Adventists Are Sabbath Breakers

[BobRyan]

the ONLY sources that you can cite on this topic would be those holding same views as you, and the teaching of Ellen White,

you quote a post from me listing 50 Bible texts and then claim that you find no inspired texts - among those 50 Bible texts.

In that post I ask you "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," -

And you give no answer but rather appear to want to blame those 50 Bible texts - on Ellen White -- or perhaps you are just blaming the fact that someone might read those texts on Ellen White??

How odd.

Let's take one easy example of the Bible texts you are dismissing -- already provided repeatedly in my posts.

19.2 The same law that was first written in the human heart continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall.1 It was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in TEN commandments (written in two tables) the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six our duty to our fellow beings.3
(1) For the Fourth Commandment: Gen 2:3; Exo 16; Gen 7:4; 8:10,12. For the Fifth Commandment: Gen 37:10. For the Sixth Commandment: Gen 4:3-15. For the Seventh Commandment: Gen 12:17. For the Eighth Commandment: Gen 31:30; 44:8. For the Ninth Commandment: Gen 27:12. For the Tenth Commandment: Gen 6:2; 13:10-11
(2) Rom 2:12a,14-15
(3) Exo 32:15-16; 34:4,28; Deu 10:4

Even you would have a hard time ignoring the fact that the 4th commandment is in Ex 16 "Tomorrow is the Sabbath".

Can you really be serious in trying to blame everything on Ellen White??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In post #1 of this thread it is claimed that SDAs break the Sabbath for not including civil laws in with the Ten Commandment moral laws.

Yet it has been shown beyond dispute that many non-SDA (yes even Baptist) sources also make the distinction between civil laws and the Ten Commandments. So the OP fails right out of the gate.

Christ himself demonstrates this issue with the woman caught in adultery - not applying the civil laws regarding the penalty for adultery under the conditions of the Jews in captivity and subject to Roman law rather than a true theocracy.

In Post #3 of this thread it is claimed that Christ himself was a Sabbath breaker.

But in my response (post #4) I point to Matt 5 where Christ specifically debunks the Jewish claim that HE was a law breaker in the least. Those who side with the jewish accusation against Christ - accusing him of being a law breaker - tend to slip up and make the same claims against SDAs - on the basis that SDAs distinguish between civil laws given to a theocracy - vs moral laws for all mankind - such as the Ten Commandments.

A distinction NOT unique to SDAs as the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Baptist Confession of Faith - and the Seventh-day Baptists illustrate.

Yet the wild claim in the OP is that this is some sort of SDA issue.

How odd.

Yet free will being what it is - people are free to ignore details when it does not fit their form of accusation against other Christians.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

In post #1 of this thread it is claimed that SDAs break the Sabbath for not including civil laws in with the Ten Commandment moral laws.

It is a matter of consistency.
James 2:10--If you break one law you are guilty of breaking all of them.
Gal.3:10--Whosoever breaks just one law in their entire law is cursed under the law. The law condemns. No man can keep the law. The book of Galatians was written to believers.

Yet it has been shown beyond dispute that many non-SDA (yes even Baptist) sources also make the distinction between civil laws and the Ten Commandments. So the OP fails right out of the gate.

We don't keep the Jewish civil law, unless that law has been made by civil authorities into the law of the land. For example: "Thou shalt not kill (lit. do not murder0." is one of our laws that carries a penalty with it. There are many other laws that have come into the nations judiciary system because this nation was based on a Judeo-Christian ethic.
However we do not keep the civil and ceremonial law, per se.

Christ himself demonstrates this issue with the woman caught in adultery - not applying the civil laws regarding the penalty for adultery under the conditions of the Jews in captivity and subject to Roman law rather than a true theocracy.

Christ acted under grace and not under law.

In Post #3 of this thread it is claimed that Christ himself was a Sabbath breaker.

He demonstrated that he was the Lord of the Sabbath, and not subject to the Sabbath. The Sabbath had no claim over him. He had claim over the sabbath, and was not subject to it.

But in my response (post #4) I point to Matt 5 where Christ specifically debunks the Jewish claim that HE was a law breaker in the least. Those who side with the jewish accusation against Christ - accusing him of being a law breaker - tend to slip up and make the same claims against SDAs - on the basis that SDAs distinguish between civil laws given to a theocracy - vs moral laws for all mankind - such as the Ten Commandments.

I don't think you demonstrated anything from Matthew five.
In fact in Matthew 5, Jesus doesn't say one word about the sabbath.

A distinction NOT unique to SDAs as the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Baptist Confession of Faith - and the Seventh-day Baptists illustrate.

Baptists do not have a confession of Faith.
Any Baptist Confession of Faith that you can point to is just as valid as mine, which is my statement of faith. I don't recognize others as being mine. This is completely lost on you. Baptists are not monolithic.
This is what you and the Catholics have in common. You are both monolithic, and must adhere to one Catechism or one Creed (The Great Controversy, for example).

Yet the wild claim in the OP is that this is some sort of SDA issue.

Baptists are not obligated to keep the Sabbath day; the SDA's are.
You have not proven otherwise.

Yet free will being what it is - people are free to ignore details when it does not fit their form of accusation against other Christians.

Redefining words does not earn you brownie points.
Misrepresenting the words and statements of others does not leave you in good standing.
The fact still remains:
Baptists do not believe in keeping the Sabbath and the SDA does. Nothing could be more clearer.

 

[BobRyan]

In post #1 of this thread it is claimed that SDAs break the Sabbath for not including civil laws in with the Ten Commandment moral laws.

Yet it has been shown beyond dispute that many non-SDA (yes even Baptist) sources also make the distinction between civil laws and the Ten Commandments. So the OP fails right out of the gate.

Christ himself demonstrates this issue with the woman caught in adultery - not applying the civil laws regarding the penalty for adultery under the conditions of the Jews in captivity and subject to Roman law rather than a true theocracy.

In Post #3 of this thread it is claimed that Christ himself was a Sabbath breaker.

But in my response (post #4) I point to Matt 5 where Christ specifically debunks the Jewish claim that HE was a law breaker in the least. Those who side with the jewish accusation against Christ - accusing him of being a law breaker - tend to slip up and make the same claims against SDAs - on the basis that SDAs distinguish between civil laws given to a theocracy - vs moral laws for all mankind - such as the Ten Commandments.

A distinction NOT unique to SDAs as the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Baptist Confession of Faith - and the Seventh-day Baptists illustrate.

Yet the wild claim in the OP is that this is some sort of SDA issue.

How odd.

I don't think you demonstrated anything from Matthew five.
In fact in Matthew 5, Jesus doesn't say one word about the sabbath.

Jesus said in Matt 5 that not one jot or title of the Law of God is to be set aside.
Jesus said not to teach anyone that he came to abolish the Law of God - in Matt 5.
Jesus said that those who take even the least of the law and disregard it - and so teach others will be considered least in the Kingdom of Heaven. His hearers already had Prov 28:9 so they likely knew what He meant.

It is possible that there "might" be "some" on this board that are unnaware of the Law of God - or of Jesus referring to the Commandments as the "Word of God" and the "Commandments of God" in Mark 7:6-13 - or may be unaware that the 4th Commandment is included in the TEN Commandments...

But not many here would fall in to that category - if any.

Baptists do not have a confession of Faith.
Any Baptist Confession of Faith that you can point to is just as valid as mine, which is my statement of faith.

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

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

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

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

I don't quote other baptists or historic baptist documents to say that they are your master or authority - merely that they "exist" and that this is not some sort view unique to "SDAs and/oe Ellen White" - but rather other data "exists" showing that such a myopic twist of the subject is not supported by the "details".

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

My approach is to parse out the doctrine into its component parts showing where we have agreement - vs - where the line of disagreement exists. Turns out that is very helpful for the objective unbiased reader. You appear to prefer to jumble everything up so that all agreement is disagreement on everything - if there is even one point of difference anywhere in your mix. You are free to pursue that as you wish - I just don't choose to do it.

in Christ,

Bob