Are all of God's Ten Commandments still valid?

[BobRyan]

Here we have Moody "NOT endorsing" DHK's war on God's Ten Commandments.

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who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it.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] __________________

Here we have DHK trying to "spin this" to a nonsensical as if his war on God's Ten Commandments is even remotely compatible with Moody's direct attack on DHK's argument.

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.

the point remains.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Salty]

Mr. Ryan

Please tell us why the Fourth Commandment is NOT repeated/Required in the New Testament.

(and I don't care what Spurgeon, Moody or Pat Robertson has to say about it)

Salty

PS - Since you don't know the answer let me explain the difference between "A" and "the".

"A" Baptist doctrine statement could be any of dozens of statements - all of which are different.

"The" Baptist doctrine statement means the official one for all Baptists. BTW, - there is NO doctrine statement - official or otherwise - for ALL Baptist groups.
In fact the SBC Southern Baptist Faith and Message is not even the official Doctrine Statement for all SBC churches.

 

[PreachTony]

PS - Since you don't know the answer let me explain the difference between "A" and "the".

"A" Baptist doctrine statement could be any of dozens of statements - all of which are different.

"The" Baptist doctrine statement means the official one for all Baptists. BTW, - there is NO doctrine statement - official or otherwise - for ALL Baptist groups.
In fact the SBC Southern Baptist Faith and Message is not even the official Doctrine Statement for all SBC churches.

:thumbsup: :thumbs: :applause:

 

[DHK]

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.

NO I DON'T! Get it through your skull! I don't have to believe any Baptist concerning the Sabbath or Sunday. There are hundreds of different Baptists and we are all different. My authority is the Word of God, not Baptists. When will you learn that, and how often do I have to repeat it??

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".

It is! With the SDA it is official doctrine, so official that if one does not believe they have the mark of the beast according to EGW!

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".

In reference to Baptists they do not exist. They do not apply. They have nothing to do with me. Look, even Moody was a Congregationalist and not a Baptist, and yet you keep quoting him. Sheer stupidity on your part.

This is the incredibly obvious part of the discussion.

in Christ,

Bob

What is incredibly obvious is you don't know what you are talking about, and are completely ignorant about Baptists. Don't post what you don't know about.

 

[DHK]

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???

Because he is a Calvinist and I am not. Duh!

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?"

The debate takes place in the Cal/Arm forum, not here on a thread on the Sabbath. So it is apples and oranges.
Icon is a Calvinist and I am not.
More than any other poster on this board Icon references and quotes various confessions of faith. So?
He is arguing from a Calvinist point of view and therefore has a different point of view than mine.
Furthermore you are way off topic. The topic he is discussing has nothing to do with the topic here. It is another red herring concerning the Law.

You have put yourself under the Law.
When are you going to start keeping the other 613 OT commands?

 

[BobRyan]

Mr. Ryan

Please tell us why the Fourth Commandment is NOT repeated/Required in the New Testament.[/quote

(and I don't care what Spurgeon, Moody or...

or the "BAPTIST confession of faith" says??

So then your own Baptists take a position and you want an Adventist to "explain it to you"???

Well the reason that even your own Baptists take that position and do not use your "not repeated" failed idea is that

1. There is no such doctrine as "not repeated = deleted" in all of scripture.
2. The third commandment is not repeated or ever quoted in part in the NT -- the fourth commandment by contrast IS.

As we all know by now.

The most shallow reader of the thread - is going to know that obvious fact.

Now back to the "BAPTIST confession of Faith" -

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

When I quote the "BAPTIST confession of Faith" or D.L. Moody I am immediately asked by those who are at war against God's TEN Commandments to "explain" those first 6 points as listed the OP and as clearly AFFIRMED by the various Baptist groups.

How .... odd.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

PS - Since you don't know the answer let me explain the difference between "A" and "the".

"A" Baptist doctrine statement could be any of dozens of statements - all of which are different.

.

hint: The "BAPTIST Confession of Faith" is their name for it -- not mine and you have not come up with a single other "Baptist Confession of Faith" for us to compare it to.

You don't like the facts of history so you simply blame me for reporting it.

How.... odd...

Even the most shallow reader of this thread is going to see right through that tactic you are using. This is not a debate over whether that historic document "exists" neither is it a debate about me being the author of that document. Trying to blame me for it - is totally nonsensical.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by 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/an...things-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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK
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.

NO I DON'T! Get it through your skull! I don't have to believe any Baptist concerning the Sabbath or Sunday.

Perhaps if I repeat this 3 times for you -- you will get it and respond to the point actually in the post.

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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


I say that to address your "it is just SDAs" when the first 6 points of the OP come up.

It is! With the SDA it is official doctrine, .

In reference to Baptists they do not exist. They do not apply. They have nothing to do with me.

Sadly for you - Baptists do exist - and they are not SDA -- no not even the "BAPTIST Confession of Faith" or D.L. Moody are ... SDA.

You yourself have nonsensically posted that you are in agreement with D.L. Moody and also here that you are not.

===============================================
Sheer stupidity on your part.

What is incredibly obvious is you don't know what you are talking about,

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

As you mentioned

 

[BobRyan]

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???



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?"

Because he is a Calvinist and I am not. Duh!

The debate takes place in the Cal/Arm forum, not here on a thread on the Sabbath. So it is apples and oranges.

1. He was responding to your illogical statement about Romans 8:5-8 and the Law of God.

2. This thread is about the Ten Commandments as the Law of God written on the heart.

Even the most shallow reader of this thread will know that by now.

Your opposition to God's Ten Commandments - is not "Arminian" by a long shot.

Icon is a Calvinist and I am not.
More than any other poster on this board Icon references and quotes various confessions of faith.

Hmmm -- which we also find on this thread.

So?
He is arguing from a Calvinist point of view and therefore has a different point of view than mine.
Furthermore you are way off topic. The topic he is discussing has nothing to do with the topic here. It is another red herring concerning the Law.

on that thread you BOTH refer to Romans 8 and the law of God for the saved saints -

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"????


1028 commands in the NT and only 613 in the OT and you want to "keep bringing up the numbers"???? as if this comparison "helps you"????

Really?

 

[DHK]

When I quote the "BAPTIST confession of Faith" or D.L. Moody I am immediately asked by those who are at war against God's TEN Commandments to "explain" those first 6 points as listed the OP and as clearly AFFIRMED by the various Baptist groups.

How .... odd.

in Christ,

Bob

Why do you keep quoting Moody? What makes him an authority?
1. He was a Congregationalist, not a Baptist.
2. Later on he became non-denominational though never left his Congregational roots. So why are you quoting a Congregational evangelist as an authority to Baptists. That is strange Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

Why do you keep quoting Moody? What makes him an authority?
1. He was a Congregationalist, not a Baptist.
2. Later on he became non-denominational though never left his Congregational roots. So why are you quoting a Congregational evangelist as an authority to Baptists. That is strange Bob.

You are the one in previous discussions about Moody claiming that you agreed with him.

Many Baptists support the Moody Bible Institute to this very day

So your idea that no Baptists accept his teaching is horribly flawed.

In any case - my argument is not that he 'is your pope' -- my argument is that he is another example of a non-SDA affirming the first 6 points in the OP - and that like Spurgeon there ARE a significant number of Baptists that hold him in regard as though he were a good Bible teacher and they do not regard him as "an SDA".

I say that to address your "it is just SDAs" when the first 6 points of the OP come up.

It is! With the SDA it is official doctrine, .

Obviously you are not following the discussion.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Perhaps if I repeat this 3 times for you -- you will get it and respond to the point actually in the post.

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

So that is what you are trying to do--justify your cult and their position through the beliefs of others. NO, it won't work. They don't believe the same as the SDA. The very document that you posted, from Moody, has a disclaimer on it that Moody distances himself from all beliefs of the SDA.. He does not want to be associated with the SDA whatsoever. You have nothing in common with the cited authors, Confession of Faiths, etc.

The SDA believe that those who don't worship on Saturday but rather on Sunday have the mark of the Beast. What mockery is that. Not one of us believe in such mockery of the Word of God.

You have put yourself under the law.
When are you going to start keeping the rest of the OT LAW?

 

[RLBosley]

Most of your post was not 1 Cor 9 at all - I simply point out that the commentary in your post not only is in opposition to the bible but even the pro-sunday scholarship listed in the OP knows that it is not so.

As for 1Cor 9

17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. 18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. 19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 23I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. 25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached (the Gospel) to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

"what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God." 1 Cor 7:19

Your contradiction of Paul's letter to corinth is that God's Law - God's Commandments are not Christ's, or that the OT is not the Word of Christ -- "all scripture given by inspiration from God" even though Christ calls the writing of Moses the "Word of God" in Mark 7 as I pointed out to you already and you dismissed as if this was of little importance --- though it is the teaching of Christ Himself in Mark 7



Do you no know that Christ is God???
The Father and the Son - are "one"??

Is this news to you?

God is not opposed to His Ten Commandments -- and Christ "IS God".

It is not news to the pro-Sunday sources I keep referencing -- and I think we all knew that.

in Christ,

Bob

Christ upholds the Law of Moses in Matt 22

Christ quotes Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself"
Christ quotes Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart"

Just when you claim you can tear it down.

John upholds the "Commandments of GOD" in 1John 5 as the sign that we actually do Love God and our fellow man - just when you insist that we can ignore them.

1 John 5
5 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. 2By 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 burdensome.

The very authors - the very books you going to - refute your claims.

Even the pro-sunday scholars listed here know to refute your argument -- and "yet" all of this is "Still" supposed to be "my fault"???

Please be serious.

You cannot use "any-ol-excuse-will-do" to refute God's Ten Commandments, not if you care about the content of scripture.

That is why the majority of even pro-Sunday scholarship try not to do it.

in Christ,

Bob

Now if you could actually deal with what I said, that would be great...

Oh who am I kidding? You won't do that. You''ll just obfuscate and deflect with more silliness about Moody and some Baptist confession that you don't understand...

 

[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!.


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

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Note that in 1John 5 - John contrasts "LOVE", to the Commandments of God. He does not say "By this we know that we Love God -- if we Love God".

Rather John points to obedience to the WORD of God "the Commandments of God" as the sign that we truly to LOVE God. Being at war against his Word is not such a great sign of "loving God" as some had perhaps imagined.

1 John 5
"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.
2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. 1 John 5:1-3

==========================================================
Paul affirms the Ten Commandments (see point 5 below) AND He never claims that "if I did not write it -- it is not scripture for us today" -- as one or two have imagined for us.

1. Paul never commands gentiles to "Love God WITH ALL your heart".
2. Paul never commands gentiles "not to take God's name in vain"
3. Paul never commands gentiles to ignore the writings of Moses.
4. Paul DOES tell gentiles that Moses' writings are still authoritative scripture in 1Cor 9:8-9 and 1Tim 5:18 and binding as being "Law" and as being "scripture".
5. Paul quotes from Moses and the TEN Commandments Eph 6:2. Full 5th commandment
6. Paul DOES teach that there remains therefore a "Sabbath rest for the people of God" Hebrews 4.
7. Paul DOES tell gentiles that "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of GOD" 1 Cor 7:19
8. Paul does tell gentiles "it is not the HEARERS of the Law that are just before God but the DOERS of the Law will be justifIED... on the day when according to my GOSPEL God will judge all mankind" Rom 2:13-16
9. Paul DOES ask that gentiles consider the doctrine of LAW "Do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31
10. Paul DOES tell gentiles that it is only the lost who will "not subject themselves to the LAw of God neither indeed CAN they" Rom 8:6-8
11. Paul DOES tell gentiles that "The Law" is in fact "The LAW of Moses" and is to be used for testing doctrine 1Cor 9:8-9
12. Paul DOES tell gentiles that the OT text is to be used for Doctrine 2Tim 3:16

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

From another web site

-- #297 (Baptist Confession of Faith)

#13 (D.L. Moody)

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 that is what you are trying to do--justify your cult and their position through the beliefs of others. NO, it won't work. They don't believe the same as the SDA.

hint -- pay attention to the actual discussion. IF you think your wild claim that the first 6 points in that post - points you are totally at war with - are NOT held by the sources listed -- -then ... show.... it.

Responding with vitriol,acrimony and loud "harrumph" -- followed by nothing of substance demonstrates to ALL - that you have nothing to offer but factless assertion.

how long could the Baptist church survive on a meal of "factless assertion"???

Why choose that form of collapse??

 

[BobRyan]

Now if you could actually deal with what I said, that would be great...

Oh who am I kidding? You won't do that. You''ll just obfuscate and deflect with more silliness about Moody and some Baptist confession

that you find inconvenient? the first 6 points in the actual OP? On topic? yet you "need" to divert from the points - avoid the details in the OP as if they are "not pertinent to the topic"??? that sounds like nonsense.

Is there a single point in this discussion from the OP that you have addressed??

one??

How is it that runaway - is a tactic that some baptists find so irresistible on this subject??

As for 1Cor 9

17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. 18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. 19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 23I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. 25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached (the Gospel) to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

"what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God." 1 Cor 7:19

Your contradiction of Paul's letter to corinth is that God's Law - God's Commandments are not Christ's, or that the OT is not the Word of Christ -- "all scripture given by inspiration from God" even though Christ calls the writing of Moses the "Word of God" in Mark 7 as I pointed out to you already and you dismissed as if this was of little importance --- though it is the teaching of Christ Himself in Mark 7

 

[RLBosley]

that you find inconvenient?

What?

Is there a single point in this discussion from the OP that you have addressed??

one??

Not directly I guess, as in quoting your OP. I can if you would like. I did however challenge the main presupposition of your OP.

How is it that runaway - is a tactic that some baptists find so irresistible on this subject??

How is replying to you, and pointing out that you never actually answered my point at all, running away? I would LOVE to hear you explain that.

As for 1Cor 9

Your contradiction of Paul's letter to corinth is that God's Law - God's Commandments are not Christ's, or that the OT is not the Word of Christ -- "all scripture given by inspiration from God" even though Christ calls the writing of Moses the "Word of God" in Mark 7 as I pointed out to you already and you dismissed as if this was of little importance --- though it is the teaching of Christ Himself in Mark 7

Again, you ignore what Paul plainly says - He is not (and by extension all Christians) under the Law, referring to the Mosaic Law particularly the Decalogue as codified in the Mosaic Covenant. That is clear from the text. He also says that thought he is not under the (Mosaic) Law he is not without the law of God and identifies the law that he is under as Christ's Law. The ONLY logical deduction is that Christ's law is at least in some way separate and distinct from the codified law handed down at Sinai. The conclusion is inescapable.

The level of continuity between the two laws - Mosaic and Christ's - is another discussion. But to say that they are identical is exegetically impossible.

 

[BobRyan]

Moody distances himself from all beliefs of the SDA..

SDAs believe in the Trinity, sola scriptura testing of all doctrine, the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Christ, saved by grace through faith - and that the bible is the Word of God.

So sorry to hear that nonsensical idea that Moody rejected any truth held in common by SDAs.

Let me know when the period of grieving and mourning among Moody Bible Institute trained pastors and missionaries has ended.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[RLBosley]

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

Yes that is right - 6 of the 7 are actually common ground between Sabbath keeping and Sunday keeping Christians.

And I disagree with them. Yay.

1. That the Sabbath Commandment is first given to mankind in Gen 2:1-3

It's not actually. The Sabbath was given to Israel via Moses in the wilderness. The 7th day of creation is sanctified, but no evidence is given that EVERY 7th day was thus sanctified, nor that it became a command incumbent on all people from Adam on.

2. That all mankind was obligated by the TEN commandments in the OT and to this very day.

Wrong. The Decalogue was given to the Jews as part of their legal, conditional, suzerainty style covenant with God. The 10 as law, are not binding on the Gentiles or on Christians.

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.

Not from Gen 2 but other than that you are correct.

4. That the Ten Commandments are the moral Law of God

They are not, scripture never refers to them as such. They reflect God's moral demands but are not identical with them.

5. That the moral law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant

Sort of.

6. that the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God are in no way opposed to grace and the Gospel.

How do you mean opposed? Are they contrary to God's plan in the gospel? Certainly not. However, they are not and cannot be used as a way of obtaining or maintaining grace.

7. That the Sabbath commandment can rightly be BENT by man-made-tradition to point to week-day-1 after the cross.

No one believes this.

 

[RLBosley]

SDAs believe in the Trinity, sola scriptura testing of all doctrine, the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Christ, saved by grace through faith - and that the bible is the Word of God.

So sorry to hear that nonsensical idea that Moody rejected any truth held in common by SDAs.

Let me know when the period of grieving and mourning among Moody Bible Institute trained pastors and missionaries has ended.

in Christ,

Bob

That's a lie. If SDA believed in Sola Scripture they would not have accepted the words of a false prophet.