he may eat anything" and the "weak" who ate only "vegetables" and drank no wine (Rom 14:2, 21). The difference extended also to the observance of days, as indicated by Paul’s statement: "One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind" (Rom 14:5). 

Many Christians maintain that the weekly Sabbath comes within the scope of this distinction respecting days. They presume that the "weak" believers esteemed the Sabbath better than other days while "the strong" treated the Sabbath like the rest of the weekdays. For example, the Worldwide Church of God uses Romans 14:5 to argue that "Paul did not teach Gentile Christians to keep the Sabbath. He actually told them that the Sabbath was not an area in which we should be judged."29 "That is because something had happened to change the basis of our relationship with God . . . the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because of that, the Old Covenant laws came to an end. Days are no longer a matter for judging behavior."30 In a similar vein, Ratzlaff concludes that "The ‘days’ mentioned in this chapter [Rom 14:5] that some ‘regard’ and ‘observe’ over other days, are probably Sabbath days, although the evidence is not conclusive."31

No Reference to Mosaic Law. Can the Sabbath be legitimately read into this passage? The answer is "No!" for at least three reasons. First, the conflict between the "weak" and the "strong" over diet and days cannot be traced back to the Mosaic law. The "weak man" who "eats only vegetables" (Rom 14:2), drinks no wine (Rom 14:21), and "esteems one day as better [apparently for fasting] than another" (Rom 14:5) can claim no support for such convictions from the Old Testament. Nowhere does the Mosaic law prescribe strict vegetarianism, total abstinence from fermented and unfermented wine,32 and a preference for fasting days. 

Similarly, the "strong man" who "believes he may eat anything" (Rom 14:2) and who "esteems all days alike" is not asserting his freedom from the Mosaic law but from ascetic beliefs apparently derived from sectarian movements. The whole discussion then is not about freedom to observe the law versus freedom from its observance, but concerns "unessential" scruples of conscience dictated not by divine precepts but by human conventions and superstitions. Since these differing convictions and practices did not undermine the essence of the Gospel, Paul advises mutual tolerance and respect in this matter.

That the Mosaic law is not at stake in Romans 14 is also indicated by the term "koinosâ€â€common" which is used in verse 14 to designate "unclean" food. This term is radically different from the word "akathartosâ€â€impure" used in Leviticus 11 (Septuagint) to designate unlawful foods. This suggests that the dispute was not over meat which was unlawful according to the Mosaic Law, but about meat which per se was lawful to eat but because of its association with idol worship (cf. 1 Cor 8:1-13) was regarded by some as "koinosâ€â€common," that is, to be avoided by Christians.

A second point to note is that Paul applies the basic principle "observe it in honor of the Lord" (Rom 14:6) only to the case of the person "who observes the day." He never says the opposite, namely, "the man who esteems all days alike, esteems them in honor of the Lord." In other words, with regard to diet, Paul teaches that one can honor the Lord both by eating and by abstaining (Rom 14:6); but with regard to days, he does not even concede that the person who regards all the days alike does so to the Lord. Thus, Paul hardly gives his endorsement to those who esteemed all days alike.

Sabbathkeeping: For "Weak" Believers? Finally, if as generally presumed, it was the "weak" believer who observed the Sabbath, Paul would classify himself with the "weak" since he observed the Sabbath and other Jewish feasts (Acts 18:4, 19; 17:1, 10, 17; 20:16). Paul, however, views himself as "strong" ("we who are strong"â€â€Rom 15:1); thus, he could not have been thinking of Sabbathkeeping when he speaks of the preference over days.

Support for this conclusion is also provided by Paul’s advice: "Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind" (Rom 14:5). It is difficult to see how Paul could reduce the observance of holy days such as the Sabbath, Passover, and Pentecost to a matter of personal conviction without ever explaining the reason for it. This is especially surprising since he labors at great length to explain why circumcision was not binding upon the Gentiles.

If Paul taught his Gentile converts to regard Sabbathkeeping as a personal matter, Jewish Christians readily would have attacked his temerity in setting aside the Sabbath law, as they did regarding circumcision (Acts 21:21). The fact that there is no hint of any such controversy in the New Testament indicates that Paul never discouraged Sabbathkeeping or encouraged Sundaykeeping instead.33

No Hint of Conflict. The preference over days in Romans presumably had to do with fast days rather than feast days, since the context deals with abstinence from meat and wine (Rom 14:2, 6, 21). Support for this view is provided by the Didache (ch. 8) which enjoins Christians to fast on Wednesday and Friday rather than on Monday and Thursday like the Jews.

Paul refuses to deliberate on private matters such as fasting, because he recognizes that spiritual exercises can be performed in different ways by different people. The important thing for Paul is to "pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding" (Rom 14:19).

If the conflict in the Roman Church had been over the observance of holy days, the problem would have been even more manifest than the one over diet. After all, eating habits are a private matter, but Sabbath-keeping is a public, religious exercise of the whole community. Any disagreement on the latter would have been not only noticeable but also inflammatory.

The fact that Paul devotes 21 verses to the discussion of food and less than two verses (Rom 14:5-6) to that of days suggests that the latter was a very limited problem for the Roman Church, presumably because it had to do with private conviction on the merit or demerit of doing certain spiritual exercises such as fasting on some specific days.

In the Roman world there was a superstitious belief that certain days were more favorable than others for undertaking some specific projects. The Fathers frequently rebuked Christians for adopting such a superstitious mentality.34 Possibly, Paul alludes to this kind of problem, which at his time was still too small to deserve much attention. Since these practices did not undermine the essence of the Gospel, Paul advises mutual tolerance and respect on this matter. In the light of these considerations, we conclude that it is hardly possible that Sabbathkeeping is included in the "days" of Romans 14:5.

Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi "The Sabbath Under Crossfire"

 

[awisherofgrace]

guibox,

Sorry...read it completely and carefully, and it doesn't pass the giggle test..

Thanks!

 

[Elijah message]

vic,

There are many people who are on medication...it is no disgrace to be on medication.

Thanks!

*************
Elijah cries! :. Why? Only because of more Adventist Laodicean garbeling, maybe??? (that is a question mark, meaning that I might be wrong!) Anyhow, look here below!

"But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully.." 2 Cor. 4:2

How a person understands what we say might not mean as much as what God records what we really mean, huh, Vic? (not you, but the posters message)

Notice anothers opinion here:
"Jesus proceeded to lay down a principle that would make oath taking needless. He teaches that exact truth be the law of speech. ... (of our words) They condemn the deceptive compliments, the evasion of truth, the flattering phases, the exaggerations, the misrepresentations ... How often pride, passion, personal resentment, color the impression given! A glance, a word, even an intonation of the voice, may be vital with falsehood. Even facts may be so stated as to convey a false impression. And "whatsoever is more than that, "is of the evil one."
--E.G.White, Thought From The Mount Of Blessing Pg .66-67 in part.

Victor, thanks! But there is no need to be concerned with this past post to me. We all post on many thread subject, and the best evidence given for the truth of any 'message', is by the 'Spirit' seen by the one posting it! Surely we would not want to 'block' away this evidence would we??

With that being said: Your messages are received well by me, even if we do not agree, huh? :fadein: (yet! But, thanks anyway!

---Elijah

 

[evanman]

I cannot see any commentary on the part of awisherofgrace. This person simply posted scriptures. They did not apply it whoever read the scriptures and quibbled over it's application is the one that applied it.

It is certainly true, the scriptures speak clearly! We all know what Paul was speaking about, it contradicts the legalistic stance.