Is Calvinism Wrong?

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Except for what Paul says about the Law. Romans 7:12

In respect to this verse...we have many different translations, INCLUDING ordinances (KJV), requirements (NKJ), bill of charges (CJB), record of debt (ESV). However, if you look at what precedes that statement we see, "forgiven you all trespasses". Add to that the "handwriting" which was against us, it seems to be talking about the our sin DEBT and not the law that condemns us. It was the charges that were nailed to the tree of the condemned.

Colossians 2:13-14
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;​




Well, I suppose that could be, but I believe the Ten does contain all that. The command not to commit adultery for instance. Adultery is not limited to a woman.

Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Jeremiah 3:9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.

Ezekiel 23:37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.​

The commandment about coveting includes any and all desire of what does not belong to you. I believe this moral Law (including homosexuality) is written in the hearts of men.

What was nailed to the cross is described as “the handwriting of ordinances"-that was against us, which was contrary to us.” Because “ordinances” sounds like “law,” some, twist the meaning of “nailed it to the cross” into Paul saying the force of the law of God ended at the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.




The writ of charges...
In using the words “handwriting of requirements … contrary to us … nailed it to the cross,” Paul was describing the record of our sins, the indictment that required the penalty of death.

No, the indictments against believers, the charges against believers, the legal indebtedness against believers – was what was dropped, and nailed to the cross at the Lord Jesus Christ's death, rather than the law itself, which is consistently characterized in Scripture as eternal, and good...To wit:


Romans 7 KJV

12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

“handwriting,”=a memorandum of debt, "a writing by hand" used in public and private contracts.


The wages of our sins—our debt—is death (Romans 6:23 KJV). The Lord Jesus Christ was willing to pay that debt by dying in our place, thus blotting out the record of our debt and pardoning our sins.

Survey the "death warrant" against us, because of our sin/sins is the sign that Pilate had nailed to the cross upon which the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified. John 19:19-22 KJV-It was customary to publish a writ of charges against the condemned, and the board above the Lord Jesus Christ's head was inscribed with the charges for which the Jewish authorities demanded His death. Thus, it was a Roman custom, to write the name of the condemned person and his crime on a plaque to be placed above his head at the execution. Survey Mark 15:26 KJV-"superscription of his accusation."

26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, The King Of The Jews.




The charges removed-the meaning, then, of Colossians 2:13-14 KJV, based upon the immediate and the broader context is: You gentile believers had a death sentence against you due to your sin/sins-here are the charges............... But through the dbr, everything that one time could have been held against you has been removed.

The law against believers? No, it wasn’t God’s law that was against believers; it was the sins that they committed, as defined by that same holy, good law!. "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us,"= anything written by hand, but can more specifically apply to a legal document, bond or note of debt, was against us!!!!

Paul is relaying that the LORD God has "wiped out," removed, "nailed to the cross," through the body of Christ , representing mankind's guilt, the instrument for the remembrance of sin. The legal basis of this instrument was the "binding statutes," Col. 2:14 KJV, but what the LORD God destroyed on the cross was not the legal ground, the law, for our entanglement into sin, but the written record of our sins. By destroying the record of sins, the LORD God removed the possibility of a charge ever being made again against those who have been forgiven-a dead man is not under jurisdiction to the law.

" Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us,"


The above-a handwritten acknowledgement or note of debt, something like an I.O.U. When the debt was paid in full, the handwriting was invalidated by piercing it with something sharp like a nail.

This "handwriting" was also used in the case of the crucifixion or punishment of a criminal. All the charges of which the person had been found guilty, were written on a piece of parchment, and nailed to the cross on which the person convicted of those crimes would be crucified. Everyone could then see why he was hanging there and what he had done to deserve such a cruel punishment.This written indictment/charge/accusation are seen in John 19:19-20: accusations that were hung on the cross, on which the Lord Jesus Christ hung:

19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.

20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

The "accusing witness," so to speak, against the sinner, the record book of his sins, the certificate of debt, or book of debt, was removed/nailed. The Lord Jesus Christ has "erased" it, removed it out of the court, out of the witness chair of the accuser. Not only is this record of our sins removed, but it is also "nailed to the cross" in the sense that the Lord Jesus Christ took our sins upon himself, and paid the penalty for them...Survey 2 Cor. 5:21 KJV.


When we talk about "nailing it to his cross", that is not the law itself, but the curse of the law, or the penalties for disobeying the Law. It was the penalty of the broken law which He rendered inoperative, not the law itself.

In that time period when a man was charged with a crime the charges against him were written down on papyrus. If he was found not guilty the papyrus was then washed down with water, removing or blotting out those charges against him, to confirm his acquittal. This abolished the written charges against the man. This is the what is referred to in "blotting out of ordinances against us" that were nailed to the Stake, not the Law itself.

The law is still God's standard of righteousness and all the requirements for the broken law remain unchanged, apart from Him.



Again-the penalty which a lawbreaker had to pay--it does not signify the laws that are to be obeyed--only the penalty.


The certificate of debt was wiped away and nailed to the cross.



Moreover, pardoning someone for committing a capital crime, doesn’t do away with the law that was broken. If anything, it shows that the law carries force, for without the pardon, the criminal would die!

In the same way, the law of God carries force since breaking it (committing sin) requires the death penalty. The law is that powerful, that important. It is holy. People aren’t saved from that which was against them (the death penalty) by doing away with the law. What saves people from death is the death of the Lord Jesus Christ in the place of those who trust 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV.

In fact, the wording Paul employed Colossians 2:13-14 KJV showed that the law of God continues to carry great force. By saying the penalty demanded under the law of God was nailed to the instrument that killed the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul was showing that the law of God was still in force, still requiring death for sin.

By contrast, if the law had been brought to an abrupt end by the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, from that point on, nothing would be “against the law”-duh! Nothing could be called “sin.” Of course, we know that is not true. Sin exists, which means the law that calls it “sin” also exists!

The Lord Jesus Christ nailed to the cross what was contrary to him...

Ephesians 2:15 KJV "the law of commandments contained in ordinances;"
Colossians 2:14 KJV "the handwriting of ordinances"
Hebrews 7:16 KJV "the law of a carnal commandment"
Hebrews 9:10 KJV "carnal ordinances;"

What the Lord Jesus Christ abolished was carnal/fleshly commandments and ordinances, and hand written ordinances=that is the context..= the decrees of exclusion established by men, which were rooted in enmity between Jew & Gentile,such as “touch not, taste not, handle not”(survey Colossians 2:21 KJV), man-made social class/caste system set in place by Oral Torah, and Jewish leaders, attempting to keep a social and religious difference between Jews and Gentiles. Ordinances/decrees were laws that were man-made. Paul was referring to man-made orders, in this verse through the term “ordinance”. These “ordinances” were, yes, indeed hostile/”hate”/”enmity”, as they restrained anyone other than “Jews” worshiping God. These ordinances made a clear separation between Jew and Gentile, by elevating one above the other, to an “elite status,” to the extent where gentiles were looked down upon, scorned, and disassociated, by Jews everywhere………..

Shuck this deleting "the handwriting of ordinances" of Colossians 2:14 KJV, replacing it with "law/ordinances," thus perverting, corrupting the scriptures, making it look like Paul says that Christ blotted out, made void, the law/ordinances, making it look like Paul is saying that the law/ordinances are contrary/against us, not for our benefit, instead of Paul saying that the sin debt/IOU was blotted out, as that is what is contrary to us, against us, as Paul asserts that the law is perfect, good, holy, just, spiritual, not void, in Romans 11, and the problem is with man, and the sin debt/IOU for breaking a good, holy, spiritual law, not the law itself.


Again...When we talk about "nailing it to his cross", that is not the law itself, but the curse of the law, or the penalties for disobeying the law. It was the penalty of the broken law which He rendered inoperative, not the law itself.

In that time period when a man was charged with a crime the charges against him were written down on papyrus. If he was found not guilty the papyrus was then washed down with water, removing or blotting out those charges against him, to confirm his acquittal. This abolished the written charges against the man. This is the what is referred to in "blotting out of ordinances against us" that were nailed to the cross, not the law itself.

The law is still God's standard of righteousness and all the requirements for the broken law remain unchanged, apart from Him. B


"nailed to the cross" is the penalty which a lawbreaker had to pay--the certificate of debt was wiped away and nailed to the cross.


To the naysayers:Tell us how believers can be charged with the sin of rape, murder, stealing,..... if the law was abolished. Go ahead.

And notice I said "charged," not convicted, to anticipate any convoluted answer.

If there is no law against rape, murder................... how can a believer, be charged with the sin/crime?


How can an unbeliever be charged with murder, rape.................if there is no law, defining it is an offense, sin?


And there are literally thousands of preachers, that, in error, assert that the LORD God did away with His "holy law and then abolishes it," citing Colossians 2:14 KJV. Colossians 2:14 KJV does not say that the LORD God did away/abolished the law-it says that "the handwriting of ordinances" was blotted out-this is not a reference to the law, that was blotted out.

If the law was blotted out/did away, everyone would be saved:

1 John 3:4 KJV Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.


So, one of the definitions of sin is " the transgression of the law."

With me?


Now:

Romans 4:15 KJV because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.


Romans 5:13 KJV (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Thus, since sin is the transgression of the law, and, if it is true that there is no more "God's holy law," then, where there is no law, there is no transgression, whereby anyone can be accused, and sin cannot be imputed, if there is no law. Secular wise, for eg., if there is no law against speeding/going over a certain speed, no one can be charged with speeding/breaking a law-there is no law against speeding-no transgression.


Shuck this "the law was abolished/did away" assertion, and certainly not employ Colossians 2:14 KJV, in making this "argument," as "the handwriting of ordinances" is not a reference to "God's holy law."


Survey....

"Not imputing their trespasses unto them"

Paul must have been drunk, stoned, for no one can commit a "trespass," if there is no law against it.

And Paul did not write, "The just shall live by faith," to assert that the law was done away.

Through the law, is the knowledge of sin, and still functions, to bring the lost to Christ-today, as it did in Egypt, as it always has:

Romans 3:20 KJV Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Galatians 3 KJV
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Read it-"that"


Again...

Romans 3:20 KJV Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Galatians 3 KJV
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

If the law no longer exists, then the law no longer leads others to Christ, as the school master, since it no longer exists, and that others cannot know what sin is, since the law no longer exists.


The Ten Commandments, part of the law of Moses, which many, in error, say is abolished, are for the specific purpose of defining sin. This law, which defines sin, is described by Paul as being as "holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good"(Romans 7:12 KJV).
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
So if I first adopt this paradigm, I can then force all scripture to be read under this paradigm and thus am free to ignore the direct words of Christ?

No. You won't have to "force" ANYTHING!

You will be able to read ALL OF SCRIPTURE as-is, take it at face value, and be able to understand what it is saying, without any reason to force it to say anything other than what it says.

It's literally Occam's Razor for the Bible.
 

Rosenritter

New member
Not relevant.

Entirely relevant. It is like you were asking whether a physics professor teaches addition. The professor isn't teaching addition. Addition leads to physics, and if you cannot understand how to add 2 + 2 you won't ever understand gravitational acceleration. Addition won't launch rockets, physics will make them fly.

Thank you for conceding the debate.

If you were debating that Jesus preached grace and forgiveness of sins then you sure did a good job of hiding it.

It's worse than that. The Jews had no promise of heaven - and still don't. Their promise is and has always been Earthly. It is they who will inheret and occupy the New Earth.

Acts 15:11 KJV
(11) But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

1 Peter 1:3-5 KJV
(3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
(4) To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
(5) Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

I think you have more than one item confused here, perhaps concerning heaven and/or eternal life and/or salvation, which isn't going to be resolved in one or two posts. Regardless, if I understand your Paradigm correctly, in a epistle called "FIRST PETER" (which you admit applies to Jews) that faith leads to salvation to an inheritance reserved in heaven. How is this any different for someone born of Gentile blood?

If what you are saying is true then there was no need for Paul at all!

Clete, weren't you just saying a moment ago that it is God who does everything? Given that I just said that God could raise up anyone to accomplish this task, why are you so alarmed? Do you really think God was dependent upon Paul the individual and that had Paul hung himself from a tree that this would have destroyed the gospel for ever in its infancy? Because if not, why the alarm?

Where's the need for a thirteenth Apostle when He had Twelve, fully trained and Holy Spirit indwelt, Apostles?

More than a couple good reasons, one of which to proactively prevent a "Primacy of Peter" assumption within the early church.

Paul explains that Isreal was cut off but not because of the Cross. Jesus Himself forgave them of His murder while He was on the cross. God cut off Israel because the refused to repent and accept Him as their Messiah. But when God cut Israel off, He didn't cut off those that believed! He didn't cut off the Twelve and their converts. (Romans 9-11)

The scripture itself said that God would break the covenant with Israel in the immediate context of his price of thirty pieces of silver. No more Old Covenant, no more special protection for national Israel, no more "do this and receive that" to fall upon. The covenant was broken. Hebrews tells us that it's gone. You might not like that I quoted a ton of scripture already, but that ton of scripture is directly applicable.

Peter was under the law!

Nope. Read Galatians. Peter was not under the law. Why did Paul say he was to be blamed? For not following the law? Or for compelling Gentiles to live as Jews when he himself lived as a Gentile?

Galatians 2:11-16 KJV
(11) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
(12) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
(13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
(14) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
(15) We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
(16) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

The blame was for compelling the Gentiles to live as Jews when Peter already knew better, not because Peter himself was living as a Gentile. Notice how Paul says "man" is justified, not "Jew" or "Gentile" (and elsewhere he declares there is no difference between the two!)

Jesus was under the Law, obeyed the Law and tiaght others to do the same. This point of yours makes no sense.

Sorry, losing you here. It does not make sense that something small is required of us before God works further within us? This was specifically in response to where you were saying that you do not need to even "attempt" to do God's will, that it's "all" Him.

2 Timothy 2:13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself. Dead (crucified) hearts cannot be broken and contrite. The law does NOT apply to me!

Unsupported figure "dead hearts cannot be contrite" is not found by scripture: God does not say this and furthermore his appeal to the wicked to repent denies your implication. Also, further appeal to whether you have personal application to the law of Moses is a straw man, that has not been suggested or postulated.

'Trust and Obey' is the most disgusting distortion of the gospel that has ever been penned in the English language! It is an afront to God's grace to even hum the tune, never mind sing it.

Wow. That is some serious paradigm you have there.

Not much more than nearly everything that you'd consider essential to the Christain faith and practice.

Nearly everything essential to Christian faith and practice is not found in Jesus? Seriously?

Without Paul you would be a practicing Messianic Jew. To the extent you are not you have Paul and Paul alone to thank for it.

No, I do not, and that statement actually borders towards blasphemy. Were Paul here he would have none of that.

1 Corinthians 1:12-15 KJV
(12) Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
(13) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
(14) I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
(15) Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

P.S. If I sound angry, I'm not. I'm just frustrated that it's so damn impossible to have this conversation with seemingly anyone. It hits this exact same wall every single time. You argued against your own position but you will not ever see it unless/until God Himself showes it to you. Agonizing!

If you think I "argued against my own position" then you are demonstrating that you do not understand my position. Your argument that you are not "under the law [of Moses]" is evidence of this.

Furthermore, you have contradiction in your own position, as demonstrated when you said that Peter was "under the law [of Moses]" when Paul clearly identifies Peter was to be blamed not for living as the Gentile, but for teaching Gentiles to live like Jews.

If you are consistent in your zeal, you should be willing to reconsider your base paradigm in light of these flaws (these, and others.)
 

Rosenritter

New member
The ultimate alternative was God Himself. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a shortcut, an alternative to God, just as is the Law today.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a shortcut to God; to choose that tree was a death sentence.

Genesis 2:16-17 KJV
(16) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
(17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
 

Rosenritter

New member
What in the world do you mean by that?

I quoted two scriptures of whom Jesus is the author.

Whatever you said did not match what Jesus said. In that parable, grace was applied freely without being earned, and that grace was revoked afterwards. Your phrasing totally confused the order of events, and then proceeded to spiral off base from that confused order. It's in the post already. Reply there perhaps?
 

Rosenritter

New member
I would DARE anyone to read the 'New Testament' and not see' at least, a few, contradictions between the 'Kingdom Gospel' (The Gospel that Christ and His Disciples were preaching) and the 'Gospel of the grace of God' as preached by the Apostle Paul.

No contradictions. I've challenged people to show alleged contradictions, but it might be that the contradictions do not manifest unless I first adopt a Dispensationalist paradigm.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Whatever you said did not match what Jesus said. In that parable, grace was applied freely without being earned, and that grace was revoked afterwards. Your phrasing totally confused the order of events, and then proceeded to spiral off base from that confused order. It's in the post already. Reply there perhaps?
There are many posts here. Which ONE are you talking about?
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
So if I first adopt this paradigm, I can then force all scripture to be read under this paradigm and thus am free to ignore the direct words of Christ?


1.
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?129411-quot-Red-Letter-quot-syndrome


2.
Acts 20:35 KJV I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Are "It is more blessed to give than to receive" "the words of Christ?" If you assert, "Yes," show us anywhere, where the Christ said it, when he walked the earth, in Matthew-John. Go ahead. Chapter, verse, where "he said":


"It is more blessed to give than to receive"
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
The ultimate alternative was God Himself. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a shortcut, an alternative to God, just as is the Law today.

No contradictions. I've challenged people to show alleged contradictions, but it might be that the contradictions do not manifest unless I first adopt a Dispensationalist paradigm.

You can't see the forest for the trees.
 

Rosenritter

New member
More condescension? Do you never tire of it?

If it's either explaining things from the beginning or calling you out as a troll, I would rather err on the side of former. That, or I could go back to blocking you again, but you indicated that you would rather someone talked to you.

Your partial quote of Gill made no sense. And now that I've gone back to what he actually said, I see he is missing what is obvious. I searched out my own commentator, and you may have the privilege of reading what Barnes has to say on this issue. It's right on.

Yet you didn't explain what you thought he said.


The solemn act of blessing and hallowing is the institution of a perpetual order of seventh-day rest: in the same manner as the blessing of the animals denoted a perpetuity of self-multiplication, and the blessing of man indicated further a perpetuity of dominion over the earth and its products. The present record is a sufficient proof that the original institution was never forgotten by man.


You propose that the original institution was never forgotten by man? Try supporting that from scripture? God says that the sabbath was known to Israel at Sinai, at the hand of Moses. They didn't know any sabbath before this.

Nehemiah 9:13-14 KJV
(13) Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:
(14) And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

Since you didn't state Clarke's argument and neglected to boldface anything, that should suffice for now. Regardless, I noticed that neither Barnes nor Clarke addressed the grammar of the Genesis passage, which indicated that the element of the Sabbath was being spoken with hindsight, by the hand of Moses who penned these books. So you failed to dispute the point by Gill.

Should you actually care to discuss that point from Gill (concerning the grammar of the passage showing that the Sabbath was in reference to the law of Moses) that is why I asked ahead if you could clarify the difference between a clean and unclean animal. You know, that bit called "objective analysis?"

Then, by all means, consider the different evidences given by Barnes and Clarke. I would wait for your restatement here, but I won't hold my breath.

I restarted Barnes, I don't know what impression you received from Clarke.

Cannot see any substance there. Sorry.

You'll need to go back to the basics before we go forward.

Pot, Kettle, Black?

And one more thing. You haven't given me an answer on the PURPOSE OF THE LAW, yet.

Back to step one for you. :)

Have quite some many times already. More than one reason, including to make Israel a holy and a peculiar people, and to bring us to Christ. Now if you can pull yourself away from your precious emoticon commentaries for a moment, back to the subject? What was the purpose of the Sabbath?

Ezekiel 20:10-13 KJV
(10) Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness.
(11) And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them.
(12) Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
(13) But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.

ANSWER: it was a sign between GOD and Israel.

Did you try looking at instances of "sabbath" and "sabbaths" in scripture? Let me summarize for you:

1. The sabbath was given to Israel only
2. It was made known and given by God through Moses on Sinai
3. It was commanded to their fathers (of Israel, not the Gentiles)
4. It was a special sign between God and Israel (not the Gentiles)
5. It was part of the old covenant (that covenant which we are told is obsolete and has passed away)
6. It was a special sign to commemorate bringing Israel out of Egypt

Deuteronomy 5:15 KJV
(15) And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.

That word therefore is important. It means that the LORD commanded the keeping of the sabbath day BECAUSE of bringing Israel out of Egypt. That pretty much destroys Barnes (maybe Clarke) and your position that the sabbath was commanded of Adam, and Abraham, and the Gentiles, being known to man throughout. God said it was specifically because he brought out Israel.
 

Rosenritter

New member
There are many posts here. Which ONE are you talking about?

Divider, there's a little blue arrow in the "quoted" section. If you click on that it goes back to the source post. A couple clicks and you will hop-hop-hop back there in a few seconds.

I didn't figure that out until recently, but it's very helpful. I figured everyone else knew that already but me.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Divider, there's a little blue arrow in the "quoted" section. If you click on that it goes back to the source post. A couple clicks and you will hop-hop-hop back there in a few seconds.

I didn't figure that out until recently, but it's very helpful. I figured everyone else knew that already but me.

Everyone knows it. Especially those of us who have been around for years. And I'm quite sure everyone is getting more than tired of your outrageous condescending attitute. Why should anyone make any effort at all to discuss anything with a teenage 'know it all'. You must be really young.

My suggestion would be to grow up, and stop bossing the grown ups around. And you may consider that a friendly piece of advice. :cool:
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
If it's either explaining things from the beginning or calling you out as a troll, I would rather err on the side of former. That, or I could go back to blocking you again, but you indicated that you would rather someone talked to you.
Spoiler




Yet you didn't explain what you thought he said.


The solemn act of blessing and hallowing is the institution of a perpetual order of seventh-day rest: in the same manner as the blessing of the animals denoted a perpetuity of self-multiplication, and the blessing of man indicated further a perpetuity of dominion over the earth and its products. The present record is a sufficient proof that the original institution was never forgotten by man.


You propose that the original institution was never forgotten by man? Try supporting that from scripture? God says that the sabbath was known to Israel at Sinai, at the hand of Moses. They didn't know any sabbath before this.

Nehemiah 9:13-14 KJV
(13) Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:
(14) And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:

Since you didn't state Clarke's argument and neglected to boldface anything, that should suffice for now. Regardless, I noticed that neither Barnes nor Clarke addressed the grammar of the Genesis passage, which indicated that the element of the Sabbath was being spoken with hindsight, by the hand of Moses who penned these books. So you failed to dispute the point by Gill.

Should you actually care to discuss that point from Gill (concerning the grammar of the passage showing that the Sabbath was in reference to the law of Moses) that is why I asked ahead if you could clarify the difference between a clean and unclean animal. You know, that bit called "objective analysis?"



I restarted Barnes, I don't know what impression you received from Clarke.


Cannot see any substance there. Sorry.



Pot, Kettle, Black?



Have quite some many times already. More than one reason, including to make Israel a holy and a peculiar people, and to bring us to Christ. Now if you can pull yourself away from your precious emoticon commentaries for a moment, back to the subject? What was the purpose of the Sabbath?

Ezekiel 20:10-13 KJV
(10) Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness.
(11) And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them.
(12) Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.
(13) But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.

ANSWER: it was a sign between GOD and Israel.

Did you try looking at instances of "sabbath" and "sabbaths" in scripture? Let me summarize for you:

1. The sabbath was given to Israel only
2. It was made known and given by God through Moses on Sinai
3. It was commanded to their fathers (of Israel, not the Gentiles)
4. It was a special sign between God and Israel (not the Gentiles)
5. It was part of the old covenant (that covenant which we are told is obsolete and has passed away)
6. It was a special sign to commemorate bringing Israel out of Egypt

Deuteronomy 5:15 KJV
(15) And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.

That word therefore is important. It means that the LORD commanded the keeping of the sabbath day BECAUSE of bringing Israel out of Egypt. That pretty much destroys Barnes (maybe Clarke) and your position that the sabbath was commanded of Adam, and Abraham, and the Gentiles, being known to man throughout. God said it was specifically because he brought out Israel.


:rotfl: :loser: :rotfl:

Click your little blue arrows, Rosie, and hop hop hop back to where I said that. :popcorn:
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
I don't think that you see the consiquences of such a take on this single verse. It cuts against the grain of Paul's entire ministry.

But, Paul says this about the Law.
Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.​

To make the point, I'm going to bring something up that might seem like it's coming out of the blue and what follows is only a very very breif cursory presentation of a little known but very important issue that not only connects the Old and New Testaments into a coherent whole but stands as proof positive that what got nailed to that Tree was the Law and nothing else...

There is a startling and undeniable connection between the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Law. It is no mistake that Jesus is described as a curse and as having been "hung on a tree". The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Law have at least seven parallels in scripture...


The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
  1. The Tree is the ministry of death. Gen 2:17
  2. Do not partake of the Tree. Gen. 2:17
  3. In the day you partake of the Tree, you will die. Gen. 2:17
  4. By the Tree is the knowledge of sin. Gen. 3:22
  5. The Tree brought the offense. Rom. 5:17
  6. The Tree’s curse died on the cross.Rom 5:18-19
  7. The Tree of Life is in the new heaven, but not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Ezek. 31:15; Rev. 22:14

The Law
  1. The law is the ministry of death. 2 Cor. 3:7
  2. Do not partake of the law. Rom. 7:6; 10:4
  3. In the day you partake of the law, you will die. Rom. 7:9
  4. By the law is the knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:20; 7:7
  5. The law made the offense abound. Rom. 5:20
  6. The law was nailed to the cross. Col. 2:13-14, 16
  7. The Law of the Spirit is in the new heaven, but not the Law of Death. Rom. 8:2; 7:6

So take all that in and then read Galatians 3...

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Yes, good points all. Except, we are redeemed from the curse of the Law. The Law condemns, and Christ redeemed us from the condemnation we had rightfully coming to us. Which is why I mentioned the forgiveness in the next verse.



No no no.

Don't give up on me, Clete. I really do have a listening ear. :)

Don't do this! It isn't the 633 commandments, its the Ten commandments. That's because there's ten things in it - ten things.


God through Jeremiah and Ezekiel was drawing a parallel, not expanding the law against adultery. Israel is God's "bride" and she "cheated" on Him and so He divorced her (that's what the book of Lamentations is - Israel's divorce decree from God.)


So, in other words, the Law of Moses is based upon and contained in the Ten Commandments and are, therefore, essentially the same thing.

I mean, what are you do here other than expanding the Ten Commandments into the Law of Moses?

Resting in Him,
Clete

The "law" was added because of transgressions. What was the "law" added to if not the Ten?

What was added by Moses were rites, rituals, and sacrifices, because the Jews were in disobedience attempting to skirt the Ten and avoid obeying. So, of course, "Remember the Sabbath" became MORE than what was intended. Now there are all kinds of rules and regulations. Basically, the Law of Moses was punishment added on to the Ten. Which included the sacrifices until the seed should come.

But, I am more than willing to see what I may be missing.....
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a shortcut to God; to choose that tree was a death sentence.

Genesis 2:16-17 KJV
(16) And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
(17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
I didn't say it was a shortcut to God.
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
So if I first adopt this paradigm, I can then force all scripture to be read under this paradigm and thus am free to ignore the direct words of Christ?

The ascended Lord Jesus Christ Himself spoke directly to Paul on multiple occasions and appointed him Apostle to the nations/gentiles for the truth of GOD according to the mystery kept hidden in GOD from before the world began.

Therefore, Paul said this:

Rom 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
Rom 15:15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,
Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
Rom 15:17 I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God.
Rom 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Those who adopt that paradigm are telling me that I should interpret all scripture in light of it, and then I am free to ignore Christ's words as being applicable.

No, you are missing the point entirely.

The proper paradigm allows you to simply read the bible - just read it and take it for what it plainly states. Jesus said what He meant and so did Peter, James, John, and Paul. They all spoke with perfecly clear language that isn't at all difficult to understand and to properly apply. You don't need a fancy degree or to be an expert in the Greek language or be in pocession of any other sort of secret decoder ring that allows you to properly "interpret" the bible. The bible is EASY to understand. If you find a passage that is confusing, find the nearest 3rd grader and read it to him and ask him what it means. He'll get it right almost every time.

Clete
 
Top