What are 7th day adventists?

[heritage36]

Very comforting, yes. I don't think you ever called me a heretic, bugkiller, just a few guys when I first joined this site and was saying things about how I believe churches don't really have much authority these days if any, and that God works differently now than in past times, which strangely people like to deny contrary to the totally obvious.

 

[ricker]

As you mention, this teaching about the origin of the sabbath is gleaned from a source of tradition, and not sola Scriptura. The law itself attests to the origin of the weekly sabbath with Moses:

• The Genesis account doesn't record a rest observed by any human; the seventh day is in absolute terms rather than a repetitive cycle to describe God's rest.
• Exodus 20:11 clearly delineates the seventh day apart from the sabbath, using the same sentence structure found in Deuteronomy 5:15 that lists a single event in the past as the impetus to ordain the periodic sabbath.
• Hebrews 4 calls the seventh day of creation God's "My rest" that remained to be attained by a people who were already observing the sabbath, and Hebrews 4:4 quotes directly from Genesis 2:2 to document God's rest those who had the sabbath had not attained.
• Jesus distinguishes the sabbath apart from God's rest recorded in the Genesis account when He said it was "made for man" in Mark 2:27.
• Moses testifies that the ten commandments were unknown to the generation previous to his own in Deuteronomy 5:2-3, and lists the sabbath as a memorial of deliverance from Egyptian bondage in Deuteronomy 5:15.
• Nehemiah 9:13-14 attributes the origin of the sabbath with Moses.

As Hebrews 4:8 states, "For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day". God's rest that originated in the Genesis account was permanent, and was the reality the sabbath prophetically directed us to. It is this reason that the sabbath is referred to as a shadow in Colossians 2:16-17.

The law mandates burnt offerings in order to keep the sabbath holy (see Numbers 28), and God has declared He has no pleasure in them. Isaiah 66:23 marks the passage of time with the vernacular recognized by the recipients of this book, and includes the new moons along with the sabbaths - and both of these mandate those burnt offerings that have come to an end. I see no reason to assume we will return to the shadow once we have been given the reality of God's rest:

Hebrews 4
3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath, `They shall not enter My rest,'" although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works".
​

Impressive Bibilcal synopsis of the issues surrounding the Sabbath question. Personally, Exodus 31 is really all that was needed to convinced me the sign of the Sabbath was given only to Israel. Any Adventists care to critique this?




.

 

[VictorC]

Impressive Bibilcal synopsis of the issues surrounding the Sabbath question. Personally, Exodus 31 is really all that was needed to convinced me the sign of the Sabbath was given only to Israel. Any Adventists care to critique this?

I agree with you - Exodus 31 does specify who the sabbath was applied to, and is consistent with Moses outlining its origin with the manna experience about a month prior to the covenant of the Ten Commandments that codified it.

However, the SDA approach has an answer for your observation that the sabbath was "made for man", specifically the children of Israel. Their approach is that they have replaced the children of Israel as "the Israel of God". It isn't helpful once you come to realize that God's redemption has changed who's children we are accounted as:

John 1
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.​

Galatians 4
1 ¶ Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all,
2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.
4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.​

We as Christians are adopted as the children of God, and are no longer the children of Israel or children of estranged Gentile nations. The law was made only for one subset of humanity, and is not applicable to those that God has redeemed as His own:

Matthew 17
24 ¶ When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, "Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?"
25 He said, "Yes." And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?"
26 Peter said to Him, "From strangers." Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free".​

The jurisdiction of the covenant Israel alone received does not extend to the One who created the law. He is superior to His own creation, and His own children enjoy the same sovereignty over the law that was created for only the children of Israel. This is the reason why God's redeemed have a relationship with the law that is in the past tense in Galatians 4:5 when it describes them as "those who were under the law". This relationship is the same with the sabbath, which was a component of the first covenant God redeemed us from.

 

[Eagle55]

Impressive Bibilcal synopsis of the issues surrounding the Sabbath question. Personally, Exodus 31 is really all that was needed to convinced me the sign of the Sabbath was given only to Israel. Any Adventists care to critique this?

I am not too sure why this would be "an impressive Biblical synopsis," however, it does seem more like an apologetics response, and there is a difference. I have some good Catholic friends who would call that post "cherry-picking the Scriptures." It's an easy thing to do, almost every denomination does a bit of it.

As an Adventist, I have a hard time looking at the Sabbath this way. A lot of people, both Protestant and Catholic have tried to relegate the seventh-day Sabbath "to the Jews," and I could never figure that out. I mean why don't they do that with the other nine commandments?

When you think of it; Jesus Himself was a Jew; Jesus kept the seventh-day Sabbath, and if you wanna go to heaven; you gonna be a Jew too.

Some people say "If you wanna go to heaven; you gotta raise a little hell;" but I think for the Christian, we are safe in following the example of Jesus. Jesus is to me a wonderful Savior; I would not want to stray from His example in this regard. Any scripture that appears to challenge His example, simply indicates that our understanding is darkened, and it would never mean that the Bible contradicts itself, saying the seventh-day Sabbath in one place, and the first day of the week in another place. "Jesus even said: "the Scriptures cannot be broken," so why would they be broken in regards to "the Sabbath of The Lord thy God?"

 

[VictorC]

I am not too sure why this would be "an impressive Biblical synopsis," however, it does seem more like an apologetics response, and there is a difference. I have some good Catholic friends who would call that post "cherry-picking the Scriptures." It's an easy thing to do, almost every denomination does a bit of it.

As an Adventist, I have a hard time looking at the Sabbath this way. A lot of people, both Protestant and Catholic have tried to relegate the seventh-day Sabbath "to the Jews," and I could never figure that out. I mean why don't they do that with the other nine commandments?

We do.
See what Paul wrote in Romans 7:6-7.

6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."​

This chapter starts out by addressing those who know the law ("I speak to those who know the law", Romans 7:1), explains that we have been delivered from the law that held the recipients in the past tense, and then identifies the law described by quoting from it.

"You shall not covet" is a quote from Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21 in the Ten Commandments, and is found nowhere else in the entire law. Each of the references to "the law" in the verses quoted consistently refer to the same law. We have been delivered from the covenant from Mount Sinai, which Moses testified as the Ten Commandments (and the book of the law).

So you're forced to conclude the end of the tenth commandments from the first covenant, and yet you expect anyone to believe the other commandments from the same covenant didn't meet the same disposition at the Hand of God? If so, your expectations are unrealistic.

When you think of it; Jesus Himself was a Jew; Jesus kept the seventh-day Sabbath, and if you wanna go to heaven; you gonna be a Jew too.

And yet Galatians 4:30 has this to say:

Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."​

The bondwoman was defined as the covenant from Mount Sinai in verse 21 where this allegory is found. This is a clear instruction to cast off the covenant from Mount Sinai, which was the Ten Commandments, as Moses testified in Deuteronomy 4:13.
Why?
Because those retained by the covenant from Mount Sinai will not be heirs with Christ in His redemption, and have no valid claim to eternal life. Your post confesses your legal status as a child of Judah, a child of Israel, and not a child of God.

Some people say "If you wanna go to heaven; you gotta raise a little hell;" but I think for the Christian, we are safe in following the example of Jesus. Jesus is to me a wonderful Savior; I would not want to stray from His example in this regard. Any scripture that appears to challenge His example, simply indicates that our understanding is darkened, and it would never mean that the Bible contradicts itself, saying the seventh-day Sabbath in one place, and the first day of the week in another place. "Jesus even said: "the Scriptures cannot be broken," so why would they be broken in regards to "the Sabbath of The Lord thy God?"

You misrepresent Biblical Christianity when you appeal to a cycle of days in a week, rather than the eternal rest God provided to those who believe (Hebrews 4:3). Your mind is on the shadow, and not the reality.

Galatians 4
10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.
11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.​

 

[Eagle55]

We do.
See what Paul wrote in Romans 7:6-7.

6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."​

This chapter starts out by addressing those who know the law ("I speak to those who know the law", Romans 7:1), explains that we have been delivered from the law that held the recipients in the past tense, and then identifies the law described by quoting from it.

"You shall not covet" is a quote from Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21 in the Ten Commandments, and is found nowhere else in the entire law. Each of the references to "the law" in the verses quoted consistently refer to the same law. We have been delivered from the covenant from Mount Sinai, which Moses testified as the Ten Commandments (and the book of the law).

So you're forced to conclude the end of the tenth commandments from the first covenant, and yet you expect anyone to believe the other commandments from the same covenant didn't meet the same disposition at the Hand of God? If so, your expectations are unrealistic.

And yet Galatians 4:30 has this to say:

Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."​

The bondwoman was defined as the covenant from Mount Sinai in verse 21 where this allegory is found. This is a clear instruction to cast off the covenant from Mount Sinai, which was the Ten Commandments, as Moses testified in Deuteronomy 4:13.
Why?
Because those retained by the covenant from Mount Sinai will not be heirs with Christ in His redemption, and have no valid claim to eternal life. Your post confesses your legal status as a child of Judah, a child of Israel, and not a child of God.

You misrepresent Biblical Christianity when you appeal to a cycle of days in a week, rather than the eternal rest God provided to those who believe (Hebrews 4:3). Your mind is on the shadow, and not the reality.

Galatians 4
10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.
11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.​

Well; first, most Christians don't try to do this with all ten commandments, but since you have, maybe we can look at that act a little closer. Of course, you have said the standard thing, how that I am not a Christian, because I am thinking differently than you. This is pretty standard fare, but what you cannot explain is why I can't go down the street and have my neighbor's wife. Since the seventh commandment is no longer binding, it must be OK.

I actually do not make the appeal to the cycle of days. God does. He has never said anything other than "the seventh day." He has never come right out and said "the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God."I made, in my post, an appeal to Jesus, and the fact of what was the example He set for us? Jesus kept the seventh day Sabbath; as the Bible tells us "as was His custom," Jesus went into the Temple on Sabbath to worship.

Why do you keep Sunday? Why do you call it the Sabbath, if God doesn't? Do you think that keeping either Sunday or Sabbath makes us "Christian? It seems like it, when we consider what you said about me.

Seventh-day Adventists are happy to concede that God can work with anyone, and that you do not have to believe a certain way to be Christian, or to be saved. The lovely Adventist who led me to Christ just keeps saying to me: "God just loves everyone so much!" I could never be an Adventist if all of our doctrines did not reach that conclusion. Jesus does love everyone; He can save anyone; and He actively searches out our hearts - even when we are "lost." To serve a Lord like this just makes me want to obey Him, and to seek out His will and His teachings. I have never failed to be blessed by keeping the Sabbath; I cannot see anything in the Bible to make me change course on this practice.

We would serve a strange God indeed, if He gave us laws one day, then on another day "took them away." The Bible tells us in Malachi that God does not change; meaning truth does not change - even when we discover something new out of the Bible that adds to it.

 

[VictorC]

Well; first, most Christians don't try to do this with all ten commandments, but since you have, maybe we can look at that act a little closer.

I didn't make a claim on my own; I quoted what Paul wrote in Romans 7 and Galatians 4, and it is his testimony you seek to overturn - not mine.

Of course, you have said the standard thing, how that I am not a Christian, because I am thinking differently than you.

Perhaps you aren't aware of what you wrote in your own post:

if you wanna go to heaven; you gonna be a Jew too

Your soteriology is dependent on Judaism, and not Christianity, according to your own post. I merely pointed out your departure from our salvation dependent on God's adoption as His children, which you ignored.

This is pretty standard fare, but what you cannot explain is why I can't go down the street and have my neighbor's wife. Since the seventh commandment is no longer binding, it must be OK.

After redemption from the covenant God concluded all disobedient to (see Romans 11:32), you show your true colors by stating it must be fine to practice evil. You aren't aware that this is an old argument that Paul encountered, as he wrote in Romans 3:

7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?
8 And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"? ----as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one..."​

Paul's opinion of those employing the same slander you engaged in is that they deserve condemnation. Because you don't know the Scriptures, you walked right into the same false argument that was historically addressed, because you consider yourself righteous based on feigned compliance, in deference to God's conclusion that there is no one righteous.

I actually do not make the appeal to the cycle of days. God does. He has never said anything other than "the seventh day." He has never come right out and said "the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God."I made, in my post, an appeal to Jesus, and the fact of what was the example He set for us? Jesus kept the seventh day Sabbath; as the Bible tells us "as was His custom," Jesus went into the Temple on Sabbath to worship.

I quoted from Galatians 4 in a recent post, and you don't have any excuse to ignore the reason the sovereign Heir abided by the law contained in the first covenant:

4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.​

After His resurrection, Jesus did none of the things you observed, for it was the death of the Testator that ended the first covenant and inaugurated the new covenant in His Blood.

Hebrews 9
15 ¶ And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.​

I'm not sure if anyone has ever told you that old-covenant Christianity is a oxymoron that doesn't exist.

Why do you keep Sunday? Why do you call it the Sabbath, if God doesn't? Do you think that keeping either Sunday or Sabbath makes us "Christian? It seems like it, when we consider what you said about me.

Why do you continually misrepresent Christianity?
We do not "keep" Sunday, sabbath, or any day of the week.
We left the shadow of the periodic and entered God's permanent rest that the sabbath represented. The sabbath was a component of the covenant from Mount Sinai that was mediated by Moses, and not a commandment of God in the covenant mediated by Jesus Christ.

Seventh-day Adventists are happy to concede that God can work with anyone, and that you do not have to believe a certain way to be Christian, or to be saved. The lovely Adventist who led me to Christ just keeps saying to me: "God just loves everyone so much!" I could never be an Adventist if all of our doctrines did not reach that conclusion. Jesus does love everyone; He can save anyone; and He actively searches out our hearts - even when we are "lost." To serve a Lord like this just makes me want to obey Him, and to seek out His will and His teachings.

I rejoice in anyone coming to Jesus Christ - but you're misrepresenting Adventist beliefs that add to His redemption by returning to the old covenant as a requisite for a "salvation" you need to earn rather than accept as a gift you never contributed to. Don't forget that Ellen White stated "It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord" in {6T 356.4}, and I'm able to furnish many more quotes from the "prophet" that mandate compliance to the old covenant.

I have never failed to be blessed by keeping the Sabbath; I cannot see anything in the Bible to make me change course on this practice.

Perhaps you should actually keep the sabbath codified by the law, instead of the truncated rendition Adventism replaced it with. You need to have a Levitical priesthood perform the burnt offerings required by the sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), and that would be offensive to our High Priest Who replaced that priesthood:

Hebrews 7
11 ¶ Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.
13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest
16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.
17 For He testifies: "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."
18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,
19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.​

Review Hebrews 10 as well, where God declared He has no pleasure in the burnt offerings mandated by the law ordaining the sabbath that required them.

8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law),
9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.​

That "first" is a reference to the first covenant from Mount Sinai, the Ten Commandments as Moses testified, taken away by the Hand of God in order to establish the new covenant Christianity exists under.

We would serve a strange God indeed, if He gave us laws one day, then on another day "took them away." The Bible tells us in Malachi that God does not change; meaning truth does not change - even when we discover something new out of the Bible that adds to it.

Because you have equated God the Creator with the law He created, you assumed the first covenant would never come to an end. That is not the truth. Romans 1:25 describes this in Jay Green's Literal translation (from the Interlinear Bible column): "...who changed the truth of God into the lie, and worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever...".

 

[Eagle55]

I will do my replies in blue font to make this easier

I didn't make a claim on my own; I quoted what Paul wrote in Romans 7 and Galatians 4, and it is his testimony you seek to overturn - not mine.

Please forgive me my friend if I appeared to be doing this. I actually was not trying to "overturn" Paul's counsel, only trying to point out that if the Bible says "the seventh-day" then why do we make other Bible writers say different? I believe I asked some fair questions.

Perhaps you aren't aware of what you wrote in your own post:

Your soteriology is dependent on Judaism, and not Christianity, according to your own post. I merely pointed out your departure from our salvation dependent on God's adoption as His children, which you ignored.

Yes; I am aware of what I wrote in my post. Again, forgive me for not saying it more clearly. My comments about Jesus being a Jew are quite true. I don't see how you can deny that one. But I also was intending a play on words to represent the fact that some Jews will be saved too, and that it is quite possible for jews to be Christians. Not all who were/are Jews believed in Jesus:

Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

Also, please note that salvation is not dependent upon us being adopted by God as His children. That's what happens after we are saved. Salvation is "Nothing but the blood of Jesus." Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

I rejoice in anyone coming to Jesus Christ - but you're misrepresenting Adventist beliefs that add to His redemption by returning to the old covenant as a requisite for a "salvation" you need to earn rather than accept as a gift you never contributed to. Don't forget that Ellen White stated "It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord" in {6T 356.4}, and I'm able to furnish many more quotes from the "prophet" that mandate compliance to the old covenant.

I know that you think you can supply "many more quotes," but to me that is not really explaining what I believe, or where I come from. If you know Ellen White's writings so well; why not quote them in context and represent them more accurately? I'm not too worried about anything you have said because I am not used to understanding Scripture by just digging up a bunch of snippets which SEEM to give credence to my views. That is not "correctly dividing the Word of Truth." (2 Tim 2:15)

Ten Reasons why the Sabbath is not Jewish

1) Adam and Eve were not Jewish. "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it" (Genesis 2:3) before sin entered. "Sanctified" means "to be set apart for holy use." The only ones in the Garden of Eden for whom the Sabbath was “set apart” were Adam and Eve, who weren’t Jewish.

2) "The Sabbath was made for man." Mark 2:27. Jesus said this. It was "made" in the Garden of Eden before it was "written" down on Mount Sinai. The Sabbath was "made" for "man," not just Jews.

3) The other nine commandments are not "just for Jews." God wrote "Ten Commandments" on stone, not just nine (See Deut. 4:12, 13; Ex. 20). Does “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” and “Do not bear false witness” apply "only to Jews"?

4) "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Exodus 20:10. God calls the Sabbath, "my holy day." Isaiah 58:13. The Bible never calls it "the Sabbath of the Jews." It isn’t their Sabbath, but God's.

5) The Sabbath commandment is for the "stranger" too. The fourth commandment itself says the "stranger" is to rest on the Sabbath. Exodus 20:10. “Strangers” are non-Jews, or Gentiles. Thus the Sabbath applies to them too. Read also Isaiah 56:6.

6) Isaiah said Gentiles should keep the Sabbath. "Also the sons of the stranger ... every one that keeps the Sabbath ... for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." Isaiah 56:6, 7. Thus the Sabbath is for Gentiles and “all people,” not just for Jews.

7) "All" mankind will keep the Sabbath in the New Earth. In "the new earth ... from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, says the Lord." Isaiah 66:22, 23. Here God says that “all flesh” will be keeping the Sabbath in “the new earth.” If this is the case – and it is – shouldn’t we start now?

8) Gentiles kept the Sabbath in the Book of Acts. "The Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath ... Paul and Barnabas ... persuaded them to continue in the grace of God."' Acts 13:42, 43. Here saved-by-grace Gentiles kept the Sabbath (see also verse 44).

9) "The law" [of Ten Commandments] is for "all the world," not just for Jews. Paul wrote these words. Read Romans 2:17-23; 3:19, 23.

10) Luke was a Gentile who kept the Sabbath. Luke was the only Gentile who wrote any New Testament books (he wrote The Gospel According to St. Luke and The Acts of the Apostles). Luke traveled with Paul and wrote, "On the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side." Acts 16:13. It was the seventh-day Sabbath, the memorial of the creation (see Ex. 20:11). Both Luke and Paul knew it.

May God continue to add His blessing to our study/discussion of His Word, my brother IN Christ. I enjoy every single challenge to my beliefs, and welcome each one as an opportunity to know Jesus, His Word, and His people better.

2Co 13:8 For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.

 

[VictorC]

Please forgive me my friend if I appeared to be doing this. I actually was not trying to "overturn" Paul's counsel, only trying to point out that if the Bible says "the seventh-day" then why do we make other Bible writers say different? I believe I asked some fair questions.

Your questions were along the lines of why don't Christians dispense with 9 commandments along with the sabbath. To this day you have not acknowledged what the Ten Commandments were - the old covenant mediated under Moses. When encountered with Romans 7:6-7 explaining that we have been delivered from the law identified by quoting Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21, you ignored it. You did the same thing with Galatians 4:30, which instructs us to cast off the covenant from Mount Sinai, which the Ten Commandments was. It isn't a matter of retaining 9/10s of the old covenant that Christianity is bound to - Paul explained in these and other passages that the old covenant kept those under it, and not a people keeping the old covenant - and our redemption has set us free as well as brought the promise to Abraham to the Gentiles, which is our basis for salvation.

Yes; I am aware of what I wrote in my post. Again, forgive me for not saying it more clearly. My comments about Jesus being a Jew are quite true. I don't see how you can deny that one. But I also was intending a play on words to represent the fact that some Jews will be saved too, and that it is quite possible for jews to be Christians. Not all who were/are Jews believed in Jesus:

Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

Also, please note that salvation is not dependent upon us being adopted by God as His children. That's what happens after we are saved. Salvation is "Nothing but the blood of Jesus." Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus

You didn't appeal to a blood lineage, but rather a religious soteriology the moment you claimed "if you wanna go to heaven; you gonna be a Jew too". Moreover, our adoption as the children of God is the only claim to eternal life - and I wrote a detailed post addressing that, which you have no response to. And, Jesus alluded to His sovereignty over the law created for the children of Israel in Matthew 17:24-26, and Paul refers to the very same sovereignty of the Heir in Galatians 4:1. Do you accept the virgin birth of the Messiah? Jesus does not trace his paternal lineage through Israel; Jesus is the Son of God!

I know that you think you can supply "many more quotes," but to me that is not really explaining what I believe, or where I come from. If you know Ellen White's writings so well; why not quote them in context and represent them more accurately? I'm not too worried about anything you have said because I am not used to understanding Scripture by just digging up a bunch of snippets which SEEM to give credence to my views. That is not "correctly dividing the Word of Truth." (2 Tim 2:15)

I could publish the entire Bible on this site and I would not be changing its message. I wish the same could be said for Ellen White, but the manner she contradicts herself reveals her claim to inspiration untrustworthy. If you wish to engage in the learning experience a discussion forum offers you, you could point out where I made a mistake. You haven't done anything but ignore Scripture this far.

Now, lets see how accurate your cut-n-paste is...

Ten Reasons why the Sabbath is not Jewish

1) Adam and Eve were not Jewish. "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it" (Genesis 2:3) before sin entered. "Sanctified" means "to be set apart for holy use." The only ones in the Garden of Eden for whom the Sabbath was “set apart” were Adam and Eve, who weren’t Jewish.

2) "The Sabbath was made for man." Mark 2:27. Jesus said this. It was "made" in the Garden of Eden before it was "written" down on Mount Sinai. The Sabbath was "made" for "man," not just Jews.

I wrote a detailed post that contained 12 Scripture citations or quotes that shows the origin of the sabbath with Moses, and here you repeat the error of a creation origin. Please review what I wrote before:

The law itself attests to the origin of the weekly sabbath with Moses:

• The Genesis account doesn't record a rest observed by any human; the seventh day is in absolute terms rather than a repetitive cycle to describe God's rest.
• Exodus 20:11 clearly delineates the seventh day apart from the sabbath, using the same sentence structure found in Deuteronomy 5:15 that lists a single event in the past as the impetus to ordain the periodic sabbath.
• Hebrews 4 calls the seventh day of creation God's "My rest" that remained to be attained by a people who were already observing the sabbath, and Hebrews 4:4 quotes directly from Genesis 2:2 to document God's rest those who had the sabbath had not attained.
• Jesus distinguishes the sabbath apart from God's rest recorded in the Genesis account when He said it was "made for man" in Mark 2:27.
• Moses testifies that the ten commandments were unknown to the generation previous to his own in Deuteronomy 5:2-3, and lists the sabbath as a memorial of deliverance from Egyptian bondage in Deuteronomy 5:15.
• Nehemiah 9:13-14 attributes the origin of the sabbath with Moses.

As Hebrews 4:8 states, "For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day". God's rest that originated in the Genesis account was permanent, and was the reality the sabbath prophetically directed us to. It is this reason that the sabbath is referred to as a shadow in Colossians 2:16-17.

The law mandates burnt offerings in order to keep the sabbath holy (see Numbers 28), and God has declared He has no pleasure in them. Isaiah 66:23 marks the passage of time with the vernacular recognized by the recipients of this book, and includes the new moons along with the sabbaths - and both of these mandate those burnt offerings that have come to an end. I see no reason to assume we will return to the shadow once we have been given the reality of God's rest:

Hebrews 4
3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath, `They shall not enter My rest,'" although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works".​

3) The other nine commandments are not "just for Jews." God wrote "Ten Commandments" on stone, not just nine (See Deut. 4:12, 13; Ex. 20). Does “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” and “Do not bear false witness” apply "only to Jews"?

There's a reference to Deuteronomy 4:13 up there - did you read it?
Did you read the rest of Deuteronomy 4, including verse 8? Moses testified that the covenant that was issued at Mount Sinai was the Ten Commandments, and no other people had the law the children of Israel exclusively had. Not knowing the nature of Israel's covenant and the tenor of compliance requisite to live and possess the promised land (see Deuteronomy 30:15-16) leads you to question our desire to do evil while acknowledging God's redemption from the "ministry of death, written and engraved on stones" (2 Corinthians 3:7). Scroll back to the quote you responded to - this is twice in a row you performed this error.

4) "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Exodus 20:10. God calls the Sabbath, "my holy day." Isaiah 58:13. The Bible never calls it "the Sabbath of the Jews." It isn’t their Sabbath, but God's.

The tense of your verbs is inaccurate, and you claim to be bound to the first covenant God redeemed us from.

5) The Sabbath commandment is for the "stranger" too. The fourth commandment itself says the "stranger" is to rest on the Sabbath. Exodus 20:10. “Strangers” are non-Jews, or Gentiles. Thus the Sabbath applies to them too. Read also Isaiah 56:6.

The fourth commandment of what covenant? The sabbath had a limited jurisdiction that applied only within the borders of Israel, and during the tenure of the covenant from Mount Sinai, the Ten Commandments. Even Isaiah 56:6 make reference to it:

Also the sons of the foreigner Who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, And to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants--Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, And holds fast My covenant.​

"And" is a dual requisite - you cannot keep the sabbath without being bound to the covenant that ordained it. Within a annual cycle, you would be prohibited from keeping the sabbath unless you had complied with the entrance fee, which was circumcision (Exodus 12:48). Haven't you ever noticed how many times circumcision is addressed in Pauline epistles?

6) Isaiah said Gentiles should keep the Sabbath. "Also the sons of the stranger ... every one that keeps the Sabbath ... for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." Isaiah 56:6, 7. Thus the Sabbath is for Gentiles and “all people,” not just for Jews.

7) "All" mankind will keep the Sabbath in the New Earth. In "the new earth ... from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, says the Lord." Isaiah 66:22, 23. Here God says that “all flesh” will be keeping the Sabbath in “the new earth.” If this is the case – and it is – shouldn’t we start now?

I already addressed the allusion to Isaiah 66:23 in an earlier post, and just addressed your reference to Isaiah 56:6 in this one. You aren't going to revert back to the periodic shadow if you have the permanent reality those who had the sabbath during its tenure had not attained.

Or, have you discarded Hebrews 4 from your Bible, and determined to resurrect the Levitical priesthood and make the burnt offerings mandated by the law to keep the sabbath again? The reliance you show on "snippets" taken out of context shows that you have no idea what the sabbath was or what it was designed to lead us to.

8) Gentiles kept the Sabbath in the Book of Acts. "The Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath ... Paul and Barnabas ... persuaded them to continue in the grace of God."' Acts 13:42, 43. Here saved-by-grace Gentiles kept the Sabbath (see also verse 44).

No, Gentiles did not comply with the sabbath, and neither does the SDA church. The call for assembly on the sabbath comes from Leviticus 23:3's mandate of a holy convocation, which is the "ceremonial" law your church teaches has come to an end. Meanwhile, Exodus 20:8 specifies that the sabbath be kept holy, and the rest of the law specifies how to do so. You discarded the burnt offerings and the priesthood exclusively authorized to perform them, and you have never once in the last 1900 years kept the sabbath holy according to the law that contained it.

9) "The law" [of Ten Commandments] is for "all the world," not just for Jews. Paul wrote these words. Read Romans 2:17-23; 3:19, 23.

Did you actually read your own citation of Romans 3:19?
I don't even need to look it up.
You condemned yourself as "guilty before God" while drawing Paul's description of Jew and Gentile prior to the Gospel being presented in this same epistle.

10) Luke was a Gentile who kept the Sabbath. Luke was the only Gentile who wrote any New Testament books (he wrote The Gospel According to St. Luke and The Acts of the Apostles). Luke traveled with Paul and wrote, "On the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side." Acts 16:13.

They named the seventh day of the week "Sabbath", and met on it. Did they keep the sabbath holy according to the law?
No.

It was the seventh-day Sabbath, the memorial of the creation (see Ex. 20:11). Both Luke and Paul knew it.

Both of these gentlemen knew the law a lot better than you do, the reason they knew the sabbath was a component of the first covenant God took away when He established the new covenant (see Hebrews 10:9, mentioned in many previous posts).

May God continue to add His blessing to our study/discussion of His Word, my brother IN Christ. I enjoy every single challenge to my beliefs, and welcome each one as an opportunity to know Jesus, His Word, and His people better.

Perhaps you would consider responding to the points raised in my posts with Scripture instead of opinion and repeating the same errors you did in your ten points. How is it you don't know the law, and yet claim to abide by it? Review Deuteronomy 4, and see how Moses described it and to whom it had exclusive jurisdiction. Continue into the next chapter and see his own testimony of the time it came into being.

 

[Eagle55]

Your questions were along the lines of why don't Christians dispense with 9 commandments along with the sabbath.

There's a reference to Deuteronomy 4:13 up there - did you read it?
Did you read the rest of Deuteronomy 4, including verse 8? Moses testified that the covenant that was issued at Mount Sinai was the Ten Commandments, and no other people had the law the children of Israel exclusively had.

Perhaps you would consider responding to the points raised in my posts with Scripture instead of opinion and repeating the same errors you did in your ten points. How is it you don't know the law, and yet claim to abide by it? Review Deuteronomy 4, and see how Moses described it and to whom it had exclusive jurisdiction. Continue into the next chapter and see his own testimony of the time it came into being.

Hello Victor. I appreciate all the effort you are putting into this. I actually have to put my thinking cap on a bit! It might seem like I "ignore" some of your points; but really, I am not. My time is often limited for posting on internet so what I try to do is to choose one or two points to respond to that I thought might be more important, or sometimes, just more interesting to me.

To me; a "covenant" is really just an agreement about something. But it is not that something. In other words, the "Old Covenant" is about the ten commandments. But it is not the ten commandments. So in a way I guess you are on the right track. But lets look at the agreements between God and His people, more closely:

Exo 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

When the "we will do" part fizzled, God and His people reached a new agreement; which is the New Covenant:

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

So here we have two covenants laid out in Scripture, between God and His people. I like the way God keeps it so simple. In the Old Covenant, it was a case of "we will do;" and in the New Covenant, it was a case where God said: "I will do." So there are two agreements, (covenants) about the Ten Commandments. One is a saved by works program. The other is God doing the saving and writing His law on our hearts.

Likely, when you go walking down the street, Victor, it would not be too hard to tell that you have God's law written on your heart. Christians are different, and you can tell if a person is one pretty easy. Like I said, God keeps all this pretty simple. I rejoice today that we serve a Lord who is so patient with us that He will actually let us go our own way, till we realize that we cannot do anything of ourselves; and that we need Jesus, and His shed blood, to merit anything before His throne.

I would be interested in replying to your point re Heb 10:9, and Deut 4 in a future post. But I am out of time for now. Take care, and take prayer! We serve an awsome God!

 

[from scratch]

Well; first, most Christians don't try to do this with all ten commandments, but since you have, maybe we can look at that act a little closer. Of course, you have said the standard thing, how that I am not a Christian, because I am thinking differently than you. This is pretty standard fare, but what you cannot explain is why I can't go down the street and have my neighbor's wife. Since the seventh commandment is no longer binding, it must be OK.

I actually do not make the appeal to the cycle of days. God does. He has never said anything other than "the seventh day." He has never come right out and said "the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God."I made, in my post, an appeal to Jesus, and the fact of what was the example He set for us? Jesus kept the seventh day Sabbath; as the Bible tells us "as was His custom," Jesus went into the Temple on Sabbath to worship.

Why do you keep Sunday? Why do you call it the Sabbath, if God doesn't? Do you think that keeping either Sunday or Sabbath makes us "Christian? It seems like it, when we consider what you said about me.

I have been reading along and I don't remember VictorC ever saying that Sunday was or is the Sabbath. Would you mind refering that post for me? Ireally think you are trying to put words in his mouth.

Seventh-day Adventists are happy to concede that God can work with anyone, and that you do not have to believe a certain way to be Christian, or to be saved. The lovely Adventist who led me to Christ just keeps saying to me: "God just loves everyone so much!" I could never be an Adventist if all of our doctrines did not reach that conclusion. Jesus does love everyone; He can save anyone; and He actively searches out our hearts - even when we are "lost." To serve a Lord like this just makes me want to obey Him, and to seek out His will and His teachings. I have never failed to be blessed by keeping the Sabbath; I cannot see anything in the Bible to make me change course on this practice.

If you are an SDA, how can you make such a statement and not be called a traitor? Is not FB 18 within the scope of your pledge/oath when you were baptised in or joined the the SDA church? Seems to victorC quoted something about the Sabbath being a requirement of salvation from the SDA point of view.

We would serve a strange God indeed, if He gave us laws one day, then on another day "took them away." The Bible tells us in Malachi that God does not change; meaning truth does not change - even when we discover something new out of the Bible that adds to it.

 

[VictorC]

Hello Victor. I appreciate all the effort you are putting into this. I actually have to put my thinking cap on a bit! It might seem like I "ignore" some of your points; but really, I am not. My time is often limited for posting on internet so what I try to do is to choose one or two points to respond to that I thought might be more important, or sometimes, just more interesting to me.

To me; a "covenant" is really just an agreement about something. But it is not that something. In other words, the "Old Covenant" is about the ten commandments. But it is not the ten commandments.

Scripture doesn't match your claim:

Exd 34:28
...he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Deu 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.

Deu 9:9
When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, [even] the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you,

Deu 9:11
And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, [that] the LORD gave me the two tables of stone, [even] the tables of the covenant.

Deu 9:15
So I turned and came down from the mount, and the mount burned with fire:and the two tables of the covenant [were] in my two hands.

1Ki 8:21
And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein [is] the covenant of the LORD, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.

2Ch 6:11
And in it have I put the ark, wherein [is] the covenant of the LORD, that he made with the children of Israel.​

Many times Scripture refers to the Ten Commandments as the covenant that the children of Israel were bound to abide by.

So in a way I guess you are on the right track. But lets look at the agreements between God and His people, more closely:

Exo 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

When the "we will do" part fizzled, God and His people reached a new agreement; which is the New Covenant:

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Refer to the verse previous to this one you quoted:

Jeremiah 31
31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--
32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.​

The basis for a new covenant was given as the previous one was violated and of no value, as there was no one compliant. Refer to verse 33 that you quoted, and see that God's "My law" is a possessive pronoun that refers to His own authority that isn't from Mount Sinai. This becomes clearer when you see the result of His entrance into us in Jeremiah 31:34:

"No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."​

With God's "My law" that isn't according to Mount Sinai in us, we know the Creator - not the creation. The Gentiles had the creation working in their hearts according to Romans 2:15 prior to the new covenant, showing that the covenant from Mount Sinai was not a promise attained by the new covenant:

14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)​

So here we have two covenants laid out in Scripture, between God and His people. I like the way God keeps it so simple. In the Old Covenant, it was a case of "we will do;" and in the New Covenant, it was a case where God said: "I will do." So there are two agreements, (covenants) about the Ten Commandments. One is a saved by works program. The other is God doing the saving and writing His law on our hearts.

And yet you testify that you don't have God's "My law" written into you, but rather the first covenant that Hebrews 8:13 testifies as obsolete after it quotes this very passage from Jeremiah 31. What you claim is not consistent with Scripture.

Likely, when you go walking down the street, Victor, it would not be too hard to tell that you have God's law written on your heart. Christians are different, and you can tell if a person is one pretty easy. Like I said, God keeps all this pretty simple. I rejoice today that we serve a Lord who is so patient with us that He will actually let us go our own way, till we realize that we cannot do anything of ourselves; and that we need Jesus, and His shed blood, to merit anything before His throne.

Spirit-led Christians are remarkably consistent in their character, as you point out yourself. Notice that not one of them have the former sabbath written into their characters, but instead have God's "My rest" that gives them the assurance of an eternal salvation as God's elect. The shadow has been replaced with the reality.

I would be interested in replying to your point re Heb 10:9, and Deut 4 in a future post. But I am out of time for now. Take care, and take prayer! We serve an awsome God!

Hashem bless you and yours on the journey

 

[VictorC]

I have been reading along and I don't remember VictorC ever saying that Sunday was or is the Sabbath.

I have never accepted the false premise that Sunday has replaced the Sabbath. It is an error that appeals to the temporal and periodic shadow of days in a week that is every bit as erroneous as Sabbatarianism.

 

[Eagle55]

I have never accepted the false premise that Sunday has replaced the Sabbath. It is an error that appeals to the temporal and periodic shadow of days in a week that is every bit as erroneous as Sabbatarianism.

That may be so; however, your reasoning here is commonly used by those who do "keep Sunday;" or count Sunday as the Sabbath. If you go to Church every Sunday, then you certainly give the outward appearance of supporting this in some ways.

You have not correctly reflected Adventist beliefs about the Sabbath, or Salvation. Therefore, I will quote below the two respective, official belief statements:

19. The Law of God:
The great principles of God's law are embodied in the Ten Commandments and exemplified in the life of Christ. They express God's love, will, and purposes concerning human conduct and relationships and are binding upon all people in every age. These precepts are the basis of God's covenant with His people and the standard in God's judgment. Through the agency of the Holy Spirit they point out sin and awaken a sense of need for a Saviour. Salvation is all of grace and not of works, but its fruitage is obedience to the Commandments. This obedience develops Christian character and results in a sense of well-being. It is an evidence of our love for the Lord and our concern for our fellow men. The obedience of faith demonstrates the power of Christ to transform lives, and therefore strengthens Christian witness. (Ex. 20:1-17; Ps. 40:7, 8; Matt. 22:36-40; Deut. 28:1-14; Matt. 5:17-20; Heb. 8:8-10; John 15:7-10; Eph. 2:8-10; 1 John 5:3; Rom. 8:3, 4; Ps. 19:7-14.)

20. The Sabbath:
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)

Thanks for your questions. I appreciate them very much.

 

[Eagle55]

Scripture doesn't match your claim:

Exd 34:28
...he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Deu 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.

Deu 9:9
When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, [even] the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you,

Deu 9:11
And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, [that] the LORD gave me the two tables of stone, [even] the tables of the covenant.

Deu 9:15
So I turned and came down from the mount, and the mount burned with fire:and the two tables of the covenant [were] in my two hands.

Many times Scripture refers to the Ten Commandments as the covenant that the children of Israel were bound to abide by.​

I appreciate you bringing forth these scripture verses. They are very important to Adventist teachings as well. In understanding these texts; it is just a matter of where one chooses to see the emphasis, and the intent, of the Bible writer.

As an Adventist; I can agree that there was a new Covenant, and that it replaced the Old Covenant. But a covenant always has an object - for a covenant is just an agreement about something. This is why I can see how the covenant, in this case, is not infact the ten commandments themselves, but, rather, an agreement about same. Not one of these texts actually say that the ten commandments are = to the old covenant. They are the OBJECT of the covenant; but not the covenant itself.
​

In Exodus 34:28 which you refer to, for example, it states: 'the words of the covenant" not in a literal sense of the covenant being the same thing as the ten commandments, but in the literal sense of the covenant (agreement) being about the ten commandments. There is a difference. The people said after Sinai, "we will do," and God allowed this for the first, or "Old Covenant," and for the New Covenant, God said: "I will do." I have shown this in scripture already, from Jeremiah 31. And the object of both the "We will do" and the "I will do" is the ten commandments. Therefore, it is impossible to prove from anything but the Roman Catholic Catechism that the "covenant" is the same as the ten commandments.

Covenant:

A solemn agreement between human beings or between God and a human being involving mutual commitments or guarantees. The Bible refers to Gods covenants with Noah, Abraham, and Moses as leader of the chosen people, Israel. In the Old Testament or Covenant, God revealed his law through Moses and prepared his people for salvation through the prophets. In the New Testament or Covenant, Christ established a new and eternal covenant through his own sacrificial death and Resurrection. The Christian economy is the new and definitive Covenant which will never pass away, and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (56, 62, 66). See Old Testament; New Testament.
Covenant:
(C) taken from The Catechism Of The Catholic Church Glossary

The Bible says that commandments and covenants are two different things.

May God add His blessing to the reading of His Word.

 

[VictorC]

That may be so; however, your reasoning here is commonly used by those who do "keep Sunday;" or count Sunday as the Sabbath. If you go to Church every Sunday, then you certainly give the outward appearance of supporting this in some ways.

I have pointed out that you aren't compliant with the sabbath by going to church on Saturday, and the habit of attendance one day a week has nothing more than tradition for support. For some of those who advocate attendance on Sunday, they do it out of recognition of the resurrection that happened on Sunday. Some accept the habit without questioning it. And, there are some that believe that Sunday has replaced the sabbath - and I made it clear that I don't agree with their argument. The sabbath was called a shadow in Scripture because it led us to God's rest that predated the sabbath and has never ended. Having this gift from God causes me to dismiss the shadow that was inferior.

You have not correctly reflected Adventist beliefs about the Sabbath, or Salvation. Therefore, I will quote below the two respective, official belief statements:

19. The Law of God:
The great principles of God's law are embodied in the Ten Commandments and exemplified in the life of Christ. They express God's love, will, and purposes concerning human conduct and relationships and are binding upon all people in every age. These precepts are the basis of God's covenant with His people and the standard in God's judgment. Through the agency of the Holy Spirit they point out sin and awaken a sense of need for a Saviour. Salvation is all of grace and not of works, but its fruitage is obedience to the Commandments. This obedience develops Christian character and results in a sense of well-being. It is an evidence of our love for the Lord and our concern for our fellow men. The obedience of faith demonstrates the power of Christ to transform lives, and therefore strengthens Christian witness. (Ex. 20:1-17; Ps. 40:7, 8; Matt. 22:36-40; Deut. 28:1-14; Matt. 5:17-20; Heb. 8:8-10; John 15:7-10; Eph. 2:8-10; 1 John 5:3; Rom. 8:3, 4; Ps. 19:7-14.)

I'm already familiar with the SDA Fundamentals, and have quoted them on occasion on this forum. From #19, this sentence is perhaps the most offensive:

They express God's love, will, and purposes concerning human conduct and relationships and are binding upon all people in every age.​

This is utter poppycock. There is nothing in Scripture that suggests that the Ten Commandments expressed God's love for us, or are a transcript of God's character. What the law lacks is God's attribute of forgiveness, as He retained that to Himself. The law knows only atonement for reconciliation to its Creator. This is the meaning behind these verses in Romans 4:

13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,
15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all...​

Remember that Abraham was imputed righteous before God 430 years before the covenant from Mount Sinai, and even before submission to circumcision. He was not accounted righteous by compliance, but by faith: For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." (Romans 4:3). This quote from Genesis 15:6, by the way, identifies the law established by the author in Romans 3:31 - the Genesis account, and not the covenant mediated by Moses.

The covenant from Mount Sinai was not "binding upon all people in every age" as this SDA Fundamental suggests, either. That fabrication is incompatible with the tenure of the Ten Commandments in only 1/4 of recorded human history and jurisdiction over only one nation recorded in Scripture.

20. The Sabbath:
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God's kingdom. The Sabbath is God's perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God's creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)

This Fundamental loses all credibility when it shows the author can't tell God's rest in the Genesis account from the temporal rest "made for man" some 2500 years later. Citing a "fourth commandment" without acknowledging what that "fourth commandment" was a commandment of shows that this Fundamental Belief isn't even consistent with itself - a law cited for support is itself a change, and is impossible to reconcile with the notion that the law was unchangable, as it appeals to a time the sabbath allegedly existed before the "fourth commandment of God's unchangeable law" existed.

Then claiming that the sabbath is (rather than was) a bunch of things the law never claimed for the sabbath is utter incompetence. The sabbath was a time to feed those in your tent (Exodus 16:16), while refraining from fires (Exodus 35:3), and having the priesthood authorized to perform the offerings add two lambs to the oblations (Numbers 28:9-10): four lambs died each sabbath day. Claiming that the sabbath is a sign of God's redemption in Jesus Christ ignores His decree that He has no pleasure in your burnt offerings, and insulting God is not a basis for communing with Him.

Thanks for your questions. I appreciate them very much.

By this time I'm observant of the ratio of points I have raised to your answers exceeds your ability to furnish answers.

 

[VictorC]

I appreciate you bringing forth these scripture verses. They are very important to Adventist teachings as well. In understanding these texts; it is just a matter of where one chooses to see the emphasis, and the intent, of the Bible writer.

As an Adventist; I can agree that there was a new Covenant, and that it replaced the Old Covenant. But a covenant always has an object - for a covenant is just an agreement about something. This is why I can see how the covenant, in this case, is not infact the ten commandments themselves, but, rather, an agreement about same. Not one of these texts actually say that the ten commandments are = to the old covenant. They are the OBJECT of the covenant; but not the covenant itself.
​

In Exodus 34:28 which you refer to, for example, it states: 'the words of the covenant" not in a literal sense of the covenant being the same thing as the ten commandments, but in the literal sense of the covenant (agreement) being about the ten commandments. There is a difference. The people said after Sinai, "we will do," and God allowed this for the first, or "Old Covenant," and for the New Covenant, God said: "I will do." I have shown this in scripture already, from Jeremiah 31. And the object of both the "We will do" and the "I will do" is the ten commandments. Therefore, it is impossible to prove from anything but the Roman Catholic Catechism that the "covenant" is the same as the ten commandments.

It isn't from the RCC Catechism that the Ten Commandments was referred to as the covenant from Mount Sinai - that definition comes from Scripture all the way from Moses to Paul's authorship. Here is Paul from Galatians 4:24:

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar----
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children...​

Review Exodus 34 sometime, and tell me what covenant Moses received directly from God. It was the Ten Commandments. Tell me where Moses was when he received that covenant. From Exodus 24 and following chapters Moses received the book of the law, which is also the covenant from Mount Sinai - and it is the book of the law you're reading from in order to quote the Ten Commandments on this forum.

There was one covenant from Mount Sinai.
The people didn't come from Mount Sinai when they agreed to abide by it.
Consider this, until you see that your definition not only contradicts Scripture, but defies logical analysis as well.

Even modern Adventist theologians realize that the Ten Commandments was itself a covenant dictated to God's vassal Israel in the form of a Suzerainty covenant, and this quote comes from an article published by Present Truth Magazine, which is by those in the SDA church. It is from their article Technical Meaning of Covenant:

There are two of these human covenants which especially help us to understand the meaning of God's covenant with man:

1. The first is the suzerainty covenant. In 1954 G. E. Mendenhall, in The Covenant Forms and Israelite Tradition, was the first to demonstrate quite conclusively that the sacred covenant documents between God and Israel, as recorded in Exodus and Deuteronomy, follow a form similar to the suzerainty treaties of the Hittite kings.

While some covenants between human parties are like negotiated agreements, God's covenant is more like a suzerainty covenant. It has nothing in it of the nature of a bargain or a negotiated agreement. It is a disposition or arrangement which originates unilaterally with the superior party. The inferior party may accept or reject the arrangement (for covenants generally imply reciprocity and a bilateral operation), but he cannot negotiate or alter the terms of the disposition in any way.​

The covenant from Mount Sinai was the Ten Commandments and the book of the law, and it is this same covenant we are instructed to cast off according to Galatians 4:30; verse 24 defined the bondwoman as the covenant from Mount Sinai, as show earlier.

The Bible says that commandments and covenants are two different things.

I don't make the immediate leap that you have, but arguing from it should cause your pause when you see a reference to the saints of God keeping the commandments of God in Revelation 14:12 and similar passages.
The Ten Commandments was the covenant from Mount Sinai.
The commandments of God were documented by the same author of Revelation, John, in his first epistle - and they are not from the Ten Commandments.

The Biblical authors have a consistency about their inspired works that the SDA church is completely contrary to.

 

[Eagle55]

It isn't from the RCC Catechism that the Ten Commandments was referred to as the covenant from Mount Sinai - that definition comes from Scripture all the way from Moses to Paul's authorship. Here is Paul from Galatians 4:24:

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar----
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children...​

Review Exodus 34 sometime, and tell me what covenant Moses received directly from God. It was the Ten Commandments. Tell me where Moses was when he received that covenant. From Exodus 24 and following chapters Moses received the book of the law, which is also the covenant from Mount Sinai - and it is the book of the law you're reading from in order to quote the Ten Commandments on this forum.

This passage in Gal 4 is one of my favorites. If you would have continued beyond vs 25 to give us the correct context; it would be apparent that the only thing really said here is that Abraham's two sons were an "allegory" of the two covenants; one of the covenants being made at Sinai. It does not have one dotting of the i or crossing of the t to suggest that the covenants were/are God's Holy Ten Commandment Law.

When we look up the words "covenant" and "commandment" it is extremely apparent that the two words mean different things. I showed in the Scriptures where God shows how the covenants were both, agreements about the Ten Commandments; and that they actually are not the commandments themselves. Are you saying that scripture contradicts itself, in order to justify your position?

Opposition to keeping God's law is called antinomianism (anti = against; nomos = law). The idea that salvation by grace alone rules out the importance of obeying the law of God fails to recognize the principle that Christ's gift of salvation is designed to bring us into accord with God's will.

Of course, it is not true that salvation is by law keeping. We receive saving grace from God when, by faith, we accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord (Eph. 2:8, 9). But such faith always results in conformity to the will of God as expressed in His law (verse 10). Paul wrote that Christ died "so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Rom. 8:4).(4) If we are not obeying the law of God, we cannot claim that its righteousness is fulfilled in us.

Legalism is not obedience to God's law; it is the attempt to obey His law without first having received the gift of His grace. This was the nature of the first or Old Covenant. The people said to Moses: "Tell God that all He has said; we will do." Legalism is the attempt to save oneself by law keeping, instead of allowing Christ to save by crediting His righteousness to us and bestowing His righteousness upon us by the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Once having received Christ's divine saving presence in the life, it is inevitable that the believer will want to follow all of Christ's commands. This is where the New Covenant happens in believers today; when God, who says: "I will write my law on your hearts," does just that. His promise is not negated by private interpretations of scripture that try to make God's law void. If God says He will write His law on our hearts; why would anyone want to try and stop that?

Grace is the means; obedience is the result. Obedience to the law of God is the sure consequence of the genuine new birth experience. (see 2 Cor 5:17)

 

[VictorC]

This passage in Gal 4 is one of my favorites. If you would have continued beyond vs 25 to give us the correct context; it would be apparent that the only thing really said here is that Abraham's two sons were an "allegory" of the two covenants; one of the covenants being made at Sinai. It does not have one dotting of the i or crossing of the t to suggest that the covenants were/are God's Holy Ten Commandment Law.

When we look up the words "covenant" and "commandment" it is extremely apparent that the two words mean different things. I showed in the Scriptures where God shows how the covenants were both, agreements about the Ten Commandments; and that they actually are not the commandments themselves. Are you saying that scripture contradicts itself, in order to justify your position?

Moses knew that the Ten Commandments was the covenant, and he knew where that covenant came from:

Deuteronomy 9
9 "When I went up into the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water.
10 "Then the LORD delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.
11 "And it came to pass, at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.​

I asked you where the covenant God made came from, and you dismissed it. This was the covenant from Mount Sinai, inscribed onto tables of stone, the Ten Commandments.

Solomon also identified the same tables of stone as the covenant:

2 Chronicles 6:11
"And there I have put the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD which He made with the children of Israel."​

The Biblical definition of the covenant from Mount Sinai includes both the tables of stone with the Ten Commandments and the book of the law (Exodus 24:7). The tables of stone were placed inside the ark of the covenant, while the book of the law was placed outside the ark of the covenant to be a witness against the children of Israel (Deuteronomy 31:26) every seven years (Deuteronomy 31:10-11). Everywhere the ark went, the entire covenant went with it - consistent with the name given to the ark of the covenant.

Paul described the covenant from Mount Sinai as the bondwoman in Galatians 4:24, and then instructed us to cast off the bondwoman and her son in Galatians 4:30.

In each and every instance, you have chosen to redefine Biblical terms. You don't accept the covenant as the object that dictated God's terms of the Suzerainty agreement, even though your own theologians have accepted that term:

It has nothing in it of the nature of a bargain or a negotiated agreement. It is a disposition or arrangement which originates unilaterally with the superior party.​

The people who agreed to comply with the covenant didn't come from Mount Sinai. The only object that came from Mount Sinai was the tables of stone. Moses affixed the proper noun Ten Commandments to that object, and that object was placed into the ark of the covenant, and Solomon specified that the covenant was contained inside the ark. No people inside that ark, and neither is their agreement of compliance requisite to live and possess the land (Deuteronomy 30:15-16).

The only one who has made a claim that Scripture contradicts itself is you, and the only contradiction I can see is your opinion that has imposed your own definition to Biblical terms.

Opposition to keeping God's law is called antinomianism (anti = against; nomos = law). The idea that salvation by grace alone rules out the importance of obeying the law of God fails to recognize the principle that Christ's gift of salvation is designed to bring us into accord with God's will.

Which carnal definition would you like to apply to your failure to comply with the sabbath codified in Israel's covenant mediated by Moses? No one since 70AD has ever met the terms of compliance, and I have specified the reasons for that from the law itself. You continue to ignore the Bible.

Of course, it is not true that salvation is by law keeping.

And, I have quoted Ellen White's claim to the very opposite. I happen to agree with you on this point, but your prophet's contradictory claims in deference to our conclusion should force you to scrap SDA Fundamental Belief #18, along with #19 and #20.

We receive saving grace from God when, by faith, we accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord (Eph. 2:8, 9). But such faith always results in conformity to the will of God as expressed in His law (verse 10).

I have learned a long time ago to read the citations SDA's provide. Ephesians 2:10 in no way remotely suggests returning to the covenant from Mount Sinai.

Paul wrote that Christ died "so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Rom. 8:4).(4) If we are not obeying the law of God, we cannot claim that its righteousness is fulfilled in us.

Two questions:

• What is the (4) in your post? Is this a footnote you forgot to remove from a cut-n-paste job?
• How did you impose your canal walking in the flesh by obeying the law of God, when the passage cited does not support your imposition, and comes on the heels of this same author's chapter describing our deliverance from that law of God (quoted to identify the Ten Commandments as that law), and demonstrating that the law is holy and also lethal to everyone who is not holy?

Legalism is not obedience to God's law; it is the attempt to obey His law without first having received the gift of His grace. This was the nature of the first or Old Covenant. The people said to Moses: "Tell God that all He has said; we will do." Legalism is the attempt to save oneself by law keeping, instead of allowing Christ to save by crediting His righteousness to us and bestowing His righteousness upon us by the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Search the entire law, and you will never find the terms of compliance to include "attempt to obey". The law included the rites of atonement for reconciliation whenever someone innocently violated it by ignorance of their transgression (Leviticus 4), but for those who willingly violated it (this includes you, too) they were put to death without mercy (Hebrews 10:28).

Once having received Christ's divine saving presence in the life, it is inevitable that the believer will want to follow all of Christ's commands. This is where the New Covenant happens in believers today; when God, who says: "I will write my law on your hearts," does just that. His promise is not negated by private interpretations of scripture that try to make God's law void. If God says He will write His law on our hearts; why would anyone want to try and stop that?

You're repeating the error you previously engaged in by claiming that the old covenant is not obsolete and taken away as the epistle to the Hebrews concludes, but has merely changed location. Meanwhile, you dispensed with the only Authority that God calls "My law" using a possessive pronoun, Who gives us a knowledge of the Creator and not the created: Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His (Romans 8:9).

Grace is the means; obedience is the result. Obedience to the law of God is the sure consequence of the genuine new birth experience. (see 2 Cor 5:17)

When was the last time you read your own citations?

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.​

You have no grounds to conclude that the old covenant retains any jurisdiction over those God has redeemed as His own adopted children in the new covenant made with His Blood. In stating that old things have passed away, it is consistent with Hebrews 8:13 and 2 Corinthians 3:13 telling us that the old covenant has passed away - and 2 Corinthians 3 reads like a commentary on Exodus 34 and addresses the covenant engraved on tables of stone, the Ten Commandments.

And yet you want to shuffle the old around and call it new, when it is not.

 

[Eagle55]

Moses knew that the Ten Commandments was the covenant, and he knew where that covenant came from:

Deuteronomy 9
9 "When I went up into the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water.
10 "Then the LORD delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.
11 "And it came to pass, at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.​

I asked you where the covenant God made came from, and you dismissed it. This was the covenant from Mount Sinai, inscribed onto tables of stone, the Ten Commandments.

Well; just don't accuse me of "dismissing things" my friend. As I said, I don't have a lot of time some days to be on the internet; but in this case I actually did address with scripture; just what you say I did not address.

A couple of posts ago I showed from Jeremiah how the two covenants are viewed by the Bible. There are many verses, such as what you quoted which say something like "the tablets of the covenant," but not a one of them actually calls the ten commandments the covenant; neither old or new. It is quite possible to see the verse/s you quote as simply saying that what is on these tablets, is the object of the covenant, when you view it in proper context; expecially when you consider other scripture such as Jer and avoid isolating the proof texts you are producing. The old covenant was not the ten commandments. It was an agreement about those ten commandments where the people said

"Exo 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD."

And this was at Sinai my friend so I don't know how we can say that the old covenant was not a case of the people saying "we will do" when in fact it should be a case of "God will do." As we see in Jeremiah, a new agreement (covenant) was reached; again, about the same ten commandments, that Moses addressed to the people when he came down from Sinai:

"Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

This is a wonderful promise for Christians today; we don't have to worry about doing God's will in our strength; and that is where the rest in Christ comes in. Rest in Christ means not having to save ourselves (try to) but to totally depend upon Jesus for everything. 2 Cor 5:17 says "all things become new;" meaning all our old ways, all our selfishness and sin, it all goes out the window, in favor of the "rest in Christ" promised to us throughout scripture.

So really, to boil your posts to me down to their lowest common denominator; you are simply denying what God has promised, how that He would write His law on our hearts. You just throw away this portion of scripture because you want a gospel that says we do not have to obey God's law because it is "old covenant." That doesn't make a lot of sense to me; it is a typical example of eisegesis. We all fall into this at times; I know I likely do too. But I am enjoying the learning curve here in our exchange. I appreciate your efforts here Victor.

PS. It seems you have a problem with "cut and paste" as you call it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it; as long as the source is freely acknowledged, or it is your own material. The (4) you asked about is a footnote I made in a larger study I put together, which is 30 some pages, a bit too long to post here. If you have to resort to such minor little details to try and make someone look "wrong" then I would say your "scripture" reasoning should be re-examined by you. You have cut and paste many anti-Adventist "objections" to hurl at me; it is likely you changed the wording a little, but it's not hard to find websites where your points come from. Just relax, and reason from the scriptures with me; never mind what others say about Adventists. Look at it for yourself. We are not all that bad.