Col 2:16 is about not judging others

Bob S

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 5, 2015
4,584
2,203
88
Union County, TN
✟657,084.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Bob S Wrote:
Now you are telling me that Paul wasn't deleting those sacrifices in Col 2???

Yep Bob, Paul didn't delete the 7 festivals, new moon observance nor the weekly Sabbath mentioned in Col2, Jesus did. All those laws remained until Jesus completed His purpose in coming to dwell among His children. At the point of His departure on the Cross He shed His blood ratifying a new covenant. It is a better covenant with better promises. What are those better promises Bob?

Bob, there are 7 different feast days mentioned in Leviticus. What is the eighth one that Paul apparently mentions according to you?
 
Upvote 0

SAAN

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
2,034
489
Atlanta, GA
✟80,985.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Bob S Wrote:


Yep Bob, Paul didn't delete the 7 festivals, new moon observance nor the weekly Sabbath mentioned in Col2, Jesus did. All those laws remained until Jesus completed His purpose in coming to dwell among His children. At the point of His departure on the Cross He shed His blood ratifying a new covenant. It is a better covenant with better promises. What are those better promises Bob?

Bob, there are 7 different feast days mentioned in Leviticus. What is the eighth one that Paul apparently mentions according to you?
How could Jesus have deleted the Festivals, if the Fall ones havent been fulfilled yet? Seriously, think really hard about that one.

Paul isnt greater than Jesus and didnt die for our sins, so until you can find the exact words from Jess IN CONTEXT that the Sabbath, Sabbath Days and Dietary laws were being canceled after his death, we cant just make those assumptions. I dont believe they are 100% mandatory anymore, but I think they are great benefits to those that still keep them, as they are biblical vs the nonsense that Xmas and Easter has turned into.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
How could Jesus have deleted the Festivals, if the Fall ones havent been fulfilled yet? Seriously, think really hard about that one.

Paul isnt greater than Jesus and didnt die for our sins, so until you can find the exact words from Jess IN CONTEXT that the Sabbath, Sabbath Days and Dietary laws were being canceled after his death, we cant just make those assumptions. I dont believe they are 100% mandatory anymore, but I think they are great benefits to those that still keep them, as they are biblical vs the nonsense that Xmas and Easter has turned into.

Aren't you glad we don't have to sacrifice animals anymore now that the real Sacrifice has happened? I wonder what other things are no longer a sin that we don't have to do anymore now that Jesus has come? Think about it.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
In Rev 12 we see the work of the "Accuser of the brethren".

In Matt 7 (pre-cross -- and law in full effect) Christ condemns judging others.

In Col 2:16 we have this -

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


An example of NOT condemning eating OR drinking or remembering God's Ten-Commandment creation-Sabbath day to keep it holy. Rather Col 2 condemns the "commandments of men" - (as is so carefully avoided in the quotes we often see from Col 2)


Col 2 is 0pposed to making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command. - so it is opposed to 'making stuff up' - via "man-made tradition"

As is Christ against it --

GOD speaks for God and HE already spoke to this point of changing His Law via church tradition. As we see in Mark 7:6-13

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it is shown via "Sola Scriptura" testing that it is traditions and "doctrines of men" that are at odds with scripture



You can't be serious.

Perhaps a short "summary" to refresh short term memory.
=============================================
=============================================



Do you say that as the "Accuser of the brethren" in Rev 12 - or do you have some "other source"??









And then of course we have "you".





And we all would agree to this -- the rebellious child could easily say to his/her parents "first you must be perfect then you may tell me to Honor my Father and Mother as God instructed in the Bible" -- but of course -- that is "old news"

Colossians 2:16-17 must be put in context. The way you say it we cannot judge SDAs for keeping the Sabbath or what you eat. But it is not us judging you, the context is against you judging us, and telling us we must keep the Mosaic Law. That was the sin of the Christian Judaizers.
 
Upvote 0

SAAN

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
2,034
489
Atlanta, GA
✟80,985.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Aren't you glad we don't have to sacrifice animals anymore now that the real Sacrifice has happened? I wonder what other things are no longer a sin that we don't have to do anymore now that Jesus has come? Think about it.
Yes im glad the animal sacrifices are long gone. The animal sacrificial system is the main thing that changed with his death and resurrection. Other things simply cant be applied/done without a temple in place or simply dont apply if you are not a man/women, priest, farmer, etc.

In regards to day of worship, if we are completely honest with our self and look what they were doing in the NT and look at the history of the 1st century churches all the way up to the 3rd century when the RCC came into power, Sunday worship is really a RCC tradition that was passed down vs it was going on in the bible days. At this point and time, I dont really think God cares over Saturday vs Sunday worship the way it has been debated by mankind, as he allowed the Catholic Church to write the bible and pass down these traditions whether they are unbibilcal or not.

In regards in what we do with our Saturdays , the Sabbtah, I guess only God will be the judge if we should really be resting from all work still or not.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Yes im glad the animal sacrifices are long gone. The animal sacrificial system is the main thing that changed with his death and resurrection. Other things simply cant be applied/done without a temple in place or simply dont apply if you are not a man/women, priest, farmer, etc.

In regards to day of worship, if we are completely honest with our self and look what they were doing in the NT and look at the history of the 1st century churches all the way up to the 3rd century when the RCC came into power, Sunday worship is really a RCC tradition that was passed down vs it was going on in the bible days. At this point and time, I dont really think God cares over Saturday vs Sunday worship the way it has been debated by mankind, as he allowed the Catholic Church to write the bible and pass down these traditions whether they are unbibilcal or not.

In regards in what we do with our Saturdays , the Sabbtah, I guess only God will be the judge if we should really be resting from all work still or not.

So when are you thinking the RCC started as a denomination? I think it was much later than you think. Most believe that it was Constantine that changed the day to Sunday. Not so. Sunday was already made a tradition after the apostles for 200 years before him, if you believe the apostles kept Saturday (which I don't, they were following what was already in place). He just granted what was already being observed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In Rev 12 we see the work of the "Accuser of the brethren".

In Matt 7 (pre-cross -- and law in full effect) Christ condemns judging others.

In Col 2:16 we have this -

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Col 2 is a good example of NOT condemning eating
Col 2 is a good example of NOT condemning drinking water or drinking juice

Col 2 is a good example of NOT saying it is ok to take God's name in vain.
Col 2 is a good example of NOT condemning the Word of God that calls us to remember God's Ten-Commandment creation-Sabbath day to keep it holy.

Rather Col 2 condemns the "commandments of men" - (a Bible detail often carefully avoided in the quotes we often see from Col 2)

Col 2 is 0pposed to making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command. - so it is opposed to 'making stuff up' - via "man-made tradition"

As is Christ against it --

GOD speaks for God and HE already spoke to this point of changing His Law via church tradition. As we see in Mark 7:6-13

Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it is shown via "Sola Scriptura" testing that it is traditions and "doctrines of men" that are at odds with scripture


In Col 2:16 we have this -

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Col 2 is a good example of NOT condemning eating
Col 2 is a good example of NOT condemning drinking water or drinking juice
Col 2 is a good example of NOT saying it is ok to take God's name in vain.
Col 2 is a good example of NOT condemning the Word of God that calls us to remember God's Ten-Commandment creation-Sabbath day to keep it holy.

Rather Col 2 condemns the "commandments of men" - (a Bible detail often carefully avoided in the quotes we often see from Col 2)

Col 2 is 0pposed to making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command. - so it is opposed to 'making stuff up' - via "man-made tradition"

As is Christ against it --

Notice that in Col 2 - we do not find Paul condemning the Bible, no condemnation of eating, no condemnation of drinking - and no condemnation of God's Sabbath as we find it in the Ten Commandments.

Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command.

But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.


Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)

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

In Mark 7:6-13 the Jews were simply "making stuff up" to get around one of the TEN Commandments - and of course Christ condemned them for that.

In Mark 2:19-22 they did it as well and Christ refuted their arguments.

Is it any wonder that in Col 2 the saints were contending with the same problem of man-made-doctrine and traditions -- "making stuff up"??

Not at all surprising.

Colossians 2:16-17 must be put in context.

My point exactly.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
The way you say it we cannot judge SDAs for keeping the Sabbath or what you eat. But it is not us judging you,

This is so refreshing to hear.

Glad to see our non-Sabbath keeping friends embracing the idea of not being judgmental.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
This is so refreshing to hear.

Glad to see our non-Sabbath keeping friends embracing the idea of not being judgmental.

We don't have to judge you for doing what you want. You judge us or you're not doing your job.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0

Bob S

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 5, 2015
4,584
2,203
88
Union County, TN
✟657,084.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How could Jesus have deleted the Festivals, if the Fall ones havent been fulfilled yet? Seriously, think really hard about that one.
Hi Saan, I only expound on what I am sure about. I don't know about the fall festivals. What I do know is that we Christians are not under the old covenant because Jesus fulfilled that covenant and gave us a new one. I do know that the Sinai covenant was not a salvational covenant and Israel broke that covenant, so it is a negated covenant. The question I have for you is why would you want to put yourself under a covenant that was never meant for Gentiles, has been negated and replaced with the new covenant???

Paul isnt greater than Jesus and didnt die for our sins, so until you can find the exact words from Jess IN CONTEXT that the Sabbath, Sabbath Days and Dietary laws were being canceled after his death, we cant just make those assumptions.
That is a strawman argument Saan. The fact that Jesus fulfilled the Sinai covers all the things you think we are still under. Why would you require me to find the exact words? Paul has covered all the bases concerning the status of the Sinai covenant. Gal 3 is a great example. He starts out by writing "Oh you foolish Galatians" and continues to chastise them for going under the Sinai covenant. You are doing the same thing Saan.

I dont believe they are 100% mandatory anymore, but I think they are great benefits to those that still keep them, as they are biblical vs the nonsense that Xmas and Easter has turned into.
If you really believe you are deriving a great benefit by trying to keep the feast days and Sabbath I have no argument with you other that you have denied what Jesus has done for Israelites and all mankind. You actually do not know if you are observing the same day as Israel tried to keep. There is the Lunar calendar conflict and all the changes made in all of the other calendars. Then the IDL has to factor in to the equation. You admit it is not a salvational issue unlike SDAs, but why buck the tide when there is no reason to. Our duty to God is to believe in Jesus and love our fellow man as Jesus loves us. And that is a BIG period.

As far as Easter and Christmas (not xmas) are concerned, there is no requirement to observe those seasons and you don't have to. I have had great enjoyment and joy because of those two traditions of men. We are not forbidden to celebrate the resurrection or the birth of our Savior. Man and greed has given those traditions a bad name by commercializing them. You have been taught by others to regard those seasons to be bad. Some groups have to use tactics like that and making believe we have to observe days that were not ever meant for Gentiles or Christians to get unsuspecting good people to join their ranks. Too bad this happens.

One group teaches that musical instruments are not allowed in their churches and the ones that do have them will not be saved. Guess what, unsuspecting good people fall for their tactics and join their ranks. SDAs use different tactics to fill their ranks. Get the point. All of them have been duped. Yours with keeping days meant only for Israel in a covenant that ended at the Cross and theirs for many different reasons. The plan of salvation is so simple and some make it so hard. It is no wonder so many walk away from Christianity. Walk away without ever knowing the simple plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In Rev 12 we see the work of the "Accuser of the brethren".

In Matt 7 (pre-cross -- and law in full effect) Christ condemns judging others.

In Col 2:16 we have this -

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Col 2 is a good example of NOT condemning eating
Col 2 is a good example of NOT condemning drinking water or drinking juice

Col 2 is a good example of NOT saying it is ok to take God's name in vain.
Col 2 is a good example of NOT condemning the Word of God that calls us to remember God's Ten-Commandment creation-Sabbath day to keep it holy.

Rather Col 2 condemns the "commandments of men" - (a Bible detail often carefully avoided in the quotes we often see from Col 2)

Col 2 is 0pposed to making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command. - so it is opposed to 'making stuff up' - via "man-made tradition"

As is Christ against it --

GOD speaks for God and HE already spoke to this point of changing His Law via church tradition. As we see in Mark 7:6-13

Mark 7
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it is shown via "Sola Scriptura" testing that it is traditions and "doctrines of men" that are at odds with scripture


In Col 2:16 we have this -

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Col 2 is a good example of NOT condemning eating
Col 2 is a good example of NOT condemning drinking water or drinking juice
Col 2 is a good example of NOT saying it is ok to take God's name in vain.
Col 2 is a good example of NOT condemning the Word of God that calls us to remember God's Ten-Commandment creation-Sabbath day to keep it holy.

Rather Col 2 condemns the "commandments of men" - (a Bible detail often carefully avoided in the quotes we often see from Col 2)

Col 2 is 0pposed to making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command. - so it is opposed to 'making stuff up' - via "man-made tradition"

As is Christ against it --

Notice that in Col 2 - we do not find Paul condemning the Bible, no condemnation of eating, no condemnation of drinking - and no condemnation of God's Sabbath as we find it in the Ten Commandments.

Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command.

But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.


Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)

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

In Mark 7:6-13 the Jews were simply "making stuff up" to get around one of the TEN Commandments - and of course Christ condemned them for that.

In Mark 2:19-22 they did it as well and Christ refuted their arguments.

Is it any wonder that in Col 2 the saints were contending with the same problem of man-made-doctrine and traditions -- "making stuff up"??

Not at all surprising.

Colossians 2:16-17 must be put in context.

My point exactly.

This is so refreshing to hear.

Glad to see our non-Sabbath keeping friends embracing the idea of not being judgmental.

We don't have to judge you for doing what you want.

And what I want to do - is read scripture and follow what it actually teaches.

So nice to see that is not being condemned here.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Col 2 is hammering the bogus traditions of man - but not hammering the Bible

I noted that ceremonial Sabbaths are not condemned in Col 2 just as eating food and drinking are not condemned. What is condemned is the same thing we find Christ condemning even before the cross "judging others"

Col 2 - man-made traditions slammed -- but scripture is not being deleted in Col 2.

8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
There still seems to be 'some' confusion on the point that Col 2 does not say "God's LAW" was nailed to the cross but rather "our certificate of DEBT" - the speeding ticket, the fine paid and NOT the command "do not take God's name in vain" -- nailed to the cross.
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


Do you worship Christ or do you worship His shadow?


If the teachings of Ellen G. White are correct, why did it take almost 1800 years to find them?
Do you believe she was a prophet of God?
Do you receive any kind of income from the corporation still run by her family?

.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: Danthemailman
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


Indeed - animal sacrifice ceremonies were shadows predicting the sacrifice of Christ.

How nice (by contrast) that for all eternity in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

how nice that even THESE sources all admit that ALL TEN of the TEN commandments still apply and are written on the heart under the Jer 31:31-34 NEW COVENANT where "the LAW of God is written on heart and mind"

"Baptist Confession of Faith" sectn 19
"Westminster Confession of Faith" sectn 19
C.H. Spurgeon
R.C. Sproul
D.L. Moody in his sermon on the Ten Commandments
Seventh-day Baptists


If the teachings of Ellen G. White are correct, why did it take almost 1800 years to find them?

Is it your POV that "Baptist Confession of Faith" sectn 19 and C.H. Spurgeon were students of Ellen White?

Do you consider vilifying her ministry in some way deletes that statements of the non-SDA sources above?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is it your POV that "Baptist Confession of Faith" sectn 19 and C.H. Spurgeon were students of Ellen White?

I am not a "Baptist".

The 1689 LBCF was copied almost word-for-word from the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Presbyterians, except in the areas of the document which deal with baptism.

Like you, they claim the ten commandments were given to Adam in the garden, even though he could not commit adultery, and he had no mother to honor.
Why is it difficult to see the problems with this claim?

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Do you consider Ellen G. White to be a prophet of God?

Do you receive payments from the SDA?

.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
...
How nice (by contrast) that for all eternity in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

how nice that even THESE sources all admit that ALL TEN of the TEN commandments still apply and are written on the heart under the Jer 31:31-34 NEW COVENANT where "the LAW of God is written on heart and mind"

"Baptist Confession of Faith" sectn 19
"Westminster Confession of Faith" sectn 19
C.H. Spurgeon
R.C. Sproul
D.L. Moody in his sermon on the Ten Commandments
Seventh-day Baptists

If the teachings of Ellen G. White are correct, why did it take almost 1800 years to find them?

Is it your POV that "Baptist Confession of Faith" sectn 19 and C.H. Spurgeon were students of Ellen White?

Do you consider vilifying her ministry in some way deletes that statements of the non-SDA sources above?


I am not a "Baptist".

Nor am I but you appear try to blame Ellen White for what those sunday groups teach. Are you really thinking those accusations of yours throudh?

The 1689 LBCF was copied almost word-for-word from the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian

And then C.H. Spurgeon reformated it even more in the 1800's to further align with the Westminster Confession of faith - particularly in section 19.

D.L. Moody makes much the same case in his sermon on "the Ten Commandments"

- here you appear to want to "blame Ellen White" and "you sabbatarians" for the kind of Bible teaching that we find there.

Did you think that one through?

Like you, they claim the ten commandments were given to Adam in the garden

AND that they are written on the heart under the NEW Covenant AND that they are binding on both born-again and the lost world such that "it is a sin - to take God's name in vain" no matter who you are.

Do you consider Ellen G. White to be a prophet of God?

How does that even help you at all at this point? You are "reaching" for some other topic again.

Do you receive payments from the SDA?

Why would I need to be employed by the SDA denomination to know that those sunday groups all affirm THE TEN as included in the New Covenant Law written on the heart? what makes you even think such a thing??
 
Upvote 0

BABerean2

Newbie
Supporter
May 21, 2014
20,614
7,484
North Carolina
✟893,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And then C.H. Spurgeon reformated it even more in the 1800's to further align with the Westminster Confession of faith - particularly in section 19.

When did C.H. Spurgeon write a confession of faith?
Spurgeon did not write the 1689 LBCF.

Do you receive payments from the SDA, and why does it matter?
A man who receives part of his income from an organization is not an unbiased witness.
Are you going to eventually answer the question with a simple yes or no?

.
 
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,033
4,234
USA
✟470,889.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
When did C.H. Spurgeon write a confession of faith?
Spurgeon did not write the 1689 LBCF.

Do you receive payments from the SDA, and why does it matter?
A man who receives part of his income from an organization is not an unbiased witness.
Are you going to eventually answer the question with a simple yes or no?

.
The quote to spread God's Word came from the bible. The SDA church does not pay people to spread God's Word. Not sure if you're intentionally trying to be offensive or not, but that is what is happening.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Danthemailman

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2017
3,664
2,799
Midwest
✟301,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When did C.H. Spurgeon write a confession of faith? Spurgeon did not write the 1689 LBCF.

Do you receive payments from the SDA, and why does it matter?
A man who receives part of his income from an organization is not an unbiased witness.
Are you going to eventually answer the question with a simple yes or no?

.
We don't seem to be getting the whole story from SDA's on these confessions of faith.

Baptist Confession of Faith
"From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ this was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ it was changed to the first day of the week and called the Lord's Day. This is to be continued until the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week having been abolished.

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith | The Reformed Reader

Westminster Confession of Faith
"As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: [34] which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week: and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, [35] which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, [36] and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.

Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day - Westminster Confession of 1646 - Study Resources

Even though SDA's have some similar beliefs found in these confessions of faith in regards to the sabbath, these statements above are critical disagreements with SDA beliefs.
 
Upvote 0