Sabbatarianism and the 1689 Confession: Were the Particular Baptists wrong?

[BobRyan]

I said

We have already stated on this thread that the lost do not gain eternal life for becoming sinless, by perfect obedience to the Law or any such thing.

The effort to "circle back to the view of the law from the POV of the lost" is something those at war with the TEN Commandments have done on this section of the board repeatedly - but the BCF does not do that.

inexplicably you respond with your usual one-note-rant about those who " strongly-denounce the Seventh Day Adventist Church"

One might conclude that you object to my noticing the effort to "circle back to the view of the law from the POV of the lost" when it comes to the subject of this thread as mentioned in the BCF (and WCF).

You seem to have an odd one-note response to every subject - in this case it is not clear how you are getting that one note to fit the post as a response to it.

have another try at it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[LarryP2]

One might conclude that you object to my noticing the effort to "circle back to the view of the law from the POV of the lost" when it comes to the subject of this thread as mentioned in the BCF (and WCF).

You seem to have an odd one-note response to every subject - in this case it is not clear how you are getting that one note to fit the post as a response to it.

have another try at it.

in Christ,

Bob

Will the obsolescence of the 10 Commandments by the New Covenant result in lawlessness and Anarchy as the Sabbatarians hysterically and dishonestly insinuate, with their absolutely-deceitful slogan "War against the Ten Commandments?"

Hardly.

Rest assured that most (with the exception of the Sabbath) of the Ten Commandments are alive and well, in one form or another in the civil and criminal legal systems throughout the United States. There is NO danger whatsoever that Christianity's embrace of the New Covenant is going to result in the abandonment of the basic principles contained within the Ten commandments. And your legal jeopardy in the modern court system will be assured irregardless of your views on the Ten Commandments if you go ahead and murder, commit false witness, Adultery, theft or any of the rest of the prohibited actions. Virtually every court in the United States enforces the Commandment against murder found in the Decalogue: They are more than happy and willing to enforce one or more of the 80,000 some laws against Homicide contained in Federal, State or local statutes. Should you choose to commit Adultery, there are specific criminal and civil codes that will rush into play, making your day in divorce court extremely expensive and painful. Should you choose to steal, there are about 500,000 various laws throughout the United States that will make you regret your behavior very quickly. Additionally, there are literally millions more laws that prohibit many forms of immoral activity left surprisingly unmentioned by the Ten Commandments. Just try and argue that the Ten Commandments do not prohibit your behavior, therefore you should not be prosecuted in a Court of Law. See how far that gets you.

The Ten Commandments, by omission, ALLOW and PERMIT thousands of types of extremely immoral behavior that are prohibited or discouraged by Christianity.

As a Christian, the fact that the Ten Commandments are no longer binding on you doesn't get you particularly far in the real world: there are plenty of US Laws covering all of the same offenses, and then some. The only REAL issue is whether the Jewish Sabbath still applies, and Christianity has a seamless 2,000 year history of denouncing Sabbath Keeping as an anti-Christian heresy. Sabbatarianism is simply just reinvention of several brands of old heresies all dressed up and modernized with new multi-media presentations.

So for Sabbatarians to issue their general ignorant and deceitful smear about "being at war against the Ten Commandments" is just demagoguery of the lowest and most dishonest kind.

 

[BobRyan]

Will the obsolescence of the 10 Commandments by the New Covenant .

1. the new covenant includes the "LAW of God written on the heart and mind" as we see in both Jer 31:31-33 and Hebrew 8.

2. The Law of God known to Jeremiah would have included the TEN commandments as the BCF freely admits for the New Covenant of Heb 8.

3. This thread is about the BCF - read the OP.

4. in post #2 I state that there are those here who are at war with the TEN Commandments and who oppose all 7 points listed in that post - that are so explicitly affirmed by the BCF.

5. I point out later that ProgMonk seems to have difficulty posting when the group comes in that oppose all 7 BCF points listed.

Apparently that still holds.

The idea that Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" and Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart" are really condoning every possible form of sin "by omission" is the sort of nonsense that the war against the TEN Commandments must resort to - and that the BCF flatly rejects.

Sadly - I alone am left to defend the BCF - on ProgMonk's own BCF thread.

How "instructive".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Keachian]

1. the new covenant includes the "LAW of God written on the heart and mind" as we see in both Jer 31:31-33 and Hebrew 8.

2. The Law of God known to Jeremiah would have included the TEN commandments as the BCF freely admits for the New Covenant of Heb 8.

3. This thread is about the BCF - read the OP.

4. in post #2 I state that there are those here who are at war with the TEN Commandments and who oppose all 7 points listed in that post - that are so explicitly affirmed by the BCF.

5. I point out later that ProgMonk seems to have difficulty posting when the group comes in that oppose all 7 BCF points listed.

Apparently that still holds.

The idea that Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" and Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart" are really condoning every possible form of sin "by omission" is the sort of nonsense that the war against the TEN Commandments must resort to - and that the BCF flatly rejects.

Sadly - I alone am left to defend the BCF - on ProgMonk's own BCF thread.

How "instructive".

in Christ,

Bob

I have said before and I'll say again, the SDA exemplifying of the Decalogue is imbalanced, Christ is denied while the Law is made to be the object of faith, I cannot in good conscience join you if your view is just as skewed as as those who you war against.

 

[BobRyan]

Will the obsolescence of the 10 Commandments by the New Covenant result in lawlessness and Anarchy as the Sabbatarians hysterically and dishonestly insinuate, .

A direct slam on the BCF support for the TEN Commandments.

And where is the BCF support ??

I have said before and I'll say again, the SDA exemplifying of the Decalogue is imbalanced,

How sad that this is all you have in support of the BCF when 7 out of the 7 points listed for the TEN Commandments from the BCF are being slammed by those at war with God's TEN Commandments.

Would C.H. Spurgeon be so quick to flee the defense of his own rendition of the BCF - in favor of ad populum ranting against this or that Christian denomination -- when all 7 points were being slammed by those at war with God's TEN Commandments?

Was D.L.Moody timid when it came to defending his support of God's TEN Commandments when it came to the arguments of those who were at war with them?

I think he would have stood in defense of the document.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective Bible student.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Those 7 points again -

[FONT=&quot]1. That the Sabbath Commandment is first given to mankind in Gen 2:1-3
2. That all mankind was obligated by the TEN commandments in the OT and to this very day.
3. That the seventh day as the Sabbath was Saturday the seventh day of the week from Gen 2:1-3 until NT times - including at the cross.
4. That the Ten Commandments are the moral Law of God
5. That the moral law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant
6. that the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God are in no way opposed to grace and the Gospel.
7. That the Sabbath commandment can rightly be BENT by man-made-tradition to point to week-day-1 after the cross[FONT=&quot].[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

The Actual BCF -- (or is it the "much to be avoided BCF" Progmonk??)

====================================
[FONT=&quot]As modified by C.H. Spurgeon[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Section 19[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]. The Law of God [/FONT]

• God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.

• The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the Ten Commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

• Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

• To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

• The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it.

• Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expected in this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace.

• The aforementioned uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but they sweetly comply with it, as the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do freely and cheerfully those things which the will of God, which is revealed in the law, requires to be done.

===================================

 

[BobRyan]

So then that brings us back to #65

 

[LarryP2]

1. the new covenant includes the "LAW of God written on the heart and mind" as we see in both Jer 31:31-33 and Hebrew 8.

Your reading of Jeremiah is as usual, false, deceptive and brazenly dishonest: I will post the actual text and then comment on it:

Jeremiah 31:31-33
New International Version (NIV)
31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a NEW covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[a] them,”
declares the Lord.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their mind
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

I can say with 100 percent unshakable certainly that the New Covenant is RADICALLY, COMPLETELY different than the Law given at Sinai. Jeremiah could not have made himself any clearer. What is sharply distinguished here is The New Covenant, as opposed to the Covenant given at Sinai. They are not the same. Plainly, Jeremiah is NOT claiming that the Ten Commandments would not be written on their hearts.

Early Christianity had it right. There are no ambiguities there. They said it over and over again. The Holy Spirit is NOT available to assist in the keeping of the Ten Commandments. You can follow the Ten Commandments. Or you can follow the guiding of the Holy Spirit. You must choose.

Choose wisely.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan 1. the new covenant includes the "LAW of God written on the heart and mind" as we see in both Jer 31:31-33 and Hebrew 8.

Your reading of Jeremiah is as usual, false, deceptive and brazenly dishonest:...
“I will put my law in their mind
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
..
.

same as in Hebrews 8

disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

All your vitriol aside - you seem to have a hard time making your case from the text itself.

In the mean time - actual exegesis means that the term "law" as written by Jeremiah to his readers - must be defined in the context that the writer and the readers knew about.

This is probably why the BCF does not leap off of a cliff right there and presume Jeremiah was not talking about the Law of God that was in actual scripture. My guess is that we all knew that - even without the ranting vitriol.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[LarryP2]

All your vitriol aside - you seem to have a hard time making your case from the text itself.

in Christ,

Bob

This Text, and the history of the Early Church could not be clearer. My argument is developed seamlessly from the interaction between Jeremiah and the History of the First Century Church. The New Covenants would be and were diametrically, 180 degrees different that the Covenant given at Sinai.

There are 2,000 years of absolutely-undisputed, seamless Christian History that demonstrate Christianity's understanding of these issues beginning immediately at the Resurrection: Attempts to inject Mosaic Law, Sabbath Keeping and Circumcision were vigorously condemned as Satanic, anti-Christian heresies.

Christianity IS the Resurrection. Judaism IS the Mosaic Law. Neither Christianity nor Judaism have seriously disputed whether the two could be mixed. Since the Resurrection, Christianity and Judaism have been in mutual, crystal clear agreement on this issue.

The integrity and strength of my argument is not at issue here. The honesty, fidelity to the Text and history as recited by your utterly-fraudulent and extremely-deceitful Prophet are.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan 1. the new covenant includes the "LAW of God written on the heart and mind" as we see in both Jer 31:31-33 and Hebrew 8.

Your reading of Jeremiah is as usual, false, deceptive and brazenly dishonest:...
“I will put my law in their mind
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
..
.

same as in Hebrews 8

disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

All your vitriol aside - you seem to have a hard time making your case from the text itself.

In the mean time - actual exegesis means that the term "law" as written by Jeremiah to his readers - must be defined in the context that the writer and the readers knew about.

This is probably why the BCF does not leap off of a cliff right there and presume Jeremiah was not talking about the Law of God that was in actual scripture. My guess is that we all knew that - even without the ranting vitriol.

===================================================

This Text, and the history of the Early Church could not be clearer. .

That is true of the text - but not of the dark ages.

And Christ appears to have known that traditions of man would be at war with the Law of God while at the same time giving God "lip service" -- see it in Mark 7.

[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';
[FONT=&quot]
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.''[/FONT]

 

[LarryP2]

That is true of the text - but not of the dark ages.

And Christ appears to have known that traditions of man would be at war with the Law of God while at the same time giving God "lip service" -- see it in Mark

I will start off with the Bible's explicit endorsement of the Oral Traditions that the Early Church followed when it unequivocally-condemned Sabbath Keeping as a Satanic Heresy. The Eastern Orthodox Church has NEVER been refuted that they were being obedient to the instructions spoken directly by the Apostles:

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Plainly, the stance of Eastern Orthodoxy stands as an impermeable, undisputed wall with no historical gaps: They worshiped on every Sunday and commemorated Easter within the first year of Christianity beginning with the Resurrection. They vigorously-condemned Judaizing as a Satanic, anti-Christian heresy. Their condemnation included Sabbath Keeping. They faithfully obeyed the oral instructions of the Apostles in doing all of the above. The AD Council of Jerusalem merely reaffirmed what was already common practice among the Gentile Christian converts. There has never been any dispute within Christianity over these issues. The Eastern Orthodox Church has never, ever in its entire 2,000 year history commemorated the Sabbath. NEVER.

This is why a 2,000 year old, 300-million member Church is completely and absolutely never once mentioned in the foundational text of the Seventh Day Adventist Church: The Great Controversy.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan 1. the new covenant includes the "LAW of God written on the heart and mind" as we see in both Jer 31:31-33 and Hebrew 8.

Your reading of Jeremiah is as usual, false, deceptive and brazenly dishonest:...
“I will put my law in their mind
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
..
.

same as in Hebrews 8

disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

All your vitriol aside - you seem to have a hard time making your case from the text itself.

In the mean time - actual exegesis means that the term "law" as written by Jeremiah to his readers - must be defined in the context that the writer and the readers knew about.

This is probably why the BCF does not leap off of a cliff right there and presume Jeremiah was not talking about the Law of God that was in actual scripture. My guess is that we all knew that - even without the ranting vitriol.

===================================================

This Text, and the history of the Early Church could not be clearer. .

That is true of the text - but not of the dark ages.

And Christ appears to have known that traditions of man would be at war with the Law of God while at the same time giving God "lip service" -- see it in Mark 7.

[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';
[FONT=&quot]
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.''[/FONT]

I will start off with the Bible's explicit endorsement of the Oral Traditions

Please do.

And notice that Paul said "though WE (APOSTLES) or an Angel from heaven should come to you bringing a different gospel than you have already received let them be accursed" Gal 1:6-11.

Paul argues for the sola scriptura test of anything that they hear.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things were so" Acts 17:11.

I think the BCF also endorses the sola scriptura model.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[LarryP2]

And notice that Paul said "though WE (APOSTLES) or an Angel from heaven should come to you bringing a different gospel than you have already received let them be accursed" Gal 1:6-11.

Paul argues for the sola scriptura test of anything that they hear.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things were so" Acts 17:11.

Gallatians 1:6-11 is not a helpful text for Adventists.

We know that the founder of the cult claimed to have been repeatedly visited by an Angel. We know that the Angel taught her doctrines that were specifically and harshly condemned by the Apostles from the First Year after the Resurrection of the First Century Christian Church. Doctrines which Christianity has never wavered in declaring to be satanic, apostate heresy. We know that the founder of the cult was a pathological liar, a false prophet who repeatedly gave laughably false predictions of the future, and an inveterate and compulsive thief whose books are by some estimates 90 percent stolen from other author's writings. We know that she founded a Church on a devastating series of prophetic failures that she fully-endorsed. We know that no Adventist theologian has found a Biblical basis for the failed predictions of 1844; the Church's foundation on the 2300 days prophecy of Daniel 8:14 which form the nucleus of her argument for a "Remnant Church"; the Investigative Judgment; the Adventist Sanctuary Doctrine; or any historical basis whatsoever that supports her ludicrous and bizarre idea of a Papal Conspiracy Theory that changed "Saturday to Sunday."

With this horrifying record of absolute, grovelling prophetic failure; clearly satanic and heretical doctrine that has been unequivocally and unanimously-condemned by the 2,000 year history of Christianity; the virtual disregard of the Church for the Resurrection throughout its entire history; a solid wall of scholarship by its own theologians that debunk each and every single one of its distinctive doctrines as unbiblical; it is clear that Seventh Day Adventism is precisely "Another Gospel" that was harshly condemned by that verse in Gallatians. There's more. Gallatians harshly condemns the Sabbath Keeping and other Mosaic Law ordinances that were being kept by the Christians in Gallatia. That is the clear theme of that entire Epistle. It is supported by a seamless wall of contemporaneous history and the unanimous statements of the Early Christian Fathers.

Your statement that "Paul argues for the sola scriptura test of anything that they hear" could not be more dishonest and more deceitful. NOWHERE does Paul argue for Sola Scriptura. NOWHERE does the Bible suggest such a thing.

Your argument: Christians were to test what they heard from the Apostles with the written scriptures. 90 percent or more of them did not have scriptures when that was written. The overwhelming percentage of First Century Christians were illiterate. That they would "test" what they heard St. Paul say with their own ears, against their own Bible (which were completely unavailable) is ludicrous. There are many compelling reasons to support the contention that is NOT how the First Century Church was conducted:

"The most common argument that Christians were averse to written texts is based on their socio-historical background, namely that most of them were unable to read or write. Such claims are based on the seminal study of William Harris which argues that the average extent of literacy in the Greco-Roman world of the first century was 10-15%, and some have suggested that for Jewish Palestine the rate was actually lower.

Although Harris’ numbers have been critiqued by some, I will not challenge them here. I think he is probably correct in regard to the big picture—generally speaking, the average Christian was illiterate."
http://michaeljkruger.com/10-miscon...fore-would-have-resisted-writing-things-down/

The evidence strongly and overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Sabbath Keeping was harshly condemned by the Apostles as a Satanic heresy in many different sermons given to the Early Christians. It is a theme that is a virtual seamless wall of authority of the Early Church Fathers.

 

[BobRyan]

And Christ appears to have known that traditions of man would be at war with the Law of God while at the same time giving God "lip service" -- see it in Mark 7.

[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';
[FONT=&quot]
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.''[/FONT]

Originally Posted by LarryP2

I will start off with the Bible's explicit endorsement of the Oral Traditions
​

Please do.

And notice that Paul said "though WE (APOSTLES) or an Angel from heaven should come to you bringing a different gospel than you have already received let them be accursed" Gal 1:6-11.

Paul argues for the sola scriptura test of anything that they hear.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things were so" Acts 17:11.

I think the BCF also endorses the sola scriptura model.

Gallatians 1:6-11 is not a helpful text for Adventists.

We know that the founder of the cult claimed... <obligatory rant deleted here> .../

Turns out... that is an Adventist in that post above - appealing to Mark 7 and Gal 1:6-11.

Your argument is with the facts.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Which gets us back to the subject of this thread - and the BCF and the TEN Commandments.
-- #2 #67

Originally Posted by BobRyan

Originally Posted by BobRyan 1. the new covenant includes the "LAW of God written on the heart and mind" as we see in both Jer 31:31-33 and Hebrew 8.
​

Originally Posted by LarryP2

Your reading of Jeremiah is as usual, false, deceptive and brazenly dishonest:...
&#8220;I will put my law in their mind
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
..
.
​

same as in Hebrews 8

disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

All your vitriol aside - you seem to have a hard time making your case from the text itself.

In the mean time - actual exegesis means that the term "law" as written by Jeremiah to his readers - must be defined in the context that the writer and the readers knew about.

This is probably why the BCF does not leap off of a cliff right there and presume Jeremiah was not talking about the Law of God that was in actual scripture. My guess is that we all knew that - even without the ranting vitriol.

 

[LarryP2]

Which gets us back to the subject of this thread - and the BCF and the TEN Commandments.

Okee Dokee


Christianity: Salvation by Grace. That's why Christianity celebrates and commemorates the Resurrection EVERY chance they can get. That's actually the central point of the BCF. That is the central point of the Bible. That is the central point of Christianity. The BCF's unequivocal repudiation of Adventism's central doctrine of Salvation by Perfect Sabbath Keeping could not be starker:

"As it is the law of nature that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, should be set apart for the worship of God, so He has given in His Word a positive, moral and perpetual commandment, binding upon all men, in all ages to this effect. He has particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath to be kept holy for Him. From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ this was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ it was changed to the first day of the week and called the Lord's Day. This is to be continued until the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week having been abolished. "

And here is a Baptist webpage that denounces Seventh Day Adventism as a non-Christian Cult from the perspective of the BCF:

"They teach that to worship on a Sunday is to receive the mark of the Beast and that the true worship of Christians was during a Saturday. This is crazy! The Roman Catholic Church DID NOT create Sunday worship, the Bible did and Jesus ordained Sunday worship! To deal with Sunday verses, first and foremost Jesus rose on a Sunday (Matthew 28:1-7, Mark 16:2-9 Luke 24:1, John 20:1). Throughout the Book of Acts, worship and gathering was mostly done on SUNDAY so did Peter implement the mark of the Beast?! We will try to work on the Sunday defense soon. This kind of mentality has led to their paranoia on Sunday worshipers. This attitude lets them have the huge disorder of putting the Vatican in front of the Bible. I care less about what the Vatican is doing, the Bible COMES FIRST and any hellbent Roman Catholic still has the chance to be saved while they live. This has resulted to the generation of conspiracy theories."

http://fundamentalbaptistchristian.blogspot.com/2011/03/whats-wrong-with-seventh-day-adventism.html

And here is a ringing denouncement of the Jewish Sabbath fixation propounded by Adventism, from the perspective of the BCF:

"The following reasons refute the Adventist insistence on the perpetual obligation to observe the Lord&#8217;s Day on Saturday. First, although the Sabbath Day is perpetually binding as a part of the moral law, it does not follow that ancient legal features of that day are likewise necessarily binding &#8211; certainly not if there is evidence that they have been altered by later revelation. The particular day of the week is surely unimportant. A seventh day may be essential, but which seventh day could not possibly be essential. Just as Saturday could not have originally been most appropriate as symbols of the day of rest after creation, so Sunday became most appropriate as the day of rest after redemption. The Hebrew word for &#8220;Sabbath&#8221; means &#8220;rest,&#8221; not &#8220;Saturday.&#8221; Saturday was shown to be the intended Sabbath, when god gave a double portion of manna on the preceding day. In the new dispensation Sunday was shown to be the intended Sabbath when God raised His Son on that day.

Second, the New Testament does indicate that just such a change was made. Christ arose on Sunday, appeared on Sunday, the disciples assembled on Sunday, offerings were made on Sunday, and John was in the Spirit on Sunday."

http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.co...-seventh-day-adventism-by-dr-john-h-gerstner/

And here's some unofficial denunciations of Adventism as a "snare" and a "Cult" from the Southern Baptist perspective:
http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/seventh_day_adventists_exumenism_hell.html
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbdenominations.aspx?pageid=8589952147
http://www.newtestamentchristians.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/12-Seventh-Day-Adventist-Church.pdf

The following Baptist-supported webpage analyzes Adventism's "Salvation by Perfect Sabbath Keeping" Doctrine:

"SDAs have, thereby, made Sabbath-keeping a criterion for a personal relationship with the Lord -- even to the extent of one's salvation! Why? Because, according to SDAs, we are all to be under strict adherence to Old Testament Law, including the Ten Commandments, of which the fourth one says, "keep the Sabbath." (This Sabbath-keeping requirement was supposedly confirmed in a vision received by Ellen G. White, rather than by study of the Bible.) SDAs believe that "Sunday-keeping" will be the mark of the beast in the future."

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/sda/adventi.htm

Adventism: Salvation by Perfect Sabbath Keeping. That's why Adventists post thousands of Sabbath posts and NEVER one on the Resurrection. You will not be able to find a single post by BobRyan regarding the Resurrection. I've done every combination of searches I can think of. He is a slick salesman for a modern-day revival of the satanic Ebionite Heresy that has been harshly condemned by Christianity relentlessly for 2,000 years. There is NOTHING in the BCF that supports this satanic heresy. Any comparison between the BCF and Adventism is deceitful and fraudulent.

This heresy and deceitful Scripture Sculpting technique that is on display with the Sabbath Spam Strings is identical to the techniques used by such aberrant anti-Christian cults such as the Branch Davidians and the Jehovah's Witnesses, both virulent offshoots of the mother sect of Adventism.
Here's some articles describing the close connection between SDA scripture sculpting, and the methods that were used to consign dozens of Branch Davidians to their deaths in a fiery confrontation with the Federal Government:

http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=986
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidian_Seventh-day_Adventist

And Jehovah's Witnesses were birthed from the same orgy of unbilbical false prophecies that formed Adventism:

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/similar-religions/seventh-day-adventist.php
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2682502/posts

Don't be fooled.

 

[BobRyan]

Which gets us back to the subject of this thread - and the BCF and the TEN Commandments.
-- #2 #67

Okee Dokee


Christianity: Salvation by Grace. <obligatory rant section deleted here>.

You have that much correct -- credit where credit is due.

And as noted above - even pro-Sunday sources get this Bible doctrine about God's TEN Commandments still being applicable to the saints today - and they even get that it was the moral law of God for all of the OT times.

Notice that I actually quote from the Baptist Confession of Faith in that link. And ... as it turns out... that is the subject of this thread.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[LarryP2]

And as noted above - even pro-Sunday sources get this Bible doctrine about God's TEN Commandments still being applicable to the saints today - and they even get that it was the moral law of God for all of the OT times.

While you were at it, did you notice from those links I posted from all of those Baptists interpreting their BCF to harshly denounce Seventh Day Adventism as a "snare" and a "Cult?" Did you also notice that they all very pointedly rejected and denounced your views on the Sabbath?

Notice that I actually quote from the Baptist Confession of Faith in that link. And ... as it turns out... that is the subject of this thread.

Did you notice that I did too, and helped you to understand what it says by underlining the specific denunciation by Baptists of Seventh Day Adventism's primary doctrine of Salvation by Sabbath Keeping? Did you notice how I underlined and bold-faced the section that specifically discusses why Christians worship on Sundays? Did you notice how you didn't say one word to that in response? In fact, did you notice how you said not one single word in response to any of the links and quotes I provided, that demonstrate conclusively that your deceitful attempted comparison between your Sabbath beliefs and the BCF could not be more willfully dishonest?

I couldn't help but notice that you responded to NONE of those points. And after all of those Baptists clearly denouncing your Sabbath views as a "snare" and a "cult," you went ahead and once again tried to draw a false and deceptive comparison between your view of the Sabbath and the view of the Ten Commandments contained in the BCF.

Which looks like egregiously-calculated deception on your part.