Why do SDA preach

[Ceallaigh]

hey you noticed that did you.very good job. it is quite annoying at it's most tolerable moments. I am right you are wrong. doesn't get you very far on these forums. Telling everyone they are heretics and an apostate, not a way to win friends and influence people. We have a number of them on this thread alone.

Yeah that's going way beyond just disagreeing with someone or denominational theology in general. I don't really agree with some aspects of Calvinism for example, but I also am willing to take into consideration I might be wrong about that. And hopefully me and a Calvinist I'm disagreeing with, can both agree that believing in or not believing in Calvinism doesn't save or condemn you.

 

[tall73]

@SabbathBlessings
@Major1

True the New Moon is also observed in the New Earth as Isaiah 66:23 states and in the New Earth there will be TWO creation events - one in Genesis 1 and the other in Rev 21.

This is why the argument from that text is not that convincing. And that is what Major1 was letting folks know in his own wording by saying it doesn't relate to now, but to eternity.

I agree we may well come before the Lord to worship on Sabbath and the New Moon on the new earth. And I have no issue with that at all as the Jewish Christian believers went on keeping the law. We see reference to Paul wanting to be back in Jerusalem by Pentecost, etc. These laws were not destroyed, but fulfilled in Christ.

Now the issue is that you do not treat the New Moon and Sabbath the same currently. So the notion of something being done in the hereafter meaning that it should be done now does not seem to hold true.

That does not in any way rule out other arguments from the text in favor of Sabbath observance. And the new moon is certainly different, and less prominent than the Sabbath in any case, which we agree upon. Especially since there is no clear command to observe the new moon. But you will have to make your argument on those other texts if you wish to be convincing. Because the "do it in the new earth = do it now" argument is clearly not accurate based on your handling of the two elements listed. You don't in fact do now what you now seem to acknowledge may be done in the new earth.

The emphasis placed on this text for Sabbatarian arguments is misplaced, in my view, because there is glaring inconsistency in how Adventist handle the elements. On the other hand, for Messianics I suppose it would be consistent.

And as you note below, the whole scenario is seen as an unfulfilled possibility by Adventists themselves.

The reason this text is used is because on its face it seems plain. We will observe the Sabbath in the new earth. But when you look at the details it is not plain.

And when, as happens too frequently, Adventists omit the first part of the verse referencing the new moon, it comes across as deceptive argument when people become aware of the larger context. Such polemical usage without looking at the context is counterproductive with those who go and read the full text.

At the time of Isaiah - Israel is not yet doomed to reject the Messiah and so they have two futures but at the time of the New Earth-no matter which future they choose -- all sinners will have been wiped out and the 2nd resurrection will have already taken place.

- no matter which future they choose -- all sinners will have been wiped out and the 2nd resurrection will have already taken place.

I noted the timing problem in an earlier post. The new heavens and new earth follow the 1k years in Revelation.



Editing to add this too as this response addresses it.

Why do you think anyone has any problems with people gathering together to worship God in the new earth on the new moons and every Sabbath? I always wondered why people bring this up to try and counter the scripture saying verbatim that in the new earth Gods' people will be still keeping the Sabbath.

 

[Albion]

the way he poses the question is the problem. He still thinks it is an either/or Choice. it is not They did both. this is well attested to in the scripture.

I took the comment to mean that Sunday as the principle day of worship was based, so he thought, upon the reference to "the Lord's Day" being found in Scripture.

 

[tall73]

Hello tall73 nice to see you again. Just wondering why about your post here. Perhaps I do not understand it.

Correct. You did not understand it. Go read Bob's response to it, and you may understand.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I took the comment to mean that Sunday as the principle day of worship was based, so he thought, upon the reference to "the Lord's Day" being found in Scripture.

it is not based on that reference, I think even the way you pose the question is incorreect, was not the principal day of worship until after Constantine & Sylvester I. it was a and addition to the sabbath worship, it was an additional festival.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

@SabbathBlessings
@Major1



This is why the argument from that text is not that convincing. And that is what Major1 was letting folks know in his own wording by saying it doesn't relate to now, but to eternity.

I agree we may well come before the Lord to worship on Sabbath and the New Moon on the new earth. And I have no issue with that at all as the Jewish Christian believers went on keeping the law. We see reference to Paul wanting to be back in Jerusalem by Pentecost, etc. These laws were not destroyed, but fulfilled in Christ.

Now the issue is that you do not treat the New Moon and Sabbath the same currently. So the notion of something being done in the hereafter meaning that it should be done now does not seem to hold true.

That does not in any way rule out other arguments from the text in favor of Sabbath observance. And the new moon is certainly different, and less prominent than the Sabbath in any case, which we agree upon. Especially since there is no clear command to observe the new moon. But you will have to make your argument on those other texts if you wish to be convincing. Because the "do it in the new earth = do it now" argument is clearly not accurate based on your handling of the two elements listed. You don't in fact do now what you now seem to acknowledge may be done in the new earth.

The emphasis placed on this text for Sabbatarian arguments is misplaced, in my view, because there is glaring inconsistency in how Adventist handle the elements. On the other hand, for Messianics I suppose it would be consistent.

And as you note below, the whole scenario is seen as an unfulfilled possibility by Adventists themselves.

The reason this text is used it because on its face it seems plain. We will observe the Sabbath in the new earth. But when you look at the details it is not plain.

And when, as happens too frequently, Adventists omit the first part of the verse referencing the new moon, it comes across as deceptive argument when people become aware of the larger context. Such polemical usage without looking at the context is counterproductive with those who go and read the full text.





I noted the timing problem in an earlier post. The new heavens and new earth follow the 1k years in Revelation.

Tall i wonder if the reference to the new moon and the sabbath is just a a way of saying a monthly and weekly basis? in other words regularly people will come before me. Now it does beg the question why he refers to the Sabbath and not say the 4 day of the week. He specifically says Sabbath.

 

[Albion]

it is not based on that reference, I think even the way you pose the question is incorreect, was not the principal day of worship until after Constantine & Sylvester I.

That's not true. All the books of the Bible were written before Constantine.

 

[BobRyan]

For all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23 is a very strong "Sabbath not deleted" for all eternity after the cross argument.

It is made even stronger when we include "from New Moon to New Moon AND FROM Sabbath To Sabbath" - because it means there are TWO cycles there not one - which completely negates the straw man argument that "from Sabbath to Sabbath means DAILY" (which of course it never does in the Bible). Because you can't have two cycles there if you really mean "Daily".

And of course people on all sides of the issue admit that Gen 1-2 is one Creation event and Rev 21:1-2 is another one. So then TWO memorials for TWO creation events is a very reasonable conclusion.

This is why the argument from that text is not that convincing.

It points to a future (all eternity after the cross in the new Earth) where there is no wicked people on Earth and "All MANKIND" is in perfect harmony all keeping the Sabbath". Sounds like a perfect future conclusion for the Sabbath POV. It totally does not fit a "Deleted at the cross -- future in the New Earth".

It would be like saying "my best argument for animal sacrifice deleted in Heb 10:4-12 is that for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth we will have animal sacrifice".

And that is what Major1 was letting folks know in his own wording by saying it doesn't relate to now, but to eternity.

Again that is a failed argument to suppose that God would write to Isaiah "when you reach home today then from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind today come before Me to worship" - How was Isaiah supposed to get that to happen and would it not be a "failed prediction" on God's part?

What we do have is Is 56:6-8 where gentiles are specifically singles out for Sabbath keeping.

I agree we may well come before the Lord to worship on Sabbath and the New Moon on the new earth.

But in a "Sabbath deleted at the cross" model that is a hard sell.

It wold be like me saying "I agree in the New Earth we will be killing animals as sacrifices to God"

 

[Adventist Heretic]

That's not true. All the books of the Bible were written before Constantine.

you misunderstood what i said, i never mention the bible being written at all.

 

[tall73]

Tall i wonder if the reference to the new moon and the sabbath is just a a way of saying a monthly and weekly basis? in other words regularly people will come before me. Now it does beg the question why he refers to the Sabbath and not say the 4 day of the week. He specifically says Sabbath.

Yes, I think He does specifically say the Sabbath, and the New Moon, for a reason.

As noted, the bigger question is why Levites, why some for priests when we all are in the new covenant, why grain offerings, when those are fulfilled, why, in the case of the other new earth text in Isaiah, sinners being present, people still dying (albeit after long life, etc.).

I agree that it could mean week to week and month to month, but then you have to apply that to both elements.

And there is no compelling reason to do so because in Isaiah's time they knew that the Sabbath and new moon were associated times of assembly. In fact, note this text which shows not only the association, but that God was angry with their iniquity, and rejected their assemblies previously. But in this restored time of covenant blessings and obedience we see a reversal:

Isa_1:13 Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations— I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.

Just as before Isaiah described God's judgment on the nations and referred to it as shaking the heavens and the earth, and then pictures a new heaven and earth where the nations are no longer judged but are faithful.

So as we noted earlier, and Bob alluded to, this could be a possible future of covenant blessings that went unrealized due to disobedience. Or as you mentioned, it could be the 1k years (though that has some chronology issues).

It is a fascinating text to study. But it is not a particularly great text for trying to convince people of Adventist theology because Adventists want to treat the two elements, new moon, and Sabbath, two different ways in approaching the text.

You either have to treat both as time periods, losing the specific reference, or as specific, spelled out times of worship which were known.

The latter makes more sense given the context of Isaiah.

 

[BobRyan]

Tall i wonder if the reference to the new moon and the sabbath is just a a way of saying a monthly and weekly basis?

Isaiah and his readers had a very specific meaning for both the weekly Sabbath and the New Moon - it would be hard to insert the idea that they were "thinking of something else" when reading that text. The intended meaning using those words - seems obvious when we look at who is writing and who his readers were.

 

[Albion]

you misunderstood what i said, i never mention the bible being written at all.

I don't agree. You said that Sunday was not the principle day of worship until Constantine, but the practice is older than that; and so far as we today are concerned about which view is correct, the Scriptures which indicate that Sunday was chosen as the principle day are older than Constantine as well.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't agree. You said that Sunday was not the principle day of worship until Constantine, but the practice is older than that; and so far as we today are concerned about which view is correct, the Scriptures which indicate that Sunday was chosen as the principle day are older than Constantine as well.

On the Sabbath-and-the-LAW forum we do see some folks trying to find Bible texts that say that the NT church switched from a weekly Sabbath observance to a weekly-first-day observance in terms of worship services -- where week-day-1 becomes the new holy day of rest and corporate worship.

But they struggle in the following search.
1. .Find a text that says "the Lord's day is week day 1"
2. Find a text that says "we gather for worship every week-day-1 now called the Lord's Day"
3. Find a text that says "we worship every week-day-1 instead of Sabbath"
4. Find a single text that says "Hey thanks for coming to this Sabbath service. Now meet with us tomorrow for our weekly week-day-1 worship service those of you who just accepted my gospel message" - each time we see Gospel preaching on Sabbath in the Synagogues in Acts 13, Acts 17:1-5, Acts 18:4-8 etc

Instead of that in Acts 13 - the gentiles at the Sabbath service who are gladly accepting the Gospel message ask for more Gospel preaching "NEXT Sabbath" where we then see that almost the entire town of gentiles shows up.

I've read them, and there isn't any struggling at all. .

Then they would be well served to post one.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I don't agree. You said that Sunday was not the principle day of worship until Constantine, but the practice is older than that; and so far as we today are concerned about which view is correct, the Scriptures which indicate that Sunday was chosen as the principle day are older than Constantine as well.

that is inaccurate. you prove it was the principal day of worship. I will agree it was established by the apostles but not as a day of worship and not as a replacement for the sabbath and not as a day of rest. It was like a prayer meeting.

 

[tall73]

Sounds like SDA see it the same way as the rest of Christianity, but only up to a certain point.

You tell me. At what point do shadow laws become laws Christians have to keep according to SDA? Mostly all I know of is their piecemeal keeping of the sabbath and not eating pork and shellfish.

This is the key issue. That is why Sabbath discussions must at some point get into larger issues of the meaning of the covenant, the meaning of the ten commandments on stone, how we know which laws are fulfilled, binding, etc.

Generally, Adventists acknowledge the fulfillment of various rites such as sacrifices, yearly appointed times, etc. And they tend to break things down into ceremonial and moral commands.

However, they see the ten commandments as moral law throughout, and set apart, and do not see the Seventh-day Sabbath as ceremonial, as they see other appointed times.

 

[Albion]

On the Sabbath-and-the-LAW forum we do see some folks trying to find texts that say that the NT church switched from a weekly Sabbath observance to a weekly-first-day observance in terms of worship services -- where week-day-1 becomes the new holy day of rest.

But they struggle in the following search.

I've read them, and there isn't any struggling at all. But we can see that various of the Sabbatarians themselves know that these verses are definitive when they almost turn themselves inside out in order to avoid commenting on them, or even to admitting that the New Testament is part of the Bible (and therefore authoritative).

 

[Ceallaigh]

Tall i wonder if the reference to the new moon and the sabbath is just a a way of saying a monthly and weekly basis? in other words regularly people will come before me. Now it does beg the question why he refers to the Sabbath and not say the 4 day of the week. He specifically says Sabbath.

That's the way I interpret it. Like from week to week and month to month. I wonder if for them each month began with a new moon.

 

[Albion]

I will agree it was established by the apostles but not as a day of worship and not as a replacement for the sabbath and not as a day of rest. It was like a prayer meeting.

The Sabbath hasn't been replaced or moved. That has been explained many times. And "day of rest" is not an issue, either.

As for the claim that Sunday WAS indeed a day of worship but only in the sense of holding a "prayer meeting" (whatever that means), go ahead and prove it to us.

 

[BobRyan]

I've read them, and there isn't any struggling at all. But we can see that various of the Sabbatarians themselves know that these verses are definitive

Well quoting one would be a good place to start then.

 

[BobRyan]

As for the claim that Sunday WAS indeed a day of worship but only in the sense of holding a "prayer meeting" (whatever that means), go ahead and prove it to us.

In Acts 2 - they meet "every day" to break bread - but does not prove that no NT saints ever worked and they made every day a holy day of Sabbath rest and worship.

So "a meeting" done once as someone is giving a farewell sermon is very different from "we meet every week day 1 for corporate worship - and by the way, stop calling it week-day-1, it is the Lord's Day a holy day of rest and worship"