Ellen White on the Sabbath

[KimberlyAA]

It's incorrect for her to say "As ordained for man, it had its origin when "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy."" Because one cannot assume that it had it's origin when those things occured. She probably uses it in a general sense here with all of creation but the timing is misleading.

 

[Lysimachus]

Lysimachus, it is okay to have symbols that tell us about Jesus Christ and the mysteries associated with his birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and reign in heaven. These are all helpful in their own way because they help to summarise the stories about Jesus that we have in the gospels and other new testament writings. But this idea that the sabbath is a symbol of the rest we have in Christ, a sabbath for which there was a commandment given to Israel and about which many rules were also given to Israel, is not helpful and it is not biblical. The passage I quoted for Elder 111 tells us that Christ is himself the one in whom we find our rest. What would be the point of retaining an old testament sign that pointed to Christ once Christ has already come and we need no signs to point to him because we know him?

The point is simple MoreCoffee. Anyone can claim to rest in Christ. But when you claim something, you need a symbol for it. The Sabbath is the flag the Christian flies, to distinguish himself from all other religions as the worshiper of the Creator of Heaven and Earth. The Sabbath is a sign that it is God alone that sanctifies us. We keep it because we love Him. But we also keep the Sabbath in memorial of Creation, not just our eternal rest in Christ. The Sabbath is deep in meaning, and goes far beyond just resting in Christ.

Had the physical keeping of the 4th commandment Sabbath been abolished, and replaced with spiritual rest, then Paul would have made this point very clear. But this was not even part of the thought process in His message to the Hebrews. His purpose was to emphasize a spiritual rest that EXISTED already in the Old Covenant for which they failed to enter into.

Therefore, if that "katapousis" rest existed in the Old Covenant, as you carefully recognize in chapter 3 and opening of chapter 4, then logically speaking, the physical keeping of the 4th commandment Sabbath should not have been required in the Old Covenant either, for that "katapousis" rest was clearly something available in the Old Covenant time frame. It was a "rest" that they failed to enter in, because of what? Because of unbelief They failed to live up to the true meaning of the Sabbath symbol in their lives..

Thus, to say that this "rest" in Christ only exists in the New Covenant, and therefore the physical keeping of it from the Old Covenant is now abolished does not make one bit of sense in light of the clear irrefutable fact of the existence of this spiritual "katapousis" rest in the Old Covenant. And now we know why Paul said that this "sabbatismos" "still remains".

In other words, the symbol of the Sabbath Day as our rest from sin STILL remains.

Are we to then assume that somehow the Spiritual and the Physical Sabbath existed in the Old Covenant, but now only the Spiritual in the New?

I like how Joe Crews put it, so succinctly:

The context of Hebrews three and four does not indicate that Paul was trying to convince the Hebrew Christians which day to keep holy. They already knew that. His great burden was for them to enter into a spiritual relationship with Christ—to have an experience of rest from the works of sin. He proved that the children of Israel did not find that true rest because of their lack of faith and disobedience in the wilderness. Although the Greek word for rest, KATAPAUSIS, means simply “cessation from work,” the context seems to indicate that the author is talking primarily about finding a spiritual rest in their experience.

Nevertheless, the two chapters definitely tie the spiritual rest to the Seventh-day Sabbath-keeping initiated and commanded by God in the beginning. Otherwise, we would not find in verse four a direct quote from Genesis 2:2. “For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works” (Hebrews 4:4).

The reason for citing God’s resting on the Sabbath from His work of creation is revealed only when we analyze verses nine and ten. Paul says that what remains for God’s people is not KATAPAUSIS (a spiritual rest), but SABBATISMAS, meaning a literal keeping of the Sabbath. Then in verse ten we find the real key which proves beyond a question that the SABBATISMAS rest was not spiritual only, but a cessation from physical work. “For he that is entered into his rest (KATAPAUSIS—spiritual rest), he ALSO (in addition to the spiritual rest) hath ceased from his own works, AS GOD DID FROM HIS.”

The big question about this verse focuses on the works which one ceases from. Are they works of sin? Are they works to obtain salvation? Or are they the physical works from which we cease on the Sabbath? The answer is plainly revealed by the phrase “AS GOD DID FROM HIS.” Go back to verse four and we begin to understand why this quote from Genesis is included in Paul’s discourse. It is necessary to establish which works God did rest from. God ceased from His physical work of creation on the seventh day, and we are admonished to cease from ours, as He did from His. He did not just enter into a spiritual rest on the seventh day or we might conclude that He was not at spiritual rest on the first six days. The fact is that God is always at spiritual rest. Neither did He have any works of sin or the flesh to cease from. He simply rested on the seventh day from His work of creation, and we are being told by Paul that the ones who truly have received the spiritual rest of salvation will ALSO cease from their physical works on the Sabbath, AS GOD DID FROM HIS.

Don’t you see how this lends a tremendous new spiritual dimension to the keeping of the Sabbath? It memorializes our personal salvation experience. It stands as a blessed weekly reminder of the continual rest from sin that we may have through Christ. No wonder the Sabbath “remains” for the people of God! Our Creator has made it a symbol of the sweetest spiritual blessings available to the human family. ~ Source: Feast Days & Sabbaths: Are they still binding?​

Thus, when you state the following...

The passage I quoted for Elder 111 tells us that Christ is himself the one in whom we find our rest. What would be the point of retaining an old testament sign that pointed to Christ once Christ has already come and we need no signs to point to him because we know him?

...one quickly discovers how your argument does not hold water, in light of the fact that this spiritual rest in Christ existed in the Old Testament as well, as Paul emphatically states:

"And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest [katapousis], but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief....For we which have believed do enter into rest [katapousis], as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world....Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief." (Hebrews 3:18, 19; 4:3, 6).​

In Hebrews 4:11, it is concluded, "Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest [katapousis--the same one available in the OT], lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief."

Paul is pleading with the Jews to not repeat the failure of the Jews in the Old Testament to enter into that spiritual rest, but to now fully enter into that rest by accepting Jesus Christ.

The Sabbath has always been a physical symbol of spiritual rest since the foundation of the world.

 

[Lysimachus]

The heart of our issue here has to do with the fact that Christians today are reading Hebrews 4 with a false lens:

That is: That the spiritual katapousis rest spoken in Hebrews 3 and 4 somehow replaces or negates the physical resting on the Sabbath Day of the 4th commandment, but no such message is taught in the passage itself.--as we know this spiritual katapousis rest was available since the foundation of the world.

 

[Lysimachus]

We have a history in which I have presented Scripture specifically to you which are denied. So do not goad me.

bugkiller

I am not goading you. I'm just telling you straight that in most of the posts you responded to me with, you did not provide a trace of scriptures. This is not goading, this is stating a fact.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's incorrect for her to say "As ordained for man, it had its origin when "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy."" Because one cannot assume that it had it's origin when those things occured. She probably uses it in a general sense here with all of creation but the timing is misleading.

I think Ellen White got a few things mixed up and timing was one of them. Clearly neither the nations nor pre-exodus Israel were 7th day observers. And if you look at Deuteronomy 5 the 7th day commandment makes no mention of creation; it points to the harshness of Israel's servitude as a reason for Israelites to be gentle and kind in allowing their servants and slaves to have a day of rest. I think it is significant that one record of the ten commandments leaves off mentioning creation.

Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
(Deuteronomy 5:12-15)
​

 

[MoreCoffee]

Lysimachus, the "flag" the christians fly is the cross. We are known as Jesus' disciples by the love we have for one another. We stand apart from worldly attitudes and worldly expedients by following Jesus Christ - he said we must take up our cross and follow him. None of this requires a 7th day observance. In fact 7th day observance is the hallmark of Judaism. So if you are flying a flag by observing the 7th day sabbath it is not a Christian flag at all, it is a "flag" belonging to Judaism.

 

[Lysimachus]

Opps!

Where was baptism instituted before the cross? There is no such command till after the resurretion in my Bible.

Have you heard of a man by the name of John the Baptist? See Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5; 11:16. It was clearly instituted by John, prior to the crucifixion. The Lord's Supper was too.

Yes I comprehend exactly what was written. We do not agree if that is what comprehension means.

The 10 Cs are ordinances and even hand written ordinances at that. Remember they were written with the very finger of God, Himself. Furthermore God instructed Moses to write the rest of them. Moses did not make them up. They are not his doing in that they came from him. They are from God the Father and have the same exact bearing on the Isrealites and anyone who joins themselves to the Lord thru that covenant.

The expression "handwriting of oridinances" is taken to mean by the hand of Moses. See 2 Chronicles 33:8. Yes, Moses did copy the Ten Commandments down in his book, obviously. But their origin is by the Finger of God, which nowhere is used to mean "handwriting of ordinances". The expression "ordinances" is clearly in reference to the sacrificial and festival system tied to the earthly sanctuary services in Colossians 2. The Ten Commandments, however, stand fast forever and ever (see Psalms 111:7-10).

Paul recognized the 10 Cs but does not teach them as an obligation to the Christian.

I could quote you so many passages from Paul that unabashedly reveals your faulty reasoning. Romans 13:8-10 lists several of the Ten Commandments, and reveals that the keeping of those is a result of true "love". If one has no "love", they will not keep the Ten Commandments. The expression, "FOR THIS...." shows what "love manifests itself into". What love "looks like". What love "translates into"--that is, the keeping of the commandments.

Then John says, "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." (1 John 3:7)

This is how we know we have salvation. That we LOVE the brethren. And guess what? Paul showed what love "translates" into in Romans 13:8-10--that is, the keeping of the Ten Commandments---not as the only exclusive evidence of love, but as the foundation of love for which all greater acts are built off of.

This is waht Acts 15 is about.

Are you suggesting that "all" that was required of the Gentiles in Acts 15 was abstaining from blood, strangled meats, and idols?

Are you suggesting that the message of Acts 15 was to give them license to break all 10 commandments, but that they were to only keep these 3 commandments?

So now the Gentiles can murder, dishonor their parents, take God's name in vain, steal, and covet?

Have you considered at all that the context of Acts 15 is dealing with the Mosaic Laws, in relation to circumcision particularly?

The point Paul is making in Acts 15: All that is required, in ADDITION to the Moral Law, is to abstain from these things....

To suggest that Paul in Acts 15 is stating that those are the only 3 requirements they must keep is simply beyond all logic, and is a perversion of the scriptures. It is an unjust and unfair treatment of God's Word.

Ah since Jesus did not write the NT none of it is valid. A testator writes a will and testament prior to death. So since we have no such thing attributable to Jesus nothing in the NT is vaild according to the presented argument.

We are not talking about conduct. We are talking about sacraments. All sacraments, all these conditions are made prior to the ratification of the covenant. The writers of the New Covenant brought out the spiritual implications and applications of what was already established by Christ. Christ laid the CONDITIONS or FOUNDATION of the New Covenant through His 12 Apostles.

That covenant mentioned inGal 3:9 has nothing to do with the covenant made with Israel. Sorry.

Are you suggesting that Abraham's covenant was based on faith, then God suddenly switched to a purpose of making the Old Covenant given to Israel based on works, then suddenly shifted back to a covenant of faith in the New? Perhaps you are failing to ascertain that it was never God's purpose for Israel to attain the law of righteousness as it were by the works of the law? See Romans 9:30, 31. The Old Covenant BECAME a covenant of works, not because God made it that way, but because Israel made it that way. They tried to keep the commandments by their own works, not by faith. The Ten Commandments, and all Moral Laws of God can only be kept by faith. Not by works. But keeping commandments by faith does not negate the physical keeping of them. Keeping them by faith means that you have the right motive for keeping them--that you are keeping them because of true genuine love that is being actuated by the Spirit of God working in and through you, and giving you victory over sin, which is the transgression of God's law.

So reconcile Ps 89:34 with Jer 31:31-34 and Jesus' testimony in 3 Gospels that the NC is the current covenant. Jer says specifically it is not according to the covenant made with their fathers. That does not mean the covenant was moved. It clearly says a new (chadash pronounced khä·däsh' H2319) covenant. It is not chadash pronounced khä·dash' (no mark over the a in the dash part of the word) H2318.

Your problem is only when you fail to make a distinction between the law, and the covenant. You are making them one and the same, but they are not. When the Old Covenant was abolished, the Moral Law of God did not get abolished with it, for it was "perfect". The Old Covenant was "faulty". It had to do with the arrangement of how they agreed to that covenant, not that law itself was faulty. Are you charging God of making a faulty covenant?

There is really only ONE covenant: That is, the Everlasting Covenant. That Everlasting Covenant got cut in TWO by the poor promises of Israel. The Old Covenant is the Everlasting Covenant broken by Israel's poor promises. The New Covenant was the Everlasting Covenant restored and recaptured by the blood of Christ. It was a completely NEW covenant, meaning, a new one had to be made with God's people that was based on the principles of God's true Everlasting Covenant made between the Father and the Son.

Notice that the expression "Old" did not exist in the Old Testament time frame. It only became "OLD" after it was abolished due to Israel's failure to live up to it.

The quote of this verse in Hebrews is even better using the word kainos and not neos. There can be no mistake from the Hebrews 8 rendition.

Well maybe that is what you cleebrate by baptism. With my knowledge of baptism in the SDA church I woudl say definitaly not. But neither do I. I clebrate and signify the new life I have no in Christ Jesus. The old man subject to the law is dead and I have been raised to new life in Christ Jesus.

Not sure what your point is. I do not disagree.

John the Baptist did not institute the rite of baptism. It is a ceremonial washing rite under the law. If John the Baptist instituted water baptism your baptism is not valid as it does not follow suit (done as John the Baptist preformed the rite).

John the Baptist did institute Baptism. And yes, we do perform it, just as John the Baptist performed it. The Apostles carried on this rite, just as John the Baptist did.

If the evangelical protestant world is wrong why does your church seek recognition as part of it?

You tell me, and we'll both know. I don't agree that the SDA Church should be doing this. They have compromised on many points. This is not according to the Spirit of Prophecy. The SDA Church is in danger in coming into ecumenical ties and becoming a sister to fallen Babylon.

But true Adventism is invisible. God's faithful Commandment Keepers are the true Adventists, who do not put their hope in a denomination, but Jesus Christ alone. The SDA Conference in its apostate condition is not my example. The example is what God had intended the SDA conference to be, and Ellen White herself was more than disappointed by the direction the conference was beginning to go.

Are we talking about the Bible or religions? I could care less what the RCC or the SDA oragization state. Does it line up with God's Word? Neither of those organizations have any authority over me.

Same here. I could care less about religions, denominations, or organizations. I go by the Bible alone, and I'm here to tell you that TRUE, historic, uncompromising Adventism, as it was originally laid down, IS Biblical.

The foundations are immovable. The Investigative Judgment and the 2300 year Sanctuary Doctirne is, immovable, and firmly established in God's Word. The day-year principle is immovable. It is solidly proven, and the fact that the visions of Daniel 8 and 9 are connected together as the "same vision" is immovable. The Sabbath message is immovable. "Although the hosts of hell may try to tear them from their foundation, and triumph in the thought that they have succeeded, yet they do not succeed. These pillars of truth stand firm as the eternal hills, unmoved by all the efforts of men combined with those of Satan and his host." {Ev 223}

I will simply stay out of trouble by not responding to the remainder of your post. Sorry.

No you do not have my tongue tied. I can refute anything you claim with Scripture.

bugkiller

You're welcome to do so anytime. Nobody is stopping you from attempting to refute me from the Scriptures.

 

[Lysimachus]

Lysimachus, the "flag" the christians fly is the cross. We are known as Jesus' disciples by the love we have for one another. We stand apart from worldly attitudes and worldly expedients by following Jesus Christ - he said we must take up our cross and follow him. None of this requires a 7th day observance. In fact 7th day observance is the hallmark of Judaism. So if you are flying a flag by observing the 7th day sabbath it is not a Christian flag at all, it is a "flag" belonging to Judaism.

This point can only be made when one does not see how the Cross and the Sabbath are intrinsically tied together. I also challenge you to find one single verse that states, "The sabbath of the Jews", or the "Jewish Sabbath".

You will find, "And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh." John 6:4 and "And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand" (John 11:55)., but you will not once find any allusion to the "Jewish Sabbath".

In fact, you will also find: "Christ our passover" (1 Cor 5:7)

But you will not find: "Christ our Sabbath" (1 MoreCoffee 6:6)

 

[Elder 111]

It does not say "a sabbath day rest still remains" it says "a sabbath rest still remains" and since sabbath means rest it is in fact referring to the rest that Christians enjoy in Christ.

ἄρα απολείπεται σαββατισμος τω λαω του Θεου.
ara apoleipetai sabbatismos to lao tou theou.
​

When you are finish trying to avoid the very clear point, "the Sabbath day rest" and "the Sabbath rest" is the same. Where in the bible do you find Sabbath rest meaning anything else?

 

[Elder 111]

I think Ellen White got a few things mixed up and timing was one of them. Clearly neither the nations nor pre-exodus Israel were 7th day observers. And if you look at Deuteronomy 5 the 7th day commandment makes no mention of creation; it points to the harshness of Israel's servitude as a reason for Israelites to be gentle and kind in allowing their servants and slaves to have a day of rest. I think it is significant that one record of the ten commandments leaves off mentioning creation.

Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee. Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.
(Deuteronomy 5:12-15)
​

In Genesis , in Exodus, in other portions of Deuteronomy and where ever else it talks about creation in relation the Sabbath, and because it is not mentioned in what you have quoted, all the other statements become void? How ridiculous can we continue to be?
Imagine, a parent tells their child to look to the left and right before crossing the road and then on another occasion tells them to run and not walk when crossing the road. How smart would it be for the child to run across without looking? Does the last statement negate that which when before?
How far would we go to deny the truth in God's word?

 

[Elder 111]

Lysimachus, the "flag" the christians fly is the cross. We are known as Jesus' disciples by the love we have for one another. We stand apart from worldly attitudes and worldly expedients by following Jesus Christ - he said we must take up our cross and follow him. None of this requires a 7th day observance. In fact 7th day observance is the hallmark of Judaism. So if you are flying a flag by observing the 7th day sabbath it is not a Christian flag at all, it is a "flag" belonging to Judaism.

What does not belong to Judaism where salvation and Christ is concern?
John 4 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Gal. 3: 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.Romans 11
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. (Into what?)

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
It's the same tree, same faith and same God.

 

[bugkiller]

The heart of our issue here has to do with the fact that Christians today are reading Hebrews 4 with a false lens:

That is: That the spiritual katapousis rest spoken in Hebrews 3 and 4 somehow replaces or negates the physical resting on the Sabbath Day of the 4th commandment, but no such message is taught in the passage itself.--as we know this spiritual katapousis rest was available since the foundation of the world.

No katapousis rest was not available to the Isrealites. God said they shall not enter into His rest. PS 95:11. Yet they had the sabbath. So the sabbath must not be the rest God was talking about in Ps 95. Jesus offered rest while they had the sabbath Mat 11:28-30. That can not be the same rest.

The sabbath is not God's rest.

bugkiller

 

[MoreCoffee]

When you are finish trying to avoid the very clear point, "the Sabbath day rest" and "the Sabbath rest" is the same. Where in the bible do you find Sabbath rest meaning anything else?

Hebrews 4:9.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In Genesis , in Exodus, in other portions of Deuteronomy and where ever else it talks about creation in relation the Sabbath, and because it is not mentioned in what you have quoted, all the other statements become void? How ridiculous can we continue to be?
Imagine, a parent tells their child to look to the left and right before crossing the road and then on another occasion tells them to run and not walk when crossing the road. How smart would it be for the child to run across without looking? Does the last statement negate that which when before?
How far would we go to deny the truth in God's word?

You are arguing against a straw man. I said nothing about "made void".

 

[bugkiller]

Have you heard of a man by the name of John the Baptist? See Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5; 11:16. It was clearly instituted by John, prior to the crucifixion. The Lord's Supper was too.



The expression "handwriting of oridinances" is taken to mean by the hand of Moses. See 2 Chronicles 33:8. Yes, Moses did copy the Ten Commandments down in his book, obviously. But their origin is by the Finger of God, which nowhere is used to mean "handwriting of ordinances". The expression "ordinances" is clearly in reference to the sacrificial and festival system tied to the earthly sanctuary services in Colossians 2. The Ten Commandments, however, stand fast forever and ever (see Psalms 111:7-10).



I could quote you so many passages from Paul that unabashedly reveals your faulty reasoning. Romans 13:8-10 lists several of the Ten Commandments, and reveals that the keeping of those is a result of true "love". If one has no "love", they will not keep the Ten Commandments. The expression, "FOR THIS...." shows what "love manifests itself into". What love "looks like". What love "translates into"--that is, the keeping of the commandments.

Then John says, "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." (1 John 3:7)

This is how we know we have salvation. That we LOVE the brethren. And guess what? Paul showed what love "translates" into in Romans 13:8-10--that is, the keeping of the Ten Commandments---not as the only exclusive evidence of love, but as the foundation of love for which all greater acts are built off of.



Are you suggesting that "all" that was required of the Gentiles in Acts 15 was abstaining from blood, strangled meats, and idols?

Are you suggesting that the message of Acts 15 was to give them license to break all 10 commandments, but that they were to only keep these 3 commandments?

So now the Gentiles can murder, dishonor their parents, take God's name in vain, steal, and covet?

Have you considered at all that the context of Acts 15 is dealing with the Mosaic Laws, in relation to circumcision particularly?

The point Paul is making in Acts 15: All that is required, in ADDITION to the Moral Law, is to abstain from these things....

To suggest that Paul in Acts 15 is stating that those are the only 3 requirements they must keep is simply beyond all logic, and is a perversion of the scriptures. It is an unjust and unfair treatment of God's Word.



We are not talking about conduct. We are talking about sacraments. All sacraments, all these conditions are made prior to the ratification of the covenant. The writers of the New Covenant brought out the spiritual implications and applications of what was already established by Christ. Christ laid the CONDITIONS or FOUNDATION of the New Covenant through His 12 Apostles.



Are you suggesting that Abraham's covenant was based on faith, then God suddenly switched to a purpose of making the Old Covenant given to Israel based on works, then suddenly shifted back to a covenant of faith in the New? Perhaps you are failing to ascertain that it was never God's purpose for Israel to attain the law of righteousness as it were by the works of the law? See Romans 9:30, 31. The Old Covenant BECAME a covenant of works, not because God made it that way, but because Israel made it that way. They tried to keep the commandments by their own works, not by faith. The Ten Commandments, and all Moral Laws of God can only be kept by faith. Not by works. But keeping commandments by faith does not negate the physical keeping of them. Keeping them by faith means that you have the right motive for keeping them--that you are keeping them because of true genuine love that is being actuated by the Spirit of God working in and through you, and giving you victory over sin, which is the transgression of God's law.



Your problem is only when you fail to make a distinction between the law, and the covenant. You are making them one and the same, but they are not. When the Old Covenant was abolished, the Moral Law of God did not get abolished with it, for it was "perfect". The Old Covenant was "faulty". It had to do with the arrangement of how they agreed to that covenant, not that law itself was faulty. Are you charging God of making a faulty covenant?

There is really only ONE covenant: That is, the Everlasting Covenant. That Everlasting Covenant got cut in TWO by the poor promises of Israel. The Old Covenant is the Everlasting Covenant broken by Israel's poor promises. The New Covenant was the Everlasting Covenant restored and recaptured by the blood of Christ. It was a completely NEW covenant, meaning, a new one had to be made with God's people that was based on the principles of God's true Everlasting Covenant made between the Father and the Son.

Notice that the expression "Old" did not exist in the Old Testament time frame. It only became "OLD" after it was abolished due to Israel's failure to live up to it.



Not sure what your point is. I do not disagree.



John the Baptist did institute Baptism. And yes, we do perform it, just as John the Baptist performed it. The Apostles carried on this rite, just as John the Baptist did.



You tell me, and we'll both know. I don't agree that the SDA Church should be doing this. They have compromised on many points. This is not according to the Spirit of Prophecy. The SDA Church is in danger in coming into ecumenical ties and becoming a sister to fallen Babylon.

But true Adventism is invisible. God's faithful Commandment Keepers are the true Adventists, who do not put their hope in a denomination, but Jesus Christ alone. The SDA Conference in its apostate condition is not my example. The example is what God had intended the SDA conference to be, and Ellen White herself was more than disappointed by the direction the conference was beginning to go.



Same here. I could care less about religions, denominations, or organizations. I go by the Bible alone, and I'm here to tell you that TRUE, historic, uncompromising Adventism, as it was originally laid down, IS Biblical.

The foundations are immovable. The Investigative Judgment and the 2300 year Sanctuary Doctirne is, immovable, and firmly established in God's Word. The day-year principle is immovable. It is solidly proven, and the fact that the visions of Daniel 8 and 9 are connected together as the "same vision" is immovable. The Sabbath message is immovable. "Although the hosts of hell may try to tear them from their foundation, and triumph in the thought that they have succeeded, yet they do not succeed. These pillars of truth stand firm as the eternal hills, unmoved by all the efforts of men combined with those of Satan and his host." {Ev 223}



You're welcome to do so anytime. Nobody is stopping you from attempting to refute me from the Scriptures.

John the Baptist was using the ceremonial bath of the law. He simply applied it to a confession. There is no command prior to the cross for water baptism which is required to institute a religious requirement as an obligation. If there is one please post it. Acts 1:5 nor 11:16 are in no way related to John's baptism. John's baptism is spoken of here as an historical fact only. John's baptism has nothing to do with baptism of of the Holy Ghost. John's baptism did not symbolize the Holy Spirit.

(Water) baptism is a command issued by Jesus after the cross. That is when water baptism was instituted as a religious obligation Mat 28:19-20.

8 Neither will I any more remove the foot of Israel from out of the land which I have appointed for your fathers; so that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses. II Chron 33 Th e whole law here is by the hand of Moses. This includes the 10 Cs. The law includes the 10 Cs according to Paul in Roman 7 and James in chapter 2.

The 10 Cs are ordinances. An ordinance is 1. an authoritative rule or law; a decree or command. 2. a public injunction or regulation. Mishpat (H4941) is -

1) judgment, justice, ordinance
a) judgment
1) act of deciding a case
2) place, court, seat of judgment
3) process, procedure, litigation (before judges)
4) case, cause (presented for judgment)
5) sentence, decision (of judgment)
6) execution (of judgment)
7) time (of judgment)
b) justice, right, rectitude (attributes of God or man)
c) ordinance
d) decision (in law)
e) right, privilege, due (legal)
f) proper, fitting, measure, fitness, custom, manner, plan

Technically I see nothing about written. But I would believe that is a given and stated as written in Col 2:14.

Please esplain how the sacrificial and festival system was against us.

Surely there is a conflict of understanding with Ps 111:7-10 and Jer 31:31-34 and Hosea 2:11.

I read Rom 13:8-10 very differently. I read if love is practiced one is not guilty of the listed crimes noted by the 10 Cs. Gal 5 states the same thing. Perhaps one could explain how one loving would be guilty of such crimes. I agree that we love the brethern as stated in I Jn 3:14. That by itself is not proof we have pased from death to life. What are the fruits of the Spirit? love....!!!!! Do wicked people love? Yes they love all who do good to them. Have they too passed from death to life? No!!!

Acts 15 basicly states the Gentile Christians are not obligated to the law including the sabbath. Acts 15 does not tell Gentile Christians to practice evil (sin). Sin was in the world befr the law - Rom 5:13. Sin has never been done away with. IOW we still have sin that was before the law these days. The law causes sin to be a chargable violation and that is all. Sin has been charged and punished for the Christian by the blood of Jesus Christ.

I have never, ever suggested anyone gave or possesses a license to sin. The Christian is not obligated to the covenant made with the COI per Jeremiah. Therefore the Christian can not violate the law. There is no Jew in Jesus Christ Gal 3:28. The Christian has not joined the covenant made with the COI in any form. To do so invalidates salvation Gal 5:4.

The idea a Christian can sin (not keep the law) only comes from the mouth and hand of SDA pro law people. I have never heard from any other source.

No sir!!! Paul never promotes the sabbath. Paul does not promote wickedness either. That simply does not mean Paul promotes obligation to the law and especially the sabbath.

The covenants God gave Abraham state not details how this was to take place. The covenant made with Isreal did not change the covenants made with Abraham. Moses said that covenant was not given to Abraham. There is no connection to Abraham with the covenant made with the COI - Deut 5:3.

We are worlds apart on covenant or covenants. The twain shall never meet. The one covenant idea is necessary to dismiss the NC.

Doing what someone told you to do is not wrong in itself. In the case of the law it would make one righteous. However there are none as in no one that can do this according to Scripture such as Ps 14:3. There is one exception however and that is God aka Jesus the Christ. The SDA organization teaches one can be righteous by keeping the law. That is a big, no huge load of BULL!!! Infact case-in-point is Mat 19 about the rich young ruler repeated in the other 2 synoptic Gospels.

The right motive for keeping the law? HMP!! Why did God use fear and deathto motivate the keeping of the law? Sure seem right an proper to me to keep it out of fear. In fact that is still uesd today for not keeping the law withing the SDA organization. Read the testimonies of the formers.

Please explain how Moses has God making a covenant with Noah, Abraham and the COI as being one and the same covenant when they conflict. Moses said the covenant made with the COI was not made with their fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) Deut 5:3. There is a very funny single covenant. If there is going to be a new covenant made, there is obviously more than one covenant.

I can not rectify the theory of one eternal covenat only with Sctipture. I will not accept the convoluted theory presented.

Regretfully I can not answer the rest of your post with any integrity without getting reported so I will pass.

But let me say I have seen a picture of an SDA official kissing the Pope's ring and read the accompaning article that included his name. Do not worry it has already been denied with proof.

Hope there was enough detail and Scripture to satisfy you and TruthWave7.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

This point can only be made when one does not see how the Cross and the Sabbath are intrinsically tied together. I also challenge you to find one single verse that states, "The sabbath of the Jews", or the "Jewish Sabbath".

You will find, "And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh." John 6:4 and "And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand" (John 11:55)., but you will not once find any allusion to the "Jewish Sabbath".

In fact, you will also find: "Christ our passover" (1 Cor 5:7)

But you will not find: "Christ our Sabbath" (1 MoreCoffee 6:6)

I personally extend the same challenge to you about the sabbath being given to all mankind with out denying Moses. IOW calling Moses a liar.

bugtkiller

 

[Lysimachus]

No katapousis rest was not available to the Isrealites. God said they shall not enter into His rest. PS 95:11. Yet they had the sabbath. So the sabbath must not be the rest God was talking about in Ps 95. Jesus offered rest while they had the sabbath Mat 11:28-30. That can not be the same rest.

The sabbath is not God's rest.

bugkiller

Those who disobeyed, which was the majority, did not enter into His rest. But those who obeyed God out of faith, like the few remnants of Israel, the few prophets, men like Daniel and the Three Hebrew Worthies, you better believe they entered into the Katapousis rest.

As I already showed, the Katapousis rest was available from the foundation of the world. So let's not keep arguing.

 

[dollarsbill]

Those who disobeyed, which was the majority, did not enter into His rest.

Agreed. They will burn in Hell forever.

Rev 20
"They will be tormented day and night forever and ever."

 

[Lysimachus]

John the Baptist was using the ceremonial bath of the law. He simply applied it to a confession. There is no command prior to the cross for water baptism which is required to institute a religious requirement as an obligation. If there is one please post it. Acts 1:5 nor 11:16 are in no way related to John's baptism. John's baptism is spoken of here as an historical fact only. John's baptism has nothing to do with baptism of of the Holy Ghost. John's baptism did not symbolize the Holy Spirit.

(Water) baptism is a command issued by Jesus after the cross. That is when water baptism was instituted as a religious obligation Mat 28:19-20.

8 Neither will I any more remove the foot of Israel from out of the land which I have appointed for your fathers; so that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses. II Chron 33 Th e whole law here is by the hand of Moses. This includes the 10 Cs. The law includes the 10 Cs according to Paul in Roman 7 and James in chapter 2.

The 10 Cs are ordinances. An ordinance is 1. an authoritative rule or law; a decree or command. 2. a public injunction or regulation. Mishpat (H4941) is -

1) judgment, justice, ordinance
a) judgment
1) act of deciding a case
2) place, court, seat of judgment
3) process, procedure, litigation (before judges)
4) case, cause (presented for judgment)
5) sentence, decision (of judgment)
6) execution (of judgment)
7) time (of judgment)
b) justice, right, rectitude (attributes of God or man)
c) ordinance
d) decision (in law)
e) right, privilege, due (legal)
f) proper, fitting, measure, fitness, custom, manner, plan

Technically I see nothing about written. But I would believe that is a given and stated as written in Col 2:14.

Please esplain how the sacrificial and festival system was against us.

Surely there is a conflict of understanding with Ps 111:7-10 and Jer 31:31-34 and Hosea 2:11.

I read Rom 13:8-10 very differently. I read if love is practiced one is not guilty of the listed crimes noted by the 10 Cs. Gal 5 states the same thing. Perhaps one could explain how one loving would be guilty of such crimes. I agree that we love the brethern as stated in I Jn 3:14. That by itself is not proof we have pased from death to life. What are the fruits of the Spirit? love....!!!!! Do wicked people love? Yes they love all who do good to them. Have they too passed from death to life? No!!!

Acts 15 basicly states the Gentile Christians are not obligated to the law including the sabbath. Acts 15 does not tell Gentile Christians to practice evil (sin). Sin was in the world befr the law - Rom 5:13. Sin has never been done away with. IOW we still have sin that was before the law these days. The law causes sin to be a chargable violation and that is all. Sin has been charged and punished for the Christian by the blood of Jesus Christ.

I have never, ever suggested anyone gave or possesses a license to sin. The Christian is not obligated to the covenant made with the COI per Jeremiah. Therefore the Christian can not violate the law. There is no Jew in Jesus Christ Gal 3:28. The Christian has not joined the covenant made with the COI in any form. To do so invalidates salvation Gal 5:4.

The idea a Christian can sin (not keep the law) only comes from the mouth and hand of SDA pro law people. I have never heard from any other source.

No sir!!! Paul never promotes the sabbath. Paul does not promote wickedness either. That simply does not mean Paul promotes obligation to the law and especially the sabbath.

The covenants God gave Abraham state not details how this was to take place. The covenant made with Isreal did not change the covenants made with Abraham. Moses said that covenant was not given to Abraham. There is no connection to Abraham with the covenant made with the COI - Deut 5:3.

We are worlds apart on covenant or covenants. The twain shall never meet. The one covenant idea is necessary to dismiss the NC.

Doing what someone told you to do is not wrong in itself. In the case of the law it would make one righteous. However there are none as in no one that can do this according to Scripture such as Ps 14:3. There is one exception however and that is God aka Jesus the Christ. The SDA organization teaches one can be righteous by keeping the law. That is a big, no huge load of BULL!!! Infact case-in-point is Mat 19 about the rich young ruler repeated in the other 2 synoptic Gospels.

The right motive for keeping the law? HMP!! Why did God use fear and deathto motivate the keeping of the law? Sure seem right an proper to me to keep it out of fear. In fact that is still uesd today for not keeping the law withing the SDA organization. Read the testimonies of the formers.

Please explain how Moses has God making a covenant with Noah, Abraham and the COI as being one and the same covenant when they conflict. Moses said the covenant made with the COI was not made with their fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) Deut 5:3. There is a very funny single covenant. If there is going to be a new covenant made, there is obviously more than one covenant.

I can not rectify the theory of one eternal covenat only with Sctipture. I will not accept the convoluted theory presented.

Regretfully I can not answer the rest of your post with any integrity without getting reported so I will pass.

But let me say I have seen a picture of an SDA official kissing the Pope's ring and read the accompaning article that included his name. Do not worry it has already been denied with proof.

Hope there was enough detail and Scripture to satisfy you and TruthWave7.

bugkiller

No no no nooo. Sowwy. Not the case!

Read again...


"Neither will I any more remove the foot of Israel from out of the land which I have appointed for your fathers; so that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law AND the statutes AND the ordinances by the hand of Moses." (2 Chronicles 33:8)

The "ordinances by the hand of Moses", is NOT in the same lump as the "WHOLE LAW".

The Ten Commandments were written IN STONE, BEFORE:

Notice:

"These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and HE ADDED NO MORE. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me." (Dueteronomy 5:22)

Thus, what Moses wrote by hand could only be "separate".

The Ten Commandments are still valid.

The Sabbath IS STILL a requirement.

It is a salvational issue.

If we willfully go out of our way to break it, we will be lost.

No IFs, ANDs, or BUTs about it.

I reject your interpretation as false.

 

[Lysimachus]

The sabbath is not God's rest.

bugkiller

I never said the Sabbath was God's rest.

What I said is that the Sabbath is a symbol of God's rest.

Big difference.

The Sabbath was a symbol of the spiritual rest that existed in the Old Testament (for which Israel AS A NATION failed to enter into, but they could have [but faithful patriarchs did]).

And the Sabbath still is a symbol of our spiritual rest that exists in the New Testament.

Those who break God's commandments willfully, and do not keep them out of love, are actually going back under the Old Covenant. That's exactly what the Jews of the Old Covenant did. They tried to keep the law by their own works, thus they failed miserably and were not able to keep them, so kept breaking them.

God's New Covenant Christians will be able to keep ALL of them, because they now are not keeping them by the works of the law, but faith. The "works of the law" has to do with a wrong motive for keeping them. But keeping them by faith does not mean you don't keep them. It means you are empowered by the Spirit of Grace in your Soul, and are now enabled to keep them out of true genuine Love for Him.

It's the other way around. Those who willfully break God's commandments, are the ones who place themselves under the Old Covenant of the Jews.