Sabbath Observance: 3 Views

Right & Wrong
User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:57 am

Good morning, Sean, I was editing my post and yours suddenly appeared.
You wrote:I think if it can be shown that we don't observe the Jewish law as Christians, then it also shows that we are no longer (or as Gentiles never were) required to keep sabbath.
Oh, I see....

I didn't read much of this thread because it has never mattered to me if one worships on Saturday or Sunday.

I don't really see how Romans 7 would be directly addressing it either. We know from history that Jewish-Christians continued to worship on Saturdays (the Sabbath) till around, was it 480AD (?); the Council of Laodicea, then, condemned this. But, even with this condemnation, Jewish-Christian groups continued on with the practice till the 6th century.

Romans 7 doesn't really talk about differences of opinion on matters related to Ceremonial Law (which would be the Sabbath issue).

No, I rather see Romans 7 talking about the Old and New Covenants as you mentioned in a previous post. And by what "power", so to speak, we have to obey God, to not-sin. In the Old, we (I'm speaking "we" as if I were a Jew) were commanded to obey but "I" (had I been a Jew under the law) would have had all of the limitations Paul lists in the chapter, Ro 7:7ff. Of these limitations, being condemned by the law would be chief!!!

In the New Covenant, we obey God by the power of the Holy Spirit who indwells us (contrast this to "the sin that dwells in me", Ro 7:20b). The point being, sin does not dwell in us any longer and we are not its slaves! Paul was letting the Jews in Rome know this is so!

Put another way, Romans 7 is about the Moral Law as opposed to the Ceremonial Law (each being aspects of the Law of Moses).
You also wrote:Why not start a new thread on Romans 7, or just bump up the old one.
As I recall, we kind of got entangled up on technicalities in the old thread; jumping back and forth to certain verses in chapters 5,6,7, and 8.

We could start a new one, I suppose. How about one more follow-up here first? :lol:
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

_Sean
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:42 am
Location: Smithton, IL

Post by _Sean » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:55 am

Rick_C wrote:Good morning, Sean, I was editing my post and yours suddenly appeared.
You wrote:I think if it can be shown that we don't observe the Jewish law as Christians, then it also shows that we are no longer (or as Gentiles never were) required to keep sabbath.
Oh, I see....

I didn't read much of this thread because it has never mattered to me if one worships on Saturday or Sunday.
It might help to see why I posted what I did if you read through the thread and see what turns it has made.

As far as the rest of what you posted, all I can do is appeal to what Paul did say:

Rom 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

Paul didn't get into what types of law we follow or not, he didn't sub-divide the law into moral/ceremonial etc and tell us which ones to observe. He simply stated that we don't serve by the letter but rather by the Spirit. He states that those who know the law are released from the law in a manner not unlike being released from a deceased spouse. So, if my spouse dies I don't still relate in a covenant relationship with her by keeping my "moral" obligations with her but am released from my "ceremonial" obligations. It seems rather that I don't relate with the law at all, just as I don't relate with my dead spouse at all. So, in dying to the law we no longer live to it, rather we live to serve God by the Spirit. That's all I was trying to say. :) So while one can gather on the Sabbath, it's not commanded, nor is Sabbath observance our way we serve/obey God.
Last edited by W3C [Linkcheck] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:33 pm

Sean,

I scanned the thread but didn't read every post (I've seen many, many similar debates like it before @ Beliefnet, this is kind of a rerun). And, like I said before, I don't think it matters which day one chooses to observe as the Sabbath: Pick the one you like (or think the Bible teaches) and worship God on it, imo.
You wrote:As far as the rest of what you posted, all I can do is appeal to what Paul did say:

Rom 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

Right, I agree: What Paul was saying....
You added and wrote:Paul didn't get into what types of law we follow or not, he didn't sub-divide the law into moral/ceremonial etc and tell us which ones to observe. He simply stated that we don't serve by the letter but rather by the Spirit. He states that those who know the law are released from the law in a manner not unlike being released from a deceased spouse. So, if my spouse dies I don't still relate in a covenant relationship with her by keeping my "moral" obligations with her but am released from my "ceremonial" obligations. It seems rather that I don't relate with the law at all, just as I don't relate with my dead spouse at all. So, in dying to the law we no longer live to it, rather we live to serve God by the Spirit. That's all I was trying to say. Smile So while one can gather on the Sabbath, it's not commanded, nor is Sabbath observance our way we serve/obey God.
I'm not sure if I'm following you...or disagree...or what (?).

I don't think Paul made divisions about "what types of law we follow" because the law, itself, has the various types of law already existing in it. Nor do I believe Paul, in any sense, was antinomian: "against the law" or promoting "lawlessness".

The Jewish-Christians of Paul's day and the rest of us up till now still "relate" to God through the law. You seem to think we don't (which again, seems antinomian).

Romans 7:6 can't be taken in isolation. And I think you're missing out on (or maybe don't understand?) what Paul meant to convey with his marriage-widow-analogy. The law permitted remarriage for a widow: the Jews were law-abiding before Christ, doing what was right, were "married" to the law then, etc. But since being in Christ: Neither the Jews, nor we, are to now abandon the law! (which sounds like what you are saying)....

You seem to think Paul was advocating we are no longer obliged to keep: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." I don't feel Paul had anything like this in mind.

Perhaps I'm just not following your train of thought. We would probably need a new thread to go through all of this. I don't know when, or if, I'll have time to start one. If you want to, go ahead, and I can join in. We would HAVE to go verse by verse without skipping around like we did before tho, :wink:

Other than this, I'll leave it at that for now, Thanks,
Rick

P.S. Sorry if I disrupted the thread...
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

_Sean
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:42 am
Location: Smithton, IL

Post by _Sean » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:48 am

Rick_C wrote: I don't think Paul made divisions about "what types of law we follow" because the law, itself, has the various types of law already existing in it. Nor do I believe Paul, in any sense, was antinomian: "against the law" or promoting "lawlessness".
Nor do I think Paul was antinomian, I'm confused as to why you think I think Paul was antinomian? Paul said the law was not apposed to the promise of God. But at the same time, we are not declared righteous by keeping the commands of the law of Moses either. Paul answered the objection that he was antinomian in Romans 3:


Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS ACCOUNTED TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS."


The part of the "law" Paul quoted from to prove his point is Genesis 15:6. In this way Paul is maintaining what the "law" said.
Rick_C wrote: The Jewish-Christians of Paul's day and the rest of us up till now still "relate" to God through the law. You seem to think we don't (which again, seems antinomian).
I'm surprised by your answer, as I don't see this anywhere taught in the new testament. Paul said:

Rom 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

But then again you used the phrase "relate to God through the law". I was under the impression we are to relate to God by the Spirit, through faith. The fruit produced from this is love.

Paul also said:
Gal 3:19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator...Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

If we are no longer under the law (the tutor) and the law's purpose was to lead us to Christ, then I can understand why Paul was so upset when he stated:

Gal 3:2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?—
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

Gal 5:4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.


It seems Paul was against relating to God by the law of Moses, not only that but this led to the Jerusalem council were it was stated that it's not necessary for Gentile converts to keep the law of moses, and that we are saved by faith:

Act 15:1 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. 4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."


Does this mean the apostles were anti-law? In terms of keeping the commands of Moses, yes. In terms of being lawless, absolutely not.

Paul said:

Rom 13:9 For the commandments, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," "YOU SHALL NOT MURDER," "YOU SHALL NOT STEAL," "YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS," "YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." Rom 13:10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

and

Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.


So if one keeps the law of Moses because they think God will favor them by doing so, they would be mistaken, I believe.

I think Paul's line of reasoning throughout Romans 7 answers the role the law plays in the Jewish life, since Paul brings up several objecting points to his statement about the law and answers them.

Maybe I'm not sure where you are coming from Rick. :)
As far as Sabbath, by your own admission you can pick any day. Isn't that "lawless"? I mean, the seventh day has always been Sabbath, to pick another day of the week and call it the Sabbath would get you in deep trouble under the law.
Last edited by W3C [Linkcheck] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:54 pm

Hello Sean

You've quoted Romans 7:6 twice but haven't offered an explanation of what Paul was saying in it. In order for us to come to an understanding about it---in its context---we would have to interpret it in the same, probably clause by clause (and on a new thread).

I can see you put a fair amount of effort and several ideas into your post. But the thing of it is, in doing so this takes us back to the same problem we had before on Romans 7: jumping around to different texts and the doctrines taught in them. This gets us into more ideas than Paul was expressing in the chapter. For example, he doesn't discuss the Noahide laws (Acts 15). As I maintained before, Paul was writing to a proverbial Jew with his "I" statements (using this as a literary device) in order to illustrate the failures that happened in the life of "a Jew" before being a Christian. In other words, it wasn't Paul's own personal present-tense autobigraophy, imo.

I haven't written anything on this thread about how we, or the Jews of Paul's time, enter into a right relationship with God, which is of course, through Christ. I did say that we, as Christians, still relate to God through or by the law. I mean, we still have the 10 Commandments, right? Don't we still have God's law to tell us how to relate to him in the right way by not sinning against Him? This is why I wrote: "The Jewish-Christians of Paul's day and the rest of us up till now still "relate" to God through the law." Note, I didn't say we "become saved by obeying the law". Don't read more into what I write than what I say!

I'll address one more thing and then, I think we'd need a new thread to go into this any further, imo.
You wrote:It seems rather that I don't relate with the law at all, just as I don't relate with my dead spouse at all.
Again, I think you're missing Paul's train of thought. There is a time element in the chapter, which is its prominent theme. The former "marriage to the law" was a good thing at that time, etc.
Paul wrote:Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
So you think we don't relate to the law at all (as if it were a dead spouse, a former marriage contract that is now null and void; that the law is "deceased")?

Paul says we (Christians) establish the law---it hasn't "died". This is what I meant by how we relate to God through and by the law: We establish it in obedience on the basis of faith.

But, now, I'm talking about Romans 3 (which you brought up). We couldn't really do a study of Romans 7 like this, imo. If we want to target it, we would have to get into it and stay with it: verse by verse, clause by clause.

Sean, I know you aren't an antinomian! But can't you see how your statement is confusing? (compare the above two quotes). In any event, we need a new thread. It would be best to start fresh, imo.
_______________

I won't say anything about the Sabbath other than: The Corinthians met on Sundays. Jewish-Christians met on Saturdays. Apparently, it was "okay" for the Corinthians to do this (Sundays as "Sabbath"). Perhaps the Jerusalem church and/or the believing-Pharisees there, with their Judaizing tendencies, didn't see the Corinthian church as being under their jurisdiction (?): Paul, sent to the Gentiles; Peter, to the Jews. The Acts 15 letter wasn't sent to Corinth...Paul hadn't even been there yet. In any event, in Corinth, there never seems to have been an issue on their meeting on "the Lord's day" (Sundays). Believing Jews may have also attended the (messianic?) and/or regular synagogues on Saturdays also but the book doesn't say. The believing Jews in Corinth also do not appear to have had any "complaints" about the Sunday "Sabbath"....

The last thing we hear in Acts regarding "Gentiles and the law" is the Acts 15 letter. We don't know to what extent the Christians in Jerusalem (the Jerusalem church) had influence in the rest of the world after this letter.

Sean, we need a new thread (for Romans 7) because we've sidetracked this one.
My fault, posters, sorry.....
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

__id_2533
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_2533 » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:18 pm

Sean, You wrote:
Marriage is a covenant relationship. The Jews relationship to the law is also a covenant.
I agree that marriage is a covenant relationship. I disagree, however, with your next statement.

The "Jews" were in a covenant relationship with God. Your statement would be similar to saying that a wife was in a covenant relationship with the conditions of the contract, rather than with her husband.

Actually, it was the children of "Israel" that were married to God. But then they played the harlot and God finally divorced them. He divorced them because they broke their agreement and did not obey Him....even though they had agreed to do so, by taking the vows.

God's perfect and abiding Law states that once a man divorces his wife, that he cannot remarry her after she has become another man's, even if the other man divorces her or dies. This was the condition that God was in. He could not remarry the people, because He had divorced them. The Law was not put away. Nor, has it died. If it was, then God could have simply remarried His people, when they repented of their adulteries. But, He calls this an abomination...the remarrying of the first husband with the wife, after she has given herself to another to marry.

So, I'm trying to figure out who you think died, in Paul's example in Romans 7. We know that it was not the Law that died. Because Jesus and others show that heaven and earth will pass away before God's Law does. And that the Law has dominion over a man as long as he lives. No one is married to the law, so the law is neither the husband nor the wife. The Law is spiritual and will not die. So, we can eliminate the equating of the law with the husband in Paul's teaching.

We also know that it was not the wife that died. Or was it? In Paul's analogy, it is the husband that dies. It is the first husband. Now, who was the first husband? It cannot be the Law. Acccording to the passage you quoted, it is the body of Christ that died. It is Christ Who died.

But Christ wasn't married you protest!

Christ was, I believe, representing His Father in this case. Since God cannot die....How could God ever remarry the people that He had previously divorced, and after they had "married" others?

So, God came in the form of His Son and died. He was the first husband. Now, upon His resurrection He was a "New" Creature. A New Man. This man is now free to marry. Even free to marry a "former harlot"...if He chooses. (Hosea)

Anyway, He is coming back for a glorious bride! One without spot or wrinkle. A virgin too> after having washed her and made her clean by His own blood. He is also coming back for a people who have not put away His Law! He is coming back for a people who are in complete agreement with Him.

We must remember not to forget Paul's teaching in the preceeding chapter. He teaches that it was "we", in Christ, who died. Died, not to the "Law", but to sin! (which is the transgression of the law). He answers his own question of "Shall we continue in sin (the breaking of the commandments.)? He answers it with "God forbid! How shall we who have died to sin live any longer therein?" So, our "old man" is crucifed with Christ that the body of sin might be destroyed, so we no longer serve sin! For he that is dead is freed from sin! he is not free from the law, but free from transgressing against it!

Once again, I believe it to be a grave mistake to think that it was the law that died! The Law did not die! If the law could have died, then Jesus would not have had to! The very fact that Jesus died, shows that the Law lives! And, indeed, it should live! It is sin that needs to die! It is the transgressions of the perfect, holy, just and spiritual law that need to be done away with. The law is established through faith! It is not done away with! (Romans 3:31)

Thus, those who transgress against God's Law, not keeping His commandments, even though they think they know Him, are liars, according to scripture, and the truth is not in them. As it relates to this thread, those who violate the Sabbath day command to keep God's sabbath holy, are proving that they do not yet know God.

As for the other participant's idea that one can simply just pick any day to keep holy....this counsel is not from God.

Peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

__id_2533
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Post by __id_2533 » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:25 pm

TK wrote:what if the elders refuse to carry out the punishment? after all, they might get sued if they stone somebody.

TK
TK, there is Biblical precedent for those who spurn God's instructions to carry out His authorized judgments. One example is King Saul in 1 Samuel 15. He refused to kill the Amalekite King, Agag. He also allowed the people to influence him to spare the best of the sheep, opxen, fatlings and lambs. Verse 11 shows God's thoughts regarding Saul's rebellion and doing what was right in his own eyes. "It repenteth Me that I have set us Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me, and hath not performed My commandments"

Later, in verse 26 Samuel declares sadly, "I will not return with you, for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel."

Peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:39 pm

I wrote:Pick the one you like (or think the Bible teaches) and worship God on it, imo.
I didn't mean just pick & choose, nitwilly. If someone"thinks the Bible teaches" Saturday, do it on Saturday. If Sunday, then on Sunday.

The Corinthians worshiped on Sundays on "the Lord's day." Saint Paul okay'd it. I guess you believe Paul and the Corinthians didn't know God yet, right, dmatic?

Have a good day.
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

_Sean
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:42 am
Location: Smithton, IL

Post by _Sean » Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:47 pm

dmatic,
It is us who "die" to the law. Yes, the death happens to us and not the law, I don't disagree. However Paul is using this marriage/remarriage example to show how "we" die to the law that "we" were bound by so that "we" may serve in the newness of Spirit.

Rom 7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.


So Paul says that "you" have become dead to the law by becoming a Christian (through the body of Christ). To what end? So that "you" may be married to another. Okay, so far it's the same "you" that died to the law that is getting remarried, to Christ (Him who was raised from the dead).

So the analogy still holds, per Paul. "We" die to the law so that "we" can be married to "another" (that is, someone other than the law which we died to). The "another" is Christ.

Tell me, if "I" die to the law and "marry another" is this not Paul saying "I" am no longer married to whom "I" died to? Is this not the very thrust of the marriage argument from verses 2 & 3?

Paul continues:
Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.

So the law aroused sinful passions in our members so we bore fruit to death. The law didn't make people righteous, but it did help people recognize they were sinful. The law is good but our sinfulness is exposed by the law itself. Not only that but the law caused an increase in the desire to sin.

Rom 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

So just as in verse 4 where it stated we died to the law it says in verse 6 that we "now" have been delivered from the law, having "died" to what we were once held by. Again, Paul mentions this and adds that the affect this has is that we no longer should serve in the oldness of the letter (the law) but in the newness of Spirit.

Paul then goes on to face his objectors and give even more information about what the law was for and what it could or could not do in the following verses.

It seems like we are to serve God by the Spirit and not through the external written law. But this is not antinomian, since the Grace of God teaches us to live Godly lives in other passages (Romans 2:14-15, Romans 6:22, Romans 8:2-4, Titus 2:12). The difference is in Christ the law is written on our hearts (instead of stone) and we have the Spirit to lead us.


Rick, as far as your comments go, I don't know where to begin. I am trying to take an exegetical approach to Romans 7. I've yet to see someone exegete it and arrive at a different conclusion. You stated:
As I maintained before, Paul was writing to a proverbial Jew with his "I" statements (using this as a literary device) in order to illustrate the failures that happened in the life of "a Jew" before being a Christian. In other words, it wasn't Paul's own personal present-tense autobigraophy, imo.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the passages I've been quoting from in the early verses of Romans 7. Statements like "serving in the newness of the Spirit" and being 'married to Christ' are not the life of a Jew before becoming a Christian are they? I believe the verses you are thinking about come later in Romans 7 where Paul is depicting life of a Jew with the external law but without the power of the Spirit to "carry it out".

____________________

Can someone else comment on my posts in this thread? I ask this because after reading Rick's comments I am wondering if I'm doing a poor job of communicating my opinions. I don't mind disagreement or being wrong, but one thing I can't stand is when I am unclear to the point that I'm not helping the topic at all. It's common for me to be misunderstood (in person) because I am generally a poor communicator, and if that has been the case here, I apologize to all. :(
Last edited by W3C [Linkcheck] on Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:34 am

Dear Sean, God bless you, brother! :)

I have a dilemma. I have a new blog and have thought about posting on Romans 7 on it. This will take some (more) serious study than I've devoted to the chapter.

I can't promise you "when" right now but I suppose I could start a new thread, under Misc. Topics, on Romans 7.

If we get one going, we'd have to proceed slowly. I'll see what I can do, maybe some time this weekend, but I don't know. I have to review some of my notes and so on....Take care brother Sean! We don't have to be in any big hurry.
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

Post Reply

Return to “Ethics”