Why dont SDA's and Sabbath keepers also keep the Feast Days of Leviticus 23 too???

[Lollerskates]

It is very insulting that I respond telling you exactly my stance, and then have you tell me what [you think] I meant. It is in your first sentence. Just for your information, I do it for myself, and to be obedient - because I want to. Christ is my saivor who became flesh, died for my sins, resurrected to full Glory and who is at the right hand of God (soon to come back and bring all He chooses to perfection and resurrection.) Christ was in the beginning because He is God. He was perfect when He was on earth, and He will always. He is the literal word of God.

You continue to ignore everything I said - down to my faith decree I specifically gave you.

So, who is really lying? I told you everything, and you still insult me.

Peace to you.

Scripture doesn't lie, and what you've posted can't be reconciled with God's Word. This becomes an insult to you, and the only one who you're kidding is yourself.

Good to know. (Emphasis mine pps.)

 

[mmksparbud]

Nice emotional based post. Bout all I can say is we must have different Bibles.

Must have--I prefer the one that is the word of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit. I believe the words "with God all things are possible."---And that means "all." The Holy Spirit is not available to those who do not believe and trust in God. But even they are not hopeless--God is patient with our foolish selfishness and He can take us through many lessons and if we are willing, He will become real to you, and His word clear. "To him that overcomes--" that is repeated 7 times. Must be important thing for us to know.
"Love God with "all" your heart, your mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself--"---and you must overcome anything that stands between Him and you, and if you're not willing to to do this, the Holy Spirit will not be able to help you, and you make Christ's sacrifice of no value to you. There are only 2 roads available to the believer--the narrow and the broad--choose wisely. Narrow is the way, and few there be that find it.

 

[BobRyan]

2Co 3:3 You show that you are a letter from Christ that he sent through us. This letter is not written with ink but with the Spirit of the living God. It is not written on stone tablets but on human hearts.

Eze 11:19 I will bring them together and make them like one person. I will put a new spirit in them. I will take away that heart of stone, and I will put a real heart in its place.

Eze 36:26 I will also put a new spirit in you to change your way of thinking. I will take out the heart of stone from your body and give you a tender, human heart. Why are you making up stuff like that??
...--the new covenant is no more animal sacrifices and the laws are written in our hearts--that's what the bible says--if you have a problem with that than you need to discuss it with God as He's the one that said it! As in the new circumcision is of the heart.

Daniel 9:26 says the Messiah's death would confirm or seal (ratify) the covenant - the same covenant mentioned in verse 4 and in 11:22 - the covenant of Sinai, which itself was identical with the Abrahamic covenant.
​

A close study of the covenants solves this issue also. Galatians 3:15 and Hebrews 9:16, 17 stress that nothing can be added to a covenant after the sacrificial death which seals it. Thus Sunday was three days too late to become part of the New Covenant. For this reason also, baptism was included by Christ's own example prior to Calvary.

In the same article is this:

Obedience to the Nine
In gospel ranks at the present time, there are some of our friends (we do not use that term loosely), offering an explanation of the covenants that, in practical terms, leads to obedience to nine commandments of the Decalogue, but not to that one which is central, the longest, and solely prefaced by "remember."
It is an exaggeration to say that such are nine-tenths under law and one tenth under grace, but it's an understandable criticism
​

The above in red is what Desmond Ford wrote--A man you said hates SDA's as he used to be one--how come you guys quite talking about him after I gave you the link to his magazine where he states that he still keeps the sabbath??

I expected someone to attack his comment on the 2 covenants and that Sunday would have had to be instituded before Christs death not after.

Those are some good points you have raised - but you may be dealing with opposition dedicated to "any ol excuse will do" so I would not get too bothered by the casual dismissal of the bible points raised.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[mmksparbud]

Those are some good points you have raised - but you may be dealing with opposition dedicated to "any ol excuse will do" so I would not get too bothered by the casual dismissal of the bible points raised.

in Christ,

Bob

If I got bothered I'd be in far worse condition than I am now! You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

 

[mmksparbud]

Yes, that's all I got from your post. I even asked you a question: Why don't you apply this to the entire Law Christ fulfilled?

Your response? Nothing.

I quoted Ellen White, who claimed that your soteriology is dependent on keeping the Sabbath holy. That takes you right back to the burnt offerings and the animal sacrifices.
I quoted M. L. Andreasen, who endorsed Ellen's soteriology and flatly forced a conclusion that Christ isn't coming back - ever.

Your response? Nothing.

It doesn't make sense to you because you're contradicting yourself. If you posit that the animal sacrifices came to an end, this means that the ordinances that demanded them came to an end - and this includes the Sabbath.

No. This wasn't claimed by any of us. This is what the Law demands if you're to keep the Sabbaths codified in it.

No, they weren't. Their example or lack thereof isn't germane to your appeal to the Law, and this is what the OP addresses. You've come about full circle, nullifying your previous post and still unable to produce a coherent answer regarding your inconsistent rejection of the Sabbaths. The SDA church's appeal to Exodus 35:3 and Leviticus 23:3 has already been pointed out to you, to show that they aren't making the division in the Law consistently as you suppose they do.

This is a straw man that has been repeatedly struck down. We don't keep Sunday nor any other repetitive shadow codified in the Law.

This is another straw man. I haven't mentioned Dr. Desmond Ford in any of my posts up to now. I quoted Ellen White and M. L. Andreasen, both of whom it seems you've rejected via omission. Dr. Ford rejected the Sanctuary Doctrine, Glacier View is in my back yard, and your appeal to Dr. Ford as an authority mandates that you reject SDA Fundamental Belief #24. As I mentioned before, the Investigative Judgment is the leading doctrinal contention that drives SDA members out the door. Dr. Ford is just one of those who has attempted to bring reform and Biblical coherence to the SDA church. Same with Dr. Raymond Cottrell. I don't think either of them got far enough to address the Sabbath in their discussions, which focused on just one major topic. I remember your responses given in More Coffee's Great Controversy thread, and I hope you don't need me to remind you of your devotion to Ellen.

But on the flip side, you've rejected Ellen's soteriology, as was quoted for you. Along with this, you've rejected the Sabbaths without giving any valid reason for doing so. Your posts can't be reconciled with your own posts.

LOL!!! You are sooo busy telling everyone what they're thinking that you can't read what they're thinking!! You keep harping on animal sacrifices and can't seem to grasp what anyone is saying. Let me try to inform you of this--NONE OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS REQUIRE AN ANIMAL SACRIFICE!! Not a single one! That is not hollering--it's emphases. None of your responses make any sense because you don't read, you just take everything that is said and twist it around and say "(This is what you think" when what your saying is the complete opposite of what has been said. And I'm not the only one you do this with.

As for my devotion to Ellen--I'm not the one that keeps bringing her up--it seems you guys are far more devoted to her than we are! And as I told Coffee, I don't care what anybody else thinks about her--I like her!

M.L. Andreasen??---Never heard of this person, and anyone who says Christ is never coming back is obviously not understanding the bible! What has someone who says that got to do with anything about SDAs??---Nothing.

I don't care whether you brought up Desmond Ford or not--I didn't address my comments to you but it was just a general posting. And I did not appeal to Desmond Ford as an authority! There you go again, twisting things around and telling others what they think!!! I merely am pointing out that even though Ford is out of the church, and doesn't believe in the doctrine of the IJ--he still believes in the sabbath, and I only mentioned that because somebody dragged him onto this. I can't say anything about Cotrell as I have not read what he himself wrote--I don't read what others say he wrote, I prefer to read their own words, and I've already mentioned this! And what others believe about the IJ is not of that great importance to me--I know very well that there are many who oppose this--
And don't bother to say none of you keep sunday because it's just a shadow--That's not true--Even Billy Graham has said that people are not keeping sunday as they should and too often just go to church--on Sunday--and then go play, or watch football. He always ened with with "go to church this sunday"--or something like that. I've always listened to him, since I was a kid and my stepmom would take me to his rallys. And as for Coffee, he too says that they don't keep Sunday, it's just a convinience day to gather and I posted straight from the catachism that states it is a grave sin to not keep sunday holy--grave sin being far worse sin than a regular sin--as I understand their terminology. If you personally don't keep any day holy, that's your opinion and not the doctrines of all sunday keeping Christians. And I also watch the reruns of Bishop sheen--love his delivery--I even love Mother Angelica, she's got quite a sense of humor. Obviously I do not always hold to everything they say--but so what, I still like them and I just ignore the things that don't jive with my believes.

 

[BobRyan]

If I got bothered I'd be in far worse condition than I am now! You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

Indeed everyone has free will. Those who seek "any ol excuse will do" in their war against the Law of God will have an infinite number of ways to circle back to the same fully debunked argument.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It doesn't make sense to you because you're contradicting yourself. If you posit that the animal sacrifices came to an end, this means that the ordinances that demanded them came to an end - and this includes the Sabbath.

.

Sadly for your point above - this has been answered dozens of times already on this board - so you simply "circle back to it" once enough time has passed.

ok - if that is how you need to promote the case - you do have free will.

But from the start it was pointed out that "worship to God used to involve animal sacrifice" it does not any more - we do not "delete worship to God". Because as we see in Genesis 2 (and as the Baptist Confession of faith, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, and D.L. Moody and .... all admit) worship to God existed BEFORE animal sacrifice as did the holy, sanctified - Sabbath memorial of Creation.

It was not "given IN animal sacrifice". Even these pro-Sunday sources admit to this glaringly obvious fact. One that you circle back to opposing after this point has enough distance from the next time you bring it up.

I prefer genuine interest in the points raised even if they are not in favor of my view --- to the any ol excuse model that simply circles back to a debunked point when enough time has passed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[VictorC]

Sadly for your point above - this has been answered dozens of times already on this board - so you simply "circle back to it" once enough time has passed.

ok - if that is how you need to promote the case - you do have free will.

But from the start it was pointed out that "worship to God used to involve animal sacrifice" it does not any more - we do not "delete worship to God". Because as we see in Genesis 2 (and as the Baptist Confession of faith, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, and D.L. Moody and .... all admit) worship to God existed BEFORE animal sacrifice as did the holy, sanctified - Sabbath memorial of Creation.

This has been proven false conclusively from Scripture. While you're spending all your times endorsing sources you don't even agree with, you've become functionally illiterate to the point of open rebellion. The end result is that you don't perceive God's "My rest" the Sabbath was designed to lead us into, and it remains a promise that you haven't attained.

 

[from scratch]

Must have--I prefer the one that is the word of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit. I believe the words "with God all things are possible."---And that means "all." The Holy Spirit is not available to those who do not believe and trust in God. But even they are not hopeless--God is patient with our foolish selfishness and He can take us through many lessons and if we are willing, He will become real to you, and His word clear. "To him that overcomes--" that is repeated 7 times. Must be important thing for us to know.
"Love God with "all" your heart, your mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself--"---and you must overcome anything that stands between Him and you, and if you're not willing to to do this, the Holy Spirit will not be able to help you, and you make Christ's sacrifice of no value to you. There are only 2 roads available to the believer--the narrow and the broad--choose wisely. Narrow is the way, and few there be that find it.

Can you describe this narrow road for us? I don't see how a Christian can follow the broad way as the Bible speaks about it.

 

[from scratch]

Those are some good points you have raised - but you may be dealing with opposition dedicated to "any ol excuse will do" so I would not get too bothered by the casual dismissal of the bible points raised.

in Christ,

Bob

Do you possibly mean to accept the old covenant over the new covenant? Would this be ignoring one or the other? Please explain how one can hold to 2 opposing covenants. Thanks.

 

[from scratch]

If I got bothered I'd be in far worse condition than I am now! You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

Yeah you're right about that. So you must make the horse thirsty. Salt is good. Poison isn't.

 

[from scratch]

LOL!!! You are sooo busy telling everyone what they're thinking that you can't read what they're thinking!! You keep harping on animal sacrifices and can't seem to grasp what anyone is saying. Let me try to inform you of this--NONE OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS REQUIRE AN ANIMAL SACRIFICE!! Not a single one! That is not hollering--it's emphases. None of your responses make any sense because you don't read, you just take everything that is said and twist it around and say "(This is what you think" when what your saying is the complete opposite of what has been said. And I'm not the only one you do this with.

As for my devotion to Ellen--I'm not the one that keeps bringing her up--it seems you guys are far more devoted to her than we are! And as I told Coffee, I don't care what anybody else thinks about her--I like her!

M.L. Andreasen??---Never heard of this person, and anyone who says Christ is never coming back is obviously not understanding the bible! What has someone who says that got to do with anything about SDAs??---Nothing.

I don't care whether you brought up Desmond Ford or not--I didn't address my comments to you but it was just a general posting. And I did not appeal to Desmond Ford as an authority! There you go again, twisting things around and telling others what they think!!! I merely am pointing out that even though Ford is out of the church, and doesn't believe in the doctrine of the IJ--he still believes in the sabbath, and I only mentioned that because somebody dragged him onto this. I can't say anything about Cotrell as I have not read what he himself wrote--I don't read what others say he wrote, I prefer to read their own words, and I've already mentioned this! And what others believe about the IJ is not of that great importance to me--I know very well that there are many who oppose this--
And don't bother to say none of you keep sunday because it's just a shadow--That's not true--Even Billy Graham has said that people are not keeping sunday as they should and too often just go to church--on Sunday--and then go play, or watch football. He always ened with with "go to church this sunday"--or something like that. I've always listened to him, since I was a kid and my stepmom would take me to his rallys. And as for Coffee, he too says that they don't keep Sunday, it's just a convinience day to gather and I posted straight from the catachism that states it is a grave sin to not keep sunday holy--grave sin being far worse sin than a regular sin--as I understand their terminology. If you personally don't keep any day holy, that's your opinion and not the doctrines of all sunday keeping Christians. And I also watch the reruns of Bishop sheen--love his delivery--I even love Mother Angelica, she's got quite a sense of humor. Obviously I do not always hold to everything they say--but so what, I still like them and I just ignore the things that don't jive with my believes.

I think it would do you good to learn more about your church among other things such as the Bible.

 

[from scratch]

Sadly for your point above - this has been answered dozens of times already on this board - so you simply "circle back to it" once enough time has passed.

ok - if that is how you need to promote the case - you do have free will.

But from the start it was pointed out that "worship to God used to involve animal sacrifice" it does not any more - we do not "delete worship to God". Because as we see in Genesis 2 (and as the Baptist Confession of faith, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, and D.L. Moody and .... all admit) worship to God existed BEFORE animal sacrifice as did the holy, sanctified - Sabbath memorial of Creation.

It was not "given IN animal sacrifice". Even these pro-Sunday sources admit to this glaringly obvious fact. One that you circle back to opposing after this point has enough distance from the next time you bring it up.

I prefer genuine interest in the points raised even if they are not in favor of my view --- to the any ol excuse model that simply circles back to a debunked point when enough time has passed.

in Christ,

Bob

IOW the stance about Mat 5:17-18 isn't legit.

 

[VictorC]

LOL!!! You are sooo busy telling everyone what they're thinking that you can't read what they're thinking!! You keep harping on animal sacrifices and can't seem to grasp what anyone is saying. Let me try to inform you of this--NONE OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS REQUIRE AN ANIMAL SACRIFICE!! Not a single one! That is not hollering--it's emphases.

The topic is the Sabbath, not the Ten Commandments - and you seem unable to focus on a given topic long enough to address it. You may as well remove any reference to keeping the Sabbath HOLY from your rendition of unholy Sabbatarianism, as it doesn't exist. The covenant from Mount Sinai demands burnt offerings with the same authority you appeal to to attend church and abstain from cooking on Saturday. Yes, the Ten Commandments demand animal sacrifices, as do the daily oblations ordained at Mount Sinai. You're still bound to these burnt offerings and a requisite Levitical priesthood as long as you remain in the old covenant.

None of your responses make any sense because you don't read

Sure I do. You stated there are no sacrifices in the new covenant, which is God's redemption from the old covenant - which is the Ten Commandments and the Book of the Law. I pointed out before how you exchange definitions of Biblical terminology, in deference to how the Biblical authors used them and Evangelicals accept them. I don't have any reason to accept your word-play.

As for my devotion to Ellen--I'm not the one that keeps bringing her up--it seems you guys are far more devoted to her than we are! And as I told Coffee, I don't care what anybody else thinks about her--I like her!

M.L. Andreasen??---Never heard of this person, and anyone who says Christ is never coming back is obviously not understanding the bible! What has someone who says that got to do with anything about SDAs??---Nothing.

As I mentioned, Andreasen endorsed Ellen White's soteriology. It is Adventist soteriology coupled with their unusual eschatology revolving around vindicating God and the old covenant that forces others to conclude that you don't really expect Christ to come again - it is dependent on your sect producing sinless people as a prerequisite. This condition is never going to be met.

Here's Andreasen's bio, for you:

M.[ilian] L.[auritz] Andreasen (1876–1962), was a Seventh-day Adventist theologian, pastor and author.

He was one of the church's most prominent and influential theologians during the 1930s and 1940s. Andreasen promoted the teaching known popularly as Last Generation Theology, controversial for its views on atonement and salvation. Andreasen became well known for his protests against Adventist church leaders during the last years of his life.

Andreasen served as president of the Greater New York Conference (1909 - 1910), president of Hutchinson Theological Seminary (1910 - 1918), dean of Atlantic Union College (1918 - 1922), dean of Washington Missionary College (now Washington Adventist University) (1922 - 1924), president of the Minnesota Conference (1924 - 1931), president of Union College, Nebraska (1931 - 1938), and field secretary of the General Conference (1941 - 1950). He taught at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary (now located at Andrews University) from 1937 - 1949, and was recognized as a leading denominational scholar on the atonement and related topics.​

You should already know who Ellen White was, who is codified in your Fundamental Beliefs as an authority. Andreasen illustrates the logical conclusion of someone consistent with Ellen White. That's where you're headed, and in another thread you accepted Ellen White's blasphemy of God as if it were a natural thing for 'christians' to do. Just like replacing Biblical terminology in deference to their actual meaning assigned by their inspired authors.

I don't care whether you brought up Desmond Ford or not--I didn't address my comments to you but it was just a general posting. And I did not appeal to Desmond Ford as an authority!

Dr. Desmond Ford isn't an authority to those outside Adventism, so I have no reason to align my beliefs with his opnions. You're the one who brought up Ford, and if you don't accept him as an authority, it begs the question 'Why?'.

There you go again, twisting things around and telling others what they think!!! I merely am pointing out that even though Ford is out of the church, and doesn't believe in the doctrine of the IJ--he still believes in the sabbath, and I only mentioned that because somebody dragged him onto this.

Oh, I see - a selective endorsment based on what you want to accept, while rejecting his other conclusions. That's what BobRyan does. You use an extra-Biblical source you've already concluded to be in error.

And don't bother to say none of you keep sunday because it's just a shadow...

You didn't read what I wrote. I don't keep Sunday, nor do I keep the shadows of "days and months and seasons and years" the Apostle Paul warned against. You're chasing a shadow! I have the reality of God's rest you've erased from the Gospel. This has been pointed out to you so many times it is obvious you aren't going to accept the Gospel without divine intervention.

 

[VictorC]

If I got bothered I'd be in far worse condition than I am now! You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

That's probably because you exchange terms so many times you can't tell you're calling putrid sludge 'water', and it isn't regarded as water by others.

 

[BobRyan]

It doesn't make sense to you because you're contradicting yourself. If you posit that the animal sacrifices came to an end, this means that the ordinances that demanded them came to an end - and this includes the Sabbath.

.

Sadly for your point above - this has been answered dozens of times already on this board - so you simply "circle back to it" once enough time has passed.

ok - if that is how you need to promote the case - you do have free will.

But from the start it was pointed out that "worship to God used to involve animal sacrifice" it does not any more - we do not "delete worship to God". Because as we see in Genesis 2 (and as the Baptist Confession of faith, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, and D.L. Moody and .... all admit) worship to God existed BEFORE animal sacrifice as did the holy, sanctified - Sabbath memorial of Creation.

It was not "given IN animal sacrifice". Even these pro-Sunday sources admit to this glaringly obvious fact. One that you circle back to opposing after this point has enough distance from the next time you bring it up.

I prefer genuine interest in the points raised even if they are not in favor of my view --- to the any ol excuse model that simply circles back to a debunked point when enough time has passed.

IOW the stance about Mat 5:17-18 isn't legit.

That is one way to spin it - if you are not willing to look at the actual answer in the post above.

All have free will and you can spin it as you wish.

I prefer the actual Bible.

17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


[FONT=&quot] Mark 7
[/FONT]6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';

11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the Word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The topic is the Sabbath, not the Ten Commandments -

Until you notice that the 4th Commandment is one of the TEN Commandments as we see in Ex 20.

And until you notice that James 2 says that to break one of them - is to break all of them.

And until you notice that Eph 6:1-2 places them all in a single unit - in which the 5th commandment is the first one with a promise.

And until you notice that even the sunday sources in this list admit to the Sabbath in the TEN Commandments - that are still binding on the saints today.

=======
The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson,
The Catholic Catechism.

And of course 7th day groups

Seventh-day Baptists
Seventh-day Adventists
(and 100's of others

in Christ,

Bob

 

[SilverBlade]

Until you notice that the 4th Commandment is one of the TEN Commandments as we see in Ex 20.

And until you notice that James 2 says that to break one of them - is to break all of them.

And until you notice that Eph 6:1-2 places them all in a single unit - in which the 5th commandment is the first one with a promise.

And until you notice that even the sunday sources in this list admit to the Sabbath in the TEN Commandments - that are still binding on the saints today.

Until you read in Romans 14:5 - "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

 

[VictorC]

That is one way to spin it - if you are not willing to look at the actual answer in the post above.

All have free will and you can spin it as you wish.

I prefer the actual Bible.

17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


[FONT=&quot] Mark 7
[/FONT]6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';

11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the Word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.

in Christ,

Bob

Until you extend your quote just one verse further: "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." According to Adventist soteriology, no one is greatest in heaven, for no one has earned the entrance fee.
That is hardly a solution.
But that is the soteriology under the old covenant that Ellen White showed as necessary.

 

[VictorC]

Until you notice that the 4th Commandment is one of the TEN Commandments as we see in Ex 20.

As pointed out before, this is the oral giving of the covenant, no more and no less binding than God's oral commandments given in Exodus 35:3, Leviticus 23:3, and Numbers 28:9-10.

And until you notice that James 2 says that to break one of them - is to break all of them.

Which you have!

And until you notice that Eph 6:1-2 places them all in a single unit - in which the 5th commandment is the first one with a promise.

Which it doesn't!

And until you notice that even the sunday sources in this list admit to the Sabbath in the TEN Commandments - that are still binding on the saints today.

Which it doesn't! And, since you don't keep the Sabbath Holy, you have transgressed the entire covenant. But of course you choose to embrace Dispensationalism and Preterism concurrently, which leaves you really confused and in variance to Scripture as you have been all along.

I asked your teammate how you disregard what God Spoke in one place, and embrace in part what He declared orally in another place regarding the Sabbath - all within the jurisdiction of the old covenant. Neither one of you have furnished an answer, which is the basis of the OP that neither one of you have defended your variance from.