# Can we not keep the 4th commandment and be saved?



## DonP (Mar 28, 2009)

Many verses tell us we must keep the commandments if we are born again. What about he 4th commandment? So many today because they are taught poorly do not obey this command. Will they be able to say to God, I didn't know I was not supposed to lie, or I did not know I was not supposed to not have graven images or I didn't know I had to keep the 4th command, the sabbath? 

Or will God say ignorance of the moral law is no excuse?

1 John 3:24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. NKJV

1 John 3:22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. NKJV

1 John 3:4-10 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 
7 Little children, *let no one deceive you. *He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 

10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. NKJV

John 14:21-24
21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. 
22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, *how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world*?" 
23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, *he will keep My word;* and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words;
NKJV

John 15:10 *If you keep My commandments,* you will abide in My love,NKJV


----------



## MMasztal (Mar 28, 2009)

This was discussed at some length at the recent Ligonier conference in Orlando.

Sadly, I don't think keeping the Sabbath is a frequent topic of sermons.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 28, 2009)

Recently through a pastor here on PB, I have come to observe the Sabbath in all respects. My only hang up is the day change which really isn't a hang up for me, but I would be unable to argue this point of the Sabbath with a person who doesn't observe the Sabbath. Anyway, I think it wrong to assume with certainty that those who do not observe the Sabbath are not saved. In fact, I wouldn't ever assume that. I observe the Sabbath now for this reason: every other day of the week is for my sanctification where everything I do is to glorify God. The Sabbath is a day unto God where it is a time when I worship Him, acknowledge who He is and what He has done, it's all about Him etc. It is a love gift from me to Him (ironically I also benefit from this because He is gracious). It is a time set aside for me to be intimate and focused only on Him. I probably don't feel it to be a commandment set in stone like the rest of you which if a person doesn't observe it they are automatically not saved.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 28, 2009)

Honestly, I think that however good the intention behind this question may be (keeping the commandment of God honorable is certainly a noble intention, and holding forth the necessity of our obedience contrary to the rank antinomianism one often finds today), nevertheless I find the question fundamentally flawed: this belongs to the genus of questions, "_How much_ sin can I do and still be saved?" The focus is not upon the proper object.

Instead, we ought rather to trust in both the mercy of God, and in his continued promise to sanctify his children and to bring us unto that perfect obedience in glory -- both leaving the hidden things to God, and fervently exhorting the necessity of obedience and repentance while we yet walk upon this earth.


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Mar 28, 2009)

> Many verses tell us we must keep the commandments if we are born again. What about he 4th commandment? So many today because they are taught poorly do not obey this command. Will they be able to say to God, I didn't know I was not supposed to lie, or I did not know I was not supposed to not have graven images or I didn't know I had to keep the 4th command, the sabbath?



Honestly, this post kinda bothers me. As a Christian I am not saved by keeping any commandments. I am saved by the grace of God through Christ.
The commandments are a rule of life for the Christian, and have nothing to do with a person's salvation. We try to keep the commands of God because we love Him, not because we hope to be saved by them.

A wonderful book to read on this subject is Samuel Bolton's "The True Bounds Of Christian Freedom".


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Mar 28, 2009)

We are not saved by our imperfect observation of any of the commandments, but by the completed atoning work of Christ and his perfect righteousness fully imputed to us at the instant of saving faith, made possible by his gracious regeneration and effectual calling of the elect.

However, those saved by God’s grace in Christ will to differing degrees delight in the law of God, grieve over the sin which continues to dwell in them, and by God’s grace, thorough continuing faith in Christ, making use of the means of grace, seek Holy Spirit power to overcome their natural disinclination and inability to obey God’s commandments, all ten of them, and their implied obligations and restrictions in though word and deed.

Grace does not make void any of God’s moral law.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Mar 28, 2009)

I recently got into a discussion where the main counter-argument was that the fourth (and only the fourth) commandment was ceremonial, not moral, and therefore did not require compliance.

Comments?


----------



## etexas (Mar 28, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> We are not saved by our imperfect observation of any of the commandments, but by the completed atoning work of Christ and his perfect righteousness fully imputed to us at the instant of saving faith, made possible by his gracious regeneration and effectual calling of the elect.
> 
> However, those saved by God’s grace in Christ will to differing degrees delight in the law of God, grieve over the sin which continues to dwell in them, and by God’s grace, thorough continuing faith in Christ, making use of the means of grace, seek Holy Spirit power to overcome their natural disinclination and inability to obey God’s commandments, all ten of them, and their implied obligations and restrictions in though word and deed.
> 
> Grace does not make void any of God’s moral law.


We follow commands FROM a "law" of love: it "to me" is not Salvation/Not Salvation it is Fruits of my love for the Savour who saved me. If I felt it was Salvation/Not Salvation ,oddly it would bring me to an Arminian "not Sure about my Salvation" Heaven knows I have slipped on following and understanding the tables at times but my assurance is that in the Holy Ghost, Scripture, and The Church I become "aware" of these failings and ask forgiveness and with Our Lord's help, move forward. Grace and Peace.


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Many verses tell us we must keep the commandments if we are born again. What about he 4th commandment? So many today because they are taught poorly do not obey this command. Will they be able to say to God, I didn't know I was not supposed to lie, or I did not know I was not supposed to not have graven images or I didn't know I had to keep the 4th command, the sabbath?
> 
> Or will God say ignorance of the moral law is no excuse?
> 
> ...


The ten commandments summarily comprehend the moral law, which God commands, His creation, mankind to obey. God's holy standard is perfect obedience. Only Christ did that, which is why He alone satisfied God's standard and was the perfect sacrifice for our sin. Faith in that, Christ's righteousness alone, is the basis for our salvation.

For the believer, who is given faith and called to continue believe and repent of sin, the ten commandments, including the fourth one are a "rule for life." They are something of a summary of what the Christian life is to look like. (That means stopping the pursuit of money and seeking to entertain oneself one day in seven in order to prioritze the whole day on the worship of God).

If a believer does not obey one of them regularly, say the fourth one, will he lose his salvation? No, because he didn't get saved by his own obedience in the first place, but only by the undeserved mercy of a marvelous God.

So, what does happen to a Christian when he disobeys (sins) in thought word, and deed and says, for example, I am not going to prioritize worship of God, and keep the sabbath holy?


> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter VI
> Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof
> ...



What will a believer suffer for sin?

Not a loss of salvation, but the sense of isolation from their Creator, misery, the unwelcomed consequences of their sin, and perhaps suffer other kinds of loss at the judgment seat of Christ.

Oh, that God's people would understand that... and, by God's grace, repent of their sin, and by faith believe!


----------



## DonP (Mar 28, 2009)

I think all on this board will agree we do not get saved by keeping the commandments, nor can we lose our salvation by not. Nor do I mean to ask how much sin can we do and still be saved, which I would agree is an improper question for a Christian to ask. 

The question I poorly posed was, is a person who does not obey the commands converted?

And as far as human judgment and church discipline can we admit to membership one who does not keep any one of the commands. 

And what of those people taught not to keep the 4th command, are they not born again because God has not put in their hear the desire to obey all of the commands, though we never keep them perfectly, by saving faith we do desire to and make a consistent attempt to. 

1 John 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. NASB

Can this be said of the 4th command or those who appear to make graven images.


----------



## lynnie (Mar 28, 2009)

Are you not converted if you have lust or greed or worry?

Can you be a church member if you do not love God with all your heart? Hum, the churches will be empty. Nobody on earth loves Him with all their heart. 

_I recently got into a discussion where the main counter-argument was that the fourth (and only the fourth) commandment was ceremonial, not moral, and therefore did not require compliance.

Comments? _

Well, wasn't this John Calvin's position essentially? ( I happen to agree with a physical day and not just Hebrews 4, but dare we say Calvin was not converted?)


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 28, 2009)

Scottish Lass said:


> I recently got into a discussion where the main counter-argument was that the fourth (and only the fourth) commandment was ceremonial, not moral, and therefore did not require compliance.
> 
> Comments?



So the fourth commandment is the only one of the Ten Commandments that is not moral? Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount indicates a paradigmatic way of interpreting all the commandments, and none of them are left behind. James tells us also that the law is one unbroken whole (James 2:8-11). I do realize that you are quoting someone else's argument. So, I am responding to your interlocutor.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 28, 2009)

While we all appreciate continued zeal for the gospel of grace, I think many are jumping to conclusions and completely talking past the OP. 

Every one of us knows that someone who claims the name of Christian but remains in an adulterous relationship for the rest of his life is not really saved. The question, then, is simple. If this is true for other commandments, why not for the fourth commandment?

The best answer I can come up with is that we can't agree on what the fourth commandment entails today, so we treat it as a "non-essential."


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> I think all on this board will agree we do not get saved by keeping the commandments, nor can we lose our salvation by not. Nor do I mean to ask how much sin can we do and still be saved, which I would agree is an improper question for a Christian to ask.
> 
> The question I poorly posed was, is a person who does not obey the commands converted?
> 
> ...



James 2:10 

10For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.


----------



## DonP (Mar 28, 2009)

lynnie said:


> Are you not converted if you have lust or greed or worry?
> 
> Can you be a church member if you do not love God with all your heart? Hum, the churches will be empty. Nobody on earth loves Him with all their heart.
> 
> ...



No I do not think this was Calvin's position. Some say he was weak or had a continental view of the sabbath because of a questionable report of him lawn bowling, but the Dutch Ministers were very clear and strict on the sabbath and so was Calvin if you read him thoroughly. 
To clear the error this article is great.

On John Calvin’s doctrine of the fourth commandment see especially Institutes of the Christian Religion, II, viii. 28-34. The three points of his Sabbath doctrine are: (1) Sabbath is a figure of spiritual rest in Christ; (2) Sabbath serves as a day for public worship; (3) Sabbath serves as a day of rest for servants and beasts. Perhaps the best study of Calvin’s view is Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.’s unpublished Th. M. thesis, Calvin and the Sabbath (Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1962). Calvin’s view may be called a ‘practical Sabbatarianism’ – an evaluation supported by the recent investigation of John H. Primus … although Primus avoids the phrase.[6]

In his several writings on this topic, John Primus has probably done the most in recent times to set the record straight on Calvin and Lord’s Day observance.[7] He demonstrates clearly from Calvin’s 34th Sermon on Deuteronomy that while Calvin’s doctrine of the fourth commandment differs from that of the Puritans, the ethic of how one is to observe the day is similar.[8] Primus writes, "Calvin calls for a literal, physical cessation of daily labor on the Lord’s Day, not as an end in itself, but to provide time for worship of God. Recreational activity should also be suspended, for such activity interferes with worship as certainly as daily labor does. ‘If we spend the Lord’s day in making good cheer, and in playing and gaming, is that a good honouring of God? Nay, is it not a mockery, yea and a very unhallowing of his name?’"[9] Calvin 
I commend this excellent article quoted above and found at Calvin in the Hands of the Philistines: or, Did Calvin Bowl on the Sabbath? by Chris Coldwell

And as has been said no one keeps the commands perfectly but Lynnie would you say you do not believe in Loving the Lord with all your heart and that you do not try to love the Lord with all your heart because you do not belie you are commanded to?
This is the issue we are speaking to on the 4th commandment. 

And why would this one not be part of the moral law of God, it was around before the 10 were given to Israel. Where do we read in scripture it is not part of moral law? And lastly, that would be an unconfessional position.


----------



## lshepler412 (Mar 28, 2009)

Many Christians, even some who are Reformed do not believe the command extends beyond attending church on Sunday. They eat out and go shopping on Sunday. I miss having an evening service because I think the day should be spent in prayer and praise and in hearing and reading God's Word as the catechism says. They may not have an accurate view of the Sabbath but I definitely don't think that means they aren't saved.


----------



## DonP (Mar 28, 2009)

lshepler412 said:


> They may not have an accurate view of the Sabbath but I definitely don't think that means they aren't saved.



So are you saying, if one said they do not believe the commandment not to have images and they have them they can be saved and if one says I do not believe the commandment to not steal applies to us under grace it was for Israel only, they can be converted by the miraculous saving grace of God and be a new creature, old things passed away and all things new?


----------



## Hippo (Mar 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> lshepler412 said:
> 
> 
> > They may not have an accurate view of the Sabbath but I definitely don't think that means they aren't saved.
> ...



Of course they can be saved, whether they are or not is another question. We all have hidden sin (I doubt that we truly Love God with all our hearts) but we can still be saved by grace.


----------



## raekwon (Mar 28, 2009)

Seems to me that the answer to the original question is the same as it would be for any other commandment: "Not without Jesus".


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 28, 2009)

Davidius said:


> While we all appreciate continued zeal for the gospel of grace, I think many are jumping to conclusions and completely talking past the OP.
> 
> Every one of us knows that someone who claims the name of Christian but remains in an adulterous relationship for the rest of his life is not really saved. The question, then, is simple. If this is true for other commandments, why not for the fourth commandment?
> 
> The best answer I can come up with is that we can't agree on what the fourth commandment entails today, so we treat it as a "non-essential."



Respectfully, while this may apply to some responses, make sure you're not talking past the responses themselves. I am a presbyterian: clearly I believe that observing the sabbath is binding just as much as any of the other nine commandments. What I object to is the nature or form of the question itself: "How much can one sin and still be saved?"


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 28, 2009)

> *PeaceMaker
> *
> On John Calvin’s doctrine of the fourth commandment see especially Institutes of the Christian Religion, II, viii. 28-34. The three points of his Sabbath doctrine are:



You may find a search of the Board on this helpful to see this discussed, or you may wish to start another thread on it.

Suffice it to say, even the greatest of the great whom God has gifted as theologians aren't perfect.


----------



## DonP (Mar 28, 2009)

Hippo said:


> Of course they can be saved, whether they are or not is another question. We all have hidden sin (I doubt that we truly Love God with all our hearts) but we can still be saved by grace.



As I pointed out in a previous post, there is a difference between not keeping a command perfectly and not choosing to keep it at all. 

Don't you see a difference? 
To me one is imperfections of the flesh,one is rebellion or at least not obeying.
In His Service,


----------



## Davidius (Mar 28, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > While we all appreciate continued zeal for the gospel of grace, I think many are jumping to conclusions and completely talking past the OP.
> ...



I still think the issue is that you don't understand the question. Mr. Partridge has clarified his meaning in several subsequent posts, and you still seem to believe that he's asking how much one can sin without losing his salvation.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 28, 2009)

I shall not wrangle; I understand the question and I realize it is not about losing salvation.

I apologize for not having expressed my objection more clearly. Peace, brother.


----------



## Theoretical (Mar 28, 2009)

Davidius said:


> While we all appreciate continued zeal for the gospel of grace, I think many are jumping to conclusions and completely talking past the OP.
> 
> Every one of us knows that someone who claims the name of Christian but remains in an adulterous relationship for the rest of his life is not really saved. The question, then, is simple. If this is true for other commandments, why not for the fourth commandment?
> 
> The best answer I can come up with is that we can't agree on what the fourth commandment entails today, so we treat it as a "non-essential."


Assume WLC-grade Sabbatarianism is the standard for this discussion.

What makes persistent Sabbath-breaking (even out of ignorance) any different than ongoing adultery? This is what the question posed appears to be suggesting.

If adultery is the greatest 7th-breaker, then what would be its corresponding 4th commandment equivalent?

Now have a professing Christian week-in and week-out break it (since we're using the 7th) not in the sense of one having periodic struggles with a random lustful thought, but in the sene of ongoing adultery. Arguably most of the American church, including those who are sound in every other area of doctrine and practice, have this massive blind spot regarding the 4th.

The question is how if at all does persistent sabbath breaking differ from persistent sexual immorality, chronic lying/deceit, and the like in terms of identifying someone as Christian.


----------



## Hippo (Mar 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> As I pointed out in a previous post, there is a difference between not keeping a command perfectly and not choosing to keep it at all.
> 
> Don't you see a difference?
> To me one is imperfections of the flesh,one is rebellion or at least not obeying.
> In His Service,



But "imperfections of the flesh" are rebellion, that is the nature of the original sin that permeates our flesh. 

If you were to say that there is reason to doubt the salvation of those who do not grow in the fruits of salvation then absolutley yes, but such growth takes time and may never be completed in this life. Someone may not understand the 4th commandment until his later years or that same person may die young. The failure of him reaching a destination of sanctification in this life is immaterial to salvation.


----------



## DonP (Mar 28, 2009)

Theoretical said:


> Assume WLC-grade Sabbatarianism is the standard for this discussion.
> 
> What makes persistent Sabbath-breaking (even out of ignorance) any different than ongoing adultery? This is what the question posed appears to be suggesting.
> 
> ...



Thanks, now having clarified the question would you please give us the answer?


----------



## Davidius (Mar 28, 2009)

Hippo said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> > As I pointed out in a previous post, there is a difference between not keeping a command perfectly and not choosing to keep it at all.
> ...



The question has to do with someone who obstinately, their whole life long, rejects the commandment. Why are they treated differently from someone who does that with the other commandments, like lying, stealing, adulterating, image worship, etc.?

Again, I submit that we throw it on our arbitrary pile of "non-essentials" because we can't agree on what the 4th commandment actually means. If someone claims to know what keeping the Sabbath entails, he cannot consistently say that the person who obstinately refuses to abide by that commandment is actually full of the grace of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 28, 2009)

Davidius said:


> The question has to do with someone who obstinately, their whole life long, rejects the commandment. Why are they treated differently from someone who does that with the other commandments, like lying, stealing, adulterating, image worship, etc.?
> 
> Again, I submit that we throw it on our arbitrary pile of "non-essentials" because we can't agree on what the 4th commandment actually means. If someone claims to know what keeping the Sabbath entails, he cannot consistently say that the person who obstinately refuses to abide by that commandment is actually full of the grace of the Holy Spirit.



They shouldn't be treated differently. They should be admonished all alike. If, at least, we are right about the Sabbath (which I do not doubt).

Although, practically considered, this one requires perhaps more gentleness and sensitivity. Few do not realize lying is wrong; more, perhaps, sincerely do not realize sabbath-breaking is a sin. Rather than coming at these with both cannons blazing, we should approach them with gentle admonishment and direction first.


----------



## lynnie (Mar 28, 2009)

Peacemaker- thank you for the very interesting quotes about Calvin. I never researched it, but just assumed that he was heavy on the Hebrews 4, Christ our sabbath, position from what I have heard.

So, is the standard joke that John Calvin could not be ordained in the OPC because of his position on the Sabbath true or not? I would be curious to hear from the OPC guys here. If they say he could not be ordained, well then, I think that has a lot to say to the initial post. I do think he was converted .


----------



## Hippo (Mar 28, 2009)

Davidius said:


> The question has to do with someone who obstinately, their whole life long, rejects the commandment. Why are they treated differently from someone who does that with the other commandments, like lying, stealing, adulterating, image worship, etc.?



The short answer is that they are not, but it is God who decides how he treats us and his decision is unconditional on our actions.

We all obstinately sin, anyone who denies that does not understand sin, ignoring the OP which is at best badly worded the question that you ask is more to do with Church discipline than anyone else. Underlying your points is the concept of how far is our concept of Church discipline culteraly based, i.e. which sins are culturaly acceptable.

This is an interesting point and worthy of discussion but it is that wider subject that should be discussed, not some subset of sin that you happen to feel strongly about.


----------



## lynnie (Mar 28, 2009)

_And as has been said no one keeps the commands perfectly but Lynnie would you say you do not believe in Loving the Lord with all your heart and that you do not try to love the Lord with all your heart because you do not belie you are commanded to?
This is the issue we are speaking to on the 4th commandment. _

Of course I believe we *should*. I just thought Calvin ( and others) are convinced that they obey it just by being in Christ ( Heb 4). We all want to obey, the question is how.

I have a messianic friend who is certain she pleases God and obeys by celebrating all the feasts. We are commanded to celebrate them too. But I say that in Christ I keep the Passover in communion, and all the rest of the feasts in other ways, in Him. So I do obey all the law, every word, but it is by his perfect active obedience imputed to me. Not by what I do.


----------



## DonP (Mar 28, 2009)

Hippo said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> > As I pointed out in a previous post, there is a difference between not keeping a command perfectly and not choosing to keep it at all.
> ...



You little rascal you, you did not answer my question?

Do you see the difference of saying I choose not to believe and obey that command and not keeping it perfectly when you believe it and want to?

And are we all saying we disagree with the WC and that we do not have an adequate understanding of the Sabbath? Being Confessional I do know a minimal requirement of the sabbath. I like Larger Cat on it as well. 

And Lynnie as for Calvin, well he certainly could be ordained in the NW pres of the OPC.  I mean  
Read the articles and you will see he was more of a sabbatarian than many who claim to be today.


----------



## gene_mingo (Mar 28, 2009)

My short answer would be yes, we can completely reject all of the commandments our entire lives and the moment we are about to die, God can save us. This would apply to all the law.

I guess I always saw the story of the thief on the cross as evidence of this.


----------



## Hippo (Mar 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > But "imperfections of the flesh" are rebellion, that is the nature of the original sin that permeates our flesh.
> ...



Just becuase you do not like my answer does not mean I did not give one

I do not agree the distinction between not obeying and not obeying perfectly. 

You seem to see a failure to obey perfectly as not really being our fault, perhaps because we do not have the ability to do so while you see a stark failure to obey as being in a different class but both are rooted in the same rebellion. Trying really hard does not limit the reality of sin or lessen the penalty.

Somewhere in your approach is the good point that we expect the fruits of the spirit to follow regeneration and one of these will be obeying God's commandments. What we cannot do is dictate what and when these will be.


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 28, 2009)

I believe the question makes a point but also includes a flaw. We do know from the Bible that those who persist in rebellious, unrepentant sin are not to be regarded as born again and allowed to the Lord's Supper. However, rebellious, unrepentant sin needs some qualifiers.

1. The person must be aware that their action or omission is sin.

2. They must be habitually engaged in this sin.

3. They must be in this sin without remorse or struggle against it.

4. They must have been properly confronted by the Church about it.


So, if a person were a member of an OPC church that clearly proclaimed the doctrine of the 4th commandment, and if that person mentally assented to the doctrine yet refused to live by it (not even attempting), and if the church's loving yet firm confrontation had failed to yield any fruit, then he should be delivered unto Satan. Even then, there is a possibility that the discipline itself may be God's means to bring about repentance.


----------



## DonP (Mar 28, 2009)

gene_mingo said:


> My short answer would be yes, we can completely reject all of the commandments our entire lives and the moment we are about to die, God can save us. This would apply to all the law.
> 
> I guess I always saw the story of the thief on the cross as evidence of this.



Then you agree with us that someone who does not obey all the commands all his life is not converted. 

The question was not can a sinner be converted but can person be converted and willfully not obey the commands, or even out of ignorance not obey a command. 

-----Added 3/28/2009 at 07:10:55 EST-----



Hippo said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> > Hippo said:
> ...



Its not I didn't like your answer. I didn't think you answered it. 

And yes I see imperfection as a sin. I just see it is not the same as a willful disregard of the law and obedience. The first is with us even when we have a new heart and desire to obey. The second is devoid of desire to obey.


----------



## gene_mingo (Mar 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> gene_mingo said:
> 
> 
> > My short answer would be yes, we can completely reject all of the commandments our entire lives and the moment we are about to die, God can save us. This would apply to all the law.
> ...



Absolutely not.


There is only one who kept all the commandments His entire life.

I guess then this actually leads into a discussion about sanctification perhaps.


----------



## DonP (Mar 28, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> I believe the question makes a point but also includes a flaw. We do know from the Bible that those who persist in rebellious, unrepentant sin are not to be regarded as born again and allowed to the Lord's Supper. However, rebellious, unrepentant sin needs some qualifiers.
> 
> 1. The person must be aware that their action or omission is sin.
> 
> ...



Sorry Charlie. The only test is repentance. Once instructed by their Confessional elder the need to obey all 10 commandments, should they be unrepentant and persist, none of your 1-3 matter. They repent, turn from it or they don't, they say I don't believe in the 4th command applying to me or that I can't work on the lord's day or engage in unnecessary commercial events , or should spend the day especially in holy duties for the Lord setting it apart from other days as a type of heaven etc. .

Unbelief and not submitting to the elders doctrine is also a sin.

-----Added 3/28/2009 at 07:19:00 EST-----



gene_mingo said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> > gene_mingo said:
> ...



You misunderstood. One who persists in willfully not obeying the commands all his life is unsaved. 

Not one who imperfectly attempts to keep all of them.


----------



## calgal (Mar 28, 2009)

So Don my LDS friends who would not darken the door of a grocery store, restaurant or any establishment buying and selling anything on Sunday are saved? And the folks that go out to dinner or run to the store for milk and bread are not saved?  The LDS take the fourth commandment as they understand it and try to live it. Now I am quite aware their doctrine is not Christian but they are sabbatarians and that counts for something....Or does it.... 

Speaking as a non sabbatarian, this approach frankly is not going to win any points. If you want to discuss the benefits and ways to properly spend ones Sunday (or Saturday) then that might get a listen. But being told I am unsaved for turning on a light switch, taking a shower, jumping in the car, going to church, going to the store for lunch, shoveling snow, walking the dogs, cleaning up dog poop from the yard, doing a load of laundry (dogs tend to barf and so do kids from what I hear at the worst possible time) is getting into the kind of nonsense the folks at Chabad shovel out (Hi Tim V!  ).


----------



## DonP (Mar 28, 2009)

calgal said:


> So Don my LDS friends who would not darken the door of a grocery store, restaurant or any establishment buying and selling anything on Sunday are saved? And the folks that go out to dinner or run to the store for milk and bread are not saved?  The LDS take the fourth commandment as they understand it and try to live it. Now I am quite aware their doctrine is not Christian but they are sabbatarians and that counts for something....Or does it....
> 
> Speaking as a non sabbatarian, this approach frankly is not going to win any points. If you want to discuss the benefits and ways to properly spend ones Sunday (or Saturday) then that might get a listen. But being told I am unsaved for turning on a light switch, taking a shower, jumping in the car, going to church, going to the store for lunch, shoveling snow, walking the dogs, cleaning up dog poop from the yard, doing a load of laundry (dogs tend to barf and so do kids from what I hear at the worst possible time) is getting into the kind of nonsense the folks at Chabad shovel out (Hi Tim V!  ).



That is absurd and no one has said any of that. 
Are you under conviction to retaliate so irrationally?

And I wouldn't discuss how to spend one's sunday if we are not under command to keep it as the sabbath then it would be totally a matter of personal choice.


----------



## gene_mingo (Mar 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> gene_mingo said:
> 
> 
> > PeaceMaker said:
> ...



Our fallen natures will is to sin. Until we are fully sanctified we will continue to willfully sin.

Again I think this leads to a discussion about sanctification.


----------



## he beholds (Mar 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they can be saved, whether they are or not is another question. We all have hidden sin (I doubt that we truly Love God with all our hearts) but we can still be saved by grace.
> ...



Even if one doesn't spend Sunday the same ways you do, he may 1)not be sinning, or 2) not know he's sinning. 
There are many people who think Christ is our Sabbath rest--Sunday is not the Sabbath, but the Lord's Day. 

Now if that person is right, the only way for him to not keep the Sabbath is to not be in Christ. So yes, in that understanding, one cannot be saved if he does not keep the Sabbath.


And for the question that is sure to come, why is only the fourth commandment changed? 
I think we could see that _all _of the commandments were changed in some way with Christ. With Christ came the knowledge that our hearts are really what is in question. So now we see none of us are able to keep even one of the commandments. But we know that they are all fulfilled.


----------



## cih1355 (Mar 28, 2009)

Suppose someone believes that the 4th commandment has been abrogated, but keeps the Sabbath anyway. Is he really obeying the 4th commandment?


----------



## DonP (Mar 28, 2009)

gene_mingo said:


> Our fallen natures will is to sin. Until we are fully sanctified we will continue to willfully sin.



i think 
Heb 10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. NKJV

I am not getting in to how to sanctify the sabbath in this thread, just if those God puts a new nature in, will desire to obey the 10 commandments and seek to obey them or if they can believe they do not have to obey any of them.


----------



## he beholds (Mar 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they can be saved, whether they are or not is another question. We all have hidden sin (I doubt that we truly Love God with all our hearts) but we can still be saved by grace.
> ...



WHY is there a difference? In this scenario, the two people are both sinning. In fact, it would seem the one who believes that it is a sin to do work or watch TV on the Sabbath would be more guilty for breaking it than the one who chooses not to keep it at all. Thankfully, our righteousness is not what we lean on. 



PeaceMaker said:


> gene_mingo said:
> 
> 
> > My short answer would be yes, we can completely reject all of the commandments our entire lives and the moment we are about to die, God can save us. This would apply to all the law.
> ...



Where does that desire come from? Not of yourself. 



PeaceMaker said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the question makes a point but also includes a flaw. We do know from the Bible that those who persist in rebellious, unrepentant sin are not to be regarded as born again and allowed to the Lord's Supper. However, rebellious, unrepentant sin needs some qualifiers.
> ...



I am going to make an admission here, not out of pride, because I am not proud of this. But maybe there are others who will read my post following yours and find relief. My admission: I do persist in willfully not obeying God's law, and I imagine I will do this all my life. 
I do not think it is possible to not do this, this side of glory. I want to say this for the other people who know that they sometimes sin on purpose. 
It is bad, bad, bad to sin. It is bad, bad, bad to do it on purpose. Repent of that sin! But do so while trusting in Christ's righteousness, not your own. Maybe you are blessed to know that you sin on purpose--that way you know there is nothing apart from Christ that pleases God.

Perhaps there are two types of Christians: people who sin willingly, and others who will not to sin, but just can't help it--it is not their fault, I guess. They, unlike the willful sinners, TRY to keep the law. And even though they can't, they get some credit for trying.


----------



## gene_mingo (Mar 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> gene_mingo said:
> 
> 
> > Our fallen natures will is to sin. Until we are fully sanctified we will continue to willfully sin.
> ...




I think you are incorrectly applying that verse to willfull sin.

Here is what Matthew Henry has to say about it.



> V. Having mentioned these means of establishment, the apostle proceeds, in the close of the chapter, to enforce his exhortations to perseverance, and against apostasy, by many very weighty considerations, v. 26, 27, &c.
> 1. From the description he gives of the sin of apostasy. It is sinning wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, sinning wilfully against that truth of which we have had convincing evidence. This text has been the occasion of great distress to some gracious souls; they have been ready to conclude that every wilful sin, after conviction and against knowledge, is the unpardonable sin: but this has been their infirmity and error. The sin here mentioned is a total and final apostasy, when men with a full and fixed will and resolution despise and reject Christ, the only Saviour,—despise and resist the Spirit, the only sanctifier,—and despise and renounce the gospel, the only way of salvation, and the words of eternal life; and all this after they have known, owned, and professed, the Christian religion, and continue to do so obstinately and maliciously. This is the great transgression: the apostle seems to refer to the law concerning presumptuous sinners, Num. xv. 30, 31. They were to be cut off.




I agree with M.H. and what is being discussed is total apostasy.


----------



## he beholds (Mar 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> gene_mingo said:
> 
> 
> > Our fallen natures will is to sin. Until we are fully sanctified we will continue to willfully sin.
> ...



A quick read on Calvin (and in my opinion a quick read of Hebrews 10) indicates that Heb 10:26 is speaking of apostasy, not just any sin. 


> Those who sin, mentioned by the Apostle, are not such as offend in any way, *but such as forsake the Church, and wholly alienate themselves from Christ. For he speaks not here of this or of that sin, but he condemns by name those who willfully renounced fellowship with the Church. *But there is a vast difference between particular fallings and a complete defection of this kind, by which we entirely fall away from the grace of Christ. And as this cannot be the case with any one except he has been already enlightened, he says, If we sin willfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth; as though he had said, “If we knowingly and willingly renounce the grace which we had obtained.” It is now evident how widely apart is this doctrine from the error of Novatus
> 
> And that the Apostle here refers only to apostates, is clear from the whole passage; for what he treats of is this, that those who had been once received into the Church ought not to forsake it, as some were wont to do. He now declares that there remained for such no sacrifice for sin, because they had willfully sinned after having received the knowledge of the truth. *But as to sinners who fall in any other way, Christ offers himself daily to them, so that they are to seek no other sacrifice for expiating their sins.* He denies, then, that any sacrifice remains for them who renounce the death of Christ, which is not done by any offense except by a total renunciation of the faith.
> 
> This severity of God is indeed dreadful, but it is set forth for the purpose of inspiring terror. He cannot, however, be accused of cruelty; for as the death of Christ is the only remedy by which we can be delivered from eternal death, are not they who destroy as far as they can its virtue and benefit worthy of being left to despair? *God invites to daily reconciliation those who abide in Christ; they are daily washed by the blood of Christ, their sins are daily expiated by his perpetual sacrifice. As salvation is not to be sought except in him, there is no need to wonder that all those who willfully forsake him are deprived of every hope of pardon: this is the import of the adverb ἔτι, more. But Christ’s sacrifice is efficacious to the godly even to death, though they often sin; nay, it retains ever its efficacy, for this very reason, because they cannot be free from sin as long as they dwell in the flesh.* The Apostle then refers to those alone who wickedly forsake Christ, and thus deprive themselves of the benefit of his death.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 28, 2009)

Does anyone perfectly keep the commandments? No.

Should we out of gratitude to Christ attempt with all we can muster to do so? Yes.

That's all I have to add to this thread.


----------



## calgal (Mar 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> > So Don my LDS friends who would not darken the door of a grocery store, restaurant or any establishment buying and selling anything on Sunday are saved? And the folks that go out to dinner or run to the store for milk and bread are not saved?  The LDS take the fourth commandment as they understand it and try to live it. Now I am quite aware their doctrine is not Christian but they are sabbatarians and that counts for something....Or does it....
> ...



So I note that you are not answering the question: isthe LDS who do keep the sabbath as YOU see fit are okey dokey and a Christian who decides to go get a burger is cursed?  You and others did imply that being strict (and y'all are not even close to strict: you DO turn on the stove, the lights, the water faucet, drive your cars (mandating cops, firefighters, electric and gas company workers & hospital workers work on Sunday) and any number of things that require someone else to go to work) is a sign of salvation. So then at what point does one "look unsaved?" 

And despite your amusing attempts at a slur, I am under conviction to loathe idolatry and extreme legalism in all its sick permutations (when someone walks a precise # of steps on the Sabbath and walking one more step = work that would be legalism at its worst and praising the bestest Sabbath Keepers would make the Pharisees proud).


----------



## DonP (Mar 28, 2009)

I only know this and believe this. I don't base my beliefs on someone's life and experience. This of course is not speaking of a one time sin or rare occasion but one who does not mortify sin, repent, which is to turn from it to new behavior, but continues in the same sin. So even if the Heb verse is speaking of willful unbelief in Christ as opposed to willful sin of any kind these verses are clear. 

1 John 3:4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 

7 Little children, *let no one deceive you.* He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 

10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother NKJV

1 John 3:18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. 20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment. 

24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. NKJV

1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. NKJV


----------



## lshepler412 (Mar 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> lshepler412 said:
> 
> 
> > They may not have an accurate view of the Sabbath but I definitely don't think that means they aren't saved.
> ...



Good question. By images I'm assuming that you are including pictures such as pictures of Christ perhaps in Sunday School material. I know the Christian Reformed use these pictures I believe in their Sunday School material. Of course other Christians do to. Does this mean that none of them are believers if they use these pictures? I think they have a poor undertanding of the totality of what the command actually means and includes. Myself, I will not use images. All Christians should know that we are still bound by the moral law and that we are not to steal or commit adultery and that is very clear what that means but perhaps how the Sabbath should be observed or whether pictures of Christ would violate the second commandment is not as clear to some but I think they can still be saved and we are growing in santification. Would a PCA or OPC church discipline someone who had a picture of Christ in their living room or who went to church and then always went to the mall on Sunday afternoon? I'm not sure they would but there would certainly be disciplinary action taken if someone was committing adultery or stealing. I don't know if this clarifies anything and I don't claim to be the best at explaining things. Also, I don't mean to imply that certain commandments can be broken and others not.


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 28, 2009)

> I am going to make an admission here, not out of pride, because I am not proud of this. But maybe there are others who will read my post following yours and find relief. My admission: I do persist in willfully not obeying God's law, and I imagine I will do this all my life.
> I do not think it is possible to not do this, this side of glory. I want to say this for the other people who know that they sometimes sin on purpose.
> It is bad, bad, bad to sin. It is bad, bad, bad to do it on purpose. Repent of that sin! But do so while trusting in Christ's righteousness, not your own. Maybe you are blessed to know that you sin on purpose--that way you know there is nothing apart from Christ that pleases God.



But do you hate that you do it? Big question.



> Should we out of gratitude to Christ attempt with all we can muster to do so? Yes.




I love this illustration: A man walking through deep snow with his big strides, while his son, trying to keep up with him, tries to jump from foot-hole to foot-hole, falls often, but anyone watching can see that he's trying.


----------



## gene_mingo (Mar 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> I only know this and believe this. I don't base my beliefs on someone's life and experience. This of course is not speaking of a one time sin or rare occasion but one who does not mortify sin, repent, which is to turn from it to new behavior, but continues in the same sin. So even if the Heb verse is speaking of willful unbelief in Christ as opposed to willful sin of any kind these verses are clear.
> 
> 1 John 3:4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.
> 
> ...



Those are good verses on justification, but I fail to see how they support your point.

Romans 3:21-28 KJV


> 21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


----------



## Edward (Mar 28, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Can we not keep the 4th commandment and be saved?



Of course.


----------



## DonP (Mar 28, 2009)

Edward said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> > Can we not keep the 4th commandment and be saved?
> ...



Can we not believe in the 1st 3rd and 9th commandment and consistently intentionally not obey them if we are converted?


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Mar 28, 2009)

> Then you agree with us that someone who does not obey all the commands all his life is not converted.



Wow. This statement is really messed up. Sorry, but I truly hope no one on this board actually believes that.

This is not the Gospel at all.


----------



## moral necessity (Mar 29, 2009)

Technically, we can behaviorally not keep every commandment and be saved. As Luther said, "The Gospel is outside of you." Our salvation is not based upon what we do, but is based entirely upon what Christ did for us and imputed to us. What we do now is controlled entirely by what the Spirit convicts us of and impells us to perform as believers. Many fall short of what is proper for them to do, and yet, they are saved because of their faith in the redeemer. Conformity to the standard of righteousness will gradually ensue within the believer's life over time. The degree of this to which each will be inclined, will be differential over time according to His will. The goal of redemption is deliverance from all sin, but this will happen to each believer in a varient degree over the course of their lives. Some may experience much, some little, and some hardly anything at all, like the theif on the cross. But, the Spirit of holiness dwells within each one, and will work his work of sanctification to the degree that the Father prescribes for Him to work it in this life.


----------



## BG (Mar 29, 2009)

I wonder why people would come to the Puritan board and argue against the beliefs of the Puritans, Reformers and the Confessions?


----------



## DonP (Mar 29, 2009)

WDG said:


> I wonder why people would come to the Puritan board and argue against the beliefs of the Puritans, Reformers and the Confessions?



Maybe in hopes others will effectively refute them and they will learn and be convinced of the truth

I am that way. I believe what I believe until I can find someone who can argue the point to convince me of another way then I meekly shift. Praying that God will guide me and protect me through it all. 
But I often learn most through dialogue. I guess I need it laid out for me and strong arguments to prove it. 
I do tend to lean on my understanding and perhaps to a fault, but I do not have much intuition and blind faith as many do. Hopefully this is how God intends to work through me.


----------



## Matthias (Mar 29, 2009)

NO mortal has ever kept a commandment...and the only salvation I would doubt, would be the person who thinks they can do anything outside of Christ.


----------



## ww (Mar 29, 2009)

I'm a Calvinist when it comes to the Sabbath but with that said I understand that it is not in agreement with the WCF and as such take exception and will not be commenting further in defense of this view:



> First, under the repose of the seventh day the heavenly Lawgiver meant to represent to the people of Israel spiritual rest, in which believers ought to lay aside their own works to allow God to work in them. Secondly, he meant that there was to be a stated day for them to assemble to hear the law and perform the rites, or at least to devote it particularly to meditation upon his works, and thus through this remembrance to be trained in piety. Thirdly, he resolved to give a day of rest to servants and those who are under authority of others, in order that they should have some respite from toil." (Institutes, Book II, chapter 8, section 27. See also section 34.)
> But there is no doubt that by the Lord Christ's coming the ceremonial part of this commandment was abolished. (Institutes, II, 8, 31.)
> 
> Although the Sabbath has been abrogated, there is still occasion for us: (1) to assemble on stated days for the hearing of the Word, the breaking of the mystical bread, and for public prayers; (2) to give surcease from labor to servants and workmen. (Institutes, II, 8, 32.)


----------



## DonP (Mar 29, 2009)

*Calvin believes in the Sabbath, but he sees it as Lord's Day*



Matthias said:


> NO mortal has ever kept a commandment...and the only salvation I would doubt, would be the person who thinks they can do anything outside of Christ.



The question is not whether we keep a commandment perfectly, but can one be a converted person who decides not to obey a commandment and intentionally disobeys it?

-----Added 3/29/2009 at 04:32:20 EST-----



whitway said:


> I'm a Calvinist when it comes to the Sabbath but with that said I understand that it is not in agreement with the WCF and as such take exception and will not be commenting further in defense of this view:


Glad you are a calvin follower on the Sabbath. Which is now the Lord's day. 
Here is Calvin on the Sabbath in a sermon on Deut


> In fact, *what was commanded about the day of rest must also apply to us as well as to them*. For *we must take God’s law as it is and thus have an everlasting rule of righteousness*. For it is certain that in the Ten Commandments *God intended to give a rule that should endure forever*. Therefore, *let us not think that the things which Moses says about the Sabbath day are unnecessary for us* not because the figure remains in force, but because we have the truth represented by the figure.
> 
> For this reason, the Apostle (in Heb 4.3-10) *applies the things that were spoken about the Sabbath to the instruction of the Christians *of the new Church..... Therefore, let us understand that to serve God well* we, on the Sabbath Day, are commanded to strive to the uttermost to subdue our own thoughts and desires so that God may reign in us and rule us by his Holy Spirit*.
> Now, let us now determine whether or not *those who call themselves Christians* behave as they ought to. Consider how many think that *on the Lord’s Day they can freely go about their own business *as if there were no other day of the week in which to do these things. Although the bell rings to call them to hear the sermon, yet it seems to them that they have nothing else to do but think about their business and take stock of one thing or another. Others are given over to stuffing themselves with food privately in their homes, because they are afraid to show such contempt in public. To them the Lord’s Day is an excuse to avoid the Church of God.
> ...



So Calvin is probably much more strict on the observance of the Lord's day than most Sabbatarians today. 

He goes on much more on the observance of the sabbath principle in the NT. 

So those who say Calvin did not believe in the sabbath and thought it was abrogated pervert his belief. He says the Sabbath is abrogated and replaced with the Lord's Day wherein the same principle of that law is still in place. 
This is like saying circumcision is abrogated and replaced with baptism. 

It is not like saying the feat of tabernacles is abrogated and done and fulfilled in Christ and we have no principle applied in practice. 

Please share this correction with your other Calvinistic sabbatarian friends who may not be aware of Calvin's belief in the Lord's Day as the moral law spiritual aspect of what was presented to the Jews as Sabbath and remains as the Lord's Day to us. In Calvin's mind The legal aspect as presented to the Jews as Sabbath was abrogated but the Spiritual day of Rest remains and is needed to remind us that every day really belongs to the Lord and all our time and attention. 

Now who will they say they follow when they disobey the Sabbath commandment, as it is part of the moral law in its principle to us today?

So whether we call it Sabbath, sabbath principle, or Lord's day, it is still a rule of life and obligatory on Christians as all the other parts of the law as Christ also verified. 
Matt 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, *till heaven and earth pass away,* one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled NKJV


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 29, 2009)

> The question was not can a sinner be converted but can person be converted and willfully not obey the commands, *or even out of ignorance not obey a command*.



Everyone would then go to Hell as this (in my opinion) implies we keep all the commandments perfectly and we don't. For example, Jesus told us not to even look at a member of the opposite sex with lust or we've committed adultery. Now we ALL know committing adultery is a sin, but there is no way I am going to believe that most or even more than a few (if that) accomplish this to the degree of never lusting (then we can get in to the definition of lust as well if need be).

What bothers me about this topic (not just this post) is if people take Calvinism this seriously (soteriology, which I think is pretty important) they would be called hyper Calvinists and pretty much be rejected. People take Sabbath "keeping" this seriously and it's a fine debate/discussion. That puzzles and concerns me.


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Mar 29, 2009)

> I wonder why people would come to the Puritan board and argue against the beliefs of the Puritans, Reformers and the Confessions?



I've read the Confessions, Reformers and Puritans, and I don't see them basing a person's salvation on how well they've kept the Law. That form of belief is pharisaical. Isn't this the other gospel that Paul warned us about in Galatians 1? What does the Bible say? "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus."

How did Puritan Samuel Bolton (in his True Bounds Of Christian Freedom) differentiate between keeping the Law for salvation and keeping the Law as a rule of our walking with God?



> Christ has freed us from the law: that is another part of our freedom by Christ. ‘Ye are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter’ (Rom. 7.6). ‘I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God’ (Gal. 2.19). ‘If ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law’ (Gal. 5.18). ‘Ye are not under the law, but under grace’ (Rom. 6.14). This then is another part of our freedom by Christ: we are freed from the law. What this is we shall now consider.
> We are freed from the ceremonial law, which was a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear (Acts 15.10). Yet this is but a small part of our freedom.
> (a) Freedom from the law as a covenant
> We are freed from the moral law: freed from it, first, as a covenant, say our divines. It would save a great deal of trouble to say we are freed from the law as that from which life might be expected on the condition that due obedience was rendered. But take it, as do many, in the sense that we are freed from the law as a covenant.
> ...




I really suggest reading the whole book. It's an incredible treatise on the subject.

But, I will also say that I can see where you're coming from in your OP, Peacemaker. But I would say that the way it is written is to attempt to cause division and not peace. You are basically condemning all on this board who don't keep the Sabbath as you do. 

Instead, you could have easily shown your zeal for the 4th Commandment and urged people to continue to set aside this day as holy, and not condemn them for not keeping it perfectly.
To me, what you ended up doing was present a different gospel. One that saves based on works. Only death is found down that road. 
I don't think you believe that. I think you may have overexaggerated your statements just to show how important this subject was to you.

God bless you on this Lord's Day.


----------



## lynnie (Mar 29, 2009)

_So Calvin is probably much more strict on the observance of the Lord's day than most Sabbatarians today. 

He goes on much more on the observance of the sabbath principle in the NT. 

So those who say Calvin did not believe in the sabbath and thought it was abrogated pervert his belief. He says the Sabbath is abrogated and replaced with the Lord's Day wherein the same principle of that law is still in place. 
This is like saying circumcision is abrogated and replaced with baptism. 

It is not like saying the feat of tabernacles is abrogated and done and fulfilled in Christ and we have no principle applied in practice. 

Please share this correction with your other Calvinistic sabbatarian friends who may not be aware of Calvin's belief in the Lord's Day as the moral law spiritual aspect of what was presented to the Jews as Sabbath and remains as the Lord's Day to us. In Calvin's mind The legal aspect as presented to the Jews as Sabbath was abrogated but the Spiritual day of Rest remains and is needed to remind us that every day really belongs to the Lord and all our time and attention. _

I just want to say again that I have found your Calvin quotes to be helpful. I have heard him referred to regarding this subject in a way that I now realize is totally inaccurate. I could have pictured him going to church, and then coming home and doing chores and going out to buy bread.

I do think there is not agreement among the Reformed about specifics- John Murray was denied ordination because he would serve communion to those who took a tram just to get to church (although he would not take public transit himself on Sunday). We need to be very careful not to try and decide like God where and when an ox fell into a well or not, when brethren disagree, even while trying to obey this command.


----------



## ww (Mar 29, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> Matthias said:
> 
> 
> > NO mortal has ever kept a commandment...and the only salvation I would doubt, would be the person who thinks they can do anything outside of Christ.
> ...



I don't disagree with you Don. I call it the "Lord's Day" and honor it as such however I do feel that the application of the Moral principle can be perverted into something laborious rather than delighted in by some Reformed folks.


----------



## DonP (Mar 29, 2009)

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. NKJV

I don't know how anyone can say keeping the commands or Lord's Day is burdensome. 

Some may say that they believe in the Lord's day and don't believe in the 4th commandment as obligatory to NT believers. This would be unconfessional 

But I was only pointing out that Calvin did because many think he didn't. 

I made no statement about how to celebrate the Sabbath or Lord's day, or how I think it should be done so you can't disagree with me on that. You can disagree with Calvin, and the Larger Catechism if you want. 

I don't think those ways would be burdensome either though. 

And yes when man goes beyond what is in scripture it may be a good idea and wise but it is not required of anyone else. Like Boston does in His works on how to sanctify the Lord's Day.

Lynnie I am excited and praising God that you have an open mind and can see how some people, mostly due to a lack of thorough study of Calvin, have misused some isolated and narrow contexted statements by Calvin to support their UnBiblical view. Perhaps being freed from the bondage of that error you will be more free for the Spirit to continue to guide you in how you will sanctify it and convict you to keep it holy. 

Alex said 
But I would say that the way it is written is to attempt to cause division and not peace. You are basically condemning all on this board who don't keep the Sabbath as you do.

Instead, you could have easily shown your zeal for the 4th Commandment and urged people to continue to set aside this day as holy, and not condemn them for not keeping it perfectly.
To me, what you ended up doing was present a different gospel. One that saves based on works. Only death is found down that road.
I don't think you believe that. I think you may have overexaggerated your statements just to show how important this subject was to you.

Alex, I am sorry you have judged me this way. 
And I am sorry I did not make it more clear. Perhaps if you had read the whole thread and my earlier posts you would not have gotten that opinion. 

I do not condemn anyone. God is our judge. Presenting scripture is not condemning people. And asking them to consider if one could be converted and yet intentionally deny and choose to disobey the 4th commandment or others. 
*I said nothing about keeping any command perfectly. *
I caused no division. 
This is a Confessional Board and I stated what is Confessionally consistent with scripture.
If there is a division it is because people do not subscribe to the Confession they were asked to when they came on this board. 
This is the position of that Confession we are all to agree to or at least if we differ, not to teach against. If there is division it is those who differ from scripture who divide. 
Can you show me a verse that someone could use who believes scripture teaches the 4th commandment is no longer binding as a rule of life for us?

Division is not wrong. God tells us there will be divisions even father from son etc., and we are to separate ourselves from those who walk disorderly, etc. 

I did not present a different gospel, I presented this one James 2:20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? NKJV

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. NKJV

John 14:21 He who has My commandments *and keeps them*, it is he who loves Me. NKJV

John 15:10 *If *you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, NKJV

1 John 3:24 Now he who *keeps His commandments *abides in Him, and He in him. And *by this we know that He abides in us,* by the Spirit whom He has given us. NKJV

1 John 5:2 *By this we know* that we love the children of God, when we love God and *keep His commandments*. NKJV

So to all of you who have posted that we can't keep the commandments I suggest you stop using this as an excuse and seek to obey the command which shows we can keep the commandments. 
No one keeps the commandments *perfectly *in this life. That is not what it means to keep them. No one in their right mind would say we had to keep them perfectly or think we could keep them perfectly. 

And be warned that if one is not desiring to and seeking to keep them they may not be converted. They certainly have no reason for assurance as John has laid out the evidence of our personal assurance that we are in a state of grace, abiding in Christ. 
One evidence of true faith is obedience. 
Obedience does not merit salvation, it may manifest its reality, whereas outward obedience only could come from an unregenerate, though we may not be able to tell. 

But we can choose to keep them and we can keep them, or we can choose to ignore them or we can say we do not believe them or we can just choose to intentionally disobey them. 

It is not about perfection, it is about intention and the desire of our new nature. 

I am no one's judge, I am merely siting scripture and asking you to consider it because there has been much false gospel and deception put out in the name of Christianity. 
1 John 3:7 Little children, *let no one deceive you*. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. NKJV

What God is teaching us is that though we still have an old nature, its power is broken and we have been given a new nature that delights in the law of god and desires to obey and believe. We gradually grow in sanctification, holiness, separation from the world and flesh and sin, and are more and more able to please God. 

But for those who choose not to follow the commands.... they are in danger
There are many warning in scripture. 
Our doctrine is not once saved always saved, it is perseverance and preservation. The preservation is always accompanied by perseverance just as faith is always accompanied by works in true saving faith. 

No one is implying the works have any merit toward salvation, but they are a result of conversion and will be evident. 

So please do not try to say I or St. James is advocating works salvation. 

As for Bolton's True Bounds of Christian Freedom I loved that book when I first read it twenty some years ago and encourage others to read it. He believes the same thing I do that the 4th commandment is as much obligatory for Christians as the others. So whether we use the word binding, obligatory or not, we agree one born again will desire to and keep the law, all 10 out of love to god and yet it is still a rule of life to us since we are not perfected in love yet. 

So though I may not have been clear, I did not over exaggerate my statements to support my own idea. It isn't my idea. 

I said nothing of how I or one should keep the Sabbath or Lord's day holy. One who posted did make accusations as if I had made fundamantalistic or Pharisaical rules for keeping the Lord's day holy as the Talmud does, but I made no such statements, that was their own defensive reaction. 

I make no prescriptions other than what is clear in scripture. 
Isa 58:13 "If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on My holy day, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the LORD honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words, 14 Then you shall delight yourself in the LORD; NKJV

I make no binding burden on anyone for how to keep it. It should be a delight to be given a day each week to reflect on how heaven will be, to begin to step into that time we will be exclusively with the Lord, free of all that is in this world, to rest from our work and tears etc. 

Let them pray and ask God and seek to find out how others throughout the history of the church have kept the day holy and come to their own convictions. 

So Alex I ask you to reconsider what you have said and accused me of and to repent of this judgment and misrepresenting me as a purveyor of a false gospel. 

And others I encourage you to take a good notice in yourselves how you reacted to the hearing of these commands and why? 
Why did you raise the issue of no one can keep them perfectly when no one ever said anything about perfectly. 
Why did this defense rise in you so quickly and strongly? 
In fact over and over it was posted we are not saying keep perfectly and yet this same thing rises up again and again and in others too. 

Why?
I know why it used to in me!
Praise God for His mercy to me so far.


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Mar 29, 2009)

Don said:


> Perhaps if you had read the whole thread and my earlier posts you would not have gotten that opinion.



Don, I did read all your posts. I found them offensive only when you based a person's salvation on the keeping of the Law. Once again, this is not the Gospel.

Don said,


> I do not condemn anyone.



Don, you did.

Don said,


> This is a Confessional Board and I stated what is Confessionally consistent with scripture.



Don, you did not.

Don said,


> If there is a division it is because people do not subscribe to the Confession they were asked to when they came on this board.



Wrong again Don. As Christians we hold to a Gospel that is based solely on Christ's finished work. And the Confession back this up.

Don said,


> This is the position of that Confession we are all to agree to or at least if we differ, not to teach against.



That would be you Don.

Don said,


> Can you show me a verse that someone could use who believes scripture teaches the 4th commandment is no longer binding as a rule of life for us?



No. Because I believe it is to be a rule of life to us.
But you, apparently, also believe that if someone doesn't keep a commandment they can't be saved. _That_ is where I differ from you.

Don said,


> I did not present a different gospel, I presented this one James 2:20...



You did Don. Remember when your wrote, "Then you agree with us that someone who does not obey all the commands all his life is not converted."

I like what Joshua said when he wrote, "The Lord Jesus kept all the commandments perfectly, and that's the only way we can be saved."

Don said,


> No one keeps the commandments perfectly in this life. That is not what it means to keep them. No one in their right mind would say we had to keep them perfectly or think we could keep them perfectly.



Then what is the point of this thread, Don? How do you know how strict a Sabbatarian each person is? Where are the guidelines and boundaries? Only God knows a person's heart. Why bring into question a person's salvation if they aren't as strict as you are?

Don said,


> Our doctrine is not once saved always saved, it is perseverance and preservation. The preservation is always accompanied by perseverance just as faith is always accompanied by works in true saving faith.



Please explain what you mean by this. I just need clarification.

Don said,


> So please do not try to say I or St. James is advocating works salvation.



Please don't place your words on the same level as Scripture. This is a logical fallacy... I just can't remember the term...
But anyway, I know James isn't advocating a works based salvation.

Don said,


> As for Bolton's True Bounds of Christian Religion I loved that book when I first read it twenty some years ago. He believes the same thing I do that the 4th commandment is as much obligatory for Christians as the others.



I'm glad you read it. But he certainly does not believe the same thing you do, as far as condemning people for not keeping the Law. That point is the only reason why I'm even writing in this thread.
I've only read Bolton's book twice. The last time was last year. And he was extremely clear and very careful to state that the Law is a rule of life for us Christians and cannot condemn us. (Which is the way every one of your posts comes across in this thread.) So, you are in disagreement with Bolton, and the Confessions, and the Bible on this issue. At least, that's the way it looks to me.

Don said,


> So though I may not have been clear, I did not over exaggerate my statements to support my own idea. It isn't my idea.



You're right. Cults have been teaching this belief for ages.

Don said,


> I make no binding burden on anyone for how to keep it. It should be a delight to be given a day each week to reflect on how heaven will be, to begin to step into that time we will be exclusively with the Lord, free of all that is in this world, to rest from our work and tears etc.



I agree.

Don said,


> So Alex I ask you to reconsider what you have said and accused me of and to repent of this judgment and misrepresenting me as a purveyor of a false gospel.



At this point, it still seems like you hold to the view that keeping the Law is a requirement for salvation. So, I can't do that.

For the most part, you're preaching to the choir about the importance of the 4th Commandment, to me. 
A HUGE red flag popped up when you started bringing people's salvation into question.

Clear that up, and we'll be fine.


----------



## DonP (Mar 29, 2009)

Eph 5:5 For this you know with certainty, that *no *immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, *has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God*. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them NASB

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother *abides in death*. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that *no* murderer *has eternal life abiding in him*. NKJV 

What do you make of these? 
Would the same thing hold for other commands or just the ones listed?

1 John 2:3Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and *does not keep His commandments, is a liar, *and the truth is not in him. NKJV

-----Added 3/29/2009 at 07:44:37 EST-----



Pilgrim72 said:


> Don said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps if you had read the whole thread and my earlier posts you would not have gotten that opinion.
> ...




I agree this was unclear. I clarified this in a later post. 

I did not mean they had to perfectly keep the law all their life to be saved. 

I meant, if one chooses not to believe the law and chooses not to obey the law, all their life. 

I hope this "Clears it up for you" 

Re-Read the posts then, you are misunderstanding them.


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Mar 29, 2009)

I say that you are misinterpreting the Bible. It seems to me that you are saying that if a Christian commits a sin he has become "immoral and impure". (And this applies to the breaking of all of the commandments.)
And I say that you are wrong. We have Christ. If and when I sin, I am still seen as righteous by God. My sin isn't counted against me. Christ was the perfect sacrifice.
See Romans 8:1 (whole chapter); Romans 5:1

So, if a Christian commits murder, does he lose his salvation? Or does this prove that he was never a Christian to begin with? Are all Christians sinless? If not then how big of a sin makes that person a non-Christian?

I believe these verses are talking about non-Christians. Christians have eternal life because they have Christ.

You are not helping your cause, in my opinion.


----------



## he beholds (Mar 29, 2009)

First, I think telling someone to repent is a bully move. 
Next, I cannot understand how you do not see why people are arguing against you. Perhaps you do not mean the things you say, but what you are saying is that if someone does not keep the Sabbath, they are going to hell.
You are not recognizing the fact that YOU don't keep the Sabbath nor CAN you. 
You say you are recognizing this, by making a distinction between your efforts and another's lack of efforts (as you see it), BUT where does the Bible say, "Your efforts are enough." In my reading I see, "Your good works are dirty rags." 

And please, what exactly do YOU mean by this? I don't know any Reformed Christian who thinks that the Sabbath has nothing to do with them. They either think the Sabbath is our rest in Christ, and we keep it by being in him, or they think the Sabbath is a day of rest, and we keep it by not working, or they think it is a day of rest and we keep it by not working or recreating, or they think it is a day of rest and we keep it by doing X, Y, Z, ETC. Who on this board is going to answer in the generic that they do not keep the Sabbath??? If you are speaking to a specific subset of self-professed Sabbath keepers, whom you believe to actually be Sabbath breakers, please say that. Otherwise, this argument is useless.


----------



## ww (Mar 29, 2009)

he beholds said:


> First, I think telling someone to repent is a bully move.
> Next, I cannot understand how you do not see why people are arguing against you. Perhaps you do not mean the things you say, but what you are saying is that if someone does not keep the Sabbath, they are going to hell.
> You are not recognizing the fact that YOU don't keep the Sabbath nor CAN you.
> You say you are recognizing this, by making a distinction between your efforts and another's lack of efforts (as you see it), BUT where does the Bible say, "Your efforts are enough." In my reading I see, "Your good works are dirty rags."
> ...


----------



## Clay7926 (Mar 29, 2009)

This will be the only post I make in this topic, mainly because as I see it, although I'm encouraged by the zeal on both sides to defend their arguments, and the desire to look at what scripture says about these issues, I think things are getting a little more heated than necessary.

I think another question that's underlying here is "Who's view of the Sabbath should we follow?" From Scripture and past posts, it's already understood that we cannot follow all the commandments perfectly, including the 4th. If we could, we would have no need for a Savior or Mediator. 

Something to consider, I think, is Peter's words to the Jerusalem counsel (Acts 15:10-11, quoting NASB):



> "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."



There's a difference between a believer who is working to keep the Sabbath but keeps failing, and someone who knows all that Scripture teaches on the issue and still constantly refused to attend worship, etc. Likewise, there's a difference between someone who is trying to follow the Sabbath law out of love for our God, and someone following the Sabbath rules because his/her conscience being bound by others (i.e., if someone keeps the Sabbath in certain ways, etc. that may go beyond the bounds of Scripture). 

That said, I agree with another poster who said that some of the issues being brought up here sound like issues of sanctification.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 29, 2009)

So this thread seems to be fairly tense. Might I jump in quickly with some statements I think all can agree upon? I hope that these can result in fruitful and edifying conversation on this Lord's Day.

1.) We all acknowledge that faith is not merely a mental assent, but includes a turning of the will toward God, and thus has a corresponding endeavor to obey his commandments.
2.) He who desires nothing to do with the commandments of God should not be thought to have an eternal interest in him.
3.) Upon King David's _grievous_ sin, the appropriate response was not to bring the law before him to suggest that he might, in fact, be condemned; but rather, to convict him of his sin, bring him to repentance, demonstrate what his estate would be without Christ and to direct his paths to renewed obedience.
4.) We must always remember the distinction between God's hidden and revealed will; we do not know the causes why God allows us, his children, to walk in darkness for certain seasons.
5.) We ought continually examine our obedience, and test whether we see fruits of God's Spirit within us; where we see lack, this ought not to cause doubt if the response is an endeavor to further obedience. And our assurance never comes from the quality of our faith (or the corresponding quality of our obedience), but from the _object_ of our faith, which is Christ's work.
6.) As Christians, we approach the law from within the Covenant of Grace, not from without.
7.) Church discipline for our sins and faults is not to be confused inclusion and exclusion from the mystical body of Christ; the visible church is not coextensive with the invisible.
8.) Ignorance of how to practically work out certain commandments is not to be equated with conscious rebellion against the authority of God; if a tribal culture should not yet have learned that to wed one's sister falls outside of God's law (and yet, this same tribe is not attempting to cast off rebellion against God's commandment regarding adultery, yea, rather they endeavor to keep it), we do not accuse them of rebellion and cast them outside of the saving power of God, but rather attempt to show them the better way.
9.) We trust that we will see certain signs of conformity to God's law in his people; if we don't see that which we might expect, we do not necessarily make this determinative of God's secret will, but rather take occasion of such sin to exhort the congregation of God's revealed will, cherishing the right way, while leaving the hidden things to the Lord our God. For that lengthy time between David's adultery and the execution of his plan to have Uriah killed, how many would have counted him regenerate?
10.) When we walk (even ignorantly) in sin, there are surely consequences in this world. If we all walked as the Psalm 1 man (Christ), we should live here on earth in perfect harmony and blessedness. Let us all long for the day when we both understand the commandments fully, and are able to walk in them wholly; and until then, let us use every effort to learn wisdom and walk uprightly.

These are but a few points; perhaps more can be posted shortly. Do we all agree upon these?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Mar 29, 2009)

> Then what is the point of this thread, Don? How do you know how strict a Sabbatarian each person is? Where are the guidelines and boundaries? Only God knows a person's heart. Why bring into question a person's salvation if they aren't as strict as you are?



Amen!


----------



## DonP (Mar 29, 2009)

ReformedWretch said:


> > Then what is the point of this thread, Don? How do you know how strict a Sabbatarian each person is? Where are the guidelines and boundaries? Only God knows a person's heart. Why bring into question a person's salvation if they aren't as strict as you are?
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!



This isn't even the issue. 

I have stated over and over how you keep the Lord's day is not the issue I am discussing here at all. 

It is whether or not one believes they need to keep the commandments and desires to and seeks to do it, as opposed to one who chooses not to obey or not attempt to obey. 
If they disregard it or don't believe they need to obey the command. 

I don't understand why this is so confusing. 

Does saving, justifying faith cause a person to want to obey and seek to obey all 10 commands, the moral law, or not. 

I am not talking perfect obedience, as stated, no confusion here 

I am saying could a truly converted person deny or ignore the commandments? 

Can they continue to deny one or more 
or by intent disobey one or more of them or not think they apply to them in this age. 

Or will they as a result of saving faith understand all 10 to some degree apply to them and seek to and desire to obey them to some degree?

I don't believe They can earn or lose their salvation by doing or not doing. 

Is it inconsistent with a true conversion to practice, live in, or continue unrepentant of not obeying the commands. 

I am not questioning one who agrees they should obey, tries to and fails, but one who would say they don't need to obey and don't seek to obey one or more of the commands. 

Are they deceived in thinking they have been converted if they do not desire and attempt to obey one or more of the commands, is my question. 

Is this clear? 

I am not saying anyone is not saved if they don't keep the Lord's Day like me or Calvin, I am not condemning anyone. 

I am asking you what you think and what you think the verses I have quoted mean. 

So why attack me, accuse me of believing in works salvation etc. when I don't? 

I was just asking what you think and posting verses. 

I believe Christians sin. I believe in this life we never get to where we do not sin. 

But I do believe this, you decide what it means. 
Don't tell me what I believe, I am not telling you what it means and forcing anything on anyone. 
You tell me what these mean.

1 John 3:4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 

7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 
10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. NKJV

1 John 3:15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. NKJV

1 John 3:24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. NKJV

1 John 5: 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.
NKJV

John 14:21-24
21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." 

22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" 

23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words;
NKJV

John 15:10
10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love,
NKJV

Off to prayer meeting


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Mar 29, 2009)

Just in case it comes across as if I was upset or in "attack-mode", I'd like to apologize, because I wasn't. I was just in my "defend the Gospel" mode. 

I rarely post much anymore, due to a busy work schedule. But this thread came across as an attack on the Gospel from the first post. So I responded.

And to leave this post in a positive note, I had a blessed Lord's Day today. I believe I set apart this day as holy, and the Lord blessed me with an AMAZING service at church and the day was filled with wonderful fellowship with the saints of God.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 29, 2009)

For what it's worth, Don, I do think there is _a lot_ of talking past each other in this thread. I think you'll find very few who will disagree with the fact that he who willingly and knowingly attempts to cast off the commandment of Christ should not presume to have any interest in his saving benefits. This of course does not mean he _cannot_ be a recipient of that salvation (as I think most saints have sinned presumptuously at some point, which is, in effect, the same thing).


----------



## calgal (Mar 29, 2009)

Actually Don you have been pretty adamant that your view of the sabbath is a sign of salvation. I do apologize for coming across in a hostile manner to your accusations (and that is what they are). In no way was I implying you were being LDS but they do keep the Sabbath in a similar way to what you proposed. Since you claimed salvation was shown by adherence to the rules, the LDS would qualify and many True Reformed believers would not (there are diverse views on what constitutes Sabbath Keeping out there).  You can believe what you will on this but a kinder presentation might actually make people think while consigning those who go to Coco's after church to perdition will make them discount any good advice you are offering here.


----------



## he beholds (Mar 29, 2009)

I apologize if my responses have annoyed you. 
Sorry.


----------



## tdowns (Mar 29, 2009)

*Regenerate = Know the Truth...*

I may be missing it, there is a lot here.

But, it seems to me, your argument, is implying, that someone who has the Holy Spirit (regenerate) will know the commandments, and want to follow them. But, what about lesser things; baptism, church leadership, roles of women, which bible is "true", the intricacies of the Doctrines of God, and the doctrines of grace, how we worship God, etc...

There is a Holy Spirit Stamped TRUTH, to the correct understanding of the ten commandments, and the above list. If we proclaim or follow anything other than that truth, it's a sin. But, with great men of God, there has been disagreement of the above.

It seems to me, you argument says, if you have the Holy Spirit, YOU WILL KNOW AND WANT TO FOLLOW THE TRUTH.

Well, from the Sabbath, down through my list, there are said believers on many sides, they all WANT TO FOLLOW THE TRUTH, they just disagree on what the truth is.

Non Sabbatarians, want to follow the 10 commandments, they love the Sabbath, the Sabbath that is Christ. So they don't say, "Oh, that's a true commandment, I'm just in rebellion to it." They say, Christ is the fourth commandment, so I live in rest 24/7."

So, if we say, that those who don't want to follow the fourth commandment, because they understand it differently than you, because, YOU have the truth, then we could say the same about those in "sin" because of their differing views on other truths. 

You can say they are wrong, and if they were "saved" they would get that...but, then you should use that argument for every other sin, that said believers commit when they do baptism different, etc.

Bottom line, it SOUNDS like this, "I'm a true believer, I see it like this, it's the truth, if you don't see it this way, you are probably not saved."


----------

