Are all of God's Ten Commandments still valid?

[BobRyan]

So our buddy Bob denies what SDA's actually believe

He reinterprets what others believe

and continually quotes himself.

Sounds a lot like bagdadbob.

on the contrary - you quote you --

I provide actual quotes of the sources I reference.

Not a big surprise for us by now. But it does bring up the question as to why you think it helps your style of posting to have this point repeatedly brought up in regard to what you are doing and how it compares to the actual sources linked here.

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

Here is an example of claims made by the pro-Sunday sources - and 6 of the 7 are actually correct according to the Bible!.


A small list of pro-sunday scholarship affirming 7 of the 7 points listed in the OP

"Baptist Confession of Faith"
"Westminster Confession of Faith"
C.H. Spurgeon
Andy Stanley
Matthew Henry
[FONT=&quot]Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
R.C Sproul
"D.L. Moody"
"Dies Domini"
and many others
Yes that is right - 6 of the 7 are actually common ground between Sabbath keeping and Sunday keeping Christians.


1. That the Sabbath Commandment is first given to mankind in Gen 2:1-3
2. That all mankind was obligated by the TEN commandments in the OT and to this very day.
3. That the seventh day as the Sabbath was Saturday the seventh day of the week from Gen 2:1-3 until NT times - including at the cross.
4. That the Ten Commandments are the moral Law of God
5. That the moral law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant
6. that the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God are in no way opposed to grace and the Gospel.
7. That the Sabbath commandment can rightly be BENT by man-made-tradition to point to week-day-1 after the cross.

I agree with 6 out of 7 as listed above - and yet many who post against God's TEN commandments object to all of the points listed above. And sometimes they will even go on to complain that so many of the points above are in agreement with my position and opposed to the war-against-the-Ten-Commandments position.

================================
Bible texts both NT and OT about God's Commandments - Showing that the TEN Commandments are assigned the title "in scripture" as being "Commandments of God" -- and as also being "The Word of God"

10 Commandments are –
“Commandments of God” Neh 10:29
“Law of God” Neh 10:29
“Word of God” Mark 7:13
“Commandment of God” Mark 7:6-13
NT “Scripture” James 2:8
NT “Law” – James 2:9-11
NT Commandments Eph 6:2, Rom 13:9, Romans 7:7-10

...
--------------------------

From another web site

-- [/FONT] #297 (Baptist Confession of Faith)

#13 (D.L. Moody)

 

[DHK]

So then these Baptists are just more people for you to run down??

http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The_TenCommandments_Text.html
#154

in any case the "obvious" point is that they are not SDA so complaining that everything they say is only something SDAs notice about the Bible - would be debunked.

What is more obvious is this:
All of Christendom: (including Catholics), every group of Protestants: Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, all kinds of Charismatics, etc., etc., they all worship on Sunday. They all call it the first day of the week or Sunday. None of them call it "the Sabbath." You (aside from a very very few small cultic groups) stand entirely alone, in the face of all Christendom thinking you are right in following EG White, and her Sabbath dream.
Moody, Spurgeon and the CoF are simply red herrings. They are out-dated, used a different vocabulary, which you are simply taking out of context.
No one today refers to Sunday as the "Christian Sabbath." That is not in our cultural vocabulary as it was in Moody's. Language changes. You refuse to accept facts and twist things here to try to make others think that these people believe as you do. They don't. They have distanced themselves from you, as I previously documented.
You stand alone in this tirade of yours. You put yourself under the law.
When are you going to start keeping the rest of the 613 OT laws?

 

[BobRyan]

What is more obvious is this:
All of Christendom: (including Catholics), every group of Protestants: Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, all kinds of Charismatics, etc., etc., they all worship on Sunday. They all call it the first day of the week or Sunday. None of them call it "the Sabbath." You (aside from a very very few small cultic groups)

I guess in your endless name calling "as a solution in true dark ages fashion" are now throwing the Seventh-day Baptists under a bus ... because...err... umm "that is the solution to everything" when you are stuck?

As for your " they all worship on Sunday. " that must be why I refer to them as "pro-sunday scholarship" -- you think??

The point is that "even they" know enough not to oppose the bible on the first 6 points in that list. Not that they are rocket scientists or "your pope" just that the bible details are sooo glaringly obvious on those first 6 points that "even they" get it.


The obvious point is that in that list of 7 points in the OP you are at war with all 7 - and you spend most of your time complaining about the 6 points where I agree with the majority of EVEN pro-sunday scholars.

I think that even the most shallow casual reader of the thread will eventually notice this 'detail'.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Goodness me Bob your posts are yawn fully too long. I have forgotten what the first bit was. By the time you get to the end bit[emoji15]

The length of a post...

The color of the font...

interesting focus on a thread where your own group is one of the 7 point groups in the OP.

 

[DHK]

I guess in your endless name calling "as a solution in true dark ages fashion" are now throwing the Seventh-day Baptists under a bus ... because...err... umm "that is the solution to everything" when you are stuck?

As for your " they all worship on Sunday. " that must be why I refer to them as "pro-sunday scholarship" -- you think??

The point is that "even they" know enough not to oppose the bible on the first 6 points in that list. Not that they are rocket scientists or "your pope" just that the bible details are sooo glaringly obvious on those first 6 points that "even they" get it.


The obvious point is that in that list of 7 points in the OP you are at war with all 7 - and you spend most of your time complaining about the 6 points where I agree with the majority of EVEN pro-sunday scholars.

I think that even the most shallow casual reader of the thread will eventually notice this 'detail'.

in Christ,

Bob

The point I am making Bob is that you stand against all of Christendom and aren't man enough to admit it. Therefore you slip back into 19th century documents and even earlier where the cultural language was different and try to deceitfully prove your points from there. That is a matter of deception.

Almost no one uses the word "Sabbath" to refer to "Sunday" today.

As to refer to the law, almost no one uses the term in the way that you do--a very strict way. Not even the rich young ruler in Mark 10 did that. He seemed to use it in a general sense and then Jesus used it specifically to show him that he didn't keep all the law.

Let me give you another example, that is far more relevant. You know I am a former Catholic. I was one for 20 years. I tried to witness to my father, at times. One answer he would give me was this: "I am not a sinner; I keep the Ten Commandments" (just like the rich young ruler).
He never kept the Sabbath. In his mind he was not a sinner because in general he "kept the Ten Commandments"--do not kill, do not commit adultery, etc. He wasn't a Hitler, a Stalin. He was a good person. If I wanted to be argumentative I could show how he broke the law. No one keeps the law--the Ten Commandments.
And no one today keeps the Sabbath, not even you. If you think you do you are only deceiving yourself.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is an example of claims made by the pro-Sunday sources - and 6 of the 7 are actually correct according to the Bible!.


A small list of pro-sunday scholarship affirming 7 of the 7 points listed in the OP

"Baptist Confession of Faith"
"Westminster Confession of Faith"
C.H. Spurgeon
Andy Stanley
Matthew Henry
[FONT=&quot]Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
R.C Sproul
"D.L. Moody"
"Dies Domini"
and many others
Yes that is right - 6 of the 7 are actually common ground between Sabbath keeping and Sunday keeping Christians.


1. That the Sabbath Commandment is first given to mankind in Gen 2:1-3
2. That all mankind was obligated by the TEN commandments in the OT and to this very day.
3. That the seventh day as the Sabbath was Saturday the seventh day of the week from Gen 2:1-3 until NT times - including at the cross.
4. That the Ten Commandments are the moral Law of God
5. That the moral law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant
6. that the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God are in no way opposed to grace and the Gospel.
7. That the Sabbath commandment can rightly be BENT by man-made-tradition to point to week-day-1 after the cross.

I agree with 6 out of 7 as listed above - and yet many who post against God's TEN commandments object to all of the points listed above. And sometimes they will even go on to complain that so many of the points above are in agreement with my position and opposed to the war-against-the-Ten-Commandments position.


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

From another web site

-- [/FONT] #297 (Baptist Confession of Faith)

#13 (D.L. Moody)

The point I am making Bob is that you stand against all of Christendom

Gross oversimplification that involves tossing even the Seventh-day Baptists under a bus not just the 500 or so other Seventh-day groups as well as 18 million SDA Christians. Sadly your sweeping generalizations do not hold up to real life at times.

I agree with 6 out of 7 as listed above - and yet many who post against God's TEN commandments object to all of the points listed above. And sometimes they will even go on to complain that so many of the points above are in agreement with my position and opposed to the war-against-the-Ten-Commandments position.

Let me give you another example, that is far more relevant. You know I am a former Catholic. I was one for 20 years.

I did not know that - but it explains a few things.

I tried to witness to my father, at times. One answer he would give me was this: "I am not a sinner; I keep the Ten Commandments" (just like the rich young ruler).

Did you try to win him over with virtriol? acrimony?? name calling and accusation after accusation?

Regardless of the methods you used - Is that what you think Spurgeon, Moody, Matthew Henry were claiming?

IS that what you think of Andy Stanley - and R.C. Sproul as to this very day they affirm the TEN Commandments as included in the moral Law of God.

Do you really think that those baptists that respect -- with genuine Christian respect - people like Spurgeon are in fact claiming to toss God's Ten Commandments under a bus?

Get Iconoclast to say that this is his view of Spurgeon's TEN Commandment statements. That "like you" he thinks they are all abolished. Get those guys that respect Spurgeon's doctrine to tell you which of the first 6 points in the 7 point list on the OP they are opposed to. You will retire long before you get them to object to all 6 or more than 1 of the 6.

in Christ

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK;.

the text says

and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.

you say;

you say:


Peter quotes Joel;
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:
it is now:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: all flesh...right now:thumbs:

This does not look like a case where Iconoclast is opposing Spurgeon's section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" or Spurgeon's view of the Ten Commandments.

 

[BobRyan]

Let me give you another example, that is far more relevant. You know I am a former Catholic. I was one for 20 years. I tried to witness to my father, at times. One answer he would give me was this: "I am not a sinner; I keep the Ten Commandments" (just like the rich young ruler).
He never kept the Sabbath. In his mind he was not a sinner because in general he "kept the Ten Commandments"--do not kill, do not commit adultery, etc. He wasn't a Hitler, a Stalin. He was a good person. If I wanted to be argumentative I could show how he broke the law. No one keeps the law--the Ten Commandments.
.

James says that to argue in favor of breaking one of God's Commandments is to argue for breaking them all.

To make the nonsense claim that failure to violate God's Sabbath Commandment means you must be sinless so since that is not going to happen - go ahead and disregard God's 4th commandment... is the same "sort of teaching" according to James as someone making a nonsense claim that failure to take God's name in vain would mean that you must be perfect and keep all the law perfectly.

Those sorts of arguments - are nonsense according to Christ in Matt 5 and James in James 2.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

James says that to argue in favor of breaking one of God's Commandments is to argue for breaking them all.

To make the nonsense claim that failure to violate God's Sabbath Commandment means you must be sinless so since that is not going to happen - go ahead and disregard God's 4th commandment... is the same "sort of teaching" according to James as someone making a nonsense claim that failure to take God's name in vain would mean that you must be perfect and keep all the law perfectly.

Those sorts of arguments - are nonsense according to Christ in Matt 5 and James in James 2.

in Christ,

Bob

You even twist the meaning of James 2:10ff. You didn't quote the verse so that is easy to do and convince your audience, isn't it?

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
--James was simply teaching that one sin is as bad as another. Even if you say you keep the whole law, and then just break one sin (lying for example), you are just as guilty as if you had murdered or committed adultery--the "so-called greater sins" of the law. There are no "mortal" sins as the RCC teaches. If you commit one sin you are just as guilty as if you broke them all, that is, all that apply to us. But the Sabbath was given to Israel (Ex.31)
I find it odd that you never want to discuss Exodus 31.

 

[BobRyan]

You even twist the meaning of James 2:10ff. You didn't quote the verse so that is easy to do and convince your audience, isn't it?

Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
--James was simply teaching that one sin is as bad as another. Even if you say you keep the whole law, and then just break one sin (lying for example), you are just as guilty as if you had murdered or committed adultery

And his point is not "so go ahead and break them ... because you can't help yourself".

He does not say "WE have decided down size what HE said so don't worry about it" rather James said "HE who said" one of the comments is also "HE who said" the others and so ALL are authoritative!


The TEXT

8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well;
9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.



And Christ drives home the point this way -

Matt 5
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;

Which is a problem for your arguments on this thread.

Though we cannot say that the majority of "even" pro-sunday scholarship chooses to make your mistake as we notice in the following examples


"Baptist Confession of Faith"
"Westminster Confession of Faith"
C.H. Spurgeon
Andy Stanley
Matthew Henry
[FONT=&quot]Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
R.C Sproul
"D.L. Moody"
"Dies Domini"
and many others
Yes that is right - 6 of the 7 are actually common ground between Sabbath keeping and Sunday keeping Christians.[/FONT]



So then... as usual... your argument is "with the text"

 

[BobRyan]

Let me give you another example, that is far more relevant. You know I am a former Catholic. I was one for 20 years. I tried to witness to my father, at times. One answer he would give me was this: "I am not a sinner; I keep the Ten Commandments" (just like the rich young ruler).

That is a remarkable story!

Most Catholics I know think that only Mary was in such an immaculate and sinless state as you claim your father said about himself.

Most Catholics I know consider themselves guilty of venial sins but not mortal sins.

Most Catholics I know seek the RCC for "absolution" of their sins, and want some sort of indulgence applied to their case or the case of their dead loved ones to get them out of purgatory. They say they "expect" to be sent to purgatory upon death to "suffer" for those venial sins and would like that time cut short.

But you have apparently found a Catholic exempt from all of that, and I congratulate you on such a rare find, your own father no less!

How astonishing.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As for the RCC that you brought up - and "this topic".


[FONT=&quot]Dies Domini is a papal encyclical on the subject of Sunday and how it is regarded by tradition to be a holy day rooted in the 10 commandments as a continuation of the 4th commandment (numbered 3 by Roman Catholics).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dies Domini, John Paul II, 5 July 1998 - Apostolic Letter [/FONT]

========================== Dies Domini begin
[FONT=&quot]Dies Domini pt 11 [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"the rest of the Sabbath..discloses something of the nuptial shape of the relationship which God wants to establish with the creature made in his image, by calling that creature to enter a pact of love".[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Dies Domini pt 13 -[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"the Sabbath ...is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why unlike many other laws - it is not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart!! In setting this commandment within the context of the basic structure of ethics, Israel and then the church declare that they consider it not just a matter of community religious discipline but a defining and indelible expression of our relationship to God, announced and expounded by biblical revelations.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Dies Domini pt 11 "if the first page of the book of Genesis presents God's work as an example for man, the same is true of God's rest - on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done therefore God blessed the seventh day and made it holy...it is a gaze which God casts upon all things, but in a special way upon man, the crown
of creation. It is a gaze which already discloses something of the nuptial shape of the relationship God wants to establish with the creature made in his own image, by calling that creature to enter a pact of love."[/FONT]

=============================== Dies Domini ... end quote

The quote I gave from Dies Domini is fully consistent with the examples I gave from the Catholic Catechism - at least that is what we appear to have in the details of those quotes.

6 of the 7 points appear here.

[FONT=&quot]2056 The word "Decalogue" means literally "ten words."11 God revealed these "ten words" to his people on the holy mountain. They were written "with the finger of God,"12 unlike the other commandments written by Moses.13 They are pre-eminently the words of God. They are handed on to us in the books of Exodus 14 and Deuteronomy.15 Beginning with the Old Testament, the sacred books refer to the "ten words,"16 but it is in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ that their full meaning will be revealed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations.They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. the Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2063.... the words of the Decalogue remain likewise for us Christians. Far from being abolished, they have received amplification and development from the fact of the coming of the Lord in the flesh.26[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christiansand that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 The Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."29
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](Application in James 2)
2069 The Decalogue forms a coherent whole. Each "word" refers to each of the others and to all of them; they reciprocally condition one another. the two tables shed light on one another; they form an organic unity. To transgress one commandment is to infringe all the others.30 One cannot honor another person without blessing God his Creator. One cannot adore God without loving all men, his creatures. the Decalogue brings man's religious and social life into unity.[/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

Even D.L. Moody does not describe himself as though being at war against God's Ten Commandments -

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

http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The...ents_Text.html

BY THE
DWIGHT L. MOODY​

The Ten Commandments:
Exodus 20:2-17 ​

.
The Fourth Commandment

​

Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the LORD made heaven and Earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.​

[FONT=&quot]THERE HAS BEEN an awful letting-down in this country regarding the Sabbath during the last twenty-five years, and many a man has been shorn of spiritual power, like Samson, because he is not straight on this question. Can you say that you observe the Sabbath properly? You may be a professed Christian: are you obeying this commandment? Or do you neglect the house of God on the Sabbath day, and spend your time drinking and carousing in places of vice and crime, showing contempt for God and His law? Are you ready to step into the scales? Where were you last Sabbath? How did you spend it?

I honestly believe that this commandment is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was[/FONT][FONT=&quot]- in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins with the word remember, showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?

I believe that the Sabbath question today is a vital one for the whole country. It is the burning question of the present time. If you give up the Sabbath the church goes; [/FONT] __________________

 

[DHK]

And his point is not "so go ahead and break them ... because you can't help yourself".

He does not say "WE have decided down size what HE said so don't worry about it" rather James said "HE who said" one of the comments is also "HE who said" the others and so ALL are authoritative!

He is speaking or teaching that breaking one command is just as bad as breaking another command. There is no difference in degree of sin, such as the Catholics teach. That is the teaching here. It has just zoomed over your head.

The TEXT

8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well;
9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.

The law of liberty is not the Ten Commandments.
It is Christ's law, a law of love. The Law, i.e, Ten Commandments, can only condemn. Christ came to set us free from the Law.

And Christ drives home the point this way -

Matt 5
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;

Your misinterpretation of Scripture through other translations is astounding.
Jesus is speaking of the preservation of the inspired word.
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Not even a letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass away. God's Word shall be preserved.

Which is a problem for your arguments on this thread.

Though we cannot say that the majority of "even" pro-sunday scholarship chooses to make your mistake as we notice in the following examples


"Baptist Confession of Faith"
"Westminster Confession of Faith"
C.H. Spurgeon
Andy Stanley
Matthew Henry
[FONT=&quot]Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
R.C Sproul
"D.L. Moody"
"Dies Domini"
and many others
Yes that is right - 6 of the 7 are actually common ground between Sabbath keeping and Sunday keeping Christians.[/FONT]

So then... as usual... your argument is "with the text"

These are not my authorities or scholars. When will you get that into your head?
In the list that you have given, neither Matthew Henry, nor Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown were Baptist. I don't know who Andy Stanley was. Sproul is a strong Calvinist. What on earth is "Deis Domini"? Both Confession of Faiths are Calvinist. Spurgeon was a Calvinist. Moody at first was a Congregationalist who later established the YMCA. He was largely non-denominational but never seemed to leave his Congregational roots.
--In short, not one of the sources you have given I would go to for any kind of "authoritative" source.

Your listing of these "sources" are just red herrings and that is all.

 

[BobRyan]

Speaking of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" -- and D.L Moody --

from -- #94

DHK

Your false posting here complicates this issue beyond repair.:laugh:

SBM has made some statements that are true, and some that need correction or further instruction.

You are not the person to offer that help as your failure to understand romans 8 is a monumental failure.

Your explanation of an optional Christian life, optional holiness, discounts everything you previously posted on this thread when you tried to borrow from others the language of Jesus being LORD.

You cannot believe the truth of the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and hold the carnal Christian heresy at the same time.

you believe you can,but this causes a denial of the ongoing nature of progressive sanctification.

Your responses to Paul's question;

6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

Your answer is ...yes by all means...we can and do continue on practicing sin. caught up in the world as adulterers, liars,and thieves etc....we make that choice and have that option, and if we continue, we might lose a yo-yo, or a tootsie role pop in the future millennial kingdom:laugh:

Paul says;
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

This was the point of referencing Spurgeon's "Baptist Confession of Faith" on this thread --> #1

You made a few timid post to DHK on that thread and left. Only to find out that this same principle comes up repeatedly here on the C-v-A board.

Your point that choosing to be a liar or adulterer has a significance far beyond "less toys in heaven" is the sort of thing that the "Baptist Confession of Faith" appears to endorse as well as the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and many other sources listed there. And there are many Bible texts posted there as well in support of it.

But on that thread - two Arminians - DHK and I take opposite sides of the question - where I have to defend the case of the Calvinists here who support Spurgeon in that discussion, because the Calvinists are absent over there. Aside from a timid post or two.

 

[BobRyan]

Which is a problem for your arguments on this thread.

Though we cannot say that the majority of "even" pro-sunday scholarship chooses to make your mistake as we notice in the following examples


"Baptist Confession of Faith"
"Westminster Confession of Faith"
C.H. Spurgeon
Andy Stanley
Matthew Henry
[FONT=&quot]Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
R.C Sproul
"D.L. Moody"
"Dies Domini"
and many others
Yes that is right - 6 of the 7 are actually common ground between Sabbath keeping and Sunday keeping Christians.[/FONT]

So then... as usual... your argument is "with the text"

These are not my authorities or scholars.

I can also say "these are not SDAs" - nor "my authorities"

but can you also say "these don't believe in worship on Sunday"??

The point is EVEN those on your "pro-sunday" side the fence see the glaringly obvious point about the TEN commandments as the moral law of God.

Not just one or two.

The majority of pro-Sunday scholarship.

When will you get that into your head?
In the list given, neither Matthew Henry, nor Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown are SDA or saturday keeping and STILL they admit to "the obvious".


You say " I don't know who Andy Stanley was."

That says a lot. You are "Baptist" right? Hint Andy Stanley is not SDA even if he does have the largest Baptist church in America.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...-hes-ready-to-invest-in-30-somethings-127296/



Sproul is a strong sunday-keeping Calvinist. - which does not make him SDA by a long shot. yet even "he" admits to the point about the TEN Commandments.

.
--In short, not one of the sources I have given I would go to for any kind of "authoritative Pope" source for SDA and STILL they "know enough" not to be at war against the Bible - Ten Commandments..

Your turning a blind eye to these glaringly obvious details is just a red herring and that is all.

 

[DHK]

Speaking of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" -- and D.L Moody --

from -- #94

This was the point of referencing Spurgeon's "Baptist Confession of Faith" on this thread --> #1

You made a few timid post to DHK on that thread and left. Only to find out that this same principle comes up repeatedly here on the C-v-A board.

Your point that choosing to be a liar or adulterer has a significance far beyond "less toys in heaven" is the sort of thing that the "Baptist Confession of Faith" appears to endorse as well as the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and many other sources listed there. And there are many Bible texts posted there as well in support of it.

But on that thread - two Arminians - DHK and I take opposite sides of the question - where I have to defend the case of the Calvinists here who support Spurgeon in that discussion, because the Calvinists are absent over there. Aside from a timid post or two.

Your post doesn't make any sense. I did not reference any Confession of Faith. I answered Icon's post and I referenced in that post, another post by SBM, from almost 3 years ago. But I have already done that in that thread. It is not new. I am not referencing the people you are quoting.
Secondly that forum is specifically a Calvinistic forum with topics specific to Calvinism.
This thread is about the Sabbath Day and the Law, and has nothing to do with Calvinism. Why do you assume the two are related? They have nothing in common.

You are using these authorities to somehow substantiate your SDA position when they do not. Conclusion: deceitful.
You are claiming that the Sabbath is to be honored today, and that these men agree with you. That is a lie!
There is much on your part in this thread that is deceit.

 

[DHK]

Which is a problem for your arguments on this thread.

Though we cannot say that the majority of "even" pro-sunday scholarship chooses to make your mistake as we notice in the following examples


"Baptist Confession of Faith"
"Westminster Confession of Faith"
C.H. Spurgeon
Andy Stanley
Matthew Henry
[FONT=&quot]Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
R.C Sproul
"D.L. Moody"
"Dies Domini"
and many others
Yes that is right - 6 of the 7 are actually common ground between Sabbath keeping and Sunday keeping Christians.[/FONT]

So then... as usual... your argument is "with the text"


I can also say "these are not SDAs" - nor "my authorities"

but can you also say "these don't believe in worship on Sunday"??

The point is EVEN those on your "pro-sunday" side the fence see the glaringly obvious point about the TEN commandments as the moral law of God.

Not just one or two.

The majority of pro-Sunday scholarship.

When will you get that into your head?
In the list given, neither Matthew Henry, nor Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown are SDA or saturday keeping and STILL they admit to "the obvious".


You say " I don't know who Andy Stanley was."

That says a lot. You are "Baptist" right? Hint Andy Stanley is not SDA even if he does have the largest Baptist church in America.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...-hes-ready-to-invest-in-30-somethings-127296/



Sproul is a strong sunday-keeping Calvinist. - which does not make him SDA by a long shot. yet even "he" admits to the point about the TEN Commandments.

.
--In short, not one of the sources I have given I would go to for any kind of "authoritative Pope" source for SDA and STILL they "know enough" not to be at war against the Bible - Ten Commandments..

Your turning a blind eye to these glaringly obvious details is just a red herring and that is all.

What don't you get Bob?
I belong to an Independent Baptist Church. I don't subscribe to anyone else's Confession of faith. I have no other authorities that I submit to. Baptists in general are autonomous and independent, and IFB's are even more so.
We don't have any "hierarchical structure" to submit to like the SDA; no Ellen G. White to bow down to.
Sorry Bob, you fail in this area.
I have the Word of God as my authority and my witness and that is all.
There is no use in quoting other men or documents. I don't have any other authorities.
Your repetitive posting of such people simply shows your ignorance of Baptists.
As someone else pointed out to you: "What is 'The Baptist Confession of Faith'"? I thought you would take the hint then.
There isn't one.

 

[BobRyan]

Which is a problem for your arguments on this thread.

Though we cannot say that the majority of "even" pro-sunday scholarship chooses to make your mistake as we notice in the following examples


"Baptist Confession of Faith"
"Westminster Confession of Faith"
C.H. Spurgeon
Andy Stanley
Matthew Henry
[FONT=&quot]Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
R.C Sproul
"D.L. Moody"
"Dies Domini"
and many others
Yes that is right - 6 of the 7 are actually common ground between Sabbath keeping and Sunday keeping Christians.[/FONT]

So then... as usual... your argument is "with the text"




I can also say "these are not SDAs" - nor "my authorities"

but can you also say "these don't believe in worship on Sunday"??

The point is EVEN those on your "pro-sunday" side the fence see the glaringly obvious point about the TEN commandments as the moral law of God.

Not just one or two.

The majority of pro-Sunday scholarship.

When will you get that into your head?
In the list given, neither Matthew Henry, nor Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown are SDA or saturday keeping and STILL they admit to "the obvious".


You say " I don't know who Andy Stanley was."

That says a lot. You are "Baptist" right? Hint Andy Stanley is not SDA even if he does have the largest Baptist church in America.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...-hes-ready-to-invest-in-30-somethings-127296/



Sproul is a strong sunday-keeping Calvinist. - which does not make him SDA by a long shot. yet even "he" admits to the point about the TEN Commandments.

.
--In short, not one of the sources I have given I would go to for any kind of "authoritative Pope" source for SDA and STILL they "know enough" not to be at war against the Bible - Ten Commandments..

Your turning a blind eye to these glaringly obvious details is just a red herring and that is all.

What don't you get Bob?
I belong to an Independent Baptist Church. I don't subscribe to anyone else's Confession of faith.

That still leaves you as "Baptist" not "SDA".

The point was not that you have to actually "believe Baptists" the point is that those sources are not SDA and yet even THEY admit to the Bible details about God's Ten Commandments such that they know enough not to be at war with God's Ten Commandments.

The point is that your constant efforts to re-cast this as "just SDAs notice that about God's Ten Commandments" is not a case that can be made in "real life".

You are ignoring the texts in the OP and pretending that these pro-sunday sources that you are at war against in your all-7-points-war ... still leaves the issue between your view and "just SDAs" as if the majority of even pro-Sunday scholarship "does not exist".

This is the incredibly obvious part of the discussion.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Speaking of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" -- and D.L Moody --

from -- #94

Originally Posted by Iconoclast
DHK

Your false posting here complicates this issue beyond repair.:laugh:

SBM has made some statements that are true, and some that need correction or further instruction.

You are not the person to offer that help as your failure to understand romans 8 is a monumental failure.

Your explanation of an optional Christian life, optional holiness, discounts everything you previously posted on this thread when you tried to borrow from others the language of Jesus being LORD.

You cannot believe the truth of the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and hold the carnal Christian heresy at the same time.

you believe you can,but this causes a denial of the ongoing nature of progressive sanctification.

Your responses to Paul's question;

6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

Your answer is ...yes by all means...we can and do continue on practicing sin. caught up in the world as adulterers, liars,and thieves etc....we make that choice and have that option, and if we continue, we might lose a yo-yo, or a tootsie role pop in the future millennial kingdom:laugh:

Paul says;
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

This was the point of referencing Spurgeon's "Baptist Confession of Faith" on this thread --> #1

You made a few timid post to DHK on that thread and left. Only to find out that this same principle comes up repeatedly here on the C-v-A board.

Your point that choosing to be a liar or adulterer has a significance far beyond "less toys in heaven" is the sort of thing that the "Baptist Confession of Faith" appears to endorse as well as the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and many other sources listed there. And there are many Bible texts posted there as well in support of it.

But on that thread - two Arminians - DHK and I take opposite sides of the question - where I have to defend the case of the Calvinists here who support Spurgeon in that discussion, because the Calvinists are absent over there. Aside from a timid post or two.

Your post doesn't make any sense. I did not reference any Confession of Faith.

your comment misses the entire point of the post above rather than addressing it. That post does not claim that you are the one appealing to the "Baptist Confession of Faith" rather you are running from it in your effort to pretend this issue is between your war against God's Ten Commandments and "just SDAs".

Icon appears to be arguing in favor of what Spurgeon said on this subject.

hmmm wonder why that would be???

I answered Icon's post and I referenced in that post, another post by SBM, from almost 3 years ago. But I have already done that in that thread. It is not new. I am not referencing the people you are quoting.
Secondly that forum is specifically a Calvinistic forum with topics specific to Calvinism.
This thread is about the Sabbath Day and the Law, and has nothing to do with Calvinism.

In the post above Icon argues that sin (the transgression of the Law 1 John 3:4) is a bigger issue than the "less toys in heaven" idea you have recast it to.

His reference to Romans 8 is in regard to the Rom 8:5-8 fact that the saints keep the Law of God. (As SBM argues that the lost cannot keep the law of God and are condemned).

Pretty hard not to notice the "submit to the Law of God" topic coming up there - even though you seem to argue here "yes but we could just pretend couldn't we?"


in Christ,

Bob