Dr. Tim wrote: Shabbat begins around sunset on Friday and ends around sunset on Saturday. You can take any day of the weekâ€”Sunday is a particular favoriteâ€”and call it the sabbath, but your calling it such does not make it such any more than calling a surgically mutilated man a woman makes him a woman. Either observe the sabbath when God commanded for it to be observedâ€”the SEVENTH dayâ€”or set aside your hypocrisy and admit that you do not observe and never have observed the sabbath.
Sorry but what you are parroting here is the modern Christians' take about the derided 'Sabbath', which is the poisoned version of the 4th command the Pharasies sustained according to the Talmud.
Differently we talk about a command of the decalogue telling us to set a day apart for God's glory and our good and devotion. This is what the 4 th commandment is about.
Jim Lincoln wrote: excerpt from: "Understanding the Sabbath" [ https://tinyurl.com/zl7waxn ] John MacArthur has presented in a more sophisticated and accurate way than Andy Stanley that there are only 9 commandments for Christians
There is little difference between denying one command or the ten of them. MacArthur proves with this to be a none reliable teacher of the word. This is where neocalvinists start to depart from truth. In reality, it is only lifestyle convenience by which some arrive to such conclusions, especially among those going the liberal way, charging the party holding to the relevance of the 4th commandment as 'legalist' or narrow minded. Disclaimer: Nobody is saying here that we are justified or not by keeping the 4th command, rather that as the other commands, it is God's revealed perfect will for man's good.
"Every word of God is pure"
It is always dangerous to add or subtract from his revealed will.
"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
No need to resort to undermining insult under cover of a Scripture verse, US.
"Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing." On the light of this, happy reading of scripture which can make any wise unto every good work.
US, you state this as mine position, that "chapter 14 is Paul dealing with mainly the Jews and their observances of holy days"
This was not my statement. The chapter deals with the conflict of the two backgrounds. You are moving the post.
Observation re. Your last comment, There is a difference between creating straw men or rabbit trails and to consistently prove an issue to be true or valid from different angles, which has been my norm. No further engagement will continue on the ongoing matter.
Do not worry, US. You have been found in the past prone to find exceeding number of pretexts and fabricated objections to persist in your view, and please, you are in your right to do so if you wish.
No grabbing for straws, US, either. You might need to agree that there is no other epistle in which the doctrinal balance and contrast of Jew v. Gentile is so much emphasied, explained and expounded. The obvious reason being that, differently to Thesalonians, Corinthians, or Philippians for instance, showing by their content that they were addressed mainly to Gentiles, or as Hebrews towards the Jew backbround, this letter was written with a mixed crowd in mind. See, the epistles are not doctrinal treatises per se, but *letters* addressing the particulars of every group, as 1John was a response to prevalent rampant agnosticism.
The transitional conflict of Jew v. Gentile background can be traced back to Acts 15, and throughout the epistles hints arise here and there of the same, e.g. Colossians 2
Standing back one can perceive the historical reality easily, except for those needing the passage to hold onto the modern Christian liberty mantra.
Very signifincantly however, most of the classic theologians hold not to the 'liberty' interpretation.
Thank you John. Regretfully the Free church does not stand in the fashion the old presbyterians stood! By no means the issue is ever discussed or reconsidered, with one exception to my knowledge, though most of the churches in Ulster refrain from public ornamentation in their sanctuaries. In this issue the free church follows British Victorian custom without a blink.
Thank you, June, for the link
"Nevertheless the foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, The Lord knows them that are his. And, Let every one that names the name of Christ depart from iniquity."
June A. Nadolny wrote: 1. John . . I would not have expected that from a Free Presbyterian church? ?
2. ... the late Ian Paisley, founder of the FP church formed an alliance with Sean Brady, then Cardinal of the RCC. Being from the states, I confess Ralph and I were ignorant of Paisley's dual role as politician / preacher.
1. John, are you talking about the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, or of Scotland?
2. June, can you document that alliance? Thanks Greetings
Cont. Once the mixed ethnicity in the church at Rome is demonstrated the rest falls into place regarding the issues mentioned in chapter 14.
The chapter reveals in hints the ongoing issues that these two ethnicities struggled with and the difficulties represented by their backgrounds and what they stood for. The Jew perturbed with abandoning 'the law', with its ceremonies, days and precepts, while the Gentile felt disturbed with a feeble conscience of meat sacrificed to idols, steaming from their past, hence abstaining from voluntary foods. Of course this explains the lack of harmony, friction, and mutual condemnation, as the two parties quarelled.
Such are the issues dealt in chapter 14. The problem is that we only read the answers to the issues in chapter 14, not necessarily the real problems are spelled out, but while reading between the lines along the context of the whole letter, we can discern the ongoing conflicts.
This is the reason why many affirm and sustain that the verses deal with the struggles of two infant Christian communities in a transitional period.
The book of Romans is uniquely enriching theologically because of this.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: ... written to a mainly Gentile audience ... and there is no indication in the context that ... is anywhere close to rightly dividing the Word of truth
US 1. The letter is written "To *all* that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints" 1:7 This immediately includes Jews and Gentiles, as all believers are called to be saints.
2. Rome was a great urbis extending miles, and in a day of different transport chapter 16 shows that the church in Rome, met at different locations. Divers households are mentioned in v.10&11, while v.3 tells of a fellowship meeting in the house of Jews, Priscilla and Aquila, while in v.15 another is associated with Olympas, Greek name. Yet there was no segregation of the two ethnicities as we see in 16:4 that Gentiles felt in debt to Jew leaders, Aquila and Priscilla.
3. The epistles address issues relevant to ongoing difficulties. E.g. 3:8 cites an allegation, while 6:1 brings the doctrinal explanation to the issue.
4. When reading the book in one sitting one observes a peculiar tug of war asserting the mixed ethnicity of the church, by obvious contrasting concepts, as circumcision versus uncircumcision, under the law against not under law, aluding to Jew v. Gentile.
US, this is what you wrote "Except the book of Romans was written to a mainly Gentile audience in Rome and there is no indication in the context that what sister B had stated is anywhere close to rightly dividing the Word of truth"
1. You imply my take did not divide the word aright. This is discrediting
2. The book is written with Jews and Gentiles in mind, hence the many verses including both as part of the argument sustained
3. The list of names in chapter 16 includes Jewish and Greek names.
4. If it was written mainly to Gentiles how do explain the generous references to OT individuals as Moses, Abraham, or David, and the many quotations from OT as in chapter 15. It appears the writter assumed the receiver to be familiar with such, which the Gentiles would not be perse.
5. Notice the invitation to forbear in 15: ," receive one another" pointing to existing conflict between the OT tradition wishing to retain feasts, and days, while the Gentile background obviously remained indifferent to such.
6.Jews were scattered throughout the different Roman urbis due to commerce, e.g. Priscilla and Aquila mentioned in chapter 16
US, discredinting a person in order to debunk an argument seems easy but is not always successful. Please, examine this excerpt from Romans 2 to see if Romans is mainly directed to Gentiles:
"Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that horrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. "
Romans 14 deals with the transitional stage from the old covenant ordinances, -say OT feasts, and ceremonies, that became obsolete, - into the coming of the New covenant.
John UK, your first remarks of today are witty. Certainly, nastiness does not pertain to the new nature, neither mocking as "The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious"
As Christ denounced, words identity character.
"I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For *by thy words* thou shalt be justified and *by thy words* thou shalt be condemned"
John UK wrote: If folks think the Reformation was a magical cure for Catholicism, and a wave of a wand produced a perfect church overnight, they need think again.
Sure. There is much simplistic thinking and historical ignorance about, that leads to shallow understanding, practice and belief, often producing as a by product many self-convinced 'doctors' at self-service distortion and manipulating facts.
John UK Surely Presbyterians wishing to completely move away from the falacies of Rome beyond what other reformers have come short, single minded aimed for only one prescribed holy day; when as for today most of the evangelical population forsaking the one prescribed holy day, madly engage in the big festive holiday of the year, which practice certainly adds to no consistent piety as a norm.
Surely Presbyterians took a commendable stand in their day which still holds strong value towards godliness today.
However, as the season comes in a package, there are other of its facets that come short of the glory of God, one being vanity. The sense of acting *in vain* which comes mentioned early in the decalogue, relates to untrue, useless, futile or false purpose. Though there are niceties in the season, as some measure of quality family time or good will towards others for instance, there is much done under futility which is to become short and far from what is true. God is a wholesome being by character, and vain things are short of truth in content, which is what he is by very esence. This escapes those that look for "transgressing sin" in the season, rather than futile sin, which becomes holiness short.
You are departing from truth by following your deceitful reasoning. Your argumentation would not hold any court of justice and shames sound thinking. Resisting truth is a trait of reprobate minds. 2 Timothy 3 Christ's death we are told to remember, not his birth. What you as others are doing is to twist around meaning to catch people in their own words. See previous post below. This does not proceed from pure motives.
"Only fear the LORD, and serve him in *truth* with all your heart:"