• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Questions about the Sabbath of the LORD thy God, this subject is interesting don't you think so?

Discussion in 'Sabbath and The Law' started by HeartenedHeart, Apr 3, 2019.

  1. HeartenedHeart

    HeartenedHeart Member

    256
    +75
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I'll wait.
     
  2. HeartenedHeart

    HeartenedHeart Member

    256
    +75
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    God says otherwise in Exo. 20:8-11 KJB, He was pretty specific.
     
  3. HeartenedHeart

    HeartenedHeart Member

    256
    +75
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Who is "us"? Be specific.
     
  4. ace of hearts

    ace of hearts Well-Known Member

    +1,145
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Please tell me about grace. Is it something you run to when you violate the law? Isn't that really voiding the law? That sounds like the same thing those that talk about cheap grace.

    Christians are expressing outwardly what is within by their living. Those who are requiring certain things are motivated by out side pressures to preform. Following the leading of the Holy Spirit is so freeing.

    Grace isn't a teacher. Grace doesn't grant salvation. Only Jesus does. The grace of God in your verse is Jesus.

    Read the rest of the sentence you quote -

    11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

    12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

    13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

    14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
     
  5. ace of hearts

    ace of hearts Well-Known Member

    +1,145
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    IOW you're looking for people who agree with the video.
     
  6. ace of hearts

    ace of hearts Well-Known Member

    +1,145
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    The rest of God in Gen 2 isn't the rest of the sabbath. You even said it is about cessation. The word means - the fact or process of ending or being brought to an end. This isn't periodic, it's permanent. The 7th day sabbath is a periodic rest. The sabbath celebrates the fact of permanent rest (cessation). It doesn't provide it. Jesus is the only means of this kind of rest. Those who try to keep the law are never at rest and live in fear of losing salvation.
    Is the Christian obligated to keep the 7th day sabbath? If so how can that not be "has to?"
    I agree that the Scripture doesn't contradict itself. The covenants (old and new) oppose each other. The old is a by-lateral covenant, while the new is unilateral. That makes the old conditional based on performance of both parties, while the new has nothing to do with our performance. That's why the new covenant is better. Heb 8:6
    This comment doesn't support the idea of the sabbath being created at creation.
    Well we could discuss the above rabbit trail point by point. It has nothing to do with the sabbath.
    Incorrect.
    This is a call to accept the videos without question. It isn't about the sabbath. Yes the videos are about the sabbath. Your comment isn't.
    I understand you're having a conversation with the poster you replied to, but how does this relate to the sabbath. We seem to veer way to easily from the topic. I do see a need to be polite and conversational. I'm only trying to show what is going on because I've been accused of mischacterization.
     
  7. ace of hearts

    ace of hearts Well-Known Member

    +1,145
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Many people think that because a Scripture passages is cited that one is being taught truth. This is very unfortunate. Your church does teach not keeping the 7th day sabbath is the mark of the beast. The forum has a post showing a highway billboard sign testifying to this fact. Yes I called the number on the sign and got the SDA material. Indeed the SDA church promotes what Tillman wrote. Any criticism or rejection of that fact is errant. That is all I will address from this post.
     
  8. HeartenedHeart

    HeartenedHeart Member

    256
    +75
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Day 2, still waiting for the quotation.
     
  9. HeartenedHeart

    HeartenedHeart Member

    256
    +75
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    It's like you never even read the context of the conversation that was had with the person who gave the that reply, and the following responses. The person who gave the original reply misunderstood the content of the video material, by the title of the video material. They did not reject the video material by the content, but by the title, having misunderstood, thinking it went against their position, when in fact, it agreed with their position. Thus my response to them to give the first video another chance, not based upon the title, but by the content in the video.

    If people watch the first video in its entirety and still disagree with it, that is their prerogative, but you seem reluctant to even do that.

    In it, Dale Ratzlaff is shown to be self-contradictory in his own written material. Which is what happens when people put too much of themselves in print rather than stating what God said.
     
  10. HeartenedHeart

    HeartenedHeart Member

    256
    +75
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Then you are without excuse in the time of the judgment of the living to come (Rev. 3:10, 13:12, 17:12), for God will look to you for all the precious material in your house and possession that was given you freely from Heaven, from His own hands.
     
  11. HeartenedHeart

    HeartenedHeart Member

    256
    +75
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    A straight denial of Titus 2:11-12, among other texts.
     
  12. HeartenedHeart

    HeartenedHeart Member

    256
    +75
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I am actually looking for those who are brave enough to consider the video material and make their decision based upon the material presented, but I also give leeway to those who make excuses, and who do not desire to watch the material, but would rather just dialogue directly.
     
  13. HeartenedHeart

    HeartenedHeart Member

    256
    +75
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Really?, which bible do you use, and then we (together) can find out if what you have is scripture, for scripture cannot be broken (Jhn. 10:35 KJB), but much these days that is called 'scripture' is easily shown to be broken.
     
  14. HeartenedHeart

    HeartenedHeart Member

    256
    +75
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I think you meant 'bi-lateral'.

    The subject of the thread is not 'covenants' (old or new) per se, as it is about the 7th day the sabbath of the LORD.

    However, I am not opposed to speaking about this injection (which persons always have to change the subject, as listed in the list, and so hop around) of topic

    I am under the new Covenant, and not the old Covenant. I teach the new Covenant and not the old Covenant. I teach and believe salvation is by grace through faith, and that not of myself. I do not teach nor believe in salvation by any law whatsoever. Law was never given to save. Law was given for life (how to live). Transgression of Law is death. Therefore, God's grace and mercy is needful, the Saviour is needful to save from death, from transgression of Law, from sin. The Creator is needful to re-create that which was marred. God is bringing those who believe to loving obedience as it was in the beginning.

    The old Covenant is not the Ten Commandments, see Romans 3:31; Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 8:10, etc.

    You seem to think that it (TC) is (oC) for some faulty reason.

    The oC is found in Exo. 19 & 24.
    The nC is found mentioned in Jer. 31; Eze. 26, 27; Heb. 8, 10; 2 Cor. 3, etc.

    The Ten Commandments are found in both, even of which others (like yourself) will admit, except others leave out the 4th after a certain manner, though not completely, and say 9 are re-given ...

    The nC existed (eternally) before the oC.
    The oC was ratified (by blood) before the nC (was ratified by the blood of Jesus), which is why Paul (Heb.) called it (oC) 'first' and the nC 'second'.

    That which changed was 'administration', 'ministration' in 2 Cor. 3, from 'death' (sin, wages of, unrighteousness) to 'righteousness' (not sinning); not the Law of God (TC) itself.

    The material was changed from 'stone' to 'fleshy heart' (which 2 Cor. 3 is citing Eze.).

    The glory of face was changed from 'Moses' to 'Jesus', not the glory of the Law of God which 'remained', now more glorious by Jesus' life in example, demonstration.

    The view of expression was changed from looking at God's Law (TC) from a mere external 'letter', to that of the depth of its 'spiritual' nature, in that of the 'spirit', which it had always been. The change here is not of the Law of God itself, which was always spiritual, in its entirety, being "Ten", but in the way man perceived it, now seeing it through Jesus' life, not merely through textbook.

    The view of single-sidedness changed from merely 'judgment' to also include 'mercy', which was always in the Law of God (Exo. 20:2,6), but men could only see the condemnation, looking at God's law without the strength of the Saviour.

    There is not a single verse in all of scripture which teaches that the TC are the oC, though some do desparately try to wrest the scriptures to teach it as Dale (and others so foolishly) does.

    The nC still requires two. God and man. Man has a part, for God forces no one.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2019
  15. HeartenedHeart

    HeartenedHeart Member

    256
    +75
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    The evidence is there for all, and I do not ever see an apology for it forthcoming from the one who did do so. It is to be expected of such.
     
  16. ace of hearts

    ace of hearts Well-Known Member

    +1,145
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Be patient. I was occupied with your post yesterday. My time is limited.
     
  17. ace of hearts

    ace of hearts Well-Known Member

    +1,145
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    The subject of the thread is the sabbath, correct? The sabbath requirement is in a covenant that has been shelved and replaced by a totally different covenant.
    Sorry but I'm not trying to change the topic of the thread.
    You can't teach keeping the sabbath as a requirement from the NT (new covenant). There's no such requirement found in the NT. You teach keeping the famous 10 which is the previous covenant called the old covenant. Deut 4:13, 5:3, Jer 31:31-33, LK 16:16, 22:20, Jn 1:17, 15:10, Rom 7:6, Gal 3-5 etc. I really could get into the last statement, but know better by your posts.
    This statement is in direct opposition to the words of Moses - Deut 4:13. The passages you reference have nothing to do with covenant verification. Yes I'm familiar with the SDA view point.
    Sorry but you forgot what Moses said in Deut 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
    Here's what Heb 8 has to say -

    6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

    7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

    8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

    9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

    10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

    11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

    And 2 Cor 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

    7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

    8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

    9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

    10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

    11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

    Lets go back to Hebrews.

    9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

    10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

    LK 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
    Very poor argument.
    It can't be an administrative change of the first covenant by your admission because you say new covenant. That would be a different covenant.
    Not according to Jeremiah or Hebrews.
    I'm sorry but you don't read Jeremiah or Hebrews close enough or simply don't believe what either says.
    Sorry but I read the whole Bible. I quoted Deut 4:13 for you.
    Yes that is true. You're trying to by-pass my comment about the new covenant being a unilateral covenant. The new covenant is a gift. Do you need gift explained?
     
  18. ace of hearts

    ace of hearts Well-Known Member

    +1,145
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    You need to explain how this was done.
     
  19. HeartenedHeart

    HeartenedHeart Member

    256
    +75
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I thought you were supposed to be looking for a quote to prove something? You waste enough time with your posts. Hop to it.
     
  20. HeartenedHeart

    HeartenedHeart Member

    256
    +75
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I did not forget anything. I simply know how you (and Dale, etal.) misread the text, for when it says "his (God's) covenant" you instead read 'old covenant', when it doesn't ever say that. God's covenant is the Ten Commandments. The old Covenant is their agreement in Exo. 19.

    Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

    In Exo. 19 two covenants exist.

    "his (God's) covenant", also called "my (God's) covenant" is the Ten Commandments (being God's promises), being eternal, unchanging, never to be abolished, nor altered.

    The old covenant was not permanent, for it was based upon their (the peoples faulty) promises, for God found fault with them, "all that the LORD hath spoken we will do."

    You therefore do greatly err.
     
Loading...