Commandment keeping

[DHK]

Hardly - it does, however, reinforce my position and I've shown that to be the case using those two verses. Why not actually read post #147? Could it be that, when the works that you claim are of no avail turn out to be the works required under Mosiac Law as applied to the Pharisees, that your position disintegrates? Hmmm... Unfortunately, you no longer have that convenient straw man to flail against.

Ahhh... the death of an idea... In pace requiescat!

Peace!

The nature of debate is not duck and run. I presented an answer to you with Scripture. Now you need to come back with a rebuttal of such Scripture. But you can't. You can't refute my position. You duck and run. You avoid it like the plague. These are two verses that you would rather cut out of your Bible. You can't explain them. I am trying to start a debate on an intelligent basis with you, but I find no cooperation. If you don't want to debate the matter we will close the matter and I will ignore your posts.

The truth of the matter is: If you were to line up all the posts about losing your salvation on the left side of the page, and I were to list all the Scripture that speaks to the position of OSAS on the right side of the page, the left side would look like a dwarf in comparison to the right side.

I don't want to go helter-skelter all over the Bible right now. I don't want to play "shot-gun" with you. That is not how intelligent debate works. Discuss Romans 4:4,5 first, and then we will discuss a Scripture of your choosing.

 

[DHK]

So now the chorus of voices rises calling for DHK to show a level of "value" for the concept of "sola scriptura" testing of doctrine - such that he would embrace - rather than flatly reject Biblical exegesis of a doctrine.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

in Christ,

Bob

I seek for an intelligent debate. Instead I have two posters both reluctant to carry on an intelligent debate because they refuse to discuss the relevant passage. Sad!

 

[DHK]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
You need to read the texts referenced.
Bob

I am not wasting bandwith when one can easily look these referencing in their own Bibles. The truth be told Bob, I have answered these references many times for you. You just don't accept my answers.
But you avoid the reference I give you. Thy the hypocrisy shines right through.

 

[lori4dogs]

The nature of debate is not duck and run. I presented an answer to you with Scripture. Now you need to come back with a rebuttal of such Scripture. But you can't. You can't refute my position. You duck and run. You avoid it like the plague. These are two verses that you would rather cut out of your Bible. You can't explain them. I am trying to start a debate on an intelligent basis with you, but I find no cooperation. If you don't want to debate the matter we will close the matter and I will ignore your posts.

The truth of the matter is: If you were to line up all the posts about losing your salvation on the left side of the page, and I were to list all the Scripture that speaks to the position of OSAS on the right side of the page, the left side would look like a dwarf in comparison to the right side.

I don't want to go helter-skelter all over the Bible right now. I don't want to play "shot-gun" with you. That is not how intelligent debate works. Discuss Romans 4:4,5 first, and then we will discuss a Scripture of your choosing.

Kinda like this one: Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins

 

[DHK]

Kinda like this one: Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins

I suppose you have no recollection of a Greek preposition "eis."

I have explained this verse many times also, and to you in specific, but we all have such short memories don't we Lori. Maybe conveniently so.

 

[BillySunday1935]

The nature of debate is not duck and run. I presented an answer to you with Scripture. Now you need to come back with a rebuttal of such Scripture. But you can't. You can't refute my position. You duck and run. You avoid it like the plague.

And if you had even bothered to read post #147, you would have recognized that the lack of response which you are bemoaning, already exists! Look, if you are unable to read and assimilate what I provided then that, DHK, is ultimately your problem.

These are two verses that you would rather cut out of your Bible. You can't explain them. I am trying to start a debate on an intelligent basis with you, but I find no cooperation. If you don't want to debate the matter we will close the matter and I will ignore your posts.

Well it should be abundantly clear to all here, that you routinely ignore challenging posts anyway. Clearly, you have no conception of what constitutes an honest debate. It is not some wrestling match in which you are both opponent and referee. Nor is it some esoteric pseudo intellectual public preening where you are free to write and re-write rules pulled from the vagaries of your own apparently puerile mind at anytime during the discussion. It is, rather, an intellectually honest discourse where points are put forth, discussed, and either proven or disproved based upon the data at hand.

The truth of the matter is: If you were to line up all the posts about losing your salvation on the left side of the page, and I were to list all the Scripture that speaks to the position of OSAS on the right side of the page, the left side would look like a dwarf in comparison to the right side.

So you are now reduced to a simple scriptural word count or frequency analysis in order to make your point? The truth of the matter is this – open and free discussions do not flourish in a closed and heavily censored environment, which is apparently what you require in order to continually wallow in the man-made doctrines from which you so obviously find succor.

I don't want to go helter-skelter all over the Bible right now. I don't want to play "shot-gun" with you. That is not how intelligent debate works. Discuss Romans 4:4,5 first, and then we will discuss a Scripture of your choosing.

I am not interested in letting you control the nature of the debate, DHK. It is clear that you have yet to answer ANYTHING that I have asked. You sir, appear to be intellectually vapid and can only respond with your own opinion peppered with blatant illogical sophistry. You have lost what little credibility that you may have once had and I, for one, find myself unable take you seriously.

Well, I must go for now as I seek more intellectually stimulating discourse. There is a Three Stooges Marathon on AMC tonight.

Peace!

 

[BobRyan]

So now the chorus of voices rises calling for DHK to show a level of "value" for the concept of "sola scriptura" testing of doctrine - such that he would embrace - rather than flatly reject Biblical exegesis of a doctrine.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

I seek for an intelligent debate.

Your first clue should be that Bible exegesis demands that you take the full orbed view of a given doctrine rather than doing the snippet-from-Ex-31-alone while you ignore the texts that come up flatly refusing the bend-and-wrench job you have done to Ex 31.

Thankfully - guys like D.L Moody did not choose the Bible-avoidance solution you seem to prefer.

Surely you knew that we would "notice" what you are doing.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

And if you had even bothered to read post #147, you would have recognized that the lack of response which you are bemoaning, already exists! Look, if you are unable to read and assimilate what I provided then that, DHK, is ultimately your problem.
Peace!

Your post (147) was a feeble attempt to answer my point on Romans 4:4,5. You don't remember that do you. The fact is you didn't. Instead of giving an answer to the verse you deflected it, avoided it, and listed a number of other verses instead. If you want to know why I didn't bother answering any of the other verses, it is because you still haven't answered the one I originally gave you. A debate doesn't follow the rules of: "But what about this..." Deal with subject matter and don't be so childish.

 

[DHK]

Your first clue should be that Bible exegesis demands that you take the full orbed view of a given doctrine rather than doing the snippet-from-Ex-31-alone while you ignore the texts that come up flatly refusing the bend-and-wrench job you have done to Ex 31.

Thankfully - guys like D.L Moody did not choose the Bible-avoidance solution you seem to prefer.

Surely you knew that we would "notice" what you are doing.



in Christ,

Bob

D.L. Moody was an evangelist and did expound the Scriptures.
You seem to have no concept of what that means. Why don't you do the same thing. Take Exodus 31:13-18 and give an exposition of it. Go through it verse by verse and tell us what it means. Are you able to do that?

 

[BobRyan]

I have stated that God's making the Sabbath "for mankind" Mark 2:27 such that "From Sabbath to Sabbath ... shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66 does not in anyway preclude God from giving the Sabbath to His chosen people to be a sign of obedience for His people.

Recall that even Rev 14 and Rev 12 points to the "saints" as those who "keep the commandments of God".

God's position is consistent there.

Your argument is that if God gives the Sabbath to His chosen people in the OT - then He must revoke that Sabbath-memorial of creating all life on earth - including mankind - from the rest of mankind.

But the Bible explicitly refutes your suggestion - by telling us in Is 66 -- centuries AFTER the Ex 31 event - that God considered His Sabbath to be a time when ALL MANKIND will come before Him to Worship -- even as far into the future as the New Earth.

When I debate with JW's on the subject of the Trinity they want to argue that Christ's statment "I go to my God and your God" should effectively undo all the other statements in scripture about Christ being God.

I argue with them - the same point - that it is a "both-and" solution that is required in the Bible to get the full meaning of the doctrine 100% correct.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

I have stated that God's making the Sabbath "for mankind" Mark 2:27 such that "From Sabbath to Sabbath ... shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship"
Bob

What you have done is an exposition of Exodus 31:13-18.
You never will touch that passage will you?

 

[BobRyan]

You never will touch that passage will you?

I have addressed every point you made from Ex 31 - and also the point that Ex 31 is not the only text in the Bible that speaks to the topic.

So while your keeping busy hiding from the rest of the Bible I don't mind emphasizing the point as follows -

I have stated that God's making the Sabbath "for mankind" Mark 2:27 such that "From Sabbath to Sabbath ... shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66 does not in anyway preclude God from giving the Sabbath to His chosen people to be a sign of obedience for His people (as we find in Ex 31)

Recall that even Rev 14 and Rev 12 points to the "saints" as those who "keep the commandments of God".

God's position is consistent there.

Your argument is that if God gives the Sabbath to His chosen people in the OT (as we find in Ex 31)- then He must revoke that Sabbath-memorial of creating all life on earth - including mankind - from the rest of mankind.

But the Bible explicitly refutes your suggestion - by telling us in Is 66 -- centuries AFTER the Ex 31 event - that God considered His Sabbath to be a time when ALL MANKIND will come before Him to Worship -- even as far into the future as the New Earth.

When I debate with JW's on the subject of the Trinity they want to argue that Christ's statment "I go to my God and your God" should effectively undo all the other statements in scripture about Christ being God.

I argue with them - the same point - that it is a "both-and" solution that is required in the Bible to get the full meaning of the doctrine 100% correct.

 

[DHK]

I have addressed every point you made from Ex 31 - and also the point that Ex 31 is not the only text in the Bible that speaks to the topic.

So while your keeping busy hiding from the rest of the Bible I don't mind emphasizing the point as follows -

You have not addressed Exodus 31 at all. If you have give me the URL.
Demonstrate to me that you have expounded this passage to me, as I did for you at one time.

 

[BobRyan]

DHK - it is much easier than you let on.

You use Ex 31 as if it said "The Sabbath is revoked from gentiles" - it does not say that.

you use Ex 31 as if Christ did not say "the Sabbath was made for mankind" or at least to the effect that Ex 31 somehow negates the statement of Christ in Mark 2:27 that flatly contradicts your bend-and-wrench in Ex 31.

you then appeal to "progressive revelation" as IF that helps your case - when all it does is destroy your argument for it makes it "appear" that God expanded the Sabbath from the "only Israel" scope in Ex 31 - to the "ALL MANKIND" scope in Is 66 and to the "Gentiles and Jews scope" in Isaiah 56.

And given Mark 2:27 "Sabbath was MADE for mankind" (a statement that goes all the way back to the 7th day of creation week - in Genesis 2:1-3) - your entire argument has nothing to stand on but the HOPE that people will "only read Ex 31" and ignore the rest of the Bible.

As I remind the JW's when they try that with the doctrine of the Trinity - it simply does not work.

D.L Moody was closer to the truth on this point than your solution has been able to muster in all this time.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

DHK - it is much easier than you let on.

You use Ex 31 as if it said "The Sabbath is revoked from gentiles" - it does not say that.
Bob

Of course it doesn't say that. There were no Gentiles before that. There was no Israel before that. Certainly Israel was another name for Jacob. But the nation of Israel did not come into being as a nation until that time at Mount Sinai, which was just prior to Exodus 33.

Even before Abraham there was no "Gentile," people to be distinguished from "the Jews." The term is irrelevant. There also was no command to keep the Sabbath--for anyone.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Your post (147) was a feeble attempt to answer my point on Romans 4:4,5. You don't remember that do you. The fact is you didn't. Instead of giving an answer to the verse you deflected it, avoided it, and listed a number of other verses instead. If you want to know why I didn't bother answering any of the other verses, it is because you still haven't answered the one I originally gave you. A debate doesn't follow the rules of: "But what about this..." Deal with subject matter and don't be so childish.

Oh I gave you an answer all right, but it just wasn't the one that you needed in order to buttress your belief system - a system, I might add, that hasn't been around all that long. Look - a good apologist (and there are many here) could respond with a cogent argument to my points, yet you - as a moderator - seem unable to do so. Childish indeed!

Peace!

 

[BobRyan]

DHK - it is much easier than you let on.

You use Ex 31 as if it said "The Sabbath is revoked from gentiles" - it does not say that.

you use Ex 31 as if Christ did not say "the Sabbath was made for mankind" or at least to the effect that Ex 31 somehow negates the statement of Christ in Mark 2:27 that flatly contradicts your bend-and-wrench in Ex 31.

you then appeal to "progressive revelation" as IF that helps your case - when all it does is destroy your argument for it makes it "appear" that God expanded the Sabbath from the "only Israel" scope in Ex 31 - to the "ALL MANKIND" scope in Is 66 and to the "Gentiles and Jews scope" in Isaiah 56.

And given Mark 2:27 "Sabbath was MADE for mankind" (a statement that goes all the way back to the 7th day of creation week - in Genesis 2:1-3) - your entire argument has nothing to stand on but the HOPE that people will "only read Ex 31" and ignore the rest of the Bible.

As I remind the JW's when they try that with the doctrine of the Trinity - it simply does not work.

D.L Moody was closer to the truth on this point than your solution has been able to muster in all this time.

Of course it doesn't say that. There were no Gentiles before that.

Indeed there was "ALL mankind".

Thus Christ is correct in Mark 2:27 speaking of the creation Sabbath "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND". And in Gen 2:3 we see that very thing as the Seventh-day is "made HOLY".

There was no Israel before that. Certainly Israel was another name for Jacob. But the nation of Israel did not come into being as a nation until that time at Mount Sinai, which was just prior to Exodus 33.

The New Covenant promise of Heb 8:6-11 is "made to the house of ISRAEL" according to "the text".

In Ex 31 as you point out - the SIGN of the 4th commandment - placed in the Ten Commandments is a sign between God and "Israel" between God and "the People of God".

In Heb 4 we are told "there REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the People of God".

In Ex 20:8-11 God does not say "I now event the Sabbath and make it a holy day" -- rather God says that IN Gen 2:3 HE MADE it Holy and that the people of God are to remember it because THEN in Gen 2:3 He MADE it Holy.

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy

Thus D.L Moody is correct to include this in his sermon on God's Commandments

 

[DHK]

Indeed there was "ALL mankind".

Thus Christ is correct in Mark 2:27 speaking of the creation Sabbath "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND". And in Gen 2:3 we see that very thing as the Seventh-day is "made HOLY".

There is no command here.

The New Covenant promise of Heb 8:6-11 is "made to the house of ISRAEL" according to "the text".

Consistent then with Exodus 31

In Ex 31 as you point out - the SIGN of the 4th commandment - placed in the Ten Commandments is a sign between God and "Israel" between God and "the People of God".

Demonstrate that through an exposition through this chapter. Why won't you do that? It does not say "people of God." Why do you blatantly lie on this board, and refuse to quote Exodus 31 to back up your unwarranted claims?

In Heb 4 we are told "there REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the People of God".

There is no command here.

In Ex 20:8-11 God does not say "I now event the Sabbath and make it a holy day" -- rather God says that IN Gen 2:3 HE MADE it Holy and that the people of God are to remember it because THEN in Gen 2:3 He MADE it Holy.

So he made it holy. He did not command anyone but the Israelites to keep it, and you have failed to demonstrate it.

Ex 20

8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy

Thus D.L Moody is correct to include this in his sermon on God's Commandments

Moody is not the Bible.
Why not quote EGW?
I thought you were sola scriptura.
Every command but the fourth is repeated in the NT.
Nowhere in the Scripture is the believer commanded to keep the Sabbath--nowhere.

 

[BobRyan]

Moody is not the Bible.
Why not quote EGW?
I thought you were sola scriptura.
Every command but the fourth is repeated in the NT.
Nowhere in the Scripture is the believer commanded to keep the Sabbath--nowhere.

1. The Third commandment is not repeated in the NT.
2. The 4th commandment is quoted several times in the NT.
3. There is NO "sola scriptura" doctrine saying "whatever of God's Word is not repeated should be deleted" - though you seem to imagine it is a valid Bible principle in your wild guesswork above.

AS for D.L Moody -

D.L Moody on the subject of the 4th commandment - (and before DHK or Steaver goes there "No - D.L Moody was not SDA" -- he is just an example of a non-SDA that thought the 4th commandment was part of the Ten Commandments).

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS​

BY

DWIGHT L. MOODY​

The Ten Commandments:​

Exodus 20:2-17 ​

The Fourth Commandment

Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy[/b]. 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: [b]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.[/b]​

THERE HAS BEEN an [b]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[/b], 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?

[b]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, [b]He did nothing to set it aside[/b]; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place.
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was- 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; if you give up the church the home goes; and if the home goes the nation goes. That is the direction in which we are traveling.

The church of God is losing its power on account of so many people giving up the Sabbath, and using it to promote selfishness.

.​

HOW TBSERVE THE SABBATH​

"Sabbath" means "rest," and the meaning of the word gives a hint as to the true way to observe the day. God rested after creation, and ordained the Sabbath as a rest for man. He blessed it and hallowed it. Remember the rest-day to keep it holy.[/b]
[/quote]
…





[b]Mr. Gladstone recently told a friend that the secret of his long life is that amid all the pressure of public cares he never forgot the Sabbath, with its rest for the body and the soul.
·
When I was a boy, the Sabbath lasted from sundown on Saturday to sundown on Sunday,
…
Make the Sabbath a day of religious activity. First of all, of course, is attendance at public worship. "There is a discrepancy," says John McNeill, "between our creed about the Sabbath day and our actual conduct. In many families, at ten o'clock on the Sabbath, attendance at church is still an open question. There is no open question on Monday morning- 'John, will you go to work today.'"

…
Someone has said that without the Sabbath, the Church of Christ could not, as a visible organization, exist on earth.
…
Parents, if you want your children to grow up and honor you, have them honor the Sabbath day.

 

[saturneptune]

Guess what. I can read the Bible just like Dwight Moody. The same Holy Spirit speaks to me as He did Mr. Moody. Frankly, what Mr. Moody thinks of observing the Sabbath is fine for Mr. Moody, but I really do not care what he thinks. I do care what the Bible says and what is right.