Sabbath Observance

Status
Not open for further replies.

just_grace

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by just_grace
Originally posted by Me Died Blue

David, along that same line of thought, it it biblically justified for a Christian today to murder, or commit adultery? Why not?
Chris, Law is law, when was the last you broke the speed limit?
We know what is wrong, but we still do it....
David,

You are severely missing the point.

All of us agree that we still struggle with sin. THAT is not the issue.

Rather, the issue is this: What is righteous, and what is sinful?




If you are elect, and murder someone, then you will still be forgiven and go to Heaven.

But murder is still SIN. Therefore you are commanded by God to NOT murder.




If you are elect, and commit adultery, then you will still be forgiven and go to Heaven.

But adultery is still SIN. Therefore you are commanded by God to NOT commit adultery.




If you are elect, and break the Sabbath, then you will still be forgiven and go to Heaven.

But Sabbath-breaking is still SIN. Therefore you are commanded by God to NOT break the Sabbath.
I spent time replying to this and it was denied me :)

Maybe later..

I have to go out and check some lambs.

David

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by just_grace]
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by Henry from Canada
The two great commandments are:
1) to love and honour God
2) to love thy neighbour

Murder, rape, theft, adultery, etc. do not compile with the two great commandments. These actions are not God-honouring, nor loving.


Working on the Sabbath may be very loving. Feeding hungry cows on Sunday is loving (Amen, says Alison).

Operating a family restaurant on Sunday may be loving because it allows the whole family to enjoy a meal together. Operating a minature-golf course on Sunday may also be loving because it allows people to enjoy the fresh air and exercise, etc. These activities are not acts of necessity - but they can be loving. Therefore, I suspect they are permissable.
We were told by Christ that those two commandments are the greatest commandments, and that the rest of the commandments rest on them, or are summarized in them. But we need the rest of those commandments in order to inform us as to what is consistent with loving God and loving our neighbor. What we may think displays love for God very well may not, and we need to constantly check our conceptions of what does and does not by examinging them in light of the rest of the commandments.

Case in point: Uzziah offered what he did out of his love for God, and it seemed to him like it would display that love - but it did not. Likewise, many believers today make movies like the Passion, include dramas and skits in worship services, and the like because they think doing so is fulfilling the greatest commandment of loving God. But it is not. Why? Because the rest of the commands and examples in Scripture must be our guide as to what actually displays a true love for God and others, rather than our own subjective judgment.

Otherwise, Paul Hill could say his actions did "compile with the two great commandments," as you said. So how can we respond to such a claim? The only way is by looking to the rest of God's counsel and commands and seeing that murder is forbidden, and hence that that is not the case after all. So it is with the Sabbath. If it is biblically commanded, it still may or may not "seem" at times to display love for God and our neighbor to our fallen minds. But such a test is not sufficient to determine what does compile with the two great commandments - only the other interpretive commandments throughout Scripture can do that. And that is right where our discussion of the Sabbath as the fourth commandment comes into play.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by Henry from Canada
Chris asked:
"David, just answer this question, one that I think can help us get to the heart of the issue from both sides: I know you would agree that murder or adultery are not consistent with biblical "life in the Spirit." What I'm asking is, why aren't they? How is it that we know those things are not consistent with the true life of grace in the Spirit?


Hi Chris,

May I be so bold and attempt to answer?

The two great commandments are:
1) to love and honour God
2) to love thy neighbour

Murder, rape, theft, adultery, etc. do not compile with the two great commandments. These actions are not God-honouring, nor loving.


Working on the Sabbath may be very loving. Feeding hungry cows on Sunday is loving (Amen, says Alison).

Operating a family restaurant on Sunday may be loving because it allows the whole family to enjoy a meal together. Operating a minature-golf course on Sunday may also be loving because it allows people to enjoy the fresh air and exercise, etc. These activities are not acts of necessity - but they can be loving. Therefore, I suspect they are permissable.
A more consistent view is that the two great commandments are summaries of the ten commandments which in no way invalidates the ten commandments.

Murder, rape, theft, adultery, etc. do not compile with the two great commandments. These actions are not God-honouring, nor loving.
Given your standards (or what appear to be your standards), why not?
 

crhoades

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Henry from Canada
The two great commandments are:
1) to love and honour God
2) to love thy neighbour

Murder, rape, theft, adultery, etc. do not compile with the two great commandments. These actions are not God-honouring, nor loving.


Working on the Sabbath may be very loving. Feeding hungry cows on Sunday is loving (Amen, says Alison).

Operating a family restaurant on Sunday may be loving because it allows the whole family to enjoy a meal together. Operating a minature-golf course on Sunday may also be loving because it allows people to enjoy the fresh air and exercise, etc. These activities are not acts of necessity - but they can be loving. Therefore, I suspect they are permissable.
We were told by Christ that those two commandments are the greatest commandments, and that the rest of the commandments rest on them, or are summarized in them. But we need the rest of those commandments in order to inform us as to what is consistent with loving God and loving our neighbor. What we may think displays love for God very well may not, and we need to constantly check our conceptions of what does and does not by examinging them in light of the rest of the commandments.

Case in point: Uzziah offered what he did out of his love for God, and it seemed to him like it would display that love - but it did not. Likewise, many believers today make movies like the Passion, include dramas and skits in worship services, and the like because they think doing so is fulfilling the greatest commandment of loving God. But it is not. Why? Because the rest of the commands and examples in Scripture must be our guide as to what actually displays a true love for God and others, rather than our own subjective judgment.

Otherwise, Paul Hill could say his actions did "compile with the two great commandments," as you said. So how can we respond to such a claim? The only way is by looking to the rest of God's counsel and commands and seeing that murder is forbidden, and hence that that is not the case after all. So it is with the Sabbath. If it is biblically commanded, it still may or may not "seem" at times to display love for God and our neighbor to our fallen minds. But such a test is not sufficient to determine what does compile with the two great commandments - only the other interpretive commandments throughout Scripture can do that. And that is right where our discussion of the Sabbath as the fourth commandment comes into play.
:up::ditto:
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by Henry from Canada
I think this debate comes down to an issue of legal codes.

Legal code #1
-----------------
The "moral laws" of the Old Testament plus the 2 Great Commandments

Legal code #2
-----------------
The 2 Great Commandments
I agree that this (in my opinion false) dichotomy you presented here is at the heart of what is causing much of the disagreement. See my above post for why that simply does not work, biblically or practically.
 

Henry from Canada

Puritan Board Freshman
Rest assured, Scott, I have thought about your comments today and on other days. Your posts are well-written, and they are read.

Unfortunately, you and I have a different interpretation of the Bible. I am not trying to be difficult, but I honestly do not agree with you.

In the last few weeks, I have researched this issue. I seems that this has been a contentious issue since the time of Jesus.


Hebrews 4:
-------------
"Therefore, since the promise of entering His rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.....

Now, we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, 'So I declared on oath in my anger, They shall never enter my rest.......

There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God: for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest."

Hebrews 8:
--------------
"But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises......

By calling this covenant 'new', he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

Galatians 3:10:
------------------
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of Law."

Micah 6:8:
------------
"And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God."

Henry's belief of what sums up present law:
------------------------------------------------------
Law and honour God, love your neighbour
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by Henry from Canada
Rest assured, Scott, I have thought about your comments today and on other days. Your posts are well-written, and they are read.

Unfortunately, you and I have a different interpretation of the Bible. I am not trying to be difficult, but I honestly do not agree with you.

In the last few weeks, I have researched this issue. I seems that this has been a contentious issue since the time of Jesus.


Hebrews 4:
-------------
"Therefore, since the promise of entering His rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.....

Now, we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, 'So I declared on oath in my anger, They shall never enter my rest.......

There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God: for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest."

Hebrews 8:
--------------
"But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises......

By calling this covenant 'new', he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

Galatians 3:10:
------------------
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of Law."

Micah 6:8:
------------
"And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God."

Henry's belief of what sums up present law:
------------------------------------------------------
Law and honour God, love your neighbour
Are you saying that the Law of God in its entirety is abolished?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Henry from Canada
Rest assured, Scott, I have thought about your comments today and on other days. Your posts are well-written, and they are read.

Unfortunately, you and I have a different interpretation of the Bible. I am not trying to be difficult, but I honestly do not agree with you.

In the last few weeks, I have researched this issue. I seems that this has been a contentious issue since the time of Jesus.


Hebrews 4:
-------------
"Therefore, since the promise of entering His rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.....

Now, we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, 'So I declared on oath in my anger, They shall never enter my rest.......

There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God: for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest."

Hebrews 8:
--------------
"But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises......

By calling this covenant 'new', he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."

Galatians 3:10:
------------------
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of Law."

Micah 6:8:
------------
"And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God."

Henry's belief of what sums up present law:
------------------------------------------------------
Law and honour God, love your neighbour
Historically, the only people whos subscribe to your position are the antinomians, Arminians and you know where they fall orthodoxically. No one, in the reformed camp holds to such an idea.

But, what do I know...............
 

Henry from Canada

Puritan Board Freshman
I have just received an U2U which states historically that "no one" agrees with me on the following post:

Legal code #1
-----------------
The "moral laws" of the Old Testament plus the 2 Great Commandments

Legal code #2
-----------------
The 2 Great Commandments

Well then, this means that I hold an extreme minority view.

Well, then, I guess I do. I am all alone.

I hope no one here watches the Super Bowl on Sunday. By doing so you are supporting Sabbath breakers that are playing a very violent sport and are being cheered on by scantily-clad cheerleaders.

Joseph, I respect your decision not to watch the Super Bowl on Sunday.

I will also not be watching the game.
 

Henry from Canada

Puritan Board Freshman
Scott said:
"Historically, the only people whos subscribe to your position are the antinomians, Arminians and you know where they fall orthodoxically. No one, in the reformed camp holds to such an idea.

But, what do I know............... "

Scott, you know quite a bit. You are extremely educated.

I am but a mere unlearned man.

This board is fascinating.
 

Henry from Canada

Puritan Board Freshman
Jacob asked:
"Are you saying that the Law of God in its entirety is abolished?
"

No Jacob, I'm saying the OLD TESTAMENT law was fulfilled by Jesus' death.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Henry from Canada
Scott, you know quite a bit. You are extremely educated.
I agree that I am extreme! Educated? Well not formally. Some people may call that a form of madness. :lol:

~Listening to the Cure as I type.:cool:
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Henry from Canada
Jacob asked:
"Are you saying that the Law of God in its entirety is abolished?
"

No Jacob, I'm saying the OLD TESTAMENT law was fulfilled by Jesus' death.
Henry, Ok. Slow down. Look at what you just said and what Jesus says here:

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Mat 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Mat 5:19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Fulfillment does not abrogate.

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by Scott Bushey]
 

crhoades

Puritan Board Graduate
Matt. 19:16-19
The Rich Young Man
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

18"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Care to comment why Jesus confused your two legal codes into one?
 

Henry from Canada

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi Scott,

Thanks for your reply.

After Jesus died, Paul wrote:

"Hebrews 8:
--------------
"But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises......

By calling this covenant 'new', he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."


Hebrews 4 discusses the Sabbath in greater detail (see above).

I have little time and energy left to continue this debate today.


My prayer to God:
----------------------
Lord, if I am wrong on this issue, please forgive me.
I can appreciate the views of Scott, however, after studying this issue I have come up with a different interpretation.
Scott and the others are men of sincerity and intelligience, but I disagree on this issue.
Please show me the Truth, and bless and protect everyone on this board.
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
David & Henry:


First of all, you are wrong to relegate the 2 great commands to the NT, as if they were not also part of the OT Mosaic law. The greatest command, "Love God", is in Deuteronomy 6:5. And the 2nd greatest command, "Love your neighbor", is in Leviticus 19:18.

Second, you are wrong to separate the 2 great commands from the commands in the law and the prophets of the OT. Jesus disagrees with you:

Now when the Pharisees heard that he had slienced the Sadducees, the approached him together, and one of them tested him by asking him, "Teacher, Which commandment is the greatest on in the Torah?" And he said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with your whole hear, and with your whole being' and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commands all the law and the prophets hang.

- Matthew 22:34-40

You see, the commands in the OT cannot be separated from the 2 great commands. They are not a separate legal code. Rather, they are just detailed examples of HOW to love God, and HOW to love your neighbor.

The first 4 commandments in the decalogue tell us how to love God.

The last 6 commandments in the decalogue tell us how to love our neighbors.

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by biblelighthouse]
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Henry from Canada
Hi Scott,

Thanks for your reply.

After Jesus died, Paul wrote:

"Hebrews 8:
--------------
"But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises......

By calling this covenant 'new', he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
The book of Hebrews talks about Christ's fulfillment of the ceremonial aspects of the law. That's why we don't sacrifice animals anymore.

But the book of Hebrews NEVER abrogates the moral law of God. It is still wrong to murder, it is still wrong to commit adultery, it is still wrong to break the Sabbath, etc.

Originally posted by Henry from Canada
Hebrews 4 discusses the Sabbath in greater detail (see above).

Yes, and Hebrews 4 supports the continuing validity of the Sabbath. Heb. 4:9 says that there remains a Sabbath keeping (literally "sabbatismos" in the Greek) for the people of God. We STILL have a Sabbath. It has not been abrogated.

In Isaiah 56, Scripture pointed forward to the abrogation of the command which kept eunuchs away from the temple. But the same text shows that the Sabbath would continue to be in effect under the New Covenant.

In Matthew 24, Jesus gives a prophecy for *many years after* His death and resurrection. And Jesus tells them to pray that their flight not be on the Sabbath. But if the Sabbath had been abrogated, then why would Jesus be bothering them with it at all?

Also, the Sabbath institution occurs all the way back in Genesis, LONG before the Mosaic law ever came about.

You have a LOT more studying to do on the Sabbath before you make a final decision, David & Henry.

I HIGHLY recommend that you get a copy of Dr. C. Matthew McMahon's MP3 series, "Dominicum Servasti - have you kept the Lord's Day?"

http://www.apuritansmind.com/CD/DominicumServastiAudioCD.htm
 

crhoades

Puritan Board Graduate
For a great and free read sign up with our beloved Naphtali for his newsletter linked to below for the work by Sedgwick. I have it in one of his Anthologies and it is excellent. It is set up in a flowing dialogue format. I would also caution that if you are in disagreement with all of historic reformed Christendom on the law's abiding validity then you need to do more than pray - much study is required.

http://www.naphtali.com/news.htm

Free Collection:
Anatomy of Antinomianism,
by Rev. John Sedgwick.

A Treatment by way of a dialogue, of the rapidly spreading views of many groups in 1640s London, who were opposed to the Ruling use of the moral law unto Christians under the Gospel. The author was a Puritan, but this paper and one or two published sermons, are all that he has left us by which to know him. He was the brother of Obadiah Sedgwick, a member of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.


Antinomianism Anatomized Or a Glass for the Lawless: Who deny the Ruling use of the Moral Law unto Christians under the Gospel, by John Sedgwick (1601?-1643). "When I looked upon the old odious heresy of the Antinomians (condemned by the doctrine of our church, Art. 7.) taking the advantage of the time´s distractions newly to revive itself, and to appear with its wonted face, that cannot blush; I thought at first, ... to have passed them over in silence. But finding the fomenters to prevail, and the gangrene to spread, especially among the weaker, more ignorant, and rude sort; and that whilst some did seem to teach, they did but infect, using this cunning, to utter some truths, to make way for their damnable doctrines; e.g. by crying up free grace, Christ´s righteousness, and gospel liberty (doctrines of singular consequence, and great use, if rightly and purely opened, and such as no man would suspect should be held out as baits and snares to entangle or draw men aside from the power of faith ...."
 

Henry from Canada

Puritan Board Freshman
Chris said;
"Care to comment why Jesus confused your two legal codes into one?"


Jesus confused nothing.

The 2 Great Commandments cover much of the OT laws.

For instance, the OT speaks a lot about health issues. Don't be slothful. Don't be gluttonous. Be careful with dead bodies. Don't eat dead animals you find on the road. Take special actions against mildew...........

This falls under the 2 Great Commandments. By following these commandments, you are protecting God's temple. That is, your body.
That is why we exercise every day and avoid junk food.

My father used to say that God gave the Jews these laws because He loved them.

But not all 600+ laws are still applicable. For instance, I do not have to wear blue tassels.


One final question: Who here is going to watch the Super Bowl on the Sabbath?

If you are, then you are SUPPORTING:
- a violent sport played on the Sabbath
- scantily-clad cheerleaders who incite lust in millions of men
- crass and materialistic advertising
- an object of idolatry
 

crhoades

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Henry from Canada
The 2 Great Commandments cover much of the OT laws.
Actually they cover all of the commandments:
On these two commands all the law and the prophets hang.

Even the ceremonial laws. They are under the first table. So by claiming only the two summary laws you are claiming all 600+ unless you have a hermeneutic to separate laws into fulfilled, abiding, expired or what not.

BTW, I'm not watching the Super Bowl on Sunday.;)
 

crhoades

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Henry from Canada
We shall have to agree to disagree.
Again, I beg and plead you as a brother in Christ to not forsake God's commands. Please study the reformers, puritans, Dutch, confessions etc. We all would be happy to provide links.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by Henry from Canada

One final question: Who here is going to watch the Super Bowl on the Sabbath?

If you are, then you are SUPPORTING:
- a violent sport played on the Sabbath
- scantily-clad cheerleaders who incite lust in millions of men
- crass and materialistic advertising
- an object of idolatry
While I am not watching it, there would be nothing wrong with the above if I did, according to your standards. I can say that I am lovng God and neighbor by watching the Super Bowl because your system of ethics does not define what loving God/neighbor really is. All you can do is tell me that your preference says not to watch it.
 

Henry from Canada

Puritan Board Freshman
Jacob said:
"I can say that I am lovng God and neighbor by watching the Super Bowl because your system of ethics does not define what loving God/neighbor really is"


I think that it is usually very easy to determine what a loving God and loving neighbour is and does.


A loving neighbour goes to the store and buys orange juice for you on the Sabbath when you have a cold, even though it is really unessential work that violates the OT Sabbath laws.

The cold will not kill you, the orange juice will not save your life, and the juice will only help a little. But the gesture is pure love.

A loving neighbour lies (bears false witness) and says you look great even though your face is covered by zits.

A loving neighbour will cheer her neighbour's son when he performs in a school play.


A loving God will give His people a whole bunch of sanitation laws to protect them from infectious diseases.

Many years ago, a pastor's wife told me about a professor she had in college that went through many of these OT laws and showed her God's love for man in them.

But no Christian here will obey all of the OT laws. For instance, we no longer kill Sabbath breakers.

Gentlemen, we are flogging a dead horse.

Life is tough. If you want to watch the Super Bowl, I hope you enjoy yourselves. But I will not be watching.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My final questions:

Why do I seldom see the word love on this board?

This word underlies all law.

What do you think about the church in Ephesus?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by Henry from Canada
We shall have to agree to disagree.
What would you say to what I asked and explained above:

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Henry from Canada
I think this debate comes down to an issue of legal codes.

Legal code #1
-----------------
The "moral laws" of the Old Testament plus the 2 Great Commandments

Legal code #2
-----------------
The 2 Great Commandments
I agree that this (in my opinion false) dichotomy you presented here is at the heart of what is causing much of the disagreement. See my above post for why that simply does not work, biblically or practically.
If Paul Hill believed his actions honored God and benefitted his neighbors, on what basis what you have told him differently? If I want to steal from a foundation that promotes atheism and give the money to a church fund for the homeless, thereby putting the money toward work for God's name that also benefits my neighbors, on what grounds would you tell me I am wrong? Why were Cain and Uzziah wrong? What if someone who is unmarried decides that sex with his girlfriend at the time will, one, display a love for God by magnifying the joy of His creation of sex, and two, display a love for his neighbor by showing her his true determination to stay committed to her.

I could go on and on. The point is, under your view of the two greatest commandments standing completely alone as being the commands by which we are bound, without any necessary reference to the ten commandments or the rest of the moral law, how do we know what is true love for God and what truly benefits our neighbors? What is the standard, for us or anyone else?
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Originally posted by Henry from Canada
Jacob said:
"I can say that I am lovng God and neighbor by watching the Super Bowl because your system of ethics does not define what loving God/neighbor really is"


I think that it is usually very easy to determine what a loving God and loving neighbour is and does.


A loving neighbour goes to the store and buys orange juice for you on the Sabbath when you have a cold, even though it is really unessential work that violates the OT Sabbath laws.
Are you even reading what people write on here? We have already said that such an action is a mercy one.
A loving neighbour will cheer her neighbour's son when he performs in a school play.
Relevance?

A loving God will give His people a whole bunch of sanitation laws to protect them from infectious diseases.
Where in the Bible do you see the ceremonial laws being given for sanitation reasons?
Many years ago, a pastor's wife told me about a professor she had in college that went through many of these OT laws and showed her God's love for man in them.

But no Christian here will obey all of the OT laws. For instance, we no longer kill Sabbath breakers.

Gentlemen, we are flogging a dead horse.
We make distinctions between ceremonial/judicial/moral laws.

Henry,
Is bestiality wrong? Where do you see that in the New Testament?
Can a daughter marry her step dad? Where do you see that in the New Testament?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My final questions:

Why do I seldom see the word love on this board?

This word underlies all law.

What do you think about the church in Ephesus?
1. You have repeatedly failed to define love. You keep throwin out this abstract concept.
2. Perhaps it does underline all law, but you have still failed to define it.
3. What about it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Edited on 2--4-06 by Draught Horse]
 

matt01

Puritan Board Senior
Could we have a fourth option, such as "Some combination of the above"?
"¢ I work every other Sunday. If I was able to make my work schedule, I wouldn't work on the Lord's Day. Unfortunately, this is not yet the case.
"¢ I am closer to the bed to bed principle. The Sabbath begins when I wake up and ends when I go to bed.
"¢ Though I work, I won't shop or eat out at restaurants on Sundays. There is no need to force others to work for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top