Why do SDA preach

[Major1]

The TEN having "honor your father and mother as the first commandment with a promise" are still binding according to Paul in Eph 6:2 and known to Jeremiah and his readers as included in the Law of God "written on heart and mind" under the NEW Covenant Jer 31:31-34 so now wonder Christ and Paul both quote from them.



No wonder since "The Sabbath was made for mankind" according to Christ.
So then gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping in Is 56:6 and Gentiles hearing Sabbath preaching "Sabbath after Sabbath" in Acts 13, Acts 17, Acts 18 - etc.




1. No "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 command in the NT
2. "Sabbath was made FOR Mankind" Mark 2:27 in the NT
3. Sabbath commandment quoted from several times in the NT
4. Sabbath services -- in fact "Every Sabbath" gospel preaching Acts 18:4
5. "there REMAINS therefore a SABBATH rest for the people of God" Heb4 -- remains as it was in the days of David



And 100's of other Sabbath keeping groups as well.. so then "noted".




1. "Remember the Sabbath day to KEEP It holy.. the 7th day is the Sabbath of the LORD" Ex 20:8-10
2. "There REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" Heb 4 - as it was in the days of David.
3. "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND Come before Me to worship" for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth
4. Gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping (for not profaning the Sabbath) Is 56:6




No example of "Do not take God's name in vain" -- prior to the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai




Lev 23:3 The Sabbath is a day of "holy convocation" of "sacred assembly"

At every point it is shown that your statements are in exact conflict with the text itself and in many of these cases it is also in conflict even with the majority of Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations - on both sides of the Sabbath debate.

So the "you SDA... you SDA" references don't fly all that well either - in most of those examples you give.

Good bye Bob. When my patience returns in a few months, I will engage you on this subject again....maybe.

 

[Major1]

I did not call you a Fraud. I said you would be exposed as a fraud if you did not answer the question directly., 2 times you avoided the question. you are the one coming in with theological guns blazing attacking others, telling them they are wrong and you are the only source of valid biblical interpretation. You give a lot of heat for no reason, no one is attacking you they are disagreeing with. so cool your jets, and play by the rules and just answer the questiions. You make a lot assumptions that are not valid.

Yes you did.

Post #697.........
"If you don't it will expose you for the fraud you are. "

I do not know where you live but in Dixie, you either do not remember what you said or you do not know what it means.

 

[tall73]

can you tell me how any of the commandment have been relaxed.

That is a complex answer, but Jesus did not categorize the law in to moral, civil, ceremonial, etc. in that text. There are many civil, ceremonial laws, etc. that we don't do. I think there is an argument to be made throughout the NT imperatives and descriptions that Gentiles keep the moral law for instance. But they are not required to be circumcised and keep the whole law in Acts 15, and reiterated in Acts 21.

On the other hand, the Jewish believers went on keeping all of it. As we saw in Acts 21 that meant they had no issue with vows, including sacrifices. We see Paul not only keeping the Sabbath, but also wanting to be in Jerusalem for Pentecost, in accordance with the law.

So when we see till heaven and earth pass away, and the new covenant being the law written on the heart, was the point that Jewish believers would continue doing all of it, though by the power of the Spirit, not the outward code, until the end of the earth? And some that are forever statutes may have some meaning even beyond the current heavens and earth, though of course, the sacrifices have been completed? And the new moon being in the new earth suggests God still has plans for a number of things we think of as just shadows, or fulfilled.

The gentiles are clearly grafted in, and granted the promises of the covenant, yet are not required to keep all of it.

It is a complicated subject. Some of this is thinking out loud since you are actually willing to discuss such things, and critique them, instead of just insisting on the usual Sabbath talking points without looking at the surrounding issues.

You mentioned you don't hold to replacement theology. If so, and if you see a role for Israel, then this is a question that may relate.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Now I am going to say to you what I actually DID say again. The word SABBATH is not found in the Bible until Exodus 16. I realize that as a SDA advocate you want to believe that it is in Genesis 2....but it is NOT! it is there, but you don't use the proper method, you use NTC I use CT. the purpose of Genesis is to show the Origins of the Coveant,

Why don't YOU post the Scripture where Abraham is told to obey the SABBATH Law?????, I did and you ignored it,

i quoted you genesis 26 you ignored it. why don't you tell me what laws, statutes, commands and Judgement he kept and when did God make them?

Genesis 2:2-3........
"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.?

Where is the word SABBATH???? the word does not need to be there, you have the calander (mohadim), rest and 7th day, all are associated with the creation event. When referenced in exodus 20 it points to this event as it's orgin. so you objection is invalid. You are using New Covenant Theology to interpret the text. This is an error. You need to use Covenant theology to interpret the text.

Your whole argument is based on your idea that Abraham obeyed God’s voice, charge, commandments, statutes and laws..............

but where in the Book of Genesis did God relate a charge, utter a commandment, issue a statute, or legislate a law that demanded that each 7th day of the week must be observed?

this is a wrong understanding of Genesis. you are going to have to adjust your view. You are demanding from the text what it is not designed to do. Genesis is about origins, beginnigs, meaning how did we get from the beginning of creation to the Mosiac covenant. That is its purpose. it is not ment to spell everything out .


Now.....because I have chosen to disagree with your SDA teaching and quote the Bible to you......You call me a FRAUD!

No because you avoided the question and refused to answer in a straight forward manner. 2 times I asked you about Genesis and you avoided it, now I have asked you again and you avoided it. That tells me you are playing games. When you ask me a question I answer it directly, try to deal with the underlying assumptions and give you a direct answer.

Is that standard SDA teaching for you to follow when someone actually uses the Bible to disagree with you.????[/QUOTE] you assume the covenant of Heaven & Earth ended at the fall, I believe it continued. you assume the week ended in The garden, I believe it continued. you believe the moedim were established at Sinai , I believe the Moedim were established in the Garden and contiuned after the fall. I believe the marriage covenant was established in the Garden, you believe the same thing. Now why would you believe one was established at the Garden and not the others? strange indeed

now that fact that the Genesis 26:5 mentions obeying God , voice, charge, commands states and laws is proof that a there were laws and most likely sabbath was one of them. the fact that you see a week, 7th day, rest mention in genesis and then repeated in Exodus is proof they are of the same origin. common pattern = common source. the fact that you see the day, week, month, year and appointment and prophecy mentioned shows that they were keeping time. Now on what basis were they doing that, could it be the garden event. HUM!!!! Some would say that is too obvious, but that's just me. The fact that when God confronts the King of Egypt he says "i have kept you from sinning against me. in outer words God take the sin personally. What is Codified in the 10 command and exodus are the ways we sin against God. so sabbath is part of the ways we sin against God.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Yes you did.

Post #697.........
"If you don't it will expose you for the fraud you are. "

I do not know where you live but in Dixie, you either do not remember what you said or you do not know what it means.

IF, is conditional

 

[tall73]

Your response...

Sure it answers your question. Your question was; what was the purpose of the new moons and why were they also a shadow law. According to the scriptures the new moons were used to determine the times and the seasons (Genesis 1:14)

The new moon assembly which I posted texts regarding is not the same as the moon itself. I asked what was the new moon a shadow of, and what was its purpose. And you posted a text that talks about the purpose of the moon itself, rather than the new moon assembly.

Gen 1:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,

and also to determine when God's appointed times (the Feast days) started.

I posted texts that indicate the new moon was not just a way of telling time for the other feasts, but is its own entity, and an appointed time.

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.

2Ki_4:23 And he said, “Why will you go to him today? It is neither new moon nor Sabbath.” She said, “All is well

And it had some element of sabbath-like rest:

Amo_8:5 saying, “When will the new moon be over, that we may sell grain? And the Sabbath, that we may offer wheat for sale, that we may make the ephah small and the shekel great and deal deceitfully with false balances,

It is listed in a summary of the appointed times:

Eze 45:17 It shall be the prince's duty to furnish the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, all the appointed times of the house of Israel

That is according to the scriptures the new moons of the old covenant beside have their own burnt offerings and sacrifices

As did the Sabbath, which you acknowledge. But it was the weekly Sabbath, not just the annual that had them.

were used to determine the start of the year, and the months that God's feast days started by determining when they new moon started the beginning of the first day of the month then counting the days to when the feast days started.

And was in its own right an appointed time, as you eventually acknowledge.

It is true they had it's own element in animal sacrifices and holy convocation but it's role was to determine the times and the seasons and the appointed time (feast days) and animal sacrifice for remission of sins.

You acknowledge it is true that it had its own sacrifices and convocations. That is because it was itself and appointed time.

Saying it is a clock does not explain why that was or how it was a shadow.

All aspects of the new moon feasts and their burnt offerings are fulfilled in Christ to who they pointed to and these laws for remission of sins and God's plan of salvation as outlined inm the new covenant are the "shadows" of things to come

Col. 2 is a similar listing of times as Ezekiel 45. And all the things in Col. are called shadows.

Yet in Ezekiel 45 the weekly Sabbath is included, as the summary statement is spelled out by the context, and the weekly Sabbath, six working days, then the Sabbath, is included.

If for example you look at Colossians 2:16 the context also uses the New moons in context to the Feast days where Pail is actually quoting old testament scriptures...

WHAT IS THE WITHIN SCRIPTURE CONTEXT OF COLOSSIANS 2:16?

COLOSSIANS 2:16 [16] Let no man therefore judge you in (1) MEAT, or in DRINK, or in respect of an (2) HOLY DAY [FEAST DAYS], or of the (3) NEW MOON, or of the (4) SABBATH DAYS <plural GNP>

Indeed, and the Sabbath also

a. is an appointed time
b. is a memorial not only of creation, but of redemption from Egypt (Deut. 5).
c. Is a sign that the Lord sanctifies them.
d. Is stated in Ezekiel separately from the commandments by which one lives and is again said moreover to be a sign.
e. Has sacrifice associated with it. The drink, grain and food sacrifices also tie into the context not only of Col. 2 but the context of its closest OT parallel in Ezekiel 45. It was actually while I was still an Adventist and was reading pro-Sabbath literature that I became aware of that through two Adventists who pointed this out to me. One, DJConklin some of the old timers here on CF may recall had a website discussing it, and one in a book by DuPreez. It is rather hard to explain away.

There were moral laws inside and outside of the ten commandments. And there were ceremonial laws in and out of the ten commandments. The Sabbath is a ceremonial law.

If it is the sign of the covenant, a covenant which faded away and was overshadowed, that calls into question whether in fact gentiles are required to keep it under the new covenant. That does not mean it vanished, just as the feasts didn't vanish. And the Jewish believers went on keeping all of it.

But the fact is that the Sabbath is ceremonial. It is not moral. It is an appointed time. And it is listed in Ezekiel 45, closely parallel to Col. 2.

By the way, the LXX has the Sabbaths in the pluras as well in Ezekiel 45, and it still is spelled out in the context to include not only the feasts but the weekly Sabbath.

You have:

feasts - the three pilgrim feasts, festive.
Sabbaths- The weekly Sabbath, trumpets, Day of Atonement
New Moon

EZEKIEL 45:17 [17] And it shall be the prince's part to give BURNT OFFERINGS, and (1) MEAT OFFERINGS, and DRINK OFFERINGS, in the (2) FEASTS, and in the (3) NEW MOONS, and in the (4) SABBATHS, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

Note: the same order and context used to meat and drink offerings, the feast days, new moons and sabbaths (plural). The context is to the Feast days as all the above have some connection to the annual Feast days of Leviticus 23.

Oh I have noted it!

But it goes on to spell out the elements and includes the weekly Sabbath:

Eze 46:1 “Thus says the Lord GOD: The gate of the inner court that faces east shall be shut on the six working days, but on the Sabbath day it shall be opened, and on the day of the new moon it shall be opened.
Eze 46:2 The prince shall enter by the vestibule of the gate from outside, and shall take his stand by the post of the gate. The priests shall offer his burnt offering and his peace offerings, and he shall worship at the threshold of the gate. Then he shall go out, but the gate shall not be shut until evening.
Eze 46:3 The people of the land shall bow down at the entrance of that gate before the LORD on the Sabbaths and on the new moons.
Eze 46:4 The burnt offering that the prince offers to the LORD on the Sabbath day shall be six lambs without blemish and a ram without blemish.

 

[tall73]

It is only the old covenant "shadow laws" for remission is sin that are now fulfilled and continued in Christ in the new covenant. This is really not very hard. God's 10 commandments have the same role they always have and that is to give us the knowledge of good (moral right doing) and evil (moral wrong doing) sin (moral wrong doing) and righteousness (moral right doing) *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; Psalms 119:172. According to Gods' Word in the new covenant many things in the new covenant have now changed but mainly from the Sanctuary laws for remission of sins and how we receive Gods' forgiveness. (Hebrews 7:1-25: Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22 see also; Matthew 5:21; 27; 33; 38; 43 etc) but one thing is still the same. God's commandments are the standard of good and evil; sin and righteousness and the standard of Christian living and if we break anyone of them we stand guilty before God of sin according to James 2:10-11.

Jesus didn't speak just of the ten. In fact He said the whole law and prophets hung on the two. And there were moral laws outside the ten.

And there was a ceremonial law in the ten, a sign.

It is in addition to the laws by which one lives:

Eze 20:11 I gave them my statutes and made known to them my rules, by which, if a person does them, he shall live.
Eze 20:12 Moreover, I gave them my Sabbaths, as a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them.
Eze 20:13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness. They did not walk in my statutes but rejected my rules, by which, if a person does them, he shall live; and my Sabbaths they greatly profaned.

This of course includes God's 4th commandment that we discussed earlier which is one of God's 10 commandments and is an everlasting covenant *Exodus 31:16 that God's people will continue keeping in the new earth *Isaiah 66:22-23.

With Israel.


Exo 31:12 And the LORD said to Moses,
Exo 31:13 “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you.
Exo 31:14 You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
Exo 31:15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.
Exo 31:16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.
Exo 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’”


And you are picky on which forever ceremonial appointed times with sacrifices given to Israel you are concerned about.


Lev 23:14 And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

Lev 23:21 And you shall make a proclamation on the same day. You shall hold a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work. It is a statute forever in all your dwelling places throughout your generations.

Lev 23:31 You shall not do any work. It is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.

Lev 23:41 You shall celebrate it as a feast to the LORD for seven days in the year. It is a statute forever throughout your generations; you shall celebrate it in the seventh month.


Paul on the other hand was not. He was going back to Jerusalem for Pentecost.

He also agreed to the plan from James to show he kept the law, as an Israelite.

But he didn't require any of that for gentile believers, and neither did James in Acts 21.

 

[BobRyan]

I do not accept that. IF you accepted Bible doctrine instead of SDA teaching, we would not be having this conversation at all......would we?

On the contrary -

1. your objections are against the very Sabbath Bible details where SDAs agree with the Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations
2. where they also freely admit to the 7th day Sabbath for mankind in the OT (not just Jews)
3. and the TEN written on the heart.

So not just the Bible details where SDAs agree with all the other Bible Sabbath keeping denominations but you object to even the ones where we agree with Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations!! (because there are certain objections to the Bible Sabbath that have more support than others and you are picking the weakest options - ones that even they don't agree with)

4. In fact it is pretty hard to find any point where your position is not at all identifying anything unique to SDA doctrine, when it comes to the Sabbath

Good grief!

A great example of still not addressing any point listed above

You select "SDA teaching" then proceed to object to the very details where SDAs and Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations do agree. That is "odd"

Good bye Bob.

good bye. have a nice day.

 

[BobRyan]

Would you please post them them and explain what you are getting at regarding them?

My point is that they quote directly from the Sabbath commandment itself - whereas there is no quote at all the NT of "Do not take God's name in vain".

I am curious as to why you keep asking what I am getting at.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
My repeated question for you - that you are still not addressing, is whether you have looked at the implications of your post regarding the subject of Bible scholars on both sides of the Sabbath debate agreeing to certain incredibly obvious Bible details about the Sabbath.

I honestly don't understand what you're talking about.

Ok fair enough - I will list all the "non-response" to that one repeated request keeps showing up.
=================

Am curious about this #577

It looks like you bring up a question (about SDA and nonSDA scholarship in agreement) as if you care about it and then when shown the facts on record simply drop it as if the point was of no interest. So does the implication of being mistaken on a point you apparently considered important (in that example) have no instructive value in your POV? I notice you do not answer the question from 577.

but you were focused on questioning the point about SDA statements on the Sabbath in agreement with Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations - then when that idea failed dropped it like a hot potato without addressing the obvious "elephant" in your living room at that point. Which is "what are the implications" for your view failing to account for historic documented fact on the agreement details? (Which is the very reason those details keep coming up).

 

[tall73]

According to the scriptures in the old and new covenant Gods' 4th commandment is one of Gods'10 commandments that give us the knowledge of good (moral right doing and evil (moral wrong doing); sin (moral wrong doing) and righteousness (moral right doing) *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; Psalms 119:172 and according to James if we break any one of them we stand guilty before God of sin *James 2:10-11.

The ten commandments are not the only commandments. Jesus said none of them are passing away. And He included ones outside of the ten in that discussion (vows, divorce, etc.).

The text in James is an example of this same thing. James was not speaking only of the ten. The section starts in verse 1 where he warns against partiality.

Jas 2:1 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.
Jas 2:2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,
Jas 2:3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,”
Jas 2:4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Here he refers to warnings against partiality in the law, and the warnings given to judges:

Deu 16:18 “You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.
Deu 16:19 You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous.
Deu 16:20 Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land that the LORD your God is giving you.

Lev 19:15 “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.

The latter is in connection with one of the two great commandments, as it continues to talk about how to treat your neighbor and concludes with:

Lev 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

James then references this great commandment, before referencing the ten, and in connection with the statement you quoted:

Jas 2:5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?
Jas 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?
Jas 2:7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?

Jas 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.
Jas 2:9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

He notes that partiality is violating the law. And he appeals to the law to love your neighbor. They are transgressors of the law if they break this. But this goes beyond the ten. Adventist stress the ten as the "moral law" but there were many moral laws, not just the ten. The ten were given as representational of the whole covenant, on the covenant document. But the covenant promise was to do ALL that the Lord commanded. And in Matthew 5 Jesus says all the law is still there. The people didn't want to hear God speak after the ten and so the rest were relayed through Moses. But they are not to be set aside either, per Jesus.. And the two great commands are the principles that all the law and prophets hang on. They are the greatest, not the ten.

Yet the ten commandments, as the words of the covenant, were important, and were honored. And after he explains how transgression of the law against partiality would make them transgressors of the law he cites two examples from the ten:

Jas 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.
Jas 2:11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

You hone in on the ten but not the others. They are all still there. And per James in Acts 21 the Jewish believers were zealous for all of them.

Exodus 20:8 [8], REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY, TO KEEP IT HOLY.

Memorial pointing backwards while the reason is given in v11

[11], For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and RESTED THE SEVENTH DAY: wherefore the LORD BLESSED THE SABBATH, and HALLOWED IT.

This links directly backwards to the origin of the Sabbath Genesis 2:1-3 which uses similar wording..

Genesis 2:1-3[1], Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
[2], And ON THE SEVENTH DAY God ended his work which he had made; and he RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY from all his work which he had made. [3], And GOD BLESSED THE SEVENTH DAY, and made it HOLY <the 7th day>: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

It is your supposition that it links back to Genesis. Genesis was one narrative with Exodus. They were likely both written after Sinai where God spoke these words Himself.

Both Genesis and Exodus point back to the creation where God indeed rested. But Exodus is not likely quoting Genesis, but both Genesis and Exodus refer to the words of God who spoke from the mountain.

But the question of who the Sabbath was given to as a sign of redemption and creation is answered in Exodus 31, Deut. 5, etc.

It was a ceremonial sign, memorial, of redemption and creation, given to Israel as a sign of sanctification, an appointed time, and it was, in the heart of the covenant document with Israel, something given IN ADDITION to the laws by which one lives, per Ezekiel.

 

[Ceallaigh]

My point is that they quote directly from the Sabbath commandment itself - whereas there is no quote at all the NT of "Do not take God's name in vain".

It would be one thing if it just wasn't ever mentioned like the third commandment. But in this case even though it's mentioned several times in the NT, there's no indication that gentile Christians are expected to keep the sabbath.

I am curious as to why you keep asking what I am getting at.

So that I don't have to try guessing what you're getting at. So I can get a better understanding of what you're getting at. My mind isn't made up on this. And I already observe the sabbath. So I'm not against the idea. I just don't think it's applicable to me. I do it as a matter of discipline, like fasting and practicing Lent.

 

[tall73]

Hi Tall,

One thing you might not be considering is the Sabbath is a commandment of God, a new moon is not.

I specifically noted that earlier.

While we may not understand everything Jesus has in store for us, which could include the months being every 28 days, we do know God put importance on His holy Sabbath day now and it is a commandment written personally by our Savior Exodus 20:8-11 and it is also in the future Isaiah 66:23. Which means God's Word stands because He already promised the Sabbath is a perpetual covenant Exodus 31:16. From the beginning Genesis 2:1-3 to forever Isaiah 66:23 the seventh day matters to God. If it matters to God it should matter to us.

God bless

It is not the only forever item given to Israel. I do not dispute the Sabbath has meaning now, and will then. And so does all of the law--not just the ten--or else Jesus would not have said it has not passed away.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Tall,

What does Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

What does this mean? how do you understand it. does this change your view in any way?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Ok fair enough - I will list all the "non-response" to that one repeated request keeps showing up.
=================

Okay, it looks like this leads back to post #536.

Is 56:6 gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping
Mark 2:27 Sabbath "made for mankind" - said Christ, -- (so not "just Jews)
Is 66:23 for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship"
Ex 20:11 points to Gen 2:1-3 for making of mankind and the Sabbath at creation week itself.

Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations agree on this point
For example:

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism

I'd have to see quotes from those sources to see if they come to the same conclusion given above. The fact that none of those sources are/were sabbatarian, is an indicator to me that they probably don't really. I'm guessing they are addressing the importance of going to church, which ended up getting called the sabbath, but they're not saying the fourth commandment is binding to gentile Christians.

Out of curiosity - are you comfortable "with these details" in Christ's statement below?

Mark 7:6-13
6 But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments 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, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”




hmm let's see "all mankind" .. They agree on that and that the Sabbath was given to mankind in Eden and binding on Mankind as the 7th day Sabbath to the point of the cross - and the Sabbath commandment still binding on all mankind today

- although "edited" at the cross (re-pointed to week-day-1 for Christians) --which is the one difference...

So then the same list of details I have pointed to - in the examples that apparently you are still not looking at. I get the distinct feeling you are not comfortable looking at the details. This is really not rocket science - I suggest you take a look.

I'm not too sure what the issue is here regarding the traditions of men. Is it just about the tradition of going to church on the first day, because that's the day of the resurrection (John 20:1)?

Or is about (or also about) changing the sabbath from the seventh day to the first day? Because I'm not sure that's really what happened. Because I don't think they were really applying the 4th commandment Law to it. Or if they were they were doing it in piecemeal fashion, rather than observing it the way the Jews observe the sabbath. For instance was decided it was to last from sunset to sunset? Were domestic chores were forbidden? I have a feeling that going to work on Sunday was not forbidden in most cases if a person couldn't get Sunday off. As I heard it explained a long time ago, "Jesus is our sabbath/rest". Also there's the belief that the Old Covenant was about the letter of the law, whereas the New Covenant is about the spirit if the law.

As for the traditions of men, too many people have extensively studied the Bible, to where this is just people blindly going along with something. In other words, if there was an unbiblical tradition in place, more Christians (especially non-denominational ones) would have recognized it, than the small number of Christian sabbatarians that exist. And I think a lot of Christian sabbatarians are persuaded by the doctrine created by the SDA church (and similar). The fact that I've seen key proof texts that grasp at a conclusion that's really not there, indicates to me that it's more a matter of being swayed by a mainly 19th century doctrine, rather than by scripture alone.

I hope I have adequately addressed what you wanted me to. I'm sure you probably don't agree with what I said, but I did try to fulfill your request to the best of my ability.

 

[tall73]

I honestly don't understand what you're talking about.

He has a list of doctrinal statements from various Christian denominations and groups which indicate the ten commandments are still binding. He is very keen on pointing that out so he can show that the majority of scholars agree on this point.

He also admits he only goes by the Bible, and that Adventist theology is totally at odds with the majority of Christian scholarship on a number of their distinctives (including the Sabbath once you get past the ten commandments binding part). But he thinks that since the majority agree on this point it is something you must acknowledge.

He will bring this point into nearly every thread, despite insisting that it is only Scripture that matters, and doesn't actually think those doctrinal statements have any authority.

And he objects when it is mentioned that other views exist regarding the ten commandments, including those that are quite old, such as Justin Martyr, etc. who did not think the Sabbath was binding.

When you get down to details on Scripture with Bob I usually enjoy the conversation. He has studies the Scriptures a lot. However, this particular tactic is silly.

 

[Ceallaigh]

He has a list of doctrinal statements from various Christian denominations and groups which indicate the ten commandments are still binding. He is very keen on pointing that out so he can show that the majority of scholars agree on this point.

Yeah I finally sorted that out (I think). Although all I saw was a list of the names of documents and names of scholars, rather than being shown what it is they are all said to agree on. And quite honestly I'm not going to go though the laborious and time consuming task of digging for it any time soon.

He also admits he only goes by the Bible, and that Adventist theology is totally at odds with the majority of Christian scholarship on a number of their distinctives (including the Sabbath once you get past the ten commandments binding part). But he thinks that since the majority agree on this point it is something you must acknowledge.

I've never known them to say the fourth commandment is binding on gentile Christians, other than perhaps insisting on people attending church. Which isn't really the 4th commandment of course, but rather a piecemeal version of it.

He will bring this point into nearly every thread, despite insisting that it is only Scripture that matters, and doesn't actually think those doctrinal statements have any authority.

And he objects when it is mentioned that other views exist regarding the ten commandments, including those that are quite old, such as Justin Martyr, etc. who did not think the Sabbath was binding.

When you get down to details on Scripture with Bob I usually enjoy the conversation. He has studies the Scriptures a lot. However, this continual drum beat of what Moody, etc. think is silly, especially in light of Adventists not caring a bit about what non-SDA scholars think otherwise.

As far as I know, none of the earliest church fathers thought the 4th commandment was binding to Christians. I certainly haven't seen any SDA name one who did. As for Moody, I'd be interested in what he had to say about the sabbath that Bob thinks supports Christian sabbatarianism. I'm pretty sure Moody wasn't a sabbatarian.

Edit: Okay I found this
How Shall We Spend the Sabbath? by Dwight L. Moody
That makes it easier than searching though his writings. I'll read it sometime this evening.

 

[tall73]

Tall,

What does Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

What does this mean? how do you understand it. does this change your view in any way?

It is something I have discussed with various folks, including Adventists. I wish it spelled out more what they were. But I agree with you that it clearly means there were known things that God required.

And this is evident even in the texts as you mentioned, such as Abraham and Sarah, it was known not to sleep with another person's wife. And even in the case of Cain killing Abel.

Now when Major1 quoted the text about this covenant not being made with our fathers, that is true, in that the law given to Israel was a particular, spelled out, codified record of God's requirements, in their context. When it refers to the command to honor father and mother for instance, it spells out the promise which is in regards to staying in the promised land. (This is re-cast in gentile terms in Eph. 6 without the promised land implications). Moreover, the covenant is the agreement with promises on both sides. And as we see the law is present in both the Mosaic and new covenant, though the promises were better in the new.

Some of the elements given to Israel could only apply to them. Levitical guidelines, for instance, and only the Israelites had Levite descendants.

It is clear in the OT and the NT that God had requirements that He expected of everyone, beyond these Israelite specifics. For instance, the prophets condemned taking a garment in pledge for the Israelites, since they knew better from the law. But they condemned such things as ripping open pregnant women and other atrocities by other nations ,because it was manifest God was opposed to this.

Moreover, there were some offenses, particularly sexual offenses, and those related to mediums, necromancy, etc. that God said caused Him to drive out the inhabitants of the land prior to Israel going in. They were abominations that He judged them for. So God judges all nations, all peoples, and we see in God's promise to Abraham that He gives them time to respond, just as He did with Israel. We even see that God told the Israelites not to bother the Edomites when they went in because He would not give them any of their land, and they had also displaced others because the others had been disobedient.

The promise to Abraham of the holy land includes reference to God's judgment of nations, as I mentioned:

Gen 15:13 Then the LORD said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.
Gen 15:14 But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions.
Gen 15:15 As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age.
Gen 15:16 And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”

I also agree with you that covenants can run concurrently, etc.

We also see that God holds people accountable for general revelation, and the consciience, in Romans 1 and 2, etc. so that all are without excuse.

Another text that needs to be examined is Romans 5:

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Sin was still sinful even when it was not spelled out as in the Mosaic covenant. And death came in from Adam, people continued to sin and continued to die.

Adam's sin was a transgression of a known command. Violations of the Mosaic law are likewise transgression of a known command. But God still had requirements even before that.

This also is why, as you mentioned, the law was added to increase transgression, because it made very plain what God required. But sin already existed.

We know Abraham obeyed God's voice and command in several instances. But he also apparently was given other commands and statutes.

The question is what those comprised. I talked to one Adventist who actually thought Abraham was given the appointed times of Israel. This I am not convinced on. I think some things were particular given to Israel, stated as such. But if God had wanted to reveal things that pointed to Jesus He certainly could.

And we do know that while they didn't have the full sanctuary system laid out to Moses, they did have sacrifices etc. which still pointed to Jesus.

So we know he had commands. We just don't know what all were included. But it does seem clear that moral principles were required by God. With the ceremonial elements it is a bit harder to know when they were put in place.


This is why we tend to think in terms of moral and ceremonial law, though this is not plainly stated.

The closest I can think of to it being stated is :

Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

For the gentiles this did not seem to include the ceremonial aspects. But from the various imperatives it is very clear it included the moral, from the ten and outside of the ten.

 

[tall73]

Yeah I finally sorted that out (I think). Although all I saw was a list of the names of documents and names of scholars, rather than being shown what it is they are all said to agree on. And quite honestly I'm not going to go though the laborious and time consuming task of digging for it any time soon.



I've never known them to say the fourth commandment is binding on gentile Christians, other than perhaps insisting on people attending church. Which isn't really the 4th commandment of course, but rather a piecemeal version of it.



As far as I know, none of the earliest church fathers thought the 4th commandment was binding to Christians. I certainly haven't seen any SDA name one who did. As for Moody, I'd be interested in what he had to say about the sabbath that Bob thinks supports Christian sabbatarianism. I'm pretty sure Moody wasn't a sabbatarian.

Edit: Okay I found this
How Shall We Spend the Sabbath? by Dwight L. Moody
That makes it easier than searching though his writings. I'll read it sometime this evening.

You would need to do a lot of reading to see all of them in their context. The Catholic doctrine is most fully spelled out in a papal encyclical by John Paul II, Dies Domini.

Bob can direct you to highlights of the various documents if you like. Or he can dig up direct links to original source material if you want to read a larger amount.

I agree with him that many do indicate the ten commandments are binding. But they tend to apply that to a re-cast version with Sunday. And when you get into the particulars about Sabbath, they are not on board.

The bigger issue is that someone who says the Bible is the only thing that matters pushing these other views, because there is a consensus. But then they reject consensus on the various Adventist disctinctives, and that is a badge of honor.

Now what he would say is that this is the issue where non-sda and sda scholarship agree.

Yeah, but not all non-sda scholarshipo does agree. There are other views, and more nuance to the views as well. And that doesn't change the fact that you are appealing to opinions instead of the Scriptures through this whole line of argument.

 

[BobRyan]

Yeah I finally sorted that out (I think). Although all I saw was a list of the names of documents and names of scholars, rather than being shown what it is they are all said to agree on. And quite honestly I'm not going to go though the laborious and time consuming task of digging for it any time soon. .

Yesterday at 5:37 PM #573

So you're saying those sources say exactly the same thing about the sabbath in exactly the same way as SDA? Exactly come to the same conclusion as SDA?

Do I ever say "Bible scholars in almost all denominations say exactly the same thing about the Sabbath in exactly the same way as SDAs?" -- ever? -- you and I both know that the answer is "no".

Rather we know that I point to very specific "Bible details" related to the Sabbath and note that on those specific details we find agreement.

yes.. "details matter"

There is a thread where I posted the links to my text quote of some of that online info for readers --

Jun 23, 2021 #2

So then if we "click" #2

Most of the points listed in the OP are agreed to by the majority of Bible scholarship in almost all denomination -- as pointed out here Mar 2, 2021 #3

and here Mar 2, 2021 #4

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm all TEN of the Ten Commandments for Christians and do so in a way that is consistent with the interpretation of the Sabbath in Eden that you see in most of the Sabbath keeping groups - having the start of the Sabbath for all mankind in Eden.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism

Example of Bible Details leading these scholars to agree on the TEN as being included in the moral law of God written on the heart under the NEW Covenant - to this very day.

The "easy part" that Christians on "BOTH sides" agree with is that
1. Ex 20:7 "do not take God's name in vain" is one of the TEN
2. That it was a SIN to take God's name in vain in Eden and all through history NO Matter that the TEN were not on stone until after Ex 20. And it is the unit of TEN that is pulled into the reader's view by Paul in Eph 6:1-2 saying "Honor your father and mother" is "the FIRST COMMANDMENT WITH a promise"
3. That it is STILL a sin to "take God's name in vain" even though that is the only commandment not quoted from in the NT.
4. That Jeremiah and is readers would have included all TEN in the Law of God written on the heart in Jer 31:31-34 under the NEW Covenant (verbatim unchanged in Heb 8:6-12)
5. That to ignore one is to ignore them all James 2
6. That Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate admit to these details in the Bible about "the TEN".
7. That EVEN though God gave Israel the TEN Commandments and it was a SIN for them to take God's name in vain - it did mean that everyone else could take God's name in vain - and that would be just fine.

These points are so obvious - they are irrefutable.

As could be predicted very many of the Sabbath-opposing posts on this thread have tried to oppose Bible doctrine affirmed by Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the debate (AS IF) that opposition singled out Adventists in some way.


One cannot blame those texts on Sabbath-keepers (if not "on Adventists" entirely ) as IF the much older Bible scholarship position that oppose the Sabbath POV of Adventists - were merely following Adventist teaching.

You can't blame Adventists for what even their opponents teach BEFORE there ever was an Adventist.

Seems like an obvious detail - but notice how many posts get "stuck" on that very point posting "you Adventists say" and then follows a Bible text or POV that even the anti-Sabbath Bible scholars hold to be true! That opposition logic would only work "if Adventists wrote the bible" - which we did not. (for anyone still in doubt on that point)

and #3. Mar 2, 2021 #3
We see "Bapstist Confession of Faith
and the "The Westminstert Confession of Faith"

========Baptist Confession of Faith sectn 19

The Law of God - Baptist Confession of Faith: Section 19

1. 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.

2. 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.



================== Westminster Confession of Faith
Section 19

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.[1]

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables:[2] the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.[3]

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]

You would need to do a lot of reading to see all of them in their context. .

or at the very least click on the one link in post #573 and read two posts