- Apr 2, 2019
- 257
- 79
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I'll wait.I'll fetch it for you from the archives here at CF. It may take a couple days.
Upvote
0
I'll wait.I'll fetch it for you from the archives here at CF. It may take a couple days.
God says otherwise in Exo. 20:8-11 KJB, He was pretty specific.But there's nothing in Genesis about the sabbath.
Who is "us"? Be specific.Would you also mind telling us ...
Please tell me about grace. Is it something you run to when you violate the law? Isn't that really voiding the law? That sounds like the same thing those that talk about cheap grace.Obviously you do not understand "grace", neither "law" in their function, nor how they are working together.
Grace is a teacher:
Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
IOW you're looking for people who agree with the video.I smile, for I recognize the words of Jesus who said,
Jhn. 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
1 Sam. 16:7 "... for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart."
Pro. 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
You ought to give at least the first video a chance. You will be pleasantly surpised I think, to have misjudged the content, but that is OK, for God is merciful to us in our often rather rash conclusions.
The rest of God in Gen 2 isn't the rest of the sabbath. You even said it is about cessation. The word means - the fact or process of ending or being brought to an end. This isn't periodic, it's permanent. The 7th day sabbath is a periodic rest. The sabbath celebrates the fact of permanent rest (cessation). It doesn't provide it. Jesus is the only means of this kind of rest. Those who try to keep the law are never at rest and live in fear of losing salvation.Truly, but this was never in question in anything stated, nor implied.
Rest is not about tiredness. It is about cessation. God was through speaking the world, and all that is in it, into existence. He said, 'It is finished' and said no more about creating, just as was like done at Calvary.
Is the Christian obligated to keep the 7th day sabbath? If so how can that not be "has to?"I have. Thank you for the reminder.
"Has to" is not in view. Did do so, is. God rested, even if most misunderstand what that means. The matter is not about God being tired, which is really a 'tired' question. It distracts from the real points being raised here, and therefore, if we could move from this un-related question?
I agree that the Scripture doesn't contradict itself. The covenants (old and new) oppose each other. The old is a by-lateral covenant, while the new is unilateral. That makes the old conditional based on performance of both parties, while the new has nothing to do with our performance. That's why the new covenant is better. Heb 8:6Isa. 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
The texts of scripture do not contradict themselves (Jhn. 10:35), and thus this text is in harmony with God's character in Genesis 2.
This comment doesn't support the idea of the sabbath being created at creation.Please re-read Genesis 1. God is 'speaking'. What did God say about creating in the 7th Day? Nothing, for God 'rested', that is ceased from creation/speaking.
Well we could discuss the above rabbit trail point by point. It has nothing to do with the sabbath.No need to. It is a false path to travel, a road of vain imaginings. In fact, it is something a Muslim would use as an argument.
Truly, but more than this, it is part of His perfect character, for God does nothing that He is not in character, for in considering the Sabbath of the LORD, it demonstrates his Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence, for instance:
1. God is relational, God to man, and man to man, an at-one-ing God.
2. God is purposeful, God gives purpose, of work and rest.
3. God is Creator and Redeemer, and concerns Himself in love to that which is created, thus He is Life
4. God is an Author and Finisher, Alpha and Omega, Beginning and the ending, First and the last
5. God is Holy, and the Sanctifier and the one who Blesses
6. God is above nature, greater than creation
7. God is the example for all creation, in that He worked and in that He rested
8. God is selfless, being the giver, for it was given as a gift
9. God is logical, mathematical, orderly, consistent, star systems, planets, orbits, days, years, cycles, etc
10. God is no respecter of persons
11. God is worthy to be worshipped, loved, etc
12. God is the owner and sustainer
13. God is all about family, cohesive love
14. God is intelligent and wise, thus "remember" [a word, re-member, to bring back together as one]
15. God is fore-thinking
I agree with you, and thus you have pre-maturely advanced upon me a position which is not presently mine own. It's OK, I understand that in this age, men read fast, but a piece of advice? Take some time to more slowly go over that which is shared with you from others.
Incorrect.Sabbath is in Genesis 2, as Exo. 20:8-11 say so, as well as Mar. 2:27.
This is a call to accept the videos without question. It isn't about the sabbath. Yes the videos are about the sabbath. Your comment isn't.This is a premature conclusion, for one who did not take the time to consider the video materials. It's OK, though, for you have another chance.
I understand you're having a conversation with the poster you replied to, but how does this relate to the sabbath. We seem to veer way to easily from the topic. I do see a need to be polite and conversational. I'm only trying to show what is going on because I've been accused of mischacterization.Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed, Rom. 6:23; Gen. 2:17.
Amen, for Jesus is the Amen of His Father.
Interesting thought. Thanks for that.
Truly, Amen and Amen.
It surely does, and this life (how to live) is found in the example of Jesus Himself as John the Baptist stated, John 1:29,36.
Many people think that because a Scripture passages is cited that one is being taught truth. This is very unfortunate. Your church does teach not keeping the 7th day sabbath is the mark of the beast. The forum has a post showing a highway billboard sign testifying to this fact. Yes I called the number on the sign and got the SDA material. Indeed the SDA church promotes what Tillman wrote. Any criticism or rejection of that fact is errant. That is all I will address from this post.Ok, well done.
The point raised by the author of the video material, was not that raising such information proved his point, only that it demonstrates that the teaching existed before himself by a few hundred years.
The author of the videos, does not justify any of his teachings, that I saw, by such external evidences, but by scriptural ones. Again, the point raised by the author was not to prove his doctrine from the external source, only to demonstrate that the teaching existed before himself.
Day 2, still waiting for the quotation.I'll wait.
It's like you never even read the context of the conversation that was had with the person who gave the that reply, and the following responses. The person who gave the original reply misunderstood the content of the video material, by the title of the video material. They did not reject the video material by the content, but by the title, having misunderstood, thinking it went against their position, when in fact, it agreed with their position. Thus my response to them to give the first video another chance, not based upon the title, but by the content in the video.IOW you're looking for people who agree with the video.
Then you are without excuse in the time of the judgment of the living to come (Rev. 3:10, 13:12, 17:12), for God will look to you for all the precious material in your house and possession that was given you freely from Heaven, from His own hands.Yes I called the number on the sign and got the SDA material.
A straight denial of Titus 2:11-12, among other texts.Grace isn't a teacher.
I am actually looking for those who are brave enough to consider the video material and make their decision based upon the material presented, but I also give leeway to those who make excuses, and who do not desire to watch the material, but would rather just dialogue directly.IOW you're looking for people who agree with the video.
Really?, which bible do you use, and then we (together) can find out if what you have is scripture, for scripture cannot be broken (Jhn. 10:35 KJB), but much these days that is called 'scripture' is easily shown to be broken.I agree that the Scripture doesn't contradict itself.
I think you meant 'bi-lateral'.The covenants (old and new) oppose each other. The old is a by-lateral covenant, while the new is unilateral. That makes the old conditional based on performance of both parties, while the new has nothing to do with our performance. That's why the new covenant is better. Heb 8:6
The evidence is there for all, and I do not ever see an apology for it forthcoming from the one who did do so. It is to be expected of such.because I've been accused of mischacterization.
Be patient. I was occupied with your post yesterday. My time is limited.Day 2, still waiting for the quotation.
The subject of the thread is the sabbath, correct? The sabbath requirement is in a covenant that has been shelved and replaced by a totally different covenant.I think you meant 'bi-lateral'.
The subject of the thread is not 'covenants' (old or new) per se, as it is about the 7th day the sabbath of the LORD.
Sorry but I'm not trying to change the topic of the thread.However, I am not opposed to speaking about this injection (which persons always have to change the subject, as listed in the list, and so hop around) of topic
You can't teach keeping the sabbath as a requirement from the NT (new covenant). There's no such requirement found in the NT. You teach keeping the famous 10 which is the previous covenant called the old covenant. Deut 4:13, 5:3, Jer 31:31-33, LK 16:16, 22:20, Jn 1:17, 15:10, Rom 7:6, Gal 3-5 etc. I really could get into the last statement, but know better by your posts.I am under the new Covenant, and not the old Covenant. I teach the new Covenant and not the old Covenant. I teach and believe salvation is by grace through faith, and that not of myself. I do not teach nor believe in salvation by any law whatsoever. Law was never given to save. Law was given for life (how to live). Transgression of Law is death. Therefore, God's grace and mercy is needful, the Saviour is needful to save from death, from transgression of Law, from sin. The Creator is needful to re-create that which was marred. God is bringing those who believe to loving obedience as it was in the beginning.
This statement is in direct opposition to the words of Moses - Deut 4:13. The passages you reference have nothing to do with covenant verification. Yes I'm familiar with the SDA view point.The old Covenant is not the Ten Commandments, see Romans 3:31; Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 8:10, etc.
Sorry but you forgot what Moses said in Deut 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.You seem to think that it (TC) is (oC) for some faulty reason.
The oC is found in Exo. 19 & 24.
The nC is found mentioned in Jer. 31; Eze. 26, 27; Heb. 8, 10; 2 Cor. 3, etc.
Here's what Heb 8 has to say -The Ten Commandments are found in both, even of which others (like yourself) will admit, except others leave out the 4th after a certain manner, though not completely, and say 9 are re-given ...
Very poor argument.The nC existed (eternally) before the oC.
The oC was ratified (by blood) before the nC (was ratified by the blood of Jesus), which is why Paul (Heb.) called it (oC) 'first' and the nC 'second'.
It can't be an administrative change of the first covenant by your admission because you say new covenant. That would be a different covenant.That which changed was 'administration', 'ministration' in 2 Cor. 3, from 'death' (sin, wages of, unrighteousness) to 'righteousness' (not sinning); not the Law of God (TC) itself.
Not according to Jeremiah or Hebrews.The material was changed from 'stone' to 'fleshy heart' (which 2 Cor. 3 is citing Eze.).
I'm sorry but you don't read Jeremiah or Hebrews close enough or simply don't believe what either says.The glory of face was changed from 'Moses' to 'Jesus', not the glory of the Law of God which 'remained', now more glorious by Jesus' life in example, demonstration.
The view of expression was changed from looking at God's Law (TC) from a mere external 'letter', to that of the depth of its 'spiritual' nature, in that of the 'spirit', which it had always been. The change here is not of the Law of God itself, which was always spiritual, in its entirety, being "Ten", but in the way man perceived it, now seeing it through Jesus' life, not merely through textbook.
Sorry but I read the whole Bible. I quoted Deut 4:13 for you.The view of single-sidedness changed from merely 'judgment' to also include 'mercy', which was always in the Law of God (Exo. 20:2,6), but men could only see the condemnation, looking at God's law without the strength of the Saviour.
There is not a single verse in all of scripture which teaches that the TC are the oC, though some do desparately try to wrest the scriptures to teach it as Dale (and others so foolishly) does.
Yes that is true. You're trying to by-pass my comment about the new covenant being a unilateral covenant. The new covenant is a gift. Do you need gift explained?The nC still requires two. God and man. Man has a part, for God forces no one.
You need to explain how this was done.The evidence is there for all, and I do not ever see an apology for it forthcoming from the one who did do so. It is to be expected of such.
I thought you were supposed to be looking for a quote to prove something? You waste enough time with your posts. Hop to it.You need to explain how this was done.
I did not forget anything. I simply know how you (and Dale, etal.) misread the text, for when it says "his (God's) covenant" you instead read 'old covenant', when it doesn't ever say that. God's covenant is the Ten Commandments. The old Covenant is their agreement in Exo. 19.Deut 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant