Ten Commandments, So What??

[DHK]

You have three choices DHK.

1. Either go to the "downsized to nine" solution and claim you don't really pay attention to the 4th commandment since in your opinion it no longer matters - no longer exists. But in that case admit that the 4th commandment is "not editable" and in fact references the day given in Gen 2:3 and specified again in the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. God's word "not editable". Use exegesis to show that the day was specifically Saturday.

2. OR go to the solution Moody has selected (along with what appears to be a majority on this thread) where you claim that the 4th commandment IS binding and DOES matter but that your week-day-one selection is somehow satisfying that requirement. Use exegesis to show that the Ten Commandments are a unit and are binding.

3. Combine the exegesis of BOTH methods with the result that the commandments are NOT editable and the WHOLE ten are in fact still binding -- which would be my solution.

You seem to have started off taking option one in our past discussions of this topic but in that last post you seem to be drifting into option two.

in Christ,

Bob

The theology of the Ten Commandments we can discuss Bob. But don't use Moody as an example of a Sabbath keeper. He wasn't. To him, generally speaking Sunday was the Sabbath for it was the day of rest for the majority of the people, and the day that the people met for worship. Saturday, in Moody's mind was not the Sabbath, and never was equated to the Sabbath.

Another thing to keep in mind when studying Moody, is that he was an evangelist, one that was mightily used of God. But he was not a theologian. He had a grade five education. He used the vernacular of the day as it was commonly used.

 

[BobRyan]

Moody is an example of someone arguing for ALL TEN of the Ten commandments AND NOT for a "downsized to nine". In fact Moody SPECIFICALLY addresses the "downsized to nine" solution in HIS comments.

Moody's solution is close to the position we see being voted for on this board if the vote was done by someone who does not keep Saturday.

Not sure why you are finding that so difficult to accept. I have never argued that solution of 'editing the 4th commandment" to make it 'fit week-day-one' is what I do.

I simply note Moody's solution and contrast it to the one you used to take.

Can't be sure which solutoin you are using in your recent efforts.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Moody is an example of someone arguing for ALL TEN of the Ten commandments AND NOT for a "downsized to nine". In fact Moody SPECIFICALLY addresses the "downsized to nine" solution in HIS comments.

Moody's solution is close to the position we see being voted for on this board if the vote was done by someone who does not keep Saturday.

Not sure why you are finding that so difficult to accept. I have never argued that solution of 'editing the 4th commandment" to make it 'fit week-day-one' is what I do.

I simply note Moody's solution and contrast it to the one you used to take.

Can't be sure which solutoin you are using in your recent efforts.

in Christ,

Bob

I have not stated what solution I take. I am concerned that people do not misrepresent what others believe. Once that is cleared up, I will proceed.

 

[DHK]

In a Muslim nation that I had the opportunity of living in for a while, they had a six-day work week. The only day of rest was Friday, the Muslim holy day. Since that was the only day that the small Christian minority could find time to meet and gather together to worship, they also would worship on that day; they also would rest on that day. Tell me then. Should they rename Friday as the Sabbath because it was their day of rest and worship?

 

[BobRyan]

I already gave my answer to that on post 106

I affirm Moody on his "4th commandment still valid" argument above.

I affirm you on your "4th commandment could not have been edited" argument.

My affirmation of your position was based on what you used to say in your "downsized to nine" statements.

I then give more detail on that same solution to your question in my post 119.

You have three choices DHK.

1. Either go to the "downsized to nine" solution and claim you don't really pay attention to the 4th commandment since in your opinion it no longer matters - no longer exists. But in that case admit that the 4th commandment is "not editable" and in fact references the day given in Gen 2:3 and specified again in the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. God's word "not editable". Use exegesis to show that the day was specifically Saturday.

2. OR go to the solution Moody has selected (along with what appears to be a majority on this thread) where you claim that the 4th commandment IS binding and DOES matter but that your week-day-one selection is somehow satisfying that requirement. Use exegesis to show that the Ten Commandments are a unit and are binding.

3. Combine the exegesis of BOTH methods with the result that the commandments are NOT editable and the WHOLE ten are in fact still binding -- which would be my solution.

You seem to have started off taking option one in our past discussions of this topic but in that last post you seem to be drifting into option two.

 

[DHK]

1. It doesn't matter to me what Moody believed. I know his position was not that of the SDA's nor that of the Jews.

2. There is no command in Genesis 2:3 for anyone to keep the Sabbath holy.

3. All commands to keep the Sabbath holy are directed to the nation of Israel.

4. Exodus 31 specifically states that the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant that Jehovah made between Israel and her generations forever and ever.

5. Nowhere are the Gentiles ever commanded to keep the Sabbath.

6. Nowhere in the NT do we have any command to keep the Sabbath.

8. The Sabbath has nothing to do with believers whatsoever but only with a nation which has rejected Christ as their Messiah, a religion that has now become a false religion, and therefore the Sabbath is also part of a false religion.

9. The only Sabbath that we have is Jesus Christ himself. He is our rest, the Sabbath that we enter into.

10. The Sabbath is said to be a shadow. It was fulfilled at the cross. We don't need a shadow. We have the real thing--Christ our Sabbath.

11. Thus the "law" written on every man's heart does not include the Sabbath, but only the other nine commandments. For written on the hearts of man is "God's Moral Law," and there is nothing moral about a heathen nation keeping a Jewish Law about the Sabbath.

 

[BobRyan]

D L Moody

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

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?

1. It doesn't matter to me what Moody believed. I know his position was not that of the SDA's nor that of the Jews.

2. There is no command in Genesis 2:3 for anyone to keep the Sabbath holy.

There was never a question or doubt about your NOT being among the 25 that voted here in favor of the Ten Commandments still being Ten and not downsized to nine.

And your objection to Moody's position as you have stated it above is understood.

But scripture appears to be on D.L Moody's side in this case.

And even more devastating for your 11 points above --

"From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" Isaiah 66.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The theology of the Ten Commandments we can discuss Bob. But don't use Moody as an example of a Sabbath keeper. He wasn't. To him, generally speaking Sunday was the Sabbath for it was the day of rest for the majority of the people, and the day that the people met for worship. Saturday, in Moody's mind was not the Sabbath, and never was equated to the Sabbath.

Another thing to keep in mind when studying Moody, is that he was an evangelist, one that was mightily used of God. But he was not a theologian. He had a grade five education. He used the vernacular of the day as it was commonly used.

GE
I agree with DHK! Why can't you after how many times shown the fallacy of your abuse of Moody, go on. You boasted yourself how thich skinned you are Bob Ryan. This Mood-story of yours proves you estimation of yourself correct! It looks to me that thich skin of yours goes right over your head, without leaving much space for something else.

But DHK, I see you talk of the 'theology' of the Fourth Commandment. That's strange. Since when have you discovered the Fourth Commandment had a 'theology' too? In the thread with the banned Four Pillars, you denied 'mysterie' in the Genesis anecdote of creation. That thread is now closed, so allow me to present a Scripture here, in answer, please. It is this one,

"The gift of the grace of God by the effectual working of his power unto me ... the unsearchable riches of Christ ... to see ... the mystery which from the beginning of the creation of the world hath been hid in God who CREATED ALL THINGS by Jesus Christ to the intent that now might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Eph3:7-9)"

 

[BobRyan]

GE
I agree with DHK! Why can't you after how many times shown the fallacy of your abuse of Moody, go on. You boasted yourself how thich skinned you are Bob Ryan. This Mood-story of yours proves you estimation of yourself correct! It looks to me that thich skin of yours goes right over your head, without leaving much space for something else.

Funny as always GE -- but I am sticking with scripture on this one --

Probably going to stick with Moody's arguments listed in my last post -- as well.

Question - Did you mean to say something?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BobRyan
""From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" Isaiah 66."

GE
I am a Sabbatharian too -- 'Seventh Day', not SDA though. Against all counter-prove, I believe this verse (as against your view) for being applicable to the present age - to the spiritual 'New Earth' under the reign of Christ and the saints .... our old battlefield, Rv20:1-6! And I believe, if not somehow true of the Christian era, this very verse will not be true upon the New Earth either. (By the way, how do you think the redeemed (as you say) in heaven are going to keep an earthly 'Seventh Day'?)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Funny as always GE -- but I am sticking with scripture on this one --

Probably going to stick with Moody's arguments listed in my last post -- as well.

Question - Did you mean to say something?

in Christ,

Bob

GE
DHK won't say this to you, but I'll say it, BobRyan, Moody talked directly AGAINST SCRIPTURE, and you, stupified by his necromancy, act against the Scriptures not a bit less. You only add your own headstrongness and get dangerously near common dishonesty.

 

[DHK]

There was never a question or doubt about your NOT being among the 25 that voted here in favor of the Ten Commandments still being Ten and not downsized to nine.

And your objection to Moody's position as you have stated it above is understood.

But scripture appears to be on D.L Moody's side in this case.

And even more devastating for your 11 points above --

"From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" Isaiah 66.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, I will consult with another Moderator. If he/she agrees I will start deleting every post (or quote) of Moody's that you post. It is unethical, and deceitful. Moody does not say in that post that he keeps the Sabbath. You are deceived if you think he does. I have you showed you in more than one quote that in that age Sabbath = Sunday. He was speaking of Sunday in that passage expoundin on keeping Sunday as a holy day. Thus the Scripture that D.L. Moody uses he uses out of context, or not as literally as you do. He uses it in a more figurative way to defend the keeping of Sunday holy, and not Saturday. You are not ethical in using Moody.

You say you believe in sola scriptura.
You are SDA.
Because you refer to Moody, I conclude you are not sola scriptura.
The belief of the SDA is that those who do not worship on the Sabbath (Saturday), but on another day is that they have the mark of the beast. That is the teaching of the founder of your religion (EGW), is it not?

 

[BobRyan]

Though I find very little of substance in your last post - I have to say that I would agree to your consulting someone like Pastor Bob on your tactics, your use of ad hominem, and your general response method when your arguments appear to run aground. (Hint - I have never accused anyone here of having the mark of the beast because they attend services on Sunday. In fact I myself did that last Sunday)

In this case - the majority of the votes appear to be concluding in favor of the obvious AND that just so happens to be in favor of What Moody has stated. The fact that your views are not as well accepted is no excuse for your constantly resorting to ad hominem methods.

(were I a moderator on this board that is very close to the counsel I would offer to you)

As for quoting DL Moody to show where his support of the Ten Commandments is by direct contrast (in HIS own words) to YOUR "downsized to nine solution" - I simply offer it because you keep issuing the empty accusation that there is something amiss in the quote that I am giving. I offer it so that the unbiased objective reader can validate that there is nothing to your empty accusations other than pulpit pounding.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

GE
Moody talked directly AGAINST SCRIPTURE, and you, stupified by his necromancy,

These last two posts in opposition to my view and also to what is apparently the most common view for readers of this thread when it comes to supporting and endorsing the Ten Commandments (at least beyond the point that DHK is willing to do it) seem to be "reaching" for logic and reason but not finding it.

From the vote so far I have to conclude that this is a well accepted topic and that the votes are "instructive" for the objective unbiased reader.

No sense in derailing - if you really don't have anything to add to the subject it is ok not to post. There are others who may be interested in the subject if it is allowed to stay on topic.

 

[DHK]

In this case - the majority of the votes appear to be concluding in favor of the obvious AND that just so happens to be in favor of What Moody has stated. The fact that your views are not as well accepted is no excuse for your constantly resorting to ad hominem methods.
Bob

Bob,
Frankly, I don't care much for the poll. I don't have much interest in man's opinions but rather I rely on what God says. Neither is Moody my standard. But I do care when people are misrepresented. I do care when you say they say one thing when actually they are saying another. Perhaps a small illustration will suffice.

Bob claims that the Bible says "There is no God."
Bob has made an accurate statement, because indeed the Bible does say "There is no God."
However, because Bob has taken this statement out of is context and is not telling the complete truth of what is being said about "There is no God," he is being deceitful and is posting a lie.
The fact is that the Bible really says: "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

This is the way that you have argued with Moody's writings. You have taken out of context those portions that suit your theology, ignoring the substance of what he actually teaches. For what he actually teaches totally contradicts your position. What you are doing is unethical and deceitful.

 

[BobRyan]

I have repeatedly referred you to a small 2 or 3 parapraph section of Moody's entire wording in support of the 4th commandment to give you every opportunity to show that your false accusatoin above has any merit at all in substance. The small focused oft-repeated quote simplifies your task by narrowing the scope and focuse onto the part most likely to be in variance with your own views.

So far you simply add accusation to accusation without actually showing anything of what you say is true at all. You provide no quote at ALL of me or of Moody showing that I have misquoted, mistated, or bent what he said with my words NOR have you shown some "context" argument like Moody saying "Hey here is an example of what I do NOT believe -- the Sabbath commandment was binding since it was given in Eden". You make wild claims AS IF you could show it -- but then resort to ad hominem after ad hominem each time I press you to actually "make the case" you keep claiming you "coulda made."

Why not try for substance? Surely if you had an actual point that could hold water here when it comes to the quote I keep offering to you from Moody you would go ahead and make it by now.

I am always open to correction if you can show something like fact -- substance - value to what you are saying.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Though I find very little of substance in your last post - I have to say that I would agree to your consulting someone like Pastor Bob on your tactics, your use of ad hominem, and your general response method when your arguments appear to run aground. (Hint - I have never accused anyone here of having the mark of the beast because they attend services on Sunday. In fact I myself did that last Sunday)
Bob

No you haven't referred to the writings EGW and her beliefs on the mark of the beast (even though it can be proved that it is a SDA belief) and I commend you for it.

But here is the reasoning. You are SDA, and are quoting a Baptist out of context.
How do you feel when you, an SDA, get a mouthful from a Baptist quoting something from EGW that you don't agree with, or that you may even think is wrong? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The difference, however, is that I am being ethical and you are not. For I am quoting an accurate belief of the SDA and you are not quoting an accurate belief of the Baptists nor of Moody.

 

[DHK]

I have repeatedly referred you to a small 2 or 3 parapraph section of Moody's entire wording in support of the 4th commandment to give you every opportunity to show that your false accusatoin above has any merit at all in substance. The small focused oft-repeated quote simplifies your task by narrowing the scope and focuse onto the part most likely to be in variance with your own views.

So far you simply add accusation to accusation without actually showing anything of what you say is true at all. You provide no quote at ALL of me or of Moody showing that I have misquoted, mistated, or bent what he said with my words NOR have you shown some "context" argument like Moody saying "Hey here is an example of what I do NOT believe -- the Sabbath commandment was binding since it was given in Eden". You make wild claims AS IF you could show it -- but then resort to ad hominem after ad hominem each time I press you to actually "make the case" you keep claiming you "coulda made."

Why not try for substance? Surely if you had an actual point that could hold water here when it comes to the quote I keep offering to you from Moody you would go ahead and make it by now.

I am always open to correction if you can show something like fact -- substance - value to what you are saying.

In Christ,

Bob

I have shown two different quotes of his where he equates Sabbath with Sunday, thus negating his belief in the Sabbath. Why do you ignore them?

 

[BobRyan]

How do you feel when you, an SDA, get a mouthful from a Baptist quoting something from EGW that you don't agree with, or that you may even think is wrong? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The difference, however, is that I am being ethical and you are not. For I am quoting an accurate belief of the SDA and you are not quoting an accurate belief of the Baptists nor of Moody.

1. You can't have it both ways -- either you agree fully with Moody and I am misquoting him -- so then SHOW that I am doing that even ONCE!

2. Or you do NOT agree with Moody and I am simply pointing out where the two of you differ and showing that the vote on this thread seems to be going in favor of Moody's "Pro-Ten" arguments and against your 'downsized to nine" argument. In which case you can stop arguing that you are in agreement with Moody and that I am only making it "appear" that the two of you differ (by my actually QUOTING Moody).

In your example above you take some "other topic" from Ellen White and propose that we find out whether you have misquoted Ellen White (in your total non-quote of Ellen White so far) or whether your quote (nonquote?) is accurate and possibly I differ with what she said. --

1. That seems like a stretch
2 At the very least it is "another topic" in which you appear to want to use the same tactic that you "claim" I am using here on this topic.

 

[BobRyan]

I have shown two different quotes of his where he equates Sabbath with Sunday, thus negating his belief in the Sabbath. Why do you ignore them?

I never argue that he excluded Sunday from his "pro-4th-commandment" arguments. You have never given a single quote of me doing that either. You just keep complaining AS IF that has happened!

Here is what I said repeatedly (most recently post 119) - I show YOUR solution, I show MOODY's solution and then I show MY solution.

You have three choices DHK.

1. Either go to the "downsized to nine" solution and claim you don't really pay attention to the 4th commandment since in your opinion it no longer matters - no longer exists. But in that case admit that the 4th commandment is "not editable" and in fact references the day given in Gen 2:3 and specified again in the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. God's word "not editable". Use exegesis to show that the day was specifically Saturday.

2. OR go to the solution Moody has selected (along with what appears to be a majority on this thread) where you claim that the 4th commandment IS binding and DOES matter but that your week-day-one selection is somehow satisfying that requirement. Use exegesis to show that the Ten Commandments are a unit and are binding.

3. Combine the exegesis of BOTH methods with the result that the commandments are NOT editable and the WHOLE ten are in fact still binding -- which would be my solution.