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

[from scratch]

You quote Catholic sources - as if you never read them. Yet they make "the 7 point list" you are so at war against.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Your post proves they're not reliable witnesses for your case.

 

[from scratch]

You dodged the question. In the NT is the term "Sabbath" a reference to "week day 1" or not?? This thread on the BCF claims it was bent to point to Week day 1 - by NT sources. (Staying on topic for a change )

Recall - the 7 point list of post 2 (in this case - the 7th point).

in Christ,

Bob

I don't think I dodged anything. The word Sabbath isn't a commandment. The phrase Christian Sabbath is a clear reference to Sunday as a day to worship without the requirements of the 7th day Sabbath found in Ex 20:8-11.

 

[from scratch]

I have read Martin on Adventism from KotC, I disagree with his position in the book that one can be an Adventist and a Christian, because I believe as soon as you start to theologically, and properly downsize EGWs influence on Adventist theology you cease to be Adventist, unfortunately for Bob, he's smokescreening his reliance on EGW which is evident.

I pretty much agree with you except a Christian can hold and follow wrong theology.

 

[BobRyan]

You call it a "rant," but you know good and well that your entire deceitful...<obligatory rant deleted here>

Even in your own rant-style of posting you can't bring yourself to deny the point raised.

You yourself will admit that the term Sabbath used in the NT (and seen in Acts 13, 15, 17, 18...) refers to the seventh day of the week.

A point that does not fit with "The Change" language used in the BCF and WCF for the term "Sabbath" bent to apply to week-day-1 at the cross.

That is why you war against it -- in almost every post (and yet inexplicably) "as if" that helps ProgMonk's defense of the 4th commandment.

In the NT the Sabbath is a day and not a commandment.

You dodged the question. In the NT is the term "Sabbath" a reference to "week day 1" or not??

This thread on the BCF claims it was bent to point to Week day 1 - by NT sources. (Staying on topic for a change )

Recall - the 7 point list of post 2 (in this case - the 7th point).

I don't think I dodged anything. The word Sabbath isn't a commandment.

Hint - Section 19 of the BCF - and this thread is about the BCF -- see the OP.

The "Change language" that is used in the BCF is specifically targeting the 4th Commandments.

You are trying to spin this every way you can by keeping a certain distance from the facts of the discussion.

It is an odd sorta game - but it does little to contribute to the discussion.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You quote Catholic sources - as if you never read them. Yet they make "the 7 point list" you are so at war against.

Originally Posted by LarryP2

CATHOLIC CATECHISM
2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."104 Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath,105 it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The third commandment

​

You quote Catholic sources? They sure do love those SEVEN points from post #2

Wonderful! Me too!

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

2056 The word "Decalogue" means literally "ten words."11 God revealed these "ten words" to his people on the holy mountain. They were written "with the finger of God,"12 unlike the other commandments written by Moses.13 They are pre-eminently the words of God. They are handed on to us in the books of Exodus 14 and Deuteronomy.15 Beginning with the Old Testament, the sacred books refer to the "ten words,"16 but it is in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ that their full meaning will be revealed.

2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations.They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. the Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.

2063.... the words of the Decalogue remain likewise for us Christians. Far from being abolished, they have received amplification and development from the fact of the coming of the Lord in the flesh.26

2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christiansand that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 The Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."29


(Application in James 2)
2069 The Decalogue forms a coherent whole. Each "word" refers to each of the others and to all of them; they reciprocally condition one another. the two tables shed light on one another; they form an organic unity. To transgress one commandment is to infringe all the others.30 One cannot honor another person without blessing God his Creator. One cannot adore God without loving all men, his creatures. the Decalogue brings man's religious and social life into unity.




Dies Domini pt 13 -
"the Sabbath ...is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why unlike many other laws - it is not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart!! In setting this commandment within the context of the basic structure of ethics, Israel and then the church declare that they consider it not just a matter of community religious discipline but a defining and indelible expression of our relationship to God, announced and expounded by biblical revelations.






The two views state their positions as &#8220;The Catholic church fully endorses the Sabbath commandment as edited by the Catholic Church" vs "the Catholic church fully endorsed the Sabbath commandment as worded by God at Sinai"
.

The Faith Explained (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that
====================begin short summary
changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".


page 243

"Nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"



====================================== begin expanded quote
. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243.))

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

[FONT=&quot]====================end quote
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

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

Your post proves they're not reliable witnesses for your case.

Until you read the post and see all 7 points in the details.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I read the quotes to say the 1st day of the week is the Christian Sabbath.

You keep a distance from the BCF document trying to avoid the fact that it speaks of the TEN Commandments in section 19 -- ALL TEN - with the Sabbath starting in Gen 2:3 according to section 19.

And in Section 22 it is the Sabbath that is "changed" to point to "week day 1".

But in the NT there is NOT ONE case of the "Sabbath" meaning "week day 1" - as can be seen in Acts 13 Acts 17, Acts 18 and numerous other examples.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Keachian]

You keep a distance from the BCF document trying to avoid the fact that it speaks of the TEN Commandments in section 19 -- ALL TEN - with the Sabbath starting in Gen 2:3 according to section 19.

And in Section 22 it is the Sabbath that is "changed" to point to "week day 1".

But in the NT there is NOT ONE case of the "Sabbath" meaning "week day 1" - as can be seen in Acts 13 Acts 17, Acts 18 and numerous other examples.

in Christ,

Bob

Of course your propensity for creating Strawmen is truly astounding, the question is whether the Lord's Day is "week day 1" and whether it functions for the Christian as the Sabbath.

 

[LarryP2]

Of course your propensity for creating Strawmen is truly astounding, the question is whether the Lord's Day is "week day 1" and whether it functions for the Christian as the Sabbath.

You are almost there. You need to look at every single statement an Adventist makes, and just close your eyes and try to imagine the maximum number of lies that could be contained therein. Once you have attained what you think is an outrageous number of potential lies, double or triple that number for a realistic estimated grand total. Just take for instance the assertion that is presently under discussion: It is being claimed by an Adventist that the Catholic catechism supports the Seventh Day Adventist Sabbath Doctrine! Ask yourself the following questions to analyze any Adventist statement for potential lies:

1). Was the statement plagiarized? It it was "written" by Ellen White, the answer is "YES."

2), Since it was likely plagiarized, what did the person it was stolen from REALLY say about the subject? Many outraged writers were as incensed by the theft of their work as they were by being misquoted.

3). If it was both stolen (plagiarized) and misquoted, was other language inserted that was stolen or misquoted from other authors? Sometimes you can have up to 10 layers of literary theft and misquoting going on in one single paragraph.

4. Was a vision claimed as the source of the thick layers of plagiarized and misquoted statements? Doctors who examined Ellen White invariably diagnosed her as a "Hysteric" with severe brain damage. The "visions" were epileptic seizures. No visions ever happened.

5). If she had a "vision," was someone in the immediate vicinity who audibly suggested appropriate content for the vision? There are many instances where Ellen White's husband "suggested" the "appropriate" content of visions.

6). Were there independent corroborating witnesses who vouched the vision? (many ex-SDA leaders and preachers after leaving the Church recanted their endorsement and denounced the visions as a colossal fraud.)

7). If a vision was claimed as a source for the plagiarized and misquoted material, was it updated in subsequent revisions of the publication? (Many of the weirder and more bizarre Adventist ideas were "disappeared" this way after hey were discredited or proven to be false prophecies. The troublesome statements were simply removed in later editions.).

8). If plagiarized and misquoted material was falsely claimed originating in a vision, is it historically accurate anyway? (Probably 80 percent of the historical statements in the Great Controversy are outright lies)

9). If the material was Plagiarized, misquoted, the product of fraudulent visions, suggested audibly by James White, denounced by disgruntled ex-leaders, and historically inaccurate; it is almost assuredly is an old heretical idea that has been long denounced by Christianity. (SDA ideas are simply rehashed Ebionite/Judaizing heresies from the First and Second Century)

10). If the material was Plagiarized, misquoted, the product of fraudulent visions, suggested audibly by James White, denounced as fraudulent by disgruntled ex-leaders, "cleaned up in subsequent editions, historically inaccurate; denounced as heretical by Christianity; was the Church aware of all this and took affirmative action to conceal these things from the Church Membership? (The 1919 General Conference legendarily discussed Ellen White as an embarrassment, a colossal fraud and pathological liar and decided to conceal their knowledge of the reality from church membership and seminary students. They exiled her to Australia to shield Church membership from further crushing and embarrassing leaks. The transcripts from this conference were discovered in the back of a vault more than 50 years later).

This is just a partial analytical matrix. Quite frequently, Adventist Doctrines can achieve many more levels of willful deception and fraud. For instance, on internet discussion boards, deceitful Adventist posters will simply refrain from appearing to be members of the Seventh Day Adventist church, or outright deny being an Adventist and will frequently use non-Adventist sources for their information to conceal their Church membership.

 

[from scratch]

Hint - Section 19 of the BCF - and this thread is about the BCF -- see the OP.

The "Change language" that is used in the BCF is specifically targeting the 4th Commandments.

You are trying to spin this every way you can by keeping a certain distance from the facts of the discussion.

It is an odd sorta game - but it does little to contribute to the discussion.

in Christ,

Bob

The OP said Christian Sabbath. I addressed this with my comment showing your disagreement and why. As such I'm on topic. The Christian Sabbath has been shown to Sunday via your sources.

 

[from scratch]

You keep a distance from the BCF document trying to avoid the fact that it speaks of the TEN Commandments in section 19 -- ALL TEN - with the Sabbath starting in Gen 2:3 according to section 19.

And in Section 22 it is the Sabbath that is "changed" to point to "week day 1".

But in the NT there is NOT ONE case of the "Sabbath" meaning "week day 1" - as can be seen in Acts 13 Acts 17, Acts 18 and numerous other examples.

in Christ,

Bob

You can make your religious sources say anything you wish. I contend you don't understand what they're saying. You simple lift words from them leaving no context. This is bearing false witness.

 

[BobRyan]

The OP said Christian Sabbath..

The OP said this

So as to not derail my Confessional thread, this will be a thread to talk about the nature of the Christian Sabbath as it is derived from Scripture and espoused in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.

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. (2LBCF 22.7)​

Which is a quote right out of section 22 of the BCF

[FONT=&quot] post #152 shows the BCF language about the "CHANGE" in section 22 to the still binding 4th commandment[/FONT]. (Context is everything)

[FONT=&quot]And here #150 -- with an example of D.L. Moody affirming those very same 7 points

And of Course here - #67 is where the Baptist Confession of faith affirms those very same 7 points regarding all TEN of the TEN Commandments including the 4th.

It has been explained dozens of times.

in Christ,

Bob
[/FONT]

 

[Keachian]

You are almost there. You need to look at every single statement an Adventist makes, and just close your eyes and try to imagine the maximum number of lies that could be contained therein. Once you have attained what you think is an outrageous number of potential lies, double for triple that for a realistic grand total.

Sanctuary is pretty abominable, how can anyone stand before the judgment seat of Christ without Christ's intercession? Surely it is none, none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.

Yet Ellen in all her wisdom says that her flock will be able to stand without Christ, oh the holding up for contempt and trampling underfoot the sacrifice of the Son of God.

 

[LarryP2]

Sanctuary is pretty abominable, how can anyone stand before the judgment seat of Christ without Christ's intercession? Surely it is none, none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.

Yet Ellen in all her wisdom says that her flock will be able to stand without Christ, oh the holding up for contempt and trampling underfoot the sacrifice of the Son of God.

Now you are getting it but you need to go further:

1). The Sanctuary Doctrine was first and foremost a deceitful cover up of the false prophecy of Christ's return in 1844.
2). The 1844 false Prophecy was the result of deceitful and incompetent exegesis of Daniel 8:14 The "logic" of the 2300 days/1844 false prophecy has at least 15 unsustainable logical leaps and uses four verses completely out of context.
3). No Adventist will ever admit to this, but every single reputable theologian the Church has ever employed has denounced the Sanctuary Doctrine as unbiblical. Extensive efforts have been made over many years to conjure up a plausible argument for the doctrine from the Bible, but all such efforts have failed.
4). The doctrine has been denounced by many ex-Adventist theologians and ex-preachers as a satanically-inspired cult doctrine.
5). It has been denounced by many Adventist theologians as being completely the opposite of the Gospel.
6). The absurd interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and the false prophecy of 1844 are the very foundation of the Church, and has been declared as much by the founder. That an obscure Old Testament text taken wildly out of context is the foundation of a Church is simply mind-boggling. No Christian church even emphasizes Daniel 8:14, let alone uses it as the basis of Doctrine, let alone bases the entire foundation of a church on the text.
7). The "vision" that "discovered" this insane doctrine features descriptions of heaven that are plainly made up by an unsophisticated and brain damaged and very troubled young woman. The "visions" ceased completely when EGW achieved monopause.
8). The absurd Sanctuary/Investigative Judgment Doctrines are the foundation for the wildly blown out proportion Sabbath Doctrine, which in itself in unbiblical and cultish.

These are all steps to use to analyze the Sanctuary Doctrine only AFTER you have processed the Sanctuary doctrine through the Ten Step "Adventist lie detector" matrix that you partially quoted from in your last post.

 

[VictorC]

Sanctuary is pretty abominable, how can anyone stand before the judgment seat of Christ without Christ's intercession? Surely it is none, none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.

Yet Ellen in all her wisdom says that her flock will be able to stand without Christ, oh the holding up for contempt and trampling underfoot the sacrifice of the Son of God.

Of course you know the boundaries defined for the Investigative Judgment directly from the Great Controversy:

• Convened only after 1844, 'it is...in 1844...to perform the work of investigative judgment'
• Addresses only the 'professed people of God', and is not a general judgment
• Convened in absentia of the accused, 'they will not be present in person'
• The accused are judged according to the old covenant, 'The law of God is the standard'
• Adventist soteriology is dependent on this alleged judgment, 'their names will be blotted out of the book of life'

They don't expect to stand before God. They want to be judged by the old covenant that concludes everyone "guilty before God", with no exceptions. Their mythology isn't even survivable.

Some of the concepts associated with the investigative judgment are, indeed, biblical, but the Bible itself nowhere associates them with an investigative judgment, for which there is no sola Scriptura basis whatever.

The [sanctuary] doctrine is, to me, the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history. ... We personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position, and we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable. ... [It is] unimportant and almost naïve.

 

[BobRyan]

You can make your religious sources say anything you wish. I contend you don't understand what they're saying.

you argue for your right to invent factless accusations while ignoring the details in the documents that show your accusations and assertions to be false.

You have free will - if you want to resort to such methods you can.

I prefer actual facts.

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

your own pro-sunday groups denounce your idea of war against God's Ten Commandments including your opposition to the 4th commandment today and also starting in Eden in Gen 2:3.

- as [FONT=&quot]we saw - #149 the 7 point list that even the pro-Sunday Sources affirm. (The same seven point list that we also find here -- #2)

And here #150 -- with an example of D.L. Moody affirming those very same 7 points

And of Course here - #67 where the Baptist Confession of faith affirms those very same 7 points.

And now we have this post #152 where the BCF language about the "CHANGE" to the still binding 4th commandment is being claimed.

And of course even the Catholics seem to love all SEVEN of the primary Baptist Confession of Faith points on the TEN commandments. #167

Seven points - where ALL those at war with God's Ten Commandments - find themselves at war with all 7 points listed. (Which includes the Sabbath binding in Gen 2:3 in Eden - for the people of God as all TEN still are for the saints today).

Note to From-Scratch -- As it turns out - "details matter" when in a debate discussion.

And all of them admit that the moral law of God is at the heart of the Jer 31:31-33 "New Covenant"[/FONT]"

In the mean time even the pro-Sunday sources below denounce your war on God's Ten Commandments.

 

[BobRyan]

No, that's not what the argument is, the argument is The Lord's Day is the first day of the week .

In section 22 of the BCF the argument is that the STill binding FOURTH commandment is "Changed" to point to week-day 1 (presumably by NT authors if the doctrine is to survive sola scriptura testing).

As we already saw with [FONT=&quot]post #152

[/FONT]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 ("the seventh day is the Sabbath" Ex 20:11), and from the resurrection of Christ it (the 4th commandment - weekly Sabbath) was changed to the first day of the week

The Sabbath is kept holy to the Lord by those who, after the necessary preparation of their hearts and prior arranging of their common affairs, observe all day a holy rest from their own works

(Or did you also want to claim that the "Lord's Day was CHANGED" to week-day-1 ?? not just the 4th Commandment)

I have to admit - I am more than a little interested in how ProgMonk might like to turn this.


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

Then came the much-expected off-topic run--away post.

Yet Ellen in all her wisdom says that her flock will be able to stand ...

Maybe you simply had no where else to run.

Still I think we both know that C.H. Spurgeon would have stood in defense of his own document.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[LarryP2]

Of course you know the boundaries defined for the Investigative Judgment directly from the Great Controversy:

• Convened only after 1844, 'it is...in 1844...to perform the work of investigative judgment'
• Addresses only the 'professed people of God', and is not a general judgment
• Convened in absentia of the accused, 'they will not be present in person'
• The accused are judged according to the old covenant, 'The law of God is the standard'
• Adventist soteriology is dependent on this alleged judgment, 'their names will be blotted out of the book of life'

They don't expect to stand before God. They want to be judged by the old covenant that concludes everyone "guilty before God", with no exceptions. Their mythology isn't even survivable.

For Adventists, innovative doctrinal products, and defenses for those products, are created with the same aplomb and creativity as what is typically only seen in the internet driven technology sector. More accurately, it is just astonishingly toxic and vile bilge that has a close counterpart in the internet porn industry. Just keep pumping the same depressing, anti-Christian and heretical crud out, only with different camera angles, and maybe another cleverly placed towel here and there.

Now we are being told the Catholic Catechism is the source for the heretical Ebionite Sabbath Porn Product.

My oh my. At one time in its history, the modern Ebionites pumped out stomach-churning hate literature denouncing Catholicism as the harlot of Babylon because they claimed the Pope initiated Sunday Worship. Their primary anti-Catholic hate pamphlet The Great Controversy has been classified as Hate literature in violation of Canadian Law.

Now they are claiming that the Catholic Catechism is the SOURCE of their Ebionite Sabbath Porn Product!

 

[BobRyan]

For Adventists..... More accurately, it is just astonishingly toxic and vile... < obligatory unchristian rant deleted here to spare the readers>

Just when we thought the irrefutable evidence against the idea of "Bending" and "changing" the Commandments of God could not be improved ... we have this update #152.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Gen 2:3
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

(More along these lines from Alex at this link #1 )

BCF - Sabbath in Eden -

BCF section 22 - points 7 and 8

• 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.
• The Sabbath is kept holy to the Lord by those who, after the necessary preparation of their hearts and prior arranging of their common affairs, observe all day a holy rest from their own works[FONT=&quot], [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Section 19[/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.

Even the 1689 version points to Gen 2:3 as the start of the Sabbath Commandment.



1689 Section 19 (A few examples)

THE LAW OF GOD


19.1 God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart,1 and a specific precept not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.2 By this he bound him and all his descendants to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience. God promised life on fulfilling it, and threatened death on breaching it, and he endued him with power and ability to keep it.3
(1) Gen 1:27; Ecc 7:29; Rom 2:12a,14-15
(2) Gen 2:16-17
(3) Gen 2:16-17; Rom 10:5; Gal 3:10,12

19.2 The same law that was first written in the human heart continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall.1 It was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in TEN commandments (written in two tables) the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six our duty to our fellow beings.3

(1) For the Fourth Commandment: Gen 2:3; Exo 16; Gen 7:4; 8:10,12. For the Fifth Commandment: Gen 37:10. For the Sixth Commandment: Gen 4:3-15. For the Seventh Commandment: Gen 12:17. For the Eighth Commandment: Gen 31:30; 44:8. For the Ninth Commandment: Gen 27:12. For the Tenth Commandment: Gen 6:2; 13:10-11
(2) Rom 2:12a,14-15
(3) Exo 32:15-16; 34:4,28; Deu 10:4

 

[VictorC]

BCF - Sabbath in Eden -

You've seen the testimony of the Law itself, and have shown you rely on uninspired extra-Biblical sources to form an argument that is essentially a straw man. That's waging war on God's Law.