Yes, I understand but we may clearly see through Constantine's decrees that there were those in the year 321 that were still persisting to keep the Sabbath.Yes, why do you ask?
There are different interpretations of church history.
Yes, I understand but we may clearly see through Constantine's decrees that there were those in the year 321 that were still persisting to keep the Sabbath.Yes, why do you ask?
There are different interpretations of church history.
Because, where scripture is concerned the Holy Spirit enlightens us
OK lets go with the scripture you quoted pertaining to this. What is going to be the response of many people if you tell them you have righteousness apart from obeying the law, your righteousness is faith in Christ. You are righteous before God apart from works? I hear it all the time. And verse31 confirms it in my view:Idk, that seems to be such a glib? (is that that word I wanting?) answer, considering everybody knows that. Perhaps a better word might be flippant? pert? I'm trying not to offend nor be offended tho![]()
The one that gets all the credit for the atrocities done in the name Christianity.Which church are you referring to?
Romans, Galatians, Corinthians, Philippians, etc?
The Orthodox church, the Antioch church (the first Gentile church), the Greek Orthodox, etc?
There were also churches scattered across Europe and the eastern bloc countries, Russia etc?
There were also churches in Africa.
OK lets go with the scripture you quoted pertaining to this. What is going to be the response of many people if you tell them you have righteousness apart from obeying the law, your righteousness is faith in Christ. You are righteous before God apart from works? I hear it all the time. And verse31 confirms it in my view:
Do we then make void the law by faith?(can we act however we like) God forbid: Yea, we establish the law
The Roman church took many centuries to increase it's power.The one that gets all the credit for the atrocities done in the name Christianity.
As I understand it, those that did not conform to Rome were increasingly marginalized and persecuted by the up-and-coming Roman Catholic, apostate church.
I admit, i don't know all the answers a and I'm not perfect.Anyway, I don't mean to be judgmental in anyway, I'm just trying to figure out for myself: What is the deal with folks who follow a works-based belief system? Are they "severed from Christ"? Or is it that black and white?
Hope that you can understand...
You are not righteous and you can never be righteous outside of Christ.
Any attempt to obey the law is a trivial repetition of sin and death.
The law condemns, the law is perfect justice, you must die
Well the separation between us is on a number of levels.We can't free ourselves from the guilt of sin.
Jesus can. Praise God for Jesus..
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Don't keep the law to be saved, but because you are saved.
I never saw that in Constantine's decree.Yes, I understand but we may clearly see through Constantine's decrees that there were those in the year 321 that were still persisting to keep the Sabbath.
To those that have ears to hear. I agree.Really?
Here is Paul’s core message in a nutshell:
The power of sin is the law 1Cor15:56 The legally binding law with the power to condemn. It’s important to remember that when reading romans.
In romans ch3:20-30 Paul explains the believer can have no righteousness before God of obeying the law, they have righteousness apart from law, their righteousness is faith in Christ. Paul maintains believers are justified apart from law. What would some of his readers have thought after reading those verses? ‘Well if we are righteous before God apart from obeying the law we can act however we like and remain saved.’ Paul of course would have known that, hence verse 31:
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Rom3:31
You have to be able to understand Paul’s message as one cohesive whole.
Paul stated:
Christ is the end of the law UNTO RIGHTEOUSNESS(not full stop) to everyone who believeth Rom10:4
For Paul also wrote:
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Rom7:12
The above is in relation to the moral law, or ten commandments.
So what was God to do? He obviously wouldn’t want to remove what is holy, just and good, but He also wanted to take away what condemned man. The law comes in two parts. What is written in the law, and the attached penalty for transgression. Nothing wrong at all with the first part, it’s the second part that's the problem. So God did an incredible thing, he abolished the law, in the sense of what we all understand law to mean. For he removed its condemnation by sending Christ to die for our sins. But He then transferred what is written in the law from an external law written on tablets of stone to an internal law written on tablets of human hearts(2cor3:3) Paul states in rom ch2 the law(what is written in the law) is in believers hearts(Gentiles hearts was specifically mentioned).
So, by removing a legally binding law that condemns, the power of sin was also removed. But what is holy, just and good remains, it is now in believers hearts, meaning in believers hearts they do not want to murder, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, covet etc. That law cannot condemn you, for you have a saviour from your sin, the penalty of sin has been removed, but it does stop you having a licence to sin under grace, for in your heart you desire to live as God wants you to live, you want to live according to what has been placed in your heart, what is holy, just and good.
Therefore, with the power of sin removed from your life (the legally binding law with its power to condemn) you can now live far more as you in your heart want to live, for that is where what is holy, just and good now is. And so Paul states:
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law/righteousness of obeying the law, but under grace/righteousness of faith in Christ. Rom6:14
And so:
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Rom3:31
Therefore, you can have knowledge of sin through the law, without condemnation by the law, for righteousness of obeying the law has ended.
I was correcting myself.I think you replied to yourself.
The law is a list of offenses that partly identify, a deep seated corruption within our nature.Sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4
Sin = death. Rom 6:23
All have sinned. Rom 3:23
So we are all condemned to death by the law.. but we have a SAVIOUR. John 3:16.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
The point is we are saved from the condemnation of the law, saved from the penalty of the law, because Jesus paid the price.
Jesus satisfied the requirements of the holy law and paid the price for our sins.
Perfect justice and perfect mercy.
If the law was removed why did Jesus need to pay the sins it reveals.
If the law was removed at the cross i am not guilty and need no salvation from sin and do not deserve death.
I am actually referring to the anti-Nicene days when the bishop of Rome tried to prevent the keeping of the Sabbath and feasts in the churches but only succeeded in Rome and Alexandria until later when the Roman Church gained more power through Constantine.The Roman church took many centuries to increase it's power.
A series of ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes between the Greek East and Latin West preceded the formal split that occurred in 1054.[1][3][4] Prominent among these were the procession of the Holy Spirit (Filioque), whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist,[a] the bishop of Rome's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of the See of Constantinople in relation to the pentarchy.[8] (wikipedia)
It wasn't until 1054 AD that a formal schism took place. This gives you some insight into how late it was, that the bishop in Rome was flexing his muscles.
I am sorry, it was at the Laodicean Council 363-364. Canon 29I never saw that in Constantine's decree.
Laodicea was in Turkey.I am sorry, it was at the Laodicean Council 363-364. Canon 29
"The Laodicean council specificially refers to the Sabbath: “Christians must not judaize by resting on the [Jewish] Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema (excommunicated) from Christ. " Canon 29
Then why did the Laodicean Council specifically refer to the Sabbath?Laodicea was in Turkey.
It lay on a major trade route and in its neighbourhood were many important ancient cities; it was 17 km west of Colossae (Colossians), 10 km south of Hierapolis, and 160 km east of Ephesus.
Laodicea is also one of the seven churches of Asia mentioned in the Book of Revelation.
Distance of Laodicea to Rome, approximately 2000 km.
The Jews were under the law but the Gentiles at Laodicea were not under the law.
Hence, the church at Laodicea had nothing to do with the ceremonial law, or even the law as a whole.