Anuncio

Colapsar
No hay anuncio todavía.

Special Studies on the Sabbath/Sunday Question

Colapsar
X
 
  • Filtrar
  • Tiempo
  • Mostrar
Limpiar Todo
nuevos mensajes

  • #16

    FIVE BASIC QUESTIONS FOR A DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLICAL DIETARY RULES

    In order to begin discussing the subject of the dietary rules in the Bile these questions must be answered so that the subject is plainly clarified:

    1 - Why did God establish these food restriction laws, to begin with? Did He simply decide arbitrarily that certain types of meat were not to be eaten, without any justifiable reason, and that was it?

    Note: It must be remembered that such a division between clean and unclean animals was mentioned by God Himself to Noah (Gen. 7:2), thus, much earlier than the Mosaic law.

    2 - In what aspects were these dietary rules abolished on the cross, since they had no ceremonial character? In what ways did they point to the atoning sacrifice of Christ?

    Note: Somebody suggested that they would symbolize separation between Jews and Gentiles. But if it is so, would God be including is His law some negative element of man’s idiossincracies, since He is no respecter of people?

    3 - How was the shed blood of Christ efficacious to purify the meat of pigs, rats, ravens, snakes, lizards? Could it have accomplished some change in the structural composition of said meats, making them fit for human consumption?

    4 - Where is it said that God changed His mind from considering “abomination” the eating of these meats (Deu. 14:3), for until the final day, when all “nations and languages” are gathered for their reckoning time, those who eat pork, rat and practice idolatry will be jointly destroyed (Isa. 66:16-18)?

    Note: Isaiah describes a POST-CROSS event, thus under the “jurisdiction” of the New Testament.

    5 - How can we consider Jesus Christ someone worthy of any credit, when He said He didn’t come to abolish the law, but fulfill it (Matt. 5:17-19), however, not long after that we would find He abolishing the law of dietary restrictions?

    Comentario


    • #17

      2nd. CORINTHIANS 3 -- INTERPRETIVE ‘SHOT’ THAT BACKFIRES ON ANTI-SABBATARIANS

      I like it when 2nd. Corinthians 3 is mentioned, a chapter that seems to impress some for the use by the Apostle Paul of the expression
      tables of stone. Some imagine that what Paul is saying is that the 10 Commandments were abolished, or are no longer normative for Christians, having even part with DEATH!

      But it is exactly the opposite: In this passage, Paul CONFIRMS magnificently the consensual thinking of the Christians over the centuries (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, most recently confirmed by Pentecostals)--the 10 Commandments continue to be the standard of Christian conduct, with Paul just stressing that they should not remain on the tables of stone but on tables of human hearts.

      Notice that the Apostle is contrasting two groups--those who would present themselves as letters of Christ, characterized not on the basis of stone tables, but the fleshy tables of the heart. Now this reminds us of what Ezekiel wrote:

      “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.” -- Eze. 36: 26-27.

      And it reminds us also of Heb. 8:10, dealing with the same theme of Ezekiel--the promise of a new covenant that God purposes to establish with those who are His:

      “For this is the covenant that after that time I will make with the house of Israel, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; And I will be their God, and they shall be my people .”

      So, the topic under discussion is that God's Law SHOULD NOT REMAIN ON THE STONE TABLES, the mere letter of the law for us to follow, but in the hearts of flesh where God himself writes it, according to the New Covenant’s promise, which is not a ministry of death, but of renewed life (Heb. 8: 6-10). Hence, that matches the psalmist’s words applicable to Christians under the New Covenant [New Testament]:

      “I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.” (Psa. 40:8).

      The important point to notice is that Paul is applying what Ezekiel said keeping in mind the WHOLE CONTENT of what was on the tables of stone, not only 90% of it! Also, it seems very strange that God gathered His people so solemnly to proclaim to them a LAW OF DEATH, ¿verdad?

      Duly weighed, the text of 2nd. Corinthians 3 is a tremendous “shut up” by Paul to those who claim that the 10 Commandments are no longer normative for Christians. John Calvin also throws light on that commenting on Hebrews 8:10 in his classic commentary:

      “In vain then does God proclaim his Law by the voice of man, unless he writes it by his Spirit on our hearts, that is, unless he forms and prepares us for obedience. . . . . Thus it comes that the Law is ruinous and fatal to us as long as it remains written only on tables of stone, as Paul also teaches us. (2 Corinthians 3:3.) In short, we then only obediently embrace what God commands, when by his Spirit he changes and corrects the natural pravity of our hearts; otherwise he finds nothing in us but corrupt affections and a heart wholly given up to evil. The declaration indeed is clear, that a new covenant is made according to which God engraves his laws on our hearts, for otherwise it would be in vain and of no effect.”

      - Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom44.xiv.ii.html

      Editado por última vez por Azenilto Brito; https://www.foroadventista.org/member/5779-azenilto-brito en 07/11/2015, 08:22:35.

      Comentario


      • #18
        12 questions to nodayists/anydayists/everydayists


        12 QUESTIONS TO NODAYISTS/ANYDAYISTS/EVERYDAYISTS

        1st. – From a MATERIAL perspective, in what aspects would “nodayism” [covering all ideas of no more having any day for rest and special dedication to God] be superior to the Sabbath principle for providing a regular weekly rest with its physical, mental, spiritual, familiar, social benefits?

        - Note: It has been proven scientifically that the Sabbath is necessary and beneficial to humans. Chronobiologist scientists have proven the so-called “seventh-day rhythm”, or “circaseptan”, the ideal regimen of six days of work and one of rest. The American Evangelical pastor and medical doctor, Michael Cesar, says in a CD that Hitler, wanting to take advantage of everything, determined that the workers in the arms factories and ammunition in preparation for the II World War should work 7 days a week straight, only stopping at night to rest. It did not work. People got exhausted, nervous, production fell. Thus, the Führer had to return to the natural system of six days of work and one of rest.

        2nd. – From a SPIRITUAL point of view, what are the advantages of “nodayism” on the principle of the Sabbath for a better communion with God, members of the domestic family and fellow believers?

        3rd. – When Jesus says that “the Sabbath was made for man” (Mark 2:27), usually the anti-Sabbatarians themselves recognize that He was saying that is was beneficial to all people, only limiting it to the Jews, but why would God be so discriminatory, providing such benefits only to the children of Israel, while the Gentiles might even harm their health for not following the natural system of six days of physical and mental activities followed by one of rest?

        - Note: In their official confessional documents Baptists and Presbyterians stress that it is a NATURAL LAW that there is this regimen of six days of work, and one of rest.

        4th. – When Paul naturally recommends “the first commandment with a promise” to the believers in Ephesus, which is the 5th of the Decalogue (Eph. 6: 1-3), did he forget having taught that the law was abolished?

        - Note: Besides the 5th. commandment, he refers to the 6th., 7th., 8th., 9th. and 10th. precepts to instruct Ephesians and Romans (Eph 4: 25-31; Rom. 7:7, 8 and 13: 8-10) and says that this “law of God” is [he didn’t say ‘was’] holy, just, good, spiritual, pleasant (Rom. 7:12, 14, 22).

        5th. – When Paul recommends naturally “the first commandment with a promise” to the believers in Ephesus, which is the 5th of the Decalogue (Eph. 6: 1-3), would he be putting them “under the law”, since they had to fulfill this precept of a law that would be of the “old covenant”?

        - Note: This can be considered “the most Jewish” commandment of the Decalogue because it has to do with something directly related to Israel—the promise of the rest experience in “the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee” (Ex. 20: 12). But this is the land of Canaan! However, Paul applies the promise to any land where a Christian might live.

        6th. – Where is it told in the Scripture that the early believers did not have a regular day without secular activities to dedicate to God?

        7th. – Where is it stated in the Scripture that the early Christians chose the day that best suited them (or their employers) to dedicate to the Lord, some preferring the Sabbath while others selected either Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday?

        - Note: The notion of “any day”, that some try to promote, always ends up being, by an “amazing coincidence”, in the choice of that which the Catholic Church wants to have all Christendom honoring.

        8th. – If the Bible teaches that Christians should devote every day to God, not only a seventh, wouldn’t that idea be tantamount to a mere promotion of vagrancy, since dedicating one day to the Lord is not having any activities on that day?

        - Note: The precept does not speak only of rest on the Sabbath, but the work and practice of all the works in the other six days.

        9th. – Was not Moses even more advanced as he spoke not only of every day to dedicate to the Lord, but of EVERY MOMENT, either sitting in one’s house, walking by the way, lying down, or rising up (Deu. 6:7)?

        - Note: The recommendation of Moses in no way affects the Sabbath keeping.

        10th. – If we no longer have to maintain a regular rest day, for Jesus being our “rest”, why didn’t the holy women, who so closely accompanied Him, learn that with Him, as they observed the Sabbath “according to the commandment” the following day of His death (Luke 23:56)?

        - Note: They were ethnically Jewish, but ideologically Christian. And the perspective to consider in the report is that of Luke, who understood, 30 YEARS AFTER THE EPISODE, that they did it “according to the commandment.”

        11th. – Ex. 31:16, 17 says that the Sabbath was given ONLY to Israel, but the immediate context adds, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed.” Were the heavens, the Earth and all that there is in them created only for Israel?

        - Note: It is customary to speak of “Jewish Sabbath,” but that phrase never appears in Scripture. What we read is “the Sabbath of the Lord thy God”, never “Jewish Sabbath” or “Israelite Sabbath.”

        12th. – If the Sabbath issue was still a problem among early Christians, why nothing is treated about the Sabbath at the Jerusalem Council, when it was defined what believers should still heed of Judaism, (Acts 15:20, 29)?

        - Note: If the Sabbath was a “problem” among the believers then, it would enter the short list of four things that they had to ABSTAIN from (which means not to practice), but it was not remembered in this context, a sign that it was not a subject of discussion in said council, for such a discussion was unnecessary.

        Comentario

        Trabajando...
        X