The Irrefutable Sabbath Facts

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

all name calling aside - (if possible).

John 8 "Abraham saw my day and was glad".
Gal 3:7-8 the Gospel was preached to Abraham.
Heb 4:1 the Gospel was preached to us just as it was to them also.

Act 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things (spoken to them by Paul ) were SO" -- we call it "sola scriptura".

in Christ,

Bob

Yes Bob, the same Gospel; not the same Sabbath though. The Sabbath came with its Lord; the Lord's Day is the Lord of the Sabbath's Day. He "made the Sabbath", "When God raised Christ from the dead", "in the Sabbath Day's fullness" of the Son of Man's fulfillment of it having raised on it from the dead "in the mid-afternoon of the Sabbath in the daylight midst-inclining towards the First Day of the week".

When are you going to SEE the fraud that since the 20th century began in God's Word in order to STEAL the Sabbath's 'honourableness' in "the Son of Man" who "lay hold on the Sabbath", for the usurper Sunday, 'lord' and 'queen of days': 'the day of the lord Sun'?!

Are you going to turn your eyes away from truth forever because you believe in Mrs E.G. White?

 

[DHK]

Yes Bob, the same Gospel; not the same Sabbath though. The Sabbath came with its Lord; the Lord's Day is the Lord of the Sabbath's Day. He "made the Sabbath", "When God raised Christ from the dead", "in the Sabbath Day's fullness" of the Son of Man's fulfillment of it having raised on it from the dead "in the mid-afternoon of the Sabbath in the daylight midst-inclining towards the First Day of the week".

When are you going to SEE the fraud that since the 20th century began in God's Word in order to STEAL the Sabbath's 'honourableness' in "the Son of Man" who "lay hold on the Sabbath", for the usurper Sunday, 'lord' and 'queen of days': 'the day of the lord Sun'?!

Are you going to turn your eyes away from truth forever because you believe in Mrs E.G. White?

There is no connection between the Sabbath and the gospel.
Be not deceived.

 

[BobRyan]

By contrast - the Bible student is well aware that the grace promised in Eph 2 and elsewhere exists because the Law of God continues to define sin and to declare mankind to be sinners in need of a Savior.

Thus the Bible student learns in Heb 8 and Jer 31:31-33 that under the New Covenant - the LAW of God is NOT abolished - but "Written on the mind and on the heart" of the true believer.

And so under the ONE GOSPEL of Gal 1:6-11 - the LAW of God is what is being kept by the saints who "KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12.

For as Paul said to the saints "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God".

And apparently the Westminster Confession of Faith - and the Baptist Confession of Faith (and yes even D.L. Moody) are able to include these Bible truths - easily even if an individual here or there is at war with them over it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Yeshua1]

By contrast - the Bible student is well aware that the grace promised in Eph 2 and elsewhere exists because the Law of God continues to define sin and to declare mankind to be sinners in need of a Savior.

Thus the Bible student learns in Heb 8 and Jer 31:31-33 that under the New Covenant - the LAW of God is NOT abolished - but "Written on the mind and on the heart" of the true believer.

And so under the ONE GOSPEL of Gal 1:6-11 - the LAW of God is what is being kept by the saints who "KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12.

For as Paul said to the saints "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God".

And apparently the Westminster Confession of Faith - and the Baptist Confession of Faith (and yes even D.L. Moody) are able to include these Bible truths - easily even if an individual here or there is at war with them over it.

in Christ,

Bob

romans written to teach us that we are now justifed before God by the Cross of Christ, received thru Grace and NOTHING ELSE!

 

[BobRyan]

Yes Bob, the same Gospel; not the same Sabbath though. The Sabbath came with its Lord; the Lord's Day is the Lord of the Sabbath's Day.

Once someone gets the point that the Gospel was valid in the OT - then the Sabbath - the Ten Commandments - the Law of God is better understood.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

romans written to teach us that we are now justifed before God by the Cross of Christ, received thru Grace and NOTHING ELSE!

Give me the Bible - AND the Words IN the Bible.

That is why I said this.

Originally Posted by BobRyan
By contrast - the Bible student is well aware that the grace promised in Eph 2 and elsewhere exists because the Law of God continues to define sin and to declare mankind to be sinners in need of a Savior.

Thus the Bible student learns in Heb 8 and Jer 31:31-33 that under the New Covenant - the LAW of God is NOT abolished - but "Written on the mind and on the heart" of the true believer.

And so under the ONE GOSPEL of Gal 1:6-11 - the LAW of God is what is being kept by the saints who "KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12.

For as Paul said to the saints "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God".

And apparently the Westminster Confession of Faith - and the Baptist Confession of Faith (and yes even D.L. Moody) are able to include these Bible truths - easily even if an individual here or there is at war with them over it.

Just the basics being stated in this case.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

There is no connection between the Sabbath and the gospel.
Be not deceived.

Who who does not understand the connection between the Gospel and the New Covenant where the Law of God is "Written on the mind and heart" does not understand the Gospel.

He who does not understand the connection between the Law and the Gospel when it comes to terms such as Atonement and Justification - does not understand the Gospel.

There are a number of Baptists here who have stepped up to that plate - just as does the Baptist Confession of Faith - and show that they do understand it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Who who does not understand the connection between the Gospel and the New Covenant where the Law of God is "Written on the mind and heart" does not understand the Gospel.

He who does not understand the connection between the Law and the Gospel when it comes to terms such as Atonement and Justification - does not understand the Gospel.

There are a number of Baptists here who have stepped up to that plate - just as does the Baptist Confession of Faith - and show that they do understand it.

in Christ,

Bob

The gospel is not written on the heart of man, but the law--the moral law of God which does not include the Sabbath. There is nothing moral about keeping or not keeping the Sabbath for a Gentile.

The moral law, written on the hearts of man, is for one reason and one reason only--to show man that he is a sinner. In order for man to be saved he first must realize his sinfulness. Rom.2:14,15 goes on to say "their conscience bearing them witness whilst accusing or excusing one another."
What does the law do?
It shows them they are sinners.
It gives them a guilty conscience, that their conscience bears witness against them because of that sin.
True to their sinful nature they begin to accuse others for what they have done, and excuse themselves from their sin.
It is a good passage for the depravity of man.

 

[BobRyan]

The gospel is not written on the heart of man, but the law--the moral law of God which does not include the Sabbath. .

You simply make up the idea that the moral law of God does not include the Ten Commandments or that the Ten Commandments do not include the 4th commandment.

Repeating ideas that you are simply making up is fine -- but is not a compelling form of discussion with someone that does not already choose to make up the same stuff that you do. Which is why I keep pointing to the general baptist and even some of the other Baptists who affirm the Baptist Confession of Faith that flatly debunks your statement about the 4th commandment not being part of the moral law of God.

I think all who actually read the document and pay attention to other Baptist on this board that affirm it - can see that point .

Hebrews 8 makes the point that the Jer 31:31-33 Law of GOD - is "written on the heart" under the New Covenant. If you want to deny that the 4th commandment is in the Law of God known to Jeremiah, or that the New Covenant is not part of the Gospel - that is your choice - you have free will.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

You simply make up the idea that the moral law of God does not include the Ten Commandments or that the Ten Commandments do not include the 4th commandment.

Repeating ideas that you are simply making up is fine -- but is not a compelling form of discussion with someone that does not already choose to make up the same stuff that you do. Which is why I keep pointing to the general baptist and even some of the other Baptists who affirm the Baptist Confession of Faith that flatly debunks your statement about the 4th commandment not being part of the moral law of God.

I think all who actually read the document and pay attention to other Baptist on this board that affirm it - can see that point .

Hebrews 8 makes the point that the Jer 31:31-33 Law of GOD - is "written on the heart" under the New Covenant. If you want to deny that the 4th commandment is in the Law of God known to Jeremiah, or that the New Covenant is not part of the Gospel - that is your choice - you have free will.

in Christ,

Bob

Yes I have a free will to believe the Bible as the Holy Spirit reveals it to me. My standard is the Bible itself, not any Confession of Faith. For that reason I don't read them. I don't need them. The Bible itself is of far greater value and importance. It doesn't matter to me what others think on these matters. I consult other reference material occasionally when the need arises and that is all. But creeds and confessions fall near the bottom of the list in an order of importance. They simply tell me who believed what. And I really couldn't care less.

 

[BobRyan]

In my post - I show your idea of making things up to be flawed in my reference to the New Covenant in Hebrews 8 and other texts.

In your response you reference not one single Bible text to make your point - as you claim that your choice is for the Bible. Which means once again you are relying on your feelings and preferences to make stuff up - rather than dealing with the text of scripture.

You are free to choose that path if you wish - you have free will.

My choice is "Give me the Bible AND the Words IN the Bible".

I think that in this specific case Moody, Spurgeon, the Baptist Confession of Faith - and some of the other Baptists that have admitted to seeing this Bible doctrine - are embracing the Bible on this point -rather than simply giving it lip service.

in Christ,
Bob

 

[DHK]

In my post - I show your idea of making things up to be flawed in my reference to the New Covenant in Hebrews 8 and other texts.

First, I am not a "covenantal theologian." In Romans 9 the covenants are given to Israel. I am not the one that has things mixed up.

In your response you reference not one single Bible text to make your point - as you claim that your choice is for the Bible. Which means once again you are relying on your feelings and preferences to make stuff up - rather than dealing with the text of scripture.

My answer was precise and to the point. I stated that the Bible is my authority in all matters of faith and practice. I didn't feel the need to write you a sermon with hundreds of Scriptures to verify these things to you.

You are free to choose that path if you wish - you have free will.

I am always free to believe the Bible, and therefore I do.

My choice is "Give me the Bible AND the Words IN the Bible".

And so I do. Every word of the Bible is inspired. Or don't you believe that?
Oh, I forgot. You believe that Ellen G. White is inspired also, don't you?

I think that in this specific case Moody, Spurgeon, the Baptist Confession of Faith - and some of the other Baptists that have admitted to seeing this Bible doctrine - are embracing the Bible on this point -rather than simply giving it lip service.

in Christ,
Bob

We have gone down this road before. Our basis for debate is the Scriptures not others. If I remember correctly you even received an infraction for your continued reference to they, and your continual misrepresentation of them. You say they believe in the keeping of the Sabbath, but in reality they don't. You are a hypocrite and a liar in this respect. I request therefore that you don't use these men in your arguments again.

The Bible is the basis on which we debate our positions.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is the post where I identify the scriptures you are now avoiding in post after post - as you claim you only want to pay attention to scripture.

You simply make up the idea that the moral law of God does not include the Ten Commandments or that the Ten Commandments do not include the 4th commandment.

Repeating ideas that you are simply making up is fine -- but is not a compelling form of discussion with someone that does not already choose to make up the same stuff that you do. Which is why I keep pointing to the general baptist and even some of the other Baptists who affirm the Baptist Confession of Faith that flatly debunks your statement about the 4th commandment not being part of the moral law of God.

I think all who actually read the document and pay attention to other Baptist on this board that affirm it - can see that point .

Hebrews 8 makes the point that the Jer 31:31-33 Law of GOD - is "written on the heart" under the New Covenant. If you want to deny that the 4th commandment is in the Law of God known to Jeremiah, or that the New Covenant is not part of the Gospel - that is your choice - you have free will.

So now how is it that Heb 8 (as it quotes Jer 31:31-33) regarding the New Covenant and the Law of God - and how that is related to the Gospel - is not worth mentioning in your "no-bible-text" posts about how you only want to discuss the Bible?

Is this some new form of Bible study where as you say " My standard is the Bible itself," - but not to the point of actually dealing with the Bible texts that I have raised in my post - and repeatedly called our attention to?

I find that also to be "instructive".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If I remember correctly you even received an infraction for your continued reference to they, and your continual misrepresentation of them. You say they believe in the keeping of the Sabbath, but in reality they don't.

Actually I think you are exposing a case where you were making stuff up about a post where I said that these sources (including D.L. Moody) were promoting Sunday worship - while at the same time their own words stated that they were trying to affirm the 4th commandment. I explicitly stated that I objected to their trying to bend the 4th commandment to apply to Sunday.

And then irrationally you said that to even quote Moody in a way that shows that he totally rejected your own solution to the problem is an infraction of the rules on this Board. So now to defend that action you add more ad hominem and name calling to the record of your actions - as if that is somehow helping.

The fact that you think that this is a point in your favor - is more "instructive" than you appear to be willing to admit.

As a result -- I have been extremely curious as to whether you could find even one Baptist Board admin that could bring themselves to actually read my post where I objected to the 4th commandment being bent to point to Sunday - and the agree with your statement that it is a violation of the "language rules" to quote Moody verbatim where his view differs from your own as he promotes Sunday but refuses trash the 4th commandment the way you do!!

Your actions in that regard have been "unique" for a christian on any board - Baptist or not. Your more recent post demonstrating bold ad hominem and name calling simply conforms the spirit of your earlier actions. Why is this not glaringly apparent to you? I have seen you in other posts condemn your fellow Baptist posters for using similar tactics to those you are now employing.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Here is the post where I identify the scriptures you are now avoiding in post after post - as you claim you only want to pay attention to scripture.



So now how is it that Heb 8 (as it quotes Jer 31:31-33) regarding the New Covenant and the Law of God - and how that is related to the Gospel - is not worth mentioning in your "no-bible-text" posts about how you only want to discuss the Bible?

Is this some new form of Bible study where as you say " My standard is the Bible itself," - but not to the point of actually dealing with the Bible texts that I have raised in my post - and repeatedly called our attention to?

I find that also to be "instructive".

in Christ,

Bob

What is instructive Bob is that you can't carry on a decent conversation and stay on topic, but worse than the style of an average of J.W. you are all over the board.
I have not once referred to Hebrews 8 or even the Book of Hebrews. Nor did I mention Jeremiah 31.

We were discussing "the law of God" in relation to Romans 2:14,15. But you seem to want to go back to these irrelevant passages where the Lord is addressing Israel and not NT believers. The law of God, as already noted, does not include the Sabbath. Col.2 teaches us plainly that the Sabbath was only a shadow. We don't walk in shadows; we have the real thing. His name is Christ. I know him personally. The Sabbath is done away with. It was just a shadow of Him who was to come. It is not part of the moral law. There is nothing moral about "the keeping of the Sabbath," unlike murdering person. It is immoral to murder or commit adultery, but it is not immoral, not to worship on a given day.
Some esteem one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. That is the teaching of Scripture.
Nowhere in the Bible is the command to keep the Sabbath given to the Gentile believer in this day and age.

 

[BobRyan]

I asked you to show a tiny bit of objectivity in that last post - I am serious. Can you find even one admin that will really leap off that cliff with you regarding the post where I object to Moody and others bending the 4th commandment to apply to Sunday but I applaud them for at least having the sense not to throw the 4th commandment under the bus?

I would genuinely like to know if this is something central to the Baptist Board itself - or just a peculiar way that you choose to relate.

So far I am not using any of the ad hominem name-calling tactics of your prior post. Not sure why you think this is a case of me not engaged in decent conversation.

I point out repeatedly that Ten commandments are called the "Law of God" in the Bible and the "Word of God" by Christ Himself. And that the Law known to Jeremiah - Jer 31:31-33 included the Ten Commandments.

This is beyond debate.

And Paul appeals to that very "New Covenant" teaching about the Law of God in Hebrews 8. Again - impossible to ignore this. The Gospel is based on the foundation of the Law of God - that is upheld at the cross - where the penalty of sin is paid and also in the condemnation of the lost where all are condemned. Thus in the Gospel solution we have not only the payment that the law demands - but we have the Law written on the heart. You make up the idea that the law of Jer 31:31-33 written by the action of the New Covenant as quoted in Hebrews 8, cannot possibly include the 4th commandment.

As we all know - not everyone here agrees with you on that point. And I am one of them.

You are not mentioning the Bible texts that I keep raising in your post-after-post claiming that you are only looking at the Bible - but posting no actual Bible text and not looking at the ones I reference.

Everyone has free will - I never argue that you have to accept God's Bible Sabbath - but you should at least stick with the facts of the discussion.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

............. You say they [<Moody and others>] believe in the keeping of the Sabbath, but in reality they don't. You are a hypocrite and a liar in this respect. ..................
The Bible is the basis on which we debate our positions.

If <<The Bible is the basis on which we debate our positions>>, <they> [<Moody and others>] falsely <believe(d) in the keeping of the Sabbath> and genuinely were hypocrites and a liars in this respect.

The same hypocrisy and lying in this respect is conspicuously maintained in just about EVERY 'new translation / version' of the Bible since the end of the nineteenth century.

Now what is interesting as that these 'new translations / versions', Bob Ryan and DHK, <in this respect> are all in amicable agreement.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Paul appeals to that very "New Covenant" teaching about the Law of God in Hebrews 8. Again - impossible to ignore this. The Gospel is based on the foundation of the Law of God - that is upheld at the cross - where the penalty of sin is paid and also in the condemnation of the lost where all are condemned. Thus in the Gospel solution we have not only the payment that the law demands - but we have the Law written on the heart. You make up the idea that the law of Jer 31:31-33 written by the action of the New Covenant as quoted in Hebrews 8, cannot possibly include the 4th commandment.

The Gospel is based on the foundation of the Living Law of God in the Person of Jesus Christ - HE is the Law <<that is upheld at the cross>> - in fact ON the cross. Jesus Christ is God's WORD-LAW -- that <<include(s) the 4th commandment>> nailed to the cross and so is "taken out of the way". ......... Thus <<the Gospel solution>> we have not only the payment that the Law - GOD - demands for our sins, but we have the Law ploughed on Christ's back BY US. That -- Jesus Christ -- is the New-Covenant LAW in Jeremiah 31:31-33 as well as in Hebrews 8. In both Scriptures God's Law is written on hearts of FLESH -- God's return with Grace and Love for our wicked hands' and hearts' hardness and hate.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What is instructive Bob is that you can't carry on a decent conversation and stay on topic, but worse than the style of an average of J.W. you are all over the board.
I have not once referred to Hebrews 8 or even the Book of Hebrews. Nor did I mention Jeremiah 31.

We were discussing "the law of God" in relation to Romans 2:14,15. But you seem to want to go back to these irrelevant passages where the Lord is addressing Israel and not NT believers. The law of God, as already noted, does not include the Sabbath. Col.2 teaches us plainly that the Sabbath was only a shadow. We don't walk in shadows; we have the real thing. His name is Christ. I know him personally. The Sabbath is done away with. It was just a shadow of Him who was to come. It is not part of the moral law. There is nothing moral about "the keeping of the Sabbath," unlike murdering person. It is immoral to murder or commit adultery, but it is not immoral, not to worship on a given day.
Some esteem one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. That is the teaching of Scripture.
Nowhere in the Bible is the command to keep the Sabbath given to the Gentile believer in this day and age.

<<irrelevant passages where the Lord is addressing Israel and not NT believers.>>

This the crux where Bob is right and DHK is wrong.

DHK: <<I have not once referred to Hebrews 8 or even the Book of Hebrews. Nor did I mention Jeremiah 31.>> In fact Bob Ryan brought these texts under scrutiny for these are two Scriptures that are crucial as to WHOM GOD COVENANTS WITH. For God NEVER covenanted or will, with another 'party' than ISRAEL and SPIRITUAL Israel for that matter.

Define the Sabbath and its commandment a covenant or not, GOD gave it; God gave it to HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE; God gave it the NEW Testament / NEW Covenant People of God; because He is a FAITHFUL God and never will be God of another People or will let them wear another signet of His Faithfulness to them and their faithfulness to Him.

God never KNEW another People than <<NT believers>>. If you were born under the old ministration or new, "SALVATION IS OF THE LORD" -- "THE LORD IS OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" -- you had to have been a <<NT believer>> and still must be a <<NT believer>> or you had been or have been or will be one of the damned.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Jeremiah and other prophets stress it, that the Sabbath SHALL BE, a sign, and a sign of FACT—not a sign of mere possibility. The Sabbath is sign that I AM, your God—not maybe I might be your God if this or if that; and you SHALL BE My People—not you might be My People if this or if that. Just so SHALL the Sabbath be sign—not may be a sign between Me and you. In every respect the NEW Covenant spoken of in both Hebrews and Jeremiah – and other OLD Testament prophets – emanates federative and eternal and immutable fidelity and faithfulness.

DHK imagines a non-existent ‘Covenant’ that is neither the ‘New Covenant’ nor an ‘old covenant’.

God knows no covenant and is God of no covenant than the ETERNAL COVENANT OF GRACE. The ONLY covenant of God’s found in the Scriptures, is God’s Eternal Purpose and Council: God’s Covenant IN CHRIST JESUS BETWEEN HIMSELF AND HIS ELECT.

DHK, how can you say you are <<not a "covenantal theologian">>?! You thoroughly are one!