Do Bible Sabbath keepers and the Catholic Church Agree on Certain points?

BobRyan · Apr 19, 2026

Although many focus only on differences... There are some points of agreement on the seventh day Sabbath topic

For example:

1. Sabbath is one of the TEN Commandments
2. The Ten Commandments are part of the moral law of God
3. The moral law of God is written on the heart under the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 and Heb 8.

====================================
Catholic Catechism

"2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the Sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish Sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107

"Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.108

"2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people

Dies Domini – pt 63

Dies Domini (May 31, 1998)

"63. Christ came to accomplish a new "exodus", to restore freedom to the oppressed. He performed many healings on the Sabbath (cf. Mt 12:9-14 and parallels), certainly not to violate the Lord's Day, but to reveal its full meaning: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mk 2:27). Opposing the excessively legalistic interpretation of some of his contemporaries, and developing the true meaning of the biblical Sabbath, Jesus, as "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mk 2:28), restores to the Sabbath observance its liberating character, carefully safeguarding the rights of God and the rights of man. This is why Christians, called as they are to proclaim the liberation won by the blood of Christ, felt that they had the authority to transfer the meaning of the Sabbath to the day of the Resurrection.

====================================== End
The following Catholic document explains that keeping Sunday is in obedience to the Sabbath commandment. Catholics attend "in obedience to the third commandment of God 'remember thou keep holy the Lord's day'" ((from "The Faith Explained" pg 241.))

( "The Faith Explained" - page 242-243.)
"we know that in the Old Testament it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord’s Day. That was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day..the early Christian church determined as the Lord’s Day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...the reason for changing the Lord’s Day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord’s Day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord’s Day on the say-so of the catholic church.

The Faith Explained (Page 242)
" changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".

"The Faith Explained" (page 243.)
"we know that in the O.T. it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

"The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

"nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

=================== end quote

Some even today will admit "Scripture says Keep holy the Sabbath day" or some variation of that statement

And James 2 says not to dismiss even one commandment
And Mark 7:7-13 is where Christ specifically addresses the problem of editing one of the TEN via man's tradition

Millions of Christians today meet for worship and Bible study any/all days of the week But they admit that the seventh day is still the Bible Sabbath. Saturday. A specific day made holy by God according to Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:2-3.

That does not change simply by meeting for worship and prayer on Wednesday for prayer meetings.
Ex 20:10-11 says God Himself made the 7th day Holy as "The Holy day of the Lord" as Is 58:13 also says.

The actual Sabbath commandment put into stone and kept in the Most Holy place as Ex 20:8-11 does not mention any animal sacrifices.

Gen 2:2-3 as given to mankind in Eden does not mention any animal sacrifices.
Is 66:23 Where Sabbath is to be kept for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth, also does not mention any animal sacrifices
Acts 18:4 were Paul preaches the Gospel "every Sabbath" in the synagogues to both gentiles and Jews... Also does not mention any animal sacrifices

Heb 10:4-9 stating that animal sacrifices and offerings end at the Cross...
yet Paul continues worship services "every Sabbath" Acts 18:4 and it continues for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth in Is 66:23.
Lev 23:2-3 says the 7th day Sabbath, the one in Ex 20, is a "day of holy convocation" and says nothing about having to sacrifice an animal.

Dan 9 points to prayer and worship, without any sacrifices at all

The new Covenant is in Jer 31:31-34 where the same Law of God is written on the heart as we see in Ex 20, where as Deut 5 says God spoke the 'Ten Words and added no more"

Heb 10 says Christ's sacrifice was "once for all sacrifice"

===============================================
Sabbath "The Holy day of the Lord" Ex 20:10, Is 58:13 where God calls it "My Holy Day"

Ex 20:11 "Therefore the Lord BLESSED the Sabbath day and made it Holy"

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

Is God opposed to "Keeping the Commandments of God"??

"the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
"This IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:3-4
"IF you LOVE Me KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15
"LOVE Me and KEEP My Commandments" Ex 20:6

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

WE can find a lot of agreement in those examples above
Agreement across "certain Christian groups"

BobRyan · Apr 19, 2026

You may know of even more areas of agreement when it comes to the Sabbath Commandment found in scripture.
If I think of more... I will post them

My argument is that something C.H. Spurgeon once said "WE have MADE Sunday OUR Sabbath", makes a very good contrast to what God said right in the Sabbath commandment "The seventh day IS THE Sabbath of the LORD" Ex 20:10.

Yet it is the very contrast that a lot of Bible Sabbath Christians point out, and that even the OP quotes of Catholic sources, appear to affirm

BobRyan · Apr 19, 2026

And as this other post points out, agreement exists with other Sunday keeping groups... not just the Catholic Church

BobRyan said:
BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate do still share some points in common:

1. If a church posted on its sign "IT IS NOT A SIN TO BREAK THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" a lot of Christian members of that church would complain and it would not matter if the church was keeping Sunday or the Bible Sabbath as given to Adam.

2. A lot of children in both Sunday School classes and Sabbath School classes are taught that breaking the Ten Commandments is a sin

BobRyan said:
3. A lot of Christians in both Sunday churches and also in the Bible Sabbath churches accept that we are saved by grace through faith and not saved by our own works. So then the Bible teaching that the "good tree" produces "good fruit" of obedience according to Christ in Matt 7 is affirmed. A person must having good fruit of obedience in Matt 7 had to have already been born again (been the good tree), to start with, to produce good fruit. producing good fruit does not turn a bad tree into a good one in Matt 7. Almost everyone can see this easy obvious teaching of Christ in Matt 7.

BobRyan said:
4. James 2 says "to break one , is to break them all" when it comes to the TEN. Many Christians today in Sunday keeping churches and (unedited) Bible Sabbath keeping Christians affirm that same point

5. "Moral law" differs from "ceremonial law" in that moral law defines what sin is and Rom 2:19-20 1 John 3:4, Rom 7:7 state that fact clearly.

BobRyan said:
You can find this in the Baptist Confession of Faith, chpt 19,the Westminster Confession of faith chpt 19, the Catholic Catechism, D.L. Moody's sermon on the Ten Commandments etc (see my signature line). Most of them admit that the TEN were given to mankind in Eden.

God's TEN affirmed according to Christ in Matt 5
God's TEN affirmed according to chapter 19 of the Baptist Confession of Faith
God's TEN affirmed according to chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith
God's TEN affirmed according to D.L. Moody's sermon on the TEN commandments
God's TEN affirmed according to the Catholic Document "Dies Domini" and "The Faith Explained"
God's TEN affirmed according to C.H. Spurgeon and R.C. Sproul

BobRyan said:
* Jer 31:31-34 says the under the NEW Covenant the LAW of God is written on the heart. Paul quotes that fact verbatim in Hebrews 8

A "few" people here and there may not agree to one or two things here, but by an large this is the view of the largest segment of Christianity.

===========

Obviously a lot of differences still exist between Sunday groups and (unchanged) Bible Sabbath groups. But the above list is a good starting point for discussion based on points of agreement.

DamianWarS · Apr 24, 2026

BobRyan said:
1. Sabbath is one of the TEN Commandments
2. The Ten Commandments are part of the moral law of God
3. The moral law of God is written on the heart under the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 and Heb 8.

1. Sabbath [law] is one of the TEN commandments.

It's important to separate 7th day and Sabbath law. Sabbath law is legal code and alone it is not "the Sabbath" experience. The origins of the day have no legal code, and 10 or broadly mosaic reform is where legal code is introduced. You won't see any mention of Sabbath legal code in Genesis.

2. The Ten Commandments are part of the moral law of God

"moral law of God" is not terminology you will find in the entire biblical texts. It sounds biblical because it's easily agreeable in Christian circles, but biblically speaking, this is not terminology that is used to point to the 10 (or anything else). The most unique things that point to the ten are tablets; even then the 10 are a part of an inseparable covenant so one references the other. Ex 20-24 shows us the 10 along with many other laws that are spoken and written down at the foot of the mountain, then a blood covenant is made, then Moses is invited up the mountain where the tablets are actually made. The tablets themselves do not stand alone; they are the covenant documents of the blood covenant just made and represent the entire thing, not an elevated or separated part.

3. The moral law of God is written on the heart under the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 and Heb 8.

This is still dependent upon the "moral law of God" language. Jer 31:31-33 or Heb speaks nothing of the moral law of God. Those words are never used (here or anywhere else). So, at what point is this just a superimposed post-biblical tradition that we are relying upon to define these things? Why don't I make up "super law of God" and call this the entire covenant or some other group of laws, then use these same references to say "look at Jer 31, and Heb 8 it speaks of the super law of God..." and treat this like no one noticed anything? It's an irresponsible exegesis relying on terminology that is defined outside of the text (and the entire bible).

Jer 31 speaks of a new covenant that will not be like the old. Where God's law is written upon our hearts, which implicitly contrasts written upon stone or scrolls. Rom 7:6 can be doved tailed into this "...we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code" and 2 Cor 3:2 "You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." These show a relationship that the Spirit is vital to the process of being written upon our hearts. This isn't about a verbatim code copied over; the legal code of the law is what we are released from, and the purpose of the law is what the Spirit echoes in our hearts. We can see this demonstrated in circumcision (Col 2), Which in the flesh is legal code, even a sign of an everlasting covenant (Gen 17) but in Christ we are able to accomplish that which the law testifies to so that the physical is no longer required.

Falling on terminology like "moral law of God" to make your point is falling upon post-biblical tradition, not on biblical truths themselves. Go ahead and make the same claims, just use biblical language to do so, otherwise it comes across as indoctrination and agenda-driven, neither of which we should be associated with

SabbathBlessings · Apr 24, 2026

We do not determine what is moral God does. Anything He deems is doing what is right = righteousness =morality.

God's righteousness is eternal

Psa 119:142 Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness,
And Your law is truth.

Its the foundation of His throne

Psa 89:14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne;
Mercy and truth go before Your face.

So when God deems something as righteousness, like He did with His commandments, it stays that way.

Psa 119:172 My tongue shall speak of Your word,
For all Your commandments are righteousness.

Which would of course include the 4th commandment

Isa 56:1 Thus says the Lord: “Keep justice, and do righteousness,
For My salvation is about to come,
And My righteousness to be revealed.
2 Blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who lays hold on it;
Who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil.”

The Holy Spirit wrote the Ten Commandments so to dismantle one of them and claim its not moral or doing what is righteous when God Himself said it is, that will need to be sorted out by Him.

The opposite of doing righteousness is unrighteousness or what God calls evil

56 Thus says the Lord:

2 Blessed is the man who does this,
And the son of man who lays hold on it;
Who keeps from defiling the Sabbath,
And keeps his hand from doing any evil.”

Neh 13:17 17 Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said to them, “What evil thing is this that you do, by which you profane the Sabbath day?

Does God ever change what He deems as doing evil and what He deems as doing righteousness?

I do not believe so it stays that way until probation closes

Rev 22:11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”

To dismantle one of the commandments of God written by God and claim we treat it differently than how God commanded to keep it I believe one is taking liberties that only belong to God and perhaps this mindset is what happened to those who came before us who could not enter their promised rest we are told not to follow lest we fall in the same example of disobedience. Heb4:11

Eze 20:16 because they despised My judgments and did not walk in My statutes, but profaned My Sabbaths; for their heart went after their idols

For God Himself to claim profaning His Sabbath and compare it to idol worship- He said its doing evil, I think its something for people to really consider which voice they are listening to. God doesn't want us working 7 days a week Exo20:9, He from creation created the Sabbath to rest from our works and focus on our Creator Exo20:11 Rev14:7 resting in Him for salvation, spending sanctified time resting in Him for our sanctification Eze20:12 because we cannot do this ourselves, we need God. Isa66:17. I think many are missing out what the Sabbath really means, God wants to spend time with us, the Sabbath is a delight Isa58:13 and blessing Isa56:2. To choose our own day that God never blessed or sanctified and not what He commanded I believe is sending Him a message- should we trust Him at His word or doubt what He says because we know better and follow the crowd. Hasn't this been the battle from the very beginning?

BobRyan · Apr 24, 2026

DamianWarS said:
1. Sabbath [law] is one of the TEN commandments.

It's important to separate 7th day and Sabbath law.

making up terms does not help.

The Sabbath commandment is found verbatim in Ex 20:8-11.
That is another point where Catholics and Adventists (and almost every Christian on the planet ..agrees"

DamianWarS said:
Sabbath law is legal code and alone it is not "the Sabbath" experience. The origins of the day have no legal code

As all the major confessions of Faith affirm the Law regarding Sabbath comes to us from the TEN, which began in Eden.
So then... from Eden it was "a sin to take God's name in vain" (For example

DamianWarS said:
, and 10 or broadly mosaic reform is where legal code is introduced. You won't see any mention of Sabbath legal code in Genesis.

2. The Ten Commandments are part of the moral law of God

"moral law of God" is not terminology you will find in the entire biblical texts.

I use it because the major "Confession of Faith" in the world use that terminology and my point in this thread is to show areas of common ground agreement. Moral law is that Law that defines what sin is and is not. So for example 1 John 3:4 "Sin IS transgression of the Law"

DamianWarS said:
3. The moral law of God is written on the heart under the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 and Heb 8.

This is still dependent upon the "moral law of God" language. Jer 31:31-33

Yet it is a point of Agreement between Sabbath keeping Christians like Adventists and the Confessions of faith such as the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and even the Catholic Catechism.

DamianWarS said:
Jer 31 speaks of a new covenant that will not be like the old

The Jer 31 New Covenant is written on the heart as Moses said in the book of Deuteronomy. IT is the one and only Gospel covenant , in the one and only Gospel that was "preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8

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

As for the title of this thread and OP,, "yes" there are some points of agreement between Bible Sabbath keepers and the Catholic church.

care to address any of the points listed in agreement?

DamianWarS · Apr 25, 2026

BobRyan said:
making up terms does not help.

The Sabbath commandment is found verbatim in Ex 20:8-11.
That is another point where Catholics and Adventists (and almost every Christian on the planet ..agrees"

Whose making up terms? I'm confused by the accusation. The instruction of the 4th commandment is a form of legal code that did not exist on the 7th day. Ex 20:8 speaks of "the sabbath" (noun), where the 7th day of creation, not only is called the 7th day in context (no terminology is injected) but also speaks of sabbath (verb) as an action performed on the day. The word in context is not a noun, and would have to be converted making it a proper noun like "the [noun]". Exodus is law, it speaks it as a noun, "the sabbath" where the creation account speaks it in an ordinal number, "the 7th day" (it's not actually called the sabbath). That's how the bible presents it, I didn't make it up.

BobRyan said:
As all the major confessions of Faith affirm the Law regarding Sabbath comes to us from the TEN, which began in Eden.
So then... from Eden it was "a sin to take God's name in vain" (For example

That's an overgeneralization. The 4th commandment is grounded in the 7th day, which is declared right in the law. That does not mean the law started on the 7th day, which is a different claim that all major confessions of faith do not affirm.

BobRyan said:
I use it because the major "Confession of Faith" in the world use that terminology and my point in this thread is to show areas of common ground agreement. Moral law is that Law that defines what sin is and is not. So for example 1 John 3:4 "Sin IS transgression of the Law"

"God's moral law" indeed is rooted in traditional terminology and is still common today, as you pointed out, but it is not biblical terminology. This points to traditional institutions, not biblical ones. This is not trivial, and we should take pause at this and reground our understanding on biblical truths over purely post-biblical traditions. We can't change biblical truths through petition, you may find all the agreement you wish but it doesn't change the fundmental missing link to the biblical espression. I have no issue with using post biblical terminology, we do it all the time like with theological concepts like the Trinity. but you still need this to be rooted in biblical expression, that part is missing in your end. The 10 to not occupy that level of expression you're forcing in NT teaching.

BobRyan said:
Yet it is a point of Agreement between Sabbath keeping Christians like Adventists and the Confessions of faith such as the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and even the Catholic Catechism.

Because the Baptist Confession of Faith or Westminster Confession of Faith, etc... affirm Sunday for worship/gathering it disagrees with the 4th commandment, which is explicitly regarding the 7th day (not the 8th or 1st). Implicitly, this means these confessions affirm a release from the binding legal code that governs the day and a change to a new governing system that does not regulate the day. That alone undermines your whole position. It doesn't matter if they call it the same word or point to the same commandment, based on the 4th commandment, 8th/1st day worship is not a substitute for the Sabbath and requires a release from the legal code in order for it to be framed that way which you fundamentally reject. The two can only agree superficially so long as you ignore a whole pile of things. Your are promoting a non-negotiable 4th commandment where these confessions you proint to are promoting a negotiable 4th commandment. Pointing to these confessions and saying "look at what they are doing" is pointing to a confession that affirms the release of Sabbath legal code which you fundamentally disagree with.

BobRyan said:
The Jer 31 New Covenant is written on the heart as Moses said in the book of Deuteronomy. IT is the one and only Gospel covenant , in the one and only Gospel that was "preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8

Abraham's faith was sealed with the binding legal code of circumcision as a sign of an everlasting covenant agreement. Sabbath also functions as a sign of an everlasting covenant, not for Abraham, but for Israel post-exodus under Moses. Sabbath was not a part of the covenant agreement for Abraham so his faith is without that legal code that you are trying to prop up. There is no sabbath instruction whatsoever in all of Genesis. The word "sabbath" itself is only spoken of in verb form in Genesis never as a noun "the Sabbath". So like Abraham, we are justified by faith not by legal code. the legal code itself points to Christ, it was important to testify to the coming of the Lord and this is the call of Israel to faithfulling carry out these instruction to prepare for a Christ. Christ has come, the law continues to testify Christ but we are not called to continue it legal code, but rather In a new way under the Spirit (Rom 7:6)

BobRyan · Apr 25, 2026

DamianWarS said:
Whose making up terms? I'm confused by the accusation. The instruction of the 4th commandment is a form of legal code

I fully agree that the Ten Commandments are legal code, God's Law, "The Commandment of God" as Christ says in Mark 7.

DamianWarS said:
that did not exist on the 7th day.

According to Gen 2 AND ALSO vs 11 of the Ex 20 Sabbath commandment, God MADE the Sabbath in Gen 2 as a sanctified holy day . so then binding on mankind as such

DamianWarS said:
Ex 20:8 speaks of "the sabbath" (noun), where the 7th day of creation

Ex 20:10 "the SEVENTH day IS THE SABBATH of the LORD"
Ex 20:11 "FOR IN six days the Lord made...

Ex 20:11 "for in six days the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and "made it holy" (Sanctified it)

Sanctified and blessed in Gen 2 as the text states above in Ex 20.

DamianWarS said:
, not only is called the 7th day in context (no terminology is injected) but also speaks of sabbath (verb) as an action

Ex 20:11 "for in six days the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and "made it holy" (Sanctified it)

DamianWarS said:
performed on the day. The word in context is not a noun,

BLESS The Sabbath day
The Sabbath of the Lord Thy God
Sanctified IT

All refer to the Gen 2 act of God which is according to the commandment the origin of that holy day "Made IT Holy"

DamianWarS said:
Because the Baptist Confession of Faith or Westminster Confession of Faith, etc... affirm Sunday for worship/gathering it disagrees with the 4th commandment,

They all affirm the Sabbath as included in the moral law of God given in Eden to all mankind.

This thread is about points of agreement between Bible Sabbath keepers and the statements made by the Catholic church on the subject of the Sabbath made by God

DamianWarS said:
Your are promoting a non-negotiable 4th commandment where these confessions you proint to are promoting a negotiable 4th commandment.

The confessions, (including the Catholic Church) claim a right to bend/edit/modify one of the commandments. The Jews did the same thing in Mark 7 with the commandment to "honor your father and mother".

Christ points out that they were doing this but does not say that this indicates any defect at all in God's Commandments or the 5th commandment itself. Christ said that their self proclaimed supposedly "infallible" church tradition was "in error" in Mark 7.

DamianWarS said:
Pointing to these confessions and saying "look at what they are doing" is pointing to a confession that affirms the release of Sabbath legal code

The Title of this thread is NOT "Everything the Catholic church teaches is also taught by Bible Sabbath keeping groups." as I think we can all see.
Rather certain statement are highlighted that are in agreement with certain positions of Bible Sabbath keeprs.

DamianWarS said:
Christ has come, the law continues to testify Christ but we are not called to continue it legal code

no text says that.
Rather the LEGAL code in the ten is repeatedly quoted (Eph 6:1-2) is repeatedly quoted as authority and law ... as "The Commandment of God" in Mark 7... saying "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

DamianWarS said:
, but rather In a new way under the Spirit (Rom 7:6)

Rom 7 days not declare any day of the week other than the 7th day to be the Sabbath for the NT saints.
Paul preaches the gospel "EVERY Sabbath" Acts 18:4 to BOTH gentiles and Jews in Acts 13 and Acts 18

DamianWarS · Apr 26, 2026

BobRyan said:
I fully agree that the Ten Commandments are legal code, God's Law, "The Commandment of God" as Christ says in Mark 7.

that we are released from (Rom 7:6)

BobRyan said:
According to Gen 2 AND ALSO vs 11 of the Ex 20 Sabbath commandment, God MADE the Sabbath in Gen 2 as a sanctified holy day . so then binding on mankind as such

What is binding? If not legal code (because there is no legal code), then what? I am not writing away the significance of the 7th day, you've just limited it to legal code. I'm showing that in the beginning, it never had a legal code, making the overall message transcendent of legal code, which is a lot more powerful of a point to make. Sabbath and the 4th commandment point to Christ, it is Christ that separates the darkness in us, starts a work in us that ushers in his rest. The creation testifies to this perfectly; the NT even uses the language "new creation" does it need to be spelled out more?

BobRyan said:
Ex 20:10 "the SEVENTH day IS THE SABBATH of the LORD"
Ex 20:11 "FOR IN six days the Lord made...

Ex 20:11 "for in six days the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and "made it holy" (Sanctified it)

Sanctified and blessed in Gen 2 as the text states above in Ex 20.

BobRyan said:
Ex 20:11 "for in six days the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and "made it holy" (Sanctified it)

BobRyan said:
BLESS The Sabbath day
The Sabbath of the Lord Thy God
Sanctified IT

All refer to the Gen 2 act of God which is according to the commandment the origin of that holy day "Made IT Holy"

BobRyan said:
They all affirm the Sabbath as included in the moral law of God given in Eden to all mankind.

This thread is about points of agreement between Bible Sabbath keepers and the statements made by the Catholic church on the subject of the Sabbath made by God

There is no biblical expression showing the 10 as "the moral law of God". I get the historic use that you're defaulting to, but it's still absent from biblical expression. The only commandment given during creation is "be fruitful and multiply...". The 4th commandment does show us the day was set apart and holy, but it does not show legal code upon it.

Where Genesis never uses sabbath as a noun, you're right to point out that Exodus does. Exodus is speaking of the 7th day and I don't have a problem using that language for the 7th day "The Sabbath" I only separate one as law and the other as creation week. Calling them both "Sabbath" however, doesn't force legal code upon creation. The Sabbath legal code is explicitly the sign of the covenant, and it's hard to promote it pre-covenant when the legal code is explicitly anchored with the covenant. The meaning goes back to the beginning, this is undisputed, but the law itself has a separate starting point which is clear just by reading the texts.

Sure, it is made holy and sanctified... so are we, in fact, the entire creation account can be read as a salvation experience that ends in sanctification (upon us), but the legal code part is still missing. It's not in Genesis, nor is it retroactively applied. We are sanctified because of the work Christ has accomplished, and without accomplished work there can be no sabbath. (Heb 10:10,14 1 Cor 6:11) Creation week uniquely has Sabbath without the legal code, which counters the point you're trying to make. Abraham has faith without legal code, and Paul points this out again, countering your points.

BobRyan said:
The confessions, (including the Catholic Church) claim a right to bend/edit/modify one of the commandments. The Jews did the same thing in Mark 7 with the commandment to "honor your father and mother".

Christ points out that they were doing this but does not say that this indicates any defect at all in God's Commandments or the 5th commandment itself. Christ said that their self proclaimed supposedly "infallible" church tradition was "in error" in Mark 7.

I never call the 10 defective, please don't suggest that I have. Christ also doesn't say he was exclusively referring to the 10 commandments either. Law is covenant law; Jesus is not trying to separate the 10 from the covenant, which is something foreign to the entire biblical texts.

BobRyan said:
The Title of this thread is NOT "Everything the Catholic church teaches is also taught by Bible Sabbath keeping groups." as I think we can all see.
Rather certain statement are highlighted that are in agreement with certain positions of Bible Sabbath keeprs.

If we are being honest, it's a superficial agreement at best. Agreement of language but not agreement of practice because fundamentally these confessions do not align with the legal code of the 4th commandment (they in fact violate it), and this is ultimately your point but oce you get past the language, the two are not in agreement at all, and your point falls apart.

BobRyan said:
no text says that.
Rather the LEGAL code in the ten is repeatedly quoted (Eph 6:1-2) is repeatedly quoted as authority and law ... as "The Commandment of God" in Mark 7... saying "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

Eph 6 doesn't collapse the "commandments" into the 10, which is what you are trying to do. 1 Cor 7:19 is not speaking about the 10 which can be clearly seen by looking at mirror verses in Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15. Galations uses the same language (and it's still from Paul's hand) that circumcision is nothing but what counts is.... he never says the 10 commandments. Galatians reveals the commandments he is referring to are unique to the new covenant identity, not the legal code of the old.

BobRyan said:
Rom 7 days not declare any day of the week other than the 7th day to be the Sabbath for the NT saints.
Paul preaches the gospel "EVERY Sabbath" Acts 18:4 to BOTH gentiles and Jews in Acts 13 and Acts 18

Rom 7 says nothing close to this. You will have to quote the verse for me to comment on your point in Rom 7 (if you were in fact pointing out something in Rom 7). Paul was a Jew, and he kept Jewish vows. He would go to the synagogues, out of his own routine and use that to preach the gospel. He does not force this as a model in his preaching that it must be on the Sabbath. In Acts 13, Paul and Barnabas enter the synagogue as attendees. When complete, an announcement is made if anyone wishes to say a word... and this opens the door for Paul and Barnabas who were always eager to preach the gospel, but there is no suggestion that this is planned. From this point, Paul uses the synagogues as a platform to spread the gospel because it made sense, (those who knew scripture, those who were already god fearing) but if you read Acts to the end, Paul does not stay in the synagogues, and his approach evolves with his mission. For example, he also preaches on Mars Hill, and he both "reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews… and in the marketplace every day…" (all in Acts 17) The marketplace was also his platform, as was the synagogue. As he progresses, he moves away from Jewish platforms as Christianity begins to claim its own identity apart from a Jewish sect. Paul certainly wasn't promoting a Sabbath model; he started that way because it overlapped with his own routines and passions, in the end, he didn't have the luxury to do either, and preached in chains. He certainly doesn't limit it to place and time, and it was opportunities that he looked for, not alignment with Sabbath legal code (that says nothing of gathering or teaching).

I would encourage you to read more of Acts to align better with its overall message.

BobRyan · Apr 26, 2026

I fully agree that the Ten Commandments are legal code, God's Law, "The Commandment of God" as Christ says in Mark 7.

DamianWarS said:
that we are released from (Rom 7:6)

Mark 7 does not say "that we are released from" but I am sure the Jewish leaders would have loved it if Christ and dismissed His own teaching in Mark 7 with "that you are released from"

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts 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, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

this is right where some folks imagine Paul adding "that we are released from'

DamianWarS said:
What is binding?

Paul says it is the TEN that are binding because there are that unique unit of Law where "The command to Honor father and mother IS the first commandment WITH a promise" Eph 6;1-2

This just isn't that difficult to read

Sabbath "The Holy day of the Lord" Ex 20:10, Is 58:13 where God calls it "My Holy Day"

Ex 20:11 "Therefore the Lord BLESSED the Sabbath day and made it Holy"

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

Is God opposed to "Keeping the Commandments of God"??

"the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
"This IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:3-4
"IF you LOVE Me KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15
"LOVE Me and KEEP My Commandments" Ex 20:6

DamianWarS · Apr 26, 2026

BobRyan said:
Mark 7 does not say "that we are released from" but I am sure the Jewish leaders would have loved it if Christ and dismissed His own teaching in Mark 7 with "that you are released from"

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts 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, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

this is right where some folks imagine Paul adding "that we are released from'

Paul says we are released from the legal code of the old. Paul speaks post resurrection and where his point may have been too soon at the time of Mark 7 it was not when he penned it.

I'm not trying to say the 5th commandment has no value but Christ calls out some of tension in what you quoted as the legal code demanded death. Rom 8:1 says there is no more condemnation of the law. Rom 7:1 states that the law has authority or jurisdiction over a person only as long as they live showing that death triggers a release of this system and v4 shows us how we "also died to the law through the body of Christ" going on in v6 that "by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit".

the 10 are threshold laws, the new way of the Spirit (Rom 7:6) is Spirit led (Gal 5:18) where thresholds have been flattened and we are driven by moment-to-moment led by the Spirit with a focus of faith expressed through love (Gal 5:6) which is the new creation (Gal 6:15). these are the things that count, these are the commadments we are focused on: John 13:34-35 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

BobRyan said:
Paul says it is the TEN that are binding because there are that unique unit of Law where "The command to Honor father and mother IS the first commandment WITH a promise" Eph 6;1-2

This just isn't that difficult to read

Sabbath "The Holy day of the Lord" Ex 20:10, Is 58:13 where God calls it "My Holy Day"

Ex 20:11 "Therefore the Lord BLESSED the Sabbath day and made it Holy"

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

Is God opposed to "Keeping the Commandments of God"??

"the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
"This IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:3-4
"IF you LOVE Me KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15
"LOVE Me and KEEP My Commandments" Ex 20:

your position requires conflating the word commandment with the 10 and ignoring the context. 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 for example shows a different direction. Rev, 1 John and the gospel of John are all written by the same hand (John). Love is central to his writings, he does not cite the 10, but what is more appropriate is John 13:34-35 which is spoken just before John 14:15 setting it up so we understand the context that he is addressing. 1 John as a whole is a letter expanding upon this which become quite evidence just be reading it. 1 John 2:7-8 seems to be a direct reference back to this new commandment in John 13:34-45 establishing the context of the letter and Revelation would also follow in the same direction as is consistent with other Johannine texts.

commandments = 10 commandments is an over generalization and requires more information from the context to unpack it's meaning. you seem only interested in the cut and paste verses and not the study of the context. you may quote 1000 verses with the words "commandments" but until you show you've taken the time to unpack their meaning in context it's just noise.

BobRyan · Apr 26, 2026

DamianWarS said:
Paul says we are released from the legal code of the old.

old what?

Are we released from 'do not take God's name in vain"? Answer?: No
Are we released from "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18 Answer? No (Rom 13)
Are we released from "Love God with all your heart"? Deut 6;5. Answer? No. Matt 22.
Are we released from "The Commandments of God"? Ex 20:1-20? Answer? No. 1 Cor 7:19

Rev 12:14 "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14;12
Where "the first commandment with a promise is still, Honor your father and mother" Eph 6:1-2

No wonder both Catholic and Bible Sabbath keeping Christians agree on certain key points of scripture as we see in the OP

DamianWarS said:
Paul speaks post resurrection and where his point may have been too soon at the time of Mark 7

Mark is written after the resurrection. Paul was not at war with the Gospel of Mark.

Are you casting about you for a solution?

Mark 7
This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts 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, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Paul in full agreement says this in Rom 3:31
"What then, do we make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 3:31

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

DamianWarS said:
I'm not trying to say the 5th commandment has no value

Eph 6 does not say "the 5th still has commandment has some value"

Eph 6 (That you still do not bring yourself to actually quote)

Eph 6: 1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth.

Paul does not say "Children obey your parents BUT YOU ARE RELEASED from the command to Honor your parents"!!
No that is not found in any text ... no not one.

Rather Eph 6 ADDS to Paul's own statement of "obey your parents for this is right" by adding the force of Ten Commandment LAW to his own statement.

DamianWarS said:
but Christ calls out some of tension in what you quoted as the legal code demanded death. Rom 8:1 says there is no more condemnation of the law.

False.

Rom 6 states 1 Cor 6 state that violating the Commandments of God is still sin and also "the wages of sin is still death".

Paul reminds the Christian church in 1 Cor 6 that commandment breaking is STILL wrong. He says "be not deceived" commandment braking is still wrong.

1 Cor 6:
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God

DamianWarS said:
Rom 7:1 states that the law has authority or jurisdiction over a person only as long as they live

Yep. All have sinned Rom 3, All are doomed to the 2nd death of Rev 20. So then ALL NEED the Gospel.

Rom 6:
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.
:

DamianWarS said:
these are the things that count, these are the commadments we are focused on: John 13:34-35 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another:

Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" as Christ reminds us in Matt 22

Rev 14:12 "the saints KEEP The COMMANDMENTS of GOD and their faith in Jesus"

DamianWarS said:
your position requires conflating the word commandment with the 10 and ignoring the context.

on the contrary, your position requires that we ignore the teaching of Christ in Mark 7 and Matt 19 , the teaching of Paul in Eph 6 and Rom 13, the teaching of James in James 2 where the Commandments of God includes examples of the very TEN you claim to ignore.

James 2:
8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,”(Lev 19:18 Matt 22) you are doing well.

9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty

DamianWarS said:
1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 for example shows a different direction.

1 Cor 7:19 says "What matters is KEEPING the COMMANDMENTS of GOD"
where "the FIRST COMMANDMENT WITH a promise " is still "Honor your father and mother" Eph 6:1-2

DamianWarS said:
Rev, 1 John and the gospel of John are all written by the same hand (John). Love is central to his writing

John reminds us
"IF YOU Love Me, KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15
Ex 20 tells us that God Himself says to "LOVE ME and KEEP My Commandments" Ex 20:6
John says "THIS IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:3-4
Where according to Paul in the NT "the FIRST COMMANDMENT WITH a promise " is still "Honor your father and mother" Eph 6:1-2
John says "The saints KEEP the COMMANDMENTS OF GOD AND their faith in Jesus" REv 14:12

DamianWarS said:
s, he does not cite the 10

Paul cites the TEN in Eph 6, in Rom 13, in Rom 7 and condemns violation of the TEN in 1 Cor 6.

You need to read more.

DamianWarS said:
commandments = 10 commandments is an over generalization

please stop for at least 10 seconds and pay actual attention to the details in Eph 6:1-2

There is only ONE context where "Honor your father and mother IS THE FIRST COMMANDMENT WITH a promise" as Paul insists in Eph 6:1-2 and that is in the confines of the VERY TEN that you are so anxious to dismiss.

Let that irrefutable fact "sink in".
At some point it pays "to throw away the shovel".

Your position so far is in opposition TO BOTH the Catholic and the Bible Sabbath groups in the OP on the very points that the share in common. The points where they have actual agreement.

IF YOUR point on this thread is to say "yes they do agree on certain points, but I can think up a position that is in opposition to everyone of them including all the texts you are bringing up in defense of that common ground" . IF that is your topic... start a thread on it.

DamianWarS · Apr 27, 2026

BobRyan said:
old what?
...

the old legal code.

NIV
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

ESV
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

KJV
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

the greek it's lit. "letter". In context 7:1 helps define the meaning.

7:1b NIV "...that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives?"
7:1b ESV "...that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?"
7:1b KJV "...that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?"

so what is the letter? The letter is unique to the law, as per the context, that which has dominion, is binding/has authority over. This is legal code, and this is why translations use "written code".

This doesn't change morality; sin is still sin, it was sin before covenant law, and it remains sin after covenant law, but the legal code has been released. To suggest that means we are free to sin is a strawman. I don't need to look to the 10 commandments to know not to murder, steal or not to use God's name in vain. This is all self-evident in new covenant teaching; the difference is that these are not threshold requirements, which is the system of the legal code. It is no longer "do not muder" or "do not use God's name in vain", those can still be wrong they just aren't thresholds that flip our actions from justified to unjustified. Instead, we are continually walking in the Spirit to direct our every breath. If we come to the point where we cross or come close to these thresholds, they we are not walking in the Spirit and have already had many misteps well before the threshold came close. I am not guided by these thresholds to keep me aligned, I am guided by the Spirit with NT teaching to keep me aligned.

BobRyan said:
Mark is written after the resurrection. Paul was not at war with the Gospel of Mark.

Are you casting about you for a solution?
...

Indeed, Paul is not at war with the gospels and Mark was written after the resurrection. The context, however, is still pre-resurrection, but Christ still brings up the tension, showing that the condemnation of law is death. "Tradition of men" would be something like calling the 10 commandments "the moral law of God" is it right or wrong to call it this? It's puts a emphasis on it that is not a part of biblical expression. I am not saying we should not honour our parents, I am saying the legal code has been made obsolete, and we not keep threshold laws to align us to God's will; we follow the Spirit.

BobRyan said:
Eph 6 does not say "the 5th still has commandment has some value"

Eph 6 (That you still do not bring yourself to actually quote)
...

Paul still says we are released from the legal code, there is no way around that, covenant law is what he is speaking of which is clear in 7:1 , but we are not released from moral responsibility so there is still overlap. Paul reframes the 5th under Christ, it is not "Children obey your parents [blindly]" it is children obey your parents in the Lord". Paul's goal is not to separate the 10 from the law which is what you have turned this into, his goal is pulling out moral responsibility and reframing it under Christ.

BobRyan said:
False.

Rom 6 states 1 Cor 6 state that violating the Commandments of God is still sin and also "the wages of sin is still death".
...

What are the "commandments of God" if we study 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15 together it doesn't point to covenant law or the 10. 1 Cor 6 says "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." This is addressing up immoralities and is not speaking of covenant law.. You seem to overgeneralize everything to mean obedience to the 10 commandments. You need to be more context-driven over these overgeneralizations.

BobRyan said:
Yep. All have sinned Rom 3, All are doomed to the 2nd death of Rev 20. So then ALL NEED the Gospel.

Rom 6:
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who ha...

I've read Rom 6 too. I agree we all need the gospel but you're going to have to unpack this better if there is something specific you are trying to address over just "we all need the gospel"

BobRyan said:
Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" as Christ reminds us in Matt 22

Rev 14:12 "the saints KEEP The COMMANDMENTS of GOD and their faith in Jesus"

You are conflating still without doing any study around it. What does commandments mean? are you saying it means Lev 19:18? What is your point? My point is that these references you're pulling out, saying "commandments," do not isolate the 10 from the law and are uniquely addressing new covenant teachings, not old covenant legal code. John leans to the new commandment that Christ gives in John 13.

BobRyan said:
on the contrary, your position requires that we ignore the teaching of Christ in Mark 7 and Matt 19 , the teaching of Paul in Eph 6 and Rom 13, the teaching of James in James 2 where the Commandments of God includes examples of the very TEN you claim to ignore.
...

I am rejecting that these isolate the 10 from the law, and impose them as the legal code of the new (which seems to be your goal) The royal law, Christ;s law, or how John puts it a "new commandment I give you" all align to love your neighbour as yourself, practice. It does not align to old legal code. I have no issue with calling murder, stealing, lying or using God's name in vain as wrong; But I do I have issue justifing our actions because we haven't crossed these thresholds. I have an issue with following clearly ritually based law like the 4th commandment in a strict legal sense, ignoring the deeper meanings that point to Christ.

BobRyan said:
1 Cor 7:19 says "What matters is KEEPING the COMMANDMENTS of GOD"
where "the FIRST COMMANDMENT WITH a promise " is still "Honor your father and mother" Eph 6:1-2

Indeed, now read Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15. You're just conflating concepts you want to and ignoring everything else. The verses I'm quoting are actually mirror versions of themselves and help understand what Paul means by "commandments of God."

BobRyan said:
John reminds us
"IF YOU Love Me, KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15
...

you're still conflating. how many times do I need to bring this up before you actually read the text to understand what it is pointing to (or at least show me you've attempted go deeper). if it points to the old covenant, then it points to physical circumcision as much as it points to Sabbath law.

BobRyan said:
Paul cites the TEN in Eph 6, in Rom 13, in Rom 7 and condemns violation of the TEN in 1 Cor 6.

You need to read more.

Paul quotes from some of the 10 (he quotes from outside the 10 too), so you interpret this as separating the 10 from its covenant and imposing them as legal code under the new? He indeed does the former, and he indeed does not do the latter.

BobRyan said:
please stop for at least 10 seconds and pay actual attention to the details in Eph 6:1-2
....

In Exodus 20-23 the 10 commandments are first (ex 20), then Israel is too scared to hear from God directly and wants Moses as a mediator (Ch 22-23). In 24, Moses writes it all down, then they form a blood covenant from all the commandments that God spoke, not just the 10. Ex 31 the first tablets are made. they are the covenant documents for the entire covenant from 20-23 that they had a blood covenant in 24. The 10 are still first, so the 5th is de facto first with a promise. You can take all of Leviticus and any legal code of the covenant and still say the 5th is the first with a promise because the 10 are literally the first spoken commandments. Ex 20 marks the beginning of the covenant, to which the 10 are first, and a blood covenant is finalized in 24. There are many commandments with promises that predate the 10, so the fact that Paul isolates the 5th as "the first commandment with a promise" is saying he is viewing it within a covenant law framework that has place and time. Notice he doesn't go back to Genesis to envoke sabbath law? He keeps to the covenant boundaries.

My main issue with your position is the broad assumptions you make that everything affirms the separation of the 10 commandments and subsequent transfer of them to the new as legal code, which of course, nowhere in the bible does it say this or read that way. Read Ex 20-24 yourself and tell me where the covenant starts and stops? Christ or Paul never try to separate the 10 from the covenant. When he speaks of law (like in Rom 7:1) he means all of covenant law. So when he speaks that we are released from law (Rom 7:6) he means all of covenant law. This doesn't mean we are free to murder, steal, lie, etc... that's a strawman. The new covenant, however, has a new measure that broadly reveals ritual/ceremony of the old to point to Christ and reshape and flattens moral thresholds to a framework of being led in the Spirit and within a "in Christ" centred context (like what Ep 6:1-2 does). We don't need to guess, the NT has complete instructions spelled out for us and we can follow what it tells us rather than blindly looking at the old covenant. We also have the Spirit to help and guide us (given explicitly for this reason). Sabbath laws point blank is missing from new covenant teaching, and you only address this thematically or from broad association but you can't actually isolate new covenant teaching that shows us sabbath law is imposed on the new. Read Col 2:16 its pretty much a direct comment on Lev 23 (the whole thing). Read Lev 23 and Colossians shows us a different goal for these things.

BobRyan · Apr 27, 2026

DamianWarS said:
the old legal code.

NIV
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit

"The wages of sin is DEATH" is the context in Rom 6 for what we find in Rom 7. You keep insisting on out-of-context references.

That Law you are so anxious to get rid of ... is the one that says "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 and "do not covet" Ex 20 as Paul reminds you in your own Rom 7 text, but never quoted by you.

The death sentence in Rom 6 and 7, binds all humans for all have sinned as Rom 3 says (also context for Rom 7 which you do not mention)

Paul is not complaining about the supposedly horrible idea that we are not supposed to take God's name in vain. Rather he is objecting to the horrible lake of fire ending that "the wages of sin is death" Rom 6 places us in. You attack "do not take God's name in vain" as if that is the great curse we are trying to avoid when in reality the Rom 6 context shows that the thing to be avoided is the second death penalty for violation of that laws.

And since that is true Paul can then say "I AGREE WITH THE LAW" " but "SIN IN ME" is AT WAR with that Law. Paul makes it clear in Rom 7 that the problem is NOT "the holy , just and good LAW" of God. Rather the problem is that we have sinned AND we have a sinful nature dictating our behavior of rebellion until we are born again and walk by the Spirit.

Now back to the actual topic of the thread... the points of agreement between Bible Sabbath Keeping Christians and the statements that the Catholic church makes in the OP

DamianWarS said:
My main issue with your position is the broad assumptions you make that everything affirms the separation of the 10 commandments

God Himself separates the TEN , placing only the TEN inside the Ark and all other scripture OUTSIDE
God Himself separates the TEN in Deut 5 saying "He SPOKE the TEN and ADDED no more"

And not only does the Catholic church admit to that distinction so also do the major confessions of faith in Christianity

Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy
[*]R.C. Sproul

In other words , the point you are objecting to is NOT one of the differences between Bible Sabbath keeping Christians and "you" rather it is a difference between your POV and almost ALL of Christianity!

Why drag that into this thread??

DamianWarS said:
and subsequent transfer of them to the new as legal code

Jer 31 is the one saying that the moral law of God known in Jeremiah's day, known to him and his readers is the one that is "written on the heart and mind" under the NEW Covenant.

The one where God "spoke the TEN and added no more" as Deut 5 says and has all of Jeremiah's readers knew.

This is incredibly easy to follow which is why this point is held by almost all of Christianity today.
So why not focus instead on the actual topic of this thread??

DamianWarS · Apr 28, 2026

BobRyan said:
"The wages of sin is DEATH" is the context in Rom 6 for what we find in Rom 7. You keep insisting on out-of-context references.

That Law you are so anxious to get rid of ... is the one that says "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 and "do not covet" Ex 20 as Paul reminds you in your own Rom 7 text, but never quoted by you.

The death sentence in Rom 6 and 7, binds all humans for all have sinned as Rom 3 says (also context for Rom 7 which you do not mention)

Paul is not complaining about the supposedly horrible idea that we are not supposed to take God's name in vain. Rather he is objecting to the horrible lake of fire ending that "the wages of sin is death" Rom 6 places us in. You attack "do not take God's name in vain" as if that is the great curse we are trying to avoid when in reality the Rom 6 context shows that the thing to be avoided is the second death penalty for violation of that laws.

And since that is true Paul can then say "I AGREE WITH THE LAW" " but "SIN IN ME" is AT WAR with that Law. Paul makes it clear in Rom 7 that the problem is NOT "the holy , just and good LAW" of God. Rather the problem is that we have sinned AND we have a sinful nature dictating our behavior of rebellion until we are born again and walk by the Spirit.

Now back to the actual topic of the thread... the points of agreement between Bible Sabbath Keeping Christians and the statements that the Catholic church makes in the OP

Rom 7:1-12 pretty clearly shows us a new covenant relationship that is released from the old and uses language that we are not under the legal code of the old but a new way of the Spirit. Taking God's name in vain is still sin, but it is no longer a threshold legal code as it is in the old. The fact that I haven't crossed these thresholds commandments doesn't invoke a specific status with God nor does it mean I even love or believe in God. We require first acts from the heart for these things to even have meaning; without the heart, they are meaningless. So if our actions start at the heart, guided by the Spirit and live by the code shown to us in the new then at this point what purpose do the 10 commandments have? Its purpose has become obsolete in terms of our daily living. Our goal is not alignment with the old, it is alignment with the new, which we have wide overlap, but is framed in a different way, for example, no threshold commandments, everything is levelled.

BobRyan said:
God Himself separates the TEN , placing only the TEN inside the Ark and all other scripture OUTSIDE
God Himself separates the TEN in Deut 5 saying "He SPOKE the TEN and ADDED no more"

And not only does the Catholic church admit to that distinction so also do the major confessions of faith in Christianity

Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy
[*]R.C. Sproul

In other words , the point you are objecting to is NOT one of the differences between Bible Sabbath keeping Christians and "you" rather it is a difference between your POV and almost ALL of Christianity!

Why drag that into this thread??

The 10 are not separated from the covenant; they are emphasized within the boundaries of the covenant, that's a different thing than what you are making them out to be.

You're compressing a lot of theological diversity and history to force an agreement on this point. But frankly, it's outdated. The Baptist Confession of Faith was written in 1677, the Westminster Confession of Faith was written in 1646. Streams, especially some Lutheran, dispensational, and “New Covenant Theology” circles, explicitly reject the idea that the 10 functions as a binding code for Christians. To say "Almost every Christian denomination on Earth..." is demonstrably false.

The roaster on your list also could use some updates:
Voddie Baucham, 1969–2025
C. H. Spurgeon 1834–1892
D. L. Moody 1837–1899
Pope John Paul II 1920–2005
D. James Kennedy 1930–2007
R. C. Sproul 1939–2017

Because it's old or because they have passed certainly doesn't disqualify their message, but it's a copy-and-paste list you've been using for years. There is a sense that you're using these transactionally over critically. I would like to see some more critical thought put into it.

BobRyan said:
Jer 31 is the one saying that the moral law of God known in Jeremiah's day, known to him and his readers is the one that is "written on the heart and mind" under the NEW Covenant.

The one where God "spoke the TEN and added no more" as Deut 5 says and has all of Jeremiah's readers knew.

This is incredibly easy to follow which is why this point is held by almost all of Christianity today.
So why not focus instead on the actual topic of this thread??

Jerimiah does not use the language "moral law of God" because no biblical text does.

31:31-33
The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

The text says, "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts". The context is clearly the covenant, thus the law is covenant law. This may include the 10, but it also includes a lot more. Covenant law is pretty much all law spoken after Ex 19 to the end of the book. If you want to push back on that, then the fewest amount would be from Ex 20-23 (before the blood covenant was formed in Ex 24)

Deut 5 needs to be read in context. Moses is speaking years afterwards as a sort of farewell speeches. The 10 are covenant documents of the covenant, but they do not act apart from the covenant or form a private covenant themselves. We know that because we can read when the covenant was formed, which was all before the tablets. Ex 20 details when the 10 were first spoken, Ex 22-23 are more laws and commandments, and Ex 24 it's all written down and a blood covenant is formed from all the words of the Lord. This is all before the tablets are even made.

5:22 says "...he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me." This skips Ex 21-30... but maybe even up to 33 (depending on what tablets Moses is speaking about). Moses is not trying to give a historical transcript of what happened; he is summarizing and interpreting the event for a new generation. No one, however, would separate the 10 from the covenant as they meant the same thing. 5:2 says, "The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb...." so when was this covenant made? It was made in Ex 24 and we can read that account to know what it included. You are running with a summarized line to try and separate the 10 from the covenant it was formed in which is bad enough, then call it "the moral law of God" which is a post-biblical expression and force it upon the new covenant verbatim. Even if the 10 are separated from this one line in 5:22, it's still not enough to make the leaps you have made. But if you take time to read the text, Moses is quite clearly speaking of the covenant in full, not an isolated 10.

There are moral truths in the 10, no one is denying that, but they are in a unique covenant framework and polemically framed. It's not love your neighbour but do not murder, lie or steal. These are designed around thresholds, so there is no ambiguity about where you stand (either you have crossed the threshold or you have not). If you have idols, graven images, or use God's name in vain you are exposed as against the covenant and cannot love God. But the obvious clash with Christian living is the 10 are threshold morals that have been flattened in the new covenant teaching. It's not about the moment you cross the threshold of egregious sins; New Testament framing is law of Christ, love as fulfillment of the law, and Spirit led obedience. In the account of the good Samaritan, the priest and Levite can be justified by the 10 to cross the road and ignore the man in need since nowhere in the 10 instructs them to help the man. Instead, it is the outsider who is the one who comes and helps. Christ doesn't praise any of them for keeping the 10, but instead he praises the one for his love.

BobRyan · Apr 29, 2026

DamianWarS said:
Rom 7:1-12 pretty clearly shows us a new covenant relationship -9

And Gal 3:8 shows the new Covenant Gospel (the ONE and ONLY Gospel as Gal 1:6-9 says) was "preached to ABRAHAM"
Just as the Gospel is "Old testament" in Gal 3:8 so also is the NEW Covenant in the OLD Testament as Jer 31:31-34 says
So then not too surprising that Moses and Elijah stand IN GLORY with Christ in Matt 17 BEFORE The cross ever happens.

DamianWarS said:
that is released from the old

The OLD Covenant is Obey and LIVE as we see in Gen 2 (from the start) and has Gal 3:10
But that is not actually the topic of this thread.

DamianWarS said:
and uses language that we are not under the legal code of the old but a new way of the Spirit.

Lets actually quote the text AND its context... for a change.

21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."

The Law is NOT contrary to the Gospel
The Law was not a funny kind of "gospel" used in OT days. It is not and was never the gospel
Yet it was and IS always SIN to "take God's name in vain" for even in the New Testament "SIN IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:$

DamianWarS said:
Taking God's name in vain is still sin

As it always was.
It is sin even for Christians (as hard as that might be "for some" to accept

DamianWarS said:
, but it is no longer a threshold

no such text in all of scripture. The Bible does not talk about "legal thresholds". It talks about sin and righeousness
James 2 points out that the Law convicts of SIN.

James 2.
8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

Nothing complex here. No parsing needed. No splitting hairs. He quotes the OT Law and holds Christians accountable to it as a standard of right vs wrong , sin vs righteousness

DamianWarS said:
legal code as it is in the old.

False

THE SAME "Love your neighbor' Lev 19:18 is in the NEW Covenant LAW written on the heart as the NC says
The SAME "Do not murder" Ex 20 is in the NEW Covenant LAW as we see in James 2.

This is incredibly easy to see.

DamianWarS said:
The fact that I haven't crossed these thresholds commandments doesn't invoke a specific status with God nor does it mean I even love or believe in God.

LOVE GOD with ALL your heart Deut 6:5 (Matt 22) Means that VERY THING.
Is it is SAME LAW (moral law is the SAME in OT and NT so then the NT quotes OT for it)

But LAW is not a saving gospel and never was. Rather the New Birth has that LAW written on the heart.

Eph 6 appeals to the OT LAW "honor your apparents" as added AUTHORITY to Paul's opening statement "Children OBEY your parents"

As for THE TEN "He SPOKE these TEN words and ADDED NO MORE"... He place them inside the ark.. Deut 5
It is THERE where we find that (as Paul said in Eph 6) "Honor your father and mother is the FIRST COMMANDMENT with a promise"

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

BTW your post does not even TOUCH the actual topic of this thread which is on areas of AGREEMENT.. why stay so distant from the topic of agreement.?????

DamianWarS · Apr 29, 2026

BobRyan said:
And Gal 3:8 shows the new Covenant Gospel (the ONE and ONLY Gospel as Gal 1:6-9 says) was "preached to ABRAHAM"
Just as the Gospel is "Old testament" in Gal 3:8 so also is the NEW Covenant in the OLD Testament as Jer 31:31-34 says
So then not too surprising that Moses and Elijah stand IN GLORY with Christ in Matt 17 BEFORE The cross ever happens.

the gospel Abraham received was without legal code. Paul says so himself, Rom 4:3 “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Surely that must have been after some sort of law, at least circumcision... nope, it was before. v10 "Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised". Abraham was counted righteous before any covenant or legal code was established, Paul is quite clear about this in Rom 4. Jer 31 explicitly says "...not like the covenant that I made with their fathers..." so I'm not sure why you are trying to force this so much as the 10 are never sigaled out in Jer 31 so we should responsibility think "covenant law" when we see the word law.

BobRyan said:
The OLD Covenant is Obey and LIVE as we see in Gen 2 (from the start) and has Gal 3:10
But that is not actually the topic of this thread.

the only commandment in creation put upon man is to be fruitful and multiply. The 4th commandment starts with Moses, but there is no commandment on the 7th day. indeed the 7th is foundational to the 4th and it explains it's meaning and intent, but let's keep the right direction of flow, the 4th is not foundational to the 7th.

BobRyan said:
Lets actually quote the text AND its context... for a change.

21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."

The Law is NOT contrary to the Gospel
The Law was not a funny kind of "gospel" used in OT days. It is not and was never the gospel
Yet it was and IS always SIN to "take God's name in vain" for even in the New Testament "SIN IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:$

what does John mean by law? because you are conflating law in 1 John 3 with the 10 commandments, a connection John never makes. love is central in John, the 10 commandments are not explicit. 1 John 2:7 says "I am not writing a new commandment for you; rather it is an old one you have had from the very beginning. This old commandment—to love one another—is the same message you heard before." This is a reference back to Jesus from the gospel of John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

So what does John mean by "transgression of the law". this is not actually how the Greek frames it. the Greek does not say "transgression of the law" (and certainly doesn't turn law into a proper noun) it uses not the word for law which is "nomos" but it uses "anomia" which lit. is "not-law". it is a noun so "lawlessness" is closer to how its framed over "against law" or "transgression of the law".

it lit. says "everyone who commiting the sin also the lawlessness commits and the sin is the lawlessness". the ESV says 'Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness." which makes it clear why and how they structured the verse. but the KJV makes a nuanced point than what the text brings out saying "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

the text is saying sin is lawlessness, the text is not saying sin is breaking the 10 commandments which is an additional leap from the KJV. 1 John speaks a lot about commandments and 2:7 leads up to this idea of lawlessness. ch 3 continues in the same way 3:23-24 "And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God,d and Gode in him."

this is a central message of 1 John and you cannot have a discussion about God's commandments that is not strongly driven by the commandment of love that Jesus gives us in 1 John. this is the context you seem to ignore in 1 John. it can even be said John belabours the commandment of love it is that strong in 1 John. so it's hard to see this 10 commandment vacuum you're presenting interpreted by a very specific read of a single verse of the book as a serious critical study of the text.

BobRyan said:
As it always was.
It is sin even for Christians (as hard as that might be "for some" to accept

BobRyan said:
no such text in all of scripture. The Bible does not talk about "legal thresholds". It talks about sin and righeousness
James 2 points out that the Law convicts of SIN.

James 2.
8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

Nothing complex here. No parsing needed. No splitting hairs. He quotes the OT Law and holds Christians accountable to it as a standard of right vs wrong , sin vs righteousness

"threshold" is a word used for utility to describe how the 10 are framed. it is not there to express something the Bible doesn't already say or make something up new. The fact that "moral law of God" is not found in the bible verbatim is not the real issue it's that it is not a biblical expression used for the 10 (regardless of the actual words). The word "Trinity" is also not found in the bible but it is a defensible biblical expression. The problem is not that the word is not in the bible, it's that it's not substantiated or supported using bible texts.

Calling the 10 threshold laws/morals is highlighting the "crossed the line" focus it has. Either you have murdered or you haven't, ether you have graven images or you don't. They are easy to figure out where you stand without confusion. This language reinforces a strong polemic for surrounding cultures looking in. Commandments 1-3 could easily be condensed into 1 commandment. Monotheistic belief is implicit 1-3 without even needing to say it, but it has to be said because polytheism was so wide spread that a clear line or threshold had to be established to contrast other systems with intention. This same language shapes all the 10 and it's intentional to make alignment easy to understand and to contrast polemically those not in agreement.

Thresholds in this case are not negative and is what was needed but reframing it to "love you neighbour as yourself" is not as straight cut and is more internally driven than it is externally. This is the difference between old and new. The new internalized the old and flattens the thresholds so our measure of "lawlessness" doesn't start when you cross a line but is direct from the heart. Because the measure isn't at the threshold it makes the 10, not wrong, but obsolete and we serve in a new way in the Spirit.

BobRyan said:
False

THE SAME "Love your neighbor' Lev 19:18 is in the NEW Covenant LAW written on the heart as the NC says
The SAME "Do not murder" Ex 20 is in the NEW Covenant LAW as we see in James 2.

This is incredibly easy to see.

what about Gen 17:13-14 "...My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

what about scarafical commandments? are they same in the new?

it's a yes but... answer. the legal code, cutting flesh, specific animals/ritual, is not imposed upon us in the new and they are reinterpreted through Christ. But we still value circumcision, we still value the sacrafice or all things ritual, all things symbolic, etc... but we see them complete through Christ in a way that we do not need to repeat them according the physical requirements of the old.

BobRyan said:
LOVE GOD with ALL your heart Deut 6:5 (Matt 22) Means that VERY THING.
Is it is SAME LAW (moral law is the SAME in OT and NT so then the NT quotes OT for it)

But LAW is not a saving gospel and never was. Rather the New Birth has that LAW written on the heart.

Eph 6 appeals to the OT LAW "honor your apparents" as added AUTHORITY to Paul's opening statement "Children OBEY your parents"

As for THE TEN "He SPOKE these TEN words and ADDED NO MORE"... He place them inside the ark.. Deut 5
It is THERE where we find that (as Paul said in Eph 6) "Honor your father and mother is the FIRST COMMANDMENT with a promise"

Eph 6 added "... in the Lord" so the law is reframed under Christ. it's already morally/honor based but it's important in a pluralistic culture to define "...in the Lord" to understand its scope. You seem to want to bury the context of the covenant. Moses has no intention to separate the 10 from the covenant in Deu 5, he is trying to put focus on the covenant through the 10. There is no such thing as a 10 only vacuum, if you invoke the 10, you carry with it the whole covenant; they are the same thing. Paul is not invoking covenant law which would be a gross misunderstanding of Pauline texts. That doesn't mean he can't quote it and reframe it under Christ without bringing the whole thing with it. That works for the 10, it works for the whole covenant too.

"first with a promise" is not a mic drop point, it doesn't assume a 10 only context, Paul is speaking of covenant law when he speaks of "first commandmends with a promise" and reframing the 5th under Christ. The 10 were the first of the covenant so any first of the 10 are also first of the covenant. There is no gotcha moment simply because he says "first commandment with a promise". read the blood covenant yourself (Ex 24) and tell me where the commandments start and end?

BobRyan said:
BTW your post does not even TOUCH the actual topic of this thread which is on areas of AGREEMENT.. why stay so distant from the topic of agreement.?????

It's your op, you can steer our conversation how you wish. but in the case of agreement it superficial. the practices don't actually align.

BobRyan · Apr 29, 2026

BobRyan said:
BTW your post does not even TOUCH the actual topic of this thread which is on areas of AGREEMENT.. why stay so distant from the topic of agreement.?????

DamianWarS said:
It's your op, you can steer our conversation how you wish. but in the case of agreement it superficial. the practices don't actually align.

ok fine. I did that in "post number 1"

as follows

BobRyan said:
Although many focus only on differences... There are some points of agreement on the seventh day Sabbath topic

For example:

1. Sabbath is one of the TEN Commandments
2. The Ten Commandments are part of the moral law of God
3. The moral law of God is written on the heart under the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 and Heb 8.

====================================
Catholic Catechism

"2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the Sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish Sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107

"Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.108

"2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people

Dies Domini – pt 63

Dies Domini (May 31, 1998)

"63. Christ came to accomplish a new "exodus", to restore freedom to the oppressed. He performed many healings on the Sabbath (cf. Mt 12:9-14 and parallels), certainly not to violate the Lord's Day, but to reveal its full meaning: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mk 2:27). Opposing the excessively legalistic interpretation of some of his contemporaries, and developing the true meaning of the biblical Sabbath, Jesus, as "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mk 2:28), restores to the Sabbath observance its liberating character, carefully safeguarding the rights of God and the rights of man. This is why Christians, called as they are to proclaim the liberation won by the blood of Christ, felt that they had the authority to transfer the meaning of the Sabbath to the day of the Resurrection.

====================================== End
The following Catholic document explains that keeping Sunday is in obedience to the Sabbath commandment. Catholics attend "in obedience to the third commandment of God 'remember thou keep holy the Lord's day'" ((from "The Faith Explained" pg 241.))

( "The Faith Explained" - page 242-243.)
"we know that in the Old Testament it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord’s Day. That was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day..the early Christian church determined as the Lord’s Day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...the reason for changing the Lord’s Day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord’s Day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord’s Day on the say-so of the catholic church.

The Faith Explained (Page 242)
" changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".

"The Faith Explained" (page 243.)
"we know that in the O.T. it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

"The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

"nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

=================== end quote

Some even today will admit "Scripture says Keep holy the Sabbath day" or some variation of that statement

And James 2 says not to dismiss even one commandment
And Mark 7:7-13 is where Christ specifically addresses the problem of editing one of the TEN via man's tradition

Millions of Christians today meet for worship and Bible study any/all days of the week But they admit that the seventh day is still the Bible Sabbath. Saturday. A specific day made holy by God according to Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:2-3.

That does not change simply by meeting for worship and prayer on Wednesday for prayer meetings.
Ex 20:10-11 says God Himself made the 7th day Holy as "The Holy day of the Lord" as Is 58:13 also says.

The actual Sabbath commandment put into stone and kept in the Most Holy place as Ex 20:8-11 does not mention any animal sacrifices.

Gen 2:2-3 as given to mankind in Eden does not mention any animal sacrifices.
Is 66:23 Where Sabbath is to be kept for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth, also does not mention any animal sacrifices
Acts 18:4 were Paul preaches the Gospel "every Sabbath" in the synagogues to both gentiles and Jews... Also does not mention any animal sacrifices

Heb 10:4-9 stating that animal sacrifices and offerings end at the Cross...
yet Paul continues worship services "every Sabbath" Acts 18:4 and it continues for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth in Is 66:23.
Lev 23:2-3 says the 7th day Sabbath, the one in Ex 20, is a "day of holy convocation" and says nothing about having to sacrifice an animal.

Dan 9 points to prayer and worship, without any sacrifices at all

The new Covenant is in Jer 31:31-34 where the same Law of God is written on the heart as we see in Ex 20, where as Deut 5 says God spoke the 'Ten Words and added no more"

Heb 10 says Christ's sacrifice was "once for all sacrifice"

===============================================
Sabbath "The Holy day of the Lord" Ex 20:10, Is 58:13 where God calls it "My Holy Day"

Ex 20:11 "Therefore the Lord BLESSED the Sabbath day and made it Holy"

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

Is God opposed to "Keeping the Commandments of God"??

"the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
"This IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:3-4
"IF you LOVE Me KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15
"LOVE Me and KEEP My Commandments" Ex 20:6

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

WE can find a lot of agreement in those examples above
Agreement across "certain Christian groups"

because I have an actual interest in this topic

BobRyan · Apr 29, 2026

DamianWarS said:
Eph 6 added "... in the Lord" so the law is reframed under Christ.

Paul in Heb 8 states that it is Christ giving the Law at Sinai.. Paul says it is based in Christ, its origin is Christ, the Law giver according to Paul in Heb 8.

No escape clause there for your theory.

DamianWarS · Apr 29, 2026

BobRyan said:
Paul in Heb 8 states that it is Christ giving the Law at Sinai.. Paul says it is based in Christ, its origin is Christ, the Law giver according to Paul in Heb 8.

No escape clause there for your theory.

Eph 6:1-2
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise

Paul states the reframed law under Christ in v1 then quotes the commandment in v2, stating it's the first commandment with a promise. What Paul does not say is keep the 5th commandment because it's a part of the 10 commandments. The 4th commandment is doing a similar thing, as it is anchoring itself to a theological/moral grounding from the 7th day, but the 7th day has no legal code so it's not pulling the 7th day into the 4th; instead, it's legislating the legal code of the 7th day ritual to remember it and keep it holy. Paul gives this commandment, "Children obey your parents in the Lord" This is not the 5th commandment and the two do not have complete alignment in language; Paul doesn't say "therefore keep the 5th commandment" nor does he reintroduce Sinai covenant terms. He instead cites it as a moral source from the old, not "as is" but reframed for a new covenant context, "in the Lord". There is a continuity in this and that's Paul's point, morals and theology are not new, but his point is not to reintroduce covenant law.

Hebrews 8 does not say Christ gave the law at Sinai which is an odd thing to say. You will have to point out the verse for me to understand the point you're trying to make.

Heb 8:6 calls Christ the “mediator of a better covenant” it quotes Jeremiah 31 where the speaker is God (as per the quote) and concludes in v13 the covenant has been made obsolete "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." I get Jesus = God so implicitly the second person of the Trinity is present, but you're making a distinct point about Christ to validate the old covenant (which you only include the 10 and dietary laws), yet ignore the part that says it has been made obsolete.

Do Bible Sabbath keepers and the Catholic Church Agree on Certain points?

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Junior Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Junior Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Junior Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Junior Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Junior Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Junior Member

Junior Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Similar threads