Sunday Sermons

[Claudia_T]

I dont know how anybody could possibly read just the verses below and come away with any sort of idea that God intended us to discard the ten commandments law... much less the Sabbath.


1Jn:3:8: He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Jesus said "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law". A jot or a tittle means a dotting of an i or crossing of a t in the law... not one letter of the law would pass away till heaven and earth pass away. This includes the fourth commandment. We are all still here, aren't we? Has heaven and earth passed away and I just am unaware of it?


1Jn:3:4: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Rom:6:15: What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Isa:42:21: The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.


Matthew 5:
14: Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15: Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
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.
19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20: For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23: Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24: Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25: Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26: Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
27: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.


1Jn:2:4: He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

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

Claudia Thompson

http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org

 

[Claudia_T]

...and besides all that, it is just not okay to wake up one day and decide that you are God and that you are going to take God's commandment and decide which of them you are going to change. I dont have the audacity for that and hopefully none of you do either.


2Thes:2:4: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


Mt:15:9: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


Mt:15:3: But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

 

[prophecynut]

Claudia is on roll, 5 consecutive posts and still going strong. I checked out her web sites and must say she is one intelligent and talented lady. I copied a part of her testimony in "Meet the Author"


"Christ consented to die in the sinner's stead, that man, by a life of obedience, might escape the penalty of the Law of God. His death did not make the Law of God of none effect; it did not slay the law, lessen its claims, or detract from its sacred dignity. The death of Christ proclaimed the justice of his Father's law in punishing the transgressor, in that he consented to suffer the penalty of the law transgressed himself, in order to save fallen man from its curse. The death of God's beloved Son on the cross shows the immutability of the Law of God. His death magnifies the Law and makes it honorable, and gives evidence to man of its changeless character. From his own divine lips are heard the words, "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." The death of Christ justified the claims of the law.

But the doctrine is now largely taught that the Gospel of Christ has made the Law of God of no effect; that by "believing" we are released from the necessity of being doers of the word. But this is the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which Christ so unsparingly condemned. To the church of Ephesus he says: 'I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil; and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars; and hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast labored, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.'

Those who are teaching this doctrine to-day have much to say in regard to faith and the righteousness of Christ; but they pervert the truth, and make it serve the cause of error. They declare that we have only to believe on Jesus Christ, and that faith is all-sufficient; that the righteousness of Christ is to be the sinner's credentials; that this imputed righteousness fulfils the law for us, and that we are under no obligation to obey the law of God. This class claim that Christ came to save sinners, and that he has saved them. "I am saved," they will repeat over and over again. But are they saved while transgressing the law of Jehovah?--No; for the garments of Christ's righteousness are not a cloak for iniquity. Such teaching is a gross deception, and Christ becomes to these persons a stumbling-block as he did to the Jews,--to the Jews because they would not receive him as their personal Saviour; to these professed believers in Christ, because they separate Christ and the Law, and regard faith as a substitute for obedience. They separate the Father and the Son, the Saviour of the world. Virtually they teach, both by precept and example, that Christ, by his death, saves men in their transgressions."


Is not this a legalistic approach to salvation?

Roman 13:10
"Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

 

[prophecynut]

Nicolaitans

"A heretical sect within the church that had worked out a compromise with the pagan society. They apparently taught that spiritual liberty gave them sufficient leeway to practice idolatry and immorality. Tradition identifies them with Nicolas, the proselyte of Antioch who was one of the first seven deacons in the Jerusalem church (Ac 6:5), though the evidence is merely circumstantial. A similar group at Pergamum held the teaching of Ballaam (vv.14-15), and some a Thyatira were followers of the woman Jezebel (v.20). From their heretical tendencies it would appear that all three groups were Nicolaitans."

 

[Eric B]

What gives anybody the right to think THEY can put themselves in the place of God and decide that one of the commandments should be discarded? There is no biblical basis for this whatsiever.

...and besides all that, it is just not okay to wake up one day and decide that you are God and that you are going to take God's commandment and decide which of them you are going to change.

No more than waking up and deciding that you are God, and can change nearly 600 other commands (annual holy days, etc). These charges are ridiculous. We believe God decided it in Roman 14:5, 6 and Col.2:16, and in pronciple, in other places, just like you have your scriptures showing we do not need to keep the rest of the 613. You may not believe those scriptures mean what they say, but don't go accusing others of trying to be God.

If those who are identified here as "God's people" are "they who keep the commandments of God" then even a child ought to be able to discern that then those who have the mark of the beast DO NOT keep the commandments.

the very NT passages used to teach commandment-keeping say that love is the only commandment in this new covenant. (Rom l3:8, 9b, James 2:8, 1 John 3:23, 4:21, 2:7-11, 1:7-11, Matt. 22:37-40 , John l3:31, 15:12, Gal.5:14, 1Tim. 1:5 , Matt. 7:12)

Verse 7:"Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters ."

The angel quotes right out of the old testament, the fourth commandment:

Exodus 20:
10: 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:
11: 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.

That is NOT a "QUOTE"! That is a reiteration of an eternal truth about God that was mentioned in the commandment. I'm sorry; but that is the lamest reasoning there is. Remember, the Catholics say that because we see heavenly temple ceremony mentioned in conjunction with "worship" and "God's throne" in Rev.4, then that proves we are to have elaborate ritual in the Church where we worship and "come before the throne". God is much more clear on what He expects of us than that. It says nothing about "Sabbath", or is even telling us to do anything other than worship the right Being.

The ten commandments were to be a "a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes."

on the hand and on the forehead. God's sign. the commandments... God's people.

"BY THIS shall all men know that you are my disciples—if you have love for one another"(John 13:35) THIS is now the "sign" of God .(But actually it always was, but because Israel would not obey even that, God added on all the ceremonies (Galatians 3:19) to teach them obedience, UNTIL Jesus came with His Law, which is love--once again, apart of "the commandments".

What's so ironic and the ultimate proof against this is that all of the Christian/Messianic lawkeeping sects and denominations reject each other—and all other groups because of differences in their lawkeeping. Armstrong rejects everyone else because they don't preach his "gospel" of men becoming members of the Godhead at the resurrection or follow his church organization, and because many do not keep the law to the extent that he does. And then groups that keep the law to a greater extent, such as the sacred name/Messianic Jewish groups, reject him and each other, as well as everyone else. Armstrong and others like him will use the same reasoning they condemn the non-Sabbathkeepers for to prove that those groups go too far. The Adventists think that all of these groups go too far in keeping all the other laws beside the Sabbath and dietary, and suspect them of denying salvation by faith --also like the Sunday keepers, and the Adventists will agree along with them that the annual feasts were "nailed to the Cross", "were a shadow of Christ", etc. (Also, the Adventists doubt most of these groups for their rejection of the Trinity). Armstrong and similar offshoots point out that "the arguments used against the annual sabbaths are the same used against the weekly sabbath", and the sacred name groups point out "the arguments used against the sacred names are the same used against the sabbaths".

So then the Sabbath and the other commandments cannot possibly be the sign of God because the different groups that keep these laws do not even regard it as a sign amongst each other! There's always some other law, or way of keeping the law, or doctrine that identifies each group as the true church or assembly of the Creator, and all of the other lawkeeping groups are rejected as being just as false as the Sunday keeping churches, and even the pagan religions or just plain non-belief.
It's all about carnal judging and one-upmanship, not God. Do you really think God is pleased with this? (So perhaps it's the people pointing who are making thesemves God!)
But as Armstrong himself ewven said (against rhe doctrine of tongues) "the FRUITS of the Holy Spirit, LOVE, JOY, PEACE, patience, kindness, gentleness.., these things in one's life cannot be counterfeited. They are not natural. No one has sufficient will-power to FORCE himself to show always these fruits in his life. It requires the miracle of the LOVE OF GOD shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom.5:5)."

http://members.aol.com/etb700/sabbath.html

 

[Claudia_T]

When one studies Bible Prophecy about the end times in the book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel to find out what the "beast" power is, it becomes very obvious that it refers to the Roman Catholic Church. And it becomes very evident what the Mark of the Beast refers to.

Go read this here:
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org/antichrist.htm

...and/or put this in your browser and hit "enter" to download:
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org/nationalsundaylaw.exe

Knowing these things, it makes it very difficult for someone like me to be patient with those who would automatically jump to the conclusion and find the most convenient excuse around to justify their own mistakes and their own negligence in searching out and doing what God tells them to do... instead of just bowing down to what the Catholic Church is and has told them to do in regard to the Sabbath all these years.

Instead of searching the Scriptures for themselves many will just accept what they have been taught all this time. Tradition rules for them. Their father kept the Sunday Sabbath, their Mother kept the Sunday Sabbath, their pastor, their friends, society, and everyone else has gone along with this deception and so instead of having the courage to step out from "tradition" and do the right thing, according to the Scriptures, they will instead try to cast blame upon us, the Seventh Day Adventists, for having the courage to do what is right and to tell them where they have gone astray. And they accuse us of being a "Cult". Well how very convenient.

And if the Scriptures say that God is calling His own people out of this false system, and that if they do not obey the call they will receive the Mark of the Beast, then how on earth are we, who are conscientious about this issue supposed to "in good spirit" ecumenise with those who refuse to do what God says, who refuse to obey the warning? Sould we ecumenise with them just to avoid being labeled a "Cult"? How could we live with ourselves then? How could we claim to love God. How could we claim to love those who are involved in this deception and who are living under God's displeasure?

I just believe that it is very low, very immature, and downright absurd to to try shift the blame upon us, Seventh Day Adventist and take the easy way out, claiming us to be a "Cult" every time we say something that makes you uncomfortable of that you just don't want to have to face.

You can also go to http://www.3abn.org/media/archives/index.php and just take a little time to listen to Pastor David Asscherick's sermons on the Antichrist, and Bible prophecy under the "Variety" section, before making accusations and before labeling us. After all, the Bible does say,

Prov:18:13: He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.


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

Claudia Thompson

http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org
http://www.templatehog.com

 

[BobRyan]

What's so ironic and the ultimate proof against this is that all of the Christian/Messianic lawkeeping sects and denominations reject each other—and all other groups because of differences in their lawkeeping.

1. Hmmm. And what about the "lawbreaking sects"??

2. Paul said "Do we then ABOLISH the LAW of GOD by our faith?? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 3:31

Yet your argument above is that to submit to God's word is "evil" (Or did you think that God's Law - ESTABLISHED by our faith - is not part of His Word??).

3. Your argument above is the same one used by Catholics against all non-Catholic Christian churches.

4. Which of the "lawkeeping sects" did D.L. Moody belong too?

 

[prophecynut]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sda.htmCult


Status: Several prominent theologians, including ex-members of the Seventh-day Adventists, have stated in the past that the SDA church is a cult. In doing this, they do not imply that the church is a mind control cult or a doomsday cult, but simply that some of their beliefs deviate from those of traditional, conservative Christianity. Some attackers have quoted isolated writings of some members of the church and incorrectly asserted that the thoughts represented official church doctrine. Some of the criticisms include:

That the writings of Mrs. White are considered on a par with those of the Bible: inspired by God and infallible.

That the SDA church bases some of its doctrine on the writings of Mrs. White.

That the atonement of Christ was not finished at crucifixion.

None of the above criticisms are valid. Most Christians and Christian organizations now regard the Seventh Day Adventist church simply as a non-cultic denomination with some unique beliefs. 8

 

[prophecynut]

Was the atonement of Christ not finished at crucifixion?

Are people condemned if not a SDA member?

Are the writings of Mrs. White on par with those of the Bible?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
Was the atonement of Christ not finished at crucifixion?

1 John 2:2 says that at the cross Christ completed the "ATONING SACRIFICE for THE sins of the WHOLE WORLD".

Adventists fully accept that.

But according to God's OWN definition of Atonement (Lev 16 Day of Atonement) the Atonment is a PROCESS that merely BEGINS with the "Atoning Sacrifice).

Christ went to heaven and is our High Priest (Heb 7-10) completing that part of the ATONEMENT that God shows in Lev 16 where we so BOTH the unique part of the sacrifice (The Atoning Sacrifice) AS WELL AS the following work of the High Priest!

So what is your Question?

Are people condemned if not a SDA member?

No - no one is "condemned" because they are not SDA.

Are the writings of Mrs. White on par with those of the Bible?

They are the same as the gifts mentioned in 1Cor 12 and 1Cor 14:1 where many/all church members in Corinth had that gift - yet none of them wrote scripture.

Adventism accepts the Gifts of the Spirit mentioned in 1Cor 12. If one wants to charge them with error - then it is there alone. Ellen White is merely an "instance" of someone having one of those gifts. The root issue is 1Cor 12.

One can not argue that 1Cor 12 gifts are valid - but "an instance of them" is not!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

Rev.13
1-2 This is obviously the four beasts of Daniel 7 put together. The lion is Babylon, the bear is Medo-Persia, the leopard is Greece. The fourth beast was Rome, which expanded to engulf all the strongest characteristics of the other 3 beasts— the lion's mouth, the bear's feet, and the leopard's swift body. Most illustrations erroneously show a 7 headed leopard with 7 lion's mouths and the 10 horns randomly distributed among the heads, but if you put the original four beasts together, it will make up this beast. 1 lion's head + 1 bear's head + 4 leopard's heads (representing the four divisions of Alexander the Great) + the fourth beast's head make the 7 heads. Since this beast represents the expansion of the fourth beast, its head is the "main" head of the beast, which has the lion's mouth (in addition to the lion's head), and thus was wounded in verse 3.

v5 this is the mouth of the "little horn" (Daniel 7:8) who had plucked out the first three horns (Vandals, Heruli, Goths) and then dominated the remaining 7 horns. This is the corrupt church that had become the religion of the empire. The entire beast is not the little horn (church) as the Adventists teach. The term "he was given" used in the KJV and other old translations is the literal word-for-word translation showing that this mouth was ADDED (see Daniel) later; it wasn't one of the beast's original 7 mouths. Power was given to him to continue "42 months". As a day represented a year in OT prophecy (Num. 14:34, Ezek. 4:4-6 ), this would represent the 1260 years from 554 to 1814, when Napoleon was defeated and the Roman power would go into "the bottomless pit".

"The Beast is not the woman who rode the Beast!"

Mark of the Beast
v.16 the second Beast causes all to receive a mark in their right hand or forehead. Now this, everybody agrees, has not been fulfilled yet.

The Bible gives us a valid symbolic interpretation of the right hand and forehead. In Exodus 13:9, Deut.6:1,6-6 and 11:18, it conveys the meaning of work with the hand, and acceptance with the mind. (The Jews did make physical applications of it, though) What's interesting to note, is that the 144,000 earlier mentioned, are "sealed" (7:3,4), and the Seal is the Father's name (14:1), signifying that they belong to Him. And in this case, the seal is ONLY in the forehead, signifying the New Covenant principle of salvation by faith alone. A prototype of this seal of God is in Ezekiel 9:4-6

17 So people will be forced to accept some sort of belief and practice, identifying them as belonging to the Beast, or they will not be able to buy or sell. This doesn't necessarily mean that stores won't accept one's money, as is the assumption in the popular "cashless society" theory, but that a person wouldn't be able to make a living— to even hold a job or function in society! Because enough hasn't been revealed yet, we cannot identify what exactly this mark will be. But as with the image of the beast, we can get some ideas of how it will work.

Several times in the prophecy of Revelation, the faithful, such as those with the seal of God, are said to be those who keep the "commandments of God, and the faith/testimony of Jesus". And this is contrasted with the mark of the Beast. So the Sabbathkeepers have the right idea when they say that this mark of the beast will involve some point of SIN. But they have the wrong issue of what "sin" it will be. This main 'issue of the ages' cannot be the Sabbath-Sunday dispute over 'days' of worship. In the New Testament, the Sabbath and other Old Testament CEREMONIAL 'commandments' are NEVER the issue regarding sin and obedience to God. As those other commandments actually changed in application (Matthew 5), so the spirit of the fourth commandment is resting in Jesus (Matt.11:28-30, Hebrews 4). Yet, it's trusting in Jesus plus the other commandments— not worshiping false gods or idols, blasphemy, killing, adultery, stealing, lying or even the covetousness (lust) that leads us to these things that are clearly emphasized. These are the only things that are mentioned in Revelation and other prophecies as bringing the wrath of God on humanity, not days of worship (except in the Old Covenant when He was dealing specifically with Israel). And since man cannot keep even these commandments perfectly, the ultimate issue for every person is the acceptance or rejection of God's provision for our sinful state— His own Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who died to pay the penalty our sins deserve, so we could be righteous before a holy God. So the issue of the ages basically, is whether people will follow Jesus, or reject Him so they can continue in the lusts of the flesh & eyes, the pride of life, etc. Even those who try to keep the laws of God without Jesus ultimately fall short, and are left in their sins. So in this sense, the fourth commandment— rest/trust in Jesus is the ultimate issue. Millions of people have died without ever having to have accepted or rejected a mark of the beast, and they will still be saved or condemned according to their relationship with Jesus during their lifetime. God could right now send the final wrath mentioned in upcoming chapters to the unregenerate, sinning world, and you wouldn't even need a mark of the beast. (But God is letting the evil powers of the world manifest their rebellion against Him by enforcing some law that will in some way cause people to compromise the commandments of God, and/or ones testimony of Jesus).

One mild example I can use of this is what you may have to do to get a job in the first place. As times are getting tougher, and we compete with the global market, decent jobs one can live off of are getting more scarce and employers are getting increasingly scrutinous on people's work & experience record. Anything can be a spot on one's record, even periods out of work. It's like everyone has to practically lie or bend the truth to accentuate the positive and hide the negative. This was an issue in my early faith as my parents told me "what you have to do to survive" in society, and thought my new profession of faith would hamper that. Lying is sin. Yet, SURVIVAL is now at stake. This is REAL to people. They will do anything to survive, which is the basic instinct in all living things (which right there sets those who would follow the biblical command to give up one's life or freedom rather than support or worship evil against the rest of humanity).This is a fuzzy issue as it involves the question of how much "bending" of one's record constitutes lying, but it does give an example of how this may work.

So Satan is manipulating his business and government systems to make life so desperate that people will easily and quickly follow his Beast system rather than God. The day is fast approaching, when living will be so tight that the only way to survive in society will be by acts that violate God's will and compromise one's faith, whether it be stealing, stepping on others to get ahead, setting aside beliefs and morals to be accepted in society, etc. Every sinful act of greed by both rich and poor, great and small is justified under the guise of "survival". Satan has the entire world gripped by this reasoning, including much of the church. So you see how easily these prophecies can be fulfilled. Also keep in mind once again, that the fulfillment of this will be after the world shaking events of the first four trumpets. Much of society will perhaps even be thrown back into barbarian type conditions where survival certainly will be at any cost.
Anyone caught in their sins without Christ will be under the same wrath, even if he has nothing at all to do with the Beast system and its technologies.

The number 6 represented the number of unrest for man who was created on the 6th day. It falls short of 7, which represented perfection. This goes along with the Gospel teaching about man and sin. Sin brings unrest. And a triple number represented the eternity of the thing symbolized. So 666 then, represents "eternal unrest", the fate of all who die in their sins without Christ. So the most significant term of all that adds up to this number is the Greek he pren— "the [natural] mind". It's this natural or "carnal" mind, devoid of God's Spirit, that is hostile to God (Rom.8:7). It gets us into such trouble with God because "it is not subject to the Law of God, nor indeed can be! So then those who are in the flesh, CANNOT please God" (v.7,8) THIS will be the snare of all the unregenerate people who manage to escape the actual mark of the Beast, such as the northern and eastern powers who fight against the Beast (and are obviously then, not worshiping the Beast). Their rejection of the atoning work of Christ in their lives makes them in God's sight all apart of man's world system of sin led by the archrebel, Satan. This also applies to political conservatives, including religious separatists who think that just shunning the "new world order" puts them on the right side. Yet, their whole agenda boils down to selfish self preservation— a worldly, fleshy value that is also a lure of Satan. (See above under the IMAGE of the Beast). So all unregenerate people, whether officially aligned with the Beast power or not, will still be (spiritually) branded with the number of the Beast, and of sin. (And Christians can unwarily get caught up in supporting it). That's why this verse and others specify "The mark...OR the name...OR the number..." It's possible to have one without the others. But any of them will bring the wrath of God.

So sunday has nothing to do with any of this, and that whole argument falls. And most people debating here are not even pushing for any "Sunday sabbath". Perhaps it's the other side just "accept what they have been taught all this time. Tradition rules for them. Their father called Sunday the mark of the beast, their Mother called Sunday the mark of the beast, their pastor, their church study materials, books, and everyone else in this movement has gone along with this deception and so instead of having the courage to step out from "tradition" and do the right thing, according to the Scriptures, (those who observe the day do not judge those who do not observe the day) they will instead try to cast blame upon us, non-sabbathkeepers, for having the courage to do what is right and to tell them where they have gone astray. (as apart of the instruction to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you --salvation by faith and not the works of the Law(Gal.2:16, 3:2,5,10)-- with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ" (1 Pet.3:16) And they accuse us of being deceived and "following the Roman Catholic Church". Well how very convenient.

1. Hmmm. And what about the "lawbreaking sects"??

Most do not claim that Sunday is the sign of God. In fact, I don't know of any who have said tha; though some may insist more than others that it is "the Lord's Day". (I do not).

2. Paul said "Do we then ABOLISH the LAW of GOD by our faith?? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 3:31

Yet your argument above is that to submit to God's word is "evil" (Or did you think that God's Law - ESTABLISHED by our faith - is not part of His Word??).

You don't keep most of "The Law" Paul was talking about. yet, you believe that you are not making it void, but establishing it. That is what he is saying.

3. Your argument above is the same one used by Catholics against all non-Catholic Christian churches.

Most non-Catholics do not claim that being non-Catholic is the sign of God, PLUS many of us do recognize each other IN CHRIST, despite the differences. So that claim of the Catholists (which I dealt with in those debates) was ridiculous. It is men rising up trying to one-up everybody that cause the real division. Yet now in this issue, we have a bunch of them claiming this common practice is "the sign" of God, yet they still find something else to condemn each other for. You can't even agree on what "submitting to God's word" is, and think that keeping less than you keep is "evil". So it is they who show in their actions that it is NOT really "the sign" at all!

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob asks about idea of "lawkeeping" (vs "lawbreaking"?) sects mentioned in a previous post...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Hmmm. And what about the "lawbreaking sects"??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
Most do not claim that Sunday is the sign of God. In fact, I don't know of any who have said tha; though some may insist more than others that it is "the Lord's Day". (I do not).

Most? What? "Lawbreaking sects"???

Are you arguing for "lawbreaking" as the way to have God's Law written on the heart and to have the "Law of God ESTABLISHED by the faith of the saints"???

God claims that the Sabbath is a sign and God claims that "ALL MANKIND" will keep it once ALL MANKIND are composed only of the righteous (after the 2nd coming).

D.L. Mood claims that the Sabbath is still binding and that it is 'edited' to refer to Sunday. In fact he argues it is as binding today as it ever was (in its new edited form).


quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Paul said "Do we then ABOLISH the LAW of GOD by our faith?? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 3:31

Yet your argument above is that to submit to God's word is "evil" (Or did you think that God's Law - ESTABLISHED by our faith - is not part of His Word??).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
You don't keep most of "The Law"

You are dodging the point. Paul was not arguing "obedience is impossible!!" -- infact he never argues that case!

You seem to try to seek to "edit Paul" by saying "Obedience is not possible so lets to to bend his words to another objective".

you believe that you are not making it void, but establishing it. That is what he is saying

Is that the translation of "God forbid!!! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God!"

How "interesting"

quote:Bob said - regarding the claim that supposedly "lawkeeping denomination" don't always "agree"!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Your argument above is the same one used by Catholics against all non-Catholic Christian churches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric B --
Most non-Catholics do not claim that being non-Catholic is the sign of God,

Are you talking about those in Baptist and other denominations who claim that BEING CATHOLIC is NOT being CHRISTIAN??

Eric said --
PLUS many of us do recognize each other IN CHRIST, despite the differences.

Are you saying that Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists "do not recognize each other IN Christ"????

Eric --
So that claim of the Catholists (which I dealt with in those debates) was ridiculous.

TRue their claim was ridiculous - so also the tempt above to use their tactics against those Christian groups who DO choose to honor Christ the Creator's own Holy day!

Eric --
we have a bunch of them claiming this common practice is "the sign" of God

Rather "a sign". Do you reject God's Word where HE claims it as a sign??

Eric --

You can't even agree on what "submitting to God's word" is

Back to the RC tactic against non-Catholics "so soon"?? (read the Calvinst vs Arminian debate board for "an example" of the enthusiastic levels of difference that can be expressed among "non-Catholics")

In Christ,

Bob

 

[prophecynut]

I read all the 27 fundamental beliefs and other information on the official SDA site and conclude there is not much difference between SDA and other Christ centered churches.

It has foot washing as an ordinance in addition to baptism and the Lord's supper.

It says Jesus' atoning sacrifice was offered once for all on the cross but add a 2nd phase of disposing of all sin which will be accomplished at the end of the Millennium.

Observance of Saturday as the Sabbath day for the church.

Adherence to the prophetic teachings of Ellen G White.

One thing that concerned me was her teaching of the SDA church as the "remnant church" with the "spirit of prophecy." She excludes all other churches, thus making the SDA as the only true church. This is not good and as I've said before a sign typical of cults.

As to prophecy she is a Preterist, but we won't get into that. My hope is someday the SDA will be able to shun her teachings and embrace the futurist interpretation of prophecy.

 

[prophecynut]

I copied this from another Christian board, its similar to what the SDA are doing with their strict adherence to the Sabbath:

Some posts I've read on this thread sounds like another gospel to me. In fact, I know it is another gospel (a works righteousness gospel).

Satan had attempted to destroy the Church by paganizing it, and now he has turned back to trying to destroy it again by Judaizing it, just as he did, in the early Church.

Read Paul's epistle to the churches in Galatia, and you will see how Satan had tryed to destroy the Church, by Judaizing it, bringing believers in Jesus, back under the Law, and under a curse.

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Romans 10:4, NJK).

Some interpret Christ to be the end of the law in the sense that He is the goal or fulfillment of the law. However, "law" here in this passage above refers to the system of earning righteousness in one's own strength.

Christ indeed is the perfect fulfillment of everything the law requires, but He also put an end to the law as way of achieving righteouness for everyone who believes.

Thus Paul emphasizes the sufficiency of faith in receiving the righteousness of God because in fulfilling the law's demands, Christ terminated its claim. However, the passage above does not mean that a Christian may ignore God's "moral" standards or "moral" commandments.

 

[Eric B]

Most? What? "Lawbreaking sects"???

Are you arguing for "lawbreaking" as the way to have God's Law written on the heart and to have the "Law of God ESTABLISHED by the faith of the saints"???

God claims that the Sabbath is a sign and God claims that "ALL MANKIND" will keep it once ALL MANKIND are composed only of the righteous (after the 2nd coming).

D.L. Mood claims that the Sabbath is still binding and that it is 'edited' to refer to Sunday. In fact he argues it is as binding today as it ever was (in its new edited form).

So was the word "lawbreaking" bait for some sort of trap? I assumed by "lawbreaking", you meant groups that do not keep that 7th day Sabbath (Including Moody). Not groups that profess "lawbreaking". (the groups today that do not keep the sabbath do not advocate "lawbreaking", but believe that the literal application for that one command is no longer law to begin with)

You are dodging the point. Paul was not arguing "obedience is impossible!!" -- infact he never argues that case!

You seem to try to seek to "edit Paul" by saying "Obedience is not possible so lets to to bend his words to another objective".

That wasn't my point either. I was not talking about what was possible to obey, but rather what was superseded. You do not keep most of the Law because you believe it has been superseded.

TRue their claim was ridiculous - so also the tempt above to use their tactics against those Christian groups who DO choose to honor Christ the Creator's own Holy day!

Back to the RC tactic against non-Catholics "so soon"?? (read the Calvinst vs Arminian debate board for "an example" of the enthusiastic levels of difference that can be expressed among "non-Catholics")

Are you talking about those in Baptist and other denominations who claim that BEING CATHOLIC is NOT being CHRISTIAN??

Many may believe that Catholics are not Christian, though some do not. But they do not believe that ANYTHING BUT a Catholic is a Christian. They question Catholics because of some of their doctrines and practices, and any other group that distorts the Gospel is also rejected. So your comparison of Catholics and sabbathkeepers is not a good one.

Are you saying that Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists "do not recognize each other IN Christ"????

Those are about the only two groups that do recognize each other. But not church of God 7th Day, Armstrongism, Sacred Names and radical Messianic Judaism. (as well as orthodox Judaism, which of course is noit even in Christ, but nevertheless keeps the day)! All claim sabbath is THE sign of God's people, but do not recognize you or each other.

Rather "a sign". Do you reject God's Word where HE claims it as a sign??

No, you all say THE sign, and reject what God's word says is the sign today.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Eric B:
[QB]

Most? What? "Lawbreaking sects"???

Are you arguing for "lawbreaking" as the way to have God's Law written on the heart and to have the "Law of God ESTABLISHED by the faith of the saints"???

So was the word "lawbreaking" bait for some sort of trap? I assumed by "lawbreaking", you meant groups that do not keep that 7th day Sabbath (Including Moody).

The term "LawKeeping Sects" was first introduced -- by you.

I was just asking if you were dividing Christdianity into "lawkeeping" vs "lawbreaking" or is it just "law-ignoring"?? It appeared that you wanted to put "lawkeeping" on one side and so that suggests "lawbreaking" for the other.

Hence my question about how that line that you are drawing fits with the New Covenant for the saints where God's Law - is written on the heart and the Law of God is "established by our faith" rather than abolished!

Moody is one of those who argues FOR the continuation of God's Law and that Christians are to be found obedient to it rather than rebellious against it.

Quotes are available.

Since you argue that nobody sees the role of Sunday the same way the bible presents Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh day - I simply was asking where you put D. L. Moody in that picture.

Not groups that profess "lawbreaking". (the groups today that do not keep the sabbath do not advocate "lawbreaking", but believe that the literal application for that one command is no longer law to begin with)

But Moody does. And this was fairly common for both Catholics and non-Catholics in his day.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

That wasn't my point either. I was not talking about what was possible to obey, but rather what was superseded. You do not keep most of the Law because you believe it has been superseded.

I don't agree with the "superseded" view.

God's Word is infallible EVEN when HE is speaking it from SINAI HIMSELF! (as difficult as that idea can be to believe).

The Laws God gave in the OT had a specific context.

The Moral Law - the 10 commandments define sin and rebellion vs obedience and worship.

The ceremonial law was "predictive" and pointed to the work of the Messiah as a "type" points to an antitype. Their predictions were fulfilled in the Messiah.

The Lev 19:18 law of Love for our neighbor 'remsains'. The Duet 6:5 command to love God with all the heart - 'remains'.

These are two examples of prescriptive laws that are FULFILLED by Christ but not in the sense of a "prediction" that then has no more function.

The health laws "remain" until our biology is changed.

The civil laws are tied to the theocracy of Israel with God as literal ruling king! When that arrangement was broken "We have no king but Ceasar" the theocracy was ended and its civil laws no longer applicable.

So it is not a quesiton of "bad law superseded by good law" or "bad idea superseded by good idea". Rather - each of the laws had a context. If the context gets deleted - then the law has no domain space.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the RC tactic against non-Catholics "so soon"?? (read the Calvinst vs Arminian debate board for "an example" of the enthusiastic levels of difference that can be expressed among "non-Catholics")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about those in Baptist and other denominations who claim that BEING CATHOLIC is NOT being CHRISTIAN??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said
Many may believe that Catholics are not Christian, though some do not. But they do not believe that ANYTHING BUT a Catholic is a Christian. They question Catholics because of some of their doctrines and practices, and any other group that distorts the Gospel is also rejected. So your comparison of Catholics and sabbathkeepers is not a good one.

It fits rather well since you seek to use the Catholic argument against Sabbath keepers.

But your Catholic argument faile for several reasons.

#1. Adventists don't argue that all Sabbath keepers are saved among Jews, COG, SDA, Seventh-day Baptist eetc just because they are Sabbath keepers.

#2. NOR do they argue that all non-Sabbath keepers are "not Christian" simply because they don't keep Sabbath.

#3. There is not "100% Agreement" among non-Catholic groups on all points of doctrine (see the Calvinist vs Arminian subject thread) NOR is there agreement among Sabbath keeping Christian groups on all points of doctrine.

You are using the Catholic tactic against the Sabbath keeping Christians and it is not working for you any better than it worked for the Catholics against the non-Catholics!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob gives examples HERE where we see agreement between Sabbath keeping groups.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists "do not recognize each other IN Christ"????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric --
Those are about the only two groups that do recognize each other.

The list of exceptions "goes on and on" in that case.

I have been to many Messianic Christian churches that DO recognize Adventists and other Christian denominations as "Christian". Though I have no doubt you could find some extreme local congregation among them that did not.

But not church of God 7th Day,

There is a 7th-day Church of God AND a Church of God 7th-day.

The one is open to other 7th day groups (such as ADventists) and the other COG group is somewhat more of a closed group.

Your attempt to paint all with a single brush is not working.

It did not work when the Catholics tried it with non-Catholics either.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather "a sign". Do you reject God's Word where HE claims it as a sign??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said
No, you all say THE sign, and reject what God's word says is the sign today.

Well #1 it is refreshing that you will admit that God says it IS a sign between Himself and His people.

#2. It was already shown that there are 7th-day keeping Groups that are not considered to be Christian - (Jews for example). So obviously "THE sign" is not accurate.

#3. It was already pointed out that a number of 7th-day groups (lawkeeping sects) as you call them, such as Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists do not fit this square hole you have invented for all Sabbath-keeping Christian churches.

In Christ,

Bob