The EASY part of the Sabbath topic - where BOTH Sides find agreement

[BobRyan]

So far almost every post on this thread opposing the Bible Sabbath also opposes the Bible details held in common by almost all Christian denominations on BOTH sides the Sabbath topic noted in the first 3 posts of this thread.

And that means that the differences those who oppose the Bible Sabbath are holding on to - are NOT at all specific to opposing SDA doctrine or even Bible-Sabbath-keeping groups in general - but rather opposing almost all Christian denominations in their common statements on this topic even though many of them also oppose the positions of Bible Sabbath keeping groups on other aspects of the Sabbath command but just not on the commonly held obvious Bible details..

That should be "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers.

 

[A_Thinker]

Under Jesus' New Covenant as stated in Jer 31:31-34 and again verbatim in Heb 8:6-12 He says that under the Gospel New Covenant the LAW known to Jeremiah and his readers is written on heart and mind.

Yes ... God places His relationship expectations upon the hearts of believers.

And it is obvious ... that not all of the Law has been made to be expected of believers. For instance, even SDA's don't put Sabbath breakers to death, as the OT Law prescribes.

NT teaching makes it fairly clear that the seventh day Sabbath is a shadow of the rest from our labors brought by relationship with Jesus Christ. The argument in Hebrews is to persuade the Hebrew believers that they can place their full faith in Jesus Christ's good will for them. We no longer follow a code, ... we follow Christ and the Spirit ...

 

[Danthemailman]

But how "odd" then that you only 'quote you' when making such a claim

Rev 14:12 does say "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" --- but does that mean we should attack that scripture by bending it to say "the Saints are saved BY keeping the Commandments" in your POV???

That does not sound logical.

When someone says "the Bible teaches us not to take God's name in vain - in Exodus 20:7" it does not justify that false accusation "then you believe in salvation BY doing the works of not taking God's name in vain"

There is no false accusation here. It's painfully obvious what SDA's teach and what Ellen G White taught in regards to commandment keeping (with a heavy emphasis on the 4th commandment) in regards to salvation and I'm not the only one who see's this. The saints KEEP (Greek word - TEREO) guard, observe, watch over the commandments of God in the New Testament for the body of Christ. This does not equate to perfect obedience to the 10 commandments under the old covenant of law, which nobody but Jesus Christ has perfectly obeyed. A hybrid gospel of "salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works" is a "different" gospel. (Galatians 1:6-9)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

At it's heart Sabbath keeping is needed recovery from last week's Christian living, and preparation for the next.

 

[Danthemailman]

Yes ... God places His relationship expectations upon the hearts of believers.

And it is obvious ... that not all of the Law has been made to be expected of believers. For instance, even SDA's don't put Sabbath breakers to death, as the OT Law prescribes.

NT teaching makes it fairly clear that the seventh day Sabbath is a shadow of the rest from our labors brought by relationship with Jesus Christ. The argument in Hebrews is to persuade the Hebrew believers that they can place their full faith in Jesus Christ's good will for them. We no longer follow a code, ... we follow Christ and the Spirit ...

Amen brother! Unfortunately, some people have a very difficult time making the complete transition from the old covenant into the new covenant and end up trying to put a new patch on an old garment or pouring new wine into old wineskins. The old and new covenants do not mix.

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant — not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills...the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone...the ministry that condemns." But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. (2 Corinthians 3:6-9).

The law on our heart and mind is the love of the Spirit, not the law of the letter.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Amen brother! Unfortunately, some people have a very difficult time making the complete transition from the old covenant into the new covenant and end up trying to put a new patch on an old garment or pouring new wine into old wineskins. The old and new covenants do not mix.

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant — not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills...the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone...the ministry that condemns." But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. (2 Corinthians 3:6-9).

The law on our heart and mind is the love of the Spirit, not the law of the letter.

True. The spirit of the law is the very antithesis of the letter of the law.

 

[U.S. Grant]

Christ informs us that "the Sabbath was made for MANKIND" Mark 2:27 not just that "MANKIND shall not live by bread alone" Matt 4.

Almost all Bible scholars admit to these easy Bible facts as follows.

The basic Bible teaching that all TEN of the TEN Commandments (including the Sabbath commandment) are
1. included in the moral law of God
2. written on the heart under the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34
3. applicable to all mankind

- IS not ONLY the view of Bible Sabbath keeping Christians and the theologians that affirm them

-- it is ALSO the view of Bible scholarship in almost ALL Christian denomination on BOTH sides of the otherwise deeply divided Sabbath topic..

So then for a few examples:

D.L. Moody
C.H. Spurgeon
R.C. Sproul
Catholic Catechism
"Baptist Confession of Faith" section 19
"Westminster Confession of Faith" section 19
and many many more.

The area where they differ is this - "can the Commandments be edited in some way" ... some say yes and others no.

The Catholic church says that the "binding obligation" of the Sabbath commandment is now met by attending mass on week-day-1 instead of the seventh day. (as one small example of such an edit/change).

But they all agree on this -

1. The Sabbath is STILL in the TEN Commandments
2. The TEN are in the moral law of God written on the heart
3. The TEN apply to all mankind and define what sin is
4. The Sabbath as you find it in the Bible in the OT is the 7th day - Saturday
5. Every reference to a "Sabbath" religious meeting in the NT - is on Saturday the Bible Sabbath.

Those things get a lot of "dispute attention" in certain forums like this but among Bible scholars in almost all denominations on both sides of the Sabbath topic - those 5 points are not at all disputed.

=========================

Now let me ask you a question - reading this post- can you now see why this topic gets such a high level of Bible Sabbath keeping Christians interest ( many of whom used to observe week-day-1 but now observe the seventh day)??

Now let me ask you a question - reading this post- can you now see why this topic gets such a high level of Bible Sabbath keeping Christians interest

The argument I have read is that the New Covenant is not the Old Covenant written in our hearts.

It was not just the tables of stone done away, but the covenant and law of Moses written thereon.

They say God can and has changed His law (Heb 7:12), and that the 10 commandments were not morally separate from the law of Moses.

They also point out that 9 of the commandments are in fact written of by the apostles, who received the commandments of the Lord for His New Covenant, but they write no Scripture about keeping a Sabbath, other than to not judge according to Sabbath days.

A day of rest is spoken of for us to be blessed in, but it is no longer called a Sabbath.

And arguing over which day that ought be, is contrary to not judging over new moons and Sabbath days...

 

[SkyWriting]

Christ informs us that "the Sabbath was made for MANKIND" Mark 2:27 not just that "MANKIND shall not live by bread alone" Matt 4.

Almost all Bible scholars admit to these easy Bible facts as follows.

The basic Bible teaching that all TEN of the TEN Commandments (including the Sabbath commandment) are
1. included in the moral law of God
2. written on the heart under the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34
3. applicable to all mankind

- IS not ONLY the view of Bible Sabbath keeping Christians and the theologians that affirm them

-- it is ALSO the view of Bible scholarship in almost ALL Christian denomination on BOTH sides of the otherwise deeply divided Sabbath topic..

So then for a few examples:

D.L. Moody
C.H. Spurgeon
R.C. Sproul
Catholic Catechism
"Baptist Confession of Faith" section 19
"Westminster Confession of Faith" section 19
and many many more.

The area where they differ is this - "can the Commandments be edited in some way" ... some say yes and others no.

The Catholic church says that the "binding obligation" of the Sabbath commandment is now met by attending mass on week-day-1 instead of the seventh day. (as one small example of such an edit/change).

But they all agree on this -

1. The Sabbath is STILL in the TEN Commandments
2. The TEN are in the moral law of God written on the heart
3. The TEN apply to all mankind and define what sin is
4. The Sabbath as you find it in the Bible in the OT is the 7th day - Saturday
5. Every reference to a "Sabbath" religious meeting in the NT - is on Saturday the Bible Sabbath.

Those things get a lot of "dispute attention" in certain forums like this but among Bible scholars in almost all denominations on both sides of the Sabbath topic - those 5 points are not at all disputed.

=========================

Now let me ask you a question - reading this post- can you now see why this topic gets such a high level of Bible Sabbath keeping Christians interest ( many of whom used to observe week-day-1 but now observe the seventh day)??

I wouldn't argue.

Colossians 2:16
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink,
or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
...
Now let me ask you a question - reading this post- can you now see why this topic gets such a high level of Bible Sabbath keeping Christians interest ( many of whom used to observe week-day-1 but now observe the seventh day)??

The argument I have read is that the New Covenant is not the Old Covenant written in our hearts.

Which we all agree with. The New Covenant that we see in Jer 31:31-34 and unchanged in Heb 8:6-12 is NOT the Old Covenant - but the NEW Covenant DOES "write God's LAW" on the heart -

• the Law of God known to Jeremiah and his readers
• the one that has "do not take God's name in vain" as a command in it even though that command is never repeated in the NT
• the one that includes the TEN having "'honor your father and mother' as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2

This is the part that Bible scholars agree with in almost ALL Christian denominations ... the "easy part".

It was not just the tables of stone done away,

There is no "tables of stone done away" text in the Bible.

But there is - "'honor your father and mother' as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2 which is a direct reference to that same unit of TEN.

This is the part that Bible scholars agree with in almost ALL Christian denominations ... the "easy part".

They say God can and has changed His law (Heb 7:12),

Everyone agrees that the "Law regarding the priesthood" in Hebrews 7 is ended such that Christ is now the High Priest as that chapter points out. But that does not mean "it is ok to take God's name in vain for Christians".. Here again the Bible scholars on both sides agree.

and that the 10 commandments were not morally separate from the law of Moses.

The statement by Christ in Matt 19 "KEEP the Commandments" is met with a question in that chapter "Which ones?" - and HIS answer to that question in Matt 19 comes only from the "Law of Moses".

This is irrefutable.

They also point out that 9 of the commandments are in fact written of by the apostles

Technically that is correct - only the command "Do not take God's name in vain" is never quoted in the NT. But that technicality does not mean it is ok for Christians to take God's name in vain.


God's Word says "the seventh day IS the Sabbath" Ex 20:10
God's Word says "tomorrow IS the Sabbath" Ex 16
God's Word says that for 40 years no manna fell on that exact day of the week - the 7th day in Ex 16.
God's Word says that the "seventh day was sanctified" Gen 2:1-3 at creation week Ex 20:11.

This is not even disputed among Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic in almost all denominations.

Bible Sabbath keeping Christians argue that the Bible is correct.

And arguing over which day that ought be, is contrary to not judging over new moons and Sabbath days...

Stating that "the Bible is correct" - is not forbidden in the Bible. All Bible scholars agree with that point as well. (I may have to add that to my list for clarity)

 

[BobRyan]

True. The spirit of the law is the very antithesis of the letter of the law.

Not according to Christ in Matt 5 "not one letter of the Law removed".

In Matt 5 it is the letter of the Law that is quoted from by Christ ...
In Matt 19 it is the Letter of the Law that is quote from by Christ
In Mark 7:6-13 it is the Letter of the Law that is quoted from by Christ Himself
In Romans 13 is the the Letter of the Law that is quoted from by Paul just as Christ did in Matt 19
in Eph 6:2 it is the Letter of the Law that is quoted from by Paul.
in James 2- it is the Letter of the Law that is quoted from by James.

Christ's point in Matt 5 is that the spirit of the law EXPANDS the Letter's requirements it does not shrink or delete it

 

[BobRyan]

All I keep hearing is salvation by obeying the 10 commandments

But how "odd" then that you only 'quote you' when making such a claim

Rev 14:12 does say "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" --- but does that mean we should attack that scripture by bending it to say "the Saints are saved BY keeping the Commandments" in your POV???

That does not sound logical.

When someone says "the Bible teaches us not to take God's name in vain - in Exodus 20:7" it does not justify that false accusation "then you believe in salvation BY doing the works of not taking God's name in vain"

There is no false accusation here.

I think you would have to agree that we differ there.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Under Jesus' New Covenant as stated in Jer 31:31-34 and again verbatim in Heb 8:6-12 He says that under the Gospel New Covenant the LAW known to Jeremiah and his readers is written on heart and mind.

Yes ... God places His relationship expectations upon the hearts of believers.

Rev 14:12 "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

And James is very explicit on just how specific this is to the written Word of God regarding His Law in James 2
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” (Lev 19:18 -- in the Law of Moses) you do well; 9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.

1 John 3:4 "sin IS transgression of the Law"

And it is obvious ... that not all of the Law has been made to be expected of believers. For instance, even SDA's don't put Sabbath breakers to death, as the OT Law prescribes.

This detail is also highlighted by almost all Bible scholars so that as an example - in the "Baptist Confession of Faith" (and Dies Domini and others) it is noted that while there was a theocracy those civil laws were in effect but once the theocracy context ended so did the context for enforcing such laws.

So there we have Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic affirming the point that ALL TEN remain - yet the civil laws do not because of the original context showing them to apply to the theocracy and not outside of it.

NT teaching makes it fairly clear that the seventh day Sabbath is a shadow of the rest from our labors brought by relationship with Jesus Christ. The argument in Hebrews is to persuade the Hebrew believers that they can place their full faith in Jesus Christ's good will for them. We no longer follow a code, ... we follow Christ and the Spirit ...

Hebrews 4 says that the Sabbath "REMAINS" as it was in Ps 95 at the time of David. Remains for Christians in that same form which did not "delete one of the commandments" in David's day or in ours.

Another reason why even the Bible scholars in the Sunday keeping groups listed on page one of this thread still insist we have all TEN Commandments in the NEW Covenant - not just "nine".

 

[A_Thinker]

BobRyan said: ↑
Under Jesus' New Covenant as stated in Jer 31:31-34 and again verbatim in Heb 8:6-12 He says that under the Gospel New Covenant the LAW known to Jeremiah and his readers is written on heart and mind.



Rev 14:12 "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

And James is very explicit on just how specific this is to the written Word of God regarding His Law in James 2
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” (Lev 19:18 -- in the Law of Moses) you do well; 9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.

1 John 3:4 "sin IS transgression of the Law"



This detail is also highlighted by almost all Bible scholars so that as an example - in the "Baptist Confession of Faith" (and Dies Domini and others) it is noted that while there was a theocracy those civil laws were in effect but once the theocracy context ended so did the context for enforcing such laws.

So there we have Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic affirming the point that ALL TEN remain - yet the civil laws do not because of the original context showing them to apply to the theocracy and not outside of it.



Hebrews 4 says that the Sabbath "REMAINS" as it was in Ps 95 at the time of David. Remains for Christians in that same form which did not "delete one of the commandments" in David's day or in ours.

Another reason why even the Bible scholars in the Sunday keeping groups listed on page one of this thread still insist we have all TEN Commandments in the NEW Covenant - not just "nine".

If you're just speaking of the Ten, the seventh day isn't specified ... and the instruction is to keep the Sabbath holy. It doesn't specify a day for religious gathering.

 

[BobRyan]

If you're just speaking of the Ten, the seventh day isn't specified

The TEN say this "the seventh day IS the Sabbath" Ex 20:10 as part of the Sabbath commandent AND a few chapters before that in Ex 16 we are told "tomorrow IS the Sabbath" and we know that for 40 years every single week they are reminded of the "exact day" that is "the seventh day" because on that exact day there is no manna. (So that would mean there would be some weekly one-day-fasting for those who continued to be confused as to which day is the seventh every week until they finally caught on)

and the instruction is to keep the Sabbath holy. It doesn't specify a day for religious gathering.

The same group of people reading the TEN Commandments at Sinai - were also given Lev 23:3 at Sinai and that text says that the 7th day Sabbath is a day of "holy convocation". (And they had a special Sabbath worship service liturgy setup).

In any case - this easy Bible fact that the 7th day - Saturday - was the day of holy convocation in the OT as given by God for the Bible Sabbath is the "easy part" that Bible scholars on both side of the Sabbath topic agree with.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not according to Christ in Matt 5 "not one letter of the Law removed".

In Matt 5 it is the letter of the Law that is quoted from by Christ ...
In Matt 19 it is the Letter of the Law that is quote from by Christ
In Mark 7:6-13 it is the Letter of the Law that is quoted from by Christ Himself
In Romans 13 is the the Letter of the Law that is quoted from by Paul just as Christ did in Matt 19
in Eph 6:2 it is the Letter of the Law that is quoted from by Paul.
in James 2- it is the Letter of the Law that is quoted from by James.

Christ's point in Matt 5 is that the spirit of the law EXPANDS the Letter's requirements it does not shrink or delete it

Jesus is (sarcastically) upholding the death penalty for children who neglect the needs of their parents in Mark 7:6-13, who are in violation of the fifth commandment. I don't think this is what he meant by 'fulfilling' the law. Jesus said that not a jot or tittle of the law would fail until it was fulfilled. Paul cites the change in the priesthood (from the Aaronic to Melchezidek) and thus a change in the law. The change was the antithesis of the written law.

For example You shall not steal was written to control thievery. Spirit-led Christians don't steal and thus have no need for that commandment as written.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus is (sarcastically) upholding the death penalty for children who neglect the needs of their parents in Mark 7:6-13,

In Mark 7:6-13 Jesus said the command is "honor your father and mother".

6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Jesus' point is that the Corban practice stops them from honoring parents.

He is not arguing that giving money to the church stops them from enforcing penalty on children that curse parents. They could have CORBAN all day long and still kill children that cursed parents. Rather he pulls in that civil law to remind them of the high the importance was in God's Word regarding the obligation of children for respecting and supporting parents. It was not an argument for deleting the Command of Moses regarding the obligation to honor parents.

As Paul reminds us in Eph 6:2

 

[BobRyan]

For example You shall not steal was written to control thievery. Spirit-led Christians don't steal and thus have no need for that commandment as written.

A great example of your not agreeing with the Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic. Which was my point in the first three posts of this thread.

Christians Love God - but that does not delete the command to "Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5 as Christ reminds us. It remains the foundation of all scripture according to Christ in Matt 22.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A great example of your not agreeing with the Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic. Which was my point in the first three posts of this thread.

I have no problem with scholars rehearsing the history of the Sabbath. The question is how is the Sabbath to be observed today? Is it a day of rest, or not?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In Mark 7:6-13 Jesus said the command is "honor your father and mother".

6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Jesus' point is that the Corban practice stops them from honoring parents.

He is not arguing that giving money to the church stops them from enforcing penalty on children that curse parents. They could have CORBAN all day long and still kill children that cursed parents. Rather he pulls in that civil law to remind them of the high the importance was in God's Word regarding the obligation of children for respecting and supporting parents. It was not an argument for deleting the Command of Moses regarding the obligation to honor parents.

As Paul reminds us in Eph 6:2

Jesus is openly supporting the death penalty in this case. How do we deal with that in the new covenant church?

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus is openly supporting the death penalty in this case. How do we deal with that in the new covenant church?

Under the theocracy of Israel it was indeed supported even when Jeremiah penned the "New Covenant" in Jer 31:31-34 saying that the Law of God given on Sinai (which included the TEN Commandments) is written on the heart under the NEW Covenant.

So then both the "Baptist Confession of Faith" sectn 19 and also the "Westminster Confession of Faith" section 19 address the point you are talking about. They freely admit that although all TEN of the Commandments are included in the moral law of God written on the heart under the NEW Covenant -- yet the CIVIL laws given specifically to that theocracy do not apply when that theocracy does not exist - and so one is not under it.

In other words this is "yet another" example where Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate agree on certain very obvious Bible details.

Of course "everyone" has free will so we can expect to fine some one-off objections in a post from time to time - but it is nice that certain Bible details are so obvious that even in a highly debated topic like the Sabbath - certain Bible details are admitted to by the Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the debate.