Adventists Are Sabbath Breakers

[BobRyan]

I could care less what the Baptist Confessions say or Spurgeon. I am not a Calvinist .

So then you would prefer the Westminster Confession of Faith?? same thing.

I too am not a Calvinist - but I know a bible doctrine when I see one. And in this case - even these guys get the point.

And so also the Bible - as I keep pointing out.

Heb 8 the Jer 31:31-33 LAW of God written on the heart under the NEW Covenant.
Rom 3:31 "do we then abolish the Law of God by our Faith? On the contrary we ESTABLISH the Law of God"
1Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Rev 14:12 the saints are those who "KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"
Matt 5 - Christ condemns any ministry that sets aside the Law of God and teaches others to do the same.

Exodus 20
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

John 14
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.


1 John 5
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Trying to "blame it all on SDAs" as if they are the only ones who notice this Bible doctrine on the TEN Commandments - does not work in real life.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bottom line is you cited Exodus 16 as one of your proof texts and none of the 7DA's follow the whole thing.

Bottom line is that Ex 16 proves that a specific day is the reference for the Gen 2:3 command even BEFORE Ex 20 and the writing of the Commandments in stone.

You are simply ignoring what does not please your preferences and assumptions. That is not exegesis - not even a little.

Your wild idea that Ex 16 or .... does not show Sabbath as going from evening until evening as if that is not the Gen 1 statement about sunset-to-sunset is one of your own parties - the Bible does not support it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Yeshua1]

Bottom line is that Ex 16 proves that a specific day is the reference for the Gen 2:3 command even BEFORE Ex 20 and the writing of the Commandments in stone.

You are simply ignoring what does not please your preferences and assumptions. That is not exegesis - not even a little.

Your wild idea that Ex 16 or .... does not show Sabbath as going from evening until evening as if that is not the Gen 1 statement about sunset-to-sunset is one of your own parties - the Bible does not support it.

in Christ,

Bob

read Hebrews, Christiaqns NOW under the sabbath rest of the Lord, which is to cease from trying to kep the law in order to get right with God, Jesus did that already for us!

read Collisians, as Some held to the Jewish Sabbath, someLords day, Paul said you could honor every and any day as unto the Lord!

 

[BobRyan]

So then you would prefer the Westminster Confession of Faith?? same thing.

I too am not a Calvinist - but I know a bible doctrine when I see one. And in this case - even these guys get the point.

And so also the Bible - as I keep pointing out.

Heb 8 the Jer 31:31-33 LAW of God written on the heart under the NEW Covenant.
Rom 3:31 "do we then abolish the Law of God by our Faith? On the contrary we ESTABLISH the Law of God"
1Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Rev 14:12 the saints are those who "KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"
Matt 5 - Christ condemns any ministry that sets aside the Law of God and teaches others to do the same.

Exodus 20
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

John 14
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.


1 John 5
2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Trying to "blame it all on SDAs" as if they are the only ones who notice this Bible doctrine on the TEN Commandments - does not work in real life.

read Hebrews, Christiaqns NOW under the sabbath rest of the Lord,

Heb 4 says that the SAME Sabbath blessing as given in Ps 95:7 in David's day "REMAINS" for the saints today.

Heb 4:21 says that the "Gospel was preached to US just as it was to THEM also"

which is to cease from trying to kep the law in order to get right with God,

And so for the dozenth time - I say that the lost cannot "refrain from murdering enough to become saved".

I think we all see that so circling back to it is not advancing the topic.

read Collisians, as Some held to the Jewish Sabbath, someLords day, Paul said you could honor every and any day as unto the Lord!

There is nothing at all in Colossians about "JewISH Sabbath vs Lord's day" so you would need to "quote you" to get that point out of it. To simply make it up does not serve the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[SovereignMercy]

The sabbath, as the rest of the Law, was fulfilled in Christ and we, the saved, have found our sabbath rest in Him. Those who slavishly keep the sabbath seem to be saying they have NOT found their sabbath rest in Christ (Hebrews 4), and that is a very sad.

Well said.

 

[BobRyan]

7. It is not wrong for the Sabbath to be applied to the seventh day "of the week" but it is wrong to demand it is restricted to such as that restriction has no Biblical basis and contradicts God's own use and application of the Sabbath Law.

[FONT=&quot]8. It is now wrong to apply it (the Sabbath) to the seventh day "of the week" as it has been applied by God to the first day "of the week" first by type in the Messianic feasts of Lev. 23 and Lev. 25 and by Messianic prophecy (Psa. 118:20-24 with Acts 4:10-11; Mk. 16:9; heb. 4:2-11) and by Messianic example (Jn. 20; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Rev. 1:10) and by historic custom consistenly after the aposolic age right up to BEFORE Constantine.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2006881&postcount=75[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Originally Posted by The Biblicist [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
In regard to a consistent weekly application I believe Bob is right at least from the giving of the ten commandments to the Jews to the resurrection of Christ.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2011386#post2011386[/FONT]

Originally Posted by TCassidy
Those who slavishly keep the sabbath seem to be saying they have NOT found their sabbath rest in Christ (Hebrews 4), and that is a very sad.

Sadly for some of our Baptist friends even their own Baptist Confession of Faith fully debunks the wild assumption that obeying God's Word in the 4th commandment = losing their relationship with Christ. So also do D.L. Moody and C.H. Spurgeon debunk that fallacy.

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

Baptist Confession of Faith 1689[FONT=&quot]

19. The Law of God

1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.


2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the ten commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

3. Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

4. To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

5. The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it.


6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expectedin this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace.

7. The aforementioned uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but they sweetly comply with it, as the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do freely and cheerfully those things which the will of God, which is revealed in the law, requires to be done.

C.H. Spurgeon in "Baptist Confession of Faith" revision.
=====================

So also does Christ debunk the man-made-fallacy that the only way to serve God is to ignore His commandments - in Mark 7:6-13.

Here then are details - facts - which are irrefutable.

in Christ,

Bob
[/FONT]

 

[Yeshua1]

[FONT=&quot]Originally Posted by The Biblicist [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
In regard to a consistent weekly application I believe Bob is right at least from the giving of the ten commandments to the Jews to the resurrection of Christ.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2011386#post2011386[/FONT]




Sadly for some of our Baptist friends even their own Baptist Confession of Faith fully debunks the wild assumption that obeying God's Word in the 4th commandment = losing their relationship with Christ. So also do D.L. Moody and C.H. Spurgeon debunk that fallacy.

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

Baptist Confession of Faith 1689[FONT=&quot]

19. The Law of God

1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.


2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the ten commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

3. Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

4. To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

5. The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it.


6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expectedin this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace.

7. The aforementioned uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but they sweetly comply with it, as the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do freely and cheerfully those things which the will of God, which is revealed in the law, requires to be done.

C.H. Spurgeon in "Baptist Confession of Faith" revision.
=====================

So also does Christ debunk the man-made-fallacy that the only way to serve God is to ignore His commandments - in Mark 7:6-13.

Here then are details - facts - which are irrefutable.

in Christ,

Bob
[/FONT]

Again, quoting from uninspired sources, not Apostles/Jesus themselves, and you keep giving us their wurds, but you fail to say that they do NOT agree with the meaning to Sabbath/Law keeping that you ascribed too!

 

[BobRyan]

Again, quoting from uninspired sources, not Apostles/Jesus themselves, and you keep giving us their wurds, but you fail to say that they do NOT agree with the meaning to Sabbath/Law keeping that you ascribed too!

Also not true.

I have stated repeatedly that the Baptist Confession of Faith, the Westminster Confession of Faith, R.C. Sproul etc all claim that

1. The Sabbath was kept in Gen 2:3 - the 4th commandment in Eden.
2. The TEN Commandments apply to all mankind since Eden to this very day.
3. The MORAL LAw of God is the TEN Commandments written on the heart and mind - under the NEW Covenant.
4. the TEN Commandments STILL apply to the saints today.
5. The SABBATH commandment - was SATURDAY (Fri evening to Sat eve) as given by God in Gen 2:3 - but it is "Changed" to apply to "week-day-1" at the cross.

where have you been?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Yeshua1]

Also not true.

I have stated repeatedly that the Baptist Confession of Faith, the Westminster Confession of Faith, R.C. Sproul etc all claim that

1. The Sabbath was kept in Gen 2:3 - the 4th commandment in Eden.
2. The TEN Commandments apply to all mankind since Eden to this very day.
3. The MORAL LAw of God is the TEN Commandments written on the heart and mind - under the NEW Covenant.
4. the TEN Commandments STILL apply to the saints today.
5. The SABBATH commandment - was SATURDAY (Fri evening to Sat eve) as given by God in Gen 2:3 - but it is "Changed" to apply to "week-day-1" at the cross.

where have you been?

in Christ,

Bob

So far, you leep quoting the Confessions of baptists, which you are not, and Ellen White, NO inspired revelation source!

 

[BobRyan]

The Baptist Confession of Faith - sees obvious points on the subject of the Sabbath that you are at war against - and you want to "blame me" (or were you blaming Ellen White) for that?

Your method is not as compelling as you may have at first imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

The Baptist Confession of Faith - sees obvious points on the subject of the Sabbath that you are at war against - and you want to "blame me" (or were you blaming Ellen White) for that?

Your method is not as compelling as you may have at first imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

Your arguments are all bogus. Using Scripture alone show how you keep the Sabbath. Baptist Confessions of faith have nothing to do with this thread; they are simply red herrings. SDA's do not keep the sabbath as Scriptures plainly demonstrate. Prove, using scripture only, that you keep the Sabbath.
We already know we don't keep the sabbath, and don't pretend to keep the sabbath. It is a Jewish commandment.

 

[BobRyan]

So far, you leep quoting the Confessions of baptists, which you are not, and Ellen White, NO inspired revelation source!

The Baptist Confession of Faith - sees obvious points on the subject of the Sabbath that you are at war against - and you want to "blame me" (or were you blaming Ellen White) for that?

Your method is not as compelling as you may have at first imagined.

Your arguments are all bogus.

That wild accusation has yet to be proven.

Using Scripture alone show how you keep the Sabbath.

Scripture says it is from evening to evening - and evening and morning were defined in Genesis 1. So sunset - to - sunset.

That is not the hard part.

And all groups today admit that the Sabbath as God gave it - was for Friday-evening to Saturday evening. "The seventh day" of the week.

And those who imagine a change in the day after the cross - to "week day 1" assign it to Sunday - in full agreement with the fact that Saturday is the seventh day.

So far this is the easy part.

Baptist Confessions of faith have nothing to do with this thread; they are simply red herrings.

Other than the obvious fact that this is a "Baptist Board" and not an "Adventist Board" so having Well accepted Baptist references for a couple of obvious Bible teachings on the subject of the 4th commandment - is "helpful". At least for one of the points of view.

SDA's do not keep the sabbath

A wild accusation that has yet to be proven with Bible fact - only speculation.

We already know we don't keep the sabbath,

Indeed we do know that.

Some of you keep "week day 1" and others keep no day at all - they just attend a church service on week-day-1. (Which was D.L. Moody's complaint by the way.)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

That wild accusation has yet to be proven.

Any argument that comes from a confession of faith is a bogus argument. They are uninspired documents that many here disagree with. Much of the Scripture you use, you use out of context. You have not mounted a good defense for keeping the sabbath.
It is a Jewish feast, and not once have you ever endeavored to explain Exodus 31. Why is that?

Scripture says it is from evening to evening - and evening and morning were defined in Genesis 1. So sunset - to - sunset.

That is the definition of a day not the sabbath. My question to you was: "Show me how you keep the Sabbath." The following is your answer which you have failed to do.

That is not the hard part.

And all groups today admit that the Sabbath as God gave it - was for Friday-evening to Saturday evening. "The seventh day" of the week.

And those who imagine a change in the day after the cross - to "week day 1" assign it to Sunday - in full agreement with the fact that Saturday is the seventh day.

So far this is the easy part.

You never answered my question. You avoided it completely. How do you keep the Sabbath? As commanded,
Do you wear clothes all of one kind from head to foot?
Do you make any coffee or tea--using fuel that you have gathered only from the day before? Remember they stoned one gathering sticks on the sabbath because they were to have enough fuel gathered from the day before. But you probably didn't arrange that with your electric and gas companies.
You don't keep the sabbath. You can't. List all the sabbatical laws and see if you can keep them all.

Other than the obvious fact that this is a "Baptist Board" and not an "Adventist Board" so having Well accepted Baptist references for a couple of obvious Bible teachings on the subject of the 4th commandment - is "helpful". At least for one of the points of view.

As someone from the SDA, you are a guest on a Baptist Board. I am sorry if you don't understand Baptist beliefs. Use the confessions for your own private use. Using them here does you no good. Many of us have never read them, and really don't care to, nor care what they say. They are irrelevant. I study my Bible in order to set forth my doctrines, not any confessions. I have been in the ministry for over 30 years and have never looked at a confession. It is irrelevant. It is not a "well accepted" Baptist reference for today. They were written centuries ago, and for an entirely different purpose. They have historical value more than "Baptist" value. Many Presbyterians would, in essence, accept them.
If you are going to enter into debate here: Use the Bible!

A wild accusation that has yet to be proven with Bible fact - only speculation.

Then prove me wrong.

Indeed we do know that.

Some of you keep "week day 1" and others keep no day at all - they just attend a church service on week-day-1. (Which was D.L. Moody's complaint by the way.)

in Christ,

Bob

I don't keep the Sabbath because it is a Jewish feast, a sign of a covenant between Jehovah and Israel and their generations forever. It was never given to Gentile believers. It is not meant for us to keep.

I worship God every day. It is a pity if you feel that you can only worship God one day of the week. Let me ask you: Who do you worship the rest of the week?

 

[BobRyan]

Any argument that comes from a confession of faith is a bogus argument. They are uninspired documents that many here disagree with.

Anyone is free to differ with them. I myself am not even a Baptist so there are some places where I most certainly differ with those documents.

But they ARE Baptist - as opposed to Adventist - and that cannot be denied.

And the fact that they get this or that Bible point wrong does not mean they get EVERY Bible doctrine wrong. That cannot be denied.

AND You DO have people on this very board that AFFIRM not only those documents but also the teachings of C.H. Spurgeon - (and some here may even agree with D.L. Moody or R.C.Sproul or Andy Stanley or Charles Stanley ... etc).

That cannot be denied either.

The scriptures that I am using are in fact ALSO used (many of them) by the "Baptist Confession of Faith" --

And that also cannot be denied.

D.L. Moody specifically points to the very position you hold -- when he talks about the Sabbath - the 4th commandment Sabbath - and he condemns that position all the while he affirms the "Baptist Confession of Faith" position on the Sabbath.

And that cannot be denied - it is in the text itself.

-----------------------------

Much of the Scripture you use, you use out of context. You have not mounted a good defense for keeping the sabbath.

In fact you are clearly wrong in that regard. It is Baptist documents themselves that appeal to the VERY texts I am using and affirm their application to the 4th commandment.

You are at war not only with the bible text on this subject - but even the Baptist documents - not Adventist documents.

It is a Jewish feast,

The 7 th was made holy in Gen 2:3 (even by "Baptist Confession of Faith" standards) and Ex 20:11 makes it clear that the Gen 2:3 facts "alone" establish the Sabbath as holy, as set apart to be observed BEFORE there is ever a Jew.

This cannot be denied.

Ex 16 points to the Sabbath fact BEFORE Sinai -

This cannot be denied.

Isaiah 66 points to the application for Sabbath being "ALL MANKIND" in vs 23 -

this cannot be denied because it is IN the OT text not just a NT statement on the Sabbath.

Mark 2:27 Christ himself says that when HE made the 4th commandment Sabbath HE made it "FOR MANKIND".

This cannot be denied because it is IN the text.

and not once have you ever endeavored to explain Exodus 31. Why is that?

That is the definition of a day not the sabbath.

The foundation of the day is given in Genesis 1 and all Bible scholars know this. "evening and morning were the FIRST day".

Also -- Moses writes Genesis BEFORE Exodus.

The foundation text that defines "the day" is in Genesis 1.

The evening is sunset in Genesis 1.

"From even to even" is from sunset to sunset.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Anyone is free to differ with them. I myself am not even a Baptist so there are some places where I most certainly differ with those documents.

But they ARE Baptist - as opposed to Adventist - and that cannot be denied.

So is Biblicist and Steaver, and most people on this board. My debate is not with them it is with you. Inasmuch I am not debating them I am not debating Moody, Spurgeon and their confessions of faith. They are irrelevant to this discussion. Everyone else is also irrelevant unless their input is directed to you or verbally (written) in agreement to me. This is not a discussion taking place centuries ago. Moody is not present with us.

And the fact that they get this or that Bible point wrong does not mean they get EVERY Bible doctrine wrong. That cannot be denied.]/quote]
I am not in agreement with them. Don't use them.
I am not in agreement with Biblicist either. Don't use him as my authority.
Use the Bible.

AND You DO have people on this very board that AFFIRM not only those documents but also the teachings of C.H. Spurgeon - (and some here may even agree with D.L. Moody or R.C.Sproul or Andy Stanley or Charles Stanley ... etc).

That makes no difference. Finney claimed to be a Baptist. He is a heretic. Most people on this board can tell you that. Our standard is the Bible, not men.
Awaken is still a current member as far as I know. He is a Charismatic baptist holding to serious doctrinal error. That is not representative of the average Baptist, though he may think so.
You cannot hold a man's document as representative of all Baptists. I will not have it or agree with it.
I don't agree with the confessions, not do I agree with Moody. How can you hold them up as standards if I don't agree with them.

That cannot be denied either.

Yes it can. The scriptures that I am using are in fact ALSO used (many of them) by the "Baptist Confession of Faith" --

And that also cannot be denied.

The Scriptures are used by the J.W.'s; that doesn't make them right.

If you keep using the confessions and other former preachers, then this discussion is over. The Bible is my authority, and on that basis I will proceed. Otherwise, this debate is over.

 

[BobRyan]

Anyone is free to differ with them. I myself am not even a Baptist so there are some places where I most certainly differ with those documents.

But they ARE Baptist - as opposed to Adventist - and that cannot be denied.

And the fact that they get this or that Bible point wrong does not mean they get EVERY Bible doctrine wrong. That cannot be denied.

AND You DO have people on this very board that AFFIRM not only those documents but also the teachings of C.H. Spurgeon - (and some here may even agree with D.L. Moody or R.C.Sproul or Andy Stanley or Charles Stanley ... etc).

That cannot be denied either.

The scriptures that I am using are in fact ALSO used (many of them) by the "Baptist Confession of Faith" --

And that also cannot be denied.

D.L. Moody specifically points to the very position you hold -- when he talks about the Sabbath - the 4th commandment Sabbath - and he condemns that position all the while he affirms the "Baptist Confession of Faith" position on the Sabbath.

And that cannot be denied - it is in the text itself.

So is Biblicist and Steaver, and most people on this board. My debate is not with them it is with you. Inasmuch I am not debating them I am not debating Moody, Spurgeon and their confessions of faith. They are irrelevant to this discussion. Everyone else is also irrelevant unless their input is directed to you or verbally (written) in agreement to me.

You cannot deny that you are Baptist.

You cannot deny that I am not a Baptist.

You cannot deny that the "Baptist Confession of Faith" refutes, debunks many of your own arguments. I did not say that the "Adventist Confession of Faith" debunks your own arguments - I said the "Baptist Confession of Faith" refutes, debunks many of your own arguments.

Your solution is "lets not talk about that".

My point is bringing it up is "objectivity". I am showing that on points where and I differ (which is not too surprising given that one of us is Baptist and the other Adventist) -- even your OWN Baptist documents agree with me on key points.

Why pretend that your argument does not suffer that disadvantage?

I am not in agreement with them. Don't use them.
I am not in agreement with Biblicist either. Don't use him as my authority.
Use the Bible.

You and others here have attributed my views to every fallacious any-excuse-will-do under the sun on this subject as if the only person that would differ with you is someone who accepts the prophetic gift God gave Ellen White.

I prove from the Bible that your position does not hold water and then I show that on those VERY TEXTs - your own Baptist Confession of Faith affirms my claim about them.

All you have in response is a "did-too did-not" - of the form "I refuse to see that point" combined with something like "you only say that because you accept Ellen White as one to whom God gave the 1 Cor 12 gift of prophecy".

With that level of hollow response - no wonder I would remind you that this is NOT a case of someone differing with you simply because they are Adventist or accept Ellen White. But rather D.L. Moody, Andy Stanley, R.C.Sproul. C.H. Spurgeon and the "BAPTIST confession of Faith" affirm KEY points on this topic that you reject while claiming that only I would object to your views and it is supposedly because I am Adventist.

As long as your argument cannot get off the ground in that regard - it does all it can to avoid the points raised by insisting that we not "notice" this great cloud of non-SDA witnesses that agree with my view of some key points from the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Anyone is free to differ with them. I myself am not even a Baptist so there are some places where I most certainly differ with those documents.

But they ARE Baptist - as opposed to Adventist - and that cannot be denied.


You cannot deny that the "Baptist Confession of Faith" refutes, debunks many of your own arguments. I did not say that the "Adventist Confession of Faith" debunks your own arguments - I said the "Baptist Confession of Faith" refutes, debunks many of your own arguments.

Your solution is "lets not talk about that".

Bob

http://askville.amazon.com/kinds-Baptists-list/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=374133

In the above link there are 78 kinds of Baptists listed in the U.S. alone.
And they are all different one from another.
My solution is base your argument on the Word of God or don't debate it at all. Our source of authority here is the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

My solution is base your argument on the Word of God or don't debate it at all. Our source of authority here is the Bible.

1. I could find Not one of your links pointing to another document by that name.

2. This post on this very thread - http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2011564&postcount=11

Lists well over 50 texts from both OT and NT in support of the Bible Sabbath - and yet "predictably" barely a single response to those texts so far (except I think Biblicist may agree with them). Is it your claim that when texts are provided in support of a doctrine - but they are within some Baptist document that we are not to count the texts, not to look into their weight and importance for the subject at hand?

That's is fine if that is the board rule - I just want to know about it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

1. I could find Not one of your links pointing to another document by that name.

2. This post on this very thread - http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2011564&postcount=11

Lists well over 50 texts from both OT and NT in support of the Bible Sabbath - and yet "predictably" barely a single response to those texts so far (except I think Biblicist may agree with them). Is it your claim that when texts are provided in support of a doctrine - but they are within some Baptist document that we are not to count the texts, not to look into their weight and importance for the subject at hand?

That's is fine if that is the board rule - I just want to know about it.

in Christ,

Bob

If you want to have this discussion with me it will be on the basis of the Bible. Otherwise it will not be with me.
The thread is not about Baptist Confessions, therefore you will be off topic.
The first and most important Baptist distinctive is that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. (A confession holds NO weight whatsoever).

Thus keep this subject on topic, and base it on the Word of God. Your habit now of going to confessions is derailing the thread.

Note:
The OP never mentioned or referred to "confessions"
The OP:

Whilst the Seventh Day Adventists debate over whether the Christians are wrong about worshiping in church on Sonday or Saturday, and accuse Christians of violating the Sabbath (as well as contend that Sonday observance is the "mark of the beast"), let me emphatically state that as a person raised in Judaism I could give 600 reasons why the Adventists are wrong about the Sabbath and the law, and 39 reasons alone why they are not correctly observing the Sabbath.

But here I will give just two.

EXODUS 16:29

On another thread, I asked an Adventist whether he went to church on Saturday or Sonday. He affirmed (as most any good Adventist would do) that is was Saturday (or 7th day of the week if he chooses not to use the Roman description of the day). This is a violation of the Sabbath.

"See, for that the Lord hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." Exodus 16:29

Leaving ones place on the Sabbath is a clear violation of God's law.

THE JEWISH CLOCK

Furthermore, most Seventh Day Adventist churches have EVENING SERVICES that begin after evening time. THE JEWISH CLOCK RUNS FROM SUNSET TO SUNSET, "6PM to 6PM" and thus NO Seventh Day Adventist properly observes the timing of the Sabbath. By attending church on Saturday evening AFTER 6pm, Adventists are actually attending church ON SONDAY for at least one hour or more.

Paul is clear in Galations 3 that those who wish to adhere to the law are a debtor to the WHOLE LAW. James 2:10 holds that if anyone break the law in just ONE POINT he is guilty OF ALL. The Seventh Day Adventist not only violates the Sabbath by failing to remain in there places on the Sabbath, but in attending evening services that actually begin ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK according to traditional Jewish and Biblical timing.

 

[Yeshua1]

1. I could find Not one of your links pointing to another document by that name.

2. This post on this very thread - http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2011564&postcount=11

Lists well over 50 texts from both OT and NT in support of the Bible Sabbath - and yet "predictably" barely a single response to those texts so far (except I think Biblicist may agree with them). Is it your claim that when texts are provided in support of a doctrine - but they are within some Baptist document that we are not to count the texts, not to look into their weight and importance for the subject at hand?

That's is fine if that is the board rule - I just want to know about it.

in Christ,

Bob

the ONLY sources that you can cite on this topic would be those holding same views as you, and the teaching of Ellen White, NONE that were inspired from/by God, as they are NOT biblical!