Is not honoring the sabbath a sin?

[bbbbbbb]

If you want to think I'm working than that's on you. It puts me in good company though because the Pharisees were always trying to accuse Jesus of breaking the sabbath.

I continue to fail to understand the intricate set of allowable Sabbath activities in the SDA. I now understand that using the internet for personal pleasure is allowable. Am I to understand, however, that it is not allowable if such use falls under the rubric of "work"? Is it no problem for those who work to keep the internet in operation on the Sabbath or are they guilty of breaking the Sabbath?

 

[Pythons]

Not sure what you mean. IF a Sat. sabbatarian thinks they are loving their neighbors by marking them with SIN, condemning that sinner for SIN, and sentencing them to the possibility of ETERNAL DEATH I can be totally ASSURED that is NOT loving them.

The same ones they OPENLY CONDEMN when those SAME love their neighbors as themselves, have fulfilled the ENTIRETY of the requirements of the LAW in themselves SPIRITUALLY and will NOT be condemned.

I can see your point, to a degree. It's MHO that Adventist denominations feel they are doing us a favor ( showing brotherly love ) by warning us about the Sabbath, Christ was Michael the archangel, etc. It's either that or their arguments are so weak they are required to convince and harvest converts which serve as an affirmation they are right.

If we apply your theology to a homosexual leading an active homosexual life-style he or she can have all the brotherly / sisterly love there is and it's still a big no-go.

When I was in the Army my roommate happened to be gay, I don't believe I have ever known of a person that cared more for other people and their feelings then this guy did. He would literally give the cloths off his back to someone in need. This guy lived what you are talking about, is this seriously enough to fulfill the law in your view? I would think a person needs to help the poor, etc AND follow the rules laid out by Scripture. This is what I mean.

 

[JAL]

The New Covenant was purchased with the blood of Christ Jesus. After the resurrection of Jesus the NT explicitly teaches we are free from the OT law, OT law was never binding to the Gentile Christian. This is a foundational teaching in the NT, that the Gentiles and the Jews who are Christians now live under the New Covenant; and that only by the sacrifice of Jesus life, God's only begotten Son, that only then would it be acceptable to God, for us to enter into this New covenant. Jesus in the four gospels is fulfilling the OT laws and prophesies but then abolishes the law and ordinances nailing them to the cross. He did not do away with them, that's why He also says not one of them will pass away, this is where some of the confusion comes from I believe. We still have the entire Word from God but the Gentile Christian and/or the Jew Christian now is no longer bound by the OT laws and ordinances.

James 1:25"But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed."

James 2:12"So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty."

I'm no sabbatarian, but your synopsis here is not likely true. It results from an oversimplified view of the covenants. One way to illustrate my point is this. Suppose you claim that OT saints were "under the Old Covenant". By this you mean to imply that OT saints were saved by good works? Well, no one gets saved by good works, and certainly animal sacrifices can't atone for sin, so you would be implying that everyone in the OT went to hell (Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc).

The Protestant Reformers realized that this type of thinking is a mistake. Hence they formulated Covenant Theology which postulates one Covenant of Grace common to both OT and NT saints (this is the topic of Galatians 3 and see also Romans 4). For instance Abraham was saved by faith (not by works) long before the Old Covenant. The Protestant Reformers even realized that OT saints had the indwelling Holy Spirit just like we do today.

The various covenants, then are simply revelations (enumerations) of the blessings available under the one Covenant of Grace, for instance Israel's Old and New Covenant are used in Scripture to help list ("enumerate") these blessings. I would add, however, that Israel's old and New Covenant are more than that. Meaning: "Grace" is something that God administers at His sovereign discretion. By a sovereign act of God, therefore, He created Isreal's Old and New Covenant as a gracious application of the one Covenant of Grace to the nation of Israel. As Paul says, Israel is God's elect.

 

[squint]

I can see your point, to a degree. It's MHO that Adventist denominations feel they are doing us a favor ( showing brotherly love ) by warning us about the Sabbath, Christ was Michael the archangel, etc. It's either that or their arguments are so weak they are required to convince and harvest converts which serve as an affirmation they are right.

Doing us a favor by pointing out SIN? Many believers cannot even be honest about the subject for themselves individually let alone as 'groups.'

If we apply your theology to a homosexual leading an active homosexual life-style he or she can have all the brotherly / sisterly love there is and it's still a big no-go.

Look, having an EVIL THOUGHT is just as much the SIN as what you observe above. You can get all 'righteous' about ANY external sin you want, but there are sins committed in believers everyday and constantly that are just as much the SIN as you want to 'point out' in others on an external basis.

So how honest are people, really, about their own sinful thoughts, whatever they may be? I say not very when they are pointing, counting and condemning their neighbors. It's the classic LOG/SLIVER effect of the Pharisees run amok.

When I was in the Army my roommate happened to be gay, I don't believe I have ever known of a person that cared more for other people and their feelings then this guy did. He would literally give the cloths off his back to someone in need. This guy lived what you are talking about, is this seriously enough to fulfill the law in your view?

Unquestionably a person who loves their neighbors as themselves DO fulfill the requirements of the LAW. Does that excuse the act as a sin? No. Did that excuse your high and mighty view of that person? No. You were just as much IF NOT MORE 'in sin' by condemning that person and committing that man in 'YOUR HEART' to eternal death or (insert your favorite form of torture.)

There are again far more interesting and honest views of sin that most believers or sects are not only unwilling but UNable to deal with honestly.

I would think a person needs to help the poor, etc AND follow the rules laid out by Scripture. This is what I mean.

And that would be good advice. Where we will continue to part ways is on the 'rules' portion. There is NO RULE that when followed makes any person SINLESS in mind. The fact is just the OPPOSITE transpires. Rules only serve to arouse, enhance and empower SIN in any person. Hypocrisy is the BIGGEST non-fruit hanging from religious trees.

In the final analysis there IS NO OTHER AVENUE to go to other than loving our neighbors as ourselves....PERIOD.

IF believers can to be 'honest' about SIN, well, that is another question altogether.

enjoy!

squint

 

[bbbbbbb]

Doing us a favor by pointing out SIN? Many believers cannot even be honest about the subject for themselves individually let alone as 'groups.'



Look, having an EVIL THOUGHT is just as much the SIN as what you observe above. You can get all 'righteous' about ANY external sin you want, but there are sins committed in believers everyday and constantly that are just as much the SIN as you want to 'point out' in others on an external basis.

So how honest are people, really, about their own sinful thoughts, whatever they may be? I say not very when they are pointing, counting and condemning their neighbors. It's the classic LOG/SLIVER effect of the Pharisees run amok.


Unquestionably a person who loves their neighbors as themselves DO fulfill the requirements of the LAW. Does that excuse the act as a sin? No. Did that excuse your high and mighty view of that person? No. You were just as much IF NOT MORE 'in sin' by condemning that person and committing that man in 'YOUR HEART' to eternal death or (insert your favorite form of torture.)

There are again far more interesting and honest views of sin that most believers or sects are not only unwilling but UNable to deal with honestly.


And that would be good advice. Where we will continue to part ways is on the 'rules' portion. There is NO RULE that when followed makes any person SINLESS in mind. The fact is just the OPPOSITE transpires. Rules only serve to arouse, enhance and empower SIN in any person. Hypocrisy is the BIGGEST non-fruit hanging from religious trees.

In the final analysis there IS NO OTHER AVENUE to go to other than loving our neighbors as ourselves....PERIOD.

IF believers can to be 'honest' about SIN, well, that is another question altogether.

enjoy!

squint

All this talk about SIN reminds me of a friend who married a Mexican lady who enjoyed watching the Spanish International Network on television. One of the newscasters was Jesus Salvador (literally, Jesus the Savior). He gave the news beneath the network initials - S.I.N.

 

[Pythons]

LOL, that's "Hey-sues"

 

[Stryder06]

I continue to fail to understand the intricate set of allowable Sabbath activities in the SDA.

You make it more complicated then we do. That's the reason why.

I now understand that using the internet for personal pleasure is allowable.

Says who? How do you define personal pleasure? By using the internet on the sabbath to help possibly minister to someone is much different then checking facebook.

Am I to understand, however, that it is not allowable if such use falls under the rubric of "work"? Is it no problem for those who work to keep the internet in operation on the Sabbath or are they guilty of breaking the Sabbath?

Good question. I don't think so, but I can't really say because I don't know what they know about the sabbath. God only holds people accountable for the light they have, or could have had.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

All this talk about SIN reminds me of a friend who married a Mexican lady who enjoyed watching the Spanish International Network on television. One of the newscasters was Jesus Salvador (literally, Jesus the Savior).
He gave the news beneath the network initials - S.I.N.

Oh my.......the irony of it

 

[Stryder06]

Yep. Last saturday I was helping a boy who was previously a victim of abuse. I think helping him may have also been a form of worshipping God. What do you think?

I think that it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.

You say its wrong to worship God on sunday. Is it also wrong to worship God on monday? Cause I do that too.

You're missing the point. Worshiping God any day is fine. Neglecting to keep His day holy in favor of a man made holy day however is the problem. Worship does not make a day holy. By accepting a man made day over God's ordained day you are showing to whom your allegiance is.

I really think that you need to quit worrying about what day it is, and just worship God. OK dude?

The bible says that you can't love God if you're not obedient to Him. Perhaps you should stop thinking that the day doesn't matter and consider that the God of the universe delegated a special set time to spend time with you and to build a relationship with you.

 

[Timothew]

I think that it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.


You're missing the point. Worshiping God any day is fine. Neglecting to keep His day holy in favor of a man made holy day however is the problem. Worship does not make a day holy. By accepting a man made day over God's ordained day you are showing to whom your allegiance is.


The bible says that you can't love God if you're not obedient to Him. Perhaps you should stop thinking that the day doesn't matter and consider that the God of the universe delegated a special set time to spend time with you and to build a relationship with you.

Thanks for responding. This is an interesting topic, we just disagree on what it means to keep the day holy.

I do believe that God gives you a special day "to spend time with you and to build a relationship with you," and He calls this day by a very special name. He calls this day "Today".

It has been established throughout the new testament that the jewish laws are no longer in effect. The Law was a set of training wheels that come off when we learn to love each other as Christ loves. The Law says "Thou shall not commit adultery." Before I learn to love, I need that Law, I cling to it. I think, if I commit adultery, God will punish me. After I learn to love (my wife) I no longer need that law, because I honor my wife and want to serve her. I couldn't hurt her by committing adultery. Its unthinkable.

So we keep the 7th day holy, the same way we keep every day holy, by loving God and loving each other. The sabbath law was a pattern to follow while we were learning. We don't follow the same pattern after we have learned the reason for the pattern.

Please don't put the Law onto free people, OK? Free Christians are obedient to God by obeying His commandment. And here it is, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

 

[Stryder06]

Thanks for responding. This is an interesting topic, we just disagree on what it means to keep the day holy.

No problem

I do believe that God gives you a special day "to spend time with you and to build a relationship with you," and He calls this day by a very special name. He calls this day "Today".

Sorry, every day may be special as it is a new day which we were not promised, but only one day was made holy.

It has been established throughout the new testament that the jewish laws are no longer in effect. The Law was a set of training wheels that come off when we learn to love each other as Christ loves. The Law says "Thou shall not commit adultery." Before I learn to love, I need that Law, I cling to it. I think, if I commit adultery, God will punish me. After I learn to love (my wife) I no longer need that law, because I honor my wife and want to serve her. I couldn't hurt her by committing adultery. Its unthinkable.

I see what you're saying, and actually what you've done is give a great example of what it means to not be under the law. This is the thing though, you don't cling to the law to no commit adultery because you fear punishment. The last six laws deal with human relationships which is why it was summed up "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

We still need those laws because it continues to establish what is and isn't a sin. If those laws no longer apply to Christians then it doesn't matter if one cheats on their spouse because there'd be no punishment for it. It would no longer be a sin.

So we keep the 7th day holy, the same way we keep every day holy, by loving God and loving each other. The sabbath law was a pattern to follow while we were learning. We don't follow the same pattern after we have learned the reason for the pattern.

This is the problem, you may want to keep everyday "holy" but you can't do that the same way we are to keep the sabbath holy. We are commanded to do no work on the sabbath day. We are to abstain from doing our own pleasure. Something Holy is something that has been set apart. It is something different. How can Sunday be a holy day when it's treated like every other day?

Going to church doesn't make it special, all you've done is taken your personal worship into a corporate environment.

Please don't put the Law onto free people, OK? Free Christians are obedient to God by obeying His commandment. And here it is, "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

That "new" commandment seems pretty reminiscent of the command given to the COI in the book of Deuteronomy. Please, so many people continue on about how the law will put you in bondage. Can you answer this question that everyone else simply refuses to...how? How does obedience to the ten commandments place you under bondage?

 

[squint]

Can you answer this question that everyone else simply refuses to...how? How does obedience to the ten commandments place you under bondage?

Are you serious?

uh, because IF YOU DON'T you are CONDEMNED?

Your own conclusions land OBEDIENCE directly on THE SPOT of CONDEMNATION for 'non' performance.

 

[Stryder06]

Are you serious?

uh, because IF YOU DON'T you are CONDEMNED?

Your own conclusions land OBEDIENCE directly on THE SPOT of CONDEMNATION for 'non' performance.

That's if you don't. And of course none of us do, but that's what grace is for. Of course grace is not an excuse to sin thus we have a responsibility to try to keep the commandments of God.

 

[squint]

That's if you don't. And of course none of us do,

Yes. So you ask how OBEDIENCE to LAW brings condemnation? Your own statement says IT DOES.

You however have perceived that not only have you FORMULAMATICALLY determined what FULL OBEDIENCE is, you have also 'formulamatically' determined your ESCAPE from the conclusion....

repeat ad nauseam...the personal formula escape clauses.

but that's what grace is for. Of course grace is not an excuse to sin thus we have a responsibility to try to keep the commandments of God.

Your conclusions of GRACE betray the fact that appart from your formulamatic incantations of personal escape clauses, there is NO GRACE, other than you cover yourself with GRACE until you can get the personal formulamatic escape clause back into place.

s

 

[Stryder06]

Yes. So you ask how OBEDIENCE to LAW brings condemnation? Your own statement says IT DOES.

I asked how obedience brings bondage. I said nothing about condemnation. I don't believe obedience to the law brings either of those things.

You however have perceived that not only have you FORMULAMATICALLY determined what FULL OBEDIENCE is, you have also 'formulamatically' determined your ESCAPE from the conclusion....

repeat ad nauseam...the personal formula escape clauses.

There you go jumping again.

Your conclusions of GRACE betray the fact that apart from your formulamatic incantations of personal escape clauses, there is NO GRACE, other than you cover yourself with GRACE until you can get the personal formulamatic escape clause back into place.

s

I'm not going to lie, I have no idea what you're talking about. I checked, I can't find a definition for "formulamatic" and I'm pretty sure you're using the word incantation out of context. And what personal escape clause? Yeah, if i'm slow for not being able to follow you here I apologize.

 

[squint]

I asked how obedience brings bondage.

The potential of CONDEMNATION is BONDAGE.

There is NO condemnation for those IN CHRIST even available.

But in your format there is certainly IN AND OUT of Jesus based on personal performances.

I said nothing about condemnation. I don't believe obedience to the law brings either of those things.

There is no doubt whatsoever that in your format, for lack of PERSONAL OBEDIENCE there is instant condemnation/SIN. Condemnation is BONDAGE for which you also seek to be CONSTANTLY released from.

I'm not going to lie, I have no idea what you're talking about. I checked, I can't find a definition for "formulamatic" and I'm pretty sure you're using the word incantation out of context.

Oh please. The simplicity of your own forumlas for reinstatement are

PRAY, REPENT, ask forgiveness in order to reinstate yourself INTO personal obedience and OUT of condemnation.

And what personal escape clause? Yeah, if i'm slow for not being able to follow you here I apologize.

Obviously.

I know the reinstatement forumla format more than intimately.

 

[Stryder06]

The potential of CONDEMNATION is BONDAGE.

Says who?

There is NO condemnation for those IN CHRIST even available.

Right.

But in your format there is certainly IN AND OUT of Jesus based on personal performances.

My format?

And what do you mean in and out of Jesus based on personal performance. Who said that?

There is no doubt whatsoever that in your format, for lack of PERSONAL OBEDIENCE there is instant condemnation/SIN. Condemnation is BONDAGE for which you also seek to be CONSTANTLY released from.

You're wrong here, but that's what happens when you make assumptions.

Oh please. The simplicity of your own forumlas for reinstatement are

PRAY, REPENT, ask forgiveness in order to reinstate yourself INTO personal obedience and OUT of condemnation.

No. You pray and repent because thats what you're suppose to do. No one said that once you sin you're out of Jesus and then when you repent you're back on His good side. If that's what you think than that's on you, but don't assume that's how I believe.

Obviously.

I know the reinstatement forumla format more than intimately.

Good for you, because it's foreign to me.

 

[squint]

Says who?

Condemnation IS bondage.

Sin is condemned (we both agree)

Condemnation brings the potential of eternal death (we again agree)

THE potential of eternal death IS bondage:

Hebrews 2:15
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

IF you do not fear the CONDEMNATION that SIN brings, the potential of ETERNAL DEATH, then there IS no bondage.

But if you DO fear the condemnation that SIN brings, the potential of ETERNAL DEATH, then yes, you ARE in BONDAGE.

Simple math.

IF you remove the potential of ETERNAL DEATH from the formula, then the OBEDIENCE factor would seem rather MOOT as there is NO PENALTY whatsoever, other than 'temporal.'

No. You pray and repent because thats what you're suppose to do.

The obvious question here then is WHY?

No one said that once you sin you're out of Jesus and then when you repent you're back on His good side. If that's what you think than that's on you, but don't assume that's how I believe.

By all means elaborate.

I already KNOW that the SDA assuredly does NOT believe in OSAS, so the potential of eternal death card is NOT off the table for you in these matters. And when THAT CARD is in PLAY you are in fact under the scripturally stated BONDAGE that potential ETERNAL DEATH brings.

You certainly cannot SAY you DON'T fear the potential of 'eternal death' or you wouldn't be reacting to avoid same by personal obedience.

enjoy!

squint

 

[Stryder06]

Condemnation IS bondage.

Sin is condemned (we both agree)

Condemnation brings the potential of eternal death (we again agree)

THE potential of eternal death IS bondage:

Hebrews 2:15
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

IF you do not fear the CONDEMNATION that SIN brings, the potential of ETERNAL DEATH, then there IS no bondage.

But if you DO fear the condemnation that SIN brings, the potential of ETERNAL DEATH, then yes, you ARE in BONDAGE.

Simple math.

Ok, now I'm following you.

IF you remove the potential of ETERNAL DEATH from the formula, then the OBEDIENCE factor would seem rather MOOT as there is NO PENALTY whatsoever, other than 'temporal.'

Without obedience you'll never learn to overcome self and become submissive to God.

The obvious question here then is WHY?

One cannot have unconfessed sins on their record. To ask for forgiveness is you acknowledging the fact that you need a Savior. Repenting is you showing your willingness to forsake sin.


By all means elaborate.

I already KNOW that the SDA assuredly does NOT believe in OSAS, so the potential of eternal death card is NOT off the table for you in these matters. And when THAT CARD is in PLAY you are in fact under the scripturally stated BONDAGE that potential ETERNAL DEATH brings.

You certainly cannot SAY you DON'T fear the potential of 'eternal death' or you wouldn't be reacting to avoid same by personal obedience.

enjoy!

squint[/quote]

Actually, the fear of eternal death, I believe, comes from old school Christians putting more focus on hell then heaven when we're at a young age. When we grow older we learn that we are saved because Christ has chosen to save us. All we have to do is believe that He will do what He said He will do.

I do believe in OSAS in a since that once you accept Christ nothing can take you from Him save for you leaping out of His hands. I don't believe in OSAS in the sense that no matter what you do you'll be saved. That gives open license to sin and that is blasphemy against God and the work that He did to rescue us.

 

[squint]

Ok, now I'm following you.

Without obedience you'll never learn to overcome self and become submissive to God.

Well, I have observed that more than likely 'obedience' is more directly correlated to AVOID the penalty of eternal death...rather than the highlighted alternatives above.

Without the FEAR of penalty there is no impetus for overcoming and submissiveness.

Were such things only on the BASIS of learning you'd have a point, but that is obviously NOT the case. So no, the BASIS is not only upon LEARNING whatsoever.

Nice try though!

One cannot have unconfessed sins on their record. To ask for forgiveness is you acknowledging the fact that you need a Savior. Repenting is you showing your willingness to forsake sin.

Well, the formulas are an entirely different matter altogether.

IF there is NO condemnation IN CHRIST, then you are also admitting that where there IS condemnation or the potential of same YOU ARE at that point OUT of Christ and in need of 'reinstatement.' Hence my observation of IN AND OUT of Christ (how perpetually or frequently is irrelevant.)

Actually, the fear of eternal death, I believe, comes from old school Christians putting more focus on hell then heaven when we're at a young age.

Look, this is me not buying your story. You have merely put up the ILLUSION of learning DEVOID of the other fact, that being the potential of eternal death, EMPHASIS or not does not matter IF the potential is ALSO therein included.

Focus? lol Kinda hard to ignore the elephant in the room with learning.

When we grow older we learn that we are saved because Christ has chosen to save us. All we have to do is believe that He will do what He said He will do.

So, by belief you ARE always saved and have ZERO chance of the penalty of eternal death? In essence, OSAS?

I do believe in OSAS in a since that once you accept Christ nothing can take you from Him save for you leaping out of His hands. I don't believe in OSAS in the sense that no matter what you do you'll be saved.

Nice try again. The potential of eternal death in your view above has not in ANY WAY been removed out of the equations. Sorry.

That gives open license to sin and that is blasphemy against God and the work that He did to rescue us.

And, as stated, you DO remain under bondage in your format. There is no avoiding the obvious which you yourself OPENLY state and admit to.

It does not become 'squints personal problem' to VIEW such measures when they come from your own lips btw.

I am merely drawing out the obvious of what you state.

enjoy!

squint