Two Baptist Views Combined - my view

[BobRyan]

Ex 20:11 points us back to the Gen 2:1-3 facts "alone" as establishing the Sabbath commandment.

Mark 2:27 "Made for MANKIND" - even before the cross.

Is 66:23 to apply to "ALL mankind" that come before God and worship "From Sabbath to Sabbath" long AFTER the cross - in the New Heavens and New Earth.

And so even the gentiles of Isaiah's day blessed for keeping the 4th commandment Sabbath - in Is 56.

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

So that is where the first view in that list - has a leg to stand on.


And as for the 2nd view.

Mark 7:6-13 is where it has a leg to stand on. At least as much of it as is actually correct.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Ex 20:11 points us back to the Gen 2:1-3 facts "alone" as establishing the Sabbath commandment.

Exodus 20:11 is a command given to Israel, verified in Exodus 31 as a sign to the nation of Israel, a sign of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel and their generations forever.

There is no sabbath in Genesis 2:1-3, and no command to keep any day holy.

Mark 2:27 "Made for MANKIND" - even before the cross.

And so?
All of creation is made for mankind also (Psalm 8)
The angels are made for man; for those that are heirs of salvation (Heb.1:14)
With Creation and angels in mind, it is a small thing that the sabbath is made for mankind. The verse doesn't say to keep it.

Is 66:23 to apply to "ALL mankind" that come before God and worship "From Sabbath to Sabbath" long AFTER the cross - in the New Heavens and New Earth.

And so even the gentiles of Isaiah's day blessed for keeping the 4th commandment Sabbath - in Is 56.

Now let's be realistic.
You expect us to believe SDA teaching that when EGW teaches that the Mark of the Beast is upon all Baptists and Protestants it applies only to that period of time that is called the Tribulation. It is a future event because you find it in the Book of Revelation, a time that is future. You don't have us convinced.

But if you want us to concede even an inch, then you have to give an inch.
Both Isaiah 66:23 and Isaiah 56 also refer to a future event, an event called the Millennial Kingdom. There is no sabbath now. But there will be in the Millennial Kingdom. That is the Sabbath that is referred to in Isaiah. That is the mankind referred to in Isaiah.
You want us to believe "the mark of the beast" on Protestants applies only to the Tribulation, a future event. But you don't want to believe us when we say that these verses apply only to a future event. Rather convenient for you isn't it?

The Sabbath is strictly Jewish, and when Christ comes and sets up his Kingdom it will be for the Jews. He is coming so that "all Israel may be saved."

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

That is in Revelation, a future event. It speaks of the Jews who will be saved both physically, and then at the end of the tribulation spiritually when they look to Christ and finally accept him as their Messiah.

 

[BobRyan]

The Sabbath is strictly Jewish, and when Christ comes and sets up his Kingdom it will be for the Jews. He is coming so that "all Israel may be saved."

So then that is the second view in the list of two Baptist views.

The Bible view - is in fact the best of both - and leaves their errors in the dust. I think the Seventh-day Baptists get this point.

The view that says
1. Ten Commandments are the moral law of God.
2. Were given to mankind in Eden.
3. Included the 7th day Sabbath - Saturday.
4. Sabbath still applicable today for the saints.

Is combined with the view that says.
1. You cannot bend or edit the Sabbath to point to Sunday.
2. The sunday keeping of today is not Sabbath it is tradition.

---

But that view while having some truth -denies the bible truths in the first view.

1. The Sabbath commandment is given to mankind in Gen 2:3.
2. The Ex 20:8-11 refers back to Gen 2:3 saying that the Gen 2:1-3 evetn "Alone" establishes the Sabbath commandment for all mankind - see it confirmed in Ex 20:11.
3. The Exodus 16 statement "tomorrow is the Sabbath" proves that Ex 20 is not the giving of the commandment - but rather a reminder of it.
4. Christ also tells us - pre-cross that the Sabbath was not "made for Jew" but was "made for mankind" Mark 2:27. I am going with Christ on that one.
5. In the OT - In Isaiah's day - gentiles are specifically blessed for keeping the 7th day Sabbath of creation week. See Isaiah 56.
6. In the OT - in Isaiah's day the scope for Sabbath was defined by God as being for "ALL mankind" - when HE says that from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship, for all eternity in the New Earth of Rev 21 which occurs after the Rev 20 Millennium.

These are the key Bible truths that the 2nd Baptist view above - misses totally - but the first one accepts.

And of course - Mark 7:6-13 - it is not valid to edit/change/set-aside one of the Ten Commandments in service to man made traditions.

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

Both Isaiah 66:23 and Isaiah 56 also refer to a future event

Let's be realistic for a second DHK - we both know that Matt 5 blesses the saints with future blessings based on current choices. That does not "negate Matt 5" as you seem to imagine.

In Isaiah 56 we have a lot of current and past tense keeping of the Sabbath by Gentiles - with a future promise of reward. In the same as as we see in Matt 5.

Isaiah 56 does not say "There is no sabbath now. But there will be in the Millennial Kingdom." And I think we both know that.


Isaiah points to PRESENT and PAST tense obedience by gentiles and then to FUTURE blessing for that obedience (just as we see for us in the NT).

Is 56

Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say,
“The Lord will surely separate me from His people.”
Nor let the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” 4 For thus says the Lord,
“To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And hold fast My covenant,
5 To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial,
And a name better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.



6 “Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord,
To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath
And holds fast My covenant;
7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar;
For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples."


Christ condemns the Jews in His day for not allowing this same purpose for God's pre-cross temple to be served - daily.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

So then that is the second view in the list of two Baptist views.

There is not A Baptist view.
Please get that through your head. I will give you what I believe from the Scriptures.
There are as many Baptists as there are denominations; there is no one view. Don't pretend there are. Going by other men's confessions, etc. does not strengthen your position; it just frustrates other Baptists because it is not representative of their own. I wish you would stop.

The Bible view - is in fact the best of both - and leaves their errors in the dust. I think the Seventh-day Baptists get this point.

The "Bible view" is always the best, but it is far from yours.

The view that says
1. Ten Commandments are the moral law of God.

That is a general statement that we often refer to. Upon closer examination we see:
1. There is nothing moral or immoral about keeping the Sabbath, and thus it is not part of the moral law.
2. Keeping the Sabbath, as observed by missionaries in foreign lands, is not written on the hearts of pagans. It is not part of the moral law.
3. Keeping the Sabbath is Jewish law, always given to the Jews, a sign of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel and their generations forever (Exodus 31). Why not use the totality of Scripture, Bob?

2. Were given to mankind in Eden.

1. There is no "sabbath" in the Garden of Eden, not even the word.
2. There certainly are no Ten Commandments in the Garden of Eden. That is one of the most foolish statements I have heard.

3. Included the 7th day Sabbath - Saturday.

This day is given to the Jews, and always has been. Never will you find a command for Gentiles to keep the Sabbath in this dispensation.

4. Sabbath still applicable today for the saints.

If true, then you should be able to show me a clear-cut command that commands believers OF TODAY to keep the sabbath. There is none.

Is combined with the view that says.
1. You cannot bend or edit the Sabbath to point to Sunday.
2. The sunday keeping of today is not Sabbath it is tradition.

It may be tradition. The Sabbath is not a command for NT believers to keep. If we worship on Monday, Tuesday, etc. there is nothing to stop NT believers from establishing that tradition either. In fact in some countries they have such traditions out of necessity.
In some Muslim nations, their tradition is to worship on Friday, the same day that Muslims do. Why? It is the only day of rest they have. Sunday is a work day.

1. The Sabbath commandment is given to mankind in Gen 2:3.

There is no command in Genesis. Show me the command.

2. The Ex 20:8-11 refers back to Gen 2:3 saying that the Gen 2:1-3 evetn "Alone" establishes the Sabbath commandment for all mankind - see it confirmed in Ex 20:11.

Again, there is no command in Genesis.
The first command to keep the sabbath; to remember the sabbath is given to Israel. It is a command given by Jehovah to the nation of Jehovah, and always has been. It is never given to Gentile believers.

3. The Exodus 16 statement "tomorrow is the Sabbath" proves that Ex 20 is not the giving of the commandment - but rather a reminder of it.

Given to the Jews.

4. Christ also tells us - pre-cross that the Sabbath was not "made for Jew" but was "made for mankind" Mark 2:27. I am going with Christ on that one.

Christ speaking to the Jews, the Pharisees in particular.

5. In the OT - In Isaiah's day - gentiles are specifically blessed for keeping the 7th day Sabbath of creation week. See Isaiah 56.

Isaiah 56 speaks of the Millennial Kingdom, a future event not come yet. It has nothing to do with this day and age.

6. In the OT - in Isaiah's day the scope for Sabbath was defined by God as being for "ALL mankind" - when HE says that from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship, for all eternity in the New Earth of Rev 21 which occurs after the Rev 20 Millennium.

It speaks of the Millennial Kingdom, for it speaks of Jerusalem. It speaks of this earth, not a new earth, not of eternity. It does not speak of this age and therefore not applicable. You don't want to talk of EGW's mark of the beast comments on Protestants do you?

These are the key Bible truths that the 2nd Baptist view above - misses totally - but the first one accepts.

There are no standard "Baptist views," something you don't get.
Everything you have presented is faulty.

And of course - Mark 7:6-13 - it is not valid to edit/change/set-aside one of the Ten Commandments in service to man made traditions.

That passage has nothing to do with the Sabbath. Nothing like twisting Scripture out of its context is there?

Let's be realistic for a second DHK - we both know that Matt 5 blesses the saints with future blessings based on current choices. That does not "negate Matt 5" as you seem to imagine.

Matthew five was teaching principles by which to live by. Isaiah 56 and 66 were definite prophecies of things yet to come. Apples and oranges.

In Isaiah 56 we have a lot of current and past tense keeping of the Sabbath by Gentiles - with a future promise of reward. In the same as as we see in Matt 5.

We have a definite prophecy of something that will happen some time in the future that is not happening now.

Isaiah 56 does not say "There is no sabbath now. But there will be in the Millennial Kingdom." And I think we both know that.

There is no sabbath now. Look around you! Is all the world keeping the sabbath? No, of course not!

Isaiah points to PRESENT and PAST tense obedience by gentiles and then to FUTURE blessing for that obedience (just as we see for us in the NT).

Isaiah is not pointing to this present time, just as he was not pointing to the present time of his age. It wouldn't be prophetic then would it? You are denying prophecy.

 

[BobRyan]

So then that is the second view in the list of two Baptist views.

The Bible view - is in fact the best of both - and leaves their errors in the dust. I think the Seventh-day Baptists get this point.

Option A: The view that says
1. Ten Commandments are the moral law of God.
2. Were given to mankind in Eden.
3. Included the 7th day Sabbath - Saturday.
4. Sabbath still applicable today for the saints.

Is combined with
Option B: the view that says.
1. You cannot bend or edit the Sabbath to point to Sunday.
2. The sunday keeping of today is not the 4th commandment Sabbath -- rather it is tradition not Commandment.

---

But that view while having some truth -denies the bible truths in the first view.

1. The Sabbath commandment is given to mankind in Gen 2:3.
2. The Ex 20:8-11 refers back to Gen 2:3 saying that the Gen 2:1-3 evetn "Alone" establishes the Sabbath commandment for all mankind - see it confirmed in Ex 20:11.
3. The Exodus 16 statement "tomorrow is the Sabbath" proves that Ex 20 is not the giving of the commandment - but rather a reminder of it.
4. Christ also tells us - pre-cross that the Sabbath was not "made for Jew" but was "made for mankind" Mark 2:27. I am going with Christ on that one.
5. In the OT - In Isaiah's day - gentiles are specifically blessed for keeping the 7th day Sabbath of creation week. See Isaiah 56.
6. In the OT - in Isaiah's day the scope for Sabbath was defined by God as being for "ALL mankind" - when HE says that from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship, for all eternity in the New Earth of Rev 21 which occurs after the Rev 20 Millennium.

These are the key Bible truths that the 2nd Baptist view above - misses totally - but the first one accepts.


And of course - Mark 7:6-13 - it is not valid to edit/change/set-aside one of the Ten Commandments in service to man made traditions.

.

Now let's be realistic.
You expect us to believe SDA teaching that when EGW teaches that the Mark of the Beast is upon all Baptists and Protestants .

Le'ts be realistic -

The Baptists (like C.H. Spurgeon) going along with the Baptist Confession of Faith centuries after it was penned - and so then the first list above - do not do it because they follow Ellen White.

D.L. Moody did not agree with that first list above - simply because he was following Ellen White.

And the Seventh-day Baptists are not in agreement with BOTH lists - simply because they are following Ellen White.

I think we both know that - so you are raising a straw issue to suggest that these points listed and the texts that support them are in any way related to the straw man of the form "first you must follow Ellen White to see the points raised in those Bible texts."

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

There is not A Baptist view.
Please get that through your head

There is no "Baptist Confession of Faith" document - even though there IS one - but it does not "exist" in your mind because "all Baptists do not hold to that one document".

There is "NO Baptist view" in your mind alone -because "all Baptists do not hold to a single view".

By your flawed logic "THERE IS No BAPTIST" today - because all Baptists do not agree with any one Baptist today.

Surely you see that your argument does not hold water.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

There is no "Baptist Confession of Faith" document - even though there IS one - but it does not "exist" in your mind because "all Baptists do not hold to that one document".

There is "NO Baptist view" in your mind alone -because "all Baptists do not hold to a single view".

By your flawed logic "THERE IS No BAPTIST" today - because all Baptists do not agree with any one Baptist today.

Surely you see that your argument does not hold water.

in Christ,

Bob

I am IFB (Independent Fundamental Baptist). Sometimes we disagree among ourselves. We do not agree with the SBC.
The SBC has their own "Statement of Faith," which you can find on line. What they have written up is the closest thing that you can find to a modern confession of faith, otherwise there are not any. Our beliefs do not agree with theirs.
I am not Calvinism; I am not Arminian. I do not fit in either one of those camps. The 1689 Confession is decidedly Calvinistic.
The American Baptists are the liberal baptists of the day. They ordain women as pastors, something we would never do. We wouldn't even fellowship with them (ecclesiastically).
There are Charismatic Baptists, whose doctrine I condemn.
The CAC, of which Michael Wrenn was the Bishop of, and claimed to be a Baptist, I could never agree with.
Some believe Finney was a Baptist, but Finney was a heretic.

And on the list goes.
What more proof do you need?
Baptists are not homogenous. Why won't you accept that?

 

[BobRyan]

I am IFB (Independent Fundamental Baptist). Sometimes we disagree among ourselves. We do not agree with the SBC.

Both are Baptist.

Both "exist".

And neither of their Baptist views - can be called "Adventist" as if we authored them or as if we are obligated to hold to every part of them.

In the context of IFB vs SBC - there is non-IFB but there is not "non Baptist".

In the context of IFB and SBC posters comparing Baptist views with Adventist or with Methodist or with Catholics - you can't say "well Baptist does not exist until IFG and SBC agree on every single points of doctrine".

I think we can all agree on that (though the Catholics might actually argue that point - that Baptists don't exist until they can agree on everything).

The 1689 Confession is decidedly Calvinistic.
The American Baptists are the liberal baptists of the day. They ordain women as pastors, something we would never do.

D.L. Moody believed in free will - and objected to predestination - but yet he accepted the teaching in section 19 of the Baptist Confession of Faith.

You cannot blame the differences between IFB and SBC on Seventh-day Adventists nor claim that the SBC is "Adventist" or that they need to follow Ellen White - to take a view that differs from yours.

Surely you must agree with that point.

We wouldn't even fellowship with them (ecclesiastically).
There are Charismatic Baptists, whose doctrine I condemn.
The CAC, of which Michael Wrenn was the Bishop of, and claimed to be a Baptist, I could never agree with.
Some believe Finney was a Baptist, but Finney was a heretic.

And on the list goes.
What more proof do you need?
Baptists are not homogenous. Why won't you accept that?

I suppose (given the wide range of what is called "Baptist") it is fine with me if you want to accuse all your fellow Baptists of following Ellen White whenever they agree with the Baptist Confession of Faith on section 19 instead of your version of the Law of God.

But it seems to me that the case you are really making is that almost ANYTHING is "Baptist" unless we want to make you the Baptist pope and use you as the standard.

I prefer at least stick with well known Baptist models (even when they don't agree with each other.).

In the case of this thread I pick to models that do not agree with each other - but both of them have some valid Bible points and BOTH of them have non-obscure well known Baptists that to this very day hold to those statements.

Which was my point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

But it seems to me that the case you are really making is that almost ANYTHING is "Baptist" unless we want to make you the Baptist pope and use you as the standard.

There is no Baptist standard. I just demonstrated that to you. You won't take my evidence or believe me.

I prefer at least stick with well known Baptist models (even when they don't agree with each other.).

No you don't. You take what you want, and then you misrepresent them. That is deceitful.

In the case of this thread I pick to models that do not agree with each other - but both of them have some valid Bible points and BOTH of them have non-obscure well known Baptists that to this very day hold to those statements.

Which was my point.

in Christ,

Bob

You failed to answer my post which decimated yours.
I took Moody's statement of faith, which you posted, and went through it point by point. I showed you how Moody does not believe in the Sabbath at all. He DOES NOT BELIEVE IN KEEPING THE SABBATH, contrary to your assertions.
His entire emphasis was on worshiping on Sunday; laying aside one day out of seven to come to church on Sunday. Every Baptist on this board believes that, while at the same time denouncing sabbath-keepers. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Moody had a different definition for Sabbath. He was trying to get people back to church to have a regular attendance at church on Sunday and that is all.
To call Moody a Sabbath keeper is ludicrous.
You have misrepresented him.

 

[BobRyan]

But if you want us to concede even an inch, then you have to give an inch.
Both Isaiah 66:23 and Isaiah 56 also refer to a future event

Isaiah 56 includes past and present examples (past and present in Isaiah's day) of Gentiles keeping the Sabbath - and the predict a future reward.

Not unlike Matt 5 and Christ's "blessed are the... for they shall..." format.

Apparently - God "does not change".

There is no sabbath now. But there will be in the Millennial Kingdom. That is the Sabbath that is referred to in Isaiah.

Isaiah 66:23 goes beyond the Millennium to the New Heavens and New Earth of Rev 21 - which is the eternity AFTER the millennium.

And still "ALL mankind" will be coming before God to worship from Sabbath to Sabbath.

You want us to believe "the mark of the beast" on Protestants applies only to the Tribulation, a future event.

Because that is exactly what Rev 13 says.

If there is a Baptist view that puts Rev 13 in the past where it speaks of the mark of the beast and 666 - then I have yet to hear of it.

Is that IFB?? Because I am pretty sure it is not SBC.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

There is no Baptist standard. I just demonstrated that to you. You won't take my evidence or believe me.

No you don't. You take what you want, and then you misrepresent them. That is deceitful.

You failed to answer my post which decimated yours.
I took Moody's statement of faith, which you posted, and went through it point by point. I showed you how Moody does not believe in the Sabbath at all.

I don't know what thread that would be - apparently it is not this one.

In any case when we let Moody speak for himself HE flatly contradicts your claim - while at the same time he goes after his fellow Baptists who would argue as you do - that the Sabbath Commandment has ended.

We have seen this a few dozen times.


http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=87436&page=18

Let's see what Moody said - by letting him speak for himself.


1. Moody vehemently opposes "Sabbath breakers" in his sermon - read it.

DWIGHT L. MOODY

The Ten Commandments:
Exodus 20:2-17 ​

.
The Fourth Commandment
Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:for in six days the LORD made heaven and Earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.

​

THERE HAS BEEN an awful letting-down in this country regarding the Sabbath during the last twenty-five years, and many a man has been shorn of spiritual power, like Samson, because he is not straight on this question. Can you say that you observe the Sabbath properly?You may be a professed Christian: are you obeying this commandment? Or do you neglect the house of God on the Sabbath day, and spend your time drinking and carousing in places of vice and crime, showing contempt for God and His law? Are you ready to step into the scales?Where were you last Sabbath? How did you spend it?

I honestly believe that this commandment is just as binding today as it ever was.I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place.

"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)

It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was- in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins withthe word remember, showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stoneat Sinai.How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?

I believe that the Sabbath question today is a vital one for the whole country. It is the burning question of the present time. If you give up the Sabbath the church goes; if you give up the church the home goes; and if the home goes the nation goes. That is the direction in which we are traveling.

[FONT=&quot]=======================================

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I simply quote Moody above as he condemns your own argument against the Sabbath Commandment - and that is sufficient to give rise to your strong objection to him.


1. Moody claims the 4th commandment - Sabbath was given to MANKIND in Eden. So does the Baptist Confession of Faith - by contrast DHK thinks it was only given to Israel - starting at Sinai.

2. Moody claims that the Sabbath - of the 4th commandment REMAINS in effect from Eden until today and is just as needful today as it ever was. By contrast DHK condemns Sabbath keepers.

3. Moody claims that Sabbath breakers who insist that the 4th commandment Sabbath was done away with have no grounds to stand on. DHK claims that he vehemently opposes Sabbath KEEPERS.


First we notice that Moody is not preaching against 7th - day Sabbath keepers - but against his fellow Sunday-going Christians that attend church on Sunday but then deny that the full force of the Sabbath commandment remains fully applicable to the Christian on Sunday as it did as God gave it to mankiind on Saturday - in Eden.

In other words - he is going after your argument DHK - this is not a sermon bad mouthing those who keep Sabbath on Saturday. In fact Moody is arguing FOR the keeping of the Sabbath commanmdent as a full day of rest and worship - in the same way as the Saturday-Sabbath keeping Christian would have been keeping it in his day - only Moody would have them do it on week-day-1 when convenient.

On all these points - Moody differs with your view.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Where I obviously differ with Moody is the part where he imagines that this eternal law of God is up for bending-wrenching-editing to point to week-day-1.

other than that - the basic points about this being the Sabbath itself starting in Gen 2:3 - applicable to all mankind and still binding on the saints today - I agree with fully.

I just don't accept the man-made-tradition of bending that very Sabbath - to point to week-day-1.

I have said this a few dozen times on this board by now - but apparently some love to pretend that it was never said.

[/FONT][/FONT]I have said this a few dozen times on this board by now - but apparently some love to pretend that it was never said.

I said



You respond by saying in essence "yes but what you missed is that after the cross Moody says the Sabbath commandment now points to Sunday - week - day 1".

Your response is written as if you are not even reading the post.

Originally Posted by BobRyan
[FONT=&quot].

Where I obviously differ with Moody is the part where he imagines that this eternal law of God is up for bending-wrenching-editing to point to week-day-1.

other than that - the basic points about this being the Sabbath itself starting in Gen 2:3 - applicable to all mankind and still binding on the saints today - I agree with fully.

I just don't accept the man-made-tradition of bending that very Sabbath - to point to week-day-1.

[/FONT]I have said this a few dozen times on this board by now - but apparently some love to pretend that it was never said.

His (D.L. Moody's) entire emphasis was on worshiping on Sunday; laying aside one day out of seven to come to church on Sunday. Every Baptist on this board believes that, while at the same time denouncing sabbath-keepers. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Moody had a different definition for Sabbath. He was trying to get people back to church to have a regular attendance at church on Sunday and that is all.
.

Allow me to quote myself - from the post above.

[FONT=&quot]Where I obviously differ with Moody is the part where he imagines that this eternal law of God is up for bending-wrenching-editing to point to week-day-1.

In Christ,

Bob[/FONT]

 

[Yeshua1]

Quote moody all you want, the persons who have inspired knowledge of this are Jesus and His Apostles!

 

[BobRyan]

Quote moody all you want, the persons who have inspired knowledge of this are Jesus and His Apostles!

in your war against the Bible AND even your own Baptist documents such as the "Baptist Confession of Faith" on this topic - do you insist on ignoring the "actual Bible texts" that we find there - as if the "Bible does not exist" when it is inconvenient for your traditions?

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

http://www.creeds.net/baptists/1689/kerkham/1689.htm#Ch19



THE LAW OF GOD


19.1 God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart,1 and a specific precept not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.2 By this he bound him and all his descendants to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience. God promised life on fulfilling it, and threatened death on breaching it, and he endued him with power and ability to keep it.3
(1) Gen 1:27; Ecc 7:29; Rom 2:12a,14-15
(2) Gen 2:16-17
(3) Gen 2:16-17; Rom 10:5; Gal 3:10,12

19.2 The same law that was first written in the human heart continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall.1 It was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in TEN commandments (written in two tables) the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six our duty to our fellow beings.3
(1) For the Fourth Commandment: Gen 2:3; Exo 16; Gen 7:4; 8:10,12. For the Fifth Commandment: Gen 37:10. For the Sixth Commandment: Gen 4:3-15. For the Seventh Commandment: Gen 12:17. For the Eighth Commandment: Gen 31:30; 44:8. For the Ninth Commandment: Gen 27:12. For the Tenth Commandment: Gen 6:2; 13:10-11
(2) Rom 2:12a,14-15
(3) Exo 32:15-16; 34:4,28; Deu 10:4

19.3 Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased to give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These were partly concerning worship, and in them Christ was prefigured—his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits.1 They also gave instructions about various moral duties.2 All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of the New Testament, when Jesus Christ abrogated them and took them away, for he was the true Messiah and only law-giver, and was empowered to do this by the Father.3
(1) Heb 10:1; Col 2:16-17
(2) 1Co 5:7; 2Co 6:17; Jude 1:23
(3) Col 2:14,16-17; Eph 2:14-16

19.4 To the people of Israel he also gave various judicial laws which lapsed when they ceased as a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation,1 but their principles of equity continue to be applicable in modern times.2
(1) Luk 21:20-24; Act 6:13-14; Heb 9:18-19 with 8:7,13; 9:10; 10:1
(2) 1Co 5:1; 9:8-10

19.5 Obedience to the moral law remains forever binding on all, both justified persons and others,1 both in regard to the content of the law, and also to the authority of God the Creator who gave the law.2 Nor does Christ in any way dissolve this law in the Gospel, on the contrary, he strengthens our obligation [to obey the moral law].3
(1) Mat 19:16-22; Rom 2:14-15; 3:19-20; 6:14; 7:6; 8:3; 1Ti 1:8-11; Rom 13:8-10; 1Co 7:19 with Gal 5:6; 6:15; Eph 4:25-6:4; Jas 2:11-12
(2) Jas 2:10-11
(3) Mat 5:17-19; Rom 3:31; 1Co 9:21; Jas 2:8

19.6 Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works to be justified or condemned by it,1 yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty, and directs and binds them to walk accordingly.2
It also exposes the sinful defilement of their natures, hearts and lives, and as they use it to examine themselves, they come to greater conviction of sin, humiliation for sin, and hatred against sin. They also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience [to the law].3
Similarly, it is of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruption in that it forbids sin. The threatening of the law serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what troubles they may expect in this life because of their sins, even though they are freed from the curse and undiminished rigors of the law.4
The promises of the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept,5 although these blessings are not due to them through the law as a covenant of works.6 If someone does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages the former and deters from the latter, that is not evidence of one's being under the law and not under grace.7
(1) Act 13:39; Rom 6:14; 8:1; 10:4; Gal 2:16; 4:4-5
(2) Rom 7:12,22,25; Psa 119:4-6; 1Co 7:19
(3) Rom 3:20; 7:7,9,14,24; 8:3; Jas 1:23-25
(4) Jas 2:11; Psa 119:101,104,128
(5) Eph 6:2-3; Psa 37:11; Mat 5:6; Psa 19:11
(6) Luk 17:10
(7) See the book of Proverbs; Mat 3:7; Luk 13:3,5; Act 2:40; Heb 11:26; 1Pe 3:8-13
19.7 These uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but are entirely in line with it, for the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the human will to do freely and cheerfully what the will of God revealed in the law requires to be done.1
(1) Gal 3:21; Jer 31:33; Eze 36:27; Rom 8:4; Tit 2:14

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

in your war against the Bible AND your own Baptist documents - you are missing a lot of NT texts from Paul, words of Christ and writings of the Apostles on these points where you choose your own traditions over the Bible.

Surely you knew the objective unbiased readers would "notice".

 

[DHK]

[FONT=&quot]Where I obviously differ with Moody is the part where he imagines that this eternal law of God is up for bending-wrenching-editing to point to week-day-1.

In Christ,

Bob[/FONT]

1. Moody distances himself in his sermon with a caveat stating that nothing in his sermon is in agreement with SDA doctrine. He distances himself totally from the SDA movement.

2. Moody does not believe in keeping the Sabbath.

3. The very people he admonishes to "keep the 'Sabbath,'" (as a day of worship), he admits that that is his day of work. He works on that very day that he admonishes others to rest. Obviously Moody does not keep the Sabbath.

4. To Moody the Sabbath is Sunday.

5. By no stretch of the imagination does Moody keep any of the Levitical laws related to the Sabbath, the abstaining of pork, etc.

6. Moody defines "keeping the Sabbath" as being faithful in church on Sunday, and nothing more than that.

Now, can we get back to the Bible.

 

[The Biblicist]

1. Moody distances himself in his sermon with a caveat stating that nothing in his sermon is in agreement with SDA doctrine. He distances himself totally from the SDA movement.

2. Moody does not believe in keeping the Sabbath.

3. The very people he admonishes to "keep the 'Sabbath,'" (as a day of worship), he admits that that is his day of work. He works on that very day that he admonishes others to rest. Obviously Moody does not keep the Sabbath.

4. To Moody the Sabbath is Sunday.

5. By no stretch of the imagination does Moody keep any of the Levitical laws related to the Sabbath, the abstaining of pork, etc.

6. Moody defines "keeping the Sabbath" as being faithful in church on Sunday, and nothing more than that.

Now, can we get back to the Bible.

This is true! I studied Moody's and Spurgeons use of "Sabbath" and they always meant Sunday by it.

 

[BobRyan]

I would argue that the 50-plus texts I just posted in my prior post - are actual Bible texts on this subject, on the very points where your argument falls short of the Bible test.

 

[DHK]

I would argue that the 50-plus texts I just posted in my prior post - are actual Bible texts on this subject, on the very points where your argument falls short of the Bible test.

Then take them one at a time, and resolve them.
For example:
Where in Genesis 2:3 is there any command to keep the Sabbath?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

With all due respect to Bob, it seems to me that the insistence on the absolute necessity of keeping Saturday as the sabbath is an extreme form of legalism.

 

[Herald]

The moral law of God is the inherent knowledge of right and wrong. This is displayed in the narrative of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4. God told Cain that sin was crouching at the door and its desire was for him, but he must master it. Cain killed Abel, knowing it was wrong to do so. Noah's contemporaries knew right from wrong but did "only evil continually". The moral law of God was codefied in Exodus 20. It is binding today unlike the ceremonial and judicial law which were fulfilled in Christ. For those who disagree God's moral law is binding, what is sin? Is not disobedience against God's commands? Those commands are God's moral law - the knowledge of right and wrong.

 

[Yeshua1]

With all due respect to Bob, it seems to me that the insistence on the absolute necessity of keeping Saturday as the sabbath is an extreme form of legalism.

Ke must insist on doing that, for the prophetess Ellen White had 'revealtion" to the SDA that keeping the Sabbath will one day seperate out those real saved Christians, from false ones!

Those doing Sunday will be taking "mark of the beast!"