The 4th Commandment Sabbath WAS change but not in the Bible

[DHK]

Whoa. The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith confesses Sunday as the Lord's Day, not Saturday. It begins by stating that from the beginning the Sabbath was on the 7th day of the week but changed to the 1st day of week under the New Covenant.

I'm just correcting the record. Don't lump confessional Baptists in with the author of the OP.

I am not. The author of the OP is deceitfully trying to use Baptist Confessions to try and prove that Baptists keep the Sabbath. They don't. They redefine the Sabbath. The Sabbath of the SDA is not the same as the Sabbath in these confessions, neither are they kept in the same way.

"To keep the Sabbath" has a completely different meaning as set forth in the Confession than by the SDA.
It also has a completely different meaning than what God told the Israelites in Exodus 20:7-11 and in Exodus 31. Also in these passages if they did not keep the Sabbath they were taken out and stoned, a point that Bob conveniently ignores.

Neither he nor we keeps the Sabbath, at least not according to Biblical standards. Quoting from a Baptist Confession is a frivolous thing to do.
For example Moody's confession is what Moody believes; it is not what I believe. Moody is not here to defend what he believes.
If he wants to know what I believe then I am here to defend what I believe. He must debate those of us who are currently living, not the past. We all can write our own confessions out for him. It is called a statement of faith nowadays. Most of us have already done that concerning the Sabbath, but he would rather go back to what the past writers have written and use that as his authority, and not the Word of God.

Why is he debating the past and not us?

 

[Yeshua1]

Whoa. The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith confesses Sunday as the Lord's Day, not Saturday. It begins by stating that from the beginning the Sabbath was on the 7th day of the week but changed to the 1st day of week under the New Covenant.

I'm just correcting the record. Don't lump confessional Baptists in with the author of the OP.

actually, sabbath NEVER changed, but that day is NOT binding upon us under new Covenant!

 

[Herald]

Quoting from a Baptist Confession is a frivolous thing to do.

Only if the person quoting has nefarious motives. The author of the OP did this by quoting a snippet from the 1689 LBC without telling the whole story.

As a confessional Baptist I do not consider the 1689 LBC to be equal with Scripture. The Confession does what its name implies; it confesses biblical truth. As a historical document it links the past with the present. It allows people of like mind to say, "We are in agreement that this is what the Bible teaches." When individuals try to use any confession as a source of truth they are guilty of dishonoring God's Word.

I understand that there are many Christians who place little value in the confessions. That is fine by me as I am not interested in trying to convince them otherwise. As for me, I do see value in the 1689 LBC as a teaching tool.

 

[DHK]

Only if the person quoting has nefarious motives. The author of the OP did this by quoting a snippet from the 1689 LBC without telling the whole story.

As a confessional Baptist I do not consider the 1689 LBC to be equal with Scripture. The Confession does what its name implies; it confesses biblical truth. As a historical document it links the past with the present. It allows people of like mind to say, "We are in agreement that this is what the Bible teaches." When individuals try to use any confession as a source of truth they are guilty of dishonoring God's Word.

I understand that there are many Christians who place little value in the confessions. That is fine by me as I am not interested in trying to convince them otherwise. As for me, I do see value in the 1689 LBC as a teaching tool.

It may be a teaching tool, and I would not deny that to you.
Regular Baptist Press also has many teaching tools.

Do you agree with absolutely everything that is written in that document?
I certainly don't. It is not representative of my beliefs.
As Bob keeps repeating: "It is THE Baptist Confession of faith."
--That is a false statement. It is not. It is a confession of faith, one of many. I can write my own, nowadays called a statement of faith. I had to do that for my ordination. It is just as valid.

We are not debating the past, but rather the present.
If that is what past believers believed, then so be it.
But that is not what a good majority of present believers believe.

Furthermore, language has changed. As you pointed out elsewhere, Sabbath then meant Christian Sabbath. They did not keep the Sabbath; they observed Sunday as a day of worship. Bob twists this to fit his own purposes.
What does it mean to keep the sabbath according to the Bible?
Establish that first.
Then compare it to what the SDA believes.
Then compare it to what the Confession believes.
Then compare it to what we believe today.
--Are they the same?

 

[Herald]

It may be a teaching tool, and I would not deny that to you.
Regular Baptist Press also has many teaching tools.

Do you agree with absolutely everything that is written in that document?
I certainly don't. It is not representative of my beliefs.
As Bob keeps repeating: "It is THE Baptist Confession of faith."
--That is a false statement. It is not. It is a confession of faith, one of many. I can write my own, nowadays called a statement of faith. I had to do that for my ordination. It is just as valid.

We are not debating the past, but rather the present.
If that is what past believers believed, then so be it.
But that is not what a good majority of present believers believe.

Furthermore, language has changed. As you pointed out elsewhere, Sabbath then meant Christian Sabbath. They did not keep the Sabbath; they observed Sunday as a day of worship. Bob twists this to fit his own purposes.
What does it mean to keep the sabbath according to the Bible?
Establish that first.
Then compare it to what the SDA believes.
Then compare it to what the Confession believes.
Then compare it to what we believe today.
--Are they the same?

Do I agree with the 1689 LBC en toto? No. I agree with most of it. I disagree that the Pope is THE antichrist. I believe the papacy is in the spirit of antichrist. I agree with most everything else in the 1689 because it represents accurately my doctrinal beliefs.

I do not bind the conscience of other Christians. That I am confessional does not mean someone else must be confessional.

You are right in asserting the 1689 is not THE Baptist confession. After all, since when have Baptists been monolithic in anything?

While we're not debating the past that does mean we are to automatically dismiss the debates of the past. Biblical truth withstands the test of time. I am satisfied that the 1689 rightly interprets the fall of man, the return of Christ, election, and the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper et. al. It was written in 17th century English, but that doesn't lessen its relevance. I am not KJVO, but the KJV isn't less relevant because of its own use of 17th century English.

DHK, I respect that you and others do not subscribe to the 1689 LBC. Thank you for recognizing that the the author of the OP misrepresented the confessional view of the Lord's Day. I just want non-confessional believers to understand that confessional believers believe that only the Bible is the sole source of authority for all matters of faith and practice.

 

[BobRyan]

Thank you for recognizing that the the author of the OP misrepresented the confessional view of the Lord's Day. I just want non-confessional believers to understand that confessional believers believe that only the Bible is the sole source of authority for all matters of faith and practice.

Correction: In the OP there is no statement that the "Baptist Confession of Faith" is accepted by all Baptists or that it is a binding document for all Baptists.

But it is most certainly not the "Catholic confession of Faith" nor can it be blamed on some non-Baptist source. Nor can Spurgeon's view of it be sidelined as just another non-Baptist point of view.

Nor can it be denied to "exist".

Nor can it be argued that Moody or Spurgeon or Stanley today are at war against the "Baptist Confession of Faith" when it comes to section 19 of that document.

The 50+ texts listed in the 1689 version are pointing to the origin of Sabbath in Gen 2:3 and its continued application to the saints today - pretty hard to ignore these basic facts.

Nor is there another document by that title known to a wide number of actual Baptists.

I think we can all see that point.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Herald
The Sabbath, or as it is referred to under the New Covenant as the Lord's Day, is a creation ordinance. It pre-dated the Mosaic Law (c.f. Genesis 2:3; Exodus 16:23). The Reformers used to call the Lord's Day the Christian sabbath. Their idea of the Christian sabbath was radically different than the Jewish Sabbath. Their idea of the Christian sabbath, or Lord's Day, was:



However one decides to observe the Lord's Day, it is not an optional command.

you make some good points when you quote this part of their beliefs.

"As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week,"

That is exactly what the Westminster Confession of Faith says about it.

It is also what the Baptist Confession of Faith says about it. And it also what the Catechism says about it.

The moral law of God is the Ten Commandments as a unit as we see in Eph 6 where the 5th commandment is "the first commandment with a promise".

In Rev 14:12 and in 1John 5:2-3 we are told that the saints keep the "Commandments of God".

In James 2- to break one is to break them all.

Thus all these documents affirming the faith of a number of Christian denominations - are right to say that

1. the Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments Exodus 20:8-11
2. The Sabbath begins for mankind in Eden Gen 2:3 and so before Sinai stone tablets as even Ex 16 points out.
3. The Ten Commandments are Bible unit of Law even in the NT Eph 6.
4. The Ten Commandments are the moral law of God written on the heart. Heb 8
5. To break one is to break them all. no slice and dice doctrines for 10C's James 2.
6. The Sabbath is also called the Lord's Day in the Bible Mark 2:27 Isaiah 58:13 The SAME Sabbath commandment is just as important for mankind today as in Gen 2:3 and is binding on the saints.
7. The Moral law is written on the heart under the New Covenant Heb 8 (Jer 31:31-33).
8. The saints of the NT "Keep the Commandments of God" Rev 14:12, 1John 5:2,3

Where I differ with those documents and with D.L. Moody - is that they then go on to ignore Christ's teaching Mark 7:6-13 -- in that they clam to bend-wrench-twist that commandment to point to week-day-1 instead of the 7th day of the week. Deleting the actual words of the 4th commandment to insert their own tradition of "any one day in 7 that we pick"

 

[Eliyahu]

I am not ignoring any details. You refuse to answer questions.
Where in Genesis 2:3 is there a command to keep the Sabbath?
No answer??

God rested on Sabbath, and blessed and sanctified it. God never sanctified any other day ( Gen 2:3) What was written in the hearts of men ( Rom 2:15) ?

Please read the followings by Spurgeon and Wesley



In the first place our Lord Jesus declares that he did not come to abolish it. His words are most express: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” And Paul tells us with regard to the gospel, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (Romans 3:31). The gospel is the means of the firm establishment and vindication of the law of God.
Jesus did not come to change the law, but he came to explain it, and that very fact shows that it remains, for there is no need to explain that which is abrogated. Upon one particular point in which there happened to be a little ceremonialism involved, namely, the keeping of the Sabbath, our Lord enlarged, and showed that the Jewish idea was not the true one. The Pharisees forbade even the doing of works of necessity and mercy, such as rubbing ears of corn to satisfy hunger, and healing the sick. Our Lord Jesus showed that it was not at all according to the mind of God to forbid these things. In straining over the letter, and carrying an outward observance to excess, they had missed the spirit of the Sabbath law, which suggested works of piety such as truly hallow the day. He showed that Sabbatic rest was not mere inaction, and he said, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” He pointed to the priests who labored hard at offering sacrifices, and said of them, “the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless.” They were doing divine service, and were within the law. To meet the popular error he took care to do some of his grandest miracles upon the Sabbath-day; and though this excited great wrath against him, as though he were a law-breaker, yet he did it on purpose that they might see that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, and that it is meant to be a day for doing that which honors God and blesses men. O that men knew how to keep the spiritual Sabbath by a easing from all servile work, and from all work done for self, The rest of faith is the true Sabbath, and the service of God is the most acceptable hallowing of the day. Oh that the day were wholly spent in serving God and doing good! The sum of our Lord’s teaching was that works of necessity, works of mercy, and works of piety are lawful on the Sabbath. He did explain the law in that point and in others, yet that explanation did not alter the command, but only removed the rust of tradition which had settled upon it. By thus explaining the law he confirm*!ed it; he could not have meant to abolish it or he would not have needed to expound it.

http://www.angelfire.com/va/sovereigngrace/perpetuity.spurgeon.html​

"The moral law, contained in the Ten Commandments and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away. It was not the design of His coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken, which 'stands fast as the faithful witness in heaven.' . . .


This was from the beginning of the world, being 'written not on tables of stone,' but on the hearts of all the children of men, when they came out of the hands of the Creator. ​

​

http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/greatmen.html

"I cannot spare the law one moment, no more than I can spare Christ.. each is continually sending me to the other.. the law to Christ, and Christ to the law.. the height and depth of the law constrain me to fly to the love of God in Christ.. the love of God in Christ endears the law to me.. above gold or precious stones;" - (John Wesley, The Original, Nature, Property, and Use of the Law. IV.7)

http://www.thebible-tencommandments.com/did-jesus-abolish-law.html​

 

[DHK]

God rested on Sabbath, and blessed and sanctified it. God never sanctified any other day ( Gen 2:3) What was written in the hearts of men ( Rom 2:15) ?

Don't misquote Genesis 2:3

Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
--There is no "Sabbath" in Genesis 2:3.

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
--the moral law of God.
This has nothing to do with the Sabbath Day, a day given to the nation of Israel only. To keep it was their obligation; not to keep it would earn them the death penalty. It was a sign of a covenant between Jehovah and Israel and their generations forever (Ex.31), and was never given to the Gentiles.
Is it part of the moral law?
No. There is nothing moral or immoral about keeping a day holy.

Please read the followings by Spurgeon and Wesley

O that men knew how to keep the spiritual Sabbath by a easing from all servile work, and from all work done for self, The rest of faith is the true Sabbath, and the service of God is the most acceptable hallowing of the day. Oh that the day were wholly spent in serving God and doing good! The sum of [b\our Lord’s teaching was that works of necessity, works of mercy, and works of piety are lawful on the Sabbath.[/b] He did explain the law in that point and in others, yet that explanation did not alter the command, but only removed the rust of tradition which had settled upon it. By thus explaining the law he confirm*!ed it; he could not have meant to abolish it or he would not have needed to expound it.

http://www.angelfire.com/va/sovereigngrace/perpetuity.spurgeon.html

First, in the above explanation, Sabbath means Sunday. In reality they did not believe in the Sabbath at all.
Secondly, it is obvious by the bolded parts that the Sabbath was not to be kept according to OT law.
All of these preachers in that day and age defined Sabbath as the "Lord's Day," or Sunday.
Therefore they did not keep the Sabbath. Words need to be defined.

"The moral law, contained in the Ten Commandments and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away. It was not the design of His coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken, which 'stands fast as the faithful witness in heaven.' . . .


This was from the beginning of the world, being 'written not on tables of stone,' but on the hearts of all the children of men, when they came out of the hands of the Creator.

http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/greatmen.html

"I cannot spare the law one moment, no more than I can spare Christ.. each is continually sending me to the other.. the law to Christ, and Christ to the law.. the height and depth of the law constrain me to fly to the love of God in Christ.. the love of God in Christ endears the law to me.. above gold or precious stones;" - (John Wesley, The Original, Nature, Property, and Use of the Law. IV.7)

http://www.thebible-tencommandments.com/did-jesus-abolish-law.html​

The moral law is written on the hears of men. So what.
There is nothing moral or immoral about keeping the Sabbath or any day for that matter. That is not part of God's moral law. The Sabbath was a day given to the Jews. It is a sign of the covenant given to them; the penalty for breaking it was death. Are you prepared to live with that?

 

[BobRyan]

Don't misquote Genesis 2:3

Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
--There is no "Sabbath" in Genesis 2:3.

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
--the moral law of God.
This has nothing to do with the Sabbath Day,

Until you read Ex 20:11 AND compare it to Gen 2:3.

Ex 20
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2:3
Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had restedfrom all his work which God created and made.


No wonder the lights come on at that point for Seventh-day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and even well known historic documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the "Baptist Confession of Faith", the Catechism and those who study them - such as Moody, Spurgeon, Sproul, Stanley and others.

Yes indeed - the lights come on and you see what Christ meant when He talked about "Sabbath MADE for MANKIND" in Mark 2:27.

Here is another point where I could easily - agree agreeably.

The sum of [b\our Lord’s teaching was that works of necessity, works of mercy, and works of piety are lawful on the Sabbath.[/b] He did explain the law in that point and in others, yet that explanation did not alter the command, but only removed the rust of tradition

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Correction: In the OP there is no statement that the "Baptist Confession of Faith" is accepted by all Baptists or that it is a binding document for all Baptists.

But it is most certainly not the "Catholic confession of Faith" nor can it be blamed on some non-Baptist source. Nor can Spurgeon's view of it be sidelined as just another non-Baptist point of view.

Nor can it be denied to "exist".

Every Baptist Confession that has ever been written in history "cannot be denied." So what is your point. Why quote from this one? So it is not SDA; it is not RCC. What is your point?
Why not use this one:
http://www.celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/principles.html

Do you think the above is representative of our beliefs because the one who wrote it is also a "Baptist" and used to post here.
They are historical documents written by men. I have my own. Like Michael Wrenn, I can put it up on my own website and make it official looking if you wish.
Nor can that be denied.

Nor can it be argued that Moody or Spurgeon or Stanley today are at war against the "Baptist Confession of Faith" when it comes to section 19 of that document.

The 50+ texts listed in the 1689 version are pointing to the origin of Sabbath in Gen 2:3 and its continued application to the saints today - pretty hard to ignore these basic facts.

Nor is there another document by that title known to a wide number of actual Baptists.

I think we can all see that point.

Bob

When will you stop lying? Not one of those Baptists named believe in keeping the Sabbath, but you affirm that they do.
All of them affirm that the Sabbath is defined as Sunday, the Lord's Day, the first day of the week. You are continuously deceptive here. They no more kept the Sabbath than I do. Stop being so deceptive about this matter. Not one of these men kept the Sabbath. The admonished others to gather on church on Sundays. That is all they meant by keeping the Sabbath--the same thing that I do today.

 

[BobRyan]

You are welcome to hatch your own document name it what you will - name it the same thing that C.H. Spurgeon was editing in the 1800's and then imagine that all the world is now confused as to which "Baptist Confession of Faith" is the actual historic document of record.

You have free will - you can do as you wish.

You can say that no Baptist nor Baptist document is in fact "Baptist" until all Baptists on the planet are in full agreement with the person or the document. Thus reaching the odd result that by such a rule - there are no Baptists and no Baptist documents on the planet.

You have free will - you can do as you wish.

I don't quote other baptists or historic baptist documents to say that they are your master or authority (nor have I ever claimed on this board that those individuals kept the Saturday Sabbath of the actual Bible) - merely that they "exist" and that (their acceptance of the Bible Sabbath given to mankind starting in Eden) is not some sort view unique to "SDAs and/oe Ellen White" - but rather other data "exists" showing that such a myopic twist of the subject is not supported by the "details".

There are in fact "specific points" where we are not at all in disagreement with those sources. AND there is no "rule" that we must "disagree disagreeably" on specific points where we do agree with those sources.

My approach is to parse out the doctrine into its component parts showing where we have agreement - vs - where the line of disagreement exists. Turns out that is very helpful for the objective unbiased reader

By Contrast -. You appear to prefer to jumble everything up so that all agreement is disagreement on everything - if there is even one point of difference anywhere in your mix. You are free to pursue that as you wish - I just don't choose to do it.

When will you stop lying? Not one of those Baptists named believe in keeping the Sabbath, but you affirm that they do.
All of them affirm that the Sabbath is defined as Sunday, the Lord's Day, .

1. your own statement is self conflicted as you admit that their own view is that they are keeping the 4th commandment on Sunday as you also claim they do not believe in keeping the Sabbath. As was noted earlier each of those individuals claims that they are keeping the Sabbath (their own claims) and they specifically single out your view on Sabbath only applying to Jews - to oppose. As to whether their practice in fact fulfills the actual Bible commandment - I happen to agree with you that their practice does not - here is where you have chosen once again to agree disagreeably for reasons I cannot explain.

2. This is your "jumbled mix" model I pointed out above - where you simply shoe-horn in your own jumble-and-mix model for the entire subject into my "componant parts" model where I agree on some points of the subject and differ with other points.

Then in true jumbled-mix fashion you lash out with 'stop lying' as if I had ever adopted your mashup-jumble-and-mix form of dealing with the subject and claimed that these individuals were Seventh-day Baptist or something of the sort keeping the actual Bible Sabbath as God gave it - Saturday.

But in real life - I never used your jumble-and-mix methods and then claimed that they kept the Saturday SAbbath of the Bible. Rather I keep whining that they are bending it at the cross to point to week day 1. As we all know - (even you when you are being honest). I deal with each point of the subject on its own merits. No jumble-and-mix such that "any disagreement" is "All disagreement". Nor do I choose your model of "agreeing disagreeably" whenever possible.

I simply don't use your methods.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Until you read Ex 20:11 AND compare it to Gen 2:3.

Ex 20
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2:3
Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had restedfrom all his work which God created and made.

Exodus is written to the Jew. Genesis is not.
The Sabbath is given to Israel, the reason for it is partially given in Genesis 2:3, but that doesn't mean there is a command in Genesis 2:3 to keep the Sabbath, the command is still given to Israel, not to Gentiles.
The principle of one day out of seven is given in Genesis two, and that is all.
The same is true with marriage.
The first marriage is consummated in Gen.2:24.
But the Levitical laws of adultery are not given until Exodus, and they are very specific. They are given only to the Jews. For example we don't stone those that commit adultery. We don't adhere to all the specific laws that they do.
However it is a "moral law" in that all the world knows that adultery is wrong, for it is written on their hearts. The law concerning the sabbath is not. There is nothing moral or immoral about the sabbath.

No wonder the lights come on at that point for Seventh-day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and even well known historic documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the "Baptist Confession of Faith", the Catechism and those who study them - such as Moody, Spurgeon, Sproul, Stanley and others.

SDA's believe in the Sabbath, and the rest don't.
Simple.
Worshiping on Sunday is not keeping the Sabbath. Why delude yourself?

Yes indeed - the lights come on and you see what Christ meant when He talked about "Sabbath MADE for MANKIND" in Mark 2:27.

I enjoy Saturday and Sunday, as I enjoy Tuesday and Wednesday.
I worship the Lord every day.
The sabbath was made for mankind.
The entire creation was made for mankind, not just one day.
Jesus was speaking to Jews when speaking about the sabbath. The sabbath was made for the Jews. Study Exodus 31.

 

[DHK]

1. your own statement is self conflicted as you admit that their own view is that they are keeping the 4th commandment on Sunday as you also claim they do not believe in keeping the Sabbath. As was noted earlier each of those individuals claims that they are keeping the Sabbath (their own claims) and they specifically single out your view on Sabbath only applying to Jews - to oppose. As to whether their practice in fact fulfills the actual Bible commandment - I happen to agree with you that their practice does not - here is where you have chosen once again to agree disagreeably for reasons I cannot explain.

I will try to make more clear for you.
First, I don't believe in the worship of the Sabbath at all; for the word sabbath is misused.
2. Moody, et.al., do not believe in keeping the sabbath for the sabbath is Saturday. They redefined the word sabbath to mean "Sunday." Their "keeping the Sabbath" was in no way comparable to how the Bible defined "keeping the sabbath." Unlike you, they would not even prepare food the day before. To them it simply meant going to church faithfully on Sunday. That is not "keeping the sabbath."
3. Therefore it is safe to say that Moody, the Confession, etc. do not teach that one must "keep the sabbath."
4. I said that I agreed with them in principle. My vocabulary is different, as is yours. I would never use the word "sabbath." Thus you are the one that is conflicted and confused with your discombobulated theology, not I.

2. This is your "jumbled mix" model I pointed out above - where you simply shoe-horn in your own jumble-and-mix model for the entire subject into my "componant parts" model where I agree on some points of the subject and differ with other points.

I am consistent in what I believe; you are not.
You have a "pick and choose; pick and choose" theology.
"I will pick to obey part of the Sabbath; but not all the Sabbath."
I will prepare some of my food before time, but not everything.
I will refrain from eating pork; but ignore the command about wearing the same kind of clothing.
Even though I will cook food the day before, I won't gather the fuel the day before.
I wonder if everyone that goes to your church confines themselves to 5/8 of a mile or a "sabbath day's journey?
--It is pick and choose; pick and choose. There are 613 commands in the OT, Bob. How many do you keep, and how many do you ignore? Care to explain.

Then in true jumbled-mix fashion you lash out with 'stop lying' as if I had ever adopted your mashup-jumble-and-mix form of dealing with the subject and claimed that these individuals were Seventh-day Baptist or something of the sort keeping the actual Bible Sabbath as God gave it - Saturday.

Almost every time you quote Moody as keeping the Sabbath you lie. He does not.
In fact given the 613 commands of the law, and their relation to each other, it is doubtful that you keep the sabbath either.

But in real life - I never used your jumble-and-mix methods and then claimed that they kept the Saturday SAbbath of the Bible. Rather I keep whining that they are bending it at the cross to point to week day 1.

Then stop quoting them.

As we all know - (even you when you are being honest). I deal with each point of the subject on its own merits. No jumble-and-mix such that "any disagreement" is "All disagreement". Nor do I choose your model of "agreeing disagreeably" whenever possible.

I simply don't use your methods.

My method is scriptural. I use sola scriptura which you seem to have given up. You have gone to other authorities. You have left the scriptures.
You fail to deal with Exodus 31 and other such scriptures. You would rather use documents written by man that are not representative of our beliefs. That in itself is shameful.

 

[BobRyan]

I will try to make more clear for you.
First, I don't believe in the worship of the Sabbath at all; for the word sabbath is misused.

In my "two Baptist views combined" post I single that out as one of the two view.

What I never do - is your method of shoe-horning into Moody's quote. I allow Moody to speak for himself. Your method is so unreliable that it leads you to claim that a mere quote of Moody - a direct verbatim quote 'is a lie' told by the one who quotes Moody.

How transparently flawed.

2. Moody, et.al., do not believe in keeping the sabbath for the sabbath is Saturday. They redefined the word sabbath to mean "Sunday."

They in their own words claim that they keep Sabbath. That is the first view - it exists. They hold to it.

You argue that their definition does not fit the Bible definition of the Commandment.

They explicitly select your view - and condemn it when it comes to your claim that the Sabbath is only for Jews and only started at Sinai.

This is irrefutable.

I keep pointing to this is the "two views" - and I keep showing where I do agree with parts of each - and where I differ.

You insert your jumbled mashup mixing all details all points for a given view and then try to project your methods onto me - as if I do what you are doing. I do not.

3. Therefore it is safe to say that Moody, the Confession, etc. do not teach that one must "keep the sabbath."

This is your jumbled mashup where your statement above directly contradicts what Moody claims.

I myself have stated numerous times that I don't accept Moody's version of the Sabbath as sunday - but I do accept the part he gets right - which is that Sabbath is for all mankind and begins as Saturday in Eden Gen 2:3.

I simply don't use your mashup idea. I leave that to you. But apparently you prefer to pretend I used your methods and thus lie about Moody by merely "Quoting Moody".

4. I said that I agreed with them in principle. My vocabulary is different, as is yours. I would never use the word "sabbath."

Indeed you would not use Moody's words - so you object to a quote of him - calling the mere QUOTE - a lie.

--It is pick and choose; pick and choose. There are 613 commands in the OT, Bob. How many do you keep, and how many do you ignore? Care to explain.

Over 1000 commands in the NT ---- which of them do you ignore because they are over your 613 limit?

Have you read 1John 5:2-3? I keep bringing it up each time you go there.

Almost every time you quote Moody as keeping the Sabbath you lie. He does not.

Notice you claim that a mere QUOTE of Moody is "a lie".

And you then insert your own mashup idea - into a quote of Moody where Moody claims HE keeps the Sabbath.

My method is scriptural. I use sola scriptura which you seem to have given up. You have gone to other authorities. You have left the scriptures.

We both know that is not true because I repeatedly point out that there is no obligation on the part of SDAs to hold to the Baptist Confession of Faith.

And as pointed out numerous times - I affirm that when they get something right - biblicaly correct I am willing to "Agree agreeably" and recognize the Bible point. You stick to your mashup idea where no point should be agreed to no matter how correct unless done disagreeably - if there is any part where one differs. I don't use your methods. Thus I am free to admit to specific details where agreement exists.

You fail to deal with Exodus 31 and other such scriptures.

I have responded to Ex 31 numerous times showing the distinction between ceremonial laws and moral laws like the Ten Commandments.

So also do those non-SDA documents admit to that same Bible point.

I have no problem at all admitting to a point that is correct when I find one. EVEN if it is made by someone that is not SDA.

So no mashup for me.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Until you read Ex 20:11 AND compare it to Gen 2:3.

Ex 20
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2:3
Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had restedfrom all his work which God created and made.


No wonder the lights come on at that point for Seventh-day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and even well known historic documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the "Baptist Confession of Faith", the Catechism and those who study them - such as Moody, Spurgeon, Sproul, Stanley and others.

Yes indeed - the lights come on and you see what Christ meant when He talked about "Sabbath MADE for MANKIND" in Mark 2:27.

Here is another point where I could easily - agree agreeably.

The principle of one day out of seven is given in Genesis two, and that is all.

wrong. In Genesis 2:3 we see that the specific day is singled out and blessed and sanctified just as in Ex 20:11. There is nothing in Ex 20:11 OR in Gen 2:3 that says "just pick out one day in seven on your own because you can bless and sanctify any day in seven just as God did - have a shot at it." And we both know it.

The same is true with marriage.
The first marriage is consummated in Gen.2:24.
But the Levitical laws of adultery are not given until Exodus, and they are very specific.

Is this where you tell us that adultery would have been ok - had Adam and Eve not eaten of the fruit?

And also taking God's name in vain? Making images? Lying?

In any case that is your own narrow view of moral law.

Thankfully all the sources, groups, I have shown so far do not adopt such a deny-all model.

They are given only to the Jews. For example we don't stone those that commit adultery.

You are mashing up civil laws with moral laws making them all one - and then claiming that the moral law does not exist in Eden because the specifics of the civil penalty are not listed.

Until you read Ex 20:11 AND compare it to Gen 2:3.

Ex 20
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2:3
Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had restedfrom all his work which God created and made.


No wonder the lights come on at that point for Seventh-day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and even well known historic documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the "Baptist Confession of Faith", the Catechism and those who study them - such as Moody, Spurgeon, Sproul, Stanley and others.

Yes indeed - the lights come on and you see what Christ meant when He talked about "Sabbath MADE for MANKIND" in Mark 2:27.

Here is another point where I could easily - agree agreeably.

SDA's believe in the Sabbath, and the rest don't.
Simple.

Another mashup bait-and-switch. The point above was about the origins for Sabbath in Gen 2:3 and Ex 20:11 not whether all the groups keep the same Saturday Sabbath today as in Gen 2:3.

You sidestep the point as if I had used your method. I did not.

I said

"No wonder the lights come on at that point for Seventh-day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and even well known historic documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the "Baptist Confession of Faith", the Catechism and those who study them - such as Moody, Spurgeon, Sproul, Stanley and others.

Yes indeed - the lights come on and you see what Christ meant when He talked about "Sabbath MADE for MANKIND" in Mark 2:27."

And by the way - Seventh-day Baptists actually do not choose to change the commandment at the cross.

Worshiping on Sunday is not keeping the Sabbath. Why delude yourself?

Here you go with your own story again. My two-views-combined thread makes the point (as I do on this thread numerous times) that I do not agree that the Sabbath bending done by most of those listed.

But your method of "agree disagreeably" keeps kicking in so you select a point of agreement and inexplicably add "why delude yourself".

The very title of this thread gets to the point that these guys are claiming to change the Sabbath commandment and make it point to week-day-1 and I don't think that bend-and-wrench of the Sabbath commandment is valid.

Innexplicibly you respond with

Worshiping on Sunday is not keeping the Sabbath. Why delude yourself?

As if you are on a never-ending quest to agree disagreeably.

Why keep doing that? What purpose does it serve? Who is supposed to be mislead at that point?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

Wrong Quote!

 

[Eliyahu]

Don't misquote Genesis 2:3

Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
--There is no "Sabbath" in Genesis 2:3.

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.
--the moral law of God.
This has nothing to do with the Sabbath Day, a day given to the nation of Israel only. To keep it was their obligation; not to keep it would earn them the death penalty. It was a sign of a covenant between Jehovah and Israel and their generations forever (Ex.31), and was never given to the Gentiles.
Is it part of the moral law?
No. There is nothing moral or immoral about keeping a day holy.

First, in the above explanation, Sabbath means Sunday. In reality they did not believe in the Sabbath at all.
Secondly, it is obvious by the bolded parts that the Sabbath was not to be kept according to OT law.
All of these preachers in that day and age defined Sabbath as the "Lord's Day," or Sunday.
Therefore they did not keep the Sabbath. Words need to be defined.

The moral law is written on the hears of men. So what.
There is nothing moral or immoral about keeping the Sabbath or any day for that matter. That is not part of God's moral law. The Sabbath was a day given to the Jews. It is a sign of the covenant given to them; the penalty for breaking it was death. Are you prepared to live with that?​

The matter of the Bolded portion belongs to the Divine Kingdom which was Israel before and the Kingdom of New Millennium by Jesus.
Idol destruction will belong to the Kingdom as well.

But the day of Worship has never been changed to Sunday in the Bible.


The fact that God rested on Sabbath has never changed.
God never blessed the Sunday, but Sabbath.

Sabbath is Sabbath not Sunday. Jesus is the Lord of Sabbath, Sabbath was the Sabbath of Jehovah. LOrd's Day meant the Sabbath, Seventh Day.



Have you read this?


Following:


I think God didn't expect the Gentiles keep the Sabbath strictly as ordered in OT.
However, the change of the worship day from Sabbath to Sunday involved Idolatry because the major force of the change came from Sun god worship, by Constantine, Sylvester, Laodicean Council etc.

Worship day was not changed during the time while the NT was written.
1. Lord's day in Rev 1:10 meant Sabbath Day ( Saturday)
Polycarp the disciple of John testifies that they kept the Sabbath. Jesus is the Lord of Sabbath, the Sabbath was originally Sabbath of Jehovah, therefore Sabbath was Lord's Day.

2. 1 Cor 16:2 - Paul requested the special donation for Jerusalem should be made by saving the money at HOME on the first day of the week, he didn't ask them to come to the church on Sundays.

3. Acts 20:7 the first day of the week, evening meant the Saturday night, next day, on Sunday, Paul departed for Journey. Bread-taking was done very often in the Early Church ( Acts 2:46). In acts 20:7, they might have celebrated the early bread-taking in the morning, then in the evening, for the slaves who couldn't participate in the morning service, they had another bread-taking plus Habdala which was a house-warming party at a private house.

4. 1 Cor 11:25-27 tell us they gathered together to commemorate the Death of Jesus Christ, not the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

5. We find nowhere in the bible that the Early Church gathered on Sundays to remember the Resurrection of Jesus, but His Death.

6. Women and Disciples kept the Sabbath until the Death of Jesus ( Luke 23:56). Suddenly how and when did they change the Sabbath to another day?

7. Colossians 2:16 never meant the abolishment of Sabbath, but being sure about it, a clear and good faith on Sabbath.



Apparently the epistles of Ignatius were manipulated.RCC increased the letters from 7 to 15, then interpolated the Sunday gathering.
Justin Martyr was a Greek philosopher and didn't know about Hebrew language and about OT and was almost ex-communicated in Turkey region. He could find some fellowship in Rome where there were some diversity in the pagan culture. Messianic Jews consider him as a kind of Apostate.

Constantine decreed the Sunday Holiday, Pope Sylvester endorsed it, Laodicean Council declared Anathema in 363 AD, which means that there were so many Sabbath-keepers by that time.
Pope Sylvester changed the name of days of the week implying the pagan gods, from
first day, second day, third day, to Sun, Moon, and other planets names which were attached with pagan gods.

Later English names of the week started to have Sun, MOon, Tiu's Day ( Tiu was the war-god), Odin's Day, Thor's Day, Freya's Day(Freya was like Venus), Saturn's Day.

In French they are more closer to such myth as Mardi, Mercredi, Jeudi, Vendredi.

The Bible indicates that the days of the week was simply the first day, second day, third day as we read John 2:1 when Jesus performed His first miracle at the wedding, as Jews usually had wedding on the Third Day ( Tuesday) following the Genesis 1.

So, as long as we can, I believe we have to eliminate the paganism from our church activities even though we cannot do that in the social life.

Worship day was never changed during the era while Bible was written.

Jesus never abolished the Moral Law, but accomplished the Temple Sacrifice Law. He himself was the Temple and completed the Great Sacrifice at the Cross, and therefore we have to do no sacrifice any more.

But we have to keep the Moral Law by the help of the Spirit of Life in Jesus Christ ( Romans 8:2)​

 

[Eliyahu]

Don't misquote Genesis 2:3

The moral law is written on the hears of men. So what.
There is nothing moral or immoral about keeping the Sabbath or any day for that matter. That is not part of God's moral law. The Sabbath was a day given to the Jews. It is a sign of the covenant given to them; the penalty for breaking it was death. Are you prepared to live with that?

I already mentioned the underlined portion belongs to the Divine Kingdom which will unfold by the coming of Jesus Christ.

Following the God is a part of Moral as well if we can imitate even Apostle Paul. Apostle Paul imitated Christ ( 1 Cor 11:1)

Sabbath is designed for Men, not for Jews! (Mark 2:27)

The same law applied to Jews or to the Sojourners ( Ex 12:49)

 

[DHK]

wrong. In Genesis 2:3 we see that the specific day is singled out and blessed and sanctified just as in Ex 20:11.

It is called the seventh day (French: sept; Spanish: siete; German: sieben; Latin: Septem). They all mean 7; but none mean "sabbath." He sanctified the seventh day, in whatever language you want to put it. Only in the Hebrew was the Sabbath sanctified, for only the Jews were commanded to keep it. And they kept it on pain of death.

There is nothing in Ex 20:11 OR in Gen 2:3 that says "just pick out one day in seven on your own because you can bless and sanctify any day in seven just as God did - have a shot at it." And we both know it.

What language did God speak in the Garden? Do you know?
What were the names of the days? Did it make a difference?
No it didn't. And the word "sabbath" did not come into existence until the book of Exodus. Up until then there were just seven days in a week. They didn't have names. The principle was given: man was to rest one day out of seven. That is the only principle that can be taught from Genesis 2:3.

Now, as we read through the Bible--this is called Biblical theology--we gain more and more information. It is progressive revelation. The farther we read the more we learn. The more God reveals to us. That seventh day was not called "sabbath" until sometime in the book of Exodus, and then it was directed to the Jews. It would become "their" day of rest. From that day onward it was specific to them.
The principle of one day in seven of rest is still in effect for all mankind. But the sabbath is only for the Jew, as it always has been.

Is this where you tell us that adultery would have been ok - had Adam and Eve not eaten of the fruit?

And also taking God's name in vain? Making images? Lying?

You can read anything you want to into that passage. (You usually do).
It teaches but one thing. Man ought to have rest one day of seven, and that is all. It says nothing of the other ten commandments, but you like to read that into the text, even though nothing is mentioned.

In any case that is your own narrow view of moral law.

Thankfully all the sources, groups, I have shown so far do not adopt such a deny-all model.

I teach what the Bible teaches concerning the moral law. There is nothing moral or immoral about man keeping the sabbath. Remember I am a missionary. I go to different nations. People not exposed to Christianity hardly know what the sabbath is. Why would they be condemned for not keeping it. But they know in their hearts they are condemned already for stealing, murder, adultery. That is moral law; not the sabbath.

You are mashing up civil laws with moral laws making them all one - and then claiming that the moral law does not exist in Eden because the specifics of the civil penalty are not listed.

No, I am not mixing it up at all. The sabbath was given to the Jew with its consequent punishment. If they didn't keep it properly they paid the price. This is where you play the hypocrite. It is also why I ask you "How do YOU keep the sabbath?" Obviously you don't keep it with all the restrictions that God laid upon the Jews, so you don't really keep the sabbath at all. You just pretend. And pretending, under their law, brings forth death.

Another mashup bait-and-switch. The point above was about the origins for Sabbath in Gen 2:3 and Ex 20:11 not whether all the groups keep the same Saturday Sabbath today as in Gen 2:3.

The answer is always the same.
There is no sabbath in Genesis 2:3.
The sabbath is a command given to the nation of Israel only.

"No wonder the lights come on at that point for Seventh-day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and even well known historic documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the "Baptist Confession of Faith", the Catechism and those who study them - such as Moody, Spurgeon, Sproul, Stanley and others.

You conveniently use these men to confuse the issue.
Not one of them believe that they need to keep the sabbath as defined as the seventh day or Saturday. But that is the only way that the Bible defines the "sabbath."
They have redefined the word Sabbath, to mean "the Lord's Day" first day of the week. You use this to confuse the issue and state that they believe in the sabbath, whereas they don't. They believe in gathering on the Lord's Day--Sunday.
Neither do they hold to any of the restrictions as you do--preparing food ahead of time.
You, for all intent and purposes, have nothing in common with these men and their confessions. In fact Moody goes out of his way to distance himself by writing a caveat at the end of his message declaring that there is nothing in his message that reflects the teachings of the SDA.

Yes indeed - the lights come on and you see what Christ meant when He talked about "Sabbath MADE for MANKIND" in Mark 2:27."

I understand what this verse means. Do you?
How is its meaning any different than:
The Lord created the universe FOR mankind.
No difference. He also commanded man to have dominion over it.

And by the way - Seventh-day Baptists actually do not choose to change the commandment at the cross.

I don't believe in the sabbath, and therefore I don't believe it was ever changed. It remains Saturday to this day. The authority remains with each individual local church to worship on whatever day they deem fit. The early churches worshiped on every day of the week.

Here you go with your own story again. My two-views-combined thread makes the point (as I do on this thread numerous times) that I do not agree that the Sabbath bending done by most of those listed.

The sabbath is Saturday. It never changed.
Man, now in an age of grace, can worship on whatever day he chooses. He is not bound by Jewish law. The sabbath was given to the Jews; not the Gentiles.

But your method of "agree disagreeably" keeps kicking in so you select a point of agreement and inexplicably add "why delude yourself".

The sabbath is given to the Jews. I have been consistent. Maybe someday you will learn this fact. Are you willing to pay the price of death for disobeying any of the sabbath related laws?

The very title of this thread gets to the point that these guys are claiming to change the Sabbath commandment and make it point to week-day-1 and I don't think that bend-and-wrench of the Sabbath commandment is valid.

The sabbath commandment was never changed. It is given to the Jews who, BTW, still keep the Sabbath. You could join them in their synagogues.
Most of us worship corporately on Sundays. We don't call that the Sabbath. Usually we call it the "Lord's Day." It was never changed. That is what it is.

Innexplicibly you respond with

As if you are on a never-ending quest to agree disagreeably.

Why keep doing that? What purpose does it serve? Who is supposed to be mislead at that point?

Why should this be so hard for you to understand.
The sabbath is the sign of a covenant between Jehovah and the nation of Israel and their generations forever. Breaking it will bring the penalty of death. It was never given to the Gentiles--never.
Therefore we do not keep the sabbath in any way, shape or form.
What do I have to do to convince you of that?