Luke 6 6:1 Now it came about that on a certain Sabbath He was passing through some grainfields; and His disciples were picking and eating the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, "Why do you do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?" 3 And Jesus answering them said, "Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him, 4 how he entered the house of God, and took and ate the consecrated bread which is not lawful for any to eat except the priests alone, and gave it to his companions?" 5 And He was saying to them, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."---NASB
Jim Lincoln wrote: I have no problem with you meeting First Day
Jim. Yours is a very pessimistic religion where God cannot prevent man from taking over. Your theory that God has had to compromise with sinners and reduce the commanments to nine - is of course the kind of theory we get from the Arminians. It is Reduction of God's sovereignty and an attack upon Scripture. Which may be why you use the heretic influenced NASB. GOD maintains HIS Sabbath through out history. And as HE promised from every monday Quote; "6 days thou shalt labour" - Which is precisely what happens every monday thru saturday. The next day being seventh in sequence is Sabbath (sunday). On which western society stops "labour" rests from "labour" and the children of God use that Sabbath day to worship in church. That is what God promised in His law and commandments, AND that is what God provides today in His providence and mercy. Praise God.
Jim, Remember what God recorded in His Scriptures, "Ex 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:" ~ That is what happens today. Next, "v10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work,!" AGAIN that in order of days is what happens.
Gil Rugh said or, wrote: Nowhere in the Old Testament is there any word that the Gentile nations ought to observe the sabbath , or keep the law. It was for the nation Israel. People come presenting supposed truth that will help us be more godly and will stem the tide of decadence around us. These are subtle forms to corrupt the sufficiency of Christ and His work accomplished in our lives.
Acts 20 7 And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.---NASB.
Now, if you think Monday is First Day, and not Sunday, and Saturday is not Shabbat, the Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists have that absolutely correct. However, if you wish, meet on Monday! But we have Freedom from the Mosaic Law.
The Sabbath was given at creation for all mankind. Thatcher, with malice aforethought, sought to destroy God's gracious provision - not the "mark" of the Christian that our presby friend hr would have us believe.
Jim Lincoln wrote: But you mean Margie didn't recognize that the Shabbat, is only on Saturday and can't be moved to First Day?
Jim Tomorrow is Monday the first day of the working week for everybody the world over. Thats the first day of the six days thou shalt labour.
At the end of those six days is the seventh called Sunday today. This is the Sabbath order which God established. The SEVENTH day is blessed and sanctified by God.
"Exod 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God:"
"Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."
men wrote: She did not hide behind your dodgy doctrine to justify her evil attempt to destroy the Christian Sabbath
God does not need politicians to keep and maintain HIS Sabbath. The Sabbath is for HIS children. God maintains the Sabbath and maintains it in UK/US today. We live in a fallen world surrounded by the children of wrath. They CANNOT obey God.
Margie being across the pond, wasn't a big issue for me, though being buddy-buddy with the superstitious Pres. Reagan, didn't raise her stock in my eyes. (Yes, I'm happy that our country helped out our fellow Anglophones when it came to the Falklands!)
By the way, I wonder if there's general agreement in Great Britain, that Margie's son was a stinker for his African adventures? She should have stayed home and raised here children.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Ah, observer, noting there are URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5504173329>Dispensations is the only way to accurately interpret the Bible. Ah, I think you'll find there are non-dispensationalists who would agree that only shabbat occurs on Saturday. I would say it would take a semi-dispensational attitude (recognizing there is an Old and New Covenant which many Reformed do) to even consider First Day to be a sabbath...
Typical Dispy nonsense Jim.
Where in the Bible do you find it explained that this is the way to understand the Bible?
And your statement that OC/NC is semi-Dispy is just a joke. The clue to the cognitively challenged is the word "Covenant".
If you had a mind to think for yourself instead always parroting Gil Rugh, look up Jer 31 and compare with Hebrews 8 and you will see that God didn't speak of a new DISPENSATION, but a new COVENANT!
Your serious error is to break up the 10 commandments which hang together and arbitrarily teach that one has been done away.
Ah, observer, noting there are URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5504173329>Dispensations is the only way to accurately interpret the Bible. Ah, I think you'll find there are non-dispensationalists who would agree that only shabbat occurs on Saturday. I would say it would take a semi-dispensational attitude (recognizing there is an Old and New Covenant which many Reformed do) to even consider First Day to be a sabbath. But, anyway, there is even The Calvinistic Heritage of Dispensationalism.
SteveR wrote: Actually with such an unpredictable vile nature, I feel its better for you to stay posting here. That way I can keep an eye on you. You really arent suitable for civilized Christianity
Where's the usual bitter invective?
Ahhhhhh, he is trying to be civilized, because "Christianity" is unattainable by him!
I feel called to keep an eye on ya Pal and offer biblical correctives to all your evil and vile doctrinal errors which were hatched in the depths of hell.
apost wrote: Don't worry Mike if the orphan was a baby and being adopted by Baptists in this "parable" he would have been left in the orphanage. Whereas if he was old enough to speak he would have been required to declare his intentions Arminian style. Thereby eliminating the Calvinist doctrine.
The subject was divine adoption not something that Baptists do. Also, adoption and baptism, albeit related, are NOT the same.
So, if you think that your mixing apples and pears and coming up with an Elephant is clever, you just carry on making a fool of yourself.
Observer wrote: There are Dispys out there who try to make out that the dispensations were merely how God administered human affairs and are nothing to do with different methods of salvation. But then we come across the likes of David and CIS and we discover that that is a load of baloney. What you say does not surprise me John. Errorists like parading their errors and ignorance for pride. Don't we have a living example on this very forum. Someone whose name starts with a "S" and ends in "R"?
Have you already violated your claim to leave the board for a few months? That was fast
Let me guess, you arent very good at keeping promises are you?
John UK wrote: Many years ago Observer, I read this man's "Lectures on Revivals". It all appeared to be going along quite nicely, until I reached the passage where he claims you can be "justified by faith" one minute, and then not be. And then if you do the right things you can be justified again. He was very hot on that, which made me wonder if he really knew what he was talking about.
There are Dispys out there who try to make out that the dispensations were merely how God administered human affairs and are nothing to do with different methods of salvation. But then we come across the likes of David and CIS and we discover that that is a load of baloney.
What you say does not surprise me John. Errorists like parading their errors and ignorance for pride.
Don't we have a living example on this very forum. Someone whose name starts with a "S" and ends in "R"?
Without a shadow of a doubt Margaret Thatcher proved herself to be one of Britains greatest Prime Ministers. Her leadership brought Britain out of the political, social and economic doldrums of the Callaghan/Labour disaster of the 70's. It was a painful process to rescue the UK from that mess and took strength and leadership from the front to achieve it, but she did it. Today the Conservative Party is nothing like Thatcher's party under her leadership. This is related to the corruption of Liberalism and Political Correctness which has poisoned and polluted the worlds western governments. Maggie's power and authority has been lost to Britain's politics and that is a sad loss because this nation is going down the tubes. Authority itself is lost to British society, eg church, justice, and the institutions. Perhaps this is the way God has decided to allow the western nations to go which can be observed in Christian and moral decline. The next government in UK will be Labour/socialist which again will pollute and weaken the government and leadership of this nation. Such political/economic decline runs alongside Christian and moral decline since socialism is anti-Christian (eg: socialist countries) and Liberalism and socialism have united in ideology, (eg: Obama).
Observer wrote: C I Scofield The pope of dispensationalism
Many years ago Observer, I read this man's "Lectures on Revivals". It all appeared to be going along quite nicely, until I reached the passage where he claims you can be "justified by faith" one minute, and then not be. And then if you do the right things you can be justified again. He was very hot on that, which made me wonder if he really knew what he was talking about.
He was doing ok in the first part but did not make as much as should have done of the fact that the Sabbath was instituted straight after the creation and that God sanctified it. Also that all the other requirements attending Sabbath observance when given to the Israelites were because it was then a theocracy. Then too when the 10 commandments were given the fourth started with the words "remember the Sabbath", pointing back to the creation sanctification! His conclusion is therefore all wrong. Then he turns eisegist and reads into the Colossians passage what he has wrongly concluded from the first part. Ha!
Your cut and paste theology needs better sources to quote from Jim
C.I. Scofield (1917) wrote: Isa 66:23 (3) The Christian first day perpetuates in the dispensation of grace the principle that one-seventh of the time is especially sacred, but in all other respects is in contrast with the sabbath. One is the seventh day, the other the first. The sabbath commemorates God's creation rest, the first day Christ's resurrection. On the seventh day God rested, on the first day Christ was ceaselessly active. The sabbath commemorates a finished creation, the first day a finished redemption. The sabbath was a day of legal obligation, the first day one of voluntary worship and service. The sabbath is mentioned in the Acts only in connection with the Jews, and in the rest of the N.T. but twice.
Col 2:16 Heb 4:4 In these passages the seventh day sabbath is explained to be to the Christian not a day to be observed, but a type of the present rest into which he enters when "he also ceases from his own works" and trusts Christ.