SDA Hypocrisy?

Bingo Claudia! I'm the one who has been pointing out the universal, or "Noahide" Laws that predate Sinai. Bob is the one who pinted to Sinai as what we should follow. All of those examples you gave are where the Seven Laws were derived from. But never do we see God getting angry at anyone for breaking the sabbath. All of the kinds of sins men were committing were recorded. But the sabbath was never one of the issues.
Men even without a written law automatically know killing, stealing, lying/injustice, sexual immorality and cruelty to animals is wrong. It's on the human conscience. There is even a sense deep down that there is a higher power that should be served and respected. Those are universal laws. But nobody would ever be convicted to keep a particular day of the week holy apart from the law of Moses. That is not a universal command.

 

BTW you made yet "another" illogical statement --
You said "now it is time for you to produce some REAL proof, or just quit bugging everyone. " after having already said "You apparently have far more time on the computer than I do. I don't have time to break down your posts point by point anymore, ".

Again the "flip-flop" is apparent.

So "Again" I say - pick a single argument that you actually believe - and would defend. And lets see if it holds up to scripture. In the mean time I already have far more scripture and more points made on this subject "than you claim to have time to read".

I on the other hand am asking you to simply post even ONE point that you will actually follow through.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]The points are all around you, Bob. You just presume to have refuted them with your proof-texts and interpretations, when you really haven't.

I admit that I do "accuse you" of appealing to tradition instead of sound exegesis.

I keep insisting that each point you bring up ACTUALLY HOLD Water!!

But in your statement above you make "yet another unsupported accusation" in that you make it appear that I am accusing you of something on the Sabbath question MERELY by the fact that I CHOOSE not to ignore God's Word as IT SHOWS the scope of Sabbath to reference ALL MANKIND!

Make it appear that merely UNDERSTANDING God's Word and refusing to turn a blind eye to it - IS tantamount to "ACCUSING YOU" of something!!

Do you have a link Eric an actual reference to piont to where I SAID "YOU ERic are in huge trouble because YOU are rejecting Christ the Creator's Holy day"??

Do you have EVEN ONE!

In other words - do your wild claims ever have actual support in fact?

Finally your post appears to make another wild claim - you appear to claim that my view that "CHRIST said the SABBATh was MADE for MANKIND in Mark 2:27" is just THEORY.

You appear to be saying my claims that God said ALL MANKIND was in the scope of "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" Isaiah 66 is just a "theory".

OR you are saying that YES the texts actually DO exist - by MY THEORY is that we should TRUST AND BELIEVE them???

What is the THEORETICAL aspect you want to claim/support/prove as being central to my argument??

</font>[/QUOTE]

"again" you are abandoning your OWN argument above. In our post above at the top right here in this post - you say THAT I AM posting accusations.

IF you have a link to one of my posts quoting EGW used BY ME to accuse you - then provide it!

If you HAVE a link to one of MY posts accusing you of "Following the Beast" please provide it!!

Recall YOUR accusation at the top??

Yep! That would be the one. Time to include the link to SHOW that you are dealing with fact about ME accusing YOU of anything other than failing to rely sola-scriptura and rejection of exegesis.

Why do you keep doing this???

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]It was the end of my lunch and I had to go, so that was the first thing that came to mind. It was a geral statement about the SDA's on the board in general. The biggest accusing you have done is to say we are not believing the word of God, and attacking God's Law, and breaking it by not keeping all the commandments and all that other stuff. If that is true, then you might as well be saying all that stuff you have just denied. If you don't mean to convey all of that, what is the point of coming here accusing us of being lawbreakers?

 

Eric,

I dont understand that since in Genesis 2 it says God made the seventh day Sabbath... so they had to keep that as one of the laws, right?

It was part of God's law before Sinai...

see:

Exodus 16:4, 27-29

 

It wasn't a LAW yet, Claudia. We must not add to the scriptures somethong that is not there! And proof is that is was not placed naturally on man's conscience. It is not a universal law like the others.

 

I have been arguing against your "methods".

I have been saying that as those who are supposed to care about things like "Sola Scriptura" it is much better to make a bible point and then focus on it long enough to fully explore it - fully explain how your view stands up to exegetical review.

I have been arguing that the opposite of this is "simply clinging to man made tradition".

Then I bring up specific Bible facts SHOWING the scope of the Sabbath as given in the OT to be "All MANKIND" instead of "JUSt JEWS". Now you are argeeing with that in your latest position on Isaiah 66 saying that "ALL MANKIND" is really what is intended there and that this is consistent with the OT view - and supposes that that SAME view carried on with a successful Israel instead of one that rejected her Messiah.

In any case - MY focus has always been to call for solid Bible based methods to establish doctrine.

Your latest set of accusations claiming that I quoted Ellen White or that I appealed to arguments based on "the Mark of the Beast" have some entertainment and emotional value to be sure - but you had no link to actually point at showing ME doing such a thing!

Is that the point of my posts??? Do you have a link from me saying "Eric is a lawbreaker"???

Let me help you - YOU WILL find a link from me saying that YOU claim "the LAW was abolished".

And you will also find posts FROM YOU saying the same thing!

Is that what you are accusing me of now - of admitting to the posts that YOU are posting on the Law?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,
In reading these posts, I conclude that you have abondoned sola scriptura and have appealed to tradtion in its place. Eric has given you Scripture, and so have I. Though you have not directly said so you have given us the standard SDA traditional doctrine. It is an appeal to your tradition, not to Scripture. You claim adherence to the Sabbath is a necessity without Scriptural support. You cannot support your positon with Scripture.
1. There is no command anywhere in Scripture before Sinai for man to keep the Sabbath Day.
2. The only command to keep the Sabbath Day was given at Sinai to the Jews in the Ten Commandments.
3. That Command (to keep the Sabbath) was made more specific in Exodus 31, where the Lord God Jehovah specifically makes the Sabbath a sign of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel and her generations forever. Does God renege on His promises? Read Numbers 23:19
It forever will be a sign between Jehovah and Israel. You have yet to explain this fact.
4. The Isaiah 66 passage refers to a future time when Christ comes for the Jews, at which time "all Israel shall be saved." The covenant will be fulfilled at that time, and the Sabbath reinstituted. This is the Millennial Kingdom. Yes, all mankind will serve the Lord Jesus Christ (from Sabbath to Sabbath) as Christ rules from his throne in Jerusalem. At that time "all mankind" will ocme and worship Christ. But that does not happen today, does it? What is your answer to this Bob? Don't give me what John saw in Revelation. That has no bearing on what is happening now.
5. Where in any New Testament passage is there any command to keep the Sabbath? There isn't any clear command is there?
6. In fact since there is clear example in passages as Acts 20:7 when believers met on the first day of the week, Sunday, that your appeal is more to tradition, not to Scripture. You have not used sola scriptura in this debate.
DHK

 

Acts 20:7, 8. "and upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together."


This is from "National Sunday Law" by Jan Marcussen...


This was a night meeting — the dark part of the first day of the week. In Bible reckoning, the dark part of the day comes before the light part. Genesis 1:5 — "and God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The dark part comes first.
The Bible reckons a day from sunset to sunset.
The seventh day begins at sunset Friday evening. The first day of the week begins sunset Saturday evening.

Paul is together with his friends on the dark part of the first day of the week — Saturday night. This is a farewell get-together. He preached until midnight, when poor Eutychus falls out the window. (Acts 20:9).

Verse eleven says that they talked till the break of day and then Paul departed. Verse thirteen shows that Paul spent that Sunday morning traveling to Assos.

There's nothing here either concerning a change of the Sabbath.
The New English bible translates this text like this:
"On the Saturday night, in our assembly for the breaking of bread, Paul, who was to leave the next day, addressed them, and went on speaking until midnight." Acts 20:7.

 

It makes no sense to me to begin with to say that we must come up with Bible "proof" that the Sabbath was commanded to be kept before Sinai.


The ten commandments are the ten commandments and Sabbath is one of them.

The Bible over and over says we must keep them, in the new testament

It would be an added bonus, but thats it

Everyone knows what the commandments are, and everyone knows the new testament says we must keep the commandments.

so its like you all are trying to get us running around trying to prove something that doesnt even need to be proved in the first place

 

Eric,

I am the one who has quoted from Ellen White, not Bob. You can accuse me of that rightly, but not Bob.

I dont see what that has to do with anything in the first place.

 

[qb]

You have not shown in any detail how the Isaiah 66 passage supports your cause at all. In fact it devastates your point entirely.

Isaiah 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

First it is an event that happens after a great and terrible event known as the Great Tribulation. Read on:
Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
--That also does away with annihilation of the wicked doesn't it. "Their worm dieth not." "Neither shall their fire be quenched." It speaks of eternal torment of the wicked. After the Great Tribulation Christ comes and sets up his Kingdom which will last for a thousand years. And as it says in verse 23: "all flesh (mankind) will come and worship him. Does that happen now? No it does not. Do the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, and all the various sects and other religions worship Christ now? You have failed to answer this question directly. Does all man now worship Christ?
The obvious answer is no. It is a future event, yet to take place. It is not now. And only when it does happen will the Sabbath be reinstituted. Not now. This entire passage defeats your cause. The Sabbath is not for today. It is for a future time.
Demonstrate how this passage in any way relates to the Gentile believer today. Yes, it may say all mankind, all flesh. So what! It is not speaking of "all mankind" for this day and age. It has no relevance for today. Demonstrate it's relevance for this day and age.

Mark 2:27-28 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
--The context was, that according to the Pharisees, the disciples broke the Sabbath by plucking and eating corn on the Sabbath day. Jesus gives an example of David, when he was hungry ate of the shewbread of the Temple which was unlawful for him to eat. Did David break the law?

David was not a slave to the law, as the Pharisees were making the people a slave to the Sabbath, and to the rest of the law.
Man is not a slave to the Sabbath, as the SDA's are making their people a slave to the Sabbath.
"The Sabbath was made for man; not man for the Sabbath." The meaning is the opposite of what you are saying. We are not slaves to it. God never intended the Gentile believers to keep it. It did not matter if the disciples plucked corn, picked up sticks, etc. The Sabbath had no rule over them. They were not slaves to it.
Why?
The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.
He is the Lord of the Sabbath.
He is the Lord of the first day of the week.
He is the Lord of the second day of the week.
He is the Lord of the third day of the week, etc.
And he is Lord also of the Sabbath.
He is Lord of all.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Thats hardly what Jesus meant... the next verses right after that show that Jesus was staying within the realms of the law...

Matthew 12:

9: And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
10: And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
11: And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
12: How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
13: Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.


All He was saying in the previous verses is that if men are doing the work of God on Sabbath then it is lawful (though not in normal circumstances) for them to stop and rub grains together to get something to eat for their journey... since they are doing the work of the Lord.

In othr words, it is LAWFUL to do on Sabbath, things that otherwise normally might be unlawful... IF you are working for God in the redemption of man... because that is the whole object of the Law. Love God. love your neighbor. The sabbath is part of that love.. How can you keep the sabbath if you wont heal someone who is ready to die? How can you love your neighbor if you are working on Sabbath for their redemption yet wont stop to get a bite to eat on your journey while doing it?

Jesus in no way was trying to set aside the Sabbath and say that it no longer needed to be kept.

 

Both Bob and Claudia, didn't you just read above where I clarified my statements on EGW literature? Now you both are still complaining about me attributing the Bob. And now Bob denies he is calling us lawbreakers and aske me to find a post where he specifically addressed ME as a lawbreaker. Now who's playing games ?
This is not about me personally, but rather all of us here you two (and a couple of others at times) are criticizing for nt keeping the sabbath. If what you are saying is true, then we are lawbreakers. And all the other stuff you have said to me personally as well as others conveys the same things: We're tryinng to ignoore the Word of God, turning a blind eye to it, attacking God's law, trying to "duck and dodge" things you've said several times, putting down our exegesis, and going by tradition instead of sola scriptura (you're supposed to be on our side in that issue, but your arguing againt us only proves the point of Matt and DT that sola scriptura only leads to division, and therefore just following EOC tradition is the solution) If you don't want to be accused of calling us lawbreakers, the stop saying all of this stuff! Just keep the sabbath unto the Lord yourself and stop using it to criticize everyone else. The purpose of it was not to judge others, but rather one's own personal devotion the the Lord. The sabbath should be between you and God, not between you and us.

 

Eric,

Im honestly having a difficult time unerstanding why you take this personally.

As far as I can see, there are "debates" on this forum all the time about whether or not we should keep the law.

How can one go about expressing their view on that, if your view is that yes, we still need to keep the law, without seeming to "accuse" those who are not keeping it, as being lawbeakers?

If thats the case and it is going to be taken so personally, then maybe it ought to be outlawed on the forum that anyone ever bring up the subject of whether or not we should keep the law.

But then there wouldnt be near as much to talk about.


Ive been outright accused of being a legalist many times..

I just dont see why it should be that big of a deal.

Why cant you just present your arguement from the Scriptures and leave it at that instead of saying someone is accusing YOU of being a lawbreaker?

If I believe you have to keep the law then of course I guess thats automatically me thinking you are breaking the law.

But geez what can you expect??

That would be just kind of par for the course...

And if the Book of Revelation compares those who have the mark of the beast with Gods people who keep the commandments... of course you would think I was accusing you of having the mark of the beast... which actually is wrong because my church teachs that nobody receives the mark ofthe beast until the whole world is enlightened with the three angels messages... and the sunday law is legislated.

But I mean DHK accuses me of teaching "doctrines of devils"...

so why act like Im so bad if the implication is that you are breaking the law???


Claudia

 

Eric,

Ok well I hadnt seen that where you clarified that Bob wasnt the one who was doing the ellen white quotes... thats good then.

I just hadnt read all your posts to Bob, thats all.

Eric you say we should just keep the sabbath to ourselves and dont bring it up because its accusing you.. etc

ANY TOPIC is going to seem like that... like whether or not you believe in drinking alcohol, or whether you believe in sola scriptura.... or whatever... whichever side you take, you are by default "accusing" the other side of not following the scriptures.

I just dont see why when it comes to the Sabbath people seem to be so sensitive and take it so personally.


Ive been called a Legalist, a Coward, a Judaizer, a Food Nazi and everything else... his entire thread is called "SDA Hypocrites"... what are we supposed to do just say "oh ok thanks for calling us hypocrites"?

[ May 15, 2006, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Claudia_T ]

 

I'm sorry, but the ultimate tone is that of accusation. W believe your position on the Law is wrong, and we are willing to debate about it WITH the scriptures, but you and especially Bob cannot seem to do that without accusing us of somehow denying the scriptures that we do not believe are really binding us to the law. There's a big difference between not believing a scripture binds you to a practice, and not believing the scripture at all. And we have the right to react to the charge that our stance is just a tradition that is not Biblical, and that it will ultimately lead to a conspiracy such as a national Sunday law supposed to be the mark of the beast, even if you do not beliece it is now that mark.

 

Eric

Well anyway I dont mean to accuse you of anything. Ultimately it is my belief that God has His people in all denominations... and that He looks at the heart, and that we cant judge anyone.

If at any time I have come across in any other way I didnt mean to.

Or maybe in some instances I did mean it the time but shouldnt of said it the way that I did.

I am going to try to change and be more careful how I say things.

Because Ive been noticing lately that if we believe you have to keep the law and that the law is love and you dont believe you have to keep the law but that you should love everyone... well none of us seem to be doing it because everyone on here is bickering back and forth some times in a mean-spirited way.

So none of us seem to be doing the right thing... myself included.

well maybe some people are continually "nice" ... and I just missed those..

Claudia

 

except Im not sure what I am supposed to do if other people bring up the topic of the mark of the beast.. am I supposed to not say my views on it?

 

Well, your view point has merit to you...

But, it may not have merit to others...

The idea is to "Share" not "Indoctrinate"...

How many different ways can we apply to possibilities of the Mark of the Beast?

Especially in today's high technology world?

There are many things that theoretically can be made to fit the Bible description...

I myself have heard everything from:

A memorized number
Credit Cards
Debit Cards
implantable RFID chips

The chief problem is, from my vantage point, that in all cases we have not yet gotten to a place where we have no other choice by which we can buy and sell...

I can shred my debit cards at any time and drop out of the system...

Now, when it comes to Implantable RFID chips I am not so sure it will be as easy to locate and remove them once they *might* become the only means to buy and sell...

Also, it seems apparent to me that it will be understood that you are taking a device or instrument by which you will no longer be able to buy or sell...

That is, if the currency is cancelled and replaced they will not use the existing infrastructure as it is...

They will use new special cards or RFID chips specifically for that purpose...

As to what might cause such a shift...

I can think of only one...

Identity Theft, which would be the biggest issue that would cause such a major shift in banking...

And, with biometrics coming on so strong as a preventative or deterent I can see where I mightt not yet have a clue as to what the final instrument for the Mark of the Beats might be...

Fun to theorize...

But, I am not sure we are close enough to it's implementation to know for sure...

Lastly, it appears that the Mark is something that once you recieve it...

Can't be gotten rid of. At least not easily...

But, that's just one guys thoughts.

SMM

 

Sorry I didnt know I was indocrinating anyone, I thought I was just telling my point of view.

 

Let me quote the Scripture again for you:

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Do you really have the need of circumventing the Scripture? Of telling us that "the first day of the week" does not mean "the first day of the week?" Common sense would tell us better. Of course SDA commentaries find a way to skirt this issue. But I would rather stick to what the Bible says--"the first day of the week."
DHK

[ May 15, 2006, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

I admit that there are more people posting here in favor of Sabbath than just SDAs - than just Claudia and I (and Keith).

I do not claim to be one of those people who have said anything about the Mark of the Beast or you or anyone that does not choose to honor Christ the Creator's Holy Day - His memorial of Creation.

In your post you specifically listed me as someone who is calling people "lawbreakers" and also accusing people of something related to "the Mark of the Beast" etc.

My posts have consistenly been on the subject of "sola scriptura" of sound exegesis of making points IN CONTEXT and sustaining them. I have consistently stated that there are those here like yourself that choose not to honor Christ the Creator's Holy Day - HIS own memorial of creation.

You yourself state that this as well as the other 9 -- the LAW -- was abolished. So I don't think I am actually saying anything new or derogatory in claiming that you hold to the view that you hold to. My "negative" statement is that your view is based on tradition and can not really be supported by a careful review of the text of scripture.

you are free to accuse me of saying that all day long.

So even though I am actually saying "you are a lawbreaker" you will continue to "accuse me of that" if I don't stop pointing out that your view is based on tradition not scripture.

You also argue that my pointing out your reliance on tradition instead of "sola scriptura" is making DT's point and Matt's point.

Actually it makes my point that the source of division is always man-made-tradition and never God's Word. My argument has been that everyone tends to use man-made-tradition and the challenge is to ACTUALLY appeal to "Sola scriptura" when scripture is going against bias or tradition.

So this is simply an example of that.

In Christ,

Bob