The Reformers Understanding of Moral Vs. Ceremonial Law

[Gustave]

For anyone unfamiliar with me I am coming at this question from the viewpoint of a Latin Rite Catholic. Within the context of "The Law" most folks will recognize the terms "Ceremonial Law" & "Natural / Moral Law". 

So there is no misunderstanding where I'm coming from I'll quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent as this Catechism is closest in publication to the Reformers. 

"With regard to the exposition of this Commandment, the faithful are carefully to be taught how it agrees with, and how it differs from the others, in order that they may understand why we observe and keep holy not Saturday but Sunday. The point of difference is evident. The other Commandments of the Decalogue are precepts of the natural law, obligatory at all times and unalterable. Hence, after the abrogation of the Law of Moses, all the Commandments contained in the two tables are observed by Christians, not indeed because their observance is commanded by Moses, but because they are in conformity with nature which dictates obedience to them. This Commandment about the observance of the Sabbath, on the other hand, considered as to the time appointed for its fulfillment, is not fixed and unalterable, but susceptible of change, and belongs not to the moral, but the ceremonial law. Neither is it a principle of the natural law; we are not instructed by nature to give external worship to God on that day, rather than on any other. And in fact the Sabbath was kept holy only from the time of the liberation of the people of Israel from the bondage of Pharaoh. The observance of the Sabbath was to be abrogated at the same time as the other Hebrew rites and ceremonies, that is, at the death of Christ. Having been, as it were, images which foreshadowed the light and the truth, these ceremonies were to disappear at the coming of that light and truth, which is Jesus Christ. Hence St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, when reproving the observers of the Mosaic rites, says: You observe days and months and times and years; I am afraid of you lest perhaps I have labored in vain amongst you. And he writes to the same effect to the Colossians. So much regarding the difference (between this and the other Commandments)" . CCC / Trent / Sabbath

This is speaking of the "observance" of the Sabbath and that prior to the liberation of the people of Israel the 7th day of the week, according to the time keeping methods of Israel, had NOT BEEN KEPT HOLY in a ceremonial sense. This is not to say the moral or natural sense of the Sabbath didn't exist - it just says that humans are not naturally instructed by nature to give external worship to God on "that specific day" or to abstain from regular / secular activities on that specific day. The reason we find examples in the histories of ancient cultures or civilizations where people set aside a time for religious services (even for false God's) is proof that there is something inside man that compels him to do this - JUST LIKE there is something inside man that compels him that stealing or murder is WRONG. A Chinese person living 5000 years ago didn't need a bearded man to come down off a mountain with stone tablets with a commandment written on them to know that sleeping with his neighbors' wife was wrong any more than Pharaoh needed an instruction written in stone to know it was wrong to sex up another mans wife (Genesis 12). The Catholic position, as I understand it, is that the 10 Commandments were always and still are universal - NOT because Moses brought them down from the Mountain but because they predated Moses all the way from Creation and thus are all rooted in the 'Natural Law'  which is why they are universally obligatory / observed in every ancient culture we have history on.

Ancient cultures were not instructed by nature to give external worship to God on the equivalent of a Gregorian Saturday because that's outside or beyond Natural / Moral law. For an individual to KNOW something ceremonial they would have to be supernaturally instructed in the ceremony. 

It's my understanding that OUT of all the Gentile Nations of the earth God "CHOSE Israel" : Deut 7, 6-8,  Deut 14, 2,  Deut 26, 17-19,  2 Sam 7, 23-24. There are many, many more Scriptures I could quote but I'll throw just one more in for good measure. 

"For you have separated them from ALL THE PEOPLES OF THE EARTH as your inheritance, as you spoke through Moses your servant, when you brought our fathers forth from Egypt, O Lord God." 1 Kings 8, 53

A Gentile isn't a term that defines what you are - it's defines what you're NOT. Gentiles are not Jews - therefore, if God "separated" a tribe of people OUT OF ALL THE PEOPLES OF THE EARTH it stands to reason that prior to the separation the people pulled out were (prior to the separation) Gentiles. To illustrate this point I'll be bias and quote St. Justin Martyr in his response to Trypho the Jew: 

"This circumcision is not, however, necessary for all men, but for you alone, in order that, as I have already said, you may suffer these things which you now justly suffer. Nor do we receive that useless baptism of cisterns, for it has nothing to do with this baptism of life. Wherefore also God has announced that you have forsaken Him, the living fountain, and digged for your selves broken cisterns which can hold no water. Even you, who are the circumcised according to the flesh, have need of our circumcision; but we, having the latter, do not require the former. For if it were necessary, as you suppose, God would not have made Adam uncircumcised would not have had respect to the gifts of Abel when, being uncircumcised, he offered sacrifice and would not have been pleased with the uncircumcision of Enoch, who was not found, because God had translated him. Lot, being uncircumcised, was saved from Sodom, the angels themselves and the Lord sending him out. Noah was the beginning of our race; yet, uncircumcised, along with his children he went into the ark. Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, was uncircumcised; to whom also Abraham the first who received circumcision after the flesh, gave tithes, and he blessed him: after whose order God declared, by the mouth of David, that He would establish the everlasting priest. Therefore to you alone this circumcision was necessary, in order that the people may be no people, and the nation no nation; as also Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, declares. Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned, though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses, under whom your nation appeared unrighteous and ungrateful to God, making a calf in the wilderness: wherefore God, accommodating Himself to that nation, enjoined them also to offer sacrifices, as if to His name, in order that you might not serve idols. Which precept, however, you have not observed; nay, you sacrificed your children to demons. And you were commanded to keep Sabbaths, that you might retain the memorial of God. For His word makes this announcement, saying, 'That ye may know that I am God who redeemed you."

 The point I'm attempting to make here is that St. Justin Martyr was talking to a Jew and saying that Adam, Able, Enoch,  Lot, Melchizedek & Abraham found favor with God WITHOUT KEEPING THE SABBATH as Trypho the Jew had been keeping it. To be clear, the Catholic Church teaches that the 10 Commandments were instituted at creation and are all rooted in Natural law - the heathen nations had always been observing them and what made Israel different was that they were given a specialized Ceremonial Law that was distinctive from the Natural or Moral Law God had already enjoined by Nature on all the other peoples of the earth - and this was all done by supernatural communication.

The following is how Martin Luther describes it: 

"It is as if a Prince or the head of all a household wished to establish an ordinance for his country or his house because God had recued him from great need and he wanted to show his gratitude, as perhaps Naaman the Syrian did or might have done. He also would begin by teaching first about God, how He alone should be worshiped and regarded as the true God, able and willing to deliver from every need all who trust and believe in Him, whatever nation it may be , just as the first commandment teaches and makes no distinction , but declares that God punishes all  who hate Him and helps all who love him, etc. After that the Prince or the head of the household would continue by enunciating the ordinances for his country or his house. In this way the Prince would not have imposed the ordinances of his country on all the other countries which did not experience this help, nor would he have the authority to do this even if he at the outset first commanded that they should worship and honor the true God of all countries. THAT IS WHAT MOSES ALSO DOES. WHEN HE IS SUPPOSED TO ORGANIZE HIS PEOPLE, WHO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED FROM EGYPT, HE FIRST LETS GOD HIMSELF ISSUE HIS TEN COMMANDMENTS, WHICH PERTAIN TO ALL OF MANKIND. SUBSEQUENTLY AND STILL AT GOD'S COMMAND, HE GIVES HIS PEOPLE THE PECULIAR LAWS OF THEIR COUNTRY". Luther's Works The Christian in Society IV, page 91

It's my understanding that Martin Luther clarified that the 3rd Commandment had a ceremonial aspect that didn't predate the giving of the Decalogue on the mountain. Here is why I say that. 

"Thus it is not true that there is no ceremonial or judicial law in the Ten Commandments. Such laws are in the decalogue, depend on it, and belong there. And to indicate this God himself has expressly introduced two ceremonial laws, namely, concerning images and the sabbath. We can show that these two parts are ceremonial laws which are also each in its way abrogated in the New Testament, so that one may see how Dr. Karlstadt deals about as wisely in his book with the sabbath as with images. For St. Paul (Col. 2 [:16-17]), speaks frankly and clearly, "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadowof what is to come." Here Paul expressly abrogates tie sabbath and calls it a shadow now past since the body, which is Christ himself, is come. Also, Gal. 4 [:10-11], "You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years! I am afraid I have labored over you in vain." Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets. 

Notice how similar Luther's wording above is to the Council of Trent's Catechism - he's saying that there is something about the 3rd Commandment that is CEREMONIAL and that it was abrogated in the New testament. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that anyone reading this would agree God would not "abrogate" ANYTHING that's "Moral" because God is the definition of Moral, Holy, perfect. God created a PERFECT PLACE and once God saw there was nothing else left to do He STOPPED (i.e. ceased creation AKA He RESTED). Adam and Eve sinned and were ejected from this "REST" or PERFECT PLACE. 

Now is the part that I think people who frequent this forum and I start to depart in thinking - it seems to be implied by SDA's that creation was a literal 6 days and the literal 7th day following the 6th day is the Sabbath. I know enough about Luther's views to know he believed Adam sinned and was kicked out of Eden the day following his creation - in fact Luther believed that Adam and Eve didn't even make it through the 7th day. If I understand the SDA position correctly they affirm that God, since that 1st 7th day has kept track of a continues cycling of 7 day weeks since the 1st seventh day so that it could be said that when we read in Exodus 16 that God started the 6 days of Manna falling from the sky that the following  7th day, IF YOU WERE TO WIND BACK TIME, WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME EXACT 7TH DAY AS THE 7TH DAY OF CREATION WEEK. 

If I understood GHansen correctly he is affirming that Luther believed and taught that Adam was instructed by God about the literal 7th day following creation week and how THAT Specific day was Sacred to God so that every 7th day following that 1st literal seventh day was a Sabbath worship day. Its suggested that Adam taught his posterity about this specific (literal 7th) day so that by the time Abraham arrived he was actually keeping the rite of the Sabbath,  worshipping on the same literal day Adam was kicked out of the Garden of Eden by a continuous cycling of 7 day weeks - which would be the same identical 7th day of the week Jews & SDA's observe this very day. It's further implied that in the Decalogue, the 3rd Commandment, the part where it says "the seventh day" its referring to the same exact 7th day referred to in Exodus 16 which in turn is the same exact 7th day as the 7th day of creation week.  

The oddity here in my view is IF GHansen is right in that Luther believed that Adam, Enoch, Lot, Noah, Abraham etc. kept the same literal 7th day that God instructed Adam that external worship of should be conducted on WHAT is Luther talking about when he says that the 3rd Commandment in the Decalogue has a "CEREMONIAL" aspect that was "INTRODUCED"? Abraham wasn't compelled by "nature" to cut his penis - Abraham had to be "supernaturally informed" of this act. Evidently, according to GHansen, Martin Luther believed that Adam had to be "supernaturally informed" that the 7th day coinciding with a Gregorian Saturday was the day God should be worshipped on and that throughout time up to Adam this "knowledge" was passed on right up to Abraham.. For the sake of argument let's say GHansen is right AND that Martin Luther was right - does this not mean that the 3rd Commandment,  in totality, was a "CEREMONIAL LAW" not introduced by the ten commandments written on stone but a ceremonial law instituted by God at creation. 

I've posted the above to be transparent in what I believe and why I believe it - I also thought that because of backgrounds there might be some confusions as to what I believe or what others believe I believe. Also I might be mistaken as to what some of you believe. WHAT is your understanding of the Reformers views on CEREMONIAL / Judicial Vs. Natural /  Moral Law. How could Scripture state that Gentiles (who did not have the literal 7th day Sabbath) be described as fulfilling the law which included the Sabbath commandment if they were not observing it even on the same day? It would seem logical to conclude that anything OUTSIDE of moral or natural law IS CEREMONIAL. 

I'm interested in hearing from anyone willing to respond - WHAT is your understanding of the Reformers views on CEREMONIAL / Judicial Vs. Natural /  Moral Law. 

 

 

[stinsonmarri]

4 hours ago, Gustave said:

For anyone unfamiliar with me I am coming at this question from the viewpoint of a Latin Rite Catholic. Within the context of "The Law" most folks will recognize the terms "Ceremonial Law" & "Natural / Moral Law". 

Gustave: It is true that you come with the belief of Catholicism. This religion came about when the Greeks became dominant in the falling Hebrew faith. Paul begin to see the truth changed. He not only wrote to the Gentiles many books but also to the Hebrews as well.

Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 1Co 13:6  

For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 2Th 2:7

 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. Heb 5:12

Satan has blinded many religious scholars to be blind by the Hellenistic power that the Greeks has over the world. In Daniel three beast first was shown to Daniel, by YAHWEH. Unfortunately, the SDA was so closed but Uriah Smith lead the mainstream away. Daniel was ordered to seal the book and it would be finish by the last prophet of ELOHIYM-John.

The SDA did understand the about the little stout horn would pluck up three kingdoms and become the most dominant figure for centuries-the papacy! However, they did not understand the fourth beast thanks to Uriah Smith. It is clear that the beast in Daniel was going to burn in the everlasting fire indicated in Dan 7:11. They also fail to see the unique description given by Daniel was exactly the same thing John saw but even more descriptive. 

 Dreadful and terrible, strong exceedingly, it had great iron teeth that devoured and brake in pieces. This sounds like just like what is known of the king of the Jungle-the lion!

It then stamped the residue with the feet- isn't what a bear does! If you notice that Daniel did not mention one description of the beast in verse 7 but include in verse 19. The fourth beast nails were of brass! This deliberate and very significant that this was left out until the end.

Many wanted to compare what Nebuchadnezzar saw with Daniel. Not possible because the King was not familiar with THE MOST HIGH as Daniel was. Dan 4:8 The king learned over time that YAHWEH had chosen him to become apart of HIS House of Prayer! So, the king saw kingdoms as different type of special metal but Rome represent iron in the teeth and Greece the nails of the beast.

Most do not realize that when an animal attacks their nails are very dangerous and when they claw you they open your skin to bleed. Bleeding deeply weakens you for to attack you with their teeth! Smart Right! Now you can see why it was different from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. If you can't then John will show you. What he saw was a lion head, feet like a bear and body like a leopard. Rev. 13:1

If anyone knows and understand the history of Greek, it had Rome both pagan and papal to follow its Religious ideology: which were many and it pagan philosophy. Greece worship the Egyptians, the Canaanites belief, the  Persians (Aryan People) which believe it or not all came from Nimrod's belief system. Look at your dollar bill people. The brotherhood is another name for the builders of ancient times: Freemasonry

An example of the rosy cross symbol predating the early Rosicrucian manifestos is that shown on the central panel of the Harbaville Triptych, which is Byzantine and comes from the 10th or 11th century. The symbol is a Calvary cross with a rose in its centre, which is identical with what the masonic/rosicrucian scholar Manly Palmer Hall claimed to be the original symbol of the rosicrucians.

In his work "Silentium Post Clamores" (1617), the rosicrucian Michael Maier (1568–1622) described rosicrucianism as having arisen from a "Primordial Tradition" in the following statement: "Our origins are Egyptian, Brahmanic, derived from the mysteries of Eleusis and Samothrace, the Magi of Persia, the Pythagoreans, and the Arabs."  Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Constantine was a great follower of Greece uniting beliefs together. The cross was alway a pagan concept and following Mithras from Persia. He wanted to unite the Christians who were now Greeks changing the Hebrews religion into iniquity. They too were now worshiping Mithras and adopting the Persian and Egypt name Christo from their gods. What do he see across the Milan Bridge, but a cross. He already knew this sign and it was to show he would defeat his brother in battle. He did! Constantine the Great now wanted to unified his country. The Greek concept was an accepted belief to all and the little horn unified the Roman world into the papacy world. It was easy change like it is with all the world religions today. All today believe in God and now Satan has control. Look up the etymology of the word god. Don't believe me. It goes straight to Zeus- why isn't that the Greeks main god! Then it shows clear if you dare look it from its origin.  

Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to shine," in derivatives "sky, heaven, god." It forms all or part of: adieu; adios; adjourn; Asmodeus; circadian; deific; deify; deism; deity; deodand; deus ex machina; deva; dial; diary; Diana; Dianthus; diet (n.2) "assembly;" Dioscuri; Dis; dismal; diurnal; diva; Dives; divine; joss; journal; journalist; journey; Jove; jovial; Julia; Julius; July; Jupiter; meridian; Midi; per diem; psychedelic; quotidian; sojourn; Tuesday; Zeus.

It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit deva "god" (literally "shining one"); diva "by day;" Avestan dava- "spirit, demon;" Greek delos "clear;" Latin dies "day," deus "god. Online Etymology

The Catholic Church that you believe has the altar bearing an image of Mithras slaughtering a bull stands between two benches at the  Basilica di San Clemente. What I suggest that you do it take time and study  the Mithraic Mysteries which are related to Egypt and the bull.

The sacraments of the Eucharist comes from Constantine who was a Mithras worshiper and follower. He thought that the Christo that the Christians were worshiping was Mithras. They had the sacred meal of eating the flesh and blood of the bull.

The story of Mithras was similar to the birth of YAHSHUA except one was true the other a lie. December is the birthday of Mithras and Saturnilas and the papacy converted to get the pagan worshipers to come under the Catholic Church. All of the pagans still worship their gods they just changed them to saints. It is not hard to find everything is written in history.

I suggest that you realize also that Constantine allowed the farmers to continue to keep the Sabbath, while the townsman's were to change to his day that he worshipped his sun god Mithras and it was easy to change the Greek Christians! So please read the story about the little horn who would speak against THE MOST HIGH and think notice that word to think to change times and Laws. He can't, he is flesh and they all die. They get sick and I would truly like to see when have they had great powers? If so why couldn't they keep from dying and getting sick? So, I will keep the Sabbath that was giving in Gen Chapter 2 and YAHSHUA. Strange that THE MOST HIGH told IsraEL that HIS House they were observing would be for all people. Let me see that House were keeping the Sabbath!

Blessings to you!

[Gustave]

I guess beggars can't be choosers. Thank you Stinsonmarri, for your astute & thought provoking answers to my questions about Reformers views on the difference between Moral and Ceremonial Law. 

[Gustave:  Stinsonmari often provides answers to questions that no one has asked--Gregory Matthews.]

[Ron Amnsn]

Hello Gustave,
I am responding from the viewpoint that the Scriptures (in the original manuscripts) found in the 66 books of the Bible are God's word and are authoritative above all man-made theories and doctrines.  I am not a Seventh-day Adventist.

I think you have laid out your position clearly, and your viewpoint seems to have the support of the Council of Trent, Justin Martyr, and Martin Luther.  Yet I do not find your viewpoint convincing because many of your points are man-made theories and doctrines that lack support within the Scriptures.

The concept of categorizing God's instructions into categories called "natural law", "moral law", or "ceremonial law" would make sense to those who are content with man-made theories.  But those categories are not described anywhere in the Bible. And those who teach such categories cannot agree regarding which category each passage of Scripture should be placed into, which shows rather clearly that it is not the Bible that specifies the categories, but that it is just a man-made system.  Furthermore, the idea of using such categories in order to set aside some of God's instructions is not found in Scripture -- it is a man-made theory that has been superimposed on top of Scripture without God's permission and it directly opposes a substantial part of what God himself said in Scripture about his own instructions.  In spite of the best of intentions, those who teach the categories of natural, moral, and ceremonial law also end up teaching things that are contrary to the word of God and contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

I plan to respond to specific parts of your post later, as I have time.

[Gustave]

Thanks Ron, I take your answer to mean you categorically reject the concept of ceremonial or moral law. I can't remember if you are Adventist (SDA, Christadelphian, JW or WWCOG 7th day)? 

[stinsonmarri]

20 hours ago, Gustave said:

I guess beggars can't be choosers. Thank you Stinsonmarri, for your astute & thought provoking answers to my questions about Reformers views on the difference between Moral and Ceremonial Law. 

 

Gustave: I gave you the facts according to the Bible. That means the reformer's view on the differences between the Law of YAHWEH also the Sacrificial Law. Ron made it very plain when he stated: "I am responding from the viewpoint that the Scriptures (in the original manuscripts) found in the 66 books of the Bible are God's word and are authoritative above all man-made theories and doctrines." What you fail to see is that both the Commandments and the Sacrificial Law were given to Moses by YAHWEH. The only difference is the Sacrificial Law, HE told Moses to write down and place it on the side of the Ark of The Covenant. The Commandments which you and man want to call Moral are in error. They are not just Moral, they are Natural Laws, and Statutes. They are not what men want to think are the digit 10. This word is "accumulation," which means the following:

Late 15c., "that which is heaped up, an accumulated mass," from Latin accumulationem (nominative accumulatio) "a heaping up," noun of action from past-participle stem of accumulare "to heap up, amass," from ad "to," here perhaps emphatic (see ad-), + cumulare "heap up," from cumulus "heap" (from suffixed form of PIE root *keue- "to swell"). Meaning "act of heaping up" is from c. 1600. Etymology Online

The Commandment especially in the Sabbath section proves that all that spoken in Creation are there. You apparently do not seem to understand that man concept or ways or not THE WAYS of YAHWEH. All of the reformers proved that and you as well. THE HOLY SPIRIT will leave all into truth if they continue to stay on the path. The reformers brought a lot of truthful things to the table until they chose to go off the path of truth.

What I showed you who the little horn is, the papacy under the Catholic Church. I showed you that Constantine worshipped Mithras and felt that he was leading the Christian to accept all of Mithras and his truth, which by the way was a lie. I gave evidence that Paul saw iniquity with the Greeks and Roman who is Japheth children are the only true Gentiles no other ethical group from Ham or Shem. Again, men made up an error about anyone who is not a Jew is a Gentile. Not true because they have not read Gen 10:5 it is plain who the Gentile is. The books Paul wrote were only to the Gentiles, except the book of Hebrews.

You see your belief is historically traced from the Bible and history. They go hand and hand, history proved the Bible was correct! 2nd Thessalonians proved that the papacy will  be "taken out of the way." Because there will be "a falling away first." This is taken place now which YAHSHUA said it would be the beginning of sorrow. What happened since 2016 was it what Paul spoke about. Many people of all faith changed, hatred came back with a vengeance. The earth is dying and the Time of Trouble is at the door. The beast has not been revealed yet, he will be revealed after the Time of Trouble comes to an end. The papacy you believed will become powerful even more so during the Time of Trouble. She will take over Jerusalem that has become Babylon with many different religions (uncage birds the Bible called them) in the city. This is the one who the 144,000 (they are the ones with the power and preaching the two witnesses, the Bible), will deal with, the Gentile in Revelation Chapter 11. Matt Chapter 24

Finally, the reason why the Papacy state they are above the Bible is so you do not read as you should. Neither do you accept that the Commandments is all The Spoken WORD of YAHWEH! Many today are so delusional that they believe all kinds of lies (conspiracy theories), that they will put their lives on the line. Many are power hungry and will do anything deceitful and bold to have it. They don't care nor listen to the Bible and then they called themselves Christians. It is clear that refuse any type of rules or laws, saying people are forcing them against their will. So, if refuse to accept practical manmade laws; how easy to think you can change ELOHIYM'S Laws- think again, it will never happen.

Blessings!

[Gustave]

Stinsonmarrie,

I understand that you believe Luther, Calvin and the other Reformers were all soft in the head. I appreciate your feedback. 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 7/31/2021 at 9:57 PM, Gustave said:

Thanks Ron, I take your answer to mean you categorically reject the concept of ceremonial or moral law.

I reject the use of the man-made categories applied to God's instructions in order to teach that some parts of God's instructions should be set aside or ignored.  The category "ceremonial law", as opposed to "moral law" or "natural law" is usually used for that purpose.  If man-made categories were used to teach how awesome, wise, and enduring God's instructions are, I would not oppose that.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 7/31/2021 at 9:57 PM, Gustave said:

I can't remember if you are Adventist (SDA, Christadelphian, JW or WWCOG 7th day)? 

 

On 7/31/2021 at 9:41 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

I am not a Seventh-day Adventist.

I do have an SDA background, but my beliefs no longer align with SDA teachings.  I view denominationalism as a blemish on the face of Christianity.  Although I acknowledge the Christian heritage traced back through the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic church, I identify more with the first-century followers of Jesus who continued to live the religion that Jesus lived, according the Scriptures they already had on hand.

[Ron Amnsn]

Gustave, in your opening post you quoted this from the Council of Trent:

On 7/31/2021 at 11:44 AM, Gustave said:

Hence St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, when reproving the observers of the Mosaic rites, says: You observe days and months and times and years; I am afraid of you lest perhaps I have labored in vain amongst you.

How did they determine that Paul was "reproving the observers of Mosaic rites"?  I think they made an erroneous assumption about the passage and leaped to a conclusion that, if it were true, would have made the apostle Paul a loathsome liar and false teacher.  When the Apostle Paul was on trial before Felix, Paul stated, "But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets;" (Acts 24:14)   As you know, the "Law and the Prophets" is what the Jews called the major portions of the Old Testament.  So if the Council of Trent had been correct that Paul was "reproving the observers of the Mosaic rites", then Paul's statement to Felix would have been a blatant lie.  A person who believes "everything that is accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets," as Paul claimed about himself, could not possibly reprove the Galatians for observing the Mosaic rites, because a "reproving" like that would definitely not be "in accordance with the Law" and would be contrary to many things in the Prophets.  So, we'll have to choose whether Paul testified truthfully about himself to Felix or whether Paul was reproving the observers of Mosaic rites -- both cannot be true.  If Paul was lying about his own beliefs before Felix, how would we know Paul wasn't lying about everything he said and wrote?  We wouldn't be able to have confidence in anything Paul said, if Paul's testimony to Felix was not true.  If Paul lied to Felix, then Paul also lied to Timothy, and to the Philippians.  I am confident that Paul's testimony about himself before Felix was absolutely true, therefore the Council of Trent assumed something impossible about Paul's meaning in Galatians 4:10 regarding some other "days, months, seasons and years".  The context and the original Greek wording of the passage shows that the Council of Trent was wrong.  More on that another day.

We know that while Jesus was on earth He must have observed God's appointed times described in the Books of Moses, otherwise Jesus would have been a common sinner and not the Messiah who could atone for our sins.  Jesus also taught "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (John 8:12)  So then, how could Paul "reprove" the Galatians for following Jesus regarding the observance of God's appointed times?  I think the Council of Trent made a giant mistake when they assumed that the religion that Jesus lived while on earth was so faulty that those who followed the example of Jesus required "reproving" by the apostle Paul for doing as Jesus himself had done in accordance with the Law.

According to what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount, if the apostle Paul had actually taught the Galatians to stop following the Law of Moses, then Paul would "be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matt 5:19)   How much authority would Paul have as "least in the kingdom" over those who were "great in the kingdom" because they were doing and teaching the instructions of the Law?  Paul would have had no authority to reprove the Galatians regarding anything at all.  It therefore follows, that if Paul had authority to reprove the Galatians, Paul could not have been teaching anyone to relax or set aside even the least of God's instructions in the Law and the Prophets.  Jesus himself says that plainly in Matthew 5:17-19.

[stinsonmarri]

On 8/1/2021 at 11:06 PM, Gustave said:

Stinsonmarrie,

I understand that you believe Luther, Calvin and the other Reformers were all soft in the head. I appreciate your feedback. 

Gustave: My handel is stinsonmarri and just like you misquote that you did seem to misquote also misunderstand what I wrote. I stated very clear that they Luther and Calvin whom you specially specified brought truth to the table until they went off the path. I never said they were "soft in the head," you did. Luther find that your church was making people do penitence by doing things that was unnecessary and not Biblical.

On 31 October 1517, he published his '95 Theses', attacking papal abuses and the sale of indulgences. Luther had come to believe that Christians are saved through faith and not through their own efforts. This turned him against many of the major teachings of the Catholic Church. History - Historic Figures: Martin Luther (1483-1546) - BBC

Calvin agreed with Martin Luther on justification by faith and the sole authority of Scripture. On the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, he took a position between the radical Swiss and the Lutheran view.

Calvin rejected the images of saints and the crucifix (that is, the image of the body of Christ upon the cross) but allowed a plain cross. These modifications do not, however, refute the generalization that Calvinism was largely opposed to art and music in the service of religion but not in the secular sphere.

In contrast to Luther, Calvin began his Institutes not with justification by faith but with the knowledge of God. Luther found refuge from the terror of God’s dispensations in the mercy of Christ. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Here it shows that both brough truth but John Calvin went further than Martin Luther. As I stated they allowed THE HOLY SPIRIT to reveal some truth. However, they kept some of the belief of the Catholic Church, especially keeping Sunday and thinking that YAHWEH, THE FATHER was a mean, angry vengeful SPIRITUAL BEING. This is just like Zeus and Mithras coming from the worship of Constantine. Your words are unfounded because even history speaks the truth, that is what I told you. I am sorry to say that your words are unfounded as well. You refuse to accept all of the Bible and the Commands of YAHWEH.

The people today who refuse to get vaccine ate acting the same way. They do not want anyone to tell them what to do. They see people dying that are not vaccine but they say they refuse to be mandated. All were mandated to take vaccines in the past that saved our lives. It was told that this warp speed done today because a lot of things in the past were slowing down the vaccine to be approved over five years. Warp speed was something good the previous president did and certain restriction that was not needed was release. Behind the scene it was THE HOLY SPIRIT! YAHWEH will use evil people to do HIS Bidding. He used Baalim, who left THE HOLY SPIRIT. His greed for money and power had him to accept the Moabite king order. He tried to speak ill of the IsraELites. It did not work, when he tried to speak a curse, instead his words spoke blessings. THE HOLY SPIRIT, ONE of THE THREE ALMIGHTY ELOHIYM does the same today. THE THREE ALMIGHTY ONES works together as one which is a unit!

It is sad that you can not see the truth that's in the Bible because of your belief. Your belief disputes the Commandments and want to put them with the Sacrificial System. The Bible in Exodus and Deuteronomy shows the differences of the two. The Ark of the Covenant was specially made to show the likeness in Heaven. Two cherubims are standing on each side of the Commandments in Heaven. Moses was told that he would follow the pattern that was in Heaven. That is what the Ark of the Covenant revealed accept there had to be a mercy seat here on earth! However, underneath was the Testimony written by THE FINGER of THE SON on the stone Moses hewed out. He broke the original one when he saw the people worshiping the golden calf which look like Satan. Eze 10:14; 28:14 Moses was Commanded to hew out a stone and bring it to the Mount and again YAHSHUA wrote on it with HIS FINGER The Commandments.

 And YAHWEH said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables THE WORDS that were in the first tables, which thou brakest. Ex 34:1

These Commands were place under the Mercy Seat and they were called Testimony or Covenant:

 And thou shalt put into the ark the Testimony which I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the Ark of the Testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.Ex 25:16

Now, the sacrificial Laws were given to the Levites who are the priest. Moses wrote them and then gave the book to them.

 And YAHWEH spake unto Moses, saying, Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the Law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it. Lev 6:8, 9 (Lev 6:14, 25; 7:1, 7, 11, 37; 11:46; 12:11; 13:59; 14:2,32, 54, 57; 15:32; 15:15; Num 5:29 These are the sacrifices Laws, and Moral Laws made simplified.)

And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the Ark of the Covenant of YAHWEH, and unto all the elders of IsraEL. That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the Ark of the Covenant of YAHWEH, saying,Take this book of the Law, and put it in the side of the Ark of the Covenant of YAHWEH your ELOHIYM, that it may be there for a witness against thee. Deut 31:9, 25, 26  

Now, the sacrificial law was to come to end after the death of YAHSHUA. Not the Commandments and it was made clear what was taken out of the way.

 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people received the Law, what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?  For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our MASTER sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto ELOHIYM. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the Law, maketh THE SON, who is Consecrated for evermore. Heb 7:11-14, 19, 28

For the Law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.  But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Heb 10:1-4

The Bible clearly speaks the truth and it was clear in the NT as well as in the Old. It is your belief system they think they can change the Commandments and state it is the Sacrifice System, which in the Bible it clearly is not! What your belief system has done is called it ceremonial and ritual and everyone including the SDA have followed. Ceremony is a wedding and ritual all of us do in our everyday life. Ritual is taken YAHSHUA'S Supper or the one eats a common meal in their home. These two words are not in the Bible, but sacrifices is! They were call YAHWEH'S Laws given to Moses to write in a book. Then he gave it to the priest who put it on the side of the Ark of the Testimony/Covenant. Plain and simple.

Blessings!

Edited August 5, 2021 by stinsonmarri
Corrections

[bonnie]

9 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Gustave: My handel is stinsonmarri and just like you misquote that you did seem to misquote also misunderstand what I wrote.

stinsonmarri, I have a great deal of respect for Gustave in how he responds to you. The above statement by you is just plain petty and insulting. Over the many posts and months you have been on this forum no one has so far treated you in such a petty fashion. You routinely make many "misquotes" or more accurately totally improper use of english.  Many times your response is very hard to follow as a result.

.

"The people today who refuse to get vaccine ate acting the same way. They do not want anyone to tell them what to do."

You know this is the primary reason all that refuse the vaccine are doing so out of a refusal to be told what to do HOW??? Crystal ball??  Part of scripture?? God spoke directly to you and shared this with you?? Would be interested to know where you obtained so much knowledge.

 

 

"They see people dying that are not vaccine(vaccinated) but they say they refuse to be mandated".

I know several people that have refused to be vaccinated,  not one gave their primary reason as "they refuse to be mandated". My family has either had covid or been vaccinated.  But several did not rush to the nearest center to be vaccinated because of concerns they had. They did a lot of research, received the vaccination and have refused to have their children vaccinated because of risks associated with children. Nothing to do with not wanting to be told what to do. Your knowledge source has failed you.

 

Not just SDA's, but many recognize or should the danger in the ready and eager obedience to government mandates. You are so eager to compare those that refuse the vaccine to following evil leaders. Maybe it has skipped your attention but the duplicity of a government vaccine mandate for US citizens and a come on, come all unvaccinated at our border.is beyond comprehension.  Very recently 7,000 covid positive illegal immigrants were released in a small town in Texas. No mask,no social distancing,no vaccinations.

Last day persecution will not suddenly out of the blue sweep the country. It will happen with US citizens willing partners with the government for the good of those being forced.

Something that does really surprise me is what you claim to know is the primary reasons something even non christians or nominal christians are beginning to recognize as a threat. Yet many SDA's and other christians have the same blind allegiance to "goverment, while others that "havent read a bible see the danger in the "Camel getting the nose under the tent"

So many have counted on the constitution protecting our rights.  

No longer true. Eviction moratorium is the most current example . The president says I do not have the authority but am taking it anyway. Flagrantly running right over the Supreme Court decision.  So many were so happy without even considering the ramification of that act.

A lot of people do not take the government seriously when they repeatedly spit on their requirements for US citizens 

People that refuse the vaccine are not evil or selfish. They simply disagree with those that have placed themselves in a position they don't warrant.

You just don't have the authority you take, nor does anyone else

 

 

 

[stinsonmarri]

19 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

How did they determine that Paul was "reproving the observers of Mosaic rites"? 

Dear Ron Amnsn: I truly loved your comment. You are right Paul is not a liar. What Paul was referring to was the Galatians were once pagans:

What, then, were the "days, months, seasons and years" that Paul criticizes the Galatians for observing? First, Paul nowhere in the entire letter mentions God's holy days. Second, the apostle would never refer to holy days that God instituted as "weak and beggarly elements." He honored and revered God's law (Romans 7:12, 14, 16). Besides, he taught the Corinthians to observe Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread (I Corinthians 5:7-8), and he kept the Sabbath and holy days himself (Acts 16:13; 18:21; 20:6; I Corinthians 16:8). Forerunner Commentary

The Galatians were a Celtic people dwelling in Galatia, a region of central Anatolia surrounding present-day Ankara, during the Hellenistic period.[1] They spoke the Galatian language, which was closely related to Gaulish, a contemporary Celtic language spoken in Gaul. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is just two of the many who knew about the Galatians who were Celtic. They were great fighters and were tall men with blonde hair. They has muscular bodies and greece to display their beauty. Their priest are the known Druids and the men were homosexual. Women were used to have their children the mistletoes used for Christmas and the tree with the ornaments came from the Celtics/Galatians. 

Somewhat contradictorily, many Classical writers noted that Celtic men preferred to have sex with each other. Diodorus Siculus stated that, although Celtic women were beautiful, their men preferred to sleep with each other. Siculus also noted that it was an insult if a guest refused an offer of sex from a Celtic man. The Greek philosopher Posidonius also stated that in Gaul “men prefer to have sex with each other.” These sweeping statements may be a misinterpretation of Celtic male bonding rituals and certainly don’t suggest that Celtic men only slept with women under sufferance. However, what they do show is that homosexual relationships were not prohibited or taboo amongst the Celts and that they had a flexible approach to sexuality.

 https://historycollection.com/brutal-and-intriguing-facts-about-celtic-life/29/

Nearly every holiday celebration we have today can be traced back to Celtic history and traditions. Samhain (sow-in) has influenced the time of year and our celebrations of Halloween and All Souls Day (November 2).

Celtic traditions have also blended with Christianity to influence our Christmas celebrations. The Yule, the New Year, Hogmany, Christmas, and the Winter Solstice have uniquely blended over time and fit into our Christmas celebrations. The decorating of a Yule tree also originated with the Celts. Brightly colored decorations were hung on a tree, usually a pine tree to symbolize life, which were of significance to the Celts such as the sun, the moon and the stars. The tree also represented the souls of those who had died the previous year. Alban Arthuan: The Celtic Origin of Christmas

The Celts made their sacred places in dark groves, the trees being hung with offerings or with the heads of victims. Human sacrifices were hung or impaled on trees, e.g., by the warriors of Boudicca. These, like the offerings still placed by the folk on sacred trees, were attached to them because the trees were the abode of spirits or divinities who in many cases had power over vegetation.

Pliny said of the Celts: "They esteem nothing more sacred than the mistletoe and the tree on which it grows. But apart from this they choose oak-woods for their sacred groves and perform no sacred rite without using oak branches. THE RELIGION OF THE ANCIENT CELTS; BY:J.A. MACCULLOCH

I am just sharing the Bible and history of the Galatians. 

Blessings!

[stinsonmarri]

1 hour ago, bonnie said:

I know several people that have refused to be vaccinated,  not one gave their primary reason as "they refuse to be mandated". My family has either had covid or been vaccinated.  But several did not rush to the nearest center to be vaccinated because of concerns they had. They did a lot of research, received the vaccination and have refused to have their children vaccinated because of risks associated with children. Nothing to do with not wanting to be told what to do. Your knowledge source has failed you.

Bonnie: I never mention your name or the several people you know and what they mention. This is what I said and what I heard them state themselves not some but many.

"The people today who refuse to get vaccine acting the same way. They do not want anyone to tell them what to do. They see people dying that are not vaccine but they say they refuse to be mandated." I did not say all who are not vaccine which would included the several and you also. It would  be nice if you tried and understand what I was saying instead of causing a conflict for no reason. I was dealing with those who said they did not want to be mandated. I did not mention anything else. So, please stop trying to accuse me of things I did not say. I do not try to say anything to you because you feel you have to attack. This subject is on The Reformers Understanding of Moral Vs. Ceremonial Law. That is why I mention the mandate from the people I heard that has nothing at all to do with you or the several people you know concerning not being vaccinated.

I am dealing with YAHWEH'S Commandments and HIS Law and nothing specifically about you!

Have a bless day!

[GHansen]

On 8/1/2021 at 2:44 AM, Gustave said:

 

It's my understanding that Martin Luther clarified that the 3rd Commandment had a ceremonial aspect that didn't predate the giving of the Decalogue on the mountain. Here is why I say that. 

 

Not sure why you understand that the Sabbath had a ceremonial aspect that didn't predate the giving of the Decalogue on the mountain, based on what Luther said. I provided quotes from the Genesis commentary that demonstrate the opposite. Luther did believe that the Sabbath was instituted in Eden, kept by Adam before and after sin, and passed to Abraham. You previously admitted that you were wrong in your understanding of what Luther said about Abraham and the Sabbath. I sense a bit of recalcitrance over this issue on your part. After admitting you were wrong, have you reverted to arguing the position you repudiated? 

Luther was wrong about things in several areas. His understanding of the difference between ceremonial and moral aspects of the law was wrong. There is no reason to suggest that the proscription of images was ceremonial. I do understand his views on the Sabbath. I just don't happen to agree.

The Sabbath was introduced to Israel in a formal manner when the manna fell, prior to the giving of the law on Sinai. It was then enshrined in the Decalogue, as was the proscription of images which were also known to be toxic long before Sinai. The papacy has ignored both injunctions, being so bold as to actually truncate the Decalogue by omitting one commandment entirely and altering another. 

Circumcision was replaced by baptism. Circumcision was temporary. It was clearly abrogated in the NT. The Sabbath being blessed by God, was never unblessed. It is still a blessed day commonly trampled on.

[stinsonmarri]

2 hours ago, bonnie said:

stinsonmarri, I have a great deal of respect for Gustave in how he responds to you. The above statement by you is just plain petty and insulting. Over the many posts and months you have been on this forum no one has so far treated you in such a petty fashion. You routinely make many "misquotes" or more accurately totally improper use of english.  Many times your response is very hard to follow as a result.

You know this is the primary reason all that refuse the vaccine are doing so out of a refusal to be told what to do HOW??? Crystal ball??  Part of scripture?? God spoke directly to you and shared this with you?? Would be interested to know where you obtained so much knowledge.

Bonnie I never said you should not have respect for Gustave? It may be petty to you and that is fine. What's the point? Is this suppose to make you my ruler on how I should comment, I think not. It is strange but there are some who agree with my pettiness. You don't that fine, I never ask you or anyone to! Bonnie what's your problem, why so angry. You are suppose to have a character like THE MOST HIGH! Instead attack and try to insult. It doesn't work with me. People that says hateful things, I just pray for because THE FATHER sees as well. You know I have not change from anything we discussed in the past. What I have learn through prayer is to stand but to talk in a different manner. I am not concern on how you feel about me. So, if you please let it go if you can and move on! You cannot bother me, you only make yourself look bad. I never ask you to believe anything I have commented on. You have a right to your choice as I to mine. So, if you do not have something to contribute on this subject, we heard you and thank you.

Be bless, Bonnie!

[Gustave]

11 hours ago, GHansen said:

Not sure why you understand that the Sabbath had a ceremonial aspect that didn't predate the giving of the Decalogue on the mountain, based on what Luther said. I provided quotes from the Genesis commentary that demonstrate the opposite. Luther did believe that the Sabbath was instituted in Eden, kept by Adam before and after sin, and passed to Abraham. You previously admitted that you were wrong in your understanding of what Luther said about Abraham and the Sabbath. I sense a bit of recalcitrance over this issue on your part. After admitting you were wrong, have you reverted to arguing the position you repudiated? 

Luther was wrong about things in several areas. His understanding of the difference between ceremonial and moral aspects of the law was wrong. There is no reason to suggest that the proscription of images was ceremonial. I do understand his views on the Sabbath. I just don't happen to agree.

The Sabbath was introduced to Israel in a formal manner when the manna fell, prior to the giving of the law on Sinai. It was then enshrined in the Decalogue, as was the proscription of images which were also known to be toxic long before Sinai. The papacy has ignored both injunctions, being so bold as to actually truncate the Decalogue by omitting one commandment entirely and altering another. 

Circumcision was replaced by baptism. Circumcision was temporary. It was clearly abrogated in the NT. The Sabbath being blessed by God, was never unblessed. It is still a blessed day commonly trampled on.

Because of Nehemiah 9:

"Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.  Thou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham; And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous:  And didst see the affliction of our fathers in Egypt, and heardest their cry by the Red sea;  And shewedst signs and wonders upon Pharaoh, and on all his servants, and on all the people of his land: for thou knewest that they dealt proudly against them. So didst thou get thee a name, as it is this day.  And thou didst divide the sea before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea on the dry land; and their persecutors thou threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters.  Moreover thou leddest them in the day by a cloudy pillar; and in the night by a pillar of fire, to give them light in the way wherein they should go.  Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:  And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:"

Nehemiah 9 says that the holy Sabbath was "made known" to the seed of Abraham and that this knowledge of the holy Sabbath became known at the timing of the the Children of Israel (seed of Abraham) being near Mount Sinai. There is another Scripture I know of that speaks of Moses relaying through Moses about a Sabbath in the 1st occurrence of the Manna and after that 1st observance failure Moses explains to the Children of Israel that God had just "GIVEN THEM THE SABBATH". 

The other reason that a ceremonial law pertaining to the Sabbath doesn't make sense to me is because the wording of the ten commandments conflicts with it. Adam was created on the 6th day, no? 

If the ten commandments say that man was to work 6 days and then observe the Sabbath we have Adam violating the Sabbath Commandment. If Adam was created on the equivalent of a Gregorian Friday lets call that (DAY !), Saturday (DAY 2), Sunday (Day 3), Monday (DAY 4), Tuesday (DAY 5), WED (DAY 6) & THURS (Day 7  = the Sabbath ).

Ironically if Creation week was a literal reflection of an actual historical event Adam would have held his religious observance on the 1st day of his week without 1st working for 6 days. 

Ceremonial laws, by their very nature, HAVE TO BE supernaturally communicated for them to be known. Scripture says the timing of when this took place is after Abraham, not before. That's why I said what I did about ceremonial laws not predating Moses aside from Circumcision. 

YOU ARE NOT LUTHERAN, right? 

So far I've ask you if you were a Christadelphian and you've chosen not to answer. Its been my experience over the years that members of the Christadelphians and WWCOG 7th day misrepresent history / what the reformers said by pouring new and different definitions into terms and words they used. 

I admitted I didn't know Luther said the things he did about the Sabbath HOWEVER I was clear that I questioned if you were representing the Sabbath in the same way Luther would have understood it. I'm still waiting on that 2nd answer from the Missouri Synod and wonder what you are going to do IF they concur with the 1st Professor that responded to my questions. 

So you say Luther was wrong about things in several areas, according to who? You? 

The Sabbath was terminated in the New Testament quite clearly.

 

 

[bonnie]

11 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Bonnie I never said you should not have respect for Gustave? It may be petty to you and that is fine. What's the point? Is this suppose to make you my ruler on how I should comment, I think not. It is strange but there are some who agree with my pettiness. You don't that fine, I never ask you or anyone to! Bonnie what's your problem, why so angry

Again when someone disagrees or criticizes  statements you have made you deflect  what was actually said to you. Why? Not angry ,as you often accuse not in the least , or attacking you or insulting you. Simply a statement/question. When your statements are disagreed with you will invariably draw a comparison between that party and the evil doers of biblical times or others that have not followed your biblical beliefs.  I doubt there would be to many that  agree with  the pettiness. It is amazing how some people have elevated themselves to such a lofty position. Using upper case S instead of lower case s is hardly misquoting as most understand that. Mis quoting or in this case misdirecting by implying that I accused you of saying  ( you should not have respect for Gustave?) is typical

Why such a off the wall question. Nothing was implied that I would want to rule you in anyway. 

 You are suppose to have a character like THE MOST HIGH! Instead attack and try to insult.

You were not attacked in anyway. Nor was the intent to insult. You can be questioned, you are not above making statements others disagree with or question.  A perpetual victim wears thin after awhile 

It doesn't work with me. People that says hateful things, I just pray for because THE FATHER sees as well.

Very noble and very righteous, except there was nothing hateful said to you

You know I have not change from anything we discussed in the past. What I have learn( learned) through prayer is to stand but to talk in a different manner.

No you have not changed. No you are not talking in a different manner You are still drawing comparisons of people that have the audacity to disagree with you and evil doers in history. And you are still deflecting 

 

 

 

 

I am not concern on how you feel about me. So, if you please let it go if you can and move on! You cannot bother me, you only make yourself look bad. I never ask you to believe anything I have commented on. You have a right to your choice as I to mine.,

Certainly true. Not sure what I am to let go off. Bothering you was not high on my list. More like questioning how some get the very mistaken idea that to be questioned is because of anger and the desire to insult

 

Be bless, Bonnie!

Misquote?  Be bless should be Be Blessed. Yes, now that was petty

 

[bonnie]

12 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

 

"The people today who refuse to get vaccine acting the same way. They do not want anyone to tell them what to do. They see people dying that are not (vaccinated) vaccine but they say they refuse to be mandated." I did not say all who are not vaccine which would included the several and you also. It would  be nice if you tried and understand what I was saying instead of causing a conflict for no reason. I was dealing with those who said they did not want to be mandated

I understood exactly what you were doing/saying. Many people that are judged by you have far more important reasons than you credit them with for refusing to accept mandates. Many SDA's, at least those I know locally and on facebook think government force, for your own good is a great thing as you seem to without recognizing the danger it represents.

 

 This subject is on The Reformers Understanding of Moral Vs. Ceremonial Law. That is why I mention the mandate from the people I heard that has nothing at all to do with you or the several people you know concerning not being vaccinated.

I am well aware of what the subject was, before you decided to deviate and condemn people you don't know. Those that recognize the danger you dont seem to be able to. A president taking the liberties with our free speech right and simply ignoring a Supreme court ruling as if he is king should give all of us that value and appreciate  our unique constitution a concern . Not condemning as selfish and simply not wanting to be told what to do.

12 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

I am dealing with YAHWEH'S Commandments and HIS Law and nothing specifically about you!

Maybe you have a different version of scripture than I do but I could not find this in mine."The people today who refuse to get vaccine acting the same way. They do not want anyone to tell them what to do. They see people dying that are not (vaccinated) vaccine but they say they refuse to be mandated. 

 

I don't think you found the above in any historical account of the reformers understanding of moral vs ceremonial law. 

Set an example for those you wish to influence and keep to the topic, not dragging unrelated groups of people in and lumping them in with undesirables as an example.

 

 

 

 

 

[GHansen]

Gustave, There are three issues here which should remain distinct:

1. What did Luther believe about Abraham and the Sabbath.

2. What did Luther believe about the Sabbath and Christians in his day.

3. What does the Bible teach about the Sabbath.

We discussed the Sabbath in the NT and simply disagree as to the meaning of the text.

The passage you quoted above can be understood to indicate  that the Sabbath was not known to Israel prior to Sinai; however, it has nothing to do at all with what Luther believed about Abraham and the Sabbath. Abraham lived hundreds of years before the giving of the law at Sinai. Israel had just spent 400 years as slaves. A significant portion of them, if not all, had become idolaters. Their experience post Exodus has little bearing on Abraham's beliefs and practices. It has nothing to do with what Luther wrote in his Genesis commentary about Abraham and the Sabbath. 

I entered this discussion regarding Luther and Abraham because you erroneously stated that Luther did not believe that Abraham kept the Sabbath. I provided numerous references from the Genesis commentary indicating that Adam kept the Sabbath and passed it down, ultimately through Shem/Melchisedec to Abraham, according to Luther. You admitted that you were unfamiliar with the references cited and owned up to being wrong; nevertheless, it appears you have reverted to your previous argument that  the Sabbath was unknow prior to Sinai. You said  in a recent post "It's my understanding that Martin Luther clarified that the 3rd Commandment had a ceremonial aspect that didn't predate the giving of the Decalogue on the mountain. Here is why I say that. " What evidence do you have from Luther that he repudiated his comments in his Genesis commentary (~1536)? That commentary flatly contradicts your "understanding." It would seem that you are either being dishonest about or trolling the issue.

Unsure of why denominationalism is so important to you. What I care about is connection to Christ.

[GHansen]

Gustave, Regarding the response from the LCMS. Certainly it will be interesting; however, I really don't trust the way you framed the question to them. The question is very simple. It's not about the views of Luther regarding the Sabbath. It's about his views on Abraham and the Sabbath. You erroneously introduced denominationalism into the last question you asked by saying you were discussing the issue with an SDA. The question before me is this: What did Luther believe about Abraham and the Sabbath? You might want to ask if there are any problems with what he wrote in his Genesis commentary about Abraham and the Sabbath. Beyond that, the waters are simply muddied, as far as I'm concerned. 

You might want to say, "I'm discussing what Martin Luther wrote in his Genesis commentary with someone who has provided quotes indicating that Luther believed Abraham [and Adam] kept the Sabbath. Are those quotes accurate?" You might also buy the books or go to a library and read the books yourself. What anybody says doesn't change what is written in the Genesis Commentary unless they have a later repudiation of those comments by Luther

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, Regarding the response from the LCMS. Certainly it will be interesting; however, I really don't trust the way you framed the question to them. The question is very simple. It's not about the views of Luther regarding the Sabbath. It's about his views on Abraham and the Sabbath. You erroneously introduced denominationalism into the last question you asked by saying you were discussing the issue with an SDA. The question before me is this: What did Luther believe about Abraham and the Sabbath? You might want to ask if there are any problems with what he wrote in his Genesis commentary about Abraham and the Sabbath. Beyond that, the waters are simply muddied, as far as I'm concerned. 

You might want to say, "I'm discussing what Martin Luther wrote in his Genesis commentary with someone who has provided quotes indicating that Luther believed Abraham [and Adam] kept the Sabbath. Are those quotes accurate?" You might also buy the books or go to a library and read the books yourself. What anybody says doesn't change what is written in the Genesis Commentary unless they have a later repudiation of those comments by Luther

 

And I assure you that either way the answer comes back I'll relay it faithfully EVEN if it shows I was WRONG and you were right. 

I'm not sure what the problem is with the way I framed it -  I conceded Luther did indeed say Abraham observed the rite of the Sabbath & taught those who came after him to do the same (these statements of Luther about the Sabbath I was totally ignorant of as I admitted). 

So, the only question that remains for me was HOW Luther viewed "the rite of the Sabbath" prior to Moses & the Ten Commandments. From what I've read & understood Luther was TOTALLY against the ceremonial aspects of the Sabbath as it went beyond "MORAL" or "NATURAL" Law. From what I've read about Luther observing the Sabbath could occur on ANY day of the week one read / listened to the Word of God. 

All I'm attempting to do with my questions is determine IF Luther's understanding of the rite of the Sabbath ( pre Moses ) IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING. Does your definition of keeping the Sabbath align with what Luther meant when he said Abraham observed it.  If it turns out in the end that experts concur with you I'll have to concede I was totally wrong which I won't have any problem doing whatsoever. If it goes the other way I'll simply add this to my growing list of other Sabbath canard's I've heard affirmed by Christadelphians, SDA"s and WWCOG folks. 

 

[stinsonmarri]

3 hours ago, bonnie said:

Maybe you have a different version of scripture than I do but I could not find this in mine."The people today who refuse to get vaccine acting the same way. They do not want anyone to tell them what to do. They see people dying that are not (vaccinated) vaccine but they say they refuse to be mandated. 

Bonnie: Be bless, have a good life

[stinsonmarri]

On 8/6/2021 at 8:32 AM, bonnie said:

Certainly true. Not sure what I am to let go off. Bothering you was not high on my list. More like questioning how some get the very mistaken idea that to be questioned is because of anger and the desire to insult

Notice I said try to insult. You haven't nor are you able. People like you have a problem and need prayer. I will not nor care to ascertain to relate to hateful, angry person. The Bible say love will lack cold. You proved it! So, if you don't mind if what I say is petty to you, why waste your time Oh great one!

 

[Stinsonmarri:  Your statement above is not the civil discussion that we expect in this forum--Gregory Matthews.]  

[bonnie]

I am glad I  did not insult you, never had been my intent. Again questioning comments made by you is only hateful and angry to those that feel they should not be challenged.

Hopefully with that squared away you are willing to return to the original topic. GH Hansen and Gustave seem to want to continue the topic so out of consideration for them it would probably be a good idea. I for one find the back and forth between the two and their different viewpoints interesting. 

For someone that is always praying for those they believe are angry, the sarcasm used does not jell with the words of piety. Just saying  Oh great one!

Have a good day, I am looking forward to Gustave and GH Hansen continuing the topic