I can find nothing in the bible that moves worship from the seventh to the first day of the week. As a matter of fact God's commandment is to worship on the seventh day and Jesus says to follow the commandments.
Submitted by michael_legna on Thu, 2008-12-11 11:32.
Jeff said -
Isn't the Church here binding and obligating the faithful to esteem one day, the 1st day of the week, above all others? How is this different from the Sabbatarians who call their faithful to keep the 7th day holy?
ML responded -
The Church is requiring this of the faithful (the Catholic faithful) as a discipline or show of obedience and submission to those who watch over their souls as in Heb 13:17 as I have explained before. The Sabbatarians are expressing it as a requirement of all people as a commandment of God which must be fulfilled to the letter of the law, not the spirit or intent and which is required to be saved.
Jeff said -
The Church is also requiring Her laws to be fulfilled to the letter by the faithful otherwise She would not make Sunday observance obligatory nor classify it as a grave moral sin to be absent. They compel the faithful to attend mass on Sunday under threat of God's displeasure. No other day may be esteemed equal or above Sunday. There is no difference between Her tactics and those you speak of as belonging to the Sabbatarians. Oh, except that the Sabbatarians claim they are calling their faithful to a show of obedience and submission to the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, and as a sign that they worship the God who created the world and rested on the 7th day and sanctified it.
There is a big difference, the one is a voluntary submission to real living men who can be asked to clarify and amplify a teaching so as to make it apparent how this obedience is for the profit of our souls, the other is a forced bondage to the letter of a text which does not explain the benefit derived nor the reasons for this behavior and further it is being demanded not just of the followers of this one sects interpretation but they go on to judge all men on this issue, not just those who are under them.
The purpose of a church (any church) is to lead the sheep and to interpret Scripture in the process of establishing doctrines and dogmas. If I were a member of the SDA and accepted that their interpretation of all scripture together as a unified whole was correct I would then submit to their demands. I do not, I submit and obey those I have accepted as watching over my soul, because I accept their reasons for these requirements. If someone else does not accept the Catholic Church then I do not expect them to follow the Church laws, I leave it up to their Christian liberty which is based on the level of understanding they have come to. But when that level of understand starts to place demands on me or others or is used to judge others I will resist it.
Jeff said -
Actually, I have responded to some of the verses and shown that they do not pertain to the 7th day Sabbath at all. In fact, there is no mention of the Sabbath in the book of Romans at all yet you continue to claim that Romans 14:5 somehow abrogates the Sabbath commandment.
I know that is your claim, but I did not find any of the reasoning or minimal evidence you provided as convincing and I offered rebuttals to it.
Jeff said -
In fact, Sunday wasn't prominent as a day of rest until around 325 A.D., when Emperor Constantine enacted the fist Sunday rest law. If Sunday was part of the New Covenant then it would have been taught by Christ and confirmed with his disciples.
This as it is stated without any supporting evidence is hardly convincing either, and is in fact wrong. I have shown you verses in Scripture which refer to the acts of celebration being transferred to the first day of the week and the writings of the Church Fathers (much before 325 AD) abound with references to this behavior.
The early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished. The following quotations show that the first Christians understood this principle and gathered for worship on Sunday.
The Didache
"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]).
"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).
Tertullian
"[L]et him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day . . . teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered ‘friends of God.’ For if circumcision purges a man, since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did he not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? . . . Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering him sacrifices, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, was by him [God] commended [Gen. 4:1–7, Heb. 11:4]. . . . Noah also, uncircumcised—yes, and unobservant of the Sabbath—God freed from the deluge. For Enoch too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, he translated from this world, who did not first taste death in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God" (An Answer to the Jews 2 [A.D. 203]).
The Didascalia
"The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [i.e., Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven" (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]).
Origen
"Hence it is not possible that the [day of] rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh [day] of our God. On the contrary, it is our Savior who, after the pattern of his own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of his death, and hence also of his resurrection" (Commentary on John 2:28 [A.D. 229]).
Victorinus
"The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished" (The Creation of the World [A.D. 300]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"They [the early saints of the Old Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things" (Church History 1:4:8 [A.D. 312]).
"[T]he day of his [Christ’s] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord’s day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality" (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186 [A.D. 319]).
The first time I offered these you didn't responded to them so I don't know if you saw them but if you had read them it would keep you from making such unfounded claims.
Jeff said -
We do not disagree that the letter of the law kills, that is, attempting to keep the law in ones own strength. Nor do we disagree that love fulfills the law. So no reason to debate those texts.
But we don't seem to agree that love (by itself) fulfills the law, otherwise you would not be insisting on adding the strict adherence to the letter of the law.
Jeff said -
But when you speak of Romans 14:5 as though it gives a person the right to change the day God sanctified by esteeming any day they wish above the 7th day Sabbath you have missed the mark. All the verse says in truth is that one person esteems one day above the other and another esteems every day alike. It says nothing about this being a new commandment. It only refers to personal convictions and for all we know those convictions were wrong.
No you are missing the point. There is no chance these convictions are wrong because you are not looking at the whole context. I reveal this mistake in the line by line commentary which follows:
Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Commentary - We should those who are weak in the faith (like those who are not certain idols are nothing and so should not eat from the table of idols), those who do not understand the meaning of the law and love are more important than the letter, but we should not judge them over this weakness or let their weakness judge our understanding.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Commentary - Because some who are strong know that we can eat anything we want, (the letter of the dietary laws have no hold on us) while others who, have a weaker understanding, restrict their diet based on trying to satisfy the letter of the law.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Commentary - Even over this we should not reject or judge others, simply because we are at different levels of understanding. This is because God knows what is in our hearts and judges us not on our understanding but on our intent to please Him.
Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
Commentary - Who are either of those (the ones who understand or those who are not as advanced) to judge another man? The audacity to do so usurps the role of that man's Master!!! God will hold a man up based on his heart and his intent and does not need any help from us in judging that since it is way beyond our capability. There is no chance these convictions are wrong because God is upholding us based on them. Convictions are what we hold in our heart, they are what we base our love on.
Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Commentary - Some men are convinced one day is better than another to esteem and others are convinced that all are the same. God says whatever – just as long as you are fully convinced in your own mind and then act according to that conviction, then God will know that is in your heart and you are doing what you are convinced pleases Him. What more pure expression of love could one ask?
Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Commentary - The principle is the same. Those who regard one day are in effect regarding it to the Lord. Those who regard all days are in effect regarding all days to the Lord. Just as those who eat or don’t eat are doing so based on their understanding of what pleases the Lord.
Rom 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
Rom 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
Commentary - None of live or die to ourselves, we live or die to the Lord. Our actions are either intended to please God or not, and if they are intended to please God then they do, regardless of what some letter of the law recommends. That is why the Gentiles became a law unto themselves when they did by nature that which was contained in the teachings of the law even if they did not do precisely what was contained in the letter of the law.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Jeff said -
You make too much of Romans 14 when nothing is there to make your case. And as I mentioned earlier, the Sabbath isn't even mentioned in the book of Romans at all. Someone else could come along and argue that the text suggests that Paul is saying that not everyone esteems the 7th day as the Sabbath, some still esteem all days alike. But we should allow them to be persuaded to esteem the 7th day above all others. There is nothing preventing this using your rules. Yet, I wouldn't even venture to make such an argument since Romans doesn't mention the Sabbath day at all.
It is not I who make too much of this, it is the Early Church Fathers who learned proper doctrine not from the Scriptures (which had not been canonized yet) but they learned them at the feet of the Apostles and their successors and it was these understanding which were used to even allow the writings such as Romans into the canon. It is not I who is making too much of this but the entire Church throughout its history. This is not a new and novel idea here, that would be the idea that we should go back to observing the letter of the law with regard to the Sabbath which was not brought up until about 150 years ago.
Jeff said -
And, again, you are judging the Sabbatarians when you condemn their motives for keeping the 7th day Sabbath as “rote performance of legalistic strictness” while contrasting obedience to the Church as “fulfill the law by love.” You just stepped outside the church faithful when you did that.
No because I do not require others to accept my understanding or judge their salvation based on it. The SDA is free to esteem any day they want, but if they try to require others to follow along in this understanding or judge them based on it, as you and I both know they do, then it is a form of legalism. The SDA is not teaching that in so following this interpretation the members are merely profiting from the guidance of their shepherds, they are teaching that they are accomplishing obedience directly to God and fulfilling His law, which is the same thing the Jews tried to do without ever understanding the intent of the law was love.
Jeff said -
And, if we say only the Church understands the intent of the law and the Sabbatarians do not, then we are judging their motives against the instructions of the word of God and contradicting the spirit of liberty as you interpret it in Romans 14.
ML responded -
This is not true because the Church says nothing about the Sabbatarians holding to the day they chose (if it is done fully persuaded of their own position); the Church simply addresses its followers who agree to obey and submit to its instructions and also addresses the error of the Sabbatarians in trying to force their interpretation on others as they judge those who do not keep the Sabbath to the letter of the law. Which is of course hypocritical on their part since I have already shown you how they themselves cannot keep this law to the letter because it requires that not ANY work be done.
Jeff said -
Speaking of their motives for keeping the 7th day Sabbath as “rote performance of legalistic strictness” is judging them and you even went so far as to quote Galatians 5:4 in another post. “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Gal 5:4 (KJV).
It is not I who judge them but it is their own doctrines.
The great principles of God's law are embodied in the Ten Commandments and exemplified in the life of Christ. They express God's love, will, and purposes concerning human conduct and relationships and are binding upon all people in every age.
And
The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath.
Jeff said -
If we don't want to be hypocrits we can't judge one group guilty because they "require" their faithful to keep Sabbath holy while upholding the Church which makes Sunday a day of obligation and binds their faithful to keep it holy or be judged guilty of committing a grave sin.
ML responded -
Yes, we can because for the Sabbatarians it is not about what one decides for themselves what is an[d] is not the meaning and intent of the law, if that was all it was they would be fine. But for them it is about judging and condemning others who do not follow the Sabbath as they do. The Catholic Church does not judge others in their keeping of the Sabbath or any other day. The Catholic Church judges only their own, those who claim to be Catholics claim to obey and submit to those in the Church who watch over their souls, that is why they can say the faithful must obey the Sunday obligation.
Jeff said -
I think we have already seen that to accuse someone of turning away from Christ to follow after the law is in fact judging them-- in fact, it is supposing to judge their motives, their heart.
No I am not judging any one specific individual I am judging the correctness or error of the doctrines espoused by the organization. I never meant to imply I know with certitude of the salvation of any individual (not even my own), I am only referring to the teachings of the group.
Jeff said -
You say that the Church says “keep Sunday” and that to do so fulfills the law by love. Yet, at the same time God says, “Remember the 7th day” and to do that does not fulfill the law by love because it involves literally doing what God said to do. That is faulty reasoning. The reason it is flawed is because you say that keeping Sunday in obedience to the church is not legalism while keeping Sabbath in obedience to God is. That is flawed logic.
One is intended to satisfy the letter of the law, purposely ignoring the intent of the law and by doing so thus merit salvation, making God a debtor. The other is a purposeful making of the point that the intent of the law was to worship God and that can be done on any day one chooses, with the flock under the shepherds of the RCC choosing to do so on every day (since Mass is offered every day of the week) and specifically on Sunday to meet the weekly obligation for the profit of one's soul. If you cannot see the difference between those two approaches I am sorry.
Jeff said -
And if you want to take up the issue of allowing no work on the Sabbath there really is no difference between the Church and the Sabbatarians. I know of no Sabbatarian group which teaches that absolutely no work can be done on the Sabbath day.
Then they are not obeying the letter of the law, since it says not ANY work shall be done. And if they do not obey that letter of the law why make an issue out of obey the letter of the law with regard to which day to observe. If you are guilty of even one part of the letter of the law you are guilty of it all.
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
This is because behind every part of the letter of the law lies the intent of love and if you disobey that intent on one point you have disobeyed the intent of love – period. That is why you should not put yourself back in a position of trying to satisfy the letter of the law. It just cannot be done.
That was the message to the Judiaizers in Galatians:
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
And it remains true for any Judiaizers today.
Jeff said -
Oh, there is one difference. The Church appeals to civil authority to force even non-believers to cease work on Sunday whereas the Sabbatarians, to the best of my knowledge, have never taught any such thing with regard to the Sabbath day.
And where is this appeal to civil authority to force even non-believers to cease work on Sunday? I know of no reference you have made to the RCC every asking a civil authority to enforce Sunday worship.
Jeff said -
In fact, many of them are opposed to any form of state sanctioned religion.
Nonsense, we all support state sanctioned religion, in some form or another. It is the reason we have laws against murder and stealing.
Jeff said -
When we do so do we label them apostate?
When they have at one time believed as the Church did and have turned away from that belief.
Jeff quoted -
But I say unto you, . . . whosoever shall say, Thou fool(a), shall be in danger of hell fire. Matt 5:22 (KJV)
(a) a fool, an apostate;
ML responded -
You are using a definition of the word apostate which is never intended by the comment. The Catholic Church understands the term apostate as follows:
Apostasy (apo, from, and stasis, station, standing, or position).
The word itself in its etymological sense, signifies the desertion of a post, the giving up of a state of life; he who voluntarily embraces a definite state of life cannot leave it, therefore, without becoming an apostate. As you can see it has nothing to do with being a fool, but with being a deserter. Sabbatarians therefore are not capable of being apostates (since they never belonged to the Catholic Church in order to desert it) and thus the comment you quoted does not apply to them anyway (unless there are specific members who once we Catholics and then left the Church).
Jeff said -
Scripture says, “The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God.'” Psalm 53:1. So to call someone a fool represents them as denying God. If you say this of a Christian brother, such as is the context of Christ's remarks, then you are accusing that brother of turning his back on his post, as giving up a state of eternal life all of which fits your definition of an apostate.
But you are improperly equating two terms. The word apostate does not even appear in the Bible and I have shown you the etymology of the word, and I have no idea where you got your definition from. Apostate simply does not mean fool - just because you say so. Let's see a reputable source for this equating of terms.
Jeff said -
Can we know for certain that the Sabbatarians do not understand the intent of the law and are observing the 7th day Sabbath solely as a legalistic ritual?
ML responded -
No, and I do not speak to that point and have not at any time in our discussion. I spoke to their acts of judgment on others (to take away their Christian liberty) and to their requirement that others besides themselves see things as they do or else are wrong. No matter what direction you try to look at this issue from it is the Sabbatarians not the Catholics who are judging others.
Jeff said -
If we look at this objectively we will find that actually the opposite is true. From what I have read and heard about the Sabbatarians they teach that it is God, not they themselves, that commanded the 7th day be remembered and kept holy. I believe that it is scripture which judges a person as either obedient or disobedient by their works. Jesus said that while on earth he did not judge people but that in the end it would be his words that judged them. When tempted to sin by making stones into bread Jesus replied with a verse from Deuteronomy. “It is written. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” So if we see someone who is not living by the word of God we are under obligation to point them in the right direction. Now some may feel that the person is judging them but in reality he is doing his Christian duty by turning them away from sin to reconcile them to God. “Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” James 5:20 (KJV). We just went through this in our study of James.
I think you know little of the SDA if you think they are not judgmental of others or do not expect their requirements to extend to all men (as the quotes of their doctrines above showed). Additionally they have gone so far as to declare others outside their Church to be the anti-Christ and those who follow that body to be damned. I refer of course to their diatribes against the RCC and some Protestant Churches as well. But perhaps you are unfamiliar with these teachings because your research has been limited.
Jeff said -
Now if we wanted to study examples of the Inquisition we might find that in truth the Church has judged many worthy of death for holding to beliefs which differed from the teachings of the Church.
Perhaps you don't understand the history of the Inquisitions since the only ones prosecuted in them were those who were self idenitified as Catholics. The Church did not prosecute any under the Inquisitions who had not placed themselves at one time under the submission and obedience to the Church to watch over their souls.
Jeff said -
And, in Summa Theologica, a Church document, we find a strong statement regarding heretics, that they should be turned over to the civil authority to be exterminated from the earth by death. I have quoted this many times already in our discussions.
And I have explained this already, as the Church saying they were done with their processing of these heretics and it was now up to the civil authorities to deal with them as the law proscribed in relationship to their offenses.
Jeff said -
A heretic is someone who does not hold to the dogmas of the Church. There are several degrees of heresy according the Catholic encyclopedia but basically it boils down to whether or not a person is able and willing to receive correction from the Church. If they refuse after the first or second admonition then they must be considered a heretic of the worst degree. The same encyclopedia states that “The present-day legislation against heresy has lost nothing of its ancient severity; but the penalties on heretics are now only of the spiritual order; all the punishments which require the intervention of the secular arm have fallen into abeyance.” This is moderately comforting as long as She is held in abeyance. But only moderately because the very definition of the word abeyance denotes a future resurgence being defined as temporary inactivity or nonoperation.
Yes, the Church handles the spirit side of things and since the civil authorities have for the most part divorced themselves from punishing sins as crimes the punishment ends at the Church and there is no turning them over to the authorities. Of course one clear exception to this trend is the criminal trials of abusive Priests.
Jeff said -
What if they do comprehend the intent of the law and out of love for Christ they have chosen to obey all of his commandments just as those who love the Church obey all of Her laws. What justification do we have for calling obedience to the law of God legalism and obedience to the law of the Church love?
ML responded -
Because one is based on the letter of the law, the rest of scripture has told us we can never satisfy and that the letter can only lead to death. Where as the scriptures tell us that loving obedience to Christ, His Gospel and His Church is required to avoid fiery indignation and to find life.
Jeff said -
Loving obedience to Christ...could that not fulfill even the letter of the law? I was trying to recall to mind another law, besides the Sabbath commandment, that one might claim is fulfilled by intent and yet breaks the letter.
I gave you several along the way in our discussion, do you not remember them? Here is one of them - pulling a donkey from a ditch fulfills the intent of the law (acting in love) but breaks the letter of the law (that there should not be ANY work done). You must remember this you even asked why I used such an example and I explained it was because Jesus used this very example when defending Himself for work He had done on the Sabbath.
Jeff said -
So a few things came to my mind. Perhaps the only way for the law officer to enforce the law is to enforce the letter of the law since he cannot read you intent. The authorities establish speed limits and post STOP signs to prevent accidents, yet even if your intent is to avoid collisions they judge you guilty of breaking the law when they observe you breaking the letter of those laws. If they judge you by your sincerity to keep the intent of the law I doubt many fines would be given out.
Many a ticket is not given and instead a warning when the cop thinks you tried to do your best. In fact on a higher level the Supreme Court exists ONLY to decide issues of the intent of the law. It never judges a legal case based on the letter of the law, but ONLY hears cases about the intent or spirit of the law. So your analogy fails.
Jeff said –
Sure, Christ can know the heart but other Christian cannot. Maybe the outward manifestation of obedience is found in keeping the letter of the law.
No because we simply cannot keep the letter of the law, even the Pharisees couldn't do it. And if we could why would Jesus need to defend the actions of work He and His disciples did on the Sabbath?
Jeff said -
Now I find it very strange that we are even discussing this issue since it seems strange logic indeed to have Christ tells his disciples to keep his commandments if they love him and his disciples later write that love fulfills the law. Yet, I agree that no human can keep the letter of the law perfectly enough to pass and if they can't do that then they certainly can't keep the spirit of the law either because it is even greater than the letter of the law. Yet, because of Christ, because of the grace of God through Christ, every human agent can choose to obey the commandments of God, determine not to break them, and receive power from God to overcome in every point even if not all at once.
It is not strange logic at all. It is God's logic for it is He who desires mercy more than sacrifice and a knowledge of Him (and how to please Him) above holocausts.
Jeff said -
But some would have us believe that when the commandment says to “Remember the [7th day] to keep it holy” is does not mean for us to literally keep the 7th day holy but rather any day we esteem worthy to keep holy. And this somehow manifests our love and obedience to God as a witness to others. Our direct disobedience of God's law is deemed as fulfilling that law. Humm? . What if we did the same with all the other commandments.
It is not a direct disobedience, any more than Christ and the Apostles' picking of grain as they walked through the field was. It is a keeping of the meaning and intent of the law which is so much more important than the letter. The letter is there to help us learn God's will but it is not perfectly sufficient to teach us this, as we can misunderstand it. That is why we need to come to the understanding of the intent of the law and not simply fail over to the simplistic understanding of the letter of it.
Jeff said -
Thou shalt not kill would mean we can take another person's life as long as we do not hate them without reason.
It also means we should not even be angry without cause, so the letter of the law just doesn't cut it in this case.
Jeff said -
Thou shalt not commit adultery would mean that as long as we didn't look upon a woman to lust after her but held only love for her in our hearts then we were free to make “love” with her.
No, because one cannot make love without lust so your argument does not work.
Jeff said -
Or, perhaps, even more perverse, we are free to love another man since our Lord only mentioned looking upon a woman.
That would be taking advantage of the letter of the law not the intent so you argue against your own point here.
Jeff said -
Thou shalt not lie would mean that we could tell a white lie if it was done out of love for our brother or sister. Sometimes it is best to withhold the truth so that we do not demonstrate a lack of love. They might be engaged in something that will negatively affect them or others but if we reprimand them they may feel we do not love them. So we will lie to them to show our love for them.
People also lie to hide the truth of troop movements or corporate trade secrets or a number of other things. So the intent of the law is indeed meant to keep people from lying maliciously and it is the intent of the law and not the letter of the law which is important. You are only proving my point with such an example.
Jeff said -
Thou shalt not make any graven images or any likeness of anything in heaven or on earth would means that as long as we made these images or likeness to remind us of our love for God and to express our adoration of Him and the saints we are free to do so and to adore them and bow to them and kiss their toes until the stone actually wears away from so much loving touch-- as is the case of St. Peter's toes in Rome.
If no worship is intended, then none is being given. These images are no more wrong than the graven images on the Jewish Temple put there under God's own instruction long after the commandment you think speaks against such things. Surely the Israelites did not take this commandment literally but instead understood the intent of it.
Jeff said -
Must I go on in order to make my point? I think not. Yet, while we wouldn't think of interpreting the intent of these other commands in this fashion some have done exactly such a thing with the Sabbath commandment.
We do interpret the intent of all the commandment and all the laws just as we interpret the intent of the Sabbath – which was the whole point to my listing how there does exist controversy over each of them and how it is fulfilled to this day.
The letter must be understood to be obeyed
Jeff said -
Isn't the Church here binding and obligating the faithful to esteem one day, the 1st day of the week, above all others? How is this different from the Sabbatarians who call their faithful to keep the 7th day holy?
ML responded -
The Church is requiring this of the faithful (the Catholic faithful) as a discipline or show of obedience and submission to those who watch over their souls as in Heb 13:17 as I have explained before. The Sabbatarians are expressing it as a requirement of all people as a commandment of God which must be fulfilled to the letter of the law, not the spirit or intent and which is required to be saved.
Jeff said -
The Church is also requiring Her laws to be fulfilled to the letter by the faithful otherwise She would not make Sunday observance obligatory nor classify it as a grave moral sin to be absent. They compel the faithful to attend mass on Sunday under threat of God's displeasure. No other day may be esteemed equal or above Sunday. There is no difference between Her tactics and those you speak of as belonging to the Sabbatarians. Oh, except that the Sabbatarians claim they are calling their faithful to a show of obedience and submission to the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, and as a sign that they worship the God who created the world and rested on the 7th day and sanctified it.
There is a big difference, the one is a voluntary submission to real living men who can be asked to clarify and amplify a teaching so as to make it apparent how this obedience is for the profit of our souls, the other is a forced bondage to the letter of a text which does not explain the benefit derived nor the reasons for this behavior and further it is being demanded not just of the followers of this one sects interpretation but they go on to judge all men on this issue, not just those who are under them.
The purpose of a church (any church) is to lead the sheep and to interpret Scripture in the process of establishing doctrines and dogmas. If I were a member of the SDA and accepted that their interpretation of all scripture together as a unified whole was correct I would then submit to their demands. I do not, I submit and obey those I have accepted as watching over my soul, because I accept their reasons for these requirements. If someone else does not accept the Catholic Church then I do not expect them to follow the Church laws, I leave it up to their Christian liberty which is based on the level of understanding they have come to. But when that level of understand starts to place demands on me or others or is used to judge others I will resist it.
Jeff said -
Actually, I have responded to some of the verses and shown that they do not pertain to the 7th day Sabbath at all. In fact, there is no mention of the Sabbath in the book of Romans at all yet you continue to claim that Romans 14:5 somehow abrogates the Sabbath commandment.
I know that is your claim, but I did not find any of the reasoning or minimal evidence you provided as convincing and I offered rebuttals to it.
Jeff said -
In fact, Sunday wasn't prominent as a day of rest until around 325 A.D., when Emperor Constantine enacted the fist Sunday rest law. If Sunday was part of the New Covenant then it would have been taught by Christ and confirmed with his disciples.
This as it is stated without any supporting evidence is hardly convincing either, and is in fact wrong. I have shown you verses in Scripture which refer to the acts of celebration being transferred to the first day of the week and the writings of the Church Fathers (much before 325 AD) abound with references to this behavior.
The early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished. The following quotations show that the first Christians understood this principle and gathered for worship on Sunday.
The Didache
"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]).
"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).
Tertullian
"[L]et him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day . . . teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered ‘friends of God.’ For if circumcision purges a man, since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did he not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? . . . Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering him sacrifices, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, was by him [God] commended [Gen. 4:1–7, Heb. 11:4]. . . . Noah also, uncircumcised—yes, and unobservant of the Sabbath—God freed from the deluge. For Enoch too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, he translated from this world, who did not first taste death in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God" (An Answer to the Jews 2 [A.D. 203]).
The Didascalia
"The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [i.e., Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven" (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]).
Origen
"Hence it is not possible that the [day of] rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh [day] of our God. On the contrary, it is our Savior who, after the pattern of his own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of his death, and hence also of his resurrection" (Commentary on John 2:28 [A.D. 229]).
Victorinus
"The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished" (The Creation of the World [A.D. 300]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"They [the early saints of the Old Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things" (Church History 1:4:8 [A.D. 312]).
"[T]he day of his [Christ’s] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord’s day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality" (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186 [A.D. 319]).
The first time I offered these you didn't responded to them so I don't know if you saw them but if you had read them it would keep you from making such unfounded claims.
Jeff said -
We do not disagree that the letter of the law kills, that is, attempting to keep the law in ones own strength. Nor do we disagree that love fulfills the law. So no reason to debate those texts.
But we don't seem to agree that love (by itself) fulfills the law, otherwise you would not be insisting on adding the strict adherence to the letter of the law.
Jeff said -
But when you speak of Romans 14:5 as though it gives a person the right to change the day God sanctified by esteeming any day they wish above the 7th day Sabbath you have missed the mark. All the verse says in truth is that one person esteems one day above the other and another esteems every day alike. It says nothing about this being a new commandment. It only refers to personal convictions and for all we know those convictions were wrong.
No you are missing the point. There is no chance these convictions are wrong because you are not looking at the whole context. I reveal this mistake in the line by line commentary which follows:
Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Commentary - We should those who are weak in the faith (like those who are not certain idols are nothing and so should not eat from the table of idols), those who do not understand the meaning of the law and love are more important than the letter, but we should not judge them over this weakness or let their weakness judge our understanding.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Commentary - Because some who are strong know that we can eat anything we want, (the letter of the dietary laws have no hold on us) while others who, have a weaker understanding, restrict their diet based on trying to satisfy the letter of the law.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Commentary - Even over this we should not reject or judge others, simply because we are at different levels of understanding. This is because God knows what is in our hearts and judges us not on our understanding but on our intent to please Him.
Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
Commentary - Who are either of those (the ones who understand or those who are not as advanced) to judge another man? The audacity to do so usurps the role of that man's Master!!! God will hold a man up based on his heart and his intent and does not need any help from us in judging that since it is way beyond our capability. There is no chance these convictions are wrong because God is upholding us based on them. Convictions are what we hold in our heart, they are what we base our love on.
Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Commentary - Some men are convinced one day is better than another to esteem and others are convinced that all are the same. God says whatever – just as long as you are fully convinced in your own mind and then act according to that conviction, then God will know that is in your heart and you are doing what you are convinced pleases Him. What more pure expression of love could one ask?
Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Commentary - The principle is the same. Those who regard one day are in effect regarding it to the Lord. Those who regard all days are in effect regarding all days to the Lord. Just as those who eat or don’t eat are doing so based on their understanding of what pleases the Lord.
Rom 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
Rom 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
Commentary - None of live or die to ourselves, we live or die to the Lord. Our actions are either intended to please God or not, and if they are intended to please God then they do, regardless of what some letter of the law recommends. That is why the Gentiles became a law unto themselves when they did by nature that which was contained in the teachings of the law even if they did not do precisely what was contained in the letter of the law.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Jeff said -
You make too much of Romans 14 when nothing is there to make your case. And as I mentioned earlier, the Sabbath isn't even mentioned in the book of Romans at all. Someone else could come along and argue that the text suggests that Paul is saying that not everyone esteems the 7th day as the Sabbath, some still esteem all days alike. But we should allow them to be persuaded to esteem the 7th day above all others. There is nothing preventing this using your rules. Yet, I wouldn't even venture to make such an argument since Romans doesn't mention the Sabbath day at all.
It is not I who make too much of this, it is the Early Church Fathers who learned proper doctrine not from the Scriptures (which had not been canonized yet) but they learned them at the feet of the Apostles and their successors and it was these understanding which were used to even allow the writings such as Romans into the canon. It is not I who is making too much of this but the entire Church throughout its history. This is not a new and novel idea here, that would be the idea that we should go back to observing the letter of the law with regard to the Sabbath which was not brought up until about 150 years ago.
Jeff said -
And, again, you are judging the Sabbatarians when you condemn their motives for keeping the 7th day Sabbath as “rote performance of legalistic strictness” while contrasting obedience to the Church as “fulfill the law by love.” You just stepped outside the church faithful when you did that.
No because I do not require others to accept my understanding or judge their salvation based on it. The SDA is free to esteem any day they want, but if they try to require others to follow along in this understanding or judge them based on it, as you and I both know they do, then it is a form of legalism. The SDA is not teaching that in so following this interpretation the members are merely profiting from the guidance of their shepherds, they are teaching that they are accomplishing obedience directly to God and fulfilling His law, which is the same thing the Jews tried to do without ever understanding the intent of the law was love.
Jeff said -
And, if we say only the Church understands the intent of the law and the Sabbatarians do not, then we are judging their motives against the instructions of the word of God and contradicting the spirit of liberty as you interpret it in Romans 14.
ML responded -
This is not true because the Church says nothing about the Sabbatarians holding to the day they chose (if it is done fully persuaded of their own position); the Church simply addresses its followers who agree to obey and submit to its instructions and also addresses the error of the Sabbatarians in trying to force their interpretation on others as they judge those who do not keep the Sabbath to the letter of the law. Which is of course hypocritical on their part since I have already shown you how they themselves cannot keep this law to the letter because it requires that not ANY work be done.
Jeff said -
Speaking of their motives for keeping the 7th day Sabbath as “rote performance of legalistic strictness” is judging them and you even went so far as to quote Galatians 5:4 in another post. “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Gal 5:4 (KJV).
It is not I who judge them but it is their own doctrines.
The great principles of God's law are embodied in the Ten Commandments and exemplified in the life of Christ. They express God's love, will, and purposes concerning human conduct and relationships and are binding upon all people in every age.
And
The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath.
Taken from - http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html
Jeff said -
If we don't want to be hypocrits we can't judge one group guilty because they "require" their faithful to keep Sabbath holy while upholding the Church which makes Sunday a day of obligation and binds their faithful to keep it holy or be judged guilty of committing a grave sin.
ML responded -
Yes, we can because for the Sabbatarians it is not about what one decides for themselves what is an[d] is not the meaning and intent of the law, if that was all it was they would be fine. But for them it is about judging and condemning others who do not follow the Sabbath as they do. The Catholic Church does not judge others in their keeping of the Sabbath or any other day. The Catholic Church judges only their own, those who claim to be Catholics claim to obey and submit to those in the Church who watch over their souls, that is why they can say the faithful must obey the Sunday obligation.
Jeff said -
I think we have already seen that to accuse someone of turning away from Christ to follow after the law is in fact judging them-- in fact, it is supposing to judge their motives, their heart.
No I am not judging any one specific individual I am judging the correctness or error of the doctrines espoused by the organization. I never meant to imply I know with certitude of the salvation of any individual (not even my own), I am only referring to the teachings of the group.
Jeff said -
You say that the Church says “keep Sunday” and that to do so fulfills the law by love. Yet, at the same time God says, “Remember the 7th day” and to do that does not fulfill the law by love because it involves literally doing what God said to do. That is faulty reasoning. The reason it is flawed is because you say that keeping Sunday in obedience to the church is not legalism while keeping Sabbath in obedience to God is. That is flawed logic.
One is intended to satisfy the letter of the law, purposely ignoring the intent of the law and by doing so thus merit salvation, making God a debtor. The other is a purposeful making of the point that the intent of the law was to worship God and that can be done on any day one chooses, with the flock under the shepherds of the RCC choosing to do so on every day (since Mass is offered every day of the week) and specifically on Sunday to meet the weekly obligation for the profit of one's soul. If you cannot see the difference between those two approaches I am sorry.
Jeff said -
And if you want to take up the issue of allowing no work on the Sabbath there really is no difference between the Church and the Sabbatarians. I know of no Sabbatarian group which teaches that absolutely no work can be done on the Sabbath day.
Then they are not obeying the letter of the law, since it says not ANY work shall be done. And if they do not obey that letter of the law why make an issue out of obey the letter of the law with regard to which day to observe. If you are guilty of even one part of the letter of the law you are guilty of it all.
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
This is because behind every part of the letter of the law lies the intent of love and if you disobey that intent on one point you have disobeyed the intent of love – period. That is why you should not put yourself back in a position of trying to satisfy the letter of the law. It just cannot be done.
That was the message to the Judiaizers in Galatians:
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
And it remains true for any Judiaizers today.
Jeff said -
Oh, there is one difference. The Church appeals to civil authority to force even non-believers to cease work on Sunday whereas the Sabbatarians, to the best of my knowledge, have never taught any such thing with regard to the Sabbath day.
And where is this appeal to civil authority to force even non-believers to cease work on Sunday? I know of no reference you have made to the RCC every asking a civil authority to enforce Sunday worship.
Jeff said -
In fact, many of them are opposed to any form of state sanctioned religion.
Nonsense, we all support state sanctioned religion, in some form or another. It is the reason we have laws against murder and stealing.
Jeff said -
When we do so do we label them apostate?
When they have at one time believed as the Church did and have turned away from that belief.
Jeff quoted -
But I say unto you, . . . whosoever shall say, Thou fool(a), shall be in danger of hell fire. Matt 5:22 (KJV)
(a) a fool, an apostate;
ML responded -
You are using a definition of the word apostate which is never intended by the comment. The Catholic Church understands the term apostate as follows:
Apostasy (apo, from, and stasis, station, standing, or position).
The word itself in its etymological sense, signifies the desertion of a post, the giving up of a state of life; he who voluntarily embraces a definite state of life cannot leave it, therefore, without becoming an apostate. As you can see it has nothing to do with being a fool, but with being a deserter. Sabbatarians therefore are not capable of being apostates (since they never belonged to the Catholic Church in order to desert it) and thus the comment you quoted does not apply to them anyway (unless there are specific members who once we Catholics and then left the Church).
Jeff said -
Scripture says, “The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God.'” Psalm 53:1. So to call someone a fool represents them as denying God. If you say this of a Christian brother, such as is the context of Christ's remarks, then you are accusing that brother of turning his back on his post, as giving up a state of eternal life all of which fits your definition of an apostate.
But you are improperly equating two terms. The word apostate does not even appear in the Bible and I have shown you the etymology of the word, and I have no idea where you got your definition from. Apostate simply does not mean fool - just because you say so. Let's see a reputable source for this equating of terms.
Jeff said -
Can we know for certain that the Sabbatarians do not understand the intent of the law and are observing the 7th day Sabbath solely as a legalistic ritual?
ML responded -
No, and I do not speak to that point and have not at any time in our discussion. I spoke to their acts of judgment on others (to take away their Christian liberty) and to their requirement that others besides themselves see things as they do or else are wrong. No matter what direction you try to look at this issue from it is the Sabbatarians not the Catholics who are judging others.
Jeff said -
If we look at this objectively we will find that actually the opposite is true. From what I have read and heard about the Sabbatarians they teach that it is God, not they themselves, that commanded the 7th day be remembered and kept holy. I believe that it is scripture which judges a person as either obedient or disobedient by their works. Jesus said that while on earth he did not judge people but that in the end it would be his words that judged them. When tempted to sin by making stones into bread Jesus replied with a verse from Deuteronomy. “It is written. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” So if we see someone who is not living by the word of God we are under obligation to point them in the right direction. Now some may feel that the person is judging them but in reality he is doing his Christian duty by turning them away from sin to reconcile them to God. “Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” James 5:20 (KJV). We just went through this in our study of James.
I think you know little of the SDA if you think they are not judgmental of others or do not expect their requirements to extend to all men (as the quotes of their doctrines above showed). Additionally they have gone so far as to declare others outside their Church to be the anti-Christ and those who follow that body to be damned. I refer of course to their diatribes against the RCC and some Protestant Churches as well. But perhaps you are unfamiliar with these teachings because your research has been limited.
Jeff said -
Now if we wanted to study examples of the Inquisition we might find that in truth the Church has judged many worthy of death for holding to beliefs which differed from the teachings of the Church.
Perhaps you don't understand the history of the Inquisitions since the only ones prosecuted in them were those who were self idenitified as Catholics. The Church did not prosecute any under the Inquisitions who had not placed themselves at one time under the submission and obedience to the Church to watch over their souls.
Jeff said -
And, in Summa Theologica, a Church document, we find a strong statement regarding heretics, that they should be turned over to the civil authority to be exterminated from the earth by death. I have quoted this many times already in our discussions.
And I have explained this already, as the Church saying they were done with their processing of these heretics and it was now up to the civil authorities to deal with them as the law proscribed in relationship to their offenses.
Jeff said -
A heretic is someone who does not hold to the dogmas of the Church. There are several degrees of heresy according the Catholic encyclopedia but basically it boils down to whether or not a person is able and willing to receive correction from the Church. If they refuse after the first or second admonition then they must be considered a heretic of the worst degree. The same encyclopedia states that “The present-day legislation against heresy has lost nothing of its ancient severity; but the penalties on heretics are now only of the spiritual order; all the punishments which require the intervention of the secular arm have fallen into abeyance.” This is moderately comforting as long as She is held in abeyance. But only moderately because the very definition of the word abeyance denotes a future resurgence being defined as temporary inactivity or nonoperation.
Yes, the Church handles the spirit side of things and since the civil authorities have for the most part divorced themselves from punishing sins as crimes the punishment ends at the Church and there is no turning them over to the authorities. Of course one clear exception to this trend is the criminal trials of abusive Priests.
Jeff said -
What if they do comprehend the intent of the law and out of love for Christ they have chosen to obey all of his commandments just as those who love the Church obey all of Her laws. What justification do we have for calling obedience to the law of God legalism and obedience to the law of the Church love?
ML responded -
Because one is based on the letter of the law, the rest of scripture has told us we can never satisfy and that the letter can only lead to death. Where as the scriptures tell us that loving obedience to Christ, His Gospel and His Church is required to avoid fiery indignation and to find life.
Jeff said -
Loving obedience to Christ...could that not fulfill even the letter of the law? I was trying to recall to mind another law, besides the Sabbath commandment, that one might claim is fulfilled by intent and yet breaks the letter.
I gave you several along the way in our discussion, do you not remember them? Here is one of them - pulling a donkey from a ditch fulfills the intent of the law (acting in love) but breaks the letter of the law (that there should not be ANY work done). You must remember this you even asked why I used such an example and I explained it was because Jesus used this very example when defending Himself for work He had done on the Sabbath.
Jeff said -
So a few things came to my mind. Perhaps the only way for the law officer to enforce the law is to enforce the letter of the law since he cannot read you intent. The authorities establish speed limits and post STOP signs to prevent accidents, yet even if your intent is to avoid collisions they judge you guilty of breaking the law when they observe you breaking the letter of those laws. If they judge you by your sincerity to keep the intent of the law I doubt many fines would be given out.
Many a ticket is not given and instead a warning when the cop thinks you tried to do your best. In fact on a higher level the Supreme Court exists ONLY to decide issues of the intent of the law. It never judges a legal case based on the letter of the law, but ONLY hears cases about the intent or spirit of the law. So your analogy fails.
Jeff said –
Sure, Christ can know the heart but other Christian cannot. Maybe the outward manifestation of obedience is found in keeping the letter of the law.
No because we simply cannot keep the letter of the law, even the Pharisees couldn't do it. And if we could why would Jesus need to defend the actions of work He and His disciples did on the Sabbath?
Jeff said -
Now I find it very strange that we are even discussing this issue since it seems strange logic indeed to have Christ tells his disciples to keep his commandments if they love him and his disciples later write that love fulfills the law. Yet, I agree that no human can keep the letter of the law perfectly enough to pass and if they can't do that then they certainly can't keep the spirit of the law either because it is even greater than the letter of the law. Yet, because of Christ, because of the grace of God through Christ, every human agent can choose to obey the commandments of God, determine not to break them, and receive power from God to overcome in every point even if not all at once.
It is not strange logic at all. It is God's logic for it is He who desires mercy more than sacrifice and a knowledge of Him (and how to please Him) above holocausts.
Jeff said -
But some would have us believe that when the commandment says to “Remember the [7th day] to keep it holy” is does not mean for us to literally keep the 7th day holy but rather any day we esteem worthy to keep holy. And this somehow manifests our love and obedience to God as a witness to others. Our direct disobedience of God's law is deemed as fulfilling that law. Humm? . What if we did the same with all the other commandments.
It is not a direct disobedience, any more than Christ and the Apostles' picking of grain as they walked through the field was. It is a keeping of the meaning and intent of the law which is so much more important than the letter. The letter is there to help us learn God's will but it is not perfectly sufficient to teach us this, as we can misunderstand it. That is why we need to come to the understanding of the intent of the law and not simply fail over to the simplistic understanding of the letter of it.
Jeff said -
Thou shalt not kill would mean we can take another person's life as long as we do not hate them without reason.
It also means we should not even be angry without cause, so the letter of the law just doesn't cut it in this case.
Jeff said -
Thou shalt not commit adultery would mean that as long as we didn't look upon a woman to lust after her but held only love for her in our hearts then we were free to make “love” with her.
No, because one cannot make love without lust so your argument does not work.
Jeff said -
Or, perhaps, even more perverse, we are free to love another man since our Lord only mentioned looking upon a woman.
That would be taking advantage of the letter of the law not the intent so you argue against your own point here.
Jeff said -
Thou shalt not lie would mean that we could tell a white lie if it was done out of love for our brother or sister. Sometimes it is best to withhold the truth so that we do not demonstrate a lack of love. They might be engaged in something that will negatively affect them or others but if we reprimand them they may feel we do not love them. So we will lie to them to show our love for them.
People also lie to hide the truth of troop movements or corporate trade secrets or a number of other things. So the intent of the law is indeed meant to keep people from lying maliciously and it is the intent of the law and not the letter of the law which is important. You are only proving my point with such an example.
Jeff said -
Thou shalt not make any graven images or any likeness of anything in heaven or on earth would means that as long as we made these images or likeness to remind us of our love for God and to express our adoration of Him and the saints we are free to do so and to adore them and bow to them and kiss their toes until the stone actually wears away from so much loving touch-- as is the case of St. Peter's toes in Rome.
If no worship is intended, then none is being given. These images are no more wrong than the graven images on the Jewish Temple put there under God's own instruction long after the commandment you think speaks against such things. Surely the Israelites did not take this commandment literally but instead understood the intent of it.
Jeff said -
Must I go on in order to make my point? I think not. Yet, while we wouldn't think of interpreting the intent of these other commands in this fashion some have done exactly such a thing with the Sabbath commandment.
We do interpret the intent of all the commandment and all the laws just as we interpret the intent of the Sabbath – which was the whole point to my listing how there does exist controversy over each of them and how it is fulfilled to this day.