Sunday Worship/Mark of the Beast

[woobadooba]

4. From the text GEN.2 :3 there is no indication exactly when God 'hallowed' it.

Did you read post 162? It makes the correlation of the 4th commandment and what happened in the genesis account concerning God's rest clear!

It also makes it very clear that it happened on the "seventh day."

These things are very plain for us to see. Why are they being denied?

 

[jonno]

One thing I would clarify: Advenstists do not hold to the Catholic-like view that if we commit certain mortal sins, such as murder, we have no chance of eternal life. All sin leads to death, but if we repent, we can be forgiven by the grace of God. Living a holy life does not save anyone. The Sabbath commandment is no different from any other, other than the fact that it involves how we worship God rather than how we treat other people.

For give me for not clarifying what I meant by that statement. I did not think it was neccesary, given my high opinion of both you and Tall's intellect and understanding. Not for one moment do I doubt repentance from any sin is possible. That should be a no-brainer to any christian. The person is obviously unrepentant.
Would you agree that heaven has no place for liars, thieves and murderers,yet christians worshipping God on a Sunday (even those who studied and rejected the 7th day sabbath ) could be saved. In that sense there must be a difference.

 

[Sophia7]

The difference is that the liars, murderers, adulterers, idolaters, etc., referred to in Revelation 21:8 are people who know that what they are doing is wrong but continue to do it without repentance. Hebrews 10:26-29 says:

26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Those who break the law in ignorance are not condemned for what they do not know. We insult the Spirit of grace when we deliberately turn away from what we know God wants us to do.

 

[woobadooba]

The difference is that the liars, murderers, adulterers, idolaters, etc., referred to in Revelation 21:8 are people who know that what they are doing is wrong but continue to do it without repentance. Hebrews 10:26-29 says:



Those who break the law in ignorance are not condemned for what they do not know. We insult the Spirit of grace when we deliberately turn away from what we know God wants us to do.

But then the question really is, what determines one's ignorance to be just that?

Martin Luther was approached by several theologians on the sabbath issue, and he flat out rejected it.

Now was that ignorance or another case of a hardened heart against the truth?

This, I believe is what is being asked by Jonno: How could a man so devoted to God, who spent the majority of His years of life fighting for the cause of Christ, suffer the wrath of God because he rejected the Sabbath doctrine?

 

[tall73]

Yes ,I have not problem with your reasoning on that. Earlier I stated that it is different for the reason that it is not naturally obvious to the conscience. Before that I also stated that some might even look at it but not realize the importance. So I never disagreed with that thought. It is different in some ways. But that does not make it less of a commandment. Nor does it rule out the possibility that it could play a role later in the end times scenario if the issues were made more clear.

 

[payattention]

Jonno, I never used the word remember as an argument. I don't think it is meant in the sense of recall in this passage. I stated that earlier. I think it is used in the sense of observe, much the way it is used in other cases like this.

Even though you do not believe in word inspiration this language indicates that you treat the Bible as if it is the product of word inspiration.

It is true Jonno that the account does not state the timing, which argument is perhaps a stronger one than was so far put forth. (stronger say than the notion that all of them were holy. )

Do you think that the other days were unholy? You never did answer that question. At the root of this is our understanding of what the Bible represents.

But you all are still making the assumption that the Genesis account was written AFTER the exodus one. What evidence is there for that? And the language at the end of the commandment does seem to parallel the Genesis account quite well. So since it exists in both books, we have a few options.

a. Exodus was written first, and a comment was added in Genesis
b. Genesis was written first and quoted in the exodus

If you suggest Exodus was, what evidence is there fore reversing it other than silence on the question during parts of scripture?

It seems less likely to me that he would write a commentary note on the creation account and then seemingly quote that commentary note. So the only option you have is that he wrote exodus first, but the language even in that account sounds like it is referring to generally known facts...which would be generally known if he wrote Genesis first. But if Exodus was the first one, why would he mention the hallowing and blessing? Because if that was the case, THIS WAS the hallowing and blessing, or perhaps it was a day or two ago. That doesn't seem to fit as well to me as that He did it in Genesis first. Why would you say...I am making a holy Sabbath...because I made it holy. That is redundant. It seems are more likely he is referring to the event in Genesis.

This redundancy argument does not fit because it would mean that the Sabbath would be mentioned in Genesis. It is your redundancy argument that assumes that Exodus was written before Genesis. For obvious reasons you focus only on Exodus 20 and ignore Deut. 5. That is not acceptable in scholarship.

This afternoon it suddenly dawned on me why we have thought it necessary to place the Sabbath in Genesis. We needed an argument to counter those who claim that the Sabbath is for the Jews, and I also remember that early in this exchange Tall asked me whether I thought it was only for the Jews. The problem is that by attempting to make the text say what it does not we are making the same error those who claim that the Sabbath was for the Jews have made. We have accepted their underlying assumption that the Jews were a different race from the rest of us humans. This does not make sense but it is the only reason to argue that what was given by God to the Jews does not apply to the rest of the human race. If we truly believe in the Creation story then we must accept all its implication and not accept teachings that insidiously undermine it. The Exodus is a type of the deliverance in the Plan of Salvation, which is represented by the Sabbath that was given to the Hebrews at that time. When we understand that the Sabbath was given in the context of sin the argument that it cannot be observed in the context of sin suddenly disappears. It is amazing that fidelity to what God has said often removes all the problems we create when we make up our our interpretation.

 

[payattention]

Tempting eve....ok...unless you are going with the old idea that Eve and the serpent had sex, I really think there must have been SOME conversation going on there. And whether the snake could use telepathy, that again would be reading in something that is not stated.

Why did there have to be an audible conversation? Have you ever heard a voice and swore that some human spoke to you and there was no one? If the devil can tempt you without having an interview with you why did he have to do it with Eve? Is it because Moses said the serpent said? Then you will have to accept the opinion of these ancients that when a volcano erupts it is the voice of God. The problem is an inconsistent view of ancient knowledge. On one hand we understand that these guys did not understand how things operated because they were part of a young human race. Then on other occassions we pretend that they had full understandingof the universe. We need to be consistent if we are going to represent a consistent God.

 

[woobadooba]

I don't know if Luther felt convicted by God and rejected the Sabbath because his heart was hardened or if he truly believed that what he was hearing was wrong.

But could it be that it was God's will for him to come to know the Sabbath, that it is still binding for the Christian?

Could it be that the people who sought to share this information with him were led by God do to so?

If so, we really can't say that he wasn't convicted by God on the issue. For, the Lord isn't going to disclose truth without conviction.

There seems to be something more to it than that.

 

[tall73]

Even though you do not believe in word inspiration this language indicates that you treat the Bible as if it is the product of word inspiration.

It is the ten commandments. God spoke them and they were written in stone. Surely even thought inspirationists have no problem with that.

Do you think that the other days were unholy? You never did answer that question. At the root of this is our understanding of what the Bible represents.

That is an illogical argument , to say it is either holy or unholy. How bout the others were not profane, but were common. God did not expressly say anything about setting them apart.

This redundancy argument does not fit because it would mean that the Sabbath would be mentioned in Genesis. It is your redundancy argument that assumes that Exodus was written before Genesis. For obvious reasons you focus only on Exodus 20 and ignore Deut. 5. That is not acceptable in scholarship.

And you ignore Exodus 20 and focus on Deuteronomy 5. That is good scholarship? Actually I think there is nothing wrong with the thought in Deuteronomy. He was now restating the before non-explicit law. It is introduced to them as a benefit.

I don't know what you are referring to when you say redundancy argument. Since you don't like to be misrepresented, clarify then I will answer.

This afternoon it suddenly dawned on me why we have thought it necessary to place the Sabbath in Genesis. We needed an argument to counter those who claim that the Sabbath is for the Jews, and I also remember that early in this exchange Tall asked me whether I thought it was only for the Jews. The problem is that by attempting to make the text say what it does not we are making the same error those who claim that the Sabbath was for the Jews have made. We have accepted their underlying assumption that the Jews were a different race from the rest of us humans. This does not make sense but it is the only reason to argue that what was given by God to the Jews does not apply to the rest of the human race. [/quote]

Actually it was just to find out what you think. I thought you already asked every question on this? And it just now occurred to you that Adventist use this for that reason? That was not really my major burden, to debate that issue. But I assume that most people who take your view are driving that direction because it is an often used reason for thinking that way. The facts remain, you have no evidence but non-evidence.

If we truly believe in the Creation story then we must accept all its implication and not accept teachings that insidiously undermine it. The Exodus is a type of the deliverance in the Plan of Salvation, which is represented by the Sabbath that was given to the Hebrews at that time. When we understand that the Sabbath was given in the context of sin the argument that it cannot be observed in the context of sin suddenly disappears. It is amazing that fidelity to what God has said often removes all the problems we create when we make up our our interpretation.

A. you have not at all demonstrated that my view undermines the creation account. In fact you continuously even deny that part of it happened. I would say that undermines it. And what exactly is that supposed to mean, that it can't be observed in the context of sin? Who said that? Actually I had no problems with what He said, and still don't. You are the one who won't admit that his statement in Genesis makes no sense unless it actually happened then, given it is repeated in Exodus. Why would he refer back to something that was happening THEN? That is illogical.

And as for supposed problems, I would say reordering the events of the Bible because you don't want to admit that God blessed and made holy a certain day is a bit of a problem. You still keep wanting to make all the days holy just to avoid the statement.

Why did there have to be an audible conversation? Have you ever heard a voice and swore that some human spoke to you and there was no one? If the devil can tempt you without having an interview with you why did he have to do it with Eve? Is it because Moses said the serpent said? Then you will have to accept the opinion of these ancients that when a volcano erupts it is the voice of God. The problem is an inconsistent view of ancient knowledge. On one hand we understand that these guys did not understand how things operated because they were part of a young human race. Then on other occassions we pretend that they had full understandingof the universe. We need to be consistent if we are going to represent a consistent God.

This is completely illogical. Why did it have to be audible? In light of the fact that it SAYS it was audible, why would you say it isn't? You cannot say you take it as it really is when you needlessly say the opposite.

This is becoming a waste of time. We are not going to agree on the interpretation of this scripture. The record is now there for anyone to judge what they think. And we certainly won't agree that Eve was not talked to when it says she was.

I will address the part that was unclear if you rephrase it to me. Otherwise, I don't plan to answer this anymore besides working on my post on Daniel 7, and Revelation 13-14 since that was my original intention before all of this.

 

[payattention]

It is the ten commandments. God spoke them and they were written in stone. Surely even thought inspirationists have no problem with that.

I don't wish to sound irreverent but I think we should make a difference between what we know and what we believe. We believe that God wrote the commandments on two tables of stone. We also believe that that first set was broken by Moses and God had to give him a second set. We know that neither set has been preserved, neither was Moses record of them preserved. While it sounds wonderful to say that the only part of the Bible that was written by God is the Ten Commandments we cannot say with any amount of certainty that what we find in Ex. 20 is an exact replica of what He wrote. Then we have the difficulty of determining why the version in Deut. 5 is different from the one in Exodus. I have not studied what the experts believe on the subject but I tend to believe that the version in Deuteronomy is the second copy. There God refers to the Exodus as validation for the Sabbath. Why do we ignore it? This would be the copy that they had with them longer. The point is that it is a bit romantic to think that we have one piece of God's writing, what we have is Moses' recollection of what was written. We should also not forget that this all began as oral tradition before it was ever written down. We have misused the Bible primarily because we tend to depend on it rather than on God's revelation of Himself through nature with erroneous claims of general and special revelation that make our theologians sound like they are informed while at the same time they are simply ensuring that we have a flawed view of the Creator.

 

[payattention]

That is an illogical argument , to say it is either holy or unholy. How bout the others were not profane, but were common. God did not expressly say anything about setting them apart.

I think it would be good for our conversations if you reserve claims of illogic for actual arguments and that you also indicate the nature of the illogic. Making that claim in response to a question, especially when you do not support it, comes awfully close to being a personal attack. Moses was not writing to you or to me. He was writing to convince thousands of ignorant slaves. He was aware of His audience. We should not continue to pretend that he wrote a scholarly treatise nor suggest that he had any obligation to quote God precisely. The Bible is the most important manuscript for the Christian but God exists without it. We should be wary of the elevated position we have given it traditionally.

I would also suggest that you try to understand what I posts before you jump to conclusion about what I have said. It is a courtesy I make every effort to grant to you.

 

[payattention]

And you ignore Exodus 20 and focus on Deuteronomy 5. That is good scholarship? Actually I think there is nothing wrong with the thought in Deuteronomy. He was now restating the before non-explicit law. It is introduced to them as a benefit.

I don't know what you are referring to when you say redundancy argument. Since you don't like to be misrepresented, clarify then I will answer.

TThere is an edge to your tone. I hope you can detect it in your first sentence. It is unfair to suggest that I ignore Exodus because I ask you to take Deuteronomy into consideration. It is proper to take everything into consideration and resolve the differences.

Your redundancy argument was that the Sabbath did not need to be mentioned in Genesis because it was referenced in Exodus. That is backward unless you believe that Exodus was written first. But you are on record as saying that it was not.

 

[payattention]

Actually it was just to find out what you think. I thought you already asked every question on this? And it just now occurred to you that Adventist use this for that reason? That was not really my major burden, to debate that issue. But I assume that most people who take your view are driving that direction because it is an often used reason for thinking that way. The facts remain, you have no evidence but non-evidence.

We don't do ourselves any favors when we resort to ridicule in order to win an argument. The fact that I addressed every question that occurred to me does not mean that I thought of every question that was possible. The tone your posts are taking is becoming very troubling. It is not my idea of a fruitful discussion. It would have been more useful to us if you have taken the time to address the issue instead of misapplying the worthy principle that the lack of evidence is not always evidence of lack. For some reason you have adopted the flawed version that ignores the little word "always."

 

[payattention]

A. you have not at all demonstrated that my view undermines the creation account. In fact you continuously even deny that part of it happened. I would say that undermines it. And what exactly is that supposed to mean, that it can't be observed in the context of sin? Who said that? Actually I had no problems with what He said, and still don't. You are the one who won't admit that his statement in Genesis makes no sense unless it actually happened then, given it is repeated in Exodus. Why would he refer back to something that was happening THEN? That is illogical.

And as for supposed problems, I would say reordering the events of the Bible because you don't want to admit that God blessed and made holy a certain day is a bit of a problem. You still keep wanting to make all the days holy just to avoid the statement.

Please refrain from misrepresenting me. This is a violation of the rules. I have repeatedly stated that Moses recorded that God blessed and sanctified the seventh day. I have also presented issues associated with this that you have not addressed. You could assist us by taking the time to address them if you wish to engage in dialog.

Accepting the fact of creation does not mean that one has to accept every account of creation as historically accurate. Moses when to great pains to prevent us from making that error and we totally ignored him. Why does he call the Creator Elohim when that is not the name He introduced Himself as at the burning bush? Why is water seem to be in existence before the creation of the universe began? Is the water God? That's a rhetorical question given the account in Genesis 1:1-2.

 

[payattention]

This is completely illogical. Why did it have to be audible? In light of the fact that it SAYS it was audible, why would you say it isn't? You cannot say you take it as it really is when you needlessly say the opposite.

Humans can only communicate with each other by speech or writing or device. We cannot transfer thoughts. That is a given. But that is no reason to suggest that because a conversation is recorded that it must have happened the way we must communicate, especially when in our experience we also claim that the devil speaks to us through our thoughts. Just consider the implications of suggesting that after successfully deceiving Eve only by talking to her audibly that he would now discover a more subtle method to communicate with her descendant who are already under his control.

This is becoming a waste of time. We are not going to agree on the interpretation of this scripture. The record is now there for anyone to judge what they think. And we certainly won't agree that Eve was not talked to when it says she was.

Again you misrepresent me. I did not say Eve was not talked to. If you are going to hold discourse with me it would be helpful to keep the record clear lest you find that you are bearing a false witness. We are not the only ones involved in this exchange. If we don't think carefully about the things we discuss we may not have an understanding of them that is accurate.

I will address the part that was unclear if you rephrase it to me. Otherwise, I don't plan to answer this anymore besides working on my post on Daniel 7, and Revelation 13-14 since that was my original intention before all of this.

This is a discussion board. If you came here to post sermons you may be losing the full impact of this medium. But you should do what you think you must.

 

[payattention]

But could it be that it was God's will for him to come to know the Sabbath, that it is still binding for the Christian?

Could it be that the people who sought to share this information with him were led by God do to so?

If so, we really can't say that he wasn't convicted by God on the issue. For, the Lord isn't going to disclose truth without conviction.

There seems to be something more to it than that.

Apparently, what you stated as suppositional you have treated as if they were factual. Why would you do that? You also seem to think that if I misrepresent truth to someone that this is how the Lord wanted it to be presented. Only God understands what goes on in any man's mind. I think we would do ourselves a favor if we kept that in mind. He will deal with Luther in a way we cannot.

 

[tall73]

A. We just discussed it for pages. I was hardly speaking sermons.

B. I am taking what you appear to be saying in my opinion. I don't think it is misrepresenting you at all. IF you think it is, then report me. Let the mods sort it out. I already said I am done addressing all this.

C. I have things i could say on the other points, but already said I won't. So there is no need to change that. I won't be drawn back in by you saying that I sermonize, or by your saying that I am misrepresenting you. Anyone who reads the whole thread can make that determination. And so can the mods. So take it up with them. My goal is not to convince you, and I don't see anything in your view to recommend it to me right now. Maybe as some in the thread would say, God hasn't convicted me yet. But I don't see the point in endlessly discussing it. My goal was to answer the question of the original poster, and we are far from that now.

 

[jonno]

Why is it that most threads on this particular forum ends in confusion, animosity and sometimes personal attacks?
This is not representative of the God I serve.

 

[tall73]

Jonno, I am not sure how to end my participation in this other than the way I did. I am not trying to personally attack him. I just don't see the point of going onward.

The only point that really made me think at all in the last three pages was yours about the timing issue. the rest of it I just don't accept. So why rehash it all? I can't just agree with what I don't think is true. And I won't keep arguing. I have done that before, and it will just get more and more heated. So I thought that at least telling him I was done was better than leaving it hanging so that he is waiting for a reply. Part of the freedom of discussion that everyone wants is the freedom to in the end disagree.

 

[jonno]

I wonder how many forum participants actually ask God for guidance before they share there views with thousands.