Would you fellowship with a Seventh Day Adventist Family?

Bob,
My arguments stand unrefuted. Your objections are bogus.
1. There is no command in the New Testament command for the believer to keep the Sabbath. The Old Testament Canon was finished 450 years before Christ was born. The book of Malachi has nothing to do with this. If you bring in the Old Testament be sure to bring in Exodus 31 which specifically says that the sabbath is a sign between Israel and Jehovah and for their generations forever. It is not for the Gentile or the believer. It is for the nation of Israel. This chapter is conveniently ignored.

1Cor.16:2, in spite of your objections to Barnes explanation, says "the first day of the week." Yes or no?" Case closed.

Acts 20:7 mentions on the first day of the week they were breaking bread and Paul preached unto them. Was this worship or not? Case closed.

Col.2:16,17 explains the sabbath as only a shadow of Christ who was to come, and not necessary to observe along with the rest of the Old Testament law. Christ fulfilled the law. It was nailed to the cross.
DHK

 

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen
with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised
him from the dead.

2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision
of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having
forgiven you all trespasses;

2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us,
which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross


What handwriting of ordinaces was he talking about ?

 

My reference to the 23 books of the NT - was simply to point out that most Sabbath keeping Christians accept all 66. I have some RC friends who seem to only accept 23 books - the NT only.

In Christ,

Bob

 

DHK -

My arguments stand unrefuted in fact.

And yes - your objections are "bogus" so far. you have not been able to respond to a single point.

Here is an excellent example --

The "point" that you "pretend not to see" (as if pretending not to understand - could possibly form a valid response to a devastating argument against your speculations) - is simply --

YOU invent a rule "The Sabbath commandment is not REPEATED so it becomes VOID where NOT repeated".

I respond that your invented-rule does not hold water since EVEN in the OT - we have many cases where the Sabbath commandment is "NOT repeated" but we KNOW it is not VOID simply because it is NOT repeated.

I then point out the FUTHER failure of your invented-rule by noting that EVEN those who reject God's Holy Seventh-day memorial of Creation "made for Mankind" - agree that the Gospels pertain to events BEFORE the cross WHILE the Law of God is in force EVEN by your own account. I show that EVEN in that Pre-Cross era - (be it Malachi or the Gospels PRE-Cross) the Sabbath is not "repeated" but all agree is IN FORCE.

Your argument utterly collapses under those two observations. And your response??

Pretend you don't see it????

You can do "better" than that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

SingerWhat handwriting of ordinaces was he talking about ?

Lets take a look at Col 2

It is the "certificate of debt" that He cancelled, (NOT His law).

He paid our debt - INSTEAD of "abolishing the Law that DEFINES sin" He "paid the DEBT of sin"..

His Law when applied to our rebellion - produces a "certificate of Debt" and it is that certificate of DEBT OWED that needs to be paid. Abolishing God's Law would obviate the need to pay the debt in the first place.

So now "By faith we Establish Law". Rom 3:31.

The Sovereign of the universe RETAINS His law and PAYS the debt it demands to save mankind.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Was this a handwritten document?

Neal

 

I am sorry. I often forget that not
everyone accepts the whole Bible as
relevant for today. Even so, how can
you discount Matthew 5:17 - 20?

Do you understand Jewish time? This
was written by Jews about Jews, who
lived within Jewish customs and
understood the days and their
divisions according to those customs.
Many who do not understand assume
that Paul started preaching on Sunday
morning and preached until Sunday
midnight, but he did not.

After the Sabbath, the first day of the
week comes upon sundown. As was
the custom, when Shabbat ended,
many would gather in a home and
eat there, while continuing to discuss
the day's Scriptures. This is what
they were doing, and Paul used the
opportunity to preach. (This was quite
ordinary; what was not ordinary was
the child falling out of the window.)

The reason money, food, and other
items were set aside on the first day
of the week was that money was not
handled on th Sabbath, other than
the Temple coins. It was a convenient
time to do this--when all were already
together. Also, the poor could take
their portions as they left the Sabbath
assembly that evening and left for
home.

If I remember correctly, this was
already explained here.

I think this was also explained.

Shall we, then, discount our Lord
and His Sabbath by refusing to
acknowledge His day of which
He is Lord?

Then you must be one who will
deny historic facts in order to
justify your beliefs.

If Christians would only truly
observe their chosen worship day
as the Bible commands the Sabbath
to be observed, it would be much
easier to accept that they are truly
trying to observe it in righteousness.
I am glad tha you do try to observe
it more seriously than most.

 

DHK, it is very simple -- really. 8o)
What you have written above -- well,
it is so out of context with what I
wrote, and ignores so many of te
thins I said, that it is amazing to me
and, I think, below your normal
standards.

 

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.

Really, Abyiah, Isn't it an honest question?
Does not Luke writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit know the difference between the first day of the week and the Sabbath. If he meant the sabbath, why would he not write the sabbath?

 

Do I correctly gather from this admission that your husband and
children are not Sabbath Keepers..?

If so, it must grieve you that they are not able to see your standards.</font>[/QUOTE]

Admission? 8o) Not really. A
mere statement of the facts. 8o)

Thank you. It is sweet of you to
be concerned, but no, I do not
see this as problematic. They
are all works in progress,
following what the belief
system I reared them in taught
them. They are, in a way, where
I once was.

Although I had always questioned
a "Sunday-Sabbath" (since age 12
- 14 or so), I went along with it, too,
because that was what everyone
else did. In spite of my questions,
I kept thinking, "Could so many
people be so wrong?" Thus, I
justified not teaching them anything
about Sabbath. I did, however,
teach them not to work, buy, or sell
on Sunday.

However, both my children and
one stepchild are beginning to
ask questions. My husband
has also stated that if he was
not so bound to his job, he
would observe Sabbath.

As we have stated, we all come
from different backgrounds,
varying beliefs. I did not read that
Bob said tis, so I have no idea what
he believes. I do not happen to
agree with this, in regard to those
who innocently do not observe
Sabbath.

 

Singer,

Just a quick correction for you.

The Pastors of the SDA are not payed based on the money taken into the congregation they preside over. The SDA has the most moral financial system of ANY church I have ever studied.

We take up tithes and offerings. Those moneys go to the Conference level. The Conference pays EVERY pastor the same salary regardless of whether there are 33 members or 3300 members. They all make the same pay.

Now, with your remark regarding them 'working' on the Sabbath.

The pastors are SUPPORTED by the Church. THIS is Biblical. The 'work' they do is for GOD, on the Sabbath, it is not for financial gain.

I am truly repulsed that you see the work of the Ministry in this way.

If I went to a friends house on the Sabbath, who was sick or bed ridden and washed their dishes for them, that would not be 'work', that would be an act of charity. However if I washed MY dishes that would be work.

If my pastor was preaching for the sole reason of making a buck, then it wouldn't matter which day he was preaching on, for his entire life would be found in reproach.

God Bless

 

DHK,

We need to get something straight once and for all.

If you do not believe that the promises made to the seed of Abraham are for every believer, regardless of race, then YOU my friend DO NOT have a Saviour.

HE was promised to the JEWS.

The prophecies made to fortell His coming was given to the JEWS.

The blood line that He came through was JEWISH.

The people who He has called HIS are JEWISH.

Your antisemitism needs to stop HERE.

Jesus IS the God who made the Sabbath.

Jesus IS the God who gave us the LAW.

JESUS IS GOD.

He does not change.

NOR DOES HIS LAW.

If you do not think that you are part of the Family of God, and do not think that you are an heir according to the promises made to Abrahams seed, then you are NOT a child of God.

It is that simple.

Since I can safely assume that you ARE a child of God, then you need to prayerfully consider the theology that you have been duped into believing that makes you think that you are NOT a Jew.

God Bless

 

That is a grave misunderstanding of that passage, my friend! You HONESTLY think that GOD would inspire someone to say that if you OBEY HIM you won't be under Grace any more???? I hope you don't really think that.

You point to my statement as if I am judging you, then you turn around and judge me. I did not say, or even imply for that matter that you or DHK are not saved. I would not seriously say that. I might put it in a question, that is meant to inflict thought, but I wouldn't say it seriously, like 'you're not saved cuz you disagree with me!'
For what good reason would I need to 'let go' of the Sabbath? HOW, would OBEDIENCE keep me out of Heaven? And for that matter, how would that keep me from seeing you as a brother? It doesn't. If you believe in Jesus, as your Saviour, then you are my brother.

For one, I have NEVER said that I belong to the "one true church", secondly, I have never said that you must succomb to my doctrines or be
'ananthema'. You are misunderstanding me if you think I feel this way!

I find it interesting that you could percieve all these thing about me, even after reading that last statement. Yes, you are saved by grace. But saved from WHAT? Saved from good works? Saved from obedience? NO NO NO. You are saved from the PENALTY of sin. NOT the rule by which it is defined.

If you throw out the ruler, by what do you measure yourself against? If you know not what you are, how can you know that you need a Saviour?

God Bless

 

3AM,

An honest question for you. Do you observe all the laws of the OT?

Neal

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Ryan said it is not necessary to
be a Sabbath worshipper to go to
heaven, so you can at least rest in
that assurance.

3AM seems to think
that Sabbath keeping is of more
importance, as you do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My statement was as stated above - that you do not need to Keep Sabbath - to go to heaven.

In Christ,

Bob