Keeping the Sabbath Day Holy

[pwfaith]

Because you are totally ignoring what I'm saying. You can't just accuse me of ignoring what you're saying when I point out how it's wrong and how your claims are false.

If you don't want to respond to me, that's fine. I've shown how your interpretation, which is the mainstream, is completely wrong, and James clearly says it does not save, no matter how you try to say it "goes against the rest of scripture" which it clearly does not.

Your interpretation is what goes against everything in the Gospels Jesus actually says.

Address these points then:

• You said grace means earned favor, however the bible dictionary and translations of the bible like Amplified say it is UNearned favor. It clearly cannot be both.
• If James is writing to those who are already saved, why would he be telling them how to become saved?
• In Eph. Paul says "For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."- is James not contradicting Paul? Who's right?

You have not shown anything about how my interpretation is wrong, you've just kept repeating the same phrase, ignoring the responses I have provided about it and the rest of the passage, multiple times. You have provided nothing but James and various little clips of verses, without looking at the full context or even complete verse, to make your point.

Address each of these points and then perhaps we can continue.

 

[Shermana]

1. Please show the evidence that James was writing to people who were already saved.
2. Ephesians is considered by almost all scholars to be Pseudipigrapha, as demonstrated
http://books.google.com/books?id=A5M3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=Ephesians+inauthentic&source=bl&ots=8_bSA6MdI5&sig=VGWV4HUMmKcYpO5FK5aD6EQEmcg&hl=en&ei=yNROToOkCubYiAK-3oCQAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Ephesians%20inauthentic&f=false

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?46405-Ephesians-Inauthentic

http://books.google.com/books?id=Pn...wBg#v=onepage&q=Ephesians inauthentic&f=false


3. The Amplified Bible has authority because? It's another obviously biased translation by biased Pauline Antinomians, like the NIV. Why does their authority of the word "Grace" have meaning?

Dictionary #20 defintiion

20. in someone's good

/

bad graces, regarded with favor (or disfavor) by someone: It is a wonder that I have managed to stay in her good graces this long.

You have provided nothing but James and various little clips of verses, without looking at the full context or even complete verse, to make your point.

I think what you mean to say is your idea of what the "full context" means to suit your Doctrine. I've mentioned Paul saying "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" three times already (four now). What is the "full context" of that? What is the "Full context" of drowning yourself rather than offend a child?

 

[pwfaith]

1. Please show the evidence that James was writing to people who were already saved.

To whom was James written? (from my bible)
The twelve tribes (James 1:1) meaning either the people of Israel who had become believers in Christ or the church in a symbolic sense - both Jewish and Gentile believers (Gal 6:16)

Also:

Author: The author of this epistle (letter) is James, also called James the Just, who is thought to be the brother of Jesus Christ (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3). James was not a believer (John 7:3-5) until after the resurrection (Acts 1:14; 1 Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:19). He became the head of the Jerusalem church and is mentioned first as a pillar of the church (Galatians 2:9).

Date of Writing: The Book of James is probably the oldest book of the New Testament, written perhaps as early as A.D. 45, before the first council of Jerusalem in A.D. 50. James was martyred in approximately A.D. 62, according to the historian Josephus.

Purpose of Writing: Some think that this epistle was written in response to an overzealous interpretation of Paul’s teaching regarding faith. This extreme view, called antinomianism, held that through faith in Christ one is completely free from all Old Testament law, all legalism, all secular law, and all the morality of a society. The Book of James is directed to Jewish Christians scattered among all the nations (James 1:1). Martin Luther, who detested this letter and called it “the epistle of straw,” failed to recognize that James’s teaching on works complemented—not contradicted—Paul’s teaching on faith. While Pauline teachings concentrate on our justification with God, James’ teachings concentrate on the works that exemplify that justification. James was writing to Jews to encourage them to continue growing in this new Christian faith. James emphasizes that good actions will naturally flow from those who are filled with the Spirit and questions whether someone may or may not have a saving faith if the fruits of the Spirit cannot be seen, much as Paul describes in Galatians 5:22-23.

Brief Summary: The Book of James outlines the faith walk through genuine religion (1:1-27), genuine faith (2:1-3:12) and genuine wisdom (3:13-5:20). This book contains a remarkable parallel to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. James begins in the first chapter by describing the overall traits of the faith walk. In chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter 3 he discusses social justice and a discourse on faith in action. He then compares and contrasts the difference between worldly and godly wisdom and asks us to turn away from evil and draw close to God. James gives a particularly severe rebuke to the rich who hoard and those who are self-reliant. Finally he ends with encouragement to believers to be patient in suffering, praying and caring for one another and bolstering our faith through fellowship.

Connections: The Book of James is the ultimate description of the relationship between faith and works. So ingrained in the Mosaic Law and its system of works were the Jewish Christians to whom James wrote that he spent considerable time explaining the difficult truth that no one is justified by the works of the law (Galatians 2:16). He declares to them that even if they try their very best to keep all the various laws and rituals, doing so is impossible, and transgressing the tiniest part of the law made them guilty of all of it (James 2:10) because the law is one entity and breaking one part of it is breaking all of it.
​

Book of James - Bible Survey

2. Ephesians is considered by almost all scholars to be Pseudipigrapha, as demonstrated
The authenticity of Ephesians - Google Books

Ephesians Inauthentic

The Writings of the New Testament - Google Books

I guess that's one way to avoid the question.

3. The Amplified Bible has authority because? It's another obviously biased translation by biased Pauline Antinomians, like the NIV. Why does their authority of the word "Grace" have meaning?

Why am I not surprised.

Holman Bible Dictionary

Grace - undeserved acceptance and love received from another, especially the characteristic attitude of God in providing salvation for sinners. For Christians, the word "grace" is virtually synonymous with the gospel of God's gift of unmerited salvation in Jesus Christ. (there's more, I can type the rest out later if you want it)

​

Easton's Bible Dictionary
Grace
Of form or person (Proverbs 1:9; 3:22; Psalms 45:2).
Favour, kindness, friendship (Genesis 6:8; 18:3; 19:19; 2Tim 1:9).
God's forgiving mercy (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:5).
The gospel as distinguished from the law (John 1:17; Romans 6:14; 1 Peter 5:12).
Gifts freely bestowed by God; as miracles, prophecy, tongues (Romans 15:15; 1 Corinthians 15:10; Ephesians 3:8).
Christian virtues (2 Corinthians 8:7; 2Pet 3:18).
The glory hereafter to be revealed (1 Peter 1:13).


Grace - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
a: unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification
b : a virtue coming from God
c : a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace

 

[Shermana]

1. Your are presupposing they are already saved just because they believe. That is not evidence. That is circular reasoning based on a presupposition.

2. It's not avoiding the question, it's proving that the verse you are using is inauthentic from an inauthentic epistle that was probably composed specifically during the Marcion era when Antinomianism was thriving. You can't just assume it was written by Paul and thus valid just because its part of the Traditional Canon, in the face of the scholarship and evidence. It wasn't even titled "To the Church in Ephesus". Relying on a verse to negate and trump other verses which is questionable doesn't really work as a defining doctrinal value, but its the mainstream opinion. And it contradicts with what Paul says earlier about "Working out your salvation with fear and trembling". And Romans 2:13 "It is not those who hear the Law who are justified but those who obey it."

3. What part about term #20 didn't you get? Obviously, as any reader can see, you have to be obedient to Christ to have "Grace" which means it is earned. When the couple were struck dead because they lied about the value of their house, what happened to their grace?

4. No matter what, James says quite plainly such faith cannot save, you are trying to make leaps and jumps to get around it to make him say something he doesn't say.

5. You are relying on just a few verses while you accuse me of the same thing but not even bothering to discuss the other verses I mention. That's quite noted.

6. Most "Bible dictionaries" are written by Biased Pauline Antinomians considering its the mainstream opinion and that's who their market is. Anyone who considers them purely objective is being dishonest or ignorant. What they are defining is the post-Luther definition of "Grace" which is the traditional idea which their readership won't object to.

 

[pwfaith]

I think what you mean to say is your idea of what the "full context" means to suit your Doctrine. I've mentioned Paul saying "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" three times already (four now). What is the "full context" of that? What is the "Full context" of drowning yourself rather than offend a child?

I say what I mean, please do not attempt to put words into my mouth. I am fully capable of speaking for myself.

I will have to address this later as I need to shower up, dress the kids and head out for work.

 

[pwfaith]

1. Your are presupposing they are already saved just because they believe.

Typically when the bible refers to "believers" it is referring to those who are saved. There is no presupposition involved.

2. It's not avoiding the question, it's proving that the verse you are using is inauthentic from an inauthentic epistle that was probably composed specifically during the Marcion era when Antinomianism was thriving.

Ok

3. What part about term #20 didn't you get? Obviously, as any reader can see, you have to be obedient to Christ to have "Grace" which means it is earned.

According to your limited definition.

4. No matter what, James says quite plainly such faith cannot save, you are trying to make leaps and jumps to get around it to make him say something he doesn't say.

I disagree.

5. You are relying on just a few verses while you accuse me of the same thing but not even bothering to discuss the other verses I mention. That's quite noted.

What verses have I provided? What verses have you provided (references please, not just clips of a verse, it saves me time having to google the clip, thanks)

 

[Shermana]

Easton's Bible Dictionary
Grace
Of form or person (Proverbs 1:9; 3:22; Psalms 45:2).
Favour, kindness, friendship (Genesis 6:8; 18:3; 19:19; 2Tim 1:9).
God's forgiving mercy (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:5).
The gospel as distinguished from the law (John 1:17; Romans 6:14; 1 Peter 5:12).
Gifts freely bestowed by God; as miracles, prophecy, tongues (Romans 15:15; 1 Corinthians 15:10; Ephesians 3:8).
Christian virtues (2 Corinthians 8:7; 2Pet 3:18).
The glory hereafter to be revealed (1 Peter 1:13).

Genesis 6:8 "Noah found favor in G-d's eyes....." I think that answers that one.

 

[Desert Snake]

I know exactly how you feel

.........lol.....

 

[Shermana]

Typically when the bible refers to "believers" it is referring to those who are saved. There is no presupposition involved.

Oh really? That is called circular logic based on a presupposition. You may think there is none, and that's funny because you are in fact presupposing that they are saved just because it is written to "believers". Believers does not equal saved. There were many who fell out. It is in fact a presupposition whether you like it or not. Even Paul was not writing to people who were already saved as I've demonstrated 5 times. Revelation is quite fierce in its warnings against people who promote false doctrines in the church like eating meat sacrificed to idols in 2:14.

According to your limited definition.

How is it limited exactly?

I disagree.

Why? If James says "Can such Faith save" how can you possibly make it say something different in an objective context? This is Antinomian logic at its finest, ignoring what the text actually says and saying it says something else.

What verses have I provided? What verses have you provided (references please, not just clips of a verse, it saves me time having to google the clip, thanks)

[/quote]

Start here: Philipians 2:12
12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,

 

[JacobEzra.]

The whole "fulfilled" thing again. He specifically says "I did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets but fulfill them". Somehow that translates to "I came to abolish the Law by fulfilling them." The word "fulfill" does not mean "Do away with and terminate". When Jesus' "Joy was fulfilled", does that mean his joy was abolished? No.

If you are not under Legalistic requirements, why are you not allowed to commit adultery? What happens if you do? (Many Christians notably run away from this subject for whatever reason...) Are you now allowed to no longer honor your parents either? Are you allowed to strike your parents? Are you allowed to **** in a public pool too? Anytime anyone complains about "Legalism", they must accept the can of worms they have opened and dig in. Are you allowed to curse your parents now? If not, why not? Are you allowed to defraud? If not, what is the penalty? Are you allowed to tell lies? Most Christians seem to have NO problem with telling lies.

Do you really want to be considered the "Least" in the Kingdom of Heaven?

Even Paul was not as anti-legalist as many try to make him out to be. Romans 2:13 "It is not those who hear the Law, but those who OBEY the Law who will be declared righteous".

What Paul is referring to in those quotes is not about the Sabbath itself and disobeying it. If he was, he would have been rightfully stoned to death at his trial. Worshippnig the Lord on the Sabbath is not the issue, it is about resting and not working. You can worship the Lord any day you want.

lol Saints Paul and Peter rebuked the Judaizers, and would rebuke you to.

 

[JacobEzra.]

James clearly says your kind of faith (which is the kind of faith for 90% of Christians) does not save.

\

Im not a fan of the osas and faith alone bs from protestants.

But you post with such arrogance here. Where you get 90% from?

 

[Shermana]

Im not a fan of the osas and faith alone bs from protestants.

But you post with such arrogance here. Where you get 90% from?

Define arrogance. My 90% is from my experience, do you dispute the number, and if so with what?

 

[Shermana]

lol Saints Paul and Peter rebuked the Judaizers, and would rebuke you to.

Peter didn't rebuke the Judaizers, and the controversy was over the unscriptural circumcision, which is only required for one's offspring. The C-Faction was trying to enforce something that Abraham did when he was 90 and when specifically told to. There is no law to do it for yourself. It was driving away many potential converts.

The question of Paul's apostleship is up to dispute, or at least how to interpret his epistles.

2 Peter's authenticity is up to debate as well, it wasn't accepted by most of the Earliest Fathers until later. And one has to wonder, even if it is authentic, just who were the ones he was speaking about who misinterpreted Paul and how.

 

[james2ko]

1 Corinthians 16:1-2 Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made." This verse has Paul instructing the churches to meet together on the first day of the week (Sunday) to give offerings.

1. First, the context reveals this has nothing to do with church services, but rather a gathering of produce and other foodstuffs which was to be sent to the church members at Jerusalem who were suffering from a severe food shortage (Rom 15:25-28). Second, it was given at one specific place ("let everyone of you lay by him in store"). This is because Paul would come later (1 Cor. 16:3 – "when I come") to gather what brethren had been saving at home ("lay by him in store"). This was not an offering kept at the church, or given every--or any--Sunday.

Third, this command is specific to the Corinthians (1Co16:1). There is no command for Sunday collections here, but merely instruction to local brethren to store an important offering for poor brethren! Fourth, this letter was received in Corinth during the Days of Unleavened Bread. "First day of the week" should properly be translated "first of weeks" [sabbaths] (plural) --check the Greek.

The collection was almost certainly to happen immediately after the Days of Unleavened Bread, in the first week counting toward Pentecost (Feast of Weeks). Finally, 1 Co 16:4--"and if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me"--coupled with vs 3 referencing "them," shows that it took several people to transport this large offering to Jerusalem. This would not be necessary if it was simply cash and coins taken up in an offering plate. It would be necessary if much food and drink was involved.

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight." Paul met with believers in Troas to worship and have communion, they came together on the first day of the week.

2. On this particular occasion, Paul had conducted Sabbath services earlier on the Sabbath [Saturday] and continued to instruct and exhort the brethren because he was to depart on his journey the very next day—the daylight portion of Sunday. Remember, the beginning of a day for the Jews was at sunset. So after having met on the daylight portion of Saturday, Paul continued preaching for many hours into "Saturday evening" (which was the beginning of the first day of the week) and on through midnight.

After having miraculously revived a youth, taken up as dead, who had fallen from the loft, as Paul was "long preaching" (vs. 9-10), he actually continued encouraging the brethren until daybreak (vs. 11). He was scheduled to depart and not likely to ever see them again. There is no indication in this verse that meeting together on the first day of the week had become the custom in the apostolic era.

Romans 14:5-6 In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable. Those who worship the Lord on a special day do it to honor him. Those who eat any kind of food do so to honor the Lord, since they give thanks to God before eating. And those who refuse to eat certain foods also want to please the Lord and give thanks to God.

3. See point 5 in this post http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2553563-post40.html
Again nothing to do with doing away with the God's 4th commandment.

As followers of Christ, we are no longer under legalistic obligation, .

4. I wouldn't consider keeping the 4th commandment as legalistic. I would consider the extra 60+ burdensome requirements the Pharisees added to the Sabbath, which Christ condemned, as legalistic.

for the requirements of the law were fulfilled in Jesus Christ

5. Wouldn't that give us the liberty to lie, murder, steal, and commit adultery, etc?

 

[JacobEzra.]

Peter didn't rebuke the Judaizers, and the controversy was over the unscriptural circumcision, which is only required for one's offspring. The C-Faction was trying to enforce something that Abraham did when he was 90 and when specifically told to. There is no law to do it for yourself. It was driving away many potential converts.

The question of Paul's apostleship is up to dispute, or at least how to interpret his epistles.

2 Peter's authenticity is up to debate as well, it wasn't accepted by most of the Earliest Fathers until later. And one has to wonder, even if it is authentic, just who were the ones he was speaking about who misinterpreted Paul and how.

Cirsumscion was a sign of belonging to the God of Abraham.

And St. Peter spoke against following the law outside of the guidlines set for Gentiles at the meeting in Jerusalem from the Book of Acts. In Ch 15 of Acts, the council happened due to the circumscion issue, but there was more to it. Here is the letter they sent to the Gentiles on the laws they were to keep.

. [23] Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch, and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting. [24] Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment: [25] It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men, and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul:
[26] Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. [27] We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things. [28] For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: [29] That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well. [30] They therefore being dismissed, went down to Antioch; and gathering together the multitude, delivered the epistle.

Where is it said that the whole Mosaic law was upon them?

 

[JacobEzra.]

Define arrogance. My 90% is from my experience, do you dispute the number, and if so with what?

Have you met all of the followers of Christianity?

BTW; for such a devout Christian you are, its sad that you do not stand by your Christian brothers and sisters who are persecuted.

 

[pwfaith]

5. Wouldn't that give us the liberty to lie, murder, steal, and commit adultery, etc?

Not at all. The spirit of the law remains the same.

 

[pwfaith]

Oh really? That is called circular logic based on a presupposition. You may think there is none, and that's funny because you are in fact presupposing that they are saved just because it is written to "believers". Believers does not equal saved. There were many who fell out. It is in fact a presupposition whether you like it or not. Even Paul was not writing to people who were already saved as I've demonstrated 5 times. Revelation is quite fierce in its warnings against people who promote false doctrines in the church like eating meat sacrificed to idols in 2:14.

Believers was used in the descriptions. Almost every description I read as to "who" James is written says "believers". You can play it however you want. Fact remains, he was speaking to those who were already saved. The bible is very clear on what a "brother or brethren" is and what it is not. A "brother" or "brethren" is a Christian that as accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

James 1:2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds,
James 2:1 "My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism."

How much more clear could James have made it?

Matthew 12:50 "For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
Matthew 23:8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers."
Philemon 1:16 "No longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a bother in the Lord."

 

[pwfaith]

Why? If James says "Can such Faith save" how can you possibly make it say something different in an objective context? This is Antinomian logic at its finest, ignoring what the text actually says and saying it says something else.

It's called exegesis. The goal of interpretation is not to come up with the most unique interpretation, but to discover the original intended meaning of a passage – the way the original audience understood it.

You are so hung up on the ONE phrase, you are overlooking the book as a whole. Context is everything, which means not only looking at one phrase but who it was written to, why it was written to them, what was going on in that church or with that group of people at the time it was written, etc.

Start here: Philippians 2:12
12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,

Again, hung up on ONE phrase of a whole chapter. Who wrote Philippians and why did he write it? While under house arrest in Rome, Paul wrote to believers in the city of Philippi. He wrote to them to thank them for sending him money to help defray his living expenses as he awaited trial (4:10-18). Paul also wanted to warn the against false teachers and urge the to greater unity among themselves.

Philippians 1:1 "Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers (or bishops) and deacons: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

Saints - bible dictionary - those dedicated to God and set apart for his service. All who believe in Jesus, regardless of their character or spiritual maturity.

As with James, he is writing to those who are already believers in Jesus Christ (aka saved) - why would he be telling them HOW to become saved if they already are. It's more logical to conclude they are both advising them on how to live out the Christian faith - through trials, test, etc.

The Greek word translated "fear" in this context can equally mean "reverence" or "respect." Paul uses the same phrase in (2 Corinthians 7:15) where he refers to Titus as being encouraged by the Corinthians’ reception of him “with fear and trembling,” that is, with great humility and respect for his position as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

the Greek verb rendered “work out” means "to continually work to bring something to completion or fruition." We do this by actively pursuing obedience in the process of sanctification, which Paul explains further in the next chapter of Philippians. He describes himself as “straining” and “pressing on” toward the goal of Christlikeness (Philippians 3:13-14). The “trembling” he experiences is the attitude Christians are to have in pursuing this goal—a healthy fear of offending God through disobedience and an awe and respect for His majesty and holiness.

Psalm 2:11 sums it up perfectly: “Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.”
What does it mean to work out salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12)?

 

[Onkara]

Is it right or wrong to work / go shopping on the sabbath day?
I personally believe we shouldn't.

I knew a person who told me they were moving country (from the UK) to live in a country where shops were closed on a Sunday as he felt there was no tradition or rest since Sunday became another commercial day.