SDA Hypocrisy?

Yes, every one knows what the Ten Commandments are. So what! Many of us are aquainted with Hammurabi's Code as well. But the Bible commands un in the New Testsament to keep neither one. There is no command to keep the Sabbath. There is not even a direct command to keep the Ten Commandments.
DHK

 

In the OT they could not even "work" to pick up the Manna on the Sabbath day. In the NT, they could "work" to pluck the corn in order to eat it. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Man was no longer a slave to the Sabbath. Jesus came to fulfill the law. He is Lord also of the Sabbbath.
DHK

 

it matters not anyway, they came to break bread any day of the week. The Bible never says its the Sabbath because of that.

 

The Bible says he was ready to depart on the morrow... meaning it was almost the next day...then he stayed all the way till midnight... in biblical language sabbath is from evening to evening...


and like I said it doesnt really matter anyway, they came to break bread different times of the week. Just like we have wednesday night prayer meeting.

 

As for the mark of the beast, once again, one of the points in our favor is that the sabbath is never an issue of true obedience to God in the NT. And most of the Churches, including even the RCC, are not arging so much for Sunday. You can argue that they will once the right circumstances occur, and they gain the power to enforce it. But that still seems unlikely. Once again the sabbath was never made an issue by God outside of OC Israel, so why would Satan even use that for his endtime rebellion? If he can just get people to reject God or at least Christ (even if they keep the sabbath, like the Jews), then a day would mean nothing to him. To suggest otherwise is to inadvertantly tie salvation to the work of keeping the day. And the first angel's message doesn't prove that either. There are many ways Satan gets people to not fear God or deny He made the heavens, earth and the sea. There are plenty of other issues in the world which seem more pressing. Davinci Code and all of this other stuff being hurled at the Word of God have nothing to do with Sunday.

Even still, if you insist on a pagan day being the issue, then I would say Easter has a much more pagan association, even down to the name. It is but an annual version of the weekly Sunday celebration; both in its pagan and in its Christianized senses. Yet the SDA observes that. So that is one reason it is not good to be raising such an issue at others. And that is what supports our understanding of Rom.14.

Http://members.aol.com/etb700/Revelation.html

 

No, it does matter.
At the time of Pentecost, the church gathered together daily. That was at its inception. But it was not always so. As time went on they chose a day where it was more convenient for them to meet. That day was Sundsay.
There is meaning in the statement:

"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together "
--This is the day "when the disciples came together" that is when they were accustomed to gather. It is the day that they chose. The day that they chose was the first day of the week, as it plainly says in the Scripture--a day that cannot be argued.

1 Corinthians 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
--They laid aside their money on the first day of the week. This was the day when Paul would come and gather it as an offering to the Lord, the time when they gathered together in worship. They gathered on the first day of the week. It had become their custom to do so.
DHK

 

Do you see what you have been saying, which I have bolded? This is what I am talking about. If that stuff is true,bthen we are lawbreakers, whether you actually use the word or not. It one thing to say "you do not observe the sabbath". But to continuosly phrase it as "not to honor Christ the Creator's Holy Day - HIS own memorial of creation", that is an ACCUSATION of rebellion against God (and you have put it that way in the past). You have the right to believe that, but in a debate with us, to keep forcing those words down our throats with all the other stuff you have said, is deragatory, and we have the right to reaact to it.

 

[ May 15, 2006, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

You already know that I accept the Bible truth that Christ is God, Christ is The Creator, God created the World in 6 days and rested the Seventh-day at which time HE made it a Holy Day and then in Exodus 20 calls us to look back and REMEMBER what was done - REMEMBER the Day HE made Holy.

That is nothing new - you know I believe that. You also know THAT YOU consider it to be abolished with no need at all for Christians to Honor it.

But I do not say of YOUR view "You must think all non-Sabbath keepers are LAW BREAKERS".

I could - by placing that list together as you have place the list of my arguments together and then drawn a derogatory conclusion that I have not stated - but I don't to you.

Howevr I could string your arguments together and then accuse you of slamming all Bible believing Sabbath honoring Christians as legalists for keeping the Sabbath when they keep it just because Christ said to do it - (which you in fact have done in your posts)
- but even in that case I don't do it because it adds nothing to the discussion. It does not strengthen or weaken my point to do it.

In the same way - on the C vs A boards as an Arminian I believe "God so Loved the WORLD -- yes Really!" and Yet 4 and 5 point Calvinists will come by and say "NO not really! Not unless we get to redefine WORLD to the arbitrarily select FEW of Matt 7".

Should we THEN have Calvinists bashing Arminians for continuing to accept the Bible Truth that "God so loved the WORLD - YES REALLY" by saying "IF you do not downsize that term to the Calvinist level then you are accusing us of believing in a different God a different Gospel a different..." on and on...

In other words - these are the VERY statements we are trying NOT to put out there for discussion because they don't help at all.

It is much better to simply state the POSITION of each side AND to expose the doctrinal flaws of the opposing side by noting the areas where it does NOT hold faithful to the "sola scriptura" model using careful and defendable exegesis.

All the mud slinging and name calling be dropped. BUT that does not mean that do not ISOLATE the doctrines, the salient points, the key pillars of each view and show that it does no does not hold true to scripture.

As for tradition - it is typically the case that when scripture and sola-scriptura are being "tossed under the bus" it is BECAUSE someone is glossing over details, favoring piles of accusation over substance, and klinging to tradition over scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Where are the Calvinist verses Arminians Board? I dont see anything like that on here

 

DHK was kind enough to bring up the 1Cor 16 reference -- and as it turns out - he has done this before. Only in years past when he did it - he asked us to look at the insightful comments of Albert Barnes as the full depth of this verse wss being explored.

Didn't want to short change DHK on that point this time around -- so "enjoy"!

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/3974.html?

In Christ,

Bob

 

The CvsA boards were closed down. Not sure why. That too was a heated debate, and Calvinists often did accuse Arminians of having a different, "weak" god, but that was wrong. But Bob did the same thing over there, with his "scenario of being in heaven and looking down on your child in Hell" or something like that. I was on his side in theat debate, but still, it drover the Calvinists up the wall, and did not even prove our point. It was purely a sentimental emotive argument, and actually proved their point that Arminians go by emotion and not scripture!

So to Bob, what I am saying is that it is your argumentation tactics that are problematic. I come nowhere near calling you a legalist. I don't even remember ever using the word, at least not in this issue. (I have generally applied that to some more fundamentalist types).
The issue is, your side believes the sabbath is still binding because it's the eternal
"memorial of creation". We believe it was commanded to be "kept" by ceasing from physical work only to Israel, and is spiritually fulfilled
in or spiritual rest in Christ. We provide scriptures like Rom.14, Heb.4, and Gal.4,5, Acts 15. You do not agree that these scriptures teach what we believe. We debate them and do not come to agreement, but your not agreeing they support our position does not give you the right to say we have not exegeted the scriptures; nor are rejecting, disbelieving, attacking, ignoring, trying to deny, etc. The Word of God; and thus refusing, rebelling against, making excuses to ignore "Christ's holy day memorial of creation".

That's what you believe it is. It is not unanimpously agreed. We are not convinced (convicted) it is such, so you should respect our not seeing it that way, instead of using language that suggests "y'all know it's true, so we will keep pounding your head with 'the truth'". That is not how you have a decent debate. I not only do not call you a legalist, but I also do not call you "Galatianizing or Judaizing heretics" with every post, which is far closer to the spirit of most of your posts.

To go over your points,
•you take Genesis and the sabbath being made
holy by God as an instant and eternal "command" for all men of all times
not to work on it, but that is now what it says.
•You take Exodus and say the 10 Commandments are the universal laws
for all men, all times, but they were addressed specifically to Israel.
•Then you go to Isaiah, where the sabbath and dietary laws are said to
be kept by all in the Kingdom, but this still says nothing about us
today in the NT. And I believe it was conditional anyway on the Kingdom
coming through the Old Covenant. Proof is that new moons are kept as
well.
•Then you go to Christ in the Gospels saying it was made for mankind.
But this is contrasting it with man being made for the sabbath, not
saying it is "binding" on all.
•Then you take instances in Acts where people were in synagogues on
the sabbath day. But that is still not KEEPing the sabbath, any more
than me just visiting an SDA church on the sabbath.
•Then finally, the first angel's message, but this bdoes not even
mention the sabbath. God is creator apart from the sabbath day.

All of this, even added together, still does not bind us to the sabbath.
It is all deductive reasoning. There is no command in any of those passages for us to keep the sabbath. It is just "if God made it
holy by resting on it, then all of man is obligated to do the same" + all
the other scriptures used with similar deductions. That is not 'sola
scriptura'. That is a speculative deduction of some indirect command. It was never on man's conscience like killing is. God is always more
straightforward about His commands than that. This has more in common with Matt/DT's deductions for EOC practice by "oral tradition" with its
proof-texts than anything we say. No straight command; just take a proof-text, and read it "if this says this, then that means that".
Sorry, but this is not enough to accuse anyone of 'ignoring' any "holy day" still mandated by God. You have to prove that first, using a direct command for us today in the NT to keep it, not use all of this indirect hypothesis, based on things told to other people in a different dispensations.

 

And now for some accuracy.

#1. The C Vs A thread was closed because people were getting far too far from scripture and it had become all about the kind of "you are calling me a lawbreaker EVEN if you don't say it" mud slinging thing.

#2. The scenarios I gave included BOTH an Arminian future scenario AND a Calvinist one. The idea was for Calvinists to USE the Arminian principles to accurately formulate the comparable Arminian future scenario as I had accurately used the Calvinist principles to predict the Calvinist future scenario.

When they failed to do so - I handed the Arminian future scenario to them - grattis.

BOTH scenarios dealt with a loving parent (a saint) going to heaven (A Calvinist in the CAlvinist scenario and an Arminian in the Arminian scenario) and then finding that a precious child was in torment. BOTH the Arminian AND the Calvinist future scenario had the SAME conditions.

(Eric seems to be bent on fact-wrenching for some innexplicable reason. Maybe this SDA topic has gone to far with him.)

Part of that argument also required that Calvinsts actually IDENTIFY any point in my scenario that WAS NOT based solidly on WELL published public statements verbatim from Calvinists to establish the scenario. This included statments from Johnathan Edwards for example.

That stated purpose was to SHOW that 4 and 5 point Calvinism "required" a certaini heartless disregard for the lost because in those systems "Limited Atonement" means that God arbitrarily selects a FEW to actually love and Die for as opposed to "God so Loved the World that he GAVE".

Calvinists were often quoted in their responses to that "Scenario" by saying that the Arminian scenario makes God look weak and wimpy while their version as described by Me made Him look Sovereign and showed that He really did not need to care about anyone if He did not graciously choose to. That is one you got a pro-Johnathan Edwards Calvinist on the line.

Eric's "recast above" can only be supported in this one area - those 4 and 5 point Calvinists that had not gone so far as to run off the cliff with Johnathan Edwards would at times admit that this view of the innevitable Calvinist future caused them some discomfort since they knew that the principles used there -- are in fact pure Calvinism and the "result" was something unpleasant even for them!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:

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".
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are certainly welcome to try to prove that accusation with actual evidence.

I notice that in your post - what follows is your reasons from rejecting Christ the Creator's Holy Day - but that is not the same as showing that I have made appeals to tradition over scripture or have abandon exegesis in my sola scriptura points made here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The support for Christ the Creator's Holy day that I have shown - comes from scripture alone. It is not that complicated - pretty easy to follow.

#1. Mark 2:27 CHRIST SAID that this day was MADE for MANKIND.

#2. Isaiah 66 God tells us that the SCOPE of the Sabbath is for ALL MANKIND. "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" and the context is the NEW EARTH in Isaiah 66 the same future point in time that John identifies in Rev 21;1-3!

#3. In Exodus 20 God (actually Christ our Creator God) shows us that HIS OWN Holy Day is a memorial of HIS creative act in making mankind - in making our world in SIX literal days.

#4. Christ HIMSELF commands His own followers "IF you LOVE me KEEP my commandments" and this was done PRE-CROSS -- which is before any reasonable argument can attempt to abolish God's Law.

#5 In Rev 12 and 14 we see that POST-Cross the SAINTS are STILL those that are known for the fact that they "keep the Commandments of God".

BTW - you youself admitted that the SCOPE In the OT was "ALL MANKIND" when you admit that your own view of Isaiah 66 though incorrect - still holds to a REAL "ALL MANKIND" intent in that text as spoken by God. In other words exegetically you could not reject the ALL-MANKIND scope stated in the text.

#6. It has been shown from Rom 3:31 that our faith "ESTABLISHES the LAW of God - rather than abolishing it"

The idea that thes texts are simply "my tradition" or are not actually the Bible or are not proof that the argument I am making is "sola scriptura" would need to be "proven" defended in "detail" rather than merely "Assumed" without evidence.

BTW - thanks again for that Albert Barnes reference in 1Cor 16. A pure goldmine!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yes, Christ says the Sabbath was made for man...

If God makes something for me and gives it to me as a gift it is mine to do with as I please...

(Unless it is a living something like the Holy Spirit... )

Otherwise it is not made for me. But, another...

Man was not made for the Sabbath...

That means man is not a slave to it...

As I said before...

So, say I again...

There is a principle of rest inherent in the Sabbath which we dare not neglect...

However, as I am not a slave to The Sabbath but the Sabbath a slave to me...

I can choose when to apply the Sabbath...

Or, even to skip it from time to time...

Note, Please that this does not abrogate a local assembly from having as a requirement for membership, a specific requirement to Worship at fixed times and dates...

As part of their right to Adminstrate the Gifts of Ministry the SDA is perfectly justified in making this a membership requirment for *their* church...

However, as this is _NOT_ a "salvation essential" issue...

I deeply protest any attempt to make me comply with their local rules...

Especially when I have no desire to join their particular denomination as a member.

SMM

 

It is Christ the CREATOR's Holy Day - as is Marriage HIS institution. We honor and respect it and are BLESSED.

But what if we could twist that around such that these two great gifts from our Creator given to mankind in Eden are simply "ours to do with as we please..."

Your suggestion SMM is contrary to scripture SMM.

Lets look at the way our CREATOR states it and SEE IF "do with as we please" is included for EITHER of the institutions given to mankind in Eden.

Because this might require special help with the basics - I will provide HIS Word on this.

"The Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath" not mankind. Mark 2:28. IF mankind was LORD of the Sabbath then the Jews would be right in INVENTING restrictions "as they please".

IV –

Nothing in there from our Creator God about "I don't care what you do with this day - just do with it as you please"

Christ our Creator was correct in Mark 2:27-28 and there is just no way to "spin that" around to "do with this as you please".

In Christ,

Bob

 

As the post above proves - going with the "sola scriptura model" here instead of man's own feelings, inclinations and traditions is very important.

And "obviously" the same thing hold's true for all of the Creator's Words in Exodus 20 -- so I am not really saying anything new or different about HIS Words in Exodus 20:8-11.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So, are you saying, that to you, The Saturday Sabbath is a Salvation Essential Issue?

SMM

 

I don't think the Catholics are lost just because they worship before images EVEN though God is very clear that we are not to use graven images in worship.

That does not mean I think it is RIGHT to do that - or that God bends His Word at every whim of man.

The same goes for the 4th commandment as the 2nd. No change.

In Christ,

Bob