GOD'S SABBATH AND THE REAL TRUTH OF COL 2:14-17 WHO DO WE BELIEVE GOD or MAN?

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Besides, it's just kind of silly to me to argue against preaching the gospel which frees a man...in order to not bring harm to the man...!!

The only thing I can figure out that he's saying is that proclaiming good news (gospel) that contradicts the gospel proclaimed by sabbatarians is sin.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I certainly think he's backed himself into a silly corner but I'll listen to what he has to say.

 

[Magenta]

I'm still waiting for Ralph to acknowledge that he is framing the argument with the false characterization that people here are telling sabbatarians what to do with their lives. If he thinks otherwise, he needs to provide evidence.

Good luck with that

 

[Ralph-]

I remember these verses to be about eating food offered to idols. I don't recall him mentioning the sabbath in them at all...

For the literal law keeping believer, to not worship God according to the law is to worship idols.


"You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates."-Deuteronomy 12:31


Besides, Paul's discourse about protecting the believer who lacks knowledge and has a weak conscience includes "anything else that will cause your brother to fall"-Romans 14:21.

And I think if any man had begun to preach there was no saving for a man who chose a certain day, Paul would have opposed him to his face.

He would oppose him ONLY if that man was saying keeping the right day holy according to Moses was how a man is justified. But apart from that reason we know that Paul would not oppose the man who by conscience thinks he must keep the 7th day holy. We know that because that's what he said in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.

 

[Ralph-]

Yes, it is a false characterization of what was happening in the thread. As you said, it would be like paul telling the Pharisees to continue rather than opposing them to their faces.

Uh, no..........the Pharisees taught that you are justified by keeping the law. Law keeping believers do not teach that.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

For the literal law keeping believer, to not worship God according to the law is to worship idols.


"You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates."-Deuteronomy 12:31


Besides, Paul's discourse about protecting the believer who lacks knowledge and has a weak conscience includes "anything else that will cause your brother to fall"-Romans 14:21.




He would oppose him ONLY if that man was saying keeping the right day holy according to Moses was how a man is justified. But apart from that reason we know that Paul would not oppose the man who by conscience thinks he must keep the 7th day holy. We know that because that's what he said in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.

Doesn't make sense to me ralph. Paul would oppose him if he said you were not justified if you didn't go to church on Saturday but paul would not oppose him if he said you would never see the kingdom of God (i.e: you goin to hell, buddy) if you didn't go to church on Saturday...?

 

[Ralph-]

Besides, it's just kind of silly to me to argue against preaching the gospel which frees a man...in order to not bring harm to the man...!!

Their gospel is not different than yours. They differ in what constitutes the works that accompany saving faith.

Their conscience tells them that James' "I will show you my faith by my deeds"-James 2:18 means keeping a literal Mosaic 7th day Sabbath. They know it is not done in order to earn salvation. They say it is to be done for the same reason we say saving faith must not steal, and must not commit adultery, etc.

Paul says to not cause this brother to stumble. Let them do what they feel compelled by conscience to do. They are brothers, not unbelievers trying to justify themselves by doing works of the law.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Their gospel is not different than yours. They differ in what constitutes the works that accompany saving faith.

Their conscience tells them that James' "I will show you my faith by my deeds"-James 2:18 means keeping a literal Mosaic 7th day Sabbath. They know it is not done in order to earn salvation. They say it is to be done for the same reason we say saving faith must not steal, and must not commit adultery, etc.

Paul says to not cause this brother to stumble. Let them do what they feel compelled by conscience to do. They are brothers, not unbelievers trying to justify themselves by doing works of the law.

So this banned SDA man felt compelled by conscience to preach to us that we would go to hell for not going to church on Saturday. So we should just ignore him and let him preach this so that we don't harm him?

 

[Ralph-]

According to your logic, Paul should not have opposed the Christian pharisees who traveled from Jerusalem to Galatia to tell the disciples there that they needed to follow the law (Acts 15) because that would have caused them to stumble and sin against their conscience.

No, because our brothers who are literal law keepers do not teach that a man is justified by works of the law. But they were saying that in Acts, so there is no comparison. How do we know they were saying that? Read it...

""-Acts 15:10-11

(You'll have to read it on your own, I'm out of time to post)

The yoke of bondage is not keeping a literal Sabbath. It's keeping the literal Sabbath and the Feasts IN ORDER TO BE JUSTIFIED. That is the yoke no man can bear.

 

[Magenta]

So this banned SDA man felt compelled by conscience to preach to us that we would go to hell for not going to church on Saturday. So we should just ignore him and let him preach this so that we don't harm him?

Not just that, but they continually purported that working on their Sabbath was a sin, even though Jesus worked on the Sabbath. In this way they showed us that they were the one/s not following Jesus, but the traditions of men, the very same type of men whom Jesus opposed.

 

[gb9]

Their gospel is not different than yours. They differ in what constitutes the works that accompany saving faith.

Their conscience tells them that James' "I will show you my faith by my deeds"-James 2:18 means keeping a literal Mosaic 7th day Sabbath. They know it is not done in order to earn salvation. They say it is to be done for the same reason we say saving faith must not steal, and must not commit adultery, etc.

Paul says to not cause this brother to stumble. Let them do what they feel compelled by conscience to do. They are brothers, not unbelievers trying to justify themselves by doing works of the law.

so, telling folks they are going to get the mark of the beast if they do not keep the Sabbath and/ or go to church on sun is not different than the Gospel?

please point out the part of the Gospel that states this.

 

[Ralph-]

So this banned SDA man felt compelled by conscience to preach to us that we would go to hell for not going to church on Saturday. So we should just ignore him and let him preach this so that we don't harm him?

Politely share your reasons why you disagree and move on. Don't argue with him. You can potentially destroy the work of Christ if you do that.

 

[PS]

For the literal law keeping believer, to not worship God according to the law is to worship idols.

"You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates."-Deuteronomy 12:31

Besides, Paul's discourse about protecting the believer who lacks knowledge and has a weak conscience includes "anything else that will cause your brother to fall"-Romans 14:21.

He would oppose him ONLY if that man was saying keeping the right day holy according to Moses was how a man is justified. But apart from that reason we know that Paul would not oppose the man who by conscience thinks he must keep the 7th day holy. We know that because that's what he said in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.

Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
(Deu 12:31 KJV)

It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
(Rom 14:21 KJV)

Christians are being told not to do the things Jews do.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Truthfully, I should stop saying SDA. I'm only saying it because another poster did. I have no idea what SDA believes or if even THEY would think this banned member was not truly one of them...

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Politely share your reasons why you disagree and move on. Don't argue with him. You can potentially destroy the work of Christ if you do that.

And what of him destroying the work of Christ in someone?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Besides, Paul's discourse about protecting the believer who lacks knowledge and has a weak conscience includes "anything else that will cause your brother to fall"-Romans 14:21.

The text doesn't have the words "anything else". And let's be realistic. Paul would not refrain from proclaiming the gospel because it might offend offend someone or cause someone to stumble, whether a believer or not. In fact, the gospel is guaranteed to do those things.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Uh, no..........the Pharisees taught that you are justified by keeping the law. Law keeping believers do not teach that.

No, the Christian pharisees believed that believing gentiles had to follow the law of Moses to be saved. They were already justified by faith.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Politely share your reasons why you disagree and move on. Don't argue with him. You can potentially destroy the work of Christ if you do that.

Come to think of it, my weak conscience tells me that I must have the obedience of trust and not work to do the law but trust Him to make my heart right. But you have not given your opinion on this and why you disagree and then moved on. You have argued with many over it extensively. So why would you do that concerning me but insist others don't do it with him?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

No, because our brothers who are literal law keepers do not teach that a man is justified by works of the law. But they were saying that in Acts, so there is no comparison. How do we know they were saying that? Read it...

""-Acts 15:10-11

(You'll have to read it on your own, I'm out of time to post)

The yoke of bondage[/B] is not keeping a literal Sabbath. It's keeping the literal Sabbath and the Feasts IN ORDER TO BE JUSTIFIED. That is the yoke no man can bear.

The yoke that no man can bear is trying to be saved by observing commandments of any law but the law of Christ. In this particular case it was the law of Moses that Christian pharisees were saying the Galatian believers had to follow to be saved. They were already justified by faith. The Jerusalem council ruled against that and said that they simply needed to keep doing what they had been doing, ie, live by faith and follow the rules of the synagogues in which they worshiped.

But some of those who had believed from the party of the Pharisees stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to command [them] to observe the law of Moses!” Acts 15:5

[But Peter said to the believing pharisees] now why are you putting God to the test [by] placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? Acts 15:10​

 

[MarcR]

Yes, but it does not allow you to potentially cause a brother to stumble who's conscience doesn't allow him to ignore it. In fact, the law of the Spirit of life DEMANDS that you not cause him to stumble because the law of the Spirit is based on the law of love. Paul said you sin against Christ when you cause people to go against their conscience:


"take care that this liberty of yours (for example, to not keep Sabbath) does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
11For through your knowledge (that we don't HAVE to keep Sabbath) he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
12And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ."-1 Corinthians 8:9,11-12

You are correct. However at some point we are compelled to move from honoring the conscience of a weaker brother to

Gal 1:8-10
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
KJV

It is one thing to quietly express and act upon a matter of conscience; and a very different issue to teach and promote a false doctrine.