Legalism

[EastCoastRemnant]

Morality is forever.

Unless you can show that the 4th was mistakenly put in the middle of the Moral Law of God, written with His own finger in stone (that signifies permanency), then the Sabbath is part of it and is forever as well. No amount of scripture wresting can deny that fact.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

What is your point. Inside or outside the 10 commandments were in both locations.

As my friend Mr. Ryan says...'details matter'

Being 'under' the Mercy seat has far greater spiritual implications than being beside it.

 

[BrianJK]

Unless you can show that the 4th was mistakenly put in the middle of the Moral Law of God, written with His own finger in stone (that signifies permanency), then the Sabbath is part of it and is forever as well. No amount of scripture wresting can deny that fact.

Can you prove that signifies permanency, and that said permanency is somehow transferred from the Jews to the Gentiles?

 

[bugkiller]

Can you show us, in the Bible, where it states anything about changing the day God Commanded, before the cross? All the evidence I have seen used for replacing the seventh day comes from scripture that was penned, well after the crucifixion. From a legal perspective, all those arguments you say Paul makes about Sabbath are moot points, for the covenant was sealed at the cross... where did Christ say, before the cross, that Sabbath was changed to the first day? If He didn't and all was sealed with His blood, then you have no argument.

Yes I could show you Scripture saying so. Why should I when you're just going to dismiss the truth?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

You know this isn't true Bob... please provide scripture showing the Decalogue was a part of the book of the law.

The only things inside the ark were the pot for manna, Aaron's budding staff and the tables of stone. The Mosaic laws were written on parchment and stored outside the ark. Combining the tables of stone and the ordinances on parchment is a common tactic of those opposed to the Sovereignty of God use to try and lump the two together.... yet, when it comes to something God put together as one document, the Law written in stone by His finger, they try and separate the 4th from the rest of the moral Law.... HERESY!! Adding to or taking from the Word has eternal consequences... what will your wages be?


Exodus 25:16, "And you shall put into the ark the testimony which I shall give you."
Exodus 31:18, "And when He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God."

Deut 31:24-26
And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

I suppose those wages would be the same for willful disobedience.

bugkiller

 

[Cribstyl]

Can you show us, in the Bible, where it states anything about changing the day God Commanded, before the cross? All the evidence I have seen used for replacing the seventh day comes from scripture that was penned, well after the crucifixion. From a legal perspective, all those arguments you say Paul makes about Sabbath are moot points, for the covenant was sealed at the cross... where did Christ say, before the cross, that Sabbath was changed to the first day? If He didn't and all was sealed with His blood, then you have no argument.

The problem with your questions are : If God required the world to keep the Sabbath, the world would not be ignorant of what God has established for mankind. God made it clear through true prophets that the Sabbath was a sign and a covenant between Himself and the Children of Israel. These facts contradict a creation instituted Sabbath made with debatable texts. The burden is on you to show the scriptures commanding the world to keep Sabbath. You cannot, so your question is shift of burden.

The truth about what God requires of men are spelled out clearly in His covenants.
SDA think we cannot understand: why Jesus appear to Paul, the Actions of the Apostles, The Pauline Epistles and the early church fathers. SDA misrepresent the Official Catholic Church documents about Sunday worship.
How dare you tell me that I keep Sabbath on Sundays because of Constantine. SDA researchers have debunked their founders.

One reason for Sunday worship is an act of belief or faith, that Jesus had died and was resurrected and is King of King and Lord of Lords. That Jesus has finished all His work and ascended to the throne and is worthy of worship and honor and glory.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The problem with your questions are : If God required the world to keep the Sabbath, the world would not be ignorant of what God has established for mankind. God made it clear through true prophets that the Sabbath was a sign and a covenant between Himself and the Children of Israel. These facts contradict a creation instituted Sabbath made with debatable texts. The burden is on you to show the scriptures commanding the world to keep Sabbath. You cannot, so your question is shift of burden.

The truth about what God requires of men are spelled out clearly in His covenants.
SDA think we cannot understand: why Jesus appear to Paul, the Actions of the Apostles, The Pauline Epistles and the early church fathers. SDA misrepresent the Official Catholic Church documents about Sunday worship.
How dare you tell me that I keep Sabbath on Sundays because of Constantine. SDA researchers have debunked their founders.

One reason for Sunday worship an act of belief and faith, that Jesus had died and was resurrected and is King of King and Lord of Lords. That Jesus has finished all His work and ascended to the throne and is worthy of worship and honor and glory.

So then the answer is no, you can't show from the Bible, that Christ rescinded the original Sabbath Commandment or instituted a new Sabbath, before His death.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Can you prove that signifies permanency, and that said permanency is somehow transferred from the Jews to the Gentiles?

Use the intelligence that God gave you... a document, written in stone by God's own finger, signifies what to you... that He ran out of parchment and had to use whatever was available? You realize that trying to poke holes in what He has commanded is direct disobedience....

 

[BrianJK]

Use the intelligence that God gave you... a document, written in stone by God's own finger, signifies what to you... that He ran out of parchment and had to use whatever was available? You realize that trying to poke holes in what He has commanded is direct disobedience....

So your teaching depends on the permanency of the command, as well as its transfer from the group to whom it was commanded to others, being signified only be the medium on which it was written, and you won't use Scripture to back that claim up? You only question my intelligence for not blindly accepting your claim without Scriptural backing, and accuse me of disobedience without proving any?

I thought you were trying to present a case for this teaching. Wouldn't it make sense to address any doubts about it by trying to further and deeper teach it rather than insulting?

 

[Bob S]

So then the answer is no, you can't show from the Bible, that Christ rescinded the original Sabbath Commandment or instituted a new Sabbath, before His death.

Wow! for once I can agree with you. There is no command. But the fact still remains that the new covenant does not tell Christians they have to observe the old covenant, for Israel only, Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man, Jew man and not man(kind) like you try to add. Never in all of history does God ever tell any other nation to observe any day. If it were made for all mankind surely God would have let the American Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Africans, Islanders, Eskimos and every one else know about the special command given to Israel only, you know the one with the "halo" around it.

 

[Bob S]

I thought you were trying to present a case for this teaching. Wouldn't it make sense to address any doubts about it by trying to further and deeper teach it rather than insulting?

Insulting comes after one is backed into a corner without any answers to questions and scripture. Get used to it.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

So your teaching depends on the permanency of the command, as well as its transfer from the group to whom it was commanded to others, being signified only be the medium on which it was written, and you won't use Scripture to back that claim up? You only question my intelligence for not blindly accepting your claim without Scriptural backing, and accuse me of disobedience without proving any?

I thought you were trying to present a case for this teaching. Wouldn't it make sense to address any doubts about it by trying to further and deeper teach it rather than insulting?

What does commandments written on stone vs written on parchment mean to you? Maybe nothing, idk. Btw, I did give scripture earlier in this thread of the 10 Commandments being kept under the Mercy seat, within the ark vs the ordinances which were written on paper and kept outside the ark.... again, propbably means nothing to you but details matter. God does not act randomly and there is a reason for everything He does and how He does it.

 

[BrianJK]

What does commandments written on stone vs written on parchment mean to you? Maybe nothing, idk. Btw, I did give scripture earlier in this thread of the 10 Commandments being kept under the Mercy seat, within the ark vs the ordinances which were written on paper and kept outside the ark.... again, propbably means nothing to you but details matter. God does not act randomly and there is a reason for everything He does and how He does it.

Neither compared the durability of a command written in stone to one written on paper. If God wrote it, what does the medium matter?

They were also both directly regarding the Israelites.

But since you simply dismiss, according to a previous post, the teachings of Paul, we'll just have to disagree, since I accept the Pauline epistles as God's word.

Just make sure everyone knows that your "keep the law" doctrine hinges on rejection of the Pauline epistles. Make that clear upfront when you teach this stuff.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Neither compared the durability of a command written in stone to one written on paper. If God wrote it, what does the medium matter?

They were also both directly regarding the Israelites.

But since you simply dismiss, according to a previous post, the teachings of Paul, we'll just have to disagree, since I accept the Pauline epistles as God's word.

Just make sure everyone knows that your "keep the law" doctrine hinges on rejection of the Pauline epistles. Make that clear upfront when you teach this stuff.

Actually, I believe what Paul and the rest of the Bible writers wrote. I simply read them differently than you through the lens of obedience to the Commandments. Don't think there is only one way to read Paul's letters... it's all about perspective. And should we be surprised? Even his contemporaries commented on how difficult it was to understand Paul. That's why I look to the 'thus saith the Lord' statements on important matters such as this.

 

[BrianJK]

Actually, I believe what Paul and the rest of the Bible writers wrote. I simply read them differently than you through the lens of obedience to the Commandments. Don't think there is only one way to read Paul's letters... it's all about perspective. And should we be surprised? Even his contemporaries commented on how difficult it was to understand Paul. That's why I look to the 'thus saith the Lord' statements on important matters such as this.

That's a fair perspective.

I look at Paul as the appointed apostle to the gentiles. As that includes me, I take his role and his words very seriously. I see nothing in Scripture that convinces me the words God spoke through His apostle Paul are any less important or true or authoritative than the ones spoken in earlier Bible books.

 

[Travis93]

Isaiah 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Looks like we will be keeping sabbath in the millennial kingdom unless this was a false prophesy. So did the law fade away just to come back later? That seems kind of random for God to do considering he declared it to be perpetual and forever in Exodus 31:16-17 and said there is to be one law for Israel and stranger alike in Exodus 12:49. Seems like it only all fits together more logically if the law still applied to us today.

 

[BobRyan]

Who are the "many" that say the Sabbath IS legalistic? I think you just made that up in order to do some proselytizing.

My response is that there is no such thing as a Christian Sabbath. Sabbath was strictly for the Israelites. Christians have never ever been asked to observe a day made to commemorate Israel's escape from bondage.

A number of confessions of faith (even among pro-sunday groups) admit that the TEN Commandments including the Sabbath are still binding on all God's people

As we saw HERE - Jun 17, 2016 #56 in the case of D.L. Moody
As we saw HERE - Jun 17, 2016 #57 in the case of the Baptist Confession of Faith

As we saw HERE - #123 in the case of the Westminster Confession of Faith

 

[bugkiller]

So then the answer is no, you can't show from the Bible, that Christ rescinded the original Sabbath Commandment or instituted a new Sabbath, before His death.

So you can't show from the Bible where Jesus commanded the Sabbath to anyone. I don't see where your argument from silence is any more valid than someone else's position contrary to yours.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Use the intelligence that God gave you... a document, written in stone by God's own finger, signifies what to you... that He ran out of parchment and had to use whatever was available? You realize that trying to poke holes in what He has commanded is direct disobedience....

Where are the stone tablets?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

So your teaching depends on the permanency of the command, as well as its transfer from the group to whom it was commanded to others, being signified only be the medium on which it was written, and you won't use Scripture to back that claim up? You only question my intelligence for not blindly accepting your claim without Scriptural backing, and accuse me of disobedience without proving any?

I thought you were trying to present a case for this teaching. Wouldn't it make sense to address any doubts about it by trying to further and deeper teach it rather than insulting?

That's the SDA way.

bugkiller