The Irrefutable Sabbath Facts

[DHK]

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?

For as long as you have been on this board this post shows your absolute ignorance about Baptists, and why I object to your continual quoting from Moody. Let me explain the differences between Baptists, the SDA, and what you have been doing--and why it should be banned.

First. The SDA's regard the writings of EGW as almost sacred if not inspired. The "Great Controversy" is like a second book of Scripture. It is very authoritative. From it you get your doctrine which is condemned soundly by all Baptists. We call it heresy. You contend that EGW was a prophet. We say that she is a false prophet. Most of us are cessationists. In order to defend EGW as a prophet you can't take that position. You are not sola scriptura, as you have claimed to be, because the Great Controversy is an authoritative source of doctrine for you. Whatever EGW says is so. She is an authority or the authority in the SDA.

Second. Among Baptists we have no such authority. Not in confessions, catechisms, other leaders such as Moody, Spurgeon, etc., there are no authorities other than the Bible. Therefore your quotes of Moody as authoritative sources are in vain. I don't accept them as authoritative because they aren't. They are meaningless to me.

Third. Concerning Moody: He was an evangelist, not a theologian. He had a grade five education. His grammar was horrible. His doctrine was often off. Through much prayer and fasting he, as an evangelist, was able to hold evangelistic meetings and won many to the Lord. But that doesn't mean that his doctrine was correct on other matters. He was not an authority on doctrine. He had a grade five education, studied the Bible on his own and often embarrassed others by the poor diction that he had and the crude way of speaking that he had. He was not on authority on the Sabbath or most other doctrines. He preached the gospel as an evangelist.

Fourth. Even when he spoke on the Sabbath, you misrepresent what he said; basically lie about his messages. Whether deliberately or not a misrepresentation is a lie. This is why your quotations from him ought to be banned. Moody does not believe in the Sabbath, or in keeping the Sabbath, despite what he says. I have read his sermon many times now. The extent of what he says can be summed up in this: "Attend your church faithfully on Sundays."
Everyone of us on this board (except you) believe that. That has nothing to do with the Sabbath or Sabbath keeping--absolutely nothing! He is not a theologian. He was wrong in saying he kept the Sabbath. He was simply urging the common person to come to church on Sunday and that is all.

Your misrepresentation of him is deplorable and should not be tolerated.
If it is tolerated you should be given infraction points until they accumulate and you are banned. Misrepresentation of others is slander. That is what you do.

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.

Slander against anyone, including Moody's position, is against BB's rules. Infractions would be given by any moderator. It is not right in anyone's eyes. What would happen if you started slandering someone else in the secular world? You would have a lawsuit on your hands to contend with. Why not here?

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.

You are doing far worse.
You are using moral and ethical means that are wicked and evil.
If the secular world did the same thing, in many cases they could end up bankrupt. Suing people for defamation of character is very common and can be very costly.

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.

And your point is what? The "moral law" does not include the fourth commandment for there is nothing moral about it. Gentile believers are not under the Sabbath.

And Paul appeals to that very "New Covenant" teaching about the Law of God in Hebrews 8.

Hebrews was written to Hebrews. The key phrase is "better than." We have something better than the Sabbath. He is called Christ, and he is not a day.

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 grace and faith, not on the law.
For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves.
It is the gift of God not of works.
The fourth commandment was given only to Israel, and never to any Gentile believer. Check Exodus 31.

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

Of course. You are SDA. You have another authority outside of the Bible. You are required to believe those things written in the Great Controversy, and must interpret the Bible through EGW's eyes. That is Roman Catholicism all over again. As they look at the Bible through the Magesterium's eyes, you look at the Bible through EGW's eyes. You have no choice.

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.

I don't really have to. I simply have to refute the ones that you post.
The early church met on every day of the week (Acts 2:42ff).
Did they therefore defile the Sabbath?
In Acts 20:7 the church met on the first day of the week; did they therefore defile the Sabbath?
Your position has too many inconsistencies.

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.

I do; I refute what you say all the time; you are blind to it.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The law of God .... 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.

Re:
<<The law of God .... does not include the Sabbath.>>

Let us see that <law of God>, please?

Re:
<<Col.2 teaches us plainly that the Sabbath was only a shadow.>>

The Sabbath was, <only a shadow>; true. <<a shadow of>>???
<<A shadow of HIM who was to come. … His Name is Christ>>!

Amazing?

Or, AMAZING!

Re:
<<It is not part of the moral law.>>

Quote us that <moral law> wherein the Sabbath is not part?

Alright, “the Greatest Law” and the one on par with “The Greatest”.

Now if not the Sabbath is part of the ‘MORAL’ Law, transgressing of it is <<unlike murdering person.>> In other words, transgressing of the Sabbath ‘law’ is not sin. In other words, transgressors of the Sabbath ‘law’ are guiltless; they cannot be punished for their transgressing of the Sabbath ‘law’.

That excludes “the Greatest Law” and the one on par with it, as the ACTUAL DEFINERS AND “STRENGTH OF SIN”.

Amen!

Now we know which boasters will be JUDGED for their ‘keeping of the Law’ and or ‘breaking of the Law’—not the Seventh Dayers but the Seventh Day deniers!

So Colossians 2 comes along Paul and he dares “ANYONE in the world to judge you with regard to your eating and drinking OF FEAST OF SABBATHS!” “Don’t let ANYONE with beguiling words rob you of your reward”—which is Christ—o, “Sabbaths’ Feast of Christ the Substance” Assemblies! “The Sabbath IS [and <was>] shadow / foretaste / spectre / promise”: <<of Him who was to come>> and is near and nearing—at hand: "THE HEAD"! The Sabbath <<is not part of the moral law>> no longer! It is “of THE ESSENCE / of THE SUBSTANCE WHICH IS CHRIST.”

Then they say I should believe in Sunday?!

Where do they think they come from?!

Or where do you think you are coming from, DHK, trying to “persuade” me “contrary” the “COMFORT OF HEART” which Paul would I have—WE have: "The Body of Christ’s Own … Sabbaths … closely knit together … through the faith of the operation of God who hath RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD … nourishment being ministered”—“Nourishment” the “eating and drinking OF”, is the “eating and drinking OF” Jesus Christ, spiritually, “SABBATHS”!

 

[BobRyan]

Once you figure out that Isaiah 66:23 has all mankind keeping the Sabbath commandment as known to Isaiah - for all of eternity in the New Earth - the entire "find as many ways as you can to get away from the 4th commandment Sabbath" strategy comes to a sudden halt.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Once you figure out that Isaiah 66:23 has all mankind keeping the Sabbath commandment as known to Isaiah - for all of eternity in the New Earth - the entire "find as many ways as you can to get away from the 4th commandment Sabbath" strategy comes to a sudden halt.

in Christ,

Bob

I have answered this so many times, Bob, it is getting nauseatingly boring.
You are also hypocritical in not accepting my answer. Here is why:
First. Your EGW-inspired doctrine states that Baptists like us have the Mark of the Beast because we don't worship on "the Sabbath", i.e., Saturday. That is stated in "The Great Controversy."
Your rebuttal on that is that it is stated that only during "The Tribulation" is that applicable. Those who do not keep his commandments, the commandments of the Lord, (including the Sabbath) will have the Mark of the Beast. This refers only to a future event--The Tribulation.
--NOTE: See how you can apply EGW's teaching to a future event, when we can see plainly that you relegate all non-SDA's to having the Mark of the Beast.

However, when I point out to you that the verse in Isaiah 66 is in a different time period, in the future, the Millennial Kingdom, you hypocritically state that I can't expound the Scriptures that way.
NOTE: You have done the same thing. You say the Mark of the beast is applicable to others only in the future coming Tribulation, as I say the Sabbath is applicable to all mankind in the future coming Millennial Kingdom.
You want to have your future hermeneutic applicable, but will not allow me to do the same thing. Your hypocrisy is showing.

Isaiah 66 applies only to the Millennial Kingdom.
You have yet to show one verse where keeping the Sabbath is a command for the Gentile Christian in this day and age.

 

[steaver]

I read through Isaiah 66 - It's definitely speaking about the physical reign of Christ from Jerusalem.

 

[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.

Ok so that was me asking DHK to be objective and serious for a second - and deal with the details in that question at the top of the post.

It was not a post about "Ellen White" - -- obviously

For as long as you have been on this board this post shows your absolute ignorance about Baptists, and why I object to your continual quoting from Moody. Let me explain the differences between Baptists, the SDA, and what you have been doing--and why it should be banned.

First. The SDA's regard the writings of EGW as almost sacred if not inspired.

I can't believe you are answering the question above with an Ellen White diatribe.

Oh well I guess if you have no answer to the actual question I asked - this is as good a diversion as any. Surely there is at least one person on this board that will go for it.

But just know - that if you ever do decide to answer the actual question in my post - I remain interested.

Second. Among Baptists we have no such authority. Not in confessions, catechisms, other leaders such as Moody, Spurgeon, etc

My question above is not about "who is an authority" it is about a simple obvious post - where I complained that Moody and others were bending the 4th commandment to point to Sunday - but at least they did not make the mistake of throwing that commandment under the bus entirely - since obviously that does not work with Isaiah 66:23.

This point that you are so desperate to avoid - is not that difficult. You can continue not answering it - but be assured that if you ever do have an inclination to give an answer - I am interested.

Third. Concerning Moody: He was an evangelist, not a theologian. He had a grade five education. His grammar was horrible. His doctrine was often off.

In my post I did not ask that you agree with Moody.

The point remains - how is quoting Moody on a point where you do not agree with him a "violation of the rules" at Baptist Board??? Since you brought this point up in the first place - you should have at least an ounce of interest in addressing the question.

Fourth. Even when he spoke on the Sabbath, you misrepresent what he said;

In my post I said that he was trying to bend the 4th commandment and make it point to Sunday after the cross just as does the Baptist Confession of Faith. I stated that I do not agree with that.

This cannot be more simple.

you misrepresent what he said;
basically lie about his messages. Whether deliberately or not a misrepresentation is a lie. This is why your quotations from him ought to be banned.

Sadly you are not answering the question -- you don't even attempt to prove that Moody was not trying to do the very thing he said he was doing - bending the 4th commandment to point to Sunday after the cross.

Sadly you continue to ignore anything like an actual quote of Moody to make your case about my exact verbatim quote of him and my complaint that I do not agree with his effort to bend the 4th commandment to point to Sunday. In fact I am quoting from HIS sermon on the TEN Commandment where HE says he is talking about the FOURTH commandment.

This is very simple. Very obvious.

So much so - that I seriously wondered if you had even one other Admin here who could bring himself/herself to look at the actual post and then declare it to be "a lie" about Moody or a "violation of known Baptist board rules".

If it is tolerated you should be given infraction points until they accumulate and you are banned. Misrepresentation of others is slander.

I hear pulpit pounding and rage - but you do not actually address the question or provide one objective voice here that actually reads the post and concurs with those wild claims you keep making.

Does it not bother you that you are pointing to zero statements in Moody's own text on the 4th commandment?

Does it not bother you in the least that your accusation piled on accusation avoids all efforts to be objective and deal with the simple obvious points of the question raised. Really???

You are using moral and ethical means that are wicked and evil.

I get that you are fully capable of ad hominem attack. That is not what is being questioned.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I read through Isaiah 66 - It's definitely speaking about the physical reign of Christ from Jerusalem.

AT the risk of more ad hominem diatribes on this thread ...

Did you see anything there about "All mankind" and "From Sabbath to Sabbath" and the "new heavens and the New Earth" - vs 23 comes to mind.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

it is getting nauseatingly boring.
You are also hypocritical in not accepting my answer. Here is why:
First. Your EGW-inspired doctrine ..
--NOTE: See how you can apply EGW's teaching to a future event, ...

I get that you would like to rage against Ellen White's prophetic ministry. But I am not arguing for that here. I am asking simple straight forward questions appealing to Bible fact - and actual history in terms of Moody's efforts to bend the 4th commandment to point to Sunday - and my objection to it.

However, when I point out to you that the verse in Isaiah 66 is in a different time period, in the future, the Millennial Kingdom, you hypocritically state that I can't expound the Scriptures

Ad hominem rant noted.

But I reply that Isaiah 66:23 does mention the "New Heavens and the New Earth" when it speaks of "All mankind" coming before God from Sabbath to Sabbath. And I do note that some well known Baptist sources also reference this fact. And I also note that Rev 21 speaks of the "New Heavens and the New Earth" being after the millennium.

Here again - I am just stating the obvious Bible facts.

No need to rage against Ellen White or any other off-topic item. Just the facts please.

In Mark 7 Christ condemns the idea of tossing the Commandments of God under the bus in favor of man-made traditions.

In 1John 5:2-4 we are told that the saints are keeping the Commandments of God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

AT the risk of more ad hominem diatribes on this thread ...

Did you see anything there about "All mankind" and "From Sabbath to Sabbath" and the "new heavens and the New Earth" - vs 23 comes to mind.

in Christ,

Bob

No there isn't Bob.
As in the "Mark of the Beast" scenario--applicable only in the Tribulation--a future event yet to come;
So this "sabbath to sabbath" and "all mankind" takes place in a future event yet to come, a future event called the Millennial Kingdom.

It has no relevance to us who live today.
You have yet to provide any Scripture with any relevance to this day and age that commands Gentile believers to keep the sabbath.
Just admit you are wrong.

 

[BobRyan]

DHK you have free will. You are free to say that there is no reference in Is 66:23 to the New Heavens and New Earth or all mankind. I will even support your idea to the point of letting others know that some people take that way out of the text. But as we both know - not many people will be willing to go to your extremes, so Isaiah 66:23 will continue to be very instructive on this subject.

Yet even your own "solution" that tries to turn a blind eye to the "New Heavens and New Earth" language - has to admit that the tribulation or millennium or whatever else you wish to eisegete into the text instead of "New Heavens and New Earth" -- is a point future to the cross.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

DHK you have free will. You are free to say that there is no reference in Is 66:23 to the New Heavens and New Earth or all mankind. I will even support your idea to the point of letting others know that some people take that way out of the text. But as we both know - not many people will be willing to go to your extremes, so Isaiah 66:23 will continue to be very instructive on this subject.

Yet even your own "solution" that tries to turn a blind eye to the "New Heavens and New Earth" language - has to admit that the tribulation or millennium or whatever else you wish to eisegete into the text instead of "New Heavens and New Earth" -- is a point future to the cross.

in Christ,

Bob

This chapter takes place well after the cross, well after the Tribulation. It does not point to the cross.
Where is the new heaven and new earth? Who made it and when?
Where does the lion lie down with the lamb, and the child play with the serpent?
I don't see these things happened. In what part of the world has the curse been eradicated. Where does Christ rule on earth from the throne of David? Where does he rule with a rod of iron with perfect justice?

Open your eyes Bob!! Satan is the god of this world; not Christ. Sin rules this world; it is not Christ and righteousness. There is no rule of Sabbath in this world. There are more Muslims in this world than Christians and they worship on Friday. Certainly there are more cumulative world religions put together than Christians, and they don't worship on the Sabbath.
In fact the people that do worship on the Sabbath is no doubt less than 1% of the world's population. All mankind does not worship on the Sabbath. Your interpretation of this Scripture is way off.
It is a future event that looks past the Tribulation, which also is future.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

DHK you have free will. You are free to say that there is no reference in Is 66:23 to the New Heavens and New Earth or all mankind. I will even support your idea to the point of letting others know that some people take that way out of the text. But as we both know - not many people will be willing to go to your extremes, so Isaiah 66:23 will continue to be very instructive on this subject.

Yet even your own "solution" that tries to turn a blind eye to the "New Heavens and New Earth" language - has to admit that the tribulation or millennium or whatever else you wish to eisegete into the text instead of "New Heavens and New Earth" -- is a point future to the cross.

in Christ,

Bob

Talk about turning a "blind eye"! First, you mean Isaiah 66:22, not v. 23. Secondly, to insist this is Isaiah pointing to the cross requires total ignorance of context of the passage, which begins several verses before.

Isaiah 66, NASB
18 "For I know their works and their thoughts; the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and see My glory.
19 "I will set a sign among them and will send survivors from them to the nations: Tarshish, Put, Lud, Meshech, Tubal and Javan, to the distant coastlands that have neither heard My fame nor seen My glory. And they will declare My glory among the nations.
20 "Then they shall bring all your brethren from all the nations as a grain offering to the LORD, on horses, in chariots, in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem," says the LORD, "just as the sons of Israel bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD.
21 "I will also take some of them for priests and for Levites," says the LORD.
22 "For just as the new heavens and the new earth
Which I make will endure before Me," declares the LORD,
"So your offspring and your name will endure.
23 "And it shall be from new moon to new moon
And from sabbath to sabbath, All mankind will come to bow down before Me," says the LORD.
24 "Then they will go forth and look
On the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm will not die
And their fire will not be quenched;
And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind."​

According to your interpretation, and given vv. 22-24, Israel should have been restored on a permanent eternal basis the day of the Cross. But instead she was utterly destroyed when Jerusalem fell to Rome, an empire fed up with insurrectionists and Israel's refusal to bow down to the emperor. Unlike v. 20, promising the Jewish people will be returned to the land, that fall of the City of David 40 years after the Cross, scattered the people from the land in the final diaspora for over 1,900, before the recognition of Israel as a nation again by the rest of the world.

The preterist belief system is seriously flawed, failing to accurately interpret Scripture and ignoring "inconvenient" passages that prove them wrong. Such as here, in your post.

 

[Yeshua1]

This chapter takes place well after the cross, well after the Tribulation. It does not point to the cross.
Where is the new heaven and new earth? Who made it and when?
Where does the lion lie down with the lamb, and the child play with the serpent?
I don't see these things happened. In what part of the world has the curse been eradicated. Where does Christ rule on earth from the throne of David? Where does he rule with a rod of iron with perfect justice?

Open your eyes Bob!! Satan is the god of this world; not Christ. Sin rules this world; it is not Christ and righteousness. There is no rule of Sabbath in this world. There are more Muslims in this world than Christians and they worship on Friday. Certainly there are more cumulative world religions put together than Christians, and they don't worship on the Sabbath.
In fact the people that do worship on the Sabbath is no doubt less than 1% of the world's population. All mankind does not worship on the Sabbath. Your interpretation of this Scripture is way off.
It is a future event that looks past the Tribulation, which also is future.

Read Zechariah 12-14, as there has been no time in history yet when all the nations of the world went to Jerusalem to pay homage to the God of isreal as being the only true God!

Don't see Muslims right now doing that, wonder if BOB does?

 

[BobRyan]

This chapter takes place well after the cross, well after the Tribulation. It does not point to the cross.
Where is the new heaven and new earth? Who made it and when?
Where does the lion lie down with the lamb, and the child play with the serpent?

Obviously Isaiah points to the future in Is 66:23 just as John does in Rev 21.

I thought we were all on the same page there.

Neither of them say that this is only during the millennium.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Obviously Isaiah points to the future in Is 66:23 just as John does in Rev 21.

I thought we were all on the same page there.

Neither of them say that this is only during the millennium.

in Christ,

Bob

Context says it is.
"a new earth and new heaven" is fairly obvious.
When ALL mankind will worship on the sabbath is not now is it?
As I pointed out, less than one percent of the total population of the world worships on the sabbath. This obviously has not taken place.

 

[BobRyan]

Context says it is.
"a new earth and new heaven" is fairly obvious.
When ALL mankind will worship on the sabbath is not now is it?

1. No limit to the millennium as the only time for it.
2. Obvious reference to a time beyond the cross.
3. Obvious scope for the Sabbath shows that it applies to all mankind.

4. Even the 4th-commandment "bending" groups among the Baptists get these few points right as well as their claim that the same day applied to all mankind and was kept from "creation to the cross".

They at least get that much right. Which is why I do not take that "deny all" response to what they say - that you have insisted upon.

So this part is not unique to me.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

1. No limit to the millennium as the only time for it.

Yes it is. It is the Millennial Kingdom, as the context shows. The things that are happening in that chapter are not happening now. You need to demonstrate that before you go any farther.

2. Obvious reference to a time beyond the cross.

It is well beyond the cross, and beyond the Tribulation period which you seem to know quite a bit about.

3. Obvious scope for the Sabbath shows that it applies to all mankind.

The Flood was applicable to "All mankind." It was in a different time and a different place. The Millennial Kingdom will be for all mankind--different time--not now. We don't live in the time of Noah, and we don't live when Jesus is reigning from his earthly throne at Jerusalem, the throne of David, and all the nations are coming to worship him on the Sabbath.

4. Even the 4th-commandment "bending" groups among the Baptists get these few points right as well as their claim that the same day applied to all mankind and was kept from "creation to the cross".

They are wrong. Not until you see all the Muslims and Hindus, etc., worshiping on the Sabbath will this take place. ALL mankind will be compelled to bow the knee to Christ--ALL, not just Christians.

They at least get that much right. Which is why I do not take that "deny all" response to what they say - that you have insisted upon.

No they don't. They redefine Sabbath to mean Sunday. You miss their point entirely.

 

[BobRyan]

I say they are bending the 4th commandment to point to Sunday after the cross - and I say I object to their doing so.

You say they "redefine the Sabbath to mean Sunday" -- potato Potahto.

Then you pound the pulpit with ad hominem vitriol that I complain that they are trying to bend the 4th commandment instead of using your term for it??

Really??

That is where the IFB missionary spirit loses it?

That is what I find amazing.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

I say they are bending the 4th commandment to point to Sunday after the cross - and I say I object to their doing so.

You say they "redefine the Sabbath to mean Sunday" -- potato Potahto.

You are not dealing with Scripture Bob. 90% of my argument came from Scripture. What others think about that verse or interpret that verse is of no relevance to me. But that is what you are using to try and refute me. Don`t try to refute my response complaining about the Confessions of other Baptists or about what others like Moody believed. I don`t care. What does the Bible say
Apparently you don`t care. You only care about the opinions of others.
Is that right.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--Do you speak `according to this word` or `according to the word of Moody and Confessions.`

Then you pound the pulpit with ad hominem vitriol that I complain that they are trying to bend the 4th commandment instead of using your term for it??

Really??

That is where the IFB missionary spirit loses it?

That is what I find amazing.

What is amazing is your neglect of Scripture; and your failure to look at Scripture the way it has been presented to you. The only way you will offer any rebuttal at all is inexcusable. You remind me of when my daughter was a small child:
`But he could do it, why can`t I.`

`But that is what they believe....`
So what if others believe wrongly. Does their wrong make it right.
This is not vitriol. Since when does the exposition of the Word of God become vitriol. I find it amazing that you should stoop so low.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

....Even when he spoke on the Sabbath, you misrepresent what he said; basically lie about his messages. Whether deliberately or not a misrepresentation is a lie. This is why your quotations from him ought to be banned. Moody does not believe in the Sabbath, or in keeping the Sabbath, despite what he says. I have read his sermon many times now. The extent of what he says can be summed up in this: "Attend your church faithfully on Sundays."
Everyone of us on this board (except you) believe that. That has nothing to do with the Sabbath or Sabbath keeping--absolutely nothing! He is not a theologian. He was wrong in saying he kept the Sabbath. He was simply urging the common person to come to church on Sunday and that is all. ....

Said by DHK of Baptist Board.

Thank you, DHK! Thank you!