Do You Understand the "Law of Exclusion?"

[JustAChristian]

Do you understand the "Law of Exclusion?" Simply stated, it says that when anything is specifically mentioned to be done then everything else is excluded. For instance, when the bread and fruit of the vine only are mentioned for the memorial feast of the Lord's death then nothing else is to be used. This law excludes everything not authorized in worship. It is an important law when considering proper worship in the church of Christ. For instance, have you ever considered that no one can find New Testament authority for the use of a praise band, an orchestra, or any part thereof such a piano or organ, in worship in the Lord's church. The nine references to music in worship in the New Testament all refer to vocal music. Sometimes in an effort to offset this evident point, proponents of such innovations will say, "But the Bible does not say not to use mechanical instruments of music." Yes, it does! When we are told what to do the "law of exclusion" rules out anything else. As an example of this, when God told Nadab and Abihu what to offer, they sinned by offering something else (Lev. 10:1-2). When you order a steak from a menu, that rules out chicken or ham! In fact, your exact order cancels all the rest of the menu in that category. The Law of Exclusion also rules out any other day for the Lord's supper except the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) as well as any other elements than the bread and the fruit of the vine (Mark 14). We cannot put apple jelly on the bread to "aid our worship" nor can we substitute cake and ice cream for the proper elements of the Lord's table! To go beyond the doctrine of Christ is sin (2 John 1:9) just as surely as falling short of His directives (James 4:17). Would anyone like to comment?

JustAChristian :angel:

_________________________________________

"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him" (Col. 3:17). Man must live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4), not by that which God has not spoken.

[Ya'nar#1]

Originally posted by JustAChristian

Do you understand the "Law of Exclusion?" Simply stated, it says that when anything is specifically mentioned to be done then everything else is excluded. For instance, when the bread and fruit of the vine only are mentioned for the memorial feast of the Lord's death then nothing else is to be used. This law excludes everything not authorized in worship. It is an important law when considering proper worship in the church of Christ. For instance, have you ever considered that no one can find New Testament authority for the use of a praise band, an orchestra, or any part thereof such a piano or organ, in worship in the Lord's church. The nine references to music in worship in the New Testament all refer to vocal music. Sometimes in an effort to offset this evident point, proponents of such innovations will say, "But the Bible does not say not to use mechanical instruments of music." Yes, it does! When we are told what to do the "law of exclusion" rules out anything else. As an example of this, when God told Nadab and Abihu what to offer, they sinned by offering something else (Lev. 10:1-2). When you order a steak from a menu, that rules out chicken or ham! In fact, your exact order cancels all the rest of the menu in that category. The Law of Exclusion also rules out any other day for the Lord's supper except the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) as well as any other elements than the bread and the fruit of the vine (Mark 14). We cannot put apple jelly on the bread to "aid our worship" nor can we substitute cake and ice cream for the proper elements of the Lord's table! To go beyond the doctrine of Christ is sin (2 John 1:9) just as surely as falling short of His directives (James 4:17). Would anyone like to comment?

JustAChristian :angel:

_________________________________________

"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him" (Col. 3:17). Man must live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4), not by that which God has not spoken.


Just a bit of clarification, if you don't mind. :)

As to your ref. in Lev. 10:1, 2: The reason Nadab and Abihu were destroyed by fire from heaven was because, at the hour of worship, as the prayers and praise of the people were ascending to God, they took their censers and burned fragrant incense on them, to raise as a sweet odor before the Lord. But they transgressed God's command by the use of "strange fire." For burning the incense they took common instead of sacred fire which God Himself had kindled, and which He had commanded to be used for this purpose. For this sin a fire went out from the Lord and devoured them in the sight of the people.

As for your assumption that it was the Lord's Supper which the apostles were celebrating on the first day of the week, we actually have no proof positive that this was what was going on in Acts 20:7.

The text reads, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." Acts 20:7

We know from this that the disciples came together on the first day of the week.

Now recall, by Jewish reckoning this "coming together" might have actually occurred on the Sabbath before, since they calculate their days beginning on the evening before, as the sun sets. So in point of fact, they very likely had gathered together to celebrate Sabbath, or the ending of Sabbath, and the celebration could have carried over long into the night (I know a bit about this kind of celebrating, since I, too, celebrate Sabbath in this manner. Frequently our reverent recognition of the ending of Sabbath lasts long after sunset, and includes a meal). Very possibly Paul showed up sometime after sunset, which for them would have been the first day of the week, and he began his speech.

Also, by the use of the words, "when the disciples came together to BREAK BREAD," is no confirmation that it was the Lord's Supper that they were actually doing in the upper room.

The term "breaking bread" was commonly used for sharing a meal together.

Frequently those who keep Sunday for the true 7th day Sabbath will use little incidents in the Bble like these to prove that the apostles actually sanctioned the keeping of Sunday as the Lord's Day, instead of the 7th day Sabbath made holy by God, in Exodus.

But there is no divine sanction that can be found by man in scripture for the change of the Sabbath by Father-God, by Jesus, or by the apostles. They thus resort to incidents like the order from Paul to collect money for the churches on the first day of the week, or the apostles meeting together to "break bread" on the first day of the week, as evidence for a change of the Sabbath, which in fact, cannot be established any other way.

The Sabbath is part of the Royal Law: it is immutable. It is eternal. It will be in existence forever. Unlike those who have sought to change it, or those who--out of a stubborn, rebellous heart--desire to ignore it.

On the basis of this, I find it somewhat ironic that you, an obviously Sunday-going Christian--would think to take on this particular question concerning Exclusionism.

Then again, if everyone coming up through Christianity had accepted this particular viewpoint, there would be no need for people like me, today, touting a sacred law of God which would never have come into question in the first place.

Right?

So much for the religion of the apostles . . .


--Ya'nar

:angel:

[Duder]

Exault, you just, in the Lord; praise from the upright is fitting. Give thanks to the Lord on the harp; with the ten-stringed lyre chant his praises. Sing to him a new song; pluck the strings skillfully, with shouts of gladness.

[Duder]

JustAChristian -

The law of exclusion, as you have stated it, is very interesting. The Bible does not tell me to put on clothes when I go to church. God must therefore want us to worship in the nude. I personally like that idea very much, though others here will find it a bit hard to take,

[One Eyed Jack]

Why don't you just wear those cool threads in your avatar?

[Jerry Shugart]

JustAChristian,

Do you drink "wine" when you observe the Lord's supper?

In His grace,--Jerry

[Duder]

OEJ - I was kidding. The point being, the exclusion principle, as stated by JustAChristian and others on Church of Christ sites is a total wash. It states that what is not explicitly commanded is implicitly forbidden, and this leads to all kinds of absurdities.

God never said we should put those neat leather book covers on the Bibles we bring to church - so to do so is wrong.

God never said that electric lighting should be used in churches. We must therefore get the electric service shut off at once.

See what I mean? The exclusion principle is not based on any classic rules of logic. It is given a high-fallutin' name to make it sound authoritative, as if it were like Aristotle's Principle of the Excluded Middle, or something like that. But it fact, it flies in the face of reason. There is no reason to insist that that which is not mentioned must be absent (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

[Berean Todd]

Psalm 150
1 Praise the LORD .
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.
2 Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.
3 Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,
4 praise him with tambourine and dancing,
praise him with the strings and flute,
5 praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals.

6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD .

Praise the LORD

Psalm 149
1 Praise the LORD .

Sing to the LORD a new song,
his praise in the assembly of the saints.

2 Let Israel rejoice in their Maker;
let the people of Zion be glad in their King.
3 Let them praise his name with dancing
and make music to him with tambourine and harp.




There are dozens of these in the Bible, this is just a couple of them.

[smaller]

God does not NEED our "worship."

The TEMPLE was FILLED WITH HIS PRESENCE! This is what MADE IT PURE.

The BREAD (Living Word) and WINE (His Spirit) are TO BE INGESTED into our TEMPLES....(bodies)

This is a PICTURE of HIS PROMISE to MANkind.

Until then MANkind has a TEMPLE (body) that is USURPED by the presence of SIN indwelling and EVIL present.

God will DESTROY those who DESTROY HIS TEMPLE(s.)

enjoy!

smaller

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by Ya'nar#1

Just a bit of clarification, if you don't mind. :)

As to your ref. in Lev. 10:1, 2: The reason Nadab and Abihu were destroyed by fire from heaven was because, at the hour of worship, as the prayers and praise of the people were ascending to God, they took their censers and burned fragrant incense on them, to raise as a sweet odor before the Lord. But they transgressed God's command by the use of "strange fire." For burning the incense they took common instead of sacred fire which God Himself had kindled, and which He had commanded to be used for this purpose. For this sin a fire went out from the Lord and devoured them in the sight of the people.

As for your assumption that it was the Lord's Supper which the apostles were celebrating on the first day of the week, we actually have no proof positive that this was what was going on in Acts 20:7.

The text reads, "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." Acts 20:7

We know from this that the disciples came together on the first day of the week.

Now recall, by Jewish reckoning this "coming together" might have actually occurred on the Sabbath before, since they calculate their days beginning on the evening before, as the sun sets. So in point of fact, they very likely had gathered together to celebrate Sabbath, or the ending of Sabbath, and the celebration could have carried over long into the night (I know a bit about this kind of celebrating, since I, too, celebrate Sabbath in this manner. Frequently our reverent recognition of the ending of Sabbath lasts long after sunset, and includes a meal). Very possibly Paul showed up sometime after sunset, which for them would have been the first day of the week, and he began his speech.

Also, by the use of the words, "when the disciples came together to BREAK BREAD," is no confirmation that it was the Lord's Supper that they were actually doing in the upper room.

The term "breaking bread" was commonly used for sharing a meal together.

Frequently those who keep Sunday for the true 7th day Sabbath will use little incidents in the Bble like these to prove that the apostles actually sanctioned the keeping of Sunday as the Lord's Day, instead of the 7th day Sabbath made holy by God, in Exodus.

But there is no divine sanction that can be found by man in scripture for the change of the Sabbath by Father-God, by Jesus, or by the apostles. They thus resort to incidents like the order from Paul to collect money for the churches on the first day of the week, or the apostles meeting together to "break bread" on the first day of the week, as evidence for a change of the Sabbath, which in fact, cannot be established any other way.

The Sabbath is part of the Royal Law: it is immutable. It is eternal. It will be in existence forever. Unlike those who have sought to change it, or those who--out of a stubborn, rebellous heart--desire to ignore it.

On the basis of this, I find it somewhat ironic that you, an obviously Sunday-going Christian--would think to take on this particular question concerning Exclusionism.

Then again, if everyone coming up through Christianity had accepted this particular viewpoint, there would be no need for people like me, today, touting a sacred law of God which would never have come into question in the first place.

Right?

So much for the religion of the apostles . . .


--Ya'nar

:angel:


It was not my intention to debate the sabbath question. I was presenting the factor of the Law of Exclusion. There is a lot that could be said on the sabbath question especially, from that which you have mentioned. The Lord Jesus Christ directed the apostles, especially Paul, to teach about and meet on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:1-2). .Luke, a gentile, wrote in the manner of a gentile, which would have been unlike the manner of a Jew, and would have reckoned time by the Roman or Greek manner which is midnight to midnight. Thus, the first day of the week would have been Sunday and not Saturday night. But all this has nothing to do with the Law of Exclusion.

Nadab and Abihu disobeyed the commandment of using fire. They excluded the commandment and was punished. They are an example for us today (1 Cor 10:11) to show that God does not take exception to disobedience. Many people think that variances in worship is optional. There is no where allowed for variances in worship. The preaching must be of the gospel (Mark 16:15) or the preaching of edification (Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Cor. 10:8). The singing is to be without instruments of music accompaniment (Eph. 5:19). The Lord’s Supper is to consist of the bread and the fruit of the vine (1 Cor. 10:16; 1 Cor. 11:25; Luke 22:20). The matter of the collection for the saints (1 Cor. 16:1-2). And, the last act of worship is Prayer (Acts 2:42). It is easy for a person seeking to do the will of the Father and not seeking his own vendetta to find in the second chapter of Acts (vs 42 and verses following), to see that two “breaking of bread “ is mentioned. One is the Lord’s supper and the other is the common meal. Context will tell us which one is to be considered at what time. Sabbatarians always have trouble with Sunday worship because they want to hold on to a “done-away” law (2 Cor 3:7-11). Have a great rest of the day.

JustAChristian :angel:

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

JustAChristian,

Do you drink "wine" when you observe the Lord's supper?

In His grace,--Jerry

The term that I use is the same as the one the Lord Jesus used

Matthew 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Mark 14:25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Luke 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

I believe this was an unfirmented drink.

JustAhristian
:angel:

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by smaller

God does not NEED our "worship."

The TEMPLE was FILLED WITH HIS PRESENCE! This is what MADE IT PURE.

The BREAD (Living Word) and WINE (His Spirit) are TO BE INGESTED into our TEMPLES....(bodies)

This is a PICTURE of HIS PROMISE to MANkind.

Until then MANkind has a TEMPLE (body) that is USURPED by the presence of SIN indwelling and EVIL present.

God will DESTROY those who DESTROY HIS TEMPLE(s.)

enjoy!

smaller

You are completely out of context. By your reasoning, Jesus would not drink of the "spirit" anew until the coming of the kingdom: Matthew 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Matthew 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Mark 14:25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Luke 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.


You need more study on the subject of the Lord's Supper.

JustAChristian :angel:

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by Berean Todd

Psalm 150
1 Praise the LORD .
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.
2 Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.
3 Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,
4 praise him with tambourine and dancing,
praise him with the strings and flute,
5 praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals.

6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD .

Praise the LORD

Psalm 149
1 Praise the LORD .

Sing to the LORD a new song,
his praise in the assembly of the saints.

2 Let Israel rejoice in their Maker;
let the people of Zion be glad in their King.
3 Let them praise his name with dancing
and make music to him with tambourine and harp.




There are dozens of these in the Bible, this is just a couple of them.

One cannot look to the Old Covenant for directions of church worship. The old law directed worship for the tabernacle and the temple. The "perfect law of liberth" (James 1:25), the gospel (Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 28:18-29} directs the worship in the church.

JustAChristian :angel:

"And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2:42 AV)

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by Duder

OEJ - I was kidding. The point being, the exclusion principle, as stated by JustAChristian and others on Church of Christ sites is a total wash. It states that what is not explicitly commanded is implicitly forbidden, and this leads to all kinds of absurdities.

God never said we should put those neat leather book covers on the Bibles we bring to church - so to do so is wrong.

God never said that electric lighting should be used in churches. We must therefore get the electric service shut off at once.

See what I mean? The exclusion principle is not based on any classic rules of logic. It is given a high-fallutin' name to make it sound authoritative, as if it were like Aristotle's Principle of the Excluded Middle, or something like that. But it fact, it flies in the face of reason. There is no reason to insist that that which is not mentioned must be absent (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

I probably could go some "assertioins" as well as you have, but far be it to say that thing used as an "aid" to worship is not the same as an "addition." When one covers a bible with a leather cover, it aids the bible in not being worn. It is not an addition to worship. Having electric lights is an aid to worship by giving light to the congregation, but it is not an addition to worhip unless you are worshipping the lights. However, when one inserts a doctrine, such a adding instrumental music in Christian worship he has made an "addition." The bible plainly tells us that additions are forbidden (2 John1:9-10; Rev. 22:18). I will gather some thoughts on the logic of this and present it later. Stand by for more exciting news!!!

JustAChristian :angel:

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by Duder

JustAChristian -

The law of exclusion, as you have stated it, is very interesting. The Bible does not tell me to put on clothes when I go to church. God must therefore want us to worship in the nude. I personally like that idea very much, though others here will find it a bit hard to take,

I am sure that you believe such would be totally out of order and against the law of the land. We are to obey the law of the land and Jesus expects that of us. However, since there is no specific dress for worship, we should be guided by the principle of that which is "decently and in order" (1 Cor 14:40). Show up Sunday in something that is decent and in order!

JustAChristian :angel:

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by Duder

Exault, you just, in the Lord; praise from the upright is fitting. Give thanks to the Lord on the harp; with the ten-stringed lyre chant his praises. Sing to him a new song; pluck the strings skillfully, with shouts of gladness.

One cannot look to the Old Covenant for directions of church worship. The old law directed worship for the tabernacle and the temple. The "perfect law of liberth" (James 1:25), the gospel (Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 28:18-29} directs the worship in the church.

JustAChristian :angel:

[smaller]

Peace justa


You are completely out of context. By your reasoning, Jesus would not drink of the "spirit" anew until the coming of the kingdom:

Oh, but you CONFIRM the point justa. It is done in remembrance for what IS TO COME. You think that we satisfy God by eating bread and drinking wine via some ritualistic hoo doo?

You need more study on the subject of the Lord's Supper.

You need to OUT your particular agenda. I am willing to say that your desire at the end of it is to somehow DAMN others for not complying with your "version" of procedure.

enjoy!

smaller

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by smaller

Peace justa



Oh, but you CONFIRM the point justa. It is done in remembrance for what IS TO COME. You think that we satisfy God by eating bread and drinking wine via some ritualistic hoo doo?


You need to OUT your particular agenda. I am willing to say that your desire at the end of it is to somehow DAMN others for not complying with your "version" of procedure.

enjoy!

smaller

You need to OUT your particular agenda. I am willing to say that your desire at the end of it is to somehow DAMN others for not complying with your "version" of procedure.

Did Jesus have a "version of procedure" when he said "...except you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins?" (John 8:24). Did he give any alternative? Just giving you some "thinking stuff."
I didn't set the agenda, He did!!!

JustAChristian :angel:

[smaller]

Just get to the damning of others part. What happens or does not happen when your rules are not followed?

[Ya'nar#1]

Originally posted by JustAChristian

It was not my intention to debate the sabbath question. I was presenting the factor of the Law of Exclusion. There is a lot that could be said on the sabbath question especially, from that which you have mentioned. The Lord Jesus Christ directed the apostles, especially Paul, to teach about and meet on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:1-2). .Luke, a gentile, wrote in the manner of a gentile, which would have been unlike the manner of a Jew, and would have reckoned time by the Roman or Greek manner which is midnight to midnight. Thus, the first day of the week would have been Sunday and not Saturday night. But all this has nothing to do with the Law of Exclusion.

Nadab and Abihu disobeyed the commandment of using fire. They excluded the commandment and was punished. They are an example for us today (1 Cor 10:11) to show that God does not take exception to disobedience. Many people think that variances in worship is optional. There is no where allowed for variances in worship. The preaching must be of the gospel (Mark 16:15) or the preaching of edification (Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Cor. 10:8). The singing is to be without instruments of music accompaniment (Eph. 5:19). The Lord’s Supper is to consist of the bread and the fruit of the vine (1 Cor. 10:16; 1 Cor. 11:25; Luke 22:20). The matter of the collection for the saints (1 Cor. 16:1-2). And, the last act of worship is Prayer (Acts 2:42). It is easy for a person seeking to do the will of the Father and not seeking his own vendetta to find in the second chapter of Acts (vs 42 and verses following), to see that two “breaking of bread “ is mentioned. One is the Lord’s supper and the other is the common meal. Context will tell us which one is to be considered at what time. Sabbatarians always have trouble with Sunday worship because they want to hold on to a “done-away” law (2 Cor 3:7-11). Have a great rest of the day.

JustAChristian :angel:

Greetings JustAChristian,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but as far as I can tell, the Law of Exclusion should include Sunday as a replacement for 7th day Sabbath worship. No where can I find in the scriptures, including the 3 examples you gave of Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 20:7 or 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, is there a declaration that the Sabbath Day God made holy, has been changed to Sunday, the 1st day of the week.

Now before you launch into these secondary examples of how the apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday by their behavior, first please show me by their wordsin scripture that an official sanction of the change of the day was made.

The reason this is so necessary is quite obvious. By the Law of Exclusion, if such is not indicated in scripture, then we have no authority for the change.

Your examples do not show that authority:

MATT. 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (KJV)

Jesus doesn't even mention "Sabbath" here--let alone a change to the 1st day of the week. So far as I know, Jesus never "commanded" a change in the day in any other part of the scriptures, so by the Law of Exclusion, according to this text the 7th day Sabbath should still be in effect.

ACTS 20:7
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Clearly the disciples are meeting on Sunday, the first day of the week. It might even be presumed by some that by "breaking bread" they celebrated the Lord's supper that Sunday. The question that needs to be asked though, is why were the disciples assembled on this day? What reason brought them together? In context, it will be seen that Paul was departing the next day on his journey to Jerusalem to be present during the Pentecost festival (v. 16). This gathering was a farewell assembly with Paul, the last day the people at Troas could meet with him, and that is why it lasted into the early morning hours. In fact Paul talked with them all through the night and then left in the morning at sunrise (v. 11).

Did Paul preach? Yes, without doubt, as verse 7 makes clear. Did they celebrate the Lord's supper? Perhaps, yet even if they did, as some maintain, there is no indication that that Sunday, or any Sunday, was being observed as a newly instituted weekly holy day to commemorate the resurrection. The breaking of bread did not indicate a special day of worship, or even that the Lord's supper was being celebrated, as scripture tells us they met daily and broke bread from house to house:

Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

This seems to indicate nothing more than eating what are called agape meals of fellowship, which are not necessarily connected with a formal worship service involving partaking in communion.

Now some will point to the celebration of Pentecost, found in Acts 2, and rightly claim that this occurred on a Sunday. Since that year the 16th of Nisan; the day of firstfruits; which was a type of the resurrection; fell on Sunday, Pentecost would also fall on Sunday. However, those gathered in the upper room on that day were gathered because it was Pentecost, not because it was Sunday:

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Had they been gathered to observe the resurrection, wouldn't Luke have told us that this was the new day of the week for all Christians to observe? But, you say, we do observe Pentecost always on a Sunday (Whitsunday). Perhaps you do, but not by anything directed in scripture. Pentecost, like Passover, is not tied to any particular week day. It is determined by the day of the month of the biblical lunar calendar, which means it does not always fall on Sunday. According to the scriptural calculation, Pentecost will most likely be on (or about) the 6th day of the third month, Sivan, which will only occasionally fall on the first day of the week. When the Catholic Church ruled in the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. that the resurrection (Easter) would always be observed on a Sunday (instead of the biblical 16 Nisan), this automatically resulted in Pentecost being observed only on a Sunday, but this change lacks any biblical support.

So, there is nothing in the book of Acts that leads us to believe that Sunday had been set aside as a holy day of worship.

Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians

Continuing on to the next book of the New Testament, which according to Catholic scholars was written between 52 and 57 A.D., we find what is probably the single most quoted text used in an effort to "prove" Sunday worship:

1 Cor 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Paul writes to the Corinthians that he is requesting an offering be gathered for distribution to the needy saints in Jerusalem (v. 3).
Paul is recommending that each person, on the first day of the week, lay aside and save by themselves a proportional amount of their income for the purpose of this offering. In that way, when Paul arrives the necessary funds will be already set aside and available.

1 Cor 16:3 And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.
1 Cor 16:4 And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me.

Upon meeting with Paul after his arrival at Corinth, the money that had been saved up would be given to the designated courier and taken to Jerusalem by Paul's direction. Most notably, Paul is not instructing the Corinthians to observe Sunday, or even implying that funds are to be collected at a Sunday worship service. He is saying that on the first day of the week each person is to allocate and set aside in store (save) a portion of their funds. There is no indication that the individual even need to leave home to do this, but rather that the entire process was to be done at home.

It is also clear from the book of Acts, that Paul kept only the Sabbath day in Corinth, and not Sunday:

Acts 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Acts 18:11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

That's 72 Sabbaths that Paul preached in Corinth.

There can be no question that Paul raised up a Sabbath keeping church in Corinth, a church that knew nothing of observing Sunday as a holy day. So, while many will point to 1 Corinthians 16:2 in the light of Tradition, and say that it refers to passing the collection plate during a Sunday service, in context, that is simply not indicated by the text.


"Nadab and Abihu disobeyed the commandment of using fire. They excluded the commandment and was punished. They are an example for us today (1 Cor 10:11) to show that God does not take exception to disobedience. Many people think that variances in worship is optional. There is no where allowed for variances in worship."

You are very right! God DOESN'T allow for changes to be made in His holy commandments. He is especially guarded about His Sabbath commandment, since it has His seal upon it!

So how is this not applicable to the subject of your post?

May God Bless,

--Ya'nar

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by smaller

Just get to the damning of others part. What happens or does not happen when your rules are not followed?

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day (John 12:48).

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son (2 John 1:9).

Now, after reading these verses, who do you believe the "damned" are?

JustAChristian :angel:

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by Ya'nar#1

Greetings JustAChristian,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but as far as I can tell, the Law of Exclusion should include Sunday as a replacement for 7th day Sabbath worship. No where can I find in the scriptures, including the 3 examples you gave of Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 20:7 or 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, is there a declaration that the Sabbath Day God made holy, has been changed to Sunday, the 1st day of the week.

Now before you launch into these secondary examples of how the apostles changed the Sabbath to Sunday by their behavior, first please show me by their wordsin scripture that an official sanction of the change of the day was made.

The reason this is so necessary is quite obvious. By the Law of Exclusion, if such is not indicated in scripture, then we have no authority for the change.

Your examples do not show that authority:

MATT. 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (KJV)

Jesus doesn't even mention "Sabbath" here--let alone a change to the 1st day of the week. So far as I know, Jesus never "commanded" a change in the day in any other part of the scriptures, so by the Law of Exclusion, according to this text the 7th day Sabbath should still be in effect.

ACTS 20:7
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Clearly the disciples are meeting on Sunday, the first day of the week. It might even be presumed by some that by "breaking bread" they celebrated the Lord's supper that Sunday. The question that needs to be asked though, is why were the disciples assembled on this day? What reason brought them together? In context, it will be seen that Paul was departing the next day on his journey to Jerusalem to be present during the Pentecost festival (v. 16). This gathering was a farewell assembly with Paul, the last day the people at Troas could meet with him, and that is why it lasted into the early morning hours. In fact Paul talked with them all through the night and then left in the morning at sunrise (v. 11).

Did Paul preach? Yes, without doubt, as verse 7 makes clear. Did they celebrate the Lord's supper? Perhaps, yet even if they did, as some maintain, there is no indication that that Sunday, or any Sunday, was being observed as a newly instituted weekly holy day to commemorate the resurrection. The breaking of bread did not indicate a special day of worship, or even that the Lord's supper was being celebrated, as scripture tells us they met daily and broke bread from house to house:

Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

This seems to indicate nothing more than eating what are called agape meals of fellowship, which are not necessarily connected with a formal worship service involving partaking in communion.

Now some will point to the celebration of Pentecost, found in Acts 2, and rightly claim that this occurred on a Sunday. Since that year the 16th of Nisan; the day of firstfruits; which was a type of the resurrection; fell on Sunday, Pentecost would also fall on Sunday. However, those gathered in the upper room on that day were gathered because it was Pentecost, not because it was Sunday:

Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Had they been gathered to observe the resurrection, wouldn't Luke have told us that this was the new day of the week for all Christians to observe? But, you say, we do observe Pentecost always on a Sunday (Whitsunday). Perhaps you do, but not by anything directed in scripture. Pentecost, like Passover, is not tied to any particular week day. It is determined by the day of the month of the biblical lunar calendar, which means it does not always fall on Sunday. According to the scriptural calculation, Pentecost will most likely be on (or about) the 6th day of the third month, Sivan, which will only occasionally fall on the first day of the week. When the Catholic Church ruled in the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. that the resurrection (Easter) would always be observed on a Sunday (instead of the biblical 16 Nisan), this automatically resulted in Pentecost being observed only on a Sunday, but this change lacks any biblical support.

So, there is nothing in the book of Acts that leads us to believe that Sunday had been set aside as a holy day of worship.

Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians

Continuing on to the next book of the New Testament, which according to Catholic scholars was written between 52 and 57 A.D., we find what is probably the single most quoted text used in an effort to "prove" Sunday worship:

1 Cor 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

Paul writes to the Corinthians that he is requesting an offering be gathered for distribution to the needy saints in Jerusalem (v. 3).
Paul is recommending that each person, on the first day of the week, lay aside and save by themselves a proportional amount of their income for the purpose of this offering. In that way, when Paul arrives the necessary funds will be already set aside and available.

1 Cor 16:3 And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.
1 Cor 16:4 And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me.

Upon meeting with Paul after his arrival at Corinth, the money that had been saved up would be given to the designated courier and taken to Jerusalem by Paul's direction. Most notably, Paul is not instructing the Corinthians to observe Sunday, or even implying that funds are to be collected at a Sunday worship service. He is saying that on the first day of the week each person is to allocate and set aside in store (save) a portion of their funds. There is no indication that the individual even need to leave home to do this, but rather that the entire process was to be done at home.

It is also clear from the book of Acts, that Paul kept only the Sabbath day in Corinth, and not Sunday:

Acts 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Acts 18:11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

That's 72 Sabbaths that Paul preached in Corinth.

There can be no question that Paul raised up a Sabbath keeping church in Corinth, a church that knew nothing of observing Sunday as a holy day. So, while many will point to 1 Corinthians 16:2 in the light of Tradition, and say that it refers to passing the collection plate during a Sunday service, in context, that is simply not indicated by the text.


"Nadab and Abihu disobeyed the commandment of using fire. They excluded the commandment and was punished. They are an example for us today (1 Cor 10:11) to show that God does not take exception to disobedience. Many people think that variances in worship is optional. There is no where allowed for variances in worship."

You are very right! God DOESN'T allow for changes to be made in His holy commandments. He is especially guarded about His Sabbath commandment, since it has His seal upon it!

So how is this not applicable to the subject of your post?

May God Bless,

--Ya'nar

Your conclusion is not proof positive that the sabbath is not finished. Consider the Mount of Olives discourse. The reason that Jesus said, "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day" is because of the inconvenience of 1. the winter time. Would you want to have to deal with the perils of winter in fleeing from your enemy? I am sure that you would not. We Jesus knew this also. Also, 2. The perils of the sabbath day. The gates of the city would be closed, and the exits of the city would then be barred. Jesus knew this also. He wanted us to understand the problems of these normal times in view of an advancing army bent on destruction and death. Think about this and reconsider your conclusion.

It does not take a lot of convencing to me to see that the sabbath law and the balance of the Law of Moses was a limited law. When Jesus came and delivered his Perfect Law of Liberty, it was for all and superceded the Law of Moses. We now are under a better covenant built on better promises. This does not mean that some of these laws are not apart of the Law of Christ, it just means that all are not a part of it. The sabbath law is not (Acts 20:11)

To the unbelieving Jew the sabbath remains until today, but is it a valid law? No, because it has been taken away and nailed to the cross of Christ in his death. He came to fulfill the Law. In fulfilling it was set aside for the law of better promises.


"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." (Hebrews 8:6).

Has Jesus authorized the keeping of the sabbath for Christian? The verse or reference is yet to be found where any apostle ever taught or sanctioned the keeping of the sabbath. Before the cross, they were subject to the Law of Moses and the keeping of the sabbath, but after the cross they were freed from the "yoke of bondage".

The whole of anything is the sum of its parts. We find what the church did in one place and then correlate it with what is found in other places to get the complete picture. The apostles are seen only partaking of the Lord's supper on the first day of the week. The contribution for the work of the church only is shown to happen on the first day of the week. This is the only day acknowledged by an apostle for worship activity (1 Cor. 16:1-2). Jesus never bound upon the church a sabbath day assembly nor did the apostles. There is nothing wrong with assembling on Saturday to worship, but certain things are reserved for Sunday assemblies, such as the memorial feast and giving of one's means for the support of the church, benevolence and ministry of the gospel.

Paul give a vivid picture of the Lord’s day meal. This was done on the first day of the week, as from that first day of Pentecost ( Acts 2:42) when the disciples remembered the Lord in breaking of bread. It is also called a memorial (1 Cor 11:23-25). Jesus had commanded the disciples to remember him in eating this feast. It consisted of unleaven bread and fruit of the vine. The only day that it is observed is on the first day of the week. The sabbath day is never shown outside the Jewish community. The Gentiles are never shown as observing the Sabbath only the first day of the week (Sunday) as the assembly day of worship.

JustAChristian :angel:

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second (Heb. 10:9).

[smaller]

Peace justa

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day (John 12:48).

And the word Jesus spoke regarding the "unbeliever" is "I JUDGE HIM NOT," and "I JUDGE NO MAN."

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son (2 John 1:9).

There are those who walk in Truth as shown by LOVING THEIR NEIGHBORS and their ENEMIES. There are those who CONDEMN their neighbors and their enemies to burn forever. These latter ones are SLAVES OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS and do not walk in TRUTH.

Now, after reading these verses, who do you believe the "damned" are?

The damned are the devil and his messengers, for whom the fires have been prepared. These dwell in the flesh of ALL men, but are not the SAME AS mankind. (Romans 7:17,20,21, 11:32, and others)

Now are you going to tell us how we are condemned by not following your ritual regarding the bread and wine?

enjoy!

smaller

[OMEGA]

JUSTACHRISTIAN said:
When you order a steak from a menu, that rules out chicken or

ham! In fact, your exact order cancels all the rest of the menu in

that category.

----------------------------------


I am going to take my sister out to the Mandarin Buffet Dinner

on February 22, 2004 .

Please tell me what Foods are Excluded ?:chuckle:

[geralduk]

"God is SPIRIT and they that worship God must worship Him in SPIRIT and in TRUTH"

The PRAISE of God is not the WORSHIP of God though that may LEAD you into the worship of God.
You CANNOT worship God IN TRUTH unless you are "IN THE SPIRIT"
and you cannot be "IN THE SPIRIT unless you are "walking in the LIGHT......" of God's WORD which is the LIGHT unto our feet and a lamp unto our path.
Therefore if we are walking after the flesh we are excluded from the presence of God.
and if we are walkign not according to the WORD of God we are far from Him.
For how can two walk togther unless they agree?

But if we have "rested from our labours even as God did from His"
Then we have entered that SABBATH of FAITH the TRUE sabbath OF GOD not holding one day ONLY as unto the LORD but ALL days WHICH WERE MADE by HIM as GOOD, and in which it is good to worship Him every day.
But if one man would hold one day as HOLY UNTO GOD then let Him do so.
and if another as ALL days HOLY UNTO THE LORD let HIM as well.~but let not each decry the other?
seeign that ALL days WERE MADE BY HIM.
and we have not nmade ourselves but God has made us.
Therefore are we not also to be HOLY unto the LORD that we might go into the TRUE tabernacle not made with hands but which is in heaven. and present our morning and evenign sacrafices with a thankfull heart in the worship of God.
Not in our own rightousness as if any day we worship is our own and not His.
and that because we worship God on this day over anothers that soemehow we are made rightous by such things!
For do we come to and say we worship?
if not HIM who made us and them and all the days of our life.
Therefore our rightousness is of HIM and of His CHRIST.
AND WE COME TO THAT BLOOD OF SPRINKLING "which speaks of better things than the blood of ABLES"
If then we say we worship God yet speak to our neighbour as if we by our speaking can speak more than the blood that speaks for us.
Who are we kidding?
For it is not the DAY that speaks but the BLOOD.
and it is not the obeying of the law that makes us acceptable to God but the curcumcision of our heart.
Therefore wether it be this day or another they ALL are GODS.
and if we come at ALL into His presence then it ALWAYS and ONLY by the BLOOD of Him who died for us and by whom we are SANCTAFIED.

and NOTHING ELSE!

AND IT IS through HIM who IS THE TRUTH and BY HIM who DRAWS us ;are we ABLE in our worship of God made ACCEPTABLE to HIM and which is WORTHY of Him.

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by smaller

Peace justa


And the word Jesus spoke regarding the "unbeliever" is "I JUDGE HIM NOT," and "I JUDGE NO MAN."


There are those who walk in Truth as shown by LOVING THEIR NEIGHBORS and their ENEMIES. There are those who CONDEMN their neighbors and their enemies to burn forever. These latter ones are SLAVES OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS and do not walk in TRUTH.


The damned are the devil and his messengers, for whom the fires have been prepared. These dwell in the flesh of ALL men, but are not the SAME AS mankind. (Romans 7:17,20,21, 11:32, and others)

Now are you going to tell us how we are condemned by not following your ritual regarding the bread and wine?

enjoy!

smaller

smaller,

The Lord’s Supper is a memorial feast to be observed in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was never intended to be used during events not constituting worship to God. Such events as weddings and funerals is totally out of place for the memorial communion. Jesus said for us to remember him in the consumption of the emblems of the Supper. The emblems are the bread which represents the Lord’s body which was broken on the tree in his crucifixion. The fruit of the vine represents the blood shed for our sins. We recall the death of the Lord each Sunday as we partake of these attributes. Jesus is the giver and susstainer of spiritual life, but he does not do that with trans-substantiated matter but with the scriptures. He said, “the words that I speak they are spirit and they are life” (John 6:63). We can enjoy the fullness of spiritually when we consume the written word in daily reading of the word of God.

One is not to misuse the Lord’s Supper. This can happen when the memorial feast is eaten as a common meal like the church at Corinth misused it. Many brought lavish elements of a meal to use in the emblematic occasion. Some had little or nothing to eat. Paul condemned the action of those who would embellish themselves to the derogate of those less fortunate (1 Cor. 11:21). Common meals are to be eaten at one’s home and not within the worship service of the church. When the Supper is interrupted by virtue of an unscriptural action, such as eating the emblems in an unworthy manner, this dishonors Deity.

I am told that Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman states in his “Lecture on the Real Presence” saying, "No one is guilty of homicide if he merely does violence to the picture or statue of a man without touching the man in person. St. Paul's words are meaningless without the dogma of the Real Presence." This Catholic scholar and others expressly fail to see the purpose of the feast. It is a memorial feast. Thus it can be seen that Jesus used these terms symbolically or figuratively. He is saying that the bread "represents my body" and this fruit of the vine "represents my blood." The metaphor is a figure of speech which Jesus, as well as all of us, often used. In John 15:5, Jesus says, "I am the vine, and ye are the branches." Jesus is not a literal vine, but He is like a vine, the disciples are like branches. When I show you a picture of my family and say, "This is my wife and my children," everyone understands that it is not literally my family, but it is a figure or representation of my family. So, we should have no trouble understanding what Jesus was talking about. "This bread represents or symbolizes my body" and "This fruit of the vine represents or symbolizes my blood." When someone purposes to countermand the memorial feast, in favor of personal preference of gluttony and selfishness, it becomes an unworthy measure and condemned by the apostle in consideration of Christ (1 Cor. 111:27).

There is no reason to make the Lord's Supper mysterious and difficult. The beautiful significance and simple meaning of the Lord's Supper can easily be understood by both young and old. Four simple accounts of its institution are found in the New Testament: Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19,20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26.

Paul records the institution of the Lord's Supper in these words: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread: And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This do ye, as oft as ye drink of it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor. 11:23-26).

In spite of the simplicity of the foregoing scriptures, men have complicated the Lord's Supper. The mystifying doctrine of transubstantiation, which would miraculously change the bread and the fruit of the vine into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, is without any Biblical support whatsoever.

Some religionists, never satisfied with what God says and calls things, have in their own wisdom concocted new words to refer to the Lord's Supper. Terms such as the "Eucharist," the "Sacrament," or the "Mass" are terms wholly unknown in the New Testament.

How, then, does the New Testament refer to the Lord's Supper? It is referred to as the "Lord's Supper" (1 Cor. 11:20), "The Lord's Table" (1 Cor. 10:21), "Communion of the body and the blood of Christ" (1 Cor. 10:16). It is also referred to as "The breaking of bread" (Acts 2:42; 20:7). We should prefer to call Bible things by the name given them in the Bible, especially when they are specifically mentioned in the scriptures.

Never has there been a memorial greater than the Lord's Supper. But what a memorial it really is! More people have participated in and looked upon this simple memorial of our Lord's death than any other monument in history. It is a memorial which any people, anywhere on earth, can observe. To discredit it by using it in an unbiblical setting is to bring judgment upon the participant (1 Cor. 11:17-22). No towering spire reaching high in the air, or great monument made of marble or granite, can have the same effect on the heart and life of a Christian as does this great memorial of the Lord's death -- the Lord's Supper. Always observe it “in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:24).


JustAChristian :angel:

Romans 2:5 "But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God."

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by OMEGA

JUSTACHRISTIAN said:
When you order a steak from a menu, that rules out chicken or

ham! In fact, your exact order cancels all the rest of the menu in

that category.

----------------------------------


I am going to take my sister out to the Mandarin Buffet Dinner

on February 22, 2004 .

Please tell me what Foods are Excluded ?:chuckle:

Whatever is not on the buffet!!!

JustAChristian :thumb:

[smaller]

Peace justa

I generally agree with your observations. The particulars of Sunday somehow satisfying the correct day to remember are debatable.

Regarding settings, when you present "To discredit it by using it in an unbiblical setting is to bring judgment upon the participant" what judgment does this bring?

enjoy!

smaller

[Ya'nar#1]

Originally posted by JustAChristian

Your conclusion is not proof positive that the sabbath is not finished. Consider the Mount of Olives discourse. The reason that Jesus said, "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day" is because of the inconvenience of 1. the winter time. Would you want to have to deal with the perils of winter in fleeing from your enemy? I am sure that you would not. We Jesus knew this also. Also, 2. The perils of the sabbath day. The gates of the city would be closed, and the exits of the city would then be barred. Jesus knew this also. He wanted us to understand the problems of these normal times in view of an advancing army bent on destruction and death. Think about this and reconsider your conclusion.

Seeing as how Christ did not give utterance for a change in the Sabbath commandment to the first day of the week, there was no question but that all Christ's followers would continue to celebrate the 7th day Sabbath in the future, just as they were recognizing it as holy in His day. As with the other 9 commandments, the Sabbath commandment was spoken by the voice of God himself, and written with His own finger, on tables of stone; thus God meant to reveal its eternal, unchangable nature. Unlike the Mosaic Laws which were written on paper, to characterize their temporary nature. It's true that Christ nailed the "law of commandments contained in ordinances to the cross" (Eph. 2:15) --

But this did not include the Royal Law, or Ten Commandments

Christ's words, "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day" indicates to me that Jesus expected His followers to be observing the 7th day Sabbath right up to the time of Jerusalem's destruction, in 70 A.D.

It does not take a lot of convencing to me to see that the sabbath law and the balance of the Law of Moses was a limited law. When Jesus came and delivered his Perfect Law of Liberty, it was for all and superceded the Law of Moses. We now are under a better covenant built on better promises. This does not mean that some of these laws are not apart of the Law of Christ, it just means that all are not a part of it. The sabbath law is not (Acts 20:11)

The Law of Liberty you refer to concerns the truth, that with Christ's coming and His death, it was no longer necessary for men to observe the Ten Commandments as a means of saving themselves.

This was why Paul rejoiced with such enthusiasm! He realized at last that he was no longer obligated to observe the Law in order to be saved; that Christ had come and died for him, and that salvation could ONLY be found in Jesus!

It was this truth which Paul kept trying to instill in believers everywhere he went. But he kept running up against Pharisees and Hebrews who continued to preach salvation could only be had through the works of the Law. So Paul tried in many ways to say the same thing. But Christians today take what Paul said to mean the entire law was done away with at the cross.

They confuse the "law of commandments contained in ordinances" with the Royal Law.

Here are the differences:

MORAL AND CEREMONIAL LAWS COMPARED

MORAL LAW OR TEN COMMANDMENTS
1. Is called the "royal law." James 2:8
2. Was spoken by God. Deut. 4:12, 13
3. Was written "with the finger of God" on stone. Exodus 31:18
4. Was placed in the ark. Ex. 40:20; 1 Kings 8:9; Heb. 9:4
5. Is "perfect." Psalm 19:7
6. Is to "stand fast for ever and ever." Psalm 111:7, 8

CEREMONIAL LAW
1. Is called "the law . . . contained in ordinances." Eph. 2:15
2. Was spoken by Moses. Lev. 1:1-3
3. Was "the handwriting of ordinances." Colossians 2:14
4. Was written by Moses in a book. 2 Chronicles 35:12
5. Was placed in the side of the ark. Deut. 31:24-26
6. "Made nothing perfect." Heb. 7:19
7. Was nailed to the cross. Col. 2:14
8. Was abolished by Christ. Eph. 2:15
9. Was taken out of the way by Christ. Col. 2:14
10. Was instituted in consequence of sin. Lev. 3-7

Paul never intended for Christians to believe the Ten Commandmetns was to be "nailed to the cross."

I will comment on the rest of your post later.

Blessings,

--Ya'nar :Princess:

[Duder]

Justa-


I probably could go some "assertioins" as well as you have, but far be it to say that thing used as an "aid" to worship is not the same as an "addition." When one covers a bible with a leather cover, it aids the bible in not being worn. It is not an addition to worship. Having electric lights is an aid to worship by giving light to the congregation, but it is not an addition to worhip unless you are worshipping the lights. However, when one inserts a doctrine, such a adding instrumental music in Christian worship he has made an "addition." The bible plainly tells us that additions are forbidden (2 John1:9-10; Rev. 22:18). I will gather some thoughts on the logic of this and present it later. Stand by for more exciting news!!!

All right then. If leather Bible covers are aids to worship, even if they are not explicitly mentioned in NT scripture, and if electric lights are aids to worship, even if they are not mentioned in NT scripture, in what sense are pipe organs NOT aids to worship?

[Leo Volont]

"Law of Exclusion"

Whose Law?

Is there some scriptural reference for this thing that is designed to tie everybody's hands?

We have the Parable of the Talents. Everyone given a Talent was intended to double the investment. This "Law of Exclusion" is like the Bad, Stupid and Lazy Servant who buried his talent and returned his Master no interest on his investment. What we are given by God we should double. If we do not build on what is given us, remember what Christ says... it will be taken away.

You know, Christ hated nobody quite as much as he hated Pharisees, and the reason He hated the Pharisees was because they so much set all their priorities on ceremonial technicalities. Pharisees would have loved this "Law of Exclusion" -- oh great, lets have even more reasons restrict, curtail and restrain Worship. You see, we need to know who the Leaders are. The Leaders are the ones beating everyone else over the heads with these rules.

And here you are showing off your set of Clubs.

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by smaller

Peace justa

I generally agree with your observations. The particulars of Sunday somehow satisfying the correct day to remember are debatable.

Regarding settings, when you present "To discredit it by using it in an unbiblical setting is to bring judgment upon the participant" what judgment does this bring?

enjoy!

smaller

smaller,

I could say a lot about judgment, but suffice it to say these statements. May we then keep in mind that God's Word is what will face us in the day of judgment (John 12:48); and, it is stated by Paul in 2 Tim. 3:16,17, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Here we have the instructions from God, in His Word, in righteousness. It does not lead us, it never has led us and it never will lead us in the ways of ungodliness and wickedness, but in the paths of righteousness. Christianity demands that we make a judgment of men, to be sure, but not based on gender or the color of their skin, rather upon their moral and spiritual attributes. "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. 7:20).

Jesus had promised to send the Holy Spirit after his departure. In these words he indicated what the purpose of that coming would be: "And he, when he is come, will convict the world in respect to sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment ..." (John 16:8). Although the Spirit had come upon the apostles (Acts 2:1-4), these Jews were not yet "convicted" of their sins. They were, however, shocked and curious as they beheld these apostles speaking in the various languages and were caused to ask, "What meaneth this?" (Acts 2:12). Sinners were made ready to listen with receptive hearts by what they observed taking place, not by what they felt in their hearts. The seed of the Kingdom (Luke 8:11) would find good soil. Joel had predicted the coming of the Spirit. What they saw and heard is that which Joel said was to take place. The Holy Spirit was to come upon "all flesh" beginning on Pentecost. This speaks of the international nature of God's blessings in the church age. The prophecy also speaks of a day of judgment at which time all must appeal to or "call on" the Lord for salvation (Acts 2:21). At the day of judgment, those who serve sin will get their pay -- their wages. Paul wrote, "For the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). This is payment for service rendered. "Death" means eternal separation from God. This is for those who allow sin to be their lord. In contrast, look at the rest of the verse. "... but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." We have the choice -- death or life. However, the only way that we can enjoy eternal life is to let Jesus Christ be our Lord. Have a good rest of the day.

JustAChristian :angel:

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by Leo Volont

"Law of Exclusion"

Whose Law?

Is there some scriptural reference for this thing that is designed to tie everybody's hands?

We have the Parable of the Talents. Everyone given a Talent was intended to double the investment. This "Law of Exclusion" is like the Bad, Stupid and Lazy Servant who buried his talent and returned his Master no interest on his investment. What we are given by God we should double. If we do not build on what is given us, remember what Christ says... it will be taken away.

You know, Christ hated nobody quite as much as he hated Pharisees, and the reason He hated the Pharisees was because they so much set all their priorities on ceremonial technicalities. Pharisees would have loved this "Law of Exclusion" -- oh great, lets have even more reasons restrict, curtail and restrain Worship. You see, we need to know who the Leaders are. The Leaders are the ones beating everyone else over the heads with these rules.

And here you are showing off your set of Clubs.

In logic, the Law of Exclusion states that when something is specified it negates everything else. Since unleaven bread and the fruit of the vine are specified for the Lord's Supper feast then any addition, such as steak or peanut butter is negated. To use other than what is expressed or implied is to transgress and commit sin. This applies also in music in worship. Singing is specified, but instrumental music in church worship has never been commanded (expressed) or implied. Insturmental music worship is limited to Old Testament worship. Thus it becomes an addition in the New Testament and a transgression in worship and will reap judgment for the one who uses it.

JustAChristian

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by Duder

Justa-



All right then. If leather Bible covers are aids to worship, even if they are not explicitly mentioned in NT scripture, and if electric lights are aids to worship, even if they are not mentioned in NT scripture, in what sense are pipe organs NOT aids to worship?

The specified music in New Testament worship is singing. Since Organs make their own music they become additions and not aids. An aid, such as a hymnal, does not change the command but assist the command to be expedited. An organ or piano or orchestra changes the command by the fact that all are additions. The command can not be change by the addition and be in harmony with the doctrine of Christ (2 Tim. 3:15-16; 2 John 1:9).

JustAChristian :angel:

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by JustAChristian

In logic, the Law of Exclusion states that when something is specified it negates everything else. Since unleaven bread and the fruit of the vine are specified for the Lord's Supper feast then any addition, such as steak or peanut butter is negated. To use other than what is expressed or implied is to transgress and commit sin. This applies also in music in worship. Singing is specified, but instrumental music in church worship has never been commanded (expressed) or implied. Insturmental music worship is limited to Old Testament worship. Thus it becomes an addition in the New Testament and a transgression in worship and will reap judgment for the one who uses it.

JustAChristian

Okay, I know what you mean when you say "Law of Exclusion"; however, it is not a sacred law, and even the logic is a bit dicey, in that you are assuming that every SPECIFIED ITEM of a SET comprise the COMPLETE SET. You do not admit that there may be UNSPECIFIED ITEMS TO A SET.

Look at a Dictionary. The Law of Exclusion would say that there is no word that is not in the Dictionary. This is good if you are playing Scrabble, but it is not True. It makes it possible to play a Game, but everyone knows that there are words that are not in the Dictionary.

You know what I think.... I was once a Philosophy Student and I wondered what my future in such an age old discipline could possibly be -- anything original that I could make up, in order to present something original, would have to be either trivial, or silly, that no one had bothered to bring it up before. This "Law of Exclusion" is one of these silly trivial things suggested by some later philosopher, after the First Geniuses had already covered everything that needed to be said.

[smaller]

A typical self atonement response justa.

I find most "christians" think they have NO SIN just because they appear on the surface to "behave" themselves.

Yet on the other hand these same "christians" condemn their neighbors who may not adhere to the believers doctrinal lists to burn in hell forever or be annhilated. A classic case of self justification.

I am waiting for your damnation of other believers regarding the bread/wine procedures.

[Ya'nar#1]

What's going on here, anyway?

You have failed to respond to either of my last two posts. Although you did post on one of them (#20), the text of your post did not AT ALL address anything I said in my post!

I've addressed the texts of your posts to me, and I don't understand why you are running away from me this way.

What do you think? I just write this stuff in my sleep? It takes some effort, so how about a reply that addresses the comments I made, especially in post #20?

I would appreciate a response from you that acknowledges something of what I said. You are so concerned about the more trivial aspects of worship--and yet you don't seem at all concerned that the DAY God made holy has been completely trampled on, and a false day exalted in its place!

I don't get you at all.

:nono:

--Ya'nar

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by Ya'nar#1

What's going on here, anyway?

You have failed to respond to either of my last two posts. Although you did post on one of them (#20), the text of your post did not AT ALL address anything I said in my post!

I've addressed the texts of your posts to me, and I don't understand why you are running away from me this way.

What do you think? I just write this stuff in my sleep? It takes some effort, so how about a reply that addresses the comments I made, especially in post #20?

I would appreciate a response from you that acknowledges something of what I said. You are so concerned about the more trivial aspects of worship--and yet you don't seem at all concerned that the DAY God made holy has been completely trampled on, and a false day exalted in its place!

I don't get you at all.

:nono:

--Ya'nar


If you want to debate the sabbath question then let me suggest that you start your own string. It is not me intent now to debate that subject. If you wish to debate the Law of Exclusion question then give me something to respond to.

JustAChristian:angel:

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by smaller

A typical self atonement response justa.

I find most "christians" think they have NO SIN just because they appear on the surface to "behave" themselves.

Yet on the other hand these same "christians" condemn their neighbors who may not adhere to the believers doctrinal lists to burn in hell forever or be annhilated. A classic case of self justification.

I am waiting for your damnation of other believers regarding the bread/wine procedures.

smaller,

As I see the New Testament. the letters written by the apostles and inspired writers was to exhort the church to good works. To worship contrary to that which is written would be in contrast to the Law of Christ. In such cast it would appear to me that God will judge, by Christ, the unfaithful as he has said he would do (Matthew 25:14-30 et al).

JustAChristian

[smaller]

You speak of worship as if you had something to give God.

God is not in "need" of what we have to offer.

To love your neighbor as yourself is the greatest form of worship.

[Ya'nar#1]

Originally posted by JustAChristian

If you want to debate the sabbath question then let me suggest that you start your own string. It is not me intent now to debate that subject. If you wish to debate the Law of Exclusion question then give me something to respond to.

JustAChristian:angel:


I've already shown you very clearly how this Sabbath subject is relevant to your Law of Exclusion topic.

Let's face it! You CAN'T answer me!

You are running away from me because YOU HAVE NO ANSWER, other than that you've been disobeying God--

--as have ALL those who keep Sunday sacred.

But you, my friend, are being a hypocrite by posing this question and then refusing to discuss what is an obvious problem for you.

One day God will require an answer from you--and you won't be able to run from Him . . .

--Ya'nar

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by Ya'nar#1

I've already shown you very clearly how this Sabbath subject is relevant to your Law of Exclusion topic.

Let's face it! You CAN'T answer me!

You are running away from me because YOU HAVE NO ANSWER, other than that you've been disobeying God--

--as have ALL those who keep Sunday sacred.

But you, my friend, are being a hypocrite by posing this question and then refusing to discuss what is an obvious problem for you.

One day God will require an answer from you--and you won't be able to run from Him . . .

--Ya'nar

The sabbath was limited to the Jewish economy exclusively (Deut 5:1-4; Acts 15:6-20 et al). When you have something more to present that will cause you not to "beg the question" on the subject of the first day of the week then jump on in. I'd love to hear from you.

JustAChristina :angel:

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by smaller

You speak of worship as if you had something to give God.

God is not in "need" of what we have to offer.

To love your neighbor as yourself is the greatest form of worship.

Smaller

The text tell us that "God is a Spirit and they that worship Him MUST worship Him in Spirit and in Truth." (John 4:24). There is no "middle ground" when it comes to true worship.

JustAChristian :angel:

[smaller]

Unfortunately there are plenty of people such as yourself who believe themselves to be the definitive of what that "worship" is eh?

and then they turn around and DAMN others for not "complying."

Welcome to the games your little club plays continually.

[billwald]

"This (law of exclusion) applies also in music in worship. Singing is specified, but instrumental music in church worship has never been commanded (expressed) or implied."

NT mentions oil lamps but not electricity or central heating.

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by smaller

Unfortunately there are plenty of people such as yourself who believe themselves to be the definitive of what that "worship" is eh?

and then they turn around and DAMN others for not "complying."

Welcome to the games your little club plays continually.

smaller,
You have committed in Logic what is called a "diverting the issue." The law of fationality requires that we furnish evidence for or against the proposition at issue. You have failed to do so and divert to name calling, libal and slander. This is why debaters sign propositions, and it is always interesting to observe how closely we stay to a gibven proposition or affirmation when we try to sustain it truthfulness. You are not exclusive to this stand. The disciples often diverted issues with Jesus:

"Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me." (John 21:21-22 AV)

Peter wanted to divert the subject from him to someone else. He chose to dirvert to John to detract from himself the immediate attention.

Also, on Pentecost when the apostles were preaching, some said "These men are full of new wine" (Acts 2:13). Some people just don't want to face the truth and will divert to the slightest of accounts to hide their true nature. I hope you will consider further what I have presented and quit "dodging the issue."

JustAChristian :angel:

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by billwald

"This (law of exclusion) applies also in music in worship. Singing is specified, but instrumental music in church worship has never been commanded (expressed) or implied."

NT mentions oil lamps but not electricity or central heating.

Dear B...

You are argueing "apples and oranges." In Logic, you have commited what is called "begging the question." You have not been able to disprove my argument so you revert to reasoning in a circle. Oil lamps were indeed mentioned in the New Testament and so were scrolls. Do you take your scroll to services? My argument points out the specified which is singing and shows what is an addition which is instrmental music. One is specified (Col 3:16) while the other is never mentioned nor implied. I hope you eventually come to see this.

JustAChristian :angel:

[JustAChristian]

Silence does not permit an action to be done. It must therefore be respected. By this I meant that when God specified, He also excluded. We saw that when God said Jesus was His Son it excluded all angels (Heb. 1:5,13). Now if God just told us to worship, anything we did in worship would be all right. But we have seen that God specified how we were to worship, naming singing, prayer, the Lord’s Supper, preaching and giving. Since He specified how to worship, it would exclude all else. Also, if He did not specify singing, to add it would be adding to God’s word which we are regularly admonished not to do (Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Prov. 30:6; Gal. 1:6-9; 2 John 1:9-11; 1 Peter 4:11; Rev. 22:18-19). However, it is my most confident conclusion that He has exclusively authorized congregational singing.

Thayer, in his Greek Lexicon, tell us the meaning of “Psallo” saying: “NT:5567

“In the New Testament, to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song” (from The Online Bible Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Copyright (c)1993, Woodside Bible Fellowship, Ontario, Canada. Licensed from the Institute for Creation Research.)

We find this Greek term in Romans 15:9, 1 Cor. 14:15, James 5:13, and Eph. 5:19. Using the Koine Greek meaning that is exclusive in the New Testament, each time it means to sing. The only accompaniment is the instrument of the heart or inward man.

I believe, however, that Hebrews 2:12 is the best scripture to settle the matter. Pointing out that Christ calls the saints brethren, He says, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren. In the midst of the congregation will I sing thy praise” (Heb. 2:12). Paul is quoting a prophesy from Psalms 22:22. It is a prediction fulfilled in the new Testament church. It could not have been fulfilled in the personal ministry of Christ for the church was not in existence at that time. It was established on the first Pentecost after the resurrections of Christ a s recorded in Acts 2.. How does Christ sing in the midst of the congregation? He sings through Christians as He evangelizes through Christians. Ephesians 2:17 says.”And he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh.” (Eph. 2:17). Those afar off were Gentiles. When did Christ preach to the Gentiles? He did so through the church. He told the apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15), and in that same context He said, “And lo, I am with you always...” (Matthew 28:20). Christ is the church. It is His Body. When Saul persecuted the church he was persecuting Christ (Acts 9:4). Christ sings through us all, through His body, in worship, in the congregation. Individuals can teach the gospel through singing. Congregation can teach the gospel through singing. No one can teach the gospel through playing an instrument of music. Therefore, there is shown then that these instruments that one desires to play in worship is only done by a personal motivation to establish a pattern adjustment to worship.

We should know what pleases God. This is because He has shown it through revelation to his followers and by His Word. Let us not do anything that is not authorized. Jesus said, “He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much, and he that is unrighteous in a very little is unrighteous also in much” (Luke 16:10). Let us give attention even to little points of righteousness. For He loved us and died for us. Silence of the scriptures does not permit adjustment to the pattern of New Testament worship.

JustAChristian

[smaller]

Peace justa:

smaller,
You have committed in Logic what is called a "diverting the issue." The law of fationality requires that we furnish evidence for or against the proposition at issue.

This began as a bread and wine discussion. I provided evidence that it is both a remembrance and an allegory for what is to come.

Did you respond?

You have failed to do so and divert to name calling, libal and slander.

I only pointed out in advance that you will be providing the slander in the damnation of others for not following your trumphed up rules.

You see only a physical act, but it is MUCH MORE than what you see. In addition you provide DAMNATION to others.

How much sorer does it get with you justa?

This is why debaters sign propositions, and it is always interesting to observe how closely we stay to a gibven proposition or affirmation when we try to sustain it truthfulness.

I'm sure it is somewhat startling when someone has who has never partaken of your self atonement believerism can also predict in advance the damnation you bring along to the table.

It is also no surprise to me that you, like most self atonement propitiators, repeatedly and continually dodge simple questions and observations.

You are not exclusive to this stand. The disciples often diverted issues with Jesus:

Jesus spoke quite well for Himself and for ALL men.

Peter wanted to divert the subject from him to someone else. He chose to dirvert to John to detract from himself the immediate attention.

Obviously John is not still alive. Using your understanding Jesus was speaking nonsense. There was however SIN indwelling and EVIL present with John who ARE STILL TARRYING! You of course do not see this, as you are a blind pharisee reeking with false judgment of other men.

What you do not see is that this is a WICKED AND EVIL generation that has not YET PASSED AWAY. You mistake this generation for MANkind, when in fact this generation are the devil and his messengers who also SPOKE THROUGH Peter.

Also, on Pentecost when the apostles were preaching, some said "These men are full of new wine" (Acts 2:13). Some people just don't want to face the truth and will divert to the slightest of accounts to hide their true nature.

Again you are simply another LIAR who holds mens SINS against them, in FULL IGNORANCE that your OWN are held against YOU in this act. Silly fellow you are. Full of JUDGMENT of other you are. These things are ALSO in you eh?

I hope you will consider further what I have presented and quit "dodging the issue."


Your attempts to make me a double son of hell like you are will go by me. Will you be as quick to acknowledge that THE LAW still stands, since you are so eager to MAKE LAWS over COMMUNION???

I doubt it.

enjoy!

smaller

[Ya'nar#1]

Originally posted by JustAChristian

The sabbath was limited to the Jewish economy exclusively (Deut 5:1-4; Acts 15:6-20 et al). When you have something more to present that will cause you not to "beg the question" on the subject of the first day of the week then jump on in. I'd love to hear from you.

JustAChristina :angel:


JustAChristian, YOU posed this subject. I presented you with several well-thought-out, articulate responses to a situation facing every Christian and Catholic alike today--and you, my friend, are running hell-bent-for-leather away from it like your hair is on fire!

The texts you quote DO NOT indicate the sabbath was to be restricted to the Jews. It says in Deut. that the Covenant God made was NOT with their fathers--it didn't say, however, that it was only meant for their sons, or the Hebrews exclusively. As a matter of fact, the nation of Israel was supposed to be a "light" to the Gentiles. Gentiles were even to be allowed to worship in the Hebrew sanctuary, if they requested to.

And as far as the Sabbath goes, as a matter of fact, the 7th day was instituted as a holy day IN EDEN--not on Mt. Sinai. And just to show that it was to be recognized AS a holy day, even BEFORE the law was given to Moses on Sinai, when Aaron and Moses faced Pharaoh before the Exodus, they demanded a day of rest for the Hebrews WHILE THEY WERE STILL IN EGYPT:

EXODUS 5:4, 5
And the king of Egypt said unto them, Wherefore do you, Moses and Aaron, LET THE PEOPLE FROM THEIR WORKS? GET YOU UNTO YOUR BURDENS. And Pharaoh said, Behold, the people of the land are many, AND YOU MAKE THEM REST FROM THEIR BURDENS."

The Law of God was known among God's people from Adam on down. But when the people went to Egypt, they forgot what their fathers had taught them. Therefore, God removed them from Egypt and took them into the wilderness, to teach His people again about Himself and His Law. In Genesis 26:5 there is clear indication that Abraham kept the Law of God:

"Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

I'm not "begging" you for an answer! But I would appreciate you showing me the courtesy of giving me a few minutes of your precious time to AT LEAST explain to me how it is this particular subject has no relevance to this topic.

You are SO concerned about musical instruments and such at worship services--and yet you want to ignore one of the two institutions man took with him out of Eden when he went into the world: the 7th day God made holy, and marriage.

I just don't understand why you refuse to discuss this subject in this thread! I mean, what are you the thread-police or something?

How is it whether we play musical instruments or not in worship services is MORE important than God's holy Sabbath that has been pushed aside for a false day of man's creation?

Is this or is it not relevant to the Law of Exclusion? And if it isn't relevant, then please explain why?

Can you find it in your heart to do that?

Or are you going to keep turning your nose up at me because "the sabbath was restricted to the Jewish economy?" --which if you study ALL of what God says in scripture you will find it clearly was NOT.

--Ya'nar :Princess:

P.S. BTW, I'd be happy to join in your other discussions.

[billwald]

>I believe this was an unfirmented drink.

Then we can't celebrate communion in the winter and spring times? Only when grapes are ripe

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by billwald

>I believe this was an unfirmented drink.

Then we can't celebrate communion in the winter and spring times? Only when grapes are ripe

Dear B...

It is possible to have container to store grape juice for long shelf life. You look to "loopholes" for your doctrine. There are none, believe me! (John 14:6)

JustAChristian :angel:

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by Ya'nar#1

[QUOTE]JustAChristian, YOU posed this subject. I presented you with several well-thought-out, articulate responses to a situation facing every Christian and Catholic alike today--and you, my friend, are running hell-bent-for-leather away from it like your hair is on fire!

I found nothing—NOTHING—that discredited my statement that the sabbath was limited to the Jews. I gave you “book, chapter and verse to show that it was limited to the Jews in my last post. You have not rebuked that entry. The apostles never taught or required the gentiles to keep the Jewish economy. The gentiles never reckoned time by the manner of the Jews. Luke was a gentile and wrote as a gentile. He reckoned time as a gentile would. Get real!!!

The texts you quote DO NOT indicate the sabbath was to be restricted to the Jews. It says in Deut. that the Covenant God made was NOT with their fathers--it didn't say, however, that it was only meant for their sons, or the Hebrews exclusively. As a matter of fact, the nation of Israel was supposed to be a "light" to the Gentiles. Gentiles were even to be allowed to worship in the Hebrew sanctuary, if they requested to.

You have not given scripture to show that gentiles were to keep the sabbath. You have not shown that Jesus intended the sabbath to be a part of the law of Christ. I can only see where it was not to be (Acts 15:6ff). Show us something putting the sabbath in the “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25). Being a light to the gentiles does not put the sabbath in the church of Christ.


And as far as the Sabbath goes, as a matter of fact, the 7th day was instituted as a holy day IN EDEN--not on Mt. Sinai. And just to show that it was to be recognized AS a holy day, even BEFORE the law was given to Moses on Sinai, when Aaron and Moses faced Pharaoh before the Exodus, they demanded a day of rest for the Hebrews WHILE THEY WERE STILL IN EGYPT:

The Jews never kept the sabbath while in Egypt. I tried to find where Moses asked Pharaoh to allow the Jews to have a “rest day.” Where is that verse? God rested from His work of creation but did not make the day holy at that time. It was not declared to be a day of “keeping” until Moses was given the law. The Old Testament is very clear on the matter of who was to keep the sabbath; “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever” (Exodus 31:17). “Olam” (forever) is used of definite periods of time like a servant could serve master forever (Exodus 21`:6). This is another reason I know we ae not under the sabbath. It was strictly a part of the Jewish civil law and carried a death penalty (Exodus 31:15), for those who violated it. Those who claim to keep the sabbath don’t keep it as it was commanded. They don’t exercise the death penalty for it as Jews were commanded, so we have seen this as a major problem with sabbath keeping.

EXODUS 5:4, 5 And the king of Egypt said unto them, Wherefore do you, Moses and Aaron, LET THE PEOPLE FROM THEIR WORKS? GET YOU UNTO YOUR BURDENS. And Pharaoh said, Behold, the people of the land are many, AND YOU MAKE THEM REST FROM THEIR BURDENS."

This in no way indicated that Moses was having the Jews keep the sabbath. If anything, this indicated a “strike” or something taking place. Pharaoh was not going to allow it.


The Law of God was known among God's people from Adam on down. But when the people went to Egypt, they forgot what their fathers had taught them. Therefore, God removed them from Egypt and took them into the wilderness, to teach His people again about Himself and His Law. In Genesis 26:5 there is clear indication that Abraham kept the Law of God:

Abraham, like Noah obeyed God in the laws and statues and ceremonies that were given to them, but there is no law for keeping the sabbath in their life, as shown in the scriptures. This is because it was never given them to keep. God plainly, through Moses, showed the Israel that they were to keep the sabbath. It can not be denied. However, nothing is ever said for Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Jethro to keep the sabbath. Nothing!!!


"Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

I'm not "begging" you for an answer! But I would appreciate you showing me the courtesy of giving me a few minutes of your precious time to AT LEAST explain to me how it is this particular subject has no relevance to this topic.


See my statement above.

You are SO concerned about musical instruments and such at worship services--and yet you want to ignore one of the two institutions man took with him out of Eden when he went into the world: the 7th day God made holy, and marriage.

I just don't understand why you refuse to discuss this subject in this thread! I mean, what are you the thread-police or something?



This is a thread showing that every precisely stated proposition when properly stated is either true or false. It is intended to show that there is no “excluded middle”; everything is either A or not A. I have shown you verses to show that the Jewish economy was limited in scope to the Jews. The sabbath is part of the Old Law which was done away. It is part of the ten commandments which wee done away. All the ten commandments, in one form or another, are brought over into the New Law except one – the sabbath. This is because it was intended only for the Jews (Exodus 31:17). While it was in force, a person that violated it was to be put to death. Have you ever put someone to death for not keeping the sabbath? Never is sabbath worship commanded in the New Testament. Christians who went to the temple or into synagogues on the sabbath day, as recorded in the New Testament, did so for they were still of the Jewish nation and also that is where they could find religious people to whom they could preach and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

How is it whether we play musical instruments or not in worship services is MORE important than God's holy Sabbath that has been pushed aside for a false day of man's creation?

I have proposed that instrumental music is an addition to worship and should be discontinued. Keeping the sabbath as a holy day of worship for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ is also an addition. The church met on the first day of the week which is Sunday. It is the day Christ rose from the dead (John 20). It is the day on which Christians were shown meeting to break bread (Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7). I pray that you will come to see this and never forsake it (Hebrews 10:25-27).

Is this or is it not relevant to the Law of Exclusion? And if it isn't relevant, then please explain why?

Can you find it in your heart to do that?

Or are you going to keep turning your nose up at me because "the sabbath was restricted to the Jewish economy?" --which if you study ALL of what God says in scripture you will find it clearly was NOT.


“Having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us; and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross” (Col. 2:14). The Jews had a hard time understanding this. So Paul said to the Corinthians, “But their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the Old Covenant the same veil remaineth, it is not being revealed to them that it is done away in Christ” (2 Cor.3:14). So we have often noticed that if the Old Law is done away, all it ordinances and laws and worship is done away. Three annual trips to Jerusalem, animal sacrifices, instrumental music, and sabbath worship were all done away. To you who desire to keep the sabbath I ask, Are you Jew? Are you under the old Law or the New? If under the New, how can you be under that which is done away?

JustAChristian :angel:

[JustAChristian]

Originally posted by smaller

Peace justa:


This began as a bread and wine discussion. I provided evidence that it is both a remembrance and an allegory for what is to come.

Did you respond?


I only pointed out in advance that you will be providing the slander in the damnation of others for not following your trumphed up rules.

You see only a physical act, but it is MUCH MORE than what you see. In addition you provide DAMNATION to others.

How much sorer does it get with you justa?


I'm sure it is somewhat startling when someone has who has never partaken of your self atonement believerism can also predict in advance the damnation you bring along to the table.

It is also no surprise to me that you, like most self atonement propitiators, repeatedly and continually dodge simple questions and observations.


Jesus spoke quite well for Himself and for ALL men.


Obviously John is not still alive. Using your understanding Jesus was speaking nonsense. There was however SIN indwelling and EVIL present with John who ARE STILL TARRYING! You of course do not see this, as you are a blind pharisee reeking with false judgment of other men.

What you do not see is that this is a WICKED AND EVIL generation that has not YET PASSED AWAY. You mistake this generation for MANkind, when in fact this generation are the devil and his messengers who also SPOKE THROUGH Peter.


Again you are simply another LIAR who holds mens SINS against them, in FULL IGNORANCE that your OWN are held against YOU in this act. Silly fellow you are. Full of JUDGMENT of other you are. These things are ALSO in you eh?


Your attempts to make me a double son of hell like you are will go by me. Will you be as quick to acknowledge that THE LAW still stands, since you are so eager to MAKE LAWS over COMMUNION???

I doubt it.

enjoy!

smaller


smaller,

It is my intent to show in this thread that propositions clearly and correctly stated are either true or false. There is no middle ground. So many people believe that there is flexibility in worship. They believe they can adjust the theme to suit themselves whenever they wish. I just frankly believe this can not be done. Truth is not relative to the situation. The Lord's Supper is a memorial feast for the church to observe in memory of the Lord's death. This is shown to be done on the first day of the week only. It is never used in a wedding scene, a funeral scene or any other situation that might come. I believe it is a transgression of the law of Christ to make any changes in the original setting or purpose along with any changes in the items of the Supper, the unleaven bread and fruit of the vine. If you feel offended at my conclusion then so be it. I suggest you study the matter more.

There is no reason to make the Lord's Supper mysterious and difficult. The beautiful significance and simple meaning of the Lord's Supper can easily be understood by both young and old. Four simple accounts of its institution are found in the New Testament: Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19,20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26.

Paul records the institution of the Lord's Supper in these words: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread: And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. This do ye, as oft as ye drink of it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor. 11:23-26).

In spite of the simplicity of the foregoing scriptures, men have complicated the Lord's Supper. The mystifying doctrine of transubstantiation, which would miraculously change the bread and the fruit of the vine into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, is without any Biblical support whatsoever.

Some religionists, never satisfied with what God says and calls things, have in their own wisdom concocted new words to refer to the Lord's Supper. Terms such as the "Eucharist," the "Sacrament," or the "Mass" are terms wholly unknown in the New Testament. Further, some call it allegorical which was never the intent of the Lord. How, then, does the New Testament refer to the Lord's Supper? It is referred to as the "Lord's Supper" (1 Cor. 11:20), "The Lord's Table" (1 Cor. 10:21), "Communion of the body and the blood of Christ" (1 Cor. 10:16). It is also referred to as "The breaking of bread" (Acts 2:42; 20:7). We should prefer to call Bible things by the name given them in the Bible, especially when they are specifically mentioned in the scriptures.

Never has there been a memorial greater than the Lord's Supper. But what a memorial it really is! More people have participated in and looked upon this simple memorial of our Lord's death than any other monument in history. It is a memorial which any people, anywhere on earth, can observe. To discredit it by using it in an unbiblical setting is to bring judgment upon the participant (1 Cor. 11:17-22). No towering spire reaching high in the air, or great monument made of marble or granite, can have the same effect on the heart and life of a Christian as does this great memorial of the Lord's death -- the Lord's Supper. Always observe it “in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:24).

JustAChristian