Lysimachus,
So where in that verse does it say that the sabbath was given specifically to the jewish people?
I find it surprising that you would attempt to throw out a whole host of spokespersons for catholic doctrine as completely irrelevant to what your church teaches. Are you saying that everyone I quoted, including cardinals and bishops, are all part of some fringe that have nothing to do with the teachings of the church?
No, I did not get the quotes from there. I took some of these from sources directly quoting what catholic scholars have said on the matter.
I would actually liked to apologize for saying what I did. My satire was taken too far and gave the impression that I was trying to ridicule you.
There is no command in the New Testament NOT to observe the Jewish Sabbath either. The last command in the New Testament came from Christ to pray that our flight not be on the Sabbath. This is a form of observance. Also why need we repeat anymore all that which was spoken in the Old Testament? I guess you require a lot more repitition than what the scriptures give. Just because there is no specific command that Christians are to observe the Sabbath in the New Testament means we are not to keep it? I beg you pardon, but this reasoning doesn’t make any sense.
And what is your point? Just because they made the transfer from Temple to Synagogue solidifies your point that the Seventh-Day was no longer a day to be observed? Also, studying and worshipping were both adequate and expected activities for the Sabbath. It is a common understanding in today’s Christianity that the “Church” (building) is God’s house of “worship”. You hear it all the time.
It sure clearly suggests it to me. I guess you can try and read what you want into scripture, but that doesn’t change the overall context of God’s 4th Commandment for all of humanity. Don’t forget, your Catholic fathers claim to have changed the “Sabbath” from “Saturday” to “Sunday”. Oh yes, I have all the quotes coming.
Did you even read Amun’s quotes? Now let me ask you this, if Saturday was no longer a day to be “observed”, then why the need to transfer the “observance” (notice “observance”) from Saturday to Sunday?We call it the Jewish because it was given to the Israelites, not to mankind.
And we Catholics agree.
Does it?
Thus, living by faith includes works of love. These works / active expressions of love are indeed necessary for salvation; St. Paul himself draws the distinction. In Romans 3:28, he speaks of works, not of love, but “works of the Law.” No one is saved by "works of the Law”, i.e., works performed for a legalistic benefit and apart from sincere love. But, one is saved by works of love, just as James describes in James 2, when he says that “faith without works (i.e., works of love) is dead.” Paul himself is 100% in accord with this, e.g., in 1 Cor. 13:2, Paul says “if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” Also, in Galatians 5:6, he makes it clear that what counts is “faith working through love.” These types of works OF LOVE are absolutely necessary, or your faith is dead and cannot save you. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church. No semantics, no distortion.
Agreed.
This isn’t the issue. God does not require us to keep the Commandments themselves at all, that is, not in any legalistic sense. In Christ, we are no longer bound to the Law; we are no longer obligated by the Commandments AS LAW. Rather, we are bound to Christ and His Righteousness - that is, as I said previously, the righteousness behind the Commandments - the reason the legalistic Commandments exist. Because of this, we are not only obligated not to kill; we are also obligated not to hate our brother or to speak to him in an abusive way (see Matt. 5). Likewise, we are not only obligated not to commit adultery, we are also obligated not to even look at another person lustfully (again, see Matt 5). Why is this? It’s because doing these things violates our loving Covenant with Jesus - our holy solidarity with Him, which is a Covenant of love, not a Covenant of mere law. Thus, God does not consider us bound merely to the Ten Commandments at all. He considers us bound to the righteousness of Jesus, which asks us to go beyond the mere legal requirements of the Ten Commandments. This, again, is the Catholic Christian Faith.
No, sorry! One does not need law to follow Christ. This is because Christ serves as our living example of righteousness and holiness. If one truly loves Christ and lives like Christ and for Christ, then they have no need to know the Law or worry about keeping it. This is the very essence of the Gospel which Paul preached to the Gentiles. Christ would not murder, commit adultery, or steal. Thus, the Christian does not murder, commit adultery, or steal. Law has nothing to do with it. We are bound by the Righteousness behind the Mosaic Law; we are bound to the Person of Jesus Christ. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the Gospel.
Sorry, but you apparently don’t get it. Sin is not a violation of law. Crime is a violation of law. Sin is an offense against God - an offense against a Person. To continue with the example I earlier gave you: In many places in the modern United States, adultery is still considered a civil crime. Thus, if one is caught in adultery, one can technically be jailed for it, or, more likely, one will be subject to harsh legal measures if the spouse decided to divorce the adulterer for the crime of adultery. So, if a man avoids committing adultery, he can do so for two reasons: He can avoid committing adultery because he doesn’t want his wife divorcing him and taking everything that he owns - this is a legal concern: a desire not to violate the law and its resulting punishment. Or, a man can avoid committing adultery because he sincerely loves his wife and would never want to hurt her or violate his relationship with her. This is a personal concern - a concern for the covenant that the man has with his wife, and it is far greater than the legal concern.Yes. Nor are they living a life of love, without which faith is pointless (1 Cor. 13:2).
No, your understanding is in error. Love for God will cause you to be obedient to God and faithful to His Righteousness, which goes beyond the mere letter of the Law.
Please Read the whole passage. What Jesus is saying here (He is speaking to Jews) is that He is not abolishing the Law. Rather, the Law continues to stand, and continues to exist implicitly within the New Covenant. But, if you continue reading the passage, Jesus then goes on to say how His disciples are called to surpass the mere requirements of the Law. In Matthew 5:21-22, He says that one is not merely bound not to murder another person, but must not even speak to another person in an abusive manner. The latter requirement is not found anywhere in the Torah , at least not explicitly, and, because of this, 1st Century Jews (e.g. Pharisees, who lived according to the literal statements of the Law) believed that it was okay to beat a man within an inch of his life, just as long as you didn’t actually kill Him. But, Jesus denies this. He shows us what the true meaning of “Thou Shall Not Kill” is meant to refer to - the depth of righteousness that it points to and implies - the righteousness behind the Law. Likewise, in Matt. 5:27-28, Jesus says that one is not merely bound to avoid adultery (that is, actual sex outside of marriage), but one must not even look at a woman lustfully. This, again, is not demanded anywhere in the legal context of the Torah, but, it is the Divine righteousness that “Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery” points to and implies. Jesus shows us this. The Pharisees, otoh, thought that it was okay to lust after your neighbor’s teenaged daughter, just as long as you didn’t actually touch her or cheat on your wife. Jesus denies this. Jesus show what true righteousness really is; and it is not righteousness based on the mere limits of the codified Law. Rather, it is the righteousness exemplified by Jesus Himself as a Person.
You miss the context. See above. We are obligated to Christ, not to the Law. We are obligated to more than the Law. We are obligated to the righteousness behind the Law; and that Righteousness is a PERSON - Jesus Christ.
Untrue. I again cite the example of a man committing adultery. There is a big difference between avoiding adultery because you don’t want to be sued for divorce and lose all your money (the legal concern) vs. avoiding adultery because you would never want to hurt your spouse because you love him/her (the personal concern). We are bound to a Person, not to a law. This is a valid and obvious distinction.
Sorry, but you still don’t get it. In the Christian Covenant, God did not set any rules down on paper for us; rather, He gave us an older brother - Christ Himself - Who is the Personification of everything that God wants us to be and do. If we imitate Christ (in a Covenant of love and fidelity) we will be everything that God wants us to be. This is the difference between a Covenant based on Law (a written set of legalistic rules - which is what the OT Jews had) and a Covenant based on Love, as we have it in Christ. Imitating and maintaining a Covenant with a living, All-Righteous Person is fat greater and more comprehensive that following any kind of recorded list of rules. This is what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism. The main problem with SDAs is that you do not truly appreciate what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism. You are still (in many cases) under the Law and limited by it. That is very sad.
Again, your problem is that you define sin as “breaking the Commandments.” This is not what sin is, and certainly not for a Christian. Rather, sin is an offense against the Person of Jesus Christ which, as when a man commits adultery, violates the personal dimension of our Covenant with Jesus --a Covenant that is not based on Law, but on Love. As for consequences … Indeed, there are consequences for violating our Covenant with Christ. This is because a person can only be saved within the Covenant with Christ, not outside of it; and sin separates us from the Covenant - from the righteousness that we share with Christ. But, now look at the Ten Commandments, i.e., the legal requirements of the Torah, in which sin is defined as a breaking of a Commandment - that is, a legalistic definition. If, under the Law, someone violated the Commandment against adultery, what was the consequence? The consequence was that this person would be stoned to death - a legal consequence. But, we have no such legal consequence in Christianity.
This should be obvious. If a Christian commits adultery, he is not stoned by the Church. Nor is there any legal consequence for this sin. Now, if he does not repent, he will certainly go to hell when he dies. But, this is not a legal consequence, but the natural result of His separation from Christ; for one can only have eternal life if one is IN a Covenant with Jesus; and if one dies in willful separation from this Covenant, that person will not have eternal life. But, since this Covenant is not a Covenant based on Law, but on Love, the Christian cannot be accused of being in violation of any Law. Thus, He does not go to hell for violating any Law, but by separating himself from a Person and his Covenant with that Person.It’s not “plain and simple” at all. We are not bound to the Law, but to Christ, Who is the Righteousness BEHIND the Law.
See above.Then why do you say that you are bound by the Law? You are not.
Again, a Christian is not bound by Law, so there is nothing to “justify.”Again: Sinning, for a Christian, is a personal offense against God - a violation of our covenant with Him - a Covenant based on Love, not on Law.
Christ exists. We are bound to Christ. Christ PRE-EXISTED the Law of Sinai. The Mosaic Law merely points to Christ. Christ is the TRUE Righteousness (the FULL Righteousness) behind the Mosaic Law. This is what you apparently do not grasp.
Are you intelligent enough to see that you are arguing from a faulty premise?
Again: Our Covenant is not based on Law. We do not obey the Law out of love. Rather, we keep faith with a Person (Jesus Christ) out of love; thus, we are not bound to any of the stipulations or details of any of the Ten Commandments. “Adultery,” for example, is not defined in the legal sense that it is understood in Judaism. In the traditional Jewish understanding, adultery is a matter of property rights. So, if anyone has sex with a man’s wife, he is guilty of it, and so is the wife herself. But, if the man himself has sex with a young, unmarried woman (outside of his marriage) he is not guilty of adultery. Orthodox Jews believe this to this very day. They believe it because that’s what the Torah actually says - as far as its legal dimension goes. But, Christ calls us to a higher righteousness that this. We are not bound by the details of the Law.
And who is “us”? Are we the people of the Old Covenant, who celebrate the first creation, or the people of the New Covenant, who commemorate the NEW Creation? Sunday commemorates the NEW Creation. The old man died (and “rested”) on the Sabbath; but the new man rose to new life and the new Creation of the following day, Sunday, which signifies eternity. This is why ancient Christians rested and worshipped together (among themselves exclusively) on Sunday, and spent Saturday doing the WORK of evangelizing the Jews in their synagogues.It is also (on Saturday) a sign of the old creation, not the new. You commemorate the old creation, not the new. You operate (in this once instance, and perhaps a few others) according to the Old Covenant, not the New.
Christ came to fulfill the Sabbath and to surpass the Law. His death and resurrection did that. Again, this should be common knowledge to a true Christian. Why was Jesus in the tomb for three days? It was as a sign of the New Creation. He “rested” (as did God in Genesis) on the Seventh day - that is, He died to the old creation in order to initiate the New. This is why, for the earliest Christians, Saturday became associated with death - the death that comes through the Old Law. But, Sunday came to signify Life - the eternal life that Christians have in Jesus. This is why the Christians rested on Sunday, not Saturday. They rested in Him (in the Lord of eternal Life), not in death or the Law. This is what you fail to appreciate.
Huh? The Pope never “changed” anything. The earliest Christians always observed Sunday as “the Lord’s Day” (Rev 1:10). This was the day that they gathered to worship together exclusively (e.g. Acts 20:7). It is indeed clear, but it’s a pity you do not read it properly.See above. You simply don’t get it because you do not appreciate the distinction between a Covenant based on Law vs. a Covenant based on Love. God never changed His “methods of punishment.” As you yourself quoted from Matt. 5, the Law still stands and the prescribed punishment of the Law are still applicable for those who are under the law. But, Christians are not under the Law. Yet, you keep assuming (very wrongly) that you are responsible for obey the Mosaic Law - that you are responsible to God on the basis of law. You are not. You are only responsible to the Person of Jesus Christ.
Wrong. Sins are an offense against the righteous Person of God.
Siiiggghhh.
But, they will not be punished for the sake of violating a Law, since they did not break a Covenant of Law, but rather (by their sins) they violated a Covenant of Love! If adultery were not considered to be against any civil law, it would still be a violation of a covenant of love between a man and his wife. It would still act to separate and sow division between the man and his wife. The same is true of Christ and a Christian when a Christian sins. A sinful Christian (who does not repent) will go to hell, not because he violated any law, but because He divided Himself from the Person of Christ, Who is righteous and the only source of eternal life. I am calling you to consistency in your theology. Right now, your theology is very inconsistent and confused.You cannot have it both ways. If we are saved by grace (that is, a Covenant of Love), then we are not bound to the Law at all.
Yes. But not obedience to law. That’s the point. Rather, we show obedience to a Person, i.e., loving fidelity to Jesus Christ, as so we act in righteousness by acting like Him. This is the distinction which you are not appreciating.
And why can’t the Church change something IF we are not bound by or under the Law??? It most certainly can because we are not bound by any Law. This, again, is the point. When you speak of “changing a commandment,” you mean the changing of a law. But, we are not bound by any Law, and so we are not “changing” anything. Rather, we are taking what we are bound by (the Righteousness behind the Law) and applying it to a new situation - via the Church’s Christ-given authority to “bind and loosen” (Matt 16:19 & 18:18, etc.). So, again, you simply don’t get it. You are very short-sighted in your theology, and you contradict yourself. You need to step back and look at what you’re really saying in order to see this. We are not bound by any Law. You need to come to terms with that.You, again, wrench Matt. 5 out of its intended context. Jesus is speaking to Jews (or Jewish Christians who observed the Law), and He is saying that the Law will remain in force for Jews …which is true. It is still in force for Jews today. But, it is not in force for those who do not live under the Law. So, unless you wish to live under the Law, then you are not bound by any of the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law. Yet, if you do wish to be bound by any of the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law (e.g. the Saturday sabbath), then you must keep the entire Law …or else you yourself are subject to the censure of Jesus presented above. Do you the problem now??
It is true (Scripture proves as much: Acts 20:7, 16:2, etc.) and my position is very defensible, since it is based upon a proper and consistent reading of the New Testament, whereas yours is not.
See above.Who says He did not? He sanctified by His Resurrection and His initiation of eternal life. Did you overlook that episode of the Gospel?
I didn’t “create” anything. I follow what the Apostolic Faith has believed from the beginning. You are the one following a 19th Century American, man-made religion, not me.
It is only sinning insofar that it breaks fellowship with Christ’s true Church, and thus with Christ Himself. Again, consider what He said: “He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects you, rejects me.” If one is conscious of what they are doing in rejecting the authority (and fellowship) of Christ’s true Church, then not keeping Sunday worship is indeed a sin. But, most SDAs are generally ignorant of the need to do this; and so their sin is material (an objective offense) but not formal (an intentional offense against God).
There IS a way to sin without a law. Christians do it all the time. They sin by offending a Person and breaking the loving Covenantal intimacy which they (supposedly) possess with Jesus. Christians are not bound by any Law, and so their sin is not a violation of Law, but of Love. When you can grasp this fact then you will understand the Pauline theology of the New Testament and be a Christian in the Gentile tradition. Until that time, impose the Mosaic Law upon yourself and contradict what you claim to believe by being saved by faith apart from works. This is a significant problem and you would do well to ponder it prayerfully.
For a Christian, sinning is offending and separating oneself from the all-righteous and all-holy Person of Jesus Christ. You fail to appreciate this because you are fixated on law.
I think they were started in the 1840’s by Ellen White.
What was the date and or year of the founding of the Seventh Day Adventists ???
Do SDA’s honestly think Christendom has been in error for over a thousand years waiting on them to set christians straight regarding worshiping on Sunday ???
Thanks for you help…
Actually it’s “Ekklisia Katholikos”
Unfortunately, this is a belief that is fundamentally contrary to scripture, for we are told:
Surpassing the requirements of the law does not mean that they are no longer a barometer for KNOWING if we are doing right or wrong. I read the whole passage. You have pointed out nothing new by suggesting that I read “all” of it, as though it has something different to offer than what it reads. You are throwing out its application while insisting that you accept it.
Unfortunately, it is you who does not understand the difference between the moral Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) and the mosaic law of ordinances (legalistic rites and ceremonies) that was done away with at the cross which were a shadow of things to come. For instance, the slaying of the lamb would not need to be done anymore because it was merely pointing toward what Christ was going to do for us. If you do not understand this difference, then you will constantly be reading contradiction in scripture. Colossians 2:16-18 tells us:
