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

[BobRyan]

I had this exact same exchange before; maybe it was even with you.

1) I believe the one called Jesus, (whose name is Immanuel, Yahoshuah, Christ and the Annointed One among other things,) is my Lord, Savior, and way to Life. He died for all of our sins without blemish, died in my place, and was resurrected to sit at the right hand of God to full glory. He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. .

Be informed that LP2 will gladly pull out a string of name-calling, vitriol, diatribe if you make the invitation. I prefer that we stick with bible topics of the actual thread.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Paul is not saying the Law of God is abolished, he is saying those who follow the Law of God with the intention of being saved and vindicated by the mere obedience of the Law is under a vail (of ignorance.) It is a one thing to teach that following God's law for the purpose of self-salvation is wrong and against Christ's teachings. It is another thing to insinuate in any way that God's law is abolished (i.e. void) in any way without proper context (as Paul had, and which is ignored.) .

And to a large extent some of the pro-Sunday sources listed below will affirm some of the points you are making.


Which gets us to the Baptist Confession of Faith Thread -- #2
#67

(And a case where the one that started that thread - ProgMonk - leaves me to defend the 7 points of the BCF -- of which I only agree with 6 out of that 7).

 

[VictorC]

And to a large extent some of the pro-Sunday sources listed below will affirm some of the points you are making.

No, they don't - and neither does Scripture. You simply selected an anchor to post nonsense.

 

[BobRyan]

hint - click on the links. Baptist Confession of Faith Thread -- #2 #67

then do your ranting after reading what is there. That way we have something to talk about.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[VictorC]

hint - click on the links. Baptist Confession of Faith Thread -- #2 #67

then do your ranting after reading what is there. That way we have something to talk about.

in Christ,

Bob

Checked them. Neither one has any mention of the unBiblical qualification of 'abolished' postulated by the post you commented on.

 

[BobRyan]

So then you clicked it and found this


[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.

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

 

[VictorC]

Checked them. Neither one has any mention of the unBiblical qualification of 'abolished' postulated by the post you commented on.

Bob, is your reading comprehension at fault, or your ignorance of the conversation you derailed?

 

[BobRyan]

And then you clicked the link to the 7 points and found this --

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

For the sake of "full disclosure" and context - I think we need to list all the details related to this subject from the BCF.

[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].


I don't claim to agree with all 7 of the points that the BCF is making - only 6 out of the 7 do I agree with.

But there are many on this board who are at war with all 7.
==================================================


I had already posted this --

[/FONT][/FONT]

Paul is not saying the Law of God is abolished, he is saying those who follow the Law of God with the intention of being saved and vindicated by the mere obedience of the Law is under a vail (of ignorance.) It is a one thing to teach that following God's law for the purpose of self-salvation is wrong and against Christ's teachings. It is another thing to insinuate in any way that God's law is abolished (i.e. void) in any way without proper context (as Paul had, and which is ignored.) .

And to a large extent some of the pro-Sunday sources listed below will affirm some of the points you are making.


Which gets us to the Baptist Confession of Faith Thread -- #2
#67

(And a case where the one that started that thread - ProgMonk - leaves me to defend the 7 points of the BCF -- of which I only agree with 6 out of that 7).
=============================================================

1. no word "abolished" in that post.
2. No statement about "every word infallible" just affirmation of the some of the points made.
(Stating the obvious here)


Followed by your accusation below -- without a point.

No, they don't - and neither does Scripture. You simply selected an anchor to post nonsense.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]And now apparently you have no way to support your accusation?

well... ok.

in Christ,

Bob
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[VictorC]

Followed by your accusation below -- without a point.

No, they don't - and neither does Scripture. You simply selected an anchor to post nonsense.

And now apparently you have no way to support your accusation?

well... ok.

Yep! Not one mention of qualifying Paul's use of 'abolished' as rendered in the King James. Not one.

 

[BobRyan]

Yep! Not one mention of qualifying Paul's use of 'abolished' as rendered in the King James. Not one.

Indeed - I never quoted that statement - the part that I quoted fits perfectly with the BCF link and my affirmation.

Which is why I find so illogical your complaint.

Case in point -- at this link #2 I show where I agree with the Baptist Confession of Faith and I also point to one area where I differ with it.

While those on this section of CF who set themselves at war against God's TEN commandments are opposed to all 7 points in that list.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[VictorC]

Indeed - I never quoted that statement - the part that I quoted fits perfectly with the BCF link and my affirmation.

Which is a confirmation that you're ignorant of the conversation you engaged in.
And of course you can't defend your admission of ignorance.

 

[BobRyan]

Which is a confirmation that you're ignorant...

Here is the post that you are so anxious to load up with vitriol and acrimony.

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

Paul is not saying the Law of God is abolished, he is saying those who follow the Law of God with the intention of being saved and vindicated by the mere obedience of the Law is under a vail (of ignorance.) It is a one thing to teach that following God's law for the purpose of self-salvation is wrong and against Christ's teachings. It is another thing to insinuate in any way that God's law is abolished (i.e. void) in any way without proper context (as Paul had, and which is ignored.) .

And to a large extent some of the pro-Sunday sources listed below will affirm some of the points you are making.


Which gets us to the Baptist Confession of Faith Thread -- #2
#67

(And a case where the one that started that thread - ProgMonk - leaves me to defend the 7 points of the BCF -- of which I only agree with 6 out of that 7).

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

As we can all see from the post above - there was no reason for you to pile on false accusation and vitriol.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[VictorC]

Here is the post that you are so anxious to load up with vitriol and acrimony...
As we can all see from the post above - there was no reason for you to pile on false accusation and vitriol.

Why is it that you're ignorant of the conversation?
If you found one post, why didn't you find the related conversation it depends on?
Of course, you probably did. Your intent was to feign ignorance of the conversation itself and use your ignorance to launch a personal attack. That's a logical fallacy that doesn't mask your incompetence.

 

[BobRyan]

As I said your vitriol is uncalled for -

 

[VictorC]

As I said your vitriol is uncalled for -

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Anything goes in the upside-down world of the SDA.

 

[BobRyan]

As I said your vitriol is uncalled for -

Isaiah 5:20

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Anything goes in the upside-down world of the SDA.

Indeed you are using an "any ol excuse will do " defense for your vitriol but as noted above in the simple case of the post I quoted - you had no reason to go down that dark road.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[VictorC]

Indeed you are using an "any ol excuse will do " defense for your vitriol but as noted above in the simple case of the post I quoted - you had no reason to go down that dark road.

You didn't know that calling God's eternal Gospel 'vitriol' and 'acrimony' would damage your credibility.

 

[VictorC]

11th April 2014, 08:42 PM

I pointed out before that BobRyan never had any intention to keep the Sabbath Holy, and his latest transgression demonstrates his intentions to be the same Paul recognized in his epistle to the Galatians: "For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh."

 

[mmksparbud]

I pointed out before that BobRyan never had any intention to keep the Sabbath Holy, and his latest transgression demonstrates his intentions to be the same Paul recognized in his epistle to the Galatians: "For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh."[/quote



Incredible!!---You still offer up a diatribe of vile accusations and pretend to know the heart of someone--which God alone can judge. Unless you are crediting yourself with the same holiness as God to discern the heart.
The commandments of God are His--not yours. He decides what to do with them, not man. Nowhere is circumcision a part of the 10 commandments--nowhere. You're insistance, and that of others, to lump all Levitical laws along with the 10 commandments is not biblical. It is clear that circumcision is not needed to be a part of the Christian community. It is not needed to be saved. The bible says circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing.--But even when the tenents of other churches are shown to you who all claim that keeping of the laws of God are still in effect--you refuse to accept it. The only difference is that they insist on only 9 of the commandments--we say all 10 and because that 4th one is the one that nobody wants, we point it out all the more. To refuse the light shown is the sin. Salvation is still through the grace of God, but to refuse the light He is showing you is to refuse Him, to refuse Him is to refuse Christianity. The strict obedience to anything in order to be saved, will not save you--but neither will the knowing disobedience of them.
Acts 15--This chapter that you so idolize--why do you read it and not understand and yet demand that it is prove there is no law??"---Doesn't say any such thing. The whole arguement was about circumcision. And then he said to not add any more to the gentiles then to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. We've been over this several times. And have even pointed out that though you claim that this is all that Gentile Christians have to do, you do not stay away from blood, and claimed it's impossible to remove blood from meat and you went on and on about how what Paul said to do,. you wont do!--
The point of all was to get all to believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah--and the disciples all read the scriptures to Jews and Gentiles in order to convince them of that fact. The scriptures that were read were the old testament--period--no other scriptures were available. No new testament yet. Just one letter from Paul. This has been stated and known over and over. The diciples all went to the synogogues on Sabbath and to the believers who were gathered for prayer on the sabbath by the rivers. At no time did the disciples ever say to stop going to the synagogues on sabbath or to stop gathering on Sabbath and to gather on the 1st day of the week instead. Not once. The old testament scriptures that were read were all riddled with the Levitical laws and the 10 commandments and it was obvious that Christ met all the rituals that had pointed to Him as the Messiah and that it would be useless to keep those. But that did not include the sabbath or the 10 commandments as those did not point to the slaying of the True Lamb of God. In all that the disciples said to everyone, not one time was the elimination of the Sabbath mentioned--just the sabbaths pertaining to the Levitical laws. Now, I really don't care what man decided to eliminate the sabbath and to honor the 1st day of the week--it was no disciple of Christ, and not Paul. Traditions are not what I base my believes on, and for many churches, tradition is just as valid as scripture. Well, just cause someone decided to to something one way and then others decided ok, that keeps us from being mistaken for Jews so we'll do that--matters not one diddle wink. Come judgement day, God says He will judge man
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

On these 2 HANG ALL-- the first 4 tell how to love God--the last 6 how love love man--If He had meant only 2 commandments then why did He say
1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

The 10 commandments are not the commandments of men, they are of God, written by His own hand.

And still---it is by grace alone that we are saved--we can do as God says when we love Him. God is love--when He is in us and us in Him, we become that love.

And again another was accused of not being a Christian and should not be coming on this forum--that is going against the forum rules--not to mention, not very christian.

If you don't get it by know--you aren't going to--The OP was answered over and over, you've not wanted that answer--that's your problem not ours--the question was answered. But it's not our answer that was wanted, it was an arguement over your believes as opposed to ours--all has been answered, like it or not--and I, for one, think I shall do as instructed by
Mat 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Sayanara---tootles----You may now resume your venomous rebukes--May the Love of God rest on you some day.

 

[BobRyan]

I pointed out before that BobRyan never had any intention to keep the Sabbath Holy,

You cannot rely on "Story telling alone" to make your case -- you need actual Bible fact.

Even the pro-Sunday sources listed below do not go for your extreme wild speculation.