Post Number: 46
|Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 6:51 pm: || |
This is from Wikipedia, under "Puritan Sabbatarianism". (I edited the article and put these quotations in Wikipedia, see the article for references).
Martin Luther's views, however, were not Sabbatarian. He understood that the Sabbath commandment in the Decalogue was not a universal moral law, but an ordinance intended for the Jewish nation, and not for the Christian church. From Luther's Large Catechism:
"Now in the Old Testament, God separated the seventh day, and appointed it for rest, and commanded that it should be regarded as holy above all others. As regards this external observance, this commandment was given to the Jews alone, that they should abstain from toilsome work, and rest, so that both man and beast might recuperate, and not be weakened by unremitting labor. ...
"This commandment, therefore, according to its gross sense, does not concern us Christians; for it is altogether an external matter, like other ordinances of the Old Testament, which were attached to particular customs, persons, times, and places, and now have been made free through Christ." 
The Augsburg Confession likewise supports a non-Sabbatarian view; Article 28 states that "Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted."
So, Mr. Resjudicata, I am not sure what you are referring to in regards to Luther's view Sabbath theology? The early continental reformers were clear that it was a Jewish ordinance, and did not apply to the Christian church. Luther is right on the money.
Post Number: 214
|Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2014 - 7:45 pm: || |
I am more critical of what I consider to be Luther's acceptance of most of the rest of the Ten Commandments. For sure, he did not accept the Sabbath, nor did he adopt later reformation arguments that the Sabbath was transferred to Sunday. But his acceptance of the remaining nine is problematic. It is, in my opinion, misleading. If you accept those nine, why precisely not the Fourth? Who says? And for sure, I can find nothing in the arguments of the Reformers that Sabbath Keeping was a sin and a heresy, like the way it is denounced by both St. Ignatius and Justin Martyr in the Second Century.
It is so clear that the Noahide Laws were the laws that were enforced against Gentiles all along, especially against non-Jewish Christians. How could Acts 15 have been overlooked like that, when clearly the Ten Commandments were never given to the Gentile Christian converts by the Apostles, even when they were explicitly presented with that very choice?
I personally believe jettisoning the Ten Commandments causes many Christians a lot of anxiety. Superficially, they seem to be transcendent moral laws, right? But the Noahide Laws and the vast body of written opinions on them make it clear that little, if any of the actual moral components of the Mosaic law differs from the Noahide. In fact, the Jewish courts almost always used Mosaic Law opinions as persuasive (but non-binding) authority when interpreting similar sections of the Noahide. So as a practical matter, there was no difference between the two bodies of law's coverage, morally speaking. If anything, the application of the Noahides to Gentiles was much more strict: Gentiles were automatically subject to Death for violating the Noahides, whereas a Jew would be given many "second chances" in violating the Mosaic Law! The Noahides only lack the other 606 Mitzvot of the Torah, including all of the Sabbaths and other ceremonial laws.
Sticking with the Noahides is a much cleaner argument. And it just happens to be the one that was endorsed by the Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem. Why muddy the waters by discussing the Ten Commandments at all in the context of Christianity? That in my opinion virtually gives the legalists the upper hand without a fight. It is "leading with your jaw."
(Message edited by Resjudicata on July 29, 2014)
Post Number: 14888
|Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - 5:19 pm: || |
I've been thinking also, as we have been going through Galatians with Gary Inrig in our Thursday Word Search studies, that perhaps most of Christendom has adopted an untenable attachment to the Old Covenant law in some capacity. As Gary said in one of he recent lessons, being in Christ ends our relationship with the law.
The New Covenant is completely new, a complete fulfillment of the old covenant, and that means the law is not part of our lives except as a shadow of Jesus and as a part of God's progressive revelation of His salvation of us. It tells us about God's purposes and will, but it is not a law OVER us.
The book of Galatians is extremely clear about this, and so is Romans. I agree; I believe Christians are afraid to "own" the reality of what Scripture actually says about the law!
Post Number: 47
|Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2014 - 5:58 pm: || |
Good points. I agree with you in theory, but in practice I am not sure how to embrace the idea. Luther said "sin boldly", and I have a problem with that. Jesus said, be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Not that a slavish bondage to the law can or will produce that perfection; as Mr. Res. said, the law has never reformed anybody, only grace/the new birth can change an individual into the likeness of Christ.
Post Number: 777
|Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2014 - 12:37 am: || |
I haven't posted for a while but I will try to answer this.
The solution is to live life in the Spirit. Romans and Galatians are both clear about that as well. Romans 8 and Galatians 5 in particular. "So I say, live by the Spirit and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature (flesh)" Galatians 5:16. The Greek has an emphatic negative - you will most definitely not...
When someone gets saved, really saved, they start to be led by the Holy Spirit. If they stop being led by the Spirit, then there are two ways to go. Basically, sin or legalism. The New Testament deals with both to these, and both are unacceptable.
That's the way I see I (and so did Paul as far and I can see).
Post Number: 216
|Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2014 - 7:04 am: || |
Doc is correct. The Ten Commandments are neither sufficient, nor necessary. They are a diversion and distraction from real Christianity.
I pray that nobody gets sick of my insistence on the next point, but the lives of the Early Christians demonstrate so clearly how useless attempting to follow the Ten commandments would have been, and how harmful that would have been to Christianity's birth. The idea that real genuine heroes like that would have given two seconds of thought to the Sabbath is laughable.
The Church at Constantinople supported 30,000 widows and orphans at one point, all by itself! Those Christians refused to relent or compromise in even the slightest degree their faith. As St. Ignatius was being taken to Rome for his fatal meeting with the lions, several of his jailers were converted to Christianity based on his saintly demeanor and concern only for others. He didn't have the slightest concern for his own well-being.....crazy brave beyond belief. And that was something that was routine, even among the "average" Christian. Many executioners were converted to Christianity by the behavior and demeanor of the Christian martyrs they were executing. The Executioners sword probably was as effective at spreading the Gospel as the written Gospels themselves, which few, if any of the early Christians had anyway.
Justin Martyrs harsh and ringing denunciation of the entire Mosaic Law in his "Dialogues with Trypho" was the prevailing attitude. The Early Christians were simply vehemently opposed to the Ten commandments. Jesus was their example in this. They weren't just opposed to the Ten commandments: They were in full, dirty-necked rebellion against them, just like Jesus was.
Post Number: 49
|Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2014 - 10:21 am: || |
I don't see Jesus opposing the Ten Commandments in Mark 10. However, he only quoted the moral principles of the Decalogue. Paul calls the 5th the "first commandment with promise".
Post Number: 11
|Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2014 - 6:16 pm: || |
Bskillet. "Why is it so hard for evangelicals to believe that Sabbath has been fulfilled and that Christ is therefore greater?" Such a great question! And one that inspired a great deal of writing, to which I hope to contribute. I have listened to many sermons and read many articles tethered to the Ten Commandments, authored by Evangelicals, and they generally miss the point. I call it a “lack of scholarship” in my book.
My theory is that the idea of “rest” is simply appealing to us as humans, and that is so because we experience a lack of “rest” on many levels (Eccl 2:23; 6:7). The easiest to relate to is physical rest. We are overwhelmed by activities, responsibilities, and work (Eccl 1:3), and at the same time lured by the images of shaded hammocks (Eccl 5:12), appealing properties and possessions (Eccl 2:4-10), and dinner with the family (Eccl 1:8; 2:11, 24; 8:15). We also yearn for emotional rest from interpersonal conflicts (Eccl 5:2; 7:9), injustice (Eccl 5:8), and general discontent with life (Eccl 9:5; 12:1). The appeal of rest is tangible and real. So when a preacher comes to the fourth commandment, he wants to make it applicable to the hearers of God’s word; therefore, he looks for ways in which “rest” can be achieved in the Christian life. The preacher is so intent on application that he misses the point of simply glorifying God for His sovereignty and His great salvation. After all, the Sabbath rest, and the other OT rest-types, foreshadowed rest in Jesus. The Sabbath sermon should be more about what Christ has done and not what we should do. Rest in Jesus is also on many levels: physical, emotional and spiritual. The spiritual rest is obtainable now (Heb 4:7), but our physical rest will come in the future (1 Cor 15:24).
Grace_alone. You reflect the influence of Luther on your understanding of Sunday, the Lord’s Day—and that is a good thing. Luther adopted in some part the Catholic understanding of the Lord’s Day. The idea that Sunday is a mini-Easter began in Catholicism. He remained close to his Catholic training that Sunday is primarily associated with the resurrection; yet he denied the Aquinian idea that the Sabbath gave way to Sunday as some sort of obligated/legal replacement. Luther was decidedly against the pronouncement of a multitude of “holy days” that were nowhere to be found in Scripture, preferring instead that only the Lord’s Day be considered a holy day. Furthermore, he was adverse to the premise that the authority of the Church (through the Pope) was equal to the Scriptures, therefore, the Scriptures alone should inform Christians how to live. Leigh Anne, I would like to send you a copy of my book. Would that interest you?
Resjudicata. The Reformed folk have a solid understanding of the resurrection, yet are confused about the Sabbath/Lord’s Day issue. Bskillet agrees. I agree with you that we really should be more excited about the fact of the resurrection! It is central to the Christian faith. “As a core teaching, the fact of the resurrection went hand-in-hand with the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:22; 4:33) and was instrumental in the shift from Jewish synagogal meetings on the seventh day to Christian church meetings on the first day of the week.”
The Sabbath was not just about creation, but about deliverance from Egypt—and there were many eye-witnesses to that event. That history was as real to the Jews who followed in faith as the resurrection is to us who follow in faith.
The Didache reiterates many of the Ten Commandments. Are you saying, for example, that you don’t accept the commandment “Thou shalt not murder”? (“ his acceptance of the remaining nine is problematic”).
BSkillet. I have a best friend who attends there.
ASurprise. Good point.
Colleen. Amen and Amen.
Leif. I don’t know much about the origin of “covenant theology.” Are you saying that it began with Calvin? OBTW, I’m with you.
Post Number: 226
|Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2014 - 7:31 pm: || |
9 of the ten commandments are repeated and reaffirmed 3 times in groups in the New Testament. The only thing missing is the Sabbath. Murder is prohibited by itself many more times, so there is no danger of it become fashionable for New Covenant Christians anytime soon. In fact, murder is prohibited more times in the New Testament than the Old Testament.
Murder, theft, adultery, lying are all prohibited just as well under the Noahide laws as they are under the Ten Commandments, and are actually applicable to Gentiles, unlike the Mosaic Law. .
Post Number: 1064
|Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2014 - 6:33 am: || |
Covenant theology (as opposed to New Covenant or Dispensational theology) retains the Mosaic covenant in part for today. They don't say we're under it, but they retain the Law as having some authority for Christians, especially the "third use of the law". The problem with covenant theology is that it sees "covenants" as the central theme of Scripture instead of seeing "covenants" as introducing the REAL central theme: the Lord Jesus.
I look at it as the concept of covenant forms the God-given key to proper Biblical interpretation. Thus, covenant is a means to interpreting the main point, Jesus Christ.
As for Covenant Theology, as a Calvinist I run into this a lot (one can affirm the "Five Points" of Calvinism while rejecting Covenant Theology). What I would say is that, there is a difference between Covenant Theology as it is ignorantly used by a lot of Christians, and Covenant Theology as it is taught and believed by theologians and its most serious adherents. When you get true CT from theologians, you'll find a lot more common ground on matters of law, and a lot less of the simplistic "moral law = the Ten Commandments" kind of doctrine. I still disagree with CT, but I find myself agreeing a lot more with in-depth CT than the simplistic version commonly held to in the pews.
Post Number: 14895
|Posted on Monday, August 11, 2014 - 6:42 pm: || |
Yes, I think I understand what you're saying, BSkillet. I read an article by Murray (I think John Murray?) a few years ago explaining the concept and interpretive grid of covenant theology. I am by no means well-versed in it, but I did come away with that idea, that "covenant" is the interpretive grid of Biblical understanding.
As I read it, I saw how Murray explained the Mosaic covenant as being additional revelation of God's purposes added to that of the Abrahamic covenant, and then, in the new covenant, we still hold to the unique insights from the Mosaic. (I may be saying this wrong...that's my understanding.) Murray did not explain the Mosaic covenant as being conditional and having an end-point. He did use covenants to explain Jesus' ministry and sacrifice, but overall, I did come away with the idea that "covenant" was the central paradigm of Scripture while Jesus' work was explained by covenants.
I came away with the sense that Jesus' work supported and sustained God's covenants, rather than God's covenants framing and supporting Jesus' work. It just seemed a bit inside-out to me. Covenants for sure explain salvation history; nevertheless, I see them as preparing and revealing the central purpose and theme: Jesus, instead of covenants being the central paradigm and theme.
That being said, I do love the clear teaching I've heard from many covenant theologians!
Post Number: 1368
|Posted on Sunday, August 17, 2014 - 1:28 am: || |
I have not read this entire thread ... Only what you recently posted, Colleen .... I am struck by what you wrote -especially after my own personal study of Romans 1-8 and more specifically Romans 6-8. ... Just yesterday I wrote down all the phrases and my understanding about the "law" from those chapters and Paul's understanding of the purpose of the law ...
I, too, was struck by the central theme ... Jesus ... All points to our desperate need of Jesus ... The law was pointing to our need of Him ..
The old written code which relates to the old covenant is often equated with death while the law of the Spirit and Christ brought life ...
I found myself struck over and over and was in tears as I read the word and my own need of Jesus...that my focus needs to be The Lord and not what I can do or how miserably I fail ...
Just interesting and fascinating to me as I prepare for the Michigan FAF ...
Post Number: 962
|Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2014 - 3:59 pm: || |
I am back reading the book of Exodus and what I find interesting is when God gave the 10 c's and the laws He told Moses these laws including the 10 c's are for the Israelites and their generation only. Jesus was born in that generation and he could, would, did fulfill all those laws and not just a part of them.
Post Number: 14909
|Posted on Monday, August 25, 2014 - 5:53 pm: || |
Yes, Gfrankie. It says who it was for, and the NT explains that Jesus fulfilled it. In fact, JESUS said He came to fulfill it!
Post Number: 10176
|Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - 11:46 am: || |
After I read or maybe it was while I was read the NT, in 2004, I read Deuteronomy 5 where Moses said the 10 C were given to those who were there at Mt Sinai and then in v. 15 it says the sabbath was given to the CoI because God took them out of Egypt.
I like to say I am a senior citizen, but I am not that old and this does not apply to me because I was not there and neither were my ancestors.
Post Number: 33
|Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - 7:07 pm: || |
My mother told me we are to fullfill the commandments the same as Jesus did. That's an order. The Sunday keepers misuse the word "fullfill" for "fullfilled". We are to fullfill the law just like Jesus did . The law was not fullfilled by Him but He petsonally lived the law fully, just as we are supposed to.
Post Number: 3059
|Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2014 - 9:41 pm: || |
Your mother is wrong and does not understand Scripture.
The Mosaic Laws, in-other-words the Ten Commandments to your mother, were ratified under a Covenant made between God and the Hebrew people which we refer to as The Old Covenant. Quibbling over the meaning of the word ‘fulfill’ versus ‘fulfilled’ is one of future tense versus past tense. When Jesus spoke about the law in Matt. 5:17-20 he had not yet died at Calvary.
On the night he was betrayed he announced the New Covenant which was prophesied by the prophet Jeremiah:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to (Jer. 31:31-34 ESV)
The Apostle Paul explains what it means for Jesus commands to be written in our hearts in Romans chapter eight. Of course, our relationship to the Old Covenant Law is covered just before this in Romans chapter seven via the metaphor of the marriage covenant being null and void when one party to the covenant dies. This was a direct reference to Jesus death at Calvary on our behalf. Jesus, the Son of God and very God himself, represented one of the two parties of the Old Covenant. This is why the Old Covenant and the law it contained is obsolete.
The Old Covenant Law was fulfilled and nothing can separate those whose sins have been covered by the blood of Jesus at Calvary.
According to the Apostle Paul if we attempt to live under both the New Covenant and the Old Covenant we are an adulteress.
(Message edited by philharris on August 26, 2014)
Post Number: 34
|Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 3:17 pm: || |
Phil, my mom passed away several years ago after lifelong Adventism. She was a few momths short of 90. I had xplained these things to her as you state but was met with resistance. Yet on her dying bed she wanted the pastor of the Lutheran church I attended to come pray with her and for her and anmoint her. For some reason that I really would like answered is how come the SDA ministers will not do the oil annointing? I have requested this twice during my life of two different SDA ministers and both times was refused. Would someone please tell me how come SDA's won't do that? My mom would have jer, my dad and me go to the SDA on Saturday mornings then out to lunch then on Saturday afternoons we'd go to the Worldwide Church of God. This was back in the Herbert W. Armstrong days so I was a happy little girl come Sunday because I got to go to Sunday School with my Lutheran cousins. Again, how come SDA's won't enjoin?
Post Number: 35
|Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 3:18 pm: || |
Not enjoin. Supposed to say annoint.
Post Number: 348
|Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - 9:37 pm: || |
My mom was anointed back in the 60's before she died of cancer and the same with my brother in law just 5 years ago so I'm not sure what is different about your mom's situation unless it lies in the facts you describe in your post and she was deemed unworthy, unfaithful and backslidden by the SDA officials... I hesitate to call them "pastors".
That attitude would follow the example of Ellen where she was asked to pray for a sick member where she was staying. She said she would 'think about it' and in the morning she told them no because they were sinning..... she was 'shown'....