STROM/PUCKETT DEBATE ON SABBATH
Jim Puckett's Third Affirmative
Proposition:
Resolved, that the keeping of the weekly Sabbath is not scripturally
binding on Christians today.
Affirm: James Puckett
Deny: Bob Strom
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob's rebuttal sounds like Bob has not read either of my two
Affirmative speeches very carefully at all. Else how can I
explain his constant misrepresentation of my arguments? Many of
his statements as to what I say or claim or maintain are totally
false. I do notice that he does not quote what I said, but rather
characterizes what I have supposedly said in a way that makes his
arguments look good. Rather than answer what I have actually
said, it seems he would prefer to answer what he wishes I would
have said. I can only surmise that since he couldn't successfully
refute my arguments, he twisted them to make it seem that he
could.
A. Bob says:
A. Heb 4 - Jim maintains that the use of "TODAY" in Hebrews 4
indicates a new state of things (changes) since the cross - Jim
claims Sabbath is merely a metaphor for "heaven".
In the first place, I said nothing about "TODAY" with regard to
Heb. 4. Neither did I say anything about Sabbath being a metaphor
for heaven. Here is what I said about "today": "What we are
debating is that today, January, 2001, whether or not Christians
are obligated to keep the sabbath."
B. Bob says:
B. Jim claims God's failure to dictate the 10 commandments in the
Genesis (origins) account - invalidates them prior to Sinai -
especially Christ's Holy Seventh day - which Christ (the Creator)
made a Holy Day in Gen 2. He claims it disappeared after Gen 2
and does not reappear until after the Exodus.
Jim
I never said that God failed to do anything, nor did I say
anything about the 10 commandments being invalidated. Of course
they weren't given until Sinai. Of course Bob wants to assume
that they were given at creation and they were not. What did I
say? This is from my second affirmative speech:
"I. In my first affirmative, I made the following points in
proving my case: The keeping of the weekly Sabbath is not
scripturally binding on Christians today because:
A. in the Bible record God did not relate the seventh day to man
as a memorial or a day to be kept at the creation, when He
sanctified and blessed it.
B. the first time in the Bible record that anyone was commanded
to rest on the seventh day was in Exodus 12 when the children of
Israel were told to rest on it as they prepared for their flight
from Egypt.
C. the first time in the Bible record that anyone was commanded
to observe the seventh day of the week as the sabbath is in Exod.
16:23-26.
D. no people other than the children of Israel were ever
commanded to keep it.E. Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses and took
it out of the way so that men living today are no longer amenable
to it.
E. people living today are amenable to the gospel of Christ, not
the law of Moses."
You can see for yourself how Bob twisted what I said.
C. Bob says:
C. Jim claims the information provided in Gen 2 is insufficient
to establish Christ the Creator's Holy Day as a Holy Day man is
to care about. Jim claims that IF God was going to make the
commandment valid since Gen 2 He would need the idea that the
Holy Day is actually to be KEPT Holy to be "retroactive"
Jim
Again, Bob is misrepresenting what I said. You can see above in
item A what I said about the seventh day in Gen 2, where man is
not mentioned. Bob keeps saying that I claim things that I never
said. See item C above to see what I said about the sabbath. God
never made any "retroactive" laws as Bob says I claimed.
D. Bob says:
D. Jim claims that we do not find Christ the Creator's Holy
Seventh-day Sabbath applicable to ANYONE but Hebrews in the OT.
Jim
Notice item D above where I said:
"D. no people other than the children of Israel were ever
commanded to keep it."
Bob has not furnished any proof that anyone else was ever
commanded to keep the sabbath. That is all he would have to do to
show my statement is false. But he cannot. He only makes
assumptions.
E. Bob says:
E. Jim argues that the commandments are negated pre-Sinai IF we
discover that the patriarchs were not a NATION before Sinai and
did not have the NATIONAL covenant.
Jim
This is a ridiculous statement, and it is totally untrue. I said
nothing about the patriarchs being or not being a nation. I
didn't even use the word "nation." That was Bob's word. However,
Moses, in Deut 5:1-3, did say that God made a covenant with
Israel at Horeb, but did not make this covenant with their
fathers. Since the law of Moses, including the ten commandments,
was part of that covenant, that proves that God did not give the
ten commandment law to the fathers, including the command to keep
the sabbath.
Actually, I think Bob was criticizing his own statement that he
made in his first negative:
This NATIONAL text - regarding a KINGDOM of PRIESTS and HOLY
NATION was not present reality for the patriarchal families that
existed PRE Sinai.
Bob continues:
Jim switches instantly from the NATION to the 10 commandments
and says of Moses "he was saying the ten commandments were not
given to their fathers. Therefore, the command to keep the
sabbath, as part of the ten commandments, was not given to the
fathers of the Jews. The ten commandments were not given until
Sinai"
Jim
At least he quoted me correctly once. However, I never "switched"
from "the NATION to the 10 commandments" as he said.
F. Bob says:
F. Heb 7 - Jim claims that this chapter addresses the doing
away with the 10 commandments (that prohibit the worship of false
gods and tell us not to murder, covet AND tell us to honor Christ
the Creator's Holy Seventh day).
No such contrast is found in Heb 7 (as the second segment in part
II of this response will show in more detail). Rather it is the
law of the lineage of the Priesthood regarding HUMAN priests and
ANIMAL sacrifices being replaced by Christ our HIGH Priest. NO
reference at ALL in Heb 7 to the 10 commandments. (Already
pointed out in my previous negative).
Jim
I suppose Bob is referring to this scripture:
"(Heb 7:11-12 KJV) "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical
priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what
further need was there that another priest should rise after the
order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
{12} For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity
a change also of the law."
Well, the Hebrew writer did say that the change of the priesthood
made a change of the law necessary. He is talking about the law
of Moses which contained the ten commandments. Bob refuses to see
what is obvious, that is the ten commandments are no longer in
force. There are new commandments, a new law that is in effect
today.
G. Bob says:
G. Jim claims that (Deu 5:15 KJV) replaces the Exodus 20 REASON
(found in Gen 2) with the Exodus "God tells them that the reason
He commanded them to keep the sabbath day, was because they were
servants in Egypt ..."
Jim
Here again he distorts what I said. I never said that Deu 5:15
"replaces" the reason given in Exod. 20:11. I said: "So, even God
did not always relate the sabbath command to His resting after
the creation, as Bob is prone to do. He relates it to delivering
Israel from slavery in Egypt."
H. Bob says:
H. Jim claims that Is 56 shows no Sabbath commandment
applicable to foreigners - non Hebrews.
Jim
That is not what I said. Rather, I said: "Isa 56:1-8: In the
first place, Isaiah here records no command for anyone to keep
the sabbath." I went on to describe the promise God made to the
eunuchs and to the sons of strangers that "take hold of my
covenant." These are pictured as being brought to God's holy
mountain and his house of prayer. This means Jerusalem and the
temple, which no longer exists. I repeat that there is no command
to anyone here to keep the sabbath.
Bob says:
Jim claims that non-Jews were required to become Jews by God
under the OT so any commandment applied to a non-Jew is void as
that non-Jew must become a member of the nation of Israel and be
circumcised etc.
Jim
Again, I never said any such thing. I did say that proselytes to
Judaism were obligated to keep the sabbath, as well as the whole
law of Moses, but I never said any Gentile was obligated to
become a proselyte. Of course a proselyte would be circumcised,
also.
I. Bob says:
I. Jim claims non-Jews must move to Jerusalem to comply with
the Isaiah 66 command to simply WORSHIP on Sabbath in Jerusalem
(Sabbath from OT to New Earth - valid).
Jim
Again, Bob distorts what I said. What did I say?
"Isa 66:10-24: As in Isaiah 56, the setting here is in Jerusalem.
Also, there is no command in it for keeping the sabbath. Does Bob
really expect all Gentiles to move to Jerusalem? I don't think
so. This shows how ridiculous it is to use this passage to impose
sabbath keeping on people today. Besides, this scene is of the
new heavens and new earth, according to verse 22. So, using the
prophecies of Isaiah to try to prove that people besides the Jews
were commanded to keep the sabbath is a misuse of the
scriptures."
I showed that both passages in Isaiah are set in Jerusalem, that
neither contains any commands to keep the sabbath, and therefore
do not support Bob's contention that all men must keep the
sabbath.
J. Bob says:
J. Jim claims that Matt 5:17-18 has Christ fulfilling "pleroo"
the law (Lev 19:18 love your neighbor and Deut 6:5 Love God) in
such as way that it LEAVES Them in place but ENDS the fulfilled
10 commandment law "Do not worship false Gods" and "Do not covet"
in such a way as to abolish them and replace them with exact
duplicates. He claims this happened at the cross. He then claims
the duplicate NINE can't be found as a list, and we need Matt-
Jude to get them collected and YET they were ALREADY clearly
stated PRE cross for John 14:15 to AVOID the 10 commandments and
speak only of the post-cross Matt-Jude duplicate 9.
Jim
Bob inserts the references to Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 in a place
that makes it seem that the law Christ came to fulfil was a
different law than the law of Moses. What did Jesus say?
(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."
When Jesus said he came to fulfil the law he was talking about
the law of Moses, every Jew understood that when the law was
mentioned it was the law of Moses. There was the book of the law
of Moses which was called the book of the law, the book of the
law of God, as well as the book of the law of Moses. It was
stored in the side of the ark of the covenant which contained the
two tables of stone on which the ten commandments were written.
Ezra and others read this book of the law to the people in
Nehemiah 8:
(Deu 31:26 KJV) "Take this book of the law, and put it in the
side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may
be there for a witness against thee."
(Neh 8:1 KJV) "And all the people gathered themselves together
as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and
they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of
Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel."
(Neh 8:8 KJV) "So they read in the book in the law of God
distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the
reading."
This book of the law contained the whole law of God that was
given to Moses on Sinai. It contained the ten commandments, the
laws regarding sacrifices, feast days, and all other aspects of
the law of Moses.
Bob wants us to believe that Jesus came not to destroy the law
but to obey it. It would be ridiculous for him to have said that,
since every Jew was required to obey the law. Certainly every Jew
did not have the capability of destroying the law. So, when Jesus
said he came to fulfil the law, he meant more than merely obeying
the law. He came to fill the law full, as we have shown already.
He came to complete it so that it could pass out of the way,
having completed the job for which it was given. As we have
shown, the law was intended to last only until the seed (Christ)
should come.
(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."
Its purpose was to be a schoolmaster or tutor to bring us to
Christ.
(Gal 3:23-25 KJV) "But before faith came, we were kept under the
law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
{24} Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto
Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
{25} But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a
schoolmaster."
Notice that Paul says that we were kept under the law before
faith came, but after faith is come, we are no longer under a
schoolmaster. That means that since faith has come, as it did
with Christ, the seed, we are no longer under the law. Bob just
cannot get around that. We are no longer under the law of Moses,
the ten commandments, or the sabbath law. This shows conclusively
that when Christ came , the law had completed its purpose. Jesus
fulfilled the law. He filled it full.
K. Bob says:
K. Jim wants to use Gal 3 for support again (ignoring the
content of my detailed response in my 3rd affirmative AND
ignoring the repeat in my first negative).
Gal 3 clearly shows all men STILL condemned under sin by the
INTACT LAW - and shows that it is when FAITH COMES that man is
free from the DEBT - see the post in my 3rd affirmative and first
negative and respond to the points currently negating your
supposition here.
Jim
Bob is twisting Gal 3 to come up with what he says above. Gal
3:23 says that we were kept under the law until faith came. Verse
25 repeats that after faith has come we are no longer under a
schoolmaster, as I showed above. Faith came with Christ, as Paul
shows in verse 26:
(Gal 3:26 KJV) "For ye are all the children of God by faith in
Christ Jesus."
Bob does not want to admit that faith came with Christ, as is
revealed by his statement in his first negative:
The text did not say "but when Jesus came to earth we were no
longer bound by God's Law". It says "but after FAITH is come we
are no longer under a schoolmaster"
Jim
You see that he says the text does not say "when Jesus came" but
"after faith is come." This shows he does not believe that faith
came with Jesus Christ. That is a basic problem with Bob's
arguments. He rejects that the law of Christ is the law of faith,
but insists it is the law of Moses.
L. Bob says:
L. Jim proposes that John 14:15 "Keep my COMMANDMENTS" is about
the Matt-Jude Duplicate nine (which he claims are not listed but
seen if we read all of Matt - Jude).
Jim
Bob has in his head that if the ten commandments are not binding
as such, then nine of them, assuming the fourth is not binding,
must be duplicated in the New Testament. I told him he would have
to search through the whole New Testament, excepting revelation,
to find them. I referred him to Matt 15, where Jesus names a
number of sins, as an example. Jesus also gave some of his
commandments in the sermon on the mount, where he contrasted what
the law of Moses said, with what he says. He mentions
specifically the prohibition to murder and to commit adultery and
gives his commands that place the sin in the heart even before
action takes place.
Bob further states:
Paul states that the NT Commandments were codified and in a
list - (the Exodus 20 list) such that the 5th commandment was the
"FIRST in the list WITH a promise" - Eph 6:1-2. As already noted
in my previous posts.
Jim
Here Bob misrepresents Paul, since Paul never said the New
Testament commands were codified and in a list. Bob uses Eph
6:1,2 as proof.
(Eph 6:1-2 KJV) "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for
this is right.
{2} Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment
with promise;"
You can see that is not what Paul was saying. He tells children
to obey their parents, for this is right.
Part 2. Summary and conclusion.
T. The Affirmative case.
The keeping of the weekly sabbath is not scripturally binding on
Christians today, because:
1. the apostles did not bind the sabbath on Gentiles when given
the perfect opportunity to do so.
2. the early church did not keep the sabbath, but assembled on
the first day of the week.
3. there is no command in the New Testament for Christians to
keep the sabbath.
4. the Christian's sabbath is rest in heaven after they have
completed their work in this life
5. in the Bible record God did not relate the seventh day to man
as a memorial or a day to be kept at the creation, when He
sanctified and blessed it.
6. in the Bible record no one was commanded to rest on the
seventh day until Exodus 12 when the children of Israel were told
to rest on it as they prepared for their flight from Egypt.
7. in the Bible record no one was commanded to observe the
seventh day of the week as the sabbath until Exod. 16:23-26.
8. in the Bible record no people other than the children of
Israel were ever commanded to keep it.
9 Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses and took it out of the way so
that men living today are no longer amenable to it.
9. people living today are amenable to the gospel of Christ, not
the law of Moses.
Therefore, here are ten solid reasons why the keeping of the
weekly sabbath is not scripturally binding on Christians today.
The first of these nine reasons is in itself enough to prove the
Affirmative's case. The Affirmative has proved its case over and
over. The Negative (Bob) has not disproved any of these
arguments.
U. Recapitulation.
The keeping of the weekly sabbath is not scripturally binding on
Christians today, because:
1. the apostles did not bind the sabbath on Gentiles when given
the perfect opportunity to do so.
Bob did not furnish any command from the apostles for the
Gentiles to keep the sabbath. Rather, he begged the question by
making a weak statement that they had scripture available that
they would read each sabbath and learn of love for God. On the
contrary, we showed they bound other items from the old law, but
not keeping the sabbath.
(Acts 15:19-20 KJV) "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble
not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
{20} But that we write unto them, that they abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things
strangled, and from blood."
2. the early church did not keep the sabbath, but assembled on
the first day of the week.
Bob did not give any example of the early church assembling on
the sabbath. To the contrary, we gave three Bible examples, plus
three witnesses from the early Christians as secular
confirmation.
3. there is no command in the New Testament for Christians to
keep the sabbath.
Bob did not furnish any command in the New Testament for
Christians to keep the sabbath. Contrariwise, we showed both by
scripture and history that they did not keep the sabbath nor
assemble on it.
4. the Christian's sabbath is rest in heaven after they have
completed their work in this life.
Bob did not successfully refute this argument. On the contrary,
we showed how Numbers 14 fits with David's statements in Psalms
95 and that the rest refused to the rebellious Israelites was the
promised land of Canaan. We showed that we do not receive the
"rest that remains" of Heb. 4:8-11 until we have ceased from our
works, as God did after the creation, and therefore our sabbath
rest is the promised rest of eternal life in heaven.
5. in the Bible record God did not relate the seventh day to man
as a memorial or a day to be kept at the creation, when He
sanctified and blessed it.
Bob did not furnish any scripture in Genesis that relates the
sabbath or even the seventh day to man. Rather, he went to Exod.
20, where the sabbath was given to the children of Israel, and
the New Testament, where he misapplies Jesus' words in Mark 7 to
try to prove that it was for all men to keep.
6. in the Bible record no one was commanded to rest on the
seventh day until Exodus 12 when the children of Israel were told
to rest on it as they prepared for their flight from Egypt.
Bob did not furnish any command for anyone to keep the seventh
day as a sabbath before Exodus 12.
7. in the Bible record no one was commanded to observe the
seventh day of the week as the sabbath until Exod. 16:23-26.
Bob did not furnish any command for anyone to keep the sabbath
before Exodus 16.
8. in the Bible record no people other than the children of
Israel were ever commanded to keep it.
Bob did not furnish any command for anyone other than the
children of Israel to keep the sabbath. On the contrary, we
showed from Deut. 5:1-3, that Moses told us the covenant
including the law of Moses was not given to fathers of the
Israelites, but only to them.
9 Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses and took it out of the way so
that men living today are no longer amenable to it.
Bob did not successfully prove that the law of Moses is binding
on Christians today. On the contrary, we showed that Jesus
fulfilled the law when He brought Faith to the world and so took
the law out of the way, nailing it to his cross, since it had
completed its function as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.
9. people living today are amenable to the gospel of Christ, not
the law of Moses.
Bob tried, unsuccessfully, to make the law of Moses synonymous
with the law of Christ, so that he could say we are still
obligated to keep the sabbath. However, we showed that if we
attempt to be saved by keeping the law of Moses, or a part of it,
we are obligated to keep all of it and are fallen from grace. Bob
wants to split the law up and say that only part of it was done
away. However, we showed that the book of the law of Moses
contained all of the law, including the ten commandments, and
thus if part of it passed away, it all passed away.
V. I repeat:
The keeping of the weekly sabbath is not scripturally binding on
Christians today, because the apostles did not bind it on
Gentiles when given the perfect opportunity to do so. As I said
before, so say I now again, since the apostles did not bind
keeping the sabbath on the Gentiles in their decision as to
whether or not the Gentiles must keep the law of Moses and be
circumcised, then the keeping of the weekly sabbath is not
scripturally binding on Christians today.
This one argument is sufficient to prove my case, and Bob has
failed to successfully refute it. All he needs to refute it is to
furnish a scripture where the apostles command Christians or the
church to keep the law of Moses or to keep the sabbath. He cannot
do this because such a command does not exist.
W. Therefore, the keeping of the weekly sabbath is not
scripturally binding on Christians today, because the apostles
did not bind the sabbath on Gentiles when given the perfect
opportunity to do so.
Finis. (Character count, including spaces: 37,916)
In Christ, Jim P.