Do Sabbath Keepers KEEP the Sabbath?

1stcenturylady said:

No, but the mark of the beast has nothing to do with celebrating Sunday. Sunday is not a law. It is not the Sabbath. You must be SDA.

Click to expand...

I'm speaking from a SDA point of view and asking a question to SDA's about eternal security. I want to know from them if people with the mark of the beast can be saved?

I was told a couple of times by SDAs that a Satanic priest can be saved as long as nobody told him about the Sabbath. But if, for example, an SDA comes up and tells the Satanic priest that the Sabbath is on the 7th day, and then the Satanist does agree, then the Satanist avoids the mark of the beast and is saved. But if the Satanic priest disagrees and says Sunday is the day, then that Satanic priest has committed eternal sin because he was told about the Sabbath but didn't listen.

So if we all have the mark of the beast, are we saved?

1stcenturylady said:

What does this verse mean in your understanding, that you think you need to cut it out of your Bible. And what does EGW says it means?

Isaiah 60:3 The Gentiles shall come to your light,
And kings to the brightness of your rising.




What happened before the first day of creation? You assume the first day was the beginning.

Click to expand...

My question was asked to SDAs in which you said you were not one.

1stcenturylady said:

Are you assuming the mark of the beast has something to do with the Sabbath, or not?

Click to expand...

The question was asked to SDA which you said you're not one.

Saint Steven said:

I think you are misunderstanding what these texts are saying.

Gathering food on the Sabbath is a clear violation. This was established when the Sabbath was introduced in Exodus chapter sixteen. They gathered for six days. No gathering (for personal or family use) was to be done on the seventh day.

Furthermore, Jesus agreed with those that accused his disciples of doing what was unlawful. The example of David and his companions (a self-incriminating statement) was doing was not lawful for them to do. The example of the priests was a desecration of the Sabbath. And in reference to mat-carrying, no work OF ANY KIND is allowed on the Sabbath according to the law. Yet Jesus commanded it. What does this tell us about what was becoming of the law? It seems that Jesus was deconstructing it as he went.

The most basic violation of Sabbath is work of any kind. What did Jesus say in that regard?

John 5:16-18
So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Click to expand...

That certainly give me pause for thinking, Steven. I'm not sure I see Jesus agreeing that eating a handful of grain was work or that picking up the little mat the healed man had laid on would have met the criteria of work, but He did surely throw some serious enlightenment in the faces of the Jewish leaders. The way I was seeing it, the gathering of food during the wilderness time when the manna was provided would indeed have been strictly forbidden: there wasn't any manna out there anyways. I figured the teaching and testing situation around the manna helped to set a pattern in the thinking of a people who had been enslaved and forced to work 24/7 all their lives to allow themselves, and even to force themselves, to not only take the day off but to know that GOD gave them the day off. God was giving them a day off to spend with HIM, to set aside their own work and rest, and it shows so much love toward them in that manna situation. Later, when they established homes and the manna stopped, it looked to me like the administration of the sabbath could now include preparation of daily food (the manna was obviously a unique product to last over the Sabbath when prepared in advance but not last on common days), because ordinary foods tend to require some degree of preparation and the sabbath was a time of celebrating, not fasting. But in looking at the goal of the commandment, the goal would be the same: to use the day to spend with God, to set aside our own work, and to rest. The purpose of the commandment, or to put it another way, the goal of the sabbath was unchanged, even if the administration shifted a bit so the the goal could be met in the situation. I had figured that the man in the wilderness who was caught carrying sticks must have been engaging in some sort of willful or spiteful response toward God, an act of rebellion rather than an act of need, since it was a fatal error, such as the man heard cursing God or cursing his father. The situations that required the meeting of a need seem to have been granted leniency: ox in ditch, ox to water, David's hungry men. And your quote of John 5:16-18 actually fleshes out this thought a little stronger in my heart, which is: if God is out there working as it were to seek us on the sabbath, it makes all the more sense that He wants us to keep the day to be available. In all that we see of what God does, it sure seems to center around wanting a relationship with His people. That was my take on it, and I appreciate your comments.

Shimshon said:

Could you please show me where God defined the exact command NOT to gather even for your personal consumption AFTER the wilderness experience?

Click to expand...

Why do you assume that "not gathering" ended with the "wilderness experience"?

Here is a disturbing article that explains how Seventh-day Adventists teach that the near the end of time the "mark of the best" of Revelation 14 will be placed upon those who worship on Sunday instead of Saturday.

Bible Truth Versus Adventist Truth - Mark of the Beast

Shimshon said:

… Where do you define 'work'? ...

Click to expand...

No work of any kind. How do you define "any"?

Exodus 20:8-11
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

1stcenturylady said:

Do you keep the 4th law? Its not Sunday. Its very specific.

Click to expand...

Do I keep "the 4th law"?
Not sure I even know what that is, nor what it has to do with Sunday.
You'll need to be more specific.

Greengardener said:

That was my take on it, and I appreciate your comments.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your comments as well.
The Apostle Paul and others take a contrary stand on the law.
Why do you suppose that is?

Galatians 3:1-3
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

1stcenturylady said:

Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, etc.

It was in response to your saying "the law is the law."

Click to expand...

Assuming the Ten Commandments were "engraved in letters on stone", the Apostle has this to say about them. They were the transitory ministry that brought condemnation and death that has no glory now. The letter kills. Other than that, he thought they were pretty swell. - lol

With that in mind, why would I want anything to do with them?

2 Corinthians 3:6-11
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

1stcenturylady said:

When someone says "the law is the law" or "sin is sin" it begs the questions which laws, or which sins.

So when you say "the law is the law" what are you trying to point out?

Click to expand...

I was trying to be clear.
But that is difficult when discussing the law.
I put "the law" in quotes to indicate the law that God gave to the Israelites through Moses. Not to be confused with "the Law", which is the books of "the law".

1stcenturylady said:

When someone says "the law is the law" or "sin is sin" it begs the questions which laws, or which sins.

So when you say "the law is the law" what are you trying to point out?

Though Paul is clear when read in context, there are many beliefs out there as you know. And some of them are false. Which ones?

1. That the Ten Commandments is the Law. (taught in many churches of all denominations).

2. That we are no longer under the law, so we are not condemned for sinning who believes Jesus paid the penalty. (Reformation)

3. We are no longer under the ceremonial laws, but are still under the Ten Commandments. (Seventh-day Adventists)

4. That the New Covenant is a different set of laws to keep. The law of the Spirit.

5. That the eternal law of God is to love God with all your heart, soul, and minds, and your neighbor as yourself6

6. That we don't sin, so don't need the Ten Commandments? If so, why don't we sin?
a. They are no longer considered sins, because no law.
b. The born again of the Spirit process gives us new natures that do not sin.

Click to expand...

Yes. It's a complicated subject.

Saint Steven said:

I appreciate your comments as well.
The Apostle Paul and others take a contrary stand on the law.
Why do you suppose that is?

Galatians 3:1-3
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

Click to expand...

Do you reckon Paul was addressing more legalism here, such as was common with the Judaizers who kept harassing the new congregations among the gentiles? Their common theme was to bring people back under not the law of liberty but the traditions of the elders, but it's my understanding that they used the term "law" to cover both aspects at times, hence Paul was using it here, since there is no replacement for faith, no list of checklists that can assure we have met all requirements, whether the 10 Commandments or the traditions of the elders with all their stringent do/don'ts. Jesus had to die, our faith has to be firmly rooted in Him as God's Son and our Savior, and that message was hard for the Judaizers who wanted to continue to think that their list of acceptable behaviors was enough. Just wondering. There is a leaning on that word "law" that might need clarification here, and it seems to trip us up. Say we use it as God telling us what the right things to do are, and what our response to it should be, as in: Your word, O God, I have hid in my heart so that I might not sin against You. Your word, O God, is a light to my path. Your precepts, O God, have made me wiser than my adversaries. Or say we use the word "law" to indicate that God gave a list of outcomes to our actions, as in the list of blessings and cursings: if you keep My law, all these blessings will overtake you at home, in the field, but if you don't do them, you will find yourself under curses that overtake you. None of those applications suggest that we can hit a good enough score on the checklist for God to accept us. They just indicate how to find the path that leads to a good life, helpful to define the narrow way we ought to be taking according to Jesus. But there is no entrance without Jesus. The Judaizers failed to catch on to that concept, it appears. God identified Himself this way to Moses - I am the LORD, full of mercy and compassion. There is no hope outside of God's wonderful grace and the tremendous mercy shown to us in Jesus Christ. There is no externally applied appearance of right standing for this kind of love that wants to reshape our very thinking to align with God. I realize in reading Paul's letters that we are missing some of the impetus of his writing, the reasoning behind his statements and explanations, so I have to take the evidences from all over the NT on what may have been the causes for the comments, and we know from Acts the problems that were discussed. So that's how I've taken it. As you look over this, please continue to add your thoughts so that my thinking can be sharpened. My view is necessarily limited to my own experience, and I appreciate that you are adding yours.

Saint Steven said:

Assuming the Ten Commandments were "engraved in letters on stone", the Apostle has this to say about them. They were the transitory ministry that brought condemnation and death that has no glory now. The letter kills. Other than that, he thought they were pretty swell. - lol

With that in mind, why would I want anything to do with them?

2 Corinthians 3:6-11
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

Click to expand...

Paul says a few things that I haven't gotten pegged yet, I'll admit, and part of that may be lost in the reason he was writing in that we don't know what caused him to lean on or combine concepts to make the points that he did. But in this section, I can see his interesting comparison between the God-to-man covenant administration through Moses and the administration through Jesus. I wholeheartedly agree that I am so looking forward to that glory to come. We have this good help, this Comforter, to help us see things that for the most part those people then for some reason (maybe because they willfully refused to have faith?) could not adequately see, as Paul describes here. The statement in Corinthians that we even now still see dimly but will see face to face is an amazing concept. That the blood of bulls and goats (described in Hebrews) that could never wash away our sins is now superseded with the blood of the righteous Son of God which cleanses us from EVERY sin is almost indescribable. That we can boldly come to His throne expecting mercy is amazing!