Ten Commandments Keep them or break them?

[DHK]

So then many non-SDA groups affirm that the Moral Law of God includes the TEN Commandments, is the heart of the New Covenant "Law written on heart and mind" and continues to be binding upon all the saints to this very day as seen in [FONT=&quot]a number of well known Sunday keeping source documents (Emphasis for DHK to note the detail so often skipped over each time I mention it) such as the "Baptist Confession of Faith" section 19 or the "Westminster Confession of Faith" Section 19 or in D.L. Moody's online sermon on the TEN Commandments, Seventh-day Baptists, Andy Stanley, [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]R.C Sproul. [/FONT] etc.
[/FONT]
Bob

I don't need to note the copy and paste caveat that you so often add to your posts. I tire of them. You can stop wasting precious board space anytime now. I have repeatedly answered you that I don't necessarily agree with these men and their various confessions and statements of faith. So why lump us all together? Plain foolishness on your part.
If you have ever perused the Baptist Theology section you would already know that Baptists are not homogenous like the mindless SDA who are bound to follow blindly the teachings of EGW. Baptists think for themselves, come to their own conclusions based on sola scriptura, and therefore, because they also believe in the priesthood of the believer will differ in conclusions with one another. We are not ashamed of that.

It is the right of every believer to believe the Bible as he believes the Bible ought to be taught or the Bible teaches. Too bad you don't have that freedom. You cannot believe in sola scriptura. You must believe whatever EGW demands of you to believe. What a sorry religion to belong to.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't need to note the copy and paste caveat that you so often add to your posts. I tire of them. You can stop wasting precious board space anytime now. I have repeatedly answered you that I don't necessarily agree with these men and their various confessions and statements of faith. So why lump us all together?

There is no "lumping all together" obviously. I keep repeating the point that these sources do not agree with your view no matter how you prefer to rant on the subject against this or that poster.

Your post that "you don't agree with them" is not all that surprising given that I just posted that "you don't agree with them".

Not sure why you think to go there.

No amount of ad hominem posting on your part removes the point.

You need an actual logical point.

It is fine with me if you simply want to agree with me that you differ with those sources listed. But apparently you like doing it "disagreeably".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

If you have ever perused the Baptist Theology section you would already know that Baptists are not homogenous like the mindless SDA who are bound to follow blindly the teachings of EGW. Baptists think for themselves, come to their own conclusions based on sola scriptura, and therefore, because they also believe in the priesthood of the believer will differ in conclusions with one another. We are not ashamed of that.

It is the right of every believer to believe the Bible as he believes the Bible ought to be taught or the Bible teaches. Too bad you don't have that freedom. You cannot believe in sola scriptura. You must believe whatever EGW demands of you to believe. What a sorry religion to belong to.

I think one should actually take a moment to reflect upon what DHK just said here, especially you Bob.

Think about it. Baptist are free to disagree with one another on almost every doctrinal point that has been debated on this board and still be identified as a Baptist. All "Protestant" denominations are also free to disagree on these points and still remain in loyal, friendly fellowship within their congregations.

But the SDA is not allowed to have disagreement on these points of view at all. They must believe as Ellen G White believed.

What does this show you Bob? Don't you see what truly has control over you?? You declare that it is sola scripture which controls your points of veiw. Is it really?? Just think about the implications of having a "Christian" organization which makes the claim of having inerrant doctrine on every issue which has been debated for centuries ever since Jesus Christ ascended to heaven.

What prominent three groups, which call themselves "Christian", claim to have inerrant doctrines and do not tolerate anyone in their group believing anything otherwise?? JW's - Mormons - SDA's. These are not permitted to believe anything other than what their founders demand they must believe.

Are you truly controlled by sola scripture Bob?? Think about it.

 

[HankD]

That is why it is important that Paul says "what matters is kEEPING the commandments" 1Cor 7:19.

in Christ,

Bob

Then by all means keep them (all of them):

Exodus 20

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:​

HankD​

 

[BobRyan]

I think one should actually take a moment to reflect upon what DHK just said here, especially you Bob.

.

By contrast I think we should all reflect carefully on what the Word of God says on this subject -- especially you Steaver as it will prove a blessing as compared to man-made-tradition, and games.

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

God's Word on the subject of the TEN Commandments.

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

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mark 7[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

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.[/FONT]



Jesus said (before the cross) "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments".

It is not how unsaved people GET saved - but according to John it is an accurate description of what the saved people actually do.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] 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 may need that "news" as well for Paul said
"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God". 1 Cor 7:19

And John claims the saints are those who "KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

And Paul says this in Romans 8 about those who claim that they "cannot" keep God's commands.

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


So then who according to Paul should be the ones complaining that they 'cannot submit to the Law of God"??



Rom 8
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

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

Why fear the scripture and appeal to false accusation after false accusation instead of focused attention on the Word of God?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Baptist are free to disagree with one another on almost every doctrinal point...

But the SDA is not allowed to have disagreement

And now for "some actual facts".

DHK refers to the Seventh-day BAPTISTS as "a cult".

DHK claims his IFB brethren will not share open communion with Southern Baptists!

By contrast - Seventh-day Adventists will share open communion with members of BOTH groups that DHK dismisses in that fashion.

Who then "is free"??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

And now for "some actual facts".

DHK refers to the Seventh-day BAPTISTS as "a cult".

DHK claims his IFB brethren will not share open communion with Southern Baptists!

By contrast - Seventh-day Adventists will share open communion with members of BOTH groups that DHK dismisses in that fashion.

Who then "is free"??

in Christ,

Bob

Open communion is meaningless. Is one required to believe EGW is inerrant on all of her writings in order to be a SDA member??

 

[steaver]

By contrast I think we should all reflect carefully on what the Word of God says on this subject -- especially you Steaver as it will prove a blessing as compared to man-made-tradition, and games.


in Christ,

Bob

There you go again! You are convinced that your positions are based on sola scripture and EGW has nothing to do with them.

You do not realize the propaganda you have bought into. For some 1900 years the church has had disagreements upon all of these topics which get discussed here on the BB. And you believe that a woman came along and finally got it perfect! Really Bob??

Joseph Smith didn't like all the bickering either so he declared himself a prophet and declared absolute perfection in doctrine.

Tell us Bob, On what doctrinal point have you found EGW to be wrong? Is the SDA the perfect church in doctrine?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by steaver
I think one should actually take a moment to reflect upon what DHK just said here, especially you Bob.

By contrast I think we should all reflect carefully on what the Word of God says on this subject -- especially you Steaver as it will prove a blessing as compared to man-made-tradition, and games.

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

God's Word on the subject of the TEN Commandments.

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

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mark 7[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

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.[/FONT]



Jesus said (before the cross) "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments".

It is not how unsaved people GET saved - but according to John it is an accurate description of what the saved people are supposed to actually do.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT] 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 may need that "news" as well for Paul said
"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God". 1 Cor 7:19

And John claims the saints are those who "KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

And Paul says this in Romans 8 about those who claim that they "cannot" keep God's commands.

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


So then who according to Paul should be the ones complaining that they 'cannot submit to the Law of God"??



Rom 8
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

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

Why fear the scripture and appeal to false accusation after false accusation instead of focused attention on the Word of God?

There you go again! You are convinced that your positions are based on sola scripture

I claim my views are to be tested "Sola Scriptura" and that the "scriptura" in the actual post has to be "read" to do the test. I think you will agree with me that this is not all that hard of a concept to read and get right out of the post.


You keep coming back with "reflect upon what DHK just said " as your way around those scriptures.

I am fine with you taking that approach while I post the actual scriptures that apply to the subject.

I think it makes for a good contrast. So I am not complaining about it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by steaver
Baptist are free to disagree with one another on almost every doctrinal point...

But the SDA is not allowed to have disagreement

And now for "some actual facts".

DHK refers to the Seventh-day BAPTISTS as "a cult".

DHK claims his IFB brethren will not share open communion with Southern Baptists!

By contrast - Seventh-day Adventists will share open communion with members of BOTH groups that DHK dismisses in that fashion.

Who then "is free"??

Open communion is meaningless. Is one required to believe EGW is inerrant on all of her writings in order to be a SDA member??

No they do not have to accept the prophetic gift God gave to Ellen White to become a member. But that is a mere smoke screen on your part - as false as it is.

You failed to effectively dodge the point above when you claim that shutting people out of communion means nothing.

Here is the obvious reason why:

What "ELSE" was a Seventh-day Adventist church supposed to do to this or that member if they did not like a certain doctrine - beyond "not sharing communion with them"?? (A thing that you offhandedly call "nothing")

We do not have scarlet letter rules - do you? What "else" were you thinking of doing beyond that ultimate example of restriction that is in the form of not sharing in communion with this or that member or this or that Christian???

You seem to be wandering down an "any ol' excuse will do" path as if this is helping the case you are making.

It needs to make sense first.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

No they do not have to accept the prophetic gift God gave to Ellen White to become a member. But that is a mere smoke screen on your part - as false as it is.

You failed to effectively dodge the point above when you claim that shutting people out of communion means nothing.

Here is the obvious reason why:

What "ELSE" was a Seventh-day Adventist church supposed to do to this or that member if they did not like a certain doctrine - beyond "not sharing communion with them"?? (A thing that you offhandedly call "nothing")

We do not have scarlet letter rules - do you? What "else" were you thinking of doing beyond that ultimate example of restriction that is in the form of not sharing in communion with this or that member or this or that Christian???

You seem to be wandering down an "any ol' excuse will do" path as if this is helping the case you are making.

It needs to make sense first.

in Christ,

Bob

Maybe I am wrong then, you can prove me wrong here. Are you telling me that there are members in your personal congregation that do not believe EGW was a prophet?

Members who argue with you and debate you on if she was a prophet and try to convince you that she was not?

Members who in your bible studies argue against Sabbath Keeping as something God impresses upon NT Believers? They just choose Saturday because that is what your church does?

Members who in your bible studies argue against the teaching that Believers should not be eating pork, or drinking any alcohol at all?

Members who in your bible studies argue against the Dark Ages being the Tribulation spoken of in the Scriptures?

Members who in your bible studies argue against "soul sleep"?

Is this what you are telling me? That you actually have members in your bible studies who argue FOR OSAS??

Is there one doctrine you can name for me that EGW believed the scriptures taught and you and your members disagree upon?? Just one??

 

[DHK]

There is no "lumping all together" obviously. I keep repeating the point that these sources do not agree with your view no matter how you prefer to rant on the subject against this or that poster.

I am a Baptist. Baptists are not homogenous, as I have already said. If you understand "There is no 'lumping all together,'" then why do you slanderously do so? I have told you many times I do not agree with Moody, the Baptist Confession, and even Spurgeon, and yet you go on putting me in the same group as they are. If this were in an open public forum, in a secular press, you could easily be taken to court for misrepresentation. What you do is dishonest. Just because they are Baptist does not mean I agree.

Your post that "you don't agree with them" is not all that surprising given that I just posted that "you don't agree with them".

1. When I went to college there was an ABC church nearby that had a female pastor. Because I am Baptist you think I should agree with female Baptist pastors in the pulpits of our churches? You lump us all together like you lump me with Moody and the Confession of faith?

Or how about this: Did you know that some years ago we had a homosexual member registered here. Not just any member, but a Baptist; not just a Baptist, but he claimed to be a pastor. Thus a homosexual Baptist pastor?! Because he claims to be so, you will lump me together with that abomination and say that I believe and condone such simply because he was here for awhile and claims to be a Baptist and a pastor? This is your slander; your misrepresentation! I don't have anything in common with him. Yet you lump us all together. That is dishonest. And you do it deliberately. In a court of law you could be sued.
We are not a homogenous group like the SDA.
We are not EGW-followers.
We follow the Bible as we believe it ought to be followed, and obviously some of us believe that others are in great error.

Not sure why you think to go there.

No amount of ad hominem posting on your part removes the point.

You need an actual logical point.

Go where? I have made my point. It is logical. What you do is dishonest and hypocritical. I hope you are beginning to understand that.

It is fine with me if you simply want to agree with me that you differ with those sources listed. But apparently you like doing it "disagreeably".

If I look up how many times you have added that standard "caveat" with my moniker in it, that lumps me together with those others, it will be in the dozens. If I take that number and add it to all the other times you have slandered me in the same way, it will be scores.
If I am disagreeable it would be understandable.
If I start giving you infractions for slander it would be justified.

 

[DHK]

And now for "some actual facts".

DHK refers to the Seventh-day BAPTISTS as "a cult".

I think they are in grievous error. It is the SDA that are a cult. Get your facts straight.

DHK claims his IFB brethren will not share open communion with Southern Baptists!

Not so. I can only speak for IFB churches that I am acquainted with and know well enough to know what their position on communion is. I don't know what the position of every church in the IFB movement is. I am not omniscient. It is likely that most of them won't. But I can't speak for them all. I don't know them all. Do a search on the internet looking at various statements of faith that are posted if you are interested.

By contrast - Seventh-day Adventists will share open communion with members of BOTH groups that DHK dismisses in that fashion.

So will Catholics, after all there is no one to police them.
Are you just like the RCC? :laugh:

Who then "is free"??

Not someone bound by "The Great Controversy" and other writings by EGW.

You failed to effectively dodge the point above when you claim that shutting people out of communion means nothing.

Here is the obvious reason why:

What "ELSE" was a Seventh-day Adventist church supposed to do to this or that member if they did not like a certain doctrine - beyond "not sharing communion with them"?? (A thing that you offhandedly call "nothing")

The Communion Table is a serious service not to be taken lightly. Paul said to the members at Corinth:


1 Corinthians 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
--If the Table is open to anyone then the Table is not being properly "policed." It will be the responsibility, at least in part, for the condemnation, that comes on the church and those partaking unworthily.

1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
--What happened when they weren't careful about observing the Lord's Table?
(CEV) That's why many of you are sick and weak and why a lot of others have died.
--It is serious not to keep the Lord's Table properly, and to have those partake of it that have not "qualified themselves."

We do not have scarlet letter rules - do you? What "else" were you thinking of doing beyond that ultimate example of restriction that is in the form of not sharing in communion with this or that member or this or that Christian???

Perhaps you should study your Bible and find out, lest you come into condemnation.

"any ol' excuse will do" path...

This phrase seems very applicable to you.

 

[BobRyan]

Regarding the Word of God - and the 4th Commandment.

It is no wonder then that so many - non-SDA groups, documents, sources DO grasp this obvious point found in the Bible as listed in the texts above. But SDAs cannot take all the credit for this - after all it is the Seventh-day Baptists that first brought this to our attention.

Why mention the Seventh Baptists. They are considered a sect, perhaps even a cult among Baptists. They number 50,000 worldwide, hardly significant considering that the number of Baptists worldwide are 150,000,000, and just in the SBC alone there are 16,000,000.

In the light of those numbers the 7th Day Baptists are not worth mentioning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Day_Baptist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists

Therefore, in reality those who worship on Saturday are rather a very insignificant bunch ...

By that (DHK invented) standard - the Seventh-day Adventist church is larger than all of the groups you listed combined. You will notice that we don't say of the other groups "they are not worth mentioning" just because both of them combined are smaller than we are.

How large is the IFB compared to SBC? Would you argue they are not worth mentioning if they do not reach some certain number?


Certainly the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox make the SBC, IBC and SDAs all dwarf into "insignificance" by your numbers game.

So now the "flip flop" -- ---------------------------

Regarding the Seventh-day Baptists

I think they are in grievous error. It is the SDA that are a cult.

Why mention the Seventh Baptists. They are considered a sect, perhaps even a cult among Baptists.

The problem is that when name-calling is your primary solution to questions where you have a problem - it is hard to keep your name-calling stories straight.

I don't envy you that job.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK claims his IFB brethren will not share open communion with Southern Baptists!

Not so. I can only speak for IFB churches that I am acquainted with and know well enough to know what their position on communion is. I don't know what the position of every church in the IFB movement is. I am not omniscient. It is likely that most of them won't. But I can't speak for them all. I don't know them all.

Note: I did not question the accuracy of your comment. No need to agree disagreeably. (Or is it just habit at this point?)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan to Steaver in his wild Claim that Baptists have perfect freedom even though some refuse fellowship in open communion with other entire groups (such as IFB vs Southern Baptists).

Since Steaver tries to wriggle out of that calling that refusal of communion "nothing" for us to "notice".

You failed to effectively dodge the point above when you claim that shutting people out of communion means nothing.

Here is the obvious reason why:

What "ELSE" was a Seventh-day Adventist church supposed to do to this or that member if they did not like a certain doctrine - beyond "not sharing communion with them"?? (A thing that you offhandedly call "nothing")

The Communion Table is a serious service not to be taken lightly. Paul said to the members at Corinth:

[/SIZE]
1 Corinthians 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
--If the Table is open to anyone then the Table is not being properly "policed." It will be the responsibility, at least in part, for the condemnation, that comes on the church and those partaking unworthily.

1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
--What happened when they weren't careful about observing the Lord's Table?
(CEV) That's why many of you are sick and weak and why a lot of others have died.
--It is serious not to keep the Lord's Table properly, and to have those partake of it that have not "qualified themselves."

Perhaps you should study your Bible and find out, lest you come into condemnation.

The point being made is "WHAT greater measure of discipline " WAS Steaver imagining since he refers to this matter of refusal to share communion as nothing of significance to be noticed.

My point was that we had no GREATER measure than the one mentioned as applying to IFB's against Southern Baptists. (I assume IFB is the much smaller group by comparison).

(If you were reading the actual details in the post you would certainly have noticed this one.)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I keep referencing the fact that a number of non-SDA source accept the continued authority of the TEN Commandments - (as opposed to DHK's downsizing idea) -- and each time I do I point to those sources as "Sunday keeping" or "Sunday promoting" because DHK likes to "pretend" that I think that they keep Saturday -- when not claiming that he thinks I like the way they promote Sunday as the Bible Sabbath no matter that I complain about it.

So clearly a "contrast" between DHK and those TEN commandment sources such as "Baptist Confession of Faith" and D.L. Moody and Thomas Watson and .... you name it.

If I look up how many times you have added that standard "caveat" with my moniker in it, that lumps me together with those others, it will be in the dozens. .

It is hard to be believe that even you would be able to spin this into me claiming that DHK agrees with not downsizing or doing away with the continued authority of the TEN Commandments - the way the sources I keep listing do.

Though you were able to pull off some amazing misdirection in the past on this subject.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I am a Baptist. Baptists are not homogenous, as I have already said. If you understand "There is no 'lumping all together,'" then why do you slanderously do so? I have told you many times I do not agree with Moody, the Baptist Confession, and even Spurgeon, and yet you go on putting me in the same group as they are. If this were in an open public forum, in a secular press, you could easily be taken to court for misrepresentation. What you do is dishonest. Just because they are Baptist does not mean I agree.

1. When I went to college there was an ABC church nearby that had a female pastor. Because I am Baptist you think I should agree with female Baptist pastors in the pulpits of our churches? You lump us all together like you lump me with Moody and the Confession of faith?

Or how about this: Did you know that some years ago we had a homosexual member registered here. Not just any member, but a Baptist; not just a Baptist, but he claimed to be a pastor. Thus a homosexual Baptist pastor?! Because he claims to be so, you will lump me together with that abomination.

You seem to be casting about you for some new story line.. some new false accusation.

How sad.

The actual history is that I keep insisting that these Baptist sources oppose your own view that the TEN Commandments should be downsized or else eliminated. (And I have done that so often it is hard to understand why you have chosen your latest rabbit trail -- who is that supposed to fool -- me??)

You keep arguing that I am the one who is alone in taking that view - the view that you are wrong to try to downsize or eliminate the TEN commandments after the cross. (Another incredibly obvious detail in our debate on this subject)

So I show that these other sources (that also include Baptists) agree with my point that the TEN Commandments ARE still binding on the saints and differ with yours.


So here it is - in context.

The first point against Moody is a paraphrase of your own post against Moody -- hence I point out that you are in a spot where you cannot deny point 1 below.

I also point out that the verbatim quote that follows - is unquestionably a verbatim quote. Something else you cannot deny.

Time to fully unmask DHK's name calling doctrine.

I quote D.L. Moody this way --

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

Here is what I posted -

from: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...6&postcount=46

Sunday is not the Sabbath--nor was it ever, not in all of history was it the Sabbath. Moody's proclamation could not change the Sabbath into Sunday. The Sabbath has always been and always will be Saturday. Just because Moody proclaimed it to be Sunday doesn't make it so.

Yet given that fact - we cannot join DHK in lying about what Moody said about his own beliefs - we must let Moody speak for himself even though we may not agree with his views 100%.

===================== D.L. Moody
Quote:

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; 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. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
HOW TBSERVE THE SABBATH[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]"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.[/FONT]

================== end quote

Verbatim. No comments added. Yet DHK fears these words - as they read - with nothing added.

1. How sad for DHK that he cannot deny my quote above stating "Sunday is not the Sabbath--nor was it ever, not in all of history was it the Sabbath.

Moody's proclamation could not change the Sabbath into Sunday. The Sabbath has always been and always will be Saturday. Just because Moody proclaimed it to be Sunday doesn't make it so. "

2. How sad for DHK that he cannot deny my verbatim quote of D.L. Moody that follows my opening statement above.

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

There is only ONE common sense conclusion - from the above and it is that I object to Moody trying to make Sunday in to the Sabbath but I strongly AGREE that the 4th commandment remains and that the TEN Commandments are still valid for all mankind.

Incredibly obvious and incredibly consistent with everything I have ever posted on this topic.

However DHK has found a "nonsense response" and offers it to anyone that is willing to "engage in nonsense for the sake of name calling and falsely accusing Christians".

What is that nonsense solution given that DHK cannot actually deny the two statements above?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK
Sunday is not the Sabbath, and yet Moody's entire quote refers to Sunday which you do not observe as the Sabbath and disagree that it is the Sabbath. You disagree with Moody over this, and then quote him as if you agree. That is pure hypocrisy, and a shame that you would be so deceitful

The total nonsense DHK proposes is that I am trying to quote Moody "AS if I AGREE" that Sunday is the Sabbath not Saturday. OR as if after flatly condemning Moody in my first statement above for claiming that SUNDAY is the Sabbath - I then QUOTE Moody with NO comments added, as if Moody is insisting along with me that only Saturday is the Sabbath of the 4th commandment - though I have just condemned Moody for his doctrine that is to the contrary. Utter nonsense! WHO would fall for it??

As if inexplicably I want to argue along with Biblicist and Moody that Sunday is the Sabbath not Saturday??!! and so in DHK's nonsense proposal - i am trying to deceive everyone as if this is my point in quoting Moody or the Baptist Confession of Faith or Thomas Watson, or the Westminster Confession of Faith etc.

What utter nonsense!! Biblicist and I have debated this very point as I argue against his view that Sunday is the Sabbath. And DHK knows it - yet boldly DHK offers this nonsense all for the sake of name-calling "alone".

Yet this "nonsense" solution is the very one he needs to then add "you are deceitful" and to get some low-information posters to agree - while others "run for the hills".

How sad that even one person would sign up for the nonsense option just for the sake of name-calling.

So where are they now??

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by steaver
Baptist are free to disagree with one another on almost every doctrinal point...

But the SDA is not allowed to have disagreement

And now for "some actual facts".

DHK refers to the Seventh-day BAPTISTS as "a cult".

DHK claims his IFB brethren will not share open communion with Southern Baptists!

By contrast - Seventh-day Adventists will share open communion with members of BOTH groups that DHK dismisses in that fashion.

Who then "is free"??

Quote:
Originally Posted by steaver
Open communion is meaningless. Is one required to believe EGW is inerrant on all of her writings in order to be a SDA member??

No they do not have to accept the prophetic gift God gave to Ellen White to become a member. But that is a mere smoke screen on your part - as false as it is.

You failed to effectively dodge the point above when you claim that shutting people out of communion means nothing.

Here is the obvious reason why:

What "ELSE" was a Seventh-day Adventist church supposed to do to this or that member if they did not like a certain doctrine - beyond "not sharing communion with them"?? (A thing that you offhandedly call "nothing")

We do not have scarlet letter rules - do you? What "else" were you thinking of doing beyond that ultimate example of restriction that is in the form of not sharing in communion with this or that member or this or that Christian???

You seem to be wandering down an "any ol' excuse will do" path as if this is helping the case you are making.

It needs to make sense first.

Maybe I am wrong then, you can prove me wrong here. Are you telling me that there are members in your personal congregation that do not believe EGW was a prophet?

How about an entire section of the planet for starters... Europe. Many SDAs in Europe do not accept Ellen White's Prophetic gift.

Ellen White herself insisted that acceptance of the 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy that God gave to her - should not be held out as a barrier against joining the Adventist Church.

However the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is a SINGLE denomination - where as "Baptists" are many different denominations - some of whom refers to others as a "Cult" as DHK proves and some of whom will not share communion with very large Baptist denominations - such as IFB with Southern Baptists (Where DHK admits to knowing IFB congregations that in fact hold to that idea).

By contrast Seventh-day Adventists offer open communion to Southern Baptist Christians AND to Seventh-day Baptist Christians.

Who then has the more open and free system using your own proposal that Ellen White be the "test".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

[/SIZE]








How about an entire section of the planet for starters... Europe. Many SDAs in Europe do not accept Ellen White's Prophetic gift.

Ellen White herself insisted that acceptance of the 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy that God gave to her - should not be held out as a barrier against joining the Adventist Church.

However the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is a SINGLE denomination - where as "Baptists" are many different denominations - some of whom refers to others as a "Cult" as DHK proves and some of whom will not share communion with very large Baptist denominations - such as IFB with Southern Baptists (Where DHK admits to knowing IFB congregations that in fact hold to that idea).

By contrast Seventh-day Adventists offer open communion to Southern Baptist Christians AND to Seventh-day Baptist Christians.

Who then has the more open and free system using your own proposal that Ellen White be the "test".

in Christ,

Bob

The verdict is still out, you did not answer all my questions. You picked out the EGW prophetic gift one and did not address the others. They may not consider her a prophet, but do they follow her teachings as inerrant?