STROM/PUCKETT DEBATE ON SABBATH

 
 
Proposition: 
Resolved, that the keeping of the weekly Sabbath is scripturally binding on 
Christians today.

Affirm: Bob Strom
Deny: James Puckett

In order to keep this rebuttal from being excessively long, I will not quote 
verbatim everything that Bob said in his third Affirmative, which was about 30 
pages long and a real hodge-podge, which makes it very difficult to organize a 
clear, concise, response. Perhaps Bob is using the debate tactic of diversion by 
flooding us with so much verbiage it is difficult to sort out what is important. It 
rather reminds me of (Mat 6:7 KJV)  "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, 
as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." 
I don't expect to address each and every statement that Bob has made with which I 
disagree, for that would make this speech longer than his.

The Law of Moses.

Bob defines the Law of Moses, as though the definition is a problem. He also 
makes comments on it when I use the term as though I were giving it some 
strange meaning. Perhaps John needs correcting, since he said: (John 1:17 KJV)  
"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
Actually, the law (or Law) of Moses is simply the law that God gave to the 
children of Israel through Moses. The phrase "law of Moses" is used 21 times in 
the Bible to refer both to the law written on stones and the book of the law that 
Moses wrote, and is thus a scriptural term to use. (Josh 8:31-32; Josh 23:6; 1 Ki 
2:3; 2 Ki 14:6; 2 Ki 23:25; 2 Chr 23:18; 2 Chr 30:16; Ezra 3:2; Ezra 7:6; Neh 8:1; 
Dan 9:11; Dan 9:13; Mal 4:4; Luke 2:22; Luke 24:44; John 7:23; Acts 13:39; Acts 
15:5; Acts 28:23; 1 Cor 9:9) It is the law of God given to the children of Israel 
after He delivered them from Egyptian bondage.

What is included in the Law of Moses?

Notice here that the ways, statutes, commandments, judgements, and testimonies 
of God (Jahweh) are all written in the law of Moses, and thus are part of it: (1 Ki 
2:3 KJV)  "And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to 
keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, 
as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, 
and whithersoever thou turnest thyself:"

The animal sacrifices were part of the law of Moses: (Ezra 3:2 KJV)  "Then stood 
up Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son 
of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer 
burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God."

The Ten Commandments were also part of the Law of Moses: (Mark 7:10 KJV)  
"For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or 
mother, let him die the death:"

In my second Negative, I said: 
There was no forgiveness of sins under the Law of Moses. Their sins were 
remembered every year. 

Bob responded: 
That is partially true.
 
Jim
My statement is verified by Paul, preaching at Antioch of Pisidia, in contrasting 
Christ with what had gone before: (Acts 13:39 KJV)  "And by him all that believe 
are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of 
Moses." This shows that the Law of Moses was not capable of accomplishing the 
forgiveness of sins.

Bob's arguments (not necessarily in the order he used them):

1. Bob argues that, whether explicitly or implicitly, wherever we read about God's 
commandments, or Christ's commandments, that they are one and the same and 
the Ten Commandments are intended. In order to facilitate this he asked a 
seemingly innocuous question, if I would agree that Christ is God.

Bob's statements:
Can we agree that Christ is God - and therefore when He created mankind and 
then decided to make the 7th day Holy - that IS Christ giving HIS people the ONE 
Holy Day made at creation? Can we also agree that as God He also gave His 
nation-church, the Hebrew people at Sinai - the 10 commandments?"

My point is that Christ is ONE with the Father, in Will and Word and Purpose. 
You can not bifurcate between Christ (who IS God) and God. Christ created 
mankind - Christ gave mankind HIS Holy Seventh day, Christ thundered to the 
Hebrews at Sinai - as the 2nd person of the Godhead - God the Son. Those were 
"Christ's" commandments in that Christ IS God the Son in human flesh. I am 
guessing we agree here.

Jim
Bob wants us to believe that since Christ is God, then God is Christ. That's like 
saying that since all mothers are women, then all women are mothers, which we 
know is not true. Christ (the Word) is God the Son, The LORD God (Jahweh) is 
God the Father, the Holy Spirit is God the Spirit. They are one in purpose and 
goals, but each is a distinct, unique personality, each with different functions 
(John 17:21). While we do not understand fully the nature of the God-head, we 
cannot interchange them with impunity.

God the Son, submitted to the will of His Father, gave up His exalted position 
with the Father, came to this earth, suffered ignominy, and died on the cross, and 
later ascended back to the Father. While on earth, he repeatedly stated he was 
doing the will of His Father. In the garden, he prayed to His Father "not my will, 
but thine be done." He promised his disciples that He would send the Holy Spirit 
back to guide them into all truth. He has been given all authority for now but will 
return it to the Father when all is completed. (Matt. 28:18, 1 Cor. 15:24-28) This 
all shows they are different personalities.

We are told that the "LORD thy God" (Exod. 20:2) lead them out of Egypt. This 
was Jahweh, God the Father, not God the Son (Christ). He was the God who gave 
the law to Moses on Sinai. Christ is one with the Father, but He is not the Father.

John tells us that the Word (Christ) was in the beginning and created all that was 
created. (John 1:1-3 KJV)  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was 
with God, and the Word was God.
{2} The same was in the beginning with God.
{3} All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that 
was made."
Since Genesis says that God did this, we know that Christ, the Word, was here 
called God. Now to take any other passage where God is mentioned and say that 
is Christ, is totally unwarranted without some evidence that Christ is intended. 
Bob has not provided any evidence that Christ was the God at Sinai who gave the 
law to Moses. Therefore, we can discount his statements attributing those events 
to Christ. We cannot say that Christ "thundered to the Hebrews at Sinai." So, Bob 
guessed wrong, we do not agree here.

Now back to the commandments of God and the commandments of Christ.

In his second Affirmative, Bob said: 
"There is also no statement in scripture that any of God's 10 commandments are 
to be voided if not re-quoted by a later writer."

In response to that, in my second Negative I said: 
"Of course there isn't. The Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross with the 
rest of the Law of Moses. The doctrine of Christ does include injunctions against 
all of the evils the Ten Commandments prohibited, except for the Sabbath 
commandment. That is your problem that you are trying to get around. Jesus nor 
his apostles never commanded his church to keep the Sabbath. His church did not 
keep the Sabbath. Why? The answer is in the next paragraph."

In his last Affirmative, Bob responded to two sentences of my reply.

My statement: 
"The doctrine of Christ does include injunctions against all of the evils the Ten 
Commandments prohibited, except for the Sabbath commandment."

Bob replied: 
"Speculation - you gave no evidence stating this." 

Jim
Actually, all Bob would have to do to refute this, is give us a command from 
Jesus that we are to keep the Sabbath, and he cannot do that.

My other statement: "Jesus nor his apostles never commanded his church to 
keep the Sabbath." If I were wrong about this, it would be easy for Bob to 
prove it. But, what does he say about it?

Bob's reply: 
"If you love me Keep My Commandments" John 14:15 - the PRE-Cross 
Commandments of God commanded to be kept EVEN as God is walking among 
men - Pre-Cross - God the Son is Christ.

Christ did not repeat His Sinai Commandment "you shall not covet" (nor did any 
of the 12 repeat it). Nor did any NT author repeat the 3rd commandment against 
taking God's name in vain. But that does not matter SINCE there is no such law 
about voiding Christ's LAW given at Sinai if it is not repeated constantly.

Jim
You can see here that Bob is assuming that the commandments, to which Jesus is 
referring, are the Ten Commandments. That means he assumes we are still bound 
to keep the Ten Commandments, which as I showed above , is the same as saying 
we are still bound to keep the Law of Moses. We all know the Law of Moses was 
nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14) and we are not amenable to it. Additionally, as Paul 
told the Galatians, if we attempt to keep it, we are "fallen from grace." Gal. 5:4.

Bob's statements:
Obviously - we DO have the fact that God's "laws, commandments and statutes" 
were known in Genesis. (Gen 26:5) - but we do not find the detail for that info 
until Exodus. But it is even worse in the case of Sabbath because IT IS declared to 
be a Holy Day IN Genesis - explicitly. Hard to miss.

Jim
In this statement, Bob is telling us that the Law of Moses (actually, I believe he is 
mostly interested in the Ten Commandments) were binding on all men since the 
creation. He is equating "laws, commandments and statutes" with the Law of 
Moses, and especially the Ten Commandments which include the Sabbath.

The problem is that he is dealing in assumptions. God does not spell out what His 
"laws, commandments and statutes" were that applied to the people between 
creation and Sinai. While, these laws, commandments, and statutes may have 
been similar or even almost identical to those he gave in the Law of Moses, he 
didn't tell us. Therefore we do not know what they were. To assume what they 
were, and especially to define them in a self-serving way to support a pet doctrine 
is adding to God's word. If God had wanted us to know what they were, He would 
have told us.

We do know a few of God's commands during this period. He commanded Abram 
to leave his homeland and travel to a land God would show him. Does Bob want 
to bind that law on us today? Is he willing to leave his home and go where God 
leads him? I doubt it. God commanded Noah to build an ark of gopherwood. Does 
Bob want each of us to build an ark today? Is Bob willing to build an ark in his 
backyard? I doubt it.

This shows us that God's commands were different for different people in 
different periods of time. Besides, God addressed the Law of Moses to the 
children of Israel, not to the Babylonians, not to Abraham, not to the Galatians, 
not to us.

One more thought on this line, if the law of Moses is binding on us today, as Bob 
wants us to believe, then we had better start making animal sacrifices and burning 
incense today, since that was a part of the law of Moses. As Paul said, if we bind 
one part of the law, we are a debtor to do the whole law. If Bob is keeping the Ten 
Commandments today, then he needs to also be making animal burnt offerings  at 
the temple in Jerusalem. I don't know where he will get Levites and priests to do 
the offering for him, though. 

Therefore, we conclude that Bob has failed to prove argument #1.

2. Bob argues that God made the Sabbath at creation and gave it to man as a Holy 
Day to keep.

(Gen 2:1-3 KJV)  "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host 
of them.
{2} And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he 
rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
{3} And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had 
rested from all his work which God created and made."

I have agreed with Bob that God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, 
because he rested in it after the creation, as you can see in the scripture where it 
occurred. However, notice there is no mention of man in this passage. It does not 
say God "gave it to man as a Holy Day" as Bob alleges.  This is his assumption. 
He has not proved this statement. How does he attempt to prove it? He goes to 
Exod. 20:8-11 and says that is where God tells us what happened in Gen 2:1-3. 
That is assumption on top of assumption. What is said in Exod. 20?

(Exo 20:8-11 KJV)  "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
{9} Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
{10} But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not 
do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy 
maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
{11} For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in 
them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath 
day, and hallowed it."
In verse 11, notice the word "For" at the beginning. That means He is giving them 
a reason for what he commanded in the preceding verses. That reason is that "in 
six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and 
rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and 
hallowed it."

He does not say that he gave it to man to keep back in the beginning, but is giving 
it to them, the Hebrews, at this time. In order to support his theory of the Sabbath 
being bound on us today, Bob has to twist what the scripture says. The Bible just 
does not say what Bob is trying to make it say. As I said before Gen. 2:1-3 tells us 
that God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it (set it apart), but it does not say 
He gave it to man to keep as a "Holy Day." Bob fails to carry his point.

Further, Bob argues:
Christ removes all doubt - by stating that when the 7th day Sabbath was made 
holy and sanctified - blessed - it was made FOR MANKIND not simply the 
Hebrews. Obviously the Genesis 2 context of the Holy Day given to MANKIND 
fits perfectly the claims of Christ in Mark 2:27. "The Sabbath was MADE for 
mankind".

He is basing this upon:
(Mark 2:27 KJV)  "And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and 
not man for the Sabbath:"
What was Jesus talking about here? Was He saying that all mankind was 
obligated to observe the Sabbath, as Bob says? Jesus is not considering the idea 
that the Sabbath was made only for the Hebrews, as Bob suggests. Notice:
(Mark 2:23-24 KJV)  "And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields 
on the Sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of 
corn.
{24} And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day 
that which is not lawful?"

This is what Jesus is talking about. The Pharisees accused Jesus' disciples  of 
violating the fourth commandment. Jesus is telling them that the Sabbath was 
made to benefit man, not to make a slave out of man. He is saying nothing about 
national limitations.  Bob is twisting this scripture to force a point. Jesus is saying 
nothing about when or to whom the Sabbath has been given as a commandment to 
obey. Bob fails to carry this point, also.

Therefore, we conclude that Bob has failed to prove argument #2.

3. Bob argues that God states the only way to keep the Sabbath was to rest on it. 
Exod. 20.

Bob's statement:
God states that the ONLY way to keep the day Holy - the Holy Day God says 
started at Creation - is to rest (according to God). We have no record of saints 
violating Sabbath before Exodus and we have no example of them taking God's 
name in vain - neither do we have the commandment stated until Exodus 20. At 
some point we have to conclude the obvious.

"At some point we have to conclude the obvious."

Christ perfectly fulfilled the Royal law of Love "Love your Neighbor as yourself 
" Lev 19:18 and "Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5.

Simply fulfilling the requirement did not void/abolish that law so that we no 
longer need to worry about loving our Neighbor. This also holds true for the 10 
Commandments. SOME of the LAWS in the OT are "prescriptive" and some are 
"predictive". Those laws that define our behavior toward God and Man (Sabbath, 
no Idolatry, no murder etc) are "prescriptive" they do not pass just because 
someone complies with them. Just like the speed limit. Fulfilling the requirement 
does not void it.

Yes - Matt 5 states that it will not pass away - and John 10:35 "The scripture can 
not be broken".

Jim
Bob has misunderstood the meaning of Christ fulfilling the law. He speaks as if 
fulfilling the law means observing or keeping the law. That is not what fulfilling it 
means at all, although He could not fulfill it without keeping it. Fulfilling is much 
more than observing or keeping it.

First, I want to address his use of John 10:35, so let's look at what Jesus said in his 
Sermon on the Mount.

(Mat 5:17-18 KJV)  "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: 
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
{18} For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle 
shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

(John 10:35 KJV)  "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, 
and the scripture cannot be broken;"

Now look at the Greek word translated "broken": 3089. luo, loo'- o; a prim. verb; 
to "loosen" (lit. or fig.):--break (up), destroy, dissolve, (un-) loose, melt, put off. 
Comp. G4486. You see, it does not mean that the law cannot be violated, as Bob 
seems to think. It means to break up, destroy, or dissolve. That is exactly what 
Jesus said  that he did not come to do. So, using John 10:35, contributes nothing 
to the discussion of fulfilling the law.

Let's look again at what fulfill means: 4137. pleroo, play-ro'-o; from G4134; to 
make replete, i.e. (lit.) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (fig.) to furnish (or 
imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), 
verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.:--accomplish, X after, (be) complete, 
end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.

We see that it means to make replete, to fill up, to satisfy, to perfect, to supply. 
What does this mean with regard to the Law of Moses?

(Gal 3:19 KJV)  "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of 
transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it 
was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."  Paul tells us that it was added 
until the seed should come. The seed was Christ. When He came and died, his 
blood being the propitiation for our sins (transgressions), the Law of Moses had 
completed its purpose. It was fulfilled. When it was completed, fulfilled, it was no 
longer needed.  Therefore, it was "nailed to his cross."(Col 2:14 KJV)  "Blotting 
out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, 
and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" Bob has a problem with what 
the "handwriting of ordinances" was. He wants to make it our "debt", since he 
uses the NAS version which uses some paraphrasing.
(Col 2:14 NAS)  "having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees 
against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having 
nailed it to the cross." 
However, he has the wrong slant on what the verse is saying. To check this, let's 
see what Joseph Henry Thayer says it means in his lexicon on page 668 under 
"cheirographon" "metaph. applied in Col. ii.14 to the Mosaic law, which shews 
men to be chargeable with offenses for which they must pay the penalty." So, 
Thayer agrees that Paul is talking about the Law of Moses here being taken out of 
the way, nailed to the cross.

The effect was that the Law of Moses was no longer in force. It had been replaced 
with the law of Christ. If one studies the book of Hebrews, it is obvious that 
Christ came to offer a better sacrifice than the law of Moses provided for, He is a 
better High Priest, and all Christians are now priests, and then we are told: (Heb 
7:12 KJV)  "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a 
change also of the law."  This proves the law was to be changed, not to be 
effective forever as Bob maintains.

(Rom 8:1-5 KJV)  "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in 
Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
{2} For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the 
law of sin and death.
{3} For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God 
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in 
the flesh:
{4} That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after 
the flesh, but after the Spirit.
{5} For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that 
are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit."

We see in Rom. 8 the Law of Moses contrasted with the law of Christ. He shows 
the Corinthians that the Law of Moses (the Ten Commandments) was to be done 
away by describing it as "written and engraven in stones." If you will remember, 
Bob made a big issue out of God writing the Ten Commandments in stones. That 
is his own undoing.

(2 Cor 3:7 KJV)  "But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, 
was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of 
Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:"

Let's look at part of Hebrews to see that there was to be a second covenant to 
replace the covenant made with Israel at Sinai. Notice why the second was a 
better covenant, it was established upon better promises. The new law promised 
forgiveness of sins, which the Law of Moses could not provide as we have 
already seen. Notice that the old is "ready to vanish away."

(Heb 8:6-8 KJV)  "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how 
much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon 
better promises.
{7} For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been 
sought for the second.
{8} For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, 
when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of 
Judah:"

(Heb 8:13 KJV)  "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. 
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

(Heb 9:1-5 KJV)  "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine 
service, and a worldly sanctuary.
{2} For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and 
the table, and the showbread; which is called the sanctuary.
{3} And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
{4} Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round 
about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that 
budded, and the tables of the covenant;
{5} And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy seat; of which we 
cannot now speak particularly."

There can be no question that the first covenant is the law of Moses, by these 
verses above, since they describe items included in that law. So the book of 
Hebrews shows us how the law of Christ replaced the Law of Moses, which was 
only a shadow of the law of Christ.

Therefore, we conclude that Bob has failed to prove argument #4.

5. Bob argues, in answer to my question, that the church did assemble on the 
Sabbath.

Bob's statements (blank lines removed to save space):
Sabbath is the ONLY week day were we find explicit description of week after 
week assembly in the NT - for ANY reason.
Acts 13:14 But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the 
Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down.
Acts 13:42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that 
these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath.
44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the 
Lord.
45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began 
contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming.
This is a problem because the Gentiles were ACCEPTING the messages while the 
Jews were predominantly rejecting it. The Disciples SHOULD have informed the 
Gentiles that they NEED NOT wait until NEXT Sabbath to hear more messages – 
they could hear them at church tomorrow - you know - 1st day. INSTEAD they 
ask these gentiles to come back NEXT Sabbath.
Acts 17:2 And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three 
Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, ...
4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a 
LARGE number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.
EVERY Sabbath
Acts 18:4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to 
persuade Jews AND Greeks.
Prayer meeting on Sabbath
Acts 16:13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where 
we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and 
began speaking

Jim
One fact is glaringly obvious in the scriptures in Bob's statements above.  That is 
the total absence of mention of the church. All of his references are of the Jews 
meeting on the Sabbath, and Paul taking advantage of that to preach to them 
where he could find them, in the synagogue, or on the riverbank, in Philippi. 
Therefore, what he says here proves nothing regarding the church keeping the 
Sabbath.

As I said earlier, Acts 20:7, and 1 Cor. 16:1,2 give us examples of the church 
assembling on the first day of the  week. We also have references in secular 
history that tell us the church did meet on the first day of the week.

Therefore, we conclude that Bob has failed to prove argument #5.

Conclusion:
Since Bob's third Affirmative was so long and disorganized, I have probably not 
answered all of his arguments here. However, I believe I have answered the major 
ones and have shown that he has not proved his case. His task, as the Affirmative 
was to prove that the keeping of the weekly Sabbath is scripturally binding on 
Christians today. He has not done that.

1. He has not shown any command to keep the Sabbath before God gave it to the 
children of Israel at Sinai in Exod. 20.
3. He has not shown that the Law of Moses, containing the Ten Commandments, 
which includes the Sabbath command, was given was given to anyone besides the 
children of Israel.
4. He has not shown that anyone kept the Sabbath before the children of Israel did 
in preparation to leaving Egypt.
5. He has not shown any commandment from Jesus or the apostles to the church 
to keep the Sabbath.
6. He has not shown any example of the church assembling on or keeping the 
Sabbath.

Therefore, Bob has totally failed to established his case and thus has not proved 
that the keeping of the weekly Sabbath is scripturally binding on Christians today.

 In Christ, Jim P.