Why do SDA preach

[mmksparbud]

So because he doesn't go by scholars, or consensus he keeps presenting a list of scholars to people, and noting consensus.

Sounds a little counter-intuitive.

Because that is where others take him to by saying he, or only SDA's think this. He is just pointing out that others do too, not just him and not just SDA's. You guys take him there with your statement's and questions and then object when he answers you. It is standard operating procedure around here. Just another way to pretend to get upset about content, to either get out of this or change the subject---usually they also start to bring up EGW. It's always the same.

 

[Albion]

Because that is where others take him to by saying he, or only SDA's think this. He is just pointing out that others do too, not just him and not just SDA's.

But let's be straightforward about this. You are referring to relatively few such people who think that way.

 

[tall73]

Because that is where others take him to by saying he, or only SDA's think this. He is just pointing out that others do too, not just him and not just SDA's. You guys take him there with your statement's and questions and then object when he answers you. It is standard operating procedure around here. Just another way to pretend to get upset about content, to either get out of this or change the subject---usually they also start to bring up EGW. It's always the same.

You have not read the whole conversation then, and certainly not my whole posting history with Bob.

I acknowledged the scholars he noted and said I took a different view. Just as you take a different view than most scholars on a number of points, since you hold to Adventist positions.

And he continued to stress the consensus angle.

And he put that as a response to someone who made no claim about only SDA's believing that and who was completely new to the topic.

So no, it is not just as you claim that he does this always in response to questions. Nor is it a grand set up forcing Bob to talk about Moody and Spurgeon so we can distract. And if it were a distraction, and if we did ask about Moody and Spurgeon (we don't) then he should certainly avoid that distraction and stick to Scripture.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well, I appreciate the response. It's true that I've ceased to follow this discussion very closely now that it has passed 900 entries with 800 of them being something that was said in almost identical form earlier in the same thread.

It is necessary to watch carefully for all the nuances that make any statement appear to be correct even if it isn't. My reply was prompted by the claim that all of the Ten Commandments are "applicable to all mankind even in the NT."
That part of the claim is certainly not accurate.

Yes,---repeat and repeat. It's as though we never answered and the same question will be asked 40 times and we give the same answer and then some on here will say we are repeating ourselves!! Seriously? !t's old---BobR has more patient with this than I do. It is done to aggravate us and try to get us to say something in anger that will get us shut down. It has worked several times on me because, as I said, I tend to have a sarcastic streak in me and I will end up loosing patience with it and say something sarcastic that will be reported as flaming. We've wised up to some of the tricks here.

 

[mmksparbud]

But let's be straightforward about this. You are referring to relatively few such people who think that way.

If you say so.

 

[Albion]

Yes,---repeat and repeat. It's as though we never answered and the same question will be asked 40 times and we give the same answer...

Yes.

and then some on here will say we are repeating ourselves!!

It's true.

Seriously?

Yes.

It is done to aggravate us and try to get us to say something in anger that will get us shut down.

How ridiculous a comment is that.

 

[tall73]

Yes,---repeat and repeat. It's as though we never answered and the same question will be asked 40 times and we give the same answer and then some on here will say we are repeating ourselves!! Seriously? !t's old---BobR has more patient with this than I do. It is done to aggravate us and try to get us to say something in anger that will get us shut down. It has worked several times on me because, as I said, I tend to have a sarcastic streak in me and I will end up loosing patience with it and say something sarcastic that will be reported as flaming. We've wised up to some of the tricks here.

You think repetitive posting or questioning is limited to one side in the Sabbath debate?

 

[Albion]

If you say so.

You know it's true. You can still hold out for the notion that most people are wrong about the matter, but it's laughable to suggest that the experts, Bible scholars, theologians, or churches are more or less evenly divided or anywhere near that when it comes to what we've been discussing.

 

[BobRyan]

My reply was prompted by the claim that all of the Ten Commandments are "applicable to all mankind even in the NT."
That part of the claim is certainly not accurate.

Certainly it is true that some segment of Christianity holds to the view you are stating. I find that the Bible does no allow slicing up the TEN as James 2 points out -

And that is a Bible detail that even non-SDA non-Bible-Sabbath-keeping scholars will admit to.

 

[BobRyan]

You know it's true. You can still hold out for the notion that most people are wrong about the matter, but it's laughable to suggest that the experts, Bible scholars, theologians, or churches are more or less evenly divided or anywhere near that when it comes to what we've been discussing.

Depends on the details being discussed - there are some Bible details where in fact the Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations do affirm and one of them is the validity of all TEN of the TEN Commandments.

Other views "do exist" such as "The Ten Deleted at the cross" or "only 9 of the ten are valid today"..

But D.L Moody would not agree to that
And a number of other well known sources covering a big group of Bible scholars that are not even on the Bible-Sabbath side of the discussion from a technical 'unchanged' POV of it.

 

[Albion]

Certainly it is true that some segment of Christianity holds to the view you are stating. I find that the Bible does no allow slicing up the TEN as James 2 points out -

And that is a Bible detail that even non-SDA non-Bible-Sabbath-keeping scholars will admit to.

No. There is nothing even close to a significant minority of Bible scholars or church bodies that discount the New Testament out of hand and insist that only the Old Testament is God's word.

 

[BobRyan]

But let's be straightforward about this. You are referring to relatively few such people who think that way.

Let me ask you a question from Tall73's quote of me

...you put this.
I have a really easy solution for you - take a look at where BOTH sides agree.

Baptist Confession of Faith - sectn 19.
Westminster Confession of Faith - sectn 19
D.L. Moody on the 4th commandment.
Dies Domini (Pope John Paul II)
R.C Sproul
C.H. Spurgeon
Eastern Orhtodox
Catholic Church
Martin Luther
etc.

ALL of them agree with the SDA church and other Sabbath keeping groups -- on these key points.

That quote says that there are some key points regarding the TEN Commandments where Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic in almost all denominations DO agree.

My question for you is - "is that detail at all applicable to your statement above in your POV or is it your position that even if that is so - it does not change the accuracy in what you have said above"?

(That is a short list and could even have more added to it ... for example

"Baptist Confession of Faith"
"Westminster Confession of Faith"
C.H. Spurgeon
Matthew Henry
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism
R.C Sproul
"D.L. Moody"
"Dies Domini"
====

Some of those agreed upon points can be found in the "D.L. Moody" Section of this list in this quote where obviously the 'Editing commandments" statement is not in the SDA list and one or two other points there also not in the SDA list.

Comparing a classic "Steve Gregg" argument -- vs -- D.L. Moody and those "Confession of Faith"

Gregg would likely make many of the same Sabbath opposing views that you find on "Sabbath and the LAW" forum even if Bible scholars typically would not take that position.

1. No mention of Sabbath keeping prior to Ex 20
2. Just for Jews not gentiles in OT or NT
3. Christians keep the Lord's Day on week-day-1 as a reference to Christ' resurrection on week day 1.
4. The Sabbath remains as God stated it - the 7th day Saturday and we ignore it.
5. People can choose to keep Sabbath if for some reason they "like it" but that is "Old Covenant" not New Covenant , not the Lord's day
6. God's Law cannot be "edited"
7. Ten Commandments are old Covenant and not compatible with New Covenant.

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

Now lets take D.L. Moody and the Confessions of faith.

1. The TEN - all TEN - written on the heart under the New Covenant.
2. All TEN for mankind in Eden. "Made for MANKIND" Mark 2:27
3. Sabbath in Eden and still binding on all mankind today.
4. Sabbath "edited" to point to week day 1 at the cross
5. Christians should be keeping that very same Sabbath as edited to point to week-day-1
6. It is an entire day holy devoted to God and non-secular activity as D.L. Moody points out
7. Ten Commandments fully compatible with the New Covenant
8. Most would admit that keeping some other day than Sunday is not keeping the "Christian Sabbath"
9. Sabbath is a day of "sacred assembly"/"Holy Convocation" - Lev 23:3
10. Sanctified set apart from secular activity Is 58:13

========================= The Bible view

1. Gen 2:1-3 is when the Sabbath was set apart and created "FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27
2. Neither "Do not take God's Name in vain" nor "Remember the Sabbath" commands are quoted before Ex 20 but that does not mean they did not exist.
3. The command "do not take God's name in vain" has no equiv of Gen 2:1-3 pointed to by Ex 20:11 yet it is and was always binding.
4. Man cannot edit God's Commandments Mark 7:6-13
5. Sabbath remains for the people of God even in the NT - Heb 4
6. Numerous "Sabbath after the Sabbath" services in the NT with gentiles asking for more Gospel preaching "next Sabbath"
7 Sabbath for all mankind after the cross in the New Earth for all eternity Is 66:23
8. One Gospel Gal 1:6-9 in OT and NT so Adam was saved under the New Covenant just as we are today.
9. Ten Commandments fully compatible with the NEW Covenant where they are written on the heart Jer 31:31-34
10. Same moral law of God that defines what sin is - in OT and NT - but different covenants for individuals "OC for the lost" and "NC for the saved" in both OT and NT. (and of course there was an OC Nation-covenant as a 'type' of the OC individual form)
11. The Bible Sabbath is "the Lord's Day" Is 58:13 "Holy Day of the Lord" , Mark 2:28 "Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath"
12. Sabbath is a day of "sacred assembly"/"Holy Convocation" - Lev 23:3
13. Sanctified set apart from secular activity Is 58:13

Nobody was ever saved under the Old Covenant of "Obey and Live" as noted in Gal 3, Rom 3:19-20
Nobody who is actually under the New Covenant today is lost today.

 

[Albion]

Depends on the details being discussed - there are some Bible details where in fact the Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations do affirm and one of them is the validity of all TEN of the TEN Commandments.

Who here has denied the validity of the Ten Commandments? No one. And that is not the issue you have been contending for all this time anyway.

Rather, it is that the New Testament does not have any standing.

But D.L Moody would not agree to that
And a number of other well known sources covering a big group of Bible scholars that are not even on the Bible-Sabbath side of the discussion from a technical 'unchanged' POV of it.

Of course it would be possible to assemble a list of scholars or clerics or whatever that deny just about any standard Christian doctrine that could be named. So what?

I've pointed out that, with regards to this particular issue, there are few such voices, even if some are noteworthy personalities.

So you name a few names in response as though that means the issue divides Christianity right down the middle or something like that. It doesn't.

 

[BobRyan]

No. There is nothing even close to a significant minority of Bible scholars or church bodies that discount the New Testament out of hand

Do I have any post saying
1. SDAs discount the NT out of hand?
2. SDAs and Bible scholars in other denominations are argeed in that they " discount the NT out of hand"
3. SDAs believe that "only the Old Testament is God's word"

To engage here you need to reference something that the SDA denomination has published as an actual statement of belief. Do you know where to find that online? I assume you must already have access to it to post as if you were informed on it.

 

[BobRyan]

Who here has denied the validity of the Ten Commandments? No one.

Aside from getting into who has argued here that the TEN are pure Old Covenant and should not be considered in the NT... I am happy to have agreement on the detail you just posted.

And that is not the issue you have been contending for all this time anyway.

That is a pretty bold statement given the postings from this past week.

Rather, it is that the New Testament does not have any standing.

I am 100% sure you have never seen me post such a thing and you have seen no such thing from the 28 fundamental Beliefs published by SDAs. And of course "we do not believe that to be true at all"

(So I would "really" like to know where that even came from !)

 

[BobRyan]

"Baptist Confession of Faith"
"Westminster Confession of Faith"
C.H. Spurgeon
Matthew Henry
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism
R.C Sproul
"D.L. Moody"
"Dies Domini"

Of course it would be possible to assemble a list of scholars or clerics or whatever that deny just about any standard Christian doctrine that could be named. So what?

I agree that "one off" statements can be found - but I don't generally find them in "confessions of Faith" and official denomination documents and -- and Matthew Henry tends to be pretty orthodox in his statements -- etc.

 

[tall73]

What is it in the new moon appointed times that is no more and was a shadow of things to come? - Animal sacrifices; bunt offering, sin offering, meat offering and drink offerings. *Numbers 28:11-15. What were these "there shadows of things to come? Sound familiar?

So you assemble on the new moon, but without the sacrifices? It was only sacrifices that were the shadow?

 

[BobRyan]

So you name a few names in response as though that means the issue divides Christianity right down the middle or something like that. It doesn't.

Actually my list is intended to show unity between Sabbath keeping groups and those in my list "on certain Bible details" regarding the TEN and the Sabbath.

My point has been that anyone coming into this topic with a Bible and an interest to learn about this subject - might start with the "easy Bible details" that are sooo obvious that Bible scholarship on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic admit to them. A good place to start the Bible study.

When a large segment of opposing scholarship on any key Bible doctrine -- find themselves in agreement on a few Bible details on that very topic - it is worth taking a look at just what the Bible says on those points - even for a first time reviewer of the topic.

 

[Albion]

Aside from getting into who has argued here that the TEN are pure Old Covenant and should not be considered in the NT... I am happy to have agreement on the detail you just posted.

That is a pretty bold statement given the postings from this past week.

I am in mind of at least the more recent of them and I did notice that you chose your words with care and that a quick reading might tell someone that there was agreement when there was not.

However, the fact is that you compromised your statement about OT and NT before you were done, so that is why I pointed it out when I did. And by the way also, that wasn't the first time for the claim. Others here included it in their own posts.

 

[Albion]

I agree that "one off" statements can be found - but I don't generally find them in "confessions of Faith" and official denomination documents and -- and Matthew Henry tends to be pretty orthodox in his statements -- etc.

Very well, let's suppose that there is more support from famous people than might be supposed. Nothing really is changed by that. Sabbatarianism is still a relatively tiny slice of the Christian pie. You're entitled to it. We are entitled to agree with the great majority of Christians of the past 2000 years and we have the New Testament to explain why Sunday worship is in accord with God's intentions.

But if your side here on this thread wants to press your issue, your preference, here is what you would have to do.

Show that the NT verses do not speak of Sunday, the first day of the week, having been made the primary day of worship. No talk about the Sabbath being moved, replaced, or etc. No intimating that the New Testament verses are just the opinions of Paul or some other mortals and not divine revelation. And nothing about God being unable under any circumstances to develop and/or change anything that had been given by him to the Israelites. Of course he did change plenty, including the entire system of salvation when God himself took on our nature and died for our sins.

That's the challenge.

And then we can turn to something else on which we agree rather than disagree.