Lies about the Sabbath.

[VictorC]

Does accepting The Ten Commandments means rejecting faith? The bible does not say that!

Wrong. From the Bible:

Galatians 3
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.​

Embracing the Ten Commandments (the covenant from Mount Sinai never given to the Gentiles in Barbados) shows that you're still living in a state of "before faith came".

Did Joshua and Caleb reject the Ten Commandments when they had the faith that God give them the promise land? Did God give the Ten commandments to Israel because He did not want them to have faith?

And the relevance this has with the Gentiles living in Barbados, alienated from the promises of God during the tenure of the covenant from Mount Sinai?
None.
Your reliance on deflection is confirmed.

 

[LarryP2]

The resulting conclusions are inescapable:

• The Seventh-day Adventist 'church' has rejected redemption in Jesus Christ.
• Elder111 is a habitual liar who wants others to forget what he posted.

As is nicely-demonstrated in the "Cognitive Dissonance" thread, to honestly state undisputed historical fact means to a Seventh Day Adventist that you are doomed for the Lake of Fire.

That Sabbath Keeping demands pathological lying is now beyond dispute. That it is a rejection of the Gospel is now beyond dispute.

Sabbath Keeping and lying simply are totally logically compatible, and necessary. It is necessary to lie over and over again in order to replace the Gospel with Salvation by Sabbath Keeping. The two are mutually incompatible:

The Gospel and Resurrection= The glaring and obvious Central truths of the Bible;

Sabbath Keeping= A dishonest and unbiblical Salvation by Works scheme that was consistently denounced and excommunicated in the Early Church. That it requires unbelievable dishonesty is discussed at length here, in two lengthy expositions of the massive, unbelievable fraud and pathological institutional deceit behind Seventh Day Adventism:

http://www.bible.ca/7-lying-for-god-Kerry-Wynne.htm
http://www.truthorfables.com/LYING FOR GOD.pdf

The whole thing is just a deceitful house of cards completely founded on fraud.

 

[from scratch]

Does accepting The Ten Commandments means rejecting faith? The bible does not say that! Did Joshua and Caleb reject the Ten Commandments when they had the faith that God give them the promise land? Did God give the Ten commandments to Israel because He did not want them to have faith?

You need to face the facts Elder. You're not pushing the Ten Commandments, you're pushing the observance of the 7th day Sabbath for salvation. I've said that we don't object to you keeping the Sabbath if you like. Really an amended sort of Sabbath. BTW who gave you the right to amend the stone tablets written with the finger of God?

 

[from scratch]

Note your quotation from Romans 7.
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
These are the verses prior to yours. Note that the Husband dies not the law. If she married again after the dead of the first husband is it not that she commits adultery if she looks to another while married to the second?
Your verse says we become dead to the law, not that the law is dead!

We have a dead husband that represents the law in the narrative. Paul without doubt said the law is dead.

 

[Cribstyl]

You made a prescient point unlikely to be answered. Would a reputation point ease the pain?

Simple truths should be presented.
Thank for the reps...... What a pal

 

[VictorC]

As is nicely-demonstrated in the "Cognitive Dissonance" thread, to honestly state undisputed historical fact means to a Seventh Day Adventist that you are doomed for the Lake of Fire.

That Sabbath Keeping demands pathological lying is now beyond dispute. That it is a rejection of the Gospel is now beyond dispute.

Sabbath Keeping and lying simply are totally logically compatible, and necessary. It is necessary to lie over and over again in order to replace the Gospel with Salvation by Sabbath Keeping. The two are mutually incompatible:

The Gospel and Resurrection= The glaring and obvious Central truths of the Bible;

Sabbath Keeping= A dishonest and unbiblical Salvation by Works scheme that was consistently denounced and excommunicated in the Early Church.

Mind you, I see no problem in resting and assembling on Saturday. There are some (very few) within Christianity who prefer this over assembling on Sunday, and recognize their practice as a matter of tradition we enjoy in the liberty we have in Christ's redemption. There isn't any salvific relationship attributed to observing a day to rest and assemble.

That excludes the Seventh-day Adventist 'church', as aptly shown by their own source documents already.

 

[LarryP2]

Mind you, I see no problem in resting and assembling on Saturday. There are some within Christianity who prefer this over assembling on Sunday, and recognize their practice as a matter of tradition we enjoy in the liberty we have in Christ's redemption. There isn't any salvific relationship attributed to observing a day to rest and assemble.

That excludes the Seventh-day Adventist 'church', as aptly documented in their own source documents already.

I have no problem with what you are saying, and the Seventh Day Baptists are an excellent example of carefully living out your philosophy. They are truly rare in that regard, in my opinion. They are Baptists that are virtually indistinguishable from other First Day Baptists.

First and foremost, they take GREAT pains to spell out that Sabbath Keeping has NOTHING to do with Salvation. For Seventh Day Adventists, Sabbath Keeping IS Salvation.

Seventh Day Baptists have a HUGE problem with Seventh Day Adventists:

A Comparison of SDAs and SDBs

http://www.asdba.org/files/library/ComparisonOfSDBsAndSDAs.pdf

It is undeniable that Seventh Day Adventists have given Sabbath Keeping a horrific reputation. Were all Sabbath Keepers like Seventh Day Baptists, this entire section of threads would not exist. And the Council of Laodicea would have never issued Canon #29.

I engaged in discussion with a Seventh Day Baptist on one of these threads, and it was obvious that they quickly lost interest in any discussion about Sabbath Keeping. Notwithstanding the place the day has in their own name, they were far more interested in the other rudiments of the Baptist faith. The "Baptist" in their name is FAR more important than the "Seventh Day." They were ashamed and embarrassed that they are constantly being confused with Seventh Day Adventists. You can't read the documents on the two pages above without getting the abiding impression that SDBs regret having to spend so much time avoiding being confused with SDA:

SDB
"Seventh Day Baptists teach that Christ’s atoning work was finished when He died on the cross. Eternal
life is not something we earn through good works. It is a gift through God’s grace. The believer is free from
condemnation because of this finished atoning work of Christ. While all people should do good works, salvation is not dependent on our efforts."


SDA
"Seventh-day Adventists stress the “third angel’s message” (Revelation 14:9-12). They teach that Christ
entered the “heavenly sanctuary” in 1844 and is completing His atonement by investigating the lives of
all people. They call this the “investigative judgement.” An emphasis on human effort causes some SDAs to be uncertain about salvation for themselves and others."
http://www.asdba.org/files/library/ComparisonOfSDBsAndSDAs.pdf

 

[VictorC]

I have no problem with what you are saying, and the Seventh Day Baptists are an excellent example of carefully living out your philosophy. They are truly rare in that regard, in my opinion. They are Baptists that are virtually indistinguishable from other First Day Baptists.

First and foremost, they take GREAT pains to spell out that Sabbath Keeping has NOTHING to do with Salvation. For Seventh Day Adventists, Sabbath Keeping IS Salvation.

Agreed. SDA compliance with the old covenant has already been shown as requisite for them to earn eternal life. This is contrary to Galatians 4:30, which shows that those retained by the covenant from Mount Sinai (as defined in v.24) have no claim to eternal life with the Heir.

I have looked at a summary of Seventh-day Baptist beliefs, and they convey some of the errors regarding the origin of the Law's components that made their way into the London Baptist Confession (and Westminster as well). They attribute the Sabbath to creation, unable to distinguish God's rest apart from the Sabbath that originated thousands of years later when Moses lived. An error in attribution leads to an error in conclusion, and they merely follow the error logically. But, it is still an error. At least their salvation isn't dependent on their error. Come to think of it, none of us depend on our doctrine to save us, rather placing our faith in the capable Hands of the Living God to perform what we can't.

These discussions over the Sabbath after the tenure of the old covenant are academic at best. However, the learning experience that comes from working through the Scriptures explaining what we have been redeemed from (Galatians 4:4-7 summarizes the whole Gospel in 4 verses flat) gives us a better appreciation for what we believe. And, the reason that we generally assemble on Sunday, which is rooted in a tradition:

John 20:19-20
Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.​

The whole reason we assemble on Sunday stems from this being the day the Lord chose to meet with us. We hope for a repeat of this every time we gather together.

Seventh Day Baptists have a HUGE problem with Seventh Day Adventists:

A Comparison of SDAs and SDBs

http://www.asdba.org/files/library/ComparisonOfSDBsAndSDAs.pdf

It is undeniable that Seventh Day Adventists have given Sabbath Keeping a horrific reputation. Were all Sabbath Keepers like Seventh Day Baptists, this entire section of threads would not exist. And the Council of Laodicea would have never issued Canon #29.

Seventh-day Adventists have rightfully earned themselves the "stigma of being a cult", as Dr. Walter Martin wrote in the mid-1960's. They've done more damage to those wishing to gather on Saturday by associating their rendition of Sabbatarianism with 1844 fanaticism and denying Christ's redemption.

I will look over the SDB comments in a while, after I log out of CF. Thank you for them.

 

[Sophrosyne]

It is sometimes amazing how much one small error can lead to an entire Church full of tremendous errors. It makes us want to be more careful not to buy into ANY error but to be dilligent and study for ourselves.

 

[LarryP2]

These discussions over the Sabbath after the tenure of the old covenant are academic at best. However, the learning experience that comes from working through the Scriptures explaining what we have been redeemed from (Galatians 4:4-7 summarizes the whole Gospel in 4 verses flat) gives us a better appreciation for what we believe. And, the reason that we generally assemble on Sunday, which is rooted in a tradition:

In my own personal case, I pulled up Dudley Canright's "Seventh Day Adventism Renounced" quite frankly because I was bored after binge-watching "Orange is the New Black." I had always been curious about my boyhood and what "that was all about" growing up SDA, and wondering why I felt so unbelievably terrible that my sister and I just had to leave with literally "no forwarding address" when I was 22. Seventh Day Adventism is such a horrifically dark place that you MUST escape any way you can, I believe.

"Seventh-day Adventism Renounced" by D. M. Canright, 1914
"Seventh-day Adventism Renounced" by D. M. Canright, 1914
Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced by D.M. Canright | Earnestly contending for the Faith

I never, ever expected that reading Canright's book would lead inevitably to a collision with the Resurrection in its great lunging and massive Hydrogen Bomb glory. That is PRECISELY what Seventh Day Adventism works so hard to conceal. It has completely rocked my world. All I think about now is the Resurrection. It just comes intrusively into my head every hour on the hour. Pascha celebration at the local Eastern Orthodox church fused a never-ending sense of gratitude and sheer wonder and awe at this truly-epochal history and world-smashing event. It is the Singularity. I think about it constantly. Every hour I think about it. It has completely consumed me.

I am blinded by the Son.

 

[joshuathree]

this discussion is just another exercise in legalism.

 

[Sophrosyne]

this discussion is just another exercise in legalism.

The whole subforum is just that

 

[LarryP2]

this discussion is just another exercise in legalism.

And if I can prevent just one person from having their life ruined, their families destroyed, their faith anihilated by getting sucked into the dark, dishonest, evil maw of Seventh Day Adventism, then I am more than willing to debate legalism. That is why I am here.

 

[Sophrosyne]

And if I can prevent just one person from having their life ruined by getting sucked into the dark, dishonest, evil maw of Seventh Day Adventism, then I am more than willing to debate legalism. That is why I am here.

You are a better witness than I am for sure. I've never really been directly exposed to the SDAs other than here and once at a store in line someone said they were an SDA when we were talking about God but I don't think they had been deeply entrenched in it at that time as I was able to say things that made them think some and that was long before I started in these "Law" threads.
I recall myself once saying that if one.... and only one person accepts Jesus because of me in my lifetime then whatever else I do in life my life isn't wasted. If each one can just reach one. I consider some groups beliefs such that if you get sucked in too deep you end up forfeiting the Gospel of Grace for something else and I believe a few that didn't truly have faith in Christ to begin with end up lost because they are drawn away by legalism instead of to the cross by Grace.

 

[Elder 111]

Dont lie Elder, you and Paul are not in agreement. Paul says in this context...... Rom 7:6
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

(...that Christian are now (a)delivered from the law, (b)being dead to the law, (c) to serve God in a new way.
Not by the 10.com you keep saying you keep in Christ.) Your comments are pathetic to say the least.
You will not say what the scriptures are saying. You keep pointing to the law, with scriptures that points away from it.

I now take the time to get back to you. Forgive the delay.
I now understand why Jesus stated so often for those that have eyes to see. Open your eyes and see. I am in perfect harmony with Paul. Paul does not say that the law is dead, we are! LOOK AGAIN! YOU SAID IT TOO.
Our relation to the law changes not the law. At the start of the chapter Paul gave the example of a married woman to illustrate his point. The husband dies not the law of adultery. In Christ the 10 commandments does not condemn us because we are covered with His blood. We are now subject to life and not death because of sin. We now have the strength of Christ to live holy, we are therefore "dead to the law" in that we are able to live by it demands.

You're confusing the facts. My bicycle is in perfect shape but I drive a car to work. Paul is not trashing the law. He is saying that the law is a good thing. He explains that grace through faith has more glory than the law.
The law administers death, grace through faith administers life.
You and your prophetess Ellen White keep promoting righteousness by the law while the apostles preach righteousness by faith to Christians.

That is a LIE! There is no promotion of righteousness by law! There is the promotion that living by the in dwelling of the Holy Spirit leads also the keeping the Holy law. Romans 7 : 12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Are there more than one holy?
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Is it that we as Christians can only be saved by removing the law so that we may not break it or that with Jesus we are cleansed and given power to live by it?
Romans 8:There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.


13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Rom 3:28

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
What part of without the deeds of the law means we're under the law?

What part of without the deeds of the law means no law?

Rom 4:13

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Rom 4:14
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

Faith and law are 2 separate covenants, one is of Moses and one is of Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 11 demonstrate that faith was always a part of salvation from the beginning even Noah was saved because of faith Genesis 6:8. and Enoch walked with God by what? The law only?

Gal 3:11
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Gal 3:12
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Gal 3:23
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Posting scripture about the law is easy but it's old covenant.[/quote]
I never saw or read in Mathew to Revelation that there is no Ten Commandments did you? I saw Mat. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.
Rev. 12:
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 22:
14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

 

[Elder 111]

The Commandment you are referring to NEVER applied to Gentiles, before during or after Christ. That is simply just history.

There is an unbroken logical thread that runs through history: Jesus was Resurrected on Sunday and Pentecost happened on Sunday. Christianity threw off Sabbath Keeping in the First year after the Resurrection. Nobody ever thought of the Sabbath after that. How could they? It had obviously been fulfilled by Christ. And the consistent history of the Early Church was excommunicating the Judaizing Heretics that tried to revive the dead and moldy Mosaic Law. Laodicea only confirmed what had been the reality for 300 years. It became written Church doctrine to excommunicate Judaizers.

Why set a law against something that did not exist for 300 years? You can fool yourself and others but not those seeking the truth. What was the and is the crime in keeping the Sabbath? The law was to break the practice of the majority not the few.

Just reading these posts, you can immediately see the wisdom of their course: Plainly, Sabbath Keeping is incompatible with and an outright rejection of the Resurrection and the Gospel. They simply cannot be reconciled and harmonized. The more you believe in the Sabbath, the less that you believe in the Resurrection, the Gospel and the Full Atonement of the Cross. Sabbath Keeping ALWAYS eventually leads to a system of Salvation by Works. ALWAYS! Seventh Day Adventism merely takes it to its logical end point, and hatefully condemns ALL of the rest of Christianity. They flatter their conceit by claiming they are the Remnant Church, when clearly they are not. Christianity has always believed in EXACTLY the same things. The Sabbath was simply a useless and silly cast-off cultural artifact after the mighty hydrogen bomb blast of the Resurrection. There is no way it could have survived that. The First and Second Century Church Fathers were unanimous: continued Sabbath Keeping was ironclad proof that the person had not received Grace and did not understand the Gospel and the Resurrection. In fact, in the latest round of this argument, it was argued by a Seventh Day Adventist yesterday that to honestly state the undisputed history of the Council of Laodicea can cost you your Salvation. Honestly stating historical facts is a sin! Sabbath Keeping therefore demands lying to achieve Salvation. You are saved if you lie and break the Commandment against lying, as long as it is done to promote the Sabbath.

Sabbath Keepers believe that at least some of the Mosaic Law was abrogated by the Cross, and therefore logically they believe the Cross's redemption is only partial! That is the sheer logic of the argument. Christianity teaches that the Law was completely abrogated, therefore the Atonement is complete. Those are the only two logical outcomes. You have to pick the Resurrection or you have to pick the Sabbath.

Christianity clearly has history and the full sense of the plan of Salvation on its side. Sabbath Keeping only has proof-texts, outright lies about history, with blinders on to squeamishly avoid the central occurrence of history and the Bible.

Yet our Lord rested on the Sabbath before, during and after His Death. Yet our Lord did not institute Sunday to mark His resurrection before, during or after His death.
Yet our Lord did not say celebrate, commemorate or institute Sunday worship to His resurrection, nor did His disciples say so.
Yet our Lord did not bless, sanctify or made Sunday Holy!
Yet our Lord did not say by keeping Sunday you show that you are saved or sanctified.
Ezekiel 22:26 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them
Exe. 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.
Isa. 56: 6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
The Gentles were included.

 

[Elder 111]

If one refuses to love their neighbor on Saturday then one is refusing to love their neighbor it is sin according to Jesus and the Bible be it one day a week or more. Would you reject one of the GREATEST commandments Jesus gave in the Bible to keep a commandment that he did NOT ever mention in the New Testament? That is just disobedience IMO.

So if I don't help my neighbour on Saturday, even when I have helped him Sunday to Friday, it mean that I don't love him?

 

[LarryP2]

Why set a law against something that did not exist for 300 years? You can fool yourself and others but not those seeking the truth. What was the and is the crime in keeping the Sabbath? The law was to break the practice of the majority not the few.

Show me just ONE place in the Bible that mentions a Gentile keeping the Sabbath. You won't be able to because it never happened. That's because under Jewish Law, Gentiles were under the 7 Noahide Commandments. No Gentile kept the Sabbath before, during or after Christ. And in Acts 15, the Apostles determined that none ever would, either. The Sabbath was given to the Israelites delivered out of Egyptian Slavery. NOT the Gentiles.

What was the and is the crime in keeping the Sabbath?

The "crime" is your unbiblical Salvation by Perfect Sabbath Keeping Plan, the your truly-wacko "Investigative Judgment" that has been rejected by every prominent SDA theologian, and your complete rejection of the Resurrection, which is the ONLY reason that the Apostles began meeting on Sunday - Resurrection Day. THAT'S your purpose for your mono-focus on the Sabbath: To degrade and to downgrade the Resurrection. I went to the Seventh Day Adventist Church for 22 years: Not ONE TIME did I hear a sermon on the Resurrection. I heard PLENTY of sermons describing Christians celebrating the Resurrection as the Devil Possessed worshiping Satan.

Yet our Lord rested on the Sabbath before, during and after His Death.

Christianity focuses on the Resurrection. That is PRECISELY the difference between your religion and Christianity: You focus on the Sabbath. Christianity focuses on the Resurrection.

Yet our Lord did not institute Sunday to mark His resurrection before, during or after His death.

The Sabbath was nailed to the Cross. Jesus appeared to the Apostles on Sunday and Pentecost was on Sunday. That's why Christianity celebrated the Resurrection on Sunday. And that is PRECISELY why you insist on the Sabbath: to downplay and degrade the Resurrection in support of your unbiblical Salvation by Works plan.

Yet our Lord did not say celebrate, commemorate or institute Sunday worship to His resurrection, nor did His disciples say so.

The Apostles said they could commemorate the Resurrection on any day they chose. It just happened that they met on Sunday, hoping he would come back, and was the day they were together when Pentecost happened.

Yet our Lord did not bless, sanctify or made Sunday Holy!

Didn't need to. The New Covenant is not about a silly Jewish Day that was only in place to point to Christ, and was fulfilled by him. Christianity is Christ within us, carrying out his will EVERYDAY. For Christians, EVERYDAY is the Sabbath.

Yet our Lord did not say by keeping Sunday you show that you are saved or sanctified.

Nor is there anyplace in the New Testament where it says the Sabbath would show that either. I understand that you DO believe that by "keeping the Sabbath that you show you deserve salvation," but Sunday has never had that role.

[/B]The Gentles were included.
]

Name just one single Gentile that kept the Sabbath in the bible - ANYWHERE. None did. They faced the Death Penalty if they tried. You IGNORE that long-standing Death Penalty, but it is still there. And the Apostles did not have the luxury of living in your dishonest fairy tale. That is precisely why in Acts 15, they refused to put Gentile Christian converts under the yoke of the Mosaic Law. And the Ten Commandments and the Sabbaths and all of the rest of the Mosaic Law were nailed to the Cross.

What was “nailed to the cross”? The unity of the law
R.K. M C GREGOR WRIGHT

"Therefore, when the nails pierced his sinless hands, the entire fulfilled Torah, the Law of God in its entirety, was “nailed to the cross” (Col 2:14-15).Some have tried to argue that when Paul said that “the handwriting of ordinances that was against us”was nailed to the cross, he meant only to include the hundreds
of civil and ceremonial laws in the Pentateuch and not the “moral law” of the Ten Commandments.But the word for “ordinances”is the usual Greek word (dogmata) for the authoritative proclamation of a ruler
declaring his laws to the people (Lk 2:1).The term “handwriting” (cheirographon) clearly refers to
God’s writing the Ten Commandments on the tablets with his own “finger”(Ex 31:18, 32:15-16, and Deut 9:10, etc.). Colossians 2 offers the clearest proof that the entire law is a unity.After declaring that the Law was nailed to the cross,Paul continues to specify laws of the mosaic covenant which do not apply to the Christian, including the laws of “food and drink,”of “holy days,” of the “new moon,”and of “a Sabbath day.” In this clarification Paul includes not only the food laws commonly recognized as part of the “ceremonial”laws, but by listing the feasts in the classic order of “yearly”(holy days),“monthly”(new moon), and “weekly”(a Sabbath day—NIV, NASB), he states that not only the Jewish festivals but also the weekly Sabbath were mere shadows of Christ (Col. 2:17). In other words, laws often designated “ceremonial”and also the weekly Sabbath (often designated “moral”because of its inclusion in the Ten Commandments) were equally nailed to the cross. Jesus also held that the Law was a unit. Not only did He hold that to break “the least of these commandments” is to break the lot (Mat 5:18-20, cf. also Jas 2:10), but He also held that all the mass of the commandments depends on the two “greatest”commandments, love of God and love of man (Matt. 22:40). None of this makes any sense unless the law is a moral unity. It makes no difference to this argument that some laws are more “civil”than “moral.”All the Law is included."

"The only appropriate conclusion is that the whole of the Law in its detailed entirety was “nailed to the cross,”abolished for the Christian in this age, and replaced by a new “Covenant.”
.....
""They have no more power to sanctify now than they ever had, and therefore the weekly Sabbath of the fourth commandment is no more binding on the believing church of this age than are the rest of the mosaic laws. To return to dependence on them is the very apostasy that the letter to the Hebrews argues against (to say nothing of Galatians).We do not need the “weak and useless” laws of Moses (Heb 7:18), for we have the commandments of a risen Savior with whom we are right now spiritually united in his resurrection life."

Under the unity of the law as taught by Jesus, to eat a ham sandwich, or to wear wool with cotton is to violate the Ten Commandments. Therefore, the Ten Commandments are neither sufficient nor are they necessary. I have exhaustively researched the writings of First and Second Century Christian Fathers - many of whom were disciples of the Apostles - and I have NEVER been able to find a single mention of the Ten Commandments. Yet those early Christians were incredibly brave, suffering the most unimaginable torture and savage deaths. Nothing in the Ten Commandments required behavior like that.


http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/Proclamation2005_JulAug.pdf

 

[Sophrosyne]

So if I don't help my neighbour on Saturday, even when I have helped him Sunday to Friday, it mean that I don't love him?

If your neighbor needs your help and suffers when you refuse to help him are you loving him or not? The thing here is you are using the Sabbath as an excuse to ignore your neighbor.

 

[Elder 111]

If your neighbor needs your help and suffers when you refuse to help him are you loving him or not? The thing here is you are using the Sabbath as an excuse to ignore your neighbor.

Why is it that you have to be ridiculous?
Did Jesus allow men to suffer on the Sabbath?
Do my neighbour only have Sabbath to fix a car etc.?
Do you really think that SDA's would see person in need on the Sabbath and refuse to help because it is Sabbath?
So why don't you stay away from church on Sundays and go around helping people?