To Obey God rather than tradition is legalism? Really??

[The Biblicist]

The Sabbath law in principle is merely six days preceding and following the seventh day Sabbath. In Application it can be applied to any day of the week and still six days precede and follow and it is the seventh day Sabbath.

Leviticus 23 and the FIXED DATE Sabbaths prove that God's understanding of the PRINICPLE of the fourth commandment cannot be restricted/limited only to a particular day "of the week." When God applies it to a particular day "of the week" then that particular day is the sabbath until God changes the APPLICATION (not the law). God did change the APPLICATION due to a greater work finished on another day "of the week" that is yet to be fulfullied (Heb. 4:11, 14) when all the elect enter into an eternal eighth day Sabbath of a new heaven and new earth where God once again can look upon all that he has made and pronounce "very good."

In the mean time, all the levitical Sabbath restrictions under Moses are abolished and the "Lord's Day" is "made" to be observed (Psa. 118:24; Mk. 16:9; Heb. 4:9) as a day of rejoicing and gladness (Psa. 118:24) in going to the public house of God for worship and fellowship with God's people and rest for our souls. That does not mean we cannot gather together every day of the week if we so choose, it only means that not every day of the week is "The Lord's Day" as that would make that phrase meaningless.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The Sabbath law in principle is merely six days preceding and following the seventh day Sabbath. In Application it can be applied to any day of the week and still six days precede and follow and it is the seventh day Sabbath.

Leviticus 23 and the FIXED DATE Sabbaths prove that God's understanding of the PRINICPLE of the fourth commandment cannot be restricted/limited only to a particular day "of the week." When God applies it to a particular day "of the week" then that particular day is the sabbath until God changes the APPLICATION (not the law). God did change the APPLICATION due to a greater work finished on another day "of the week" that is yet to be fulfullied (Heb. 4:11, 14) when all the elect enter into an eternal eighth day Sabbath of a new heaven and new earth where God once again can look upon all that he has made and pronounce "very good."

In the mean time, all the levitical Sabbath restrictions under Moses are abolished and the "Lord's Day" is "made" to be observed (Psa. 118:24; Mk. 16:9; Heb. 4:9) as a day of rejoicing and gladness (Psa. 118:24) in going to the public house of God for worship and fellowship with God's people and rest for our souls. That does not mean we cannot gather together every day of the week if we so choose, it only means that not every day of the week is "The Lord's Day" as that would make that phrase meaningless.

Re:
<<The Sabbath law in principle is merely six days preceding and following the seventh day Sabbath.>>

Incorrect and by now, plain untrue: How on earth in any case can <six days> be <<preceding and following>>? FLOL!

Re:
<<In Application it … the seventh day Sabbath … can be applied to any day of the week>>?

Incorrect and by now, plain untrue; can’t you see contradiction when it is a contradiction? FLOL!

Re:
<<The Sabbath law in principle … can be applied to any day of the week>>—while <<in principle in the Sabbath law>> it actually is “the day The Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD GOD” that is applied??

Incorrect and by now, plain untrue; when plain illogical, can’t you see it is illogical? FLOL!

Re:
<<When God applies it …>> <it>, <<that particular day … the seventh day Sabbath>>, <<to a particular day "of the week" then that particular day … the seventh day Sabbath … is the sabbath until God changes the APPLICATION (not the law).>>

At last it is correct, yet the Biblicist himself never got it right because fact ignored: God never changed <<the APPLICATION>> OR, <the law>, “the day The Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the LORD GOD”, FLOL!

Re:
<<Leviticus 23 and the FIXED DATE Sabbaths prove that God's understanding of the PRINICPLE of the fourth commandment cannot be restricted/limited only to a particular day "of the week.">>

Incorrect and by now, plain untrue! FLOL, <<the FIXED DATE Sabbaths prove that>> they are <fixed>—that is, <<restricted/limited>> by <DATE> to NO <<particular day "of the week">> and NOT at all, <<by the PRINICPLE of the fourth commandment>>, FLOL!

Re:
<<God did change the APPLICATION due to a greater work finished on another day "of the week" that is yet to be fulfullied (Heb. 4:11, 14) when all the elect enter into an eternal eighth day Sabbath of a new heaven and new earth where God once again can look upon all that he has made and pronounce "very good.">>

Incorrect and by now, plain untrue!
Where do you read <<a greater work finished on another day "of the week">>?! Which <<Heb. 4:11, 14>> do you have in your Bible?
And didn’t you know there is a difference between fulfil and <<change the application>>? By having fulfilled, God in fact confirmed the <application>. FLOL!

No! Your wasted ink on wasted paper is totally ridiculous.

 

[DHK]

Until you actually click on the link and look at actual history and find out otherwise.

I don't have to look at the history; you have to understand Baptist history.

I am not here to stop you from engaging in revisionist histories pretending that these documents do not exist. You have free will and you can choose to do that if you like.

By your logic no Baptists existed before Spurgeon or before the London Confession of Faith for they all would have had to adhere to it. Your position is ludicrous. There were Baptists during the Reformation, and long before the Reformation. Baptists are not Protestants. Which of the Protestants was a Baptist? There isn't one. They did not come out of the Catholic Church but were always outside of the RCC and can trace their roots back to the Apostles through similar groups having similar beliefs though different names.
The fact that various confessions exist is totally irrelevant to most Baptists. It has historical value and that is all. I don't know of any Baptist today that claims Spurgeon's Confession, as their own. The Baptist churches I know, ALL of them, make up their own statements of faith. They would disagree in some parts with Spurgeon.

I am not arguing against that. I am arguing against the wild notion that the SDAs are the only Christians that affirm the Ten commandments, even the 4th commandment - given to mankind - applicable to the saints today.

The Sabbath Day is given to the Jews as a sign between them and Jehovah for their generations forever. You cannot run from Exodus 31. If you are so adamant on keeping the Sabbath, what tribe are you from. It was a law given to the Jews. It was not a law at creation. There is no command at creation to keep the Sabbath. That is a bogus argument.

I am pointing out that the Baptists themselves have an "inconvenient document" affirmed in their history by D.L. Moody, C.H.Spurgeon and even Andy Stanley and others today - that does not support the wild notion that SDAs are the only Christians admitting to some of these key Bible facts regarding the TEN Commandments.

What some Baptists believe is totally irrelevant to me. They are not Biblically correct.
Here are what some Baptists believe.
One Baptist pastor would not allow any pastor to preach in his pulpit if he wore wire rimmed glasses.
Another pastor would not baptize any woman unless she promised to give up wearing pants and started wearing dresses or knee length skirts.
Many pastors will not admit into their membership those who use no other version but the KJV. Even the Greek and Hebrew are wrong.
I could go on. But I think you get the picture.

These confessions are written by men. Men are fallible. I stand by the Word of God, have written my own statement of faith--as required to do before I got ordained. We do not follow another man's Confession of Faith. You are putting up a bogus argument that has no weight.
Spurgeon's Confession? To that I say: So what!!!

And frankly - I don't think you "honestly" believe that the document called the "Baptist Confession of Faith" does not exist. Not sure why you are taking such an extreme position in your post.

I didn't say it didn't exist. In fact there are many confessions that exist. There is no standard confession among Baptists. Why would you use Spurgeon as a standard? He isn't God. I don't follow him. He is not my pastor. I have nothing to do with him. He is just a man, and very fallible like the rest of us.

This is where you do admit to the document and to C.H. Spurgeon's edit of it? And to the fact that it is modeled almost identically to the "Westminster Confession of Faith" in section 19.

I couldn't care less what these confessions say. They are not infallible.
Thus saith the Lord! What does the Bible say? I don't look to a confession for my beliefs. I did that when I was a Catholic; why would I do it now??

Details matter.

The details are in the Word of God; not in confessions.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The Sabbath Day is given to the Jews as a sign between them and Jehovah for their generations forever. You cannot run from Exodus 31. If you are so adamant on keeping the Sabbath, what tribe are you from. It was a law given to the Jews. It was not a law at creation. There is no command at creation to keep the Sabbath. That is a bogus argument.

First, The Sabbath or its day was NOT <<given to the Jews>>.

And at the creation God "made the Sabbath" for HIMSELF "for the sake of man" through Jesus Christ in the future. THERE and THEN "IN THE BEGINNING" when "GOD ...” wrought and was sole actor of every act except the act of Adam and Eve's sinning, the sinners’ destiny was fixed. The act of atonement for their sins on that very first of all subsequent Sabbaths, was God’s; only God’s. And every act of God on that first Sabbath Day ever, was ACT OF GRACE AND RECONCILIATION.

Grace and reconciliation were extended to the posterity of the two first sinners ---through "The Son of Man who [would] lay hold on the Sabbath ... TO SAVE / KEEP" it, saving and keeping each and every of Adam and Eve's children elected in all future to be saved and kept by the grace of God.

You cannot run from Exodus 31, "See, I have CALLED BY NAME ... OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH; and I have filled HIM with the Spirit of God." You cannot run from the TRUTH Exodus 31 is prophecy of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. You cannot run away from the fact in Exodus 31 it is the EVERLASTING COVENANT OF GRACE SWORN BY GOD with the children of Adam and Eve IN JESUS CHRIST The Called by Name of the tribe of Judah. Jesus Christ; none else!

You cannot get away from the fact it was in this CONTEXT OF GOD'S SAVING GRACE that God ---no man ---swore the Sabbath Day his "sign" with HIS OWN ---his own from the tribe of JUDAH—Jesus Christ; of no tribe but JUDAH'S!

O, DHK, o DHK! How legalistic do you look at Scripture!

 

[targus]

This is typical of Bobryan...

Find some random document or statement written by a single individual and then try to attribute it as doctrine for whatever denomination the writer happens to associate with.

Meanwhile SDA hospitals are still performing abortions on demand and Bobryan has no problem with that because "it is against the SDA guidelines"...

Guidelines which by the way would matter not a wit to Bobryan if they got in the way of one of his strawman arguments.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

“Whosoever doeth work in the Sabbath Day, HE, shall be put to DEATH surely.”

That’s why they put Jesus Christ to death.

Fathom the depths of the Love of God!

They would have put Jesus' Father to death as well, if they could.

 

[DHK]

“Whosoever doeth work in the Sabbath Day, HE, shall be put to DEATH surely.”

That’s why they put Jesus Christ to death.

Fathom the depths of the Love of God!

They would have put Jesus' Father to death as well, if they could.

This kind of nonsense allegorical method of interpretation does injustice to Biblical salvation and to what God says in his word concerning the atonement.
If you think you must keep the law, then keep all of it. There are 613 commands, not just ten. If you can keep just 600 and fall short in the other 13 you fail and are condemned under the law.
Under the law it is doubtful that you keep the Sabbath law.
Have you studied all that is involved in keeping the Sabbath?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

This kind of nonsense allegorical method of interpretation does injustice to Biblical salvation and to what God says in his word concerning the atonement.
If you think you must keep the law, then keep all of it. There are 613 commands, not just ten. If you can keep just 600 and fall short in the other 13 you fail and are condemned under the law.
Under the law it is doubtful that you keep the Sabbath law.
Have you studied all that is involved in keeping the Sabbath?
[/SIZE]

<Allegorical method>? "I work and My Father works hitherto" ---it was on the Sabbath! And the Jews accused Him of having worked on the Sabbath Day for an excuse to kill Him; and you call it, my <allegorical method>? Then Allegory is BIBLICAL and my method for sure!

Hee hee hee hee

And I do not think I must keep the Law one or more Laws indifferent to me. What made you think I think I must keep the Law?!

What for? To earn my salvation?! You don’t know the truth if you so thought, DHK.

I do not even THINK in terms of ‘Law’ when I think of God’s Law. But you think of nothing than 600 short of or more than 613 ‘laws’ when you think of the Law of God, DHK, it’s so obvious!

Yes that I failed and will fail till the day I die of having failed and having been condemned all the days of my life, that I grant you, you are spot on in! Whatever else may also have played a role—like the love and grace of God—, of course is non of your business, thank heavens!

<<Under the law it is doubtful that (I) keep the Sabbath law>>. Sure! Worse, DHK, WORSE! For under GRACE it is absolutely certain that I do NOT keep the Sabbath or its law!
See, I’ve got a Substitute who in my place, kept the Sabbath. He – by the way – was “LORD OF THE SABBATH”—“the Sabbath” of course, He—The Son of Man—, “is Lord of”. So quite naturally the Sabbath Day He is Lord of, must be “The Lord’s Day”.

But MORE THAN THAT! “The Lord’s Day” is it ---the Sabbath now ---for “in the fullness of the Sabbath Day there was a great earthquake … and the rest you know: that it was then “AS GOD RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD AND EXALTED HIM AND ENTRONED HIM ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD IN HEAVENLY GLORY OF HIS MAJESTY”: “this Jesus whom ye have crucified, GOD MADE: BOTH _LORD_, AND, CHRIST”.


Heee hee hee hee … o my, them Sundayers!

 

[The Biblicist]

Re:
<<The Sabbath law in principle is merely six days preceding and following the seventh day Sabbath.>>

Incorrect and by now, plain untrue: How on earth in any case can <six days> be <<preceding and following>>? FLOL!

Just think about it GE. What follows the seventh day in order to get to another Sabbath????? The Seventh day stands in two relationships to six working days. It closes it and introduces it.

Re:
<<In Application it … the seventh day Sabbath … can be applied to any day of the week>>?

Incorrect and by now, plain untrue; can’t you see contradiction when it is a contradiction? FLOL!

No contradiction unless it is with God's own application to other days "of the week" in Leviticus 23. Your restrictive interpetation of sabbath law condemns God's own application. Think about that GE! Your theory must condemn God before it can condemn me.

Re:
<<The Sabbath law in principle … can be applied to any day of the week>>—while <<in principle in the Sabbath law>> it actually is “the day The Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD GOD” that is applied??

Incorrect and by now, plain untrue; when plain illogical, can’t you see it is illogical? FLOL!

Have you noticed you have nothing to base your objections on except your own objections? Leviticus 23 is hard facts that God did apply the Sabbath law to other days "of the week." Nothing you can say can change that. No objection can change that. Your interpetation contradicts such a Sabbath law application.

Re:
<<When God applies it …>> <it>, <<that particular day … the seventh day Sabbath>>, <<to a particular day "of the week" then that particular day … the seventh day Sabbath … is the sabbath until God changes the APPLICATION (not the law).>>

At last it is correct, yet the Biblicist himself never got it right because fact ignored: God never changed <<the APPLICATION>> OR, <the law>, “the day The Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the LORD GOD”, FLOL!

Again, Leviticus demonstrates you are wrong in your strict limits placed on Sabbath law. My position includes the levitical application, the Jewish seventh day "of the week" application as well as God's clear application to the better Sabbath that commemorates the first day of the week resurrection or "the Lord's Day."

Re:
<<Leviticus 23 and the FIXED DATE Sabbaths prove that God's understanding of the PRINICPLE of the fourth commandment cannot be restricted/limited only to a particular day "of the week.">>

Incorrect and by now, plain untrue! FLOL, <<the FIXED DATE Sabbaths prove that>> they are <fixed>—that is, <<restricted/limited>> by <DATE> to NO <<particular day "of the week">> and NOT at all, <<by the PRINICPLE of the fourth commandment>>, FLOL!

Incorrect. No solar and lunar calander is evenly divided by seven. Fixed dates fall on different days of the week.

Re:
<<God did change the APPLICATION due to a greater work finished on another day "of the week" that is yet to be fulfullied (Heb. 4:11, 14) when all the elect enter into an eternal eighth day Sabbath of a new heaven and new earth where God once again can look upon all that he has made and pronounce "very good.">>

Incorrect and by now, plain untrue!
Where do you read <<a greater work finished on another day "of the week">>?! Which <<Heb. 4:11, 14>> do you have in your Bible?
And didn’t you know there is a difference between fulfil and <<change the application>>? By having fulfilled, God in fact confirmed the <application>. FLOL!

Hebrews verse 9 is for the plural people of God due to the singular work of an individual whose finished work and way of commemorating it is comparable to God's commemoration of creation (v. 10). It is the finished work of our High Preist (Heb. 4:14). Psalm 118:20-24 is so Messianic and so many time applied to Christ and his death by the hands of the Jews even a blind man could see this. Psalm 118:22 predits what they would do - reject him by killing him. Psalm 118:23-24 gives God's response to what He would do in contrast - raise him and commemorate the resurrection day by commanding its observance "made" and how it is to be observed "we will rejoice and be glad IN IT."

No, your the one wasting your ink on something God has rejected and provide something better.

 

[BobRyan]

The Sabbath law in principle is merely six days preceding and following the seventh day Sabbath.

1. Obviously you have invented out of whole cloth a statement that cannot be found in all of scripture about a 13 day sequence with the 7th day in the middle. So you "quote you" as the "Sabbath Law".

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

2. You say "In Application it can be applied to any day of the week"

Thus your "7th day" mishmash turns into "any day of the week" using your own made up "you quote you" - Sabbath law.

Here again - the objective unbiased reader does not fall for it.

Leviticus 23 and the FIXED DATE Sabbaths prove that God's understanding of the PRINICPLE of the fourth commandment

Once again your story telling does not work - because you shoot your own argument down by claiming that "God understand" your made up version of a 13 day sequence with the 7th day coming AFTER 6 days of works AND before six more days of work - as an example of God applying annual Sabbaths that are not mentioned at all as "Followed by Six days of work" NOR as "following SIX days of work" for ANNUAL Sabbaths.

As we all know - ANNUAL Sabbaths fall on a given day of the month EVEN if a prior weekly Sabbath was only 1 or 2 days prior to it - so NOT preceded by SIX days of work AND NOT followed by six days of work when a weekly Sabbath follows the annual Sabbath. (And all of this is often the case when it comes to annual Sabbaths of Lev 23).

Obviously.

Your practice of simply making stuff up - and then "you quoting you" as your source for it - is not the compelling answer you seem to have at first imagined.

I now that in your model we are "not supposed to notice" and I grant you that one or two here may be desperately "trying not to notice" in support of your suggestions - but it does not fly with the objective unbiased readers.

In the mean time, all the levitical Sabbath restrictions under Moses are abolished and the "Lord's Day" is "made" to be observed (Psa. 118:24; Mk. 16:9; Heb. 4:9) as a day of rejoicing and gladness (Psa. 118:24) in going to the public house of God for worship and fellowship with God's people and rest for our souls.

Hint: there is nothing in Ps 118 or Heb 4 or Mark 16 that says that "week day 1 is the Lord's day" or that "the seventh day is no longer the Sabbath".

So you are giving the texts as a reference - but never showing that they actually make your case for week-day-1.

This is really not as hard to see as you have imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

[/quote]
Originally Posted by DHK
If you are going to carry on debate here at least do it honestly.
There is no "Baptist Confession of faith."[/quote]


Until you actually click on the link

Spurgeon's version
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm

Original 1689 version
http://www.creeds.net/baptists/1689/kerkham/1689.htm

and look at actual history and find out otherwise.

I am not here to stop you from engaging in revisionist histories pretending that these documents do not exist. You have free will and you can choose to do that if you like.

I don't have to look at the history;

As I said - we are in agreement on what you have to and don't have to do. I agree you don't have to.

you have to understand Baptist history.

By your logic no Baptists existed before Spurgeon or before the London Confession of Faith for they all would have had to adhere to it.
Your position is ludicrous.

You are quoting you for my position. I never argue that all Baptists would have or will now agree with anything as they are much divided on several points. I simply point to the existence of these documents and to those who follow in agreement with Spurgeon, and Moody, and Stanley and others in accepting the doctrine stated there.

They "exist" and it is pretty hard to argue that they don't or that the documents don't "exist". Though you are free to do it if you wish.

Those who reject the Baptist Confession of Faith will say --

The Sabbath Day is given to the Jews as a sign between them and Jehovah for their generations forever. You cannot run from Exodus 31. If you are so adamant on keeping the Sabbath, what tribe are you from.

By contrast - Baptist like Spurgeon, and Moody and Andy Stanley and all who agree with their acceptance of the Baptist Confession of Faith on this subject will argue that the TEN Commandments are still the moral law of God and that the Sabbath was given for all mankind in Gen 2:3 just like the Baptist Confession of Faith states.

You are free to make stuff up or make up rules as you like in objection to these Baptists - and that document.

I am not stopping you.

I simply find that the errors in your view are pointed out by historic documents and key leaders found in your own denomination - not just by me. After all we are not talking about "Seventh-day Adventist Confession of Faith" but rather "Baptist Confession of Faith" here - just so we all have "perspective".

What some Baptists believe is totally irrelevant to me. They are not Biblically correct.

Agree that this is their view of your doctrine and your view of theirs. You have free will and can choose whatever you like - just as I choose to agree with your own Baptist denomination's documents and leaders that your doctrinal suggestion here is not correct.

We each may choose.

Here are what some Baptists believe.
One Baptist pastor would not allow any pastor to preach in his pulpit if he wore wire rimmed glasses.

You gave some great examples here of minor opinions that do not carry the weight and acceptance of the Baptist Confession of Faith, or Spurgeon's teachings, or Moody's teaching, or Stanley and those that are in agreement with them.

As we all know Charles Stanley was once the president of the Southern Baptist Convention and it appears that Charles and Andy are in agreement on the subject of the Ten Commandments - in terms of harmony with the Baptist Confession of Faith. (Andy has between 7,000 and 10,000 Baptists attending his services in this area alone.). In one of his sermons on the Ten Commandments Andy points out that the breaking of the 3rd commandment - "taking God's name in vain" - includes the idea of claiming that "God told you to ignore one of the Ten Commandments".

I find that interesting coming from a "less than obscure" Baptist source.

I thank you for those comparisons of minor - obscure views to compare with this much more historic and general case.

Still not saying that all baptists agree with any one Baptist no matter how prominent or well accepted that person may be.

I stand by the Word of God as did Spurgeon and Moody and others.

But that does not mean I agree with them on every point.

They just happen to be right in this case when their acceptance of this Bible doctrine is compared to your rejection of it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

By contrast - Baptist like Spurgeon, and Moody and Andy Stanley and all who agree with their acceptance of the Baptist Confession of Faith on this subject will argue that the TEN Commandments are still the moral law of God and that the Sabbath was given for all mankind in Gen 2:3 just like the Baptist Confession of Faith states.

Bob

Again, you put up strawmen, and are not honest in debate tactics.
First you have chosen three men at random who are NOT representative of all Baptists, as you allege.
I am not a Calvinist; Spurgeon is.
Moody was an evangelist, not a theologian. He had a grade five education and was deficient in many areas of doctrine. Again his forte was evangelism.
If you look in the General Baptist section you will find an interesting discussion on whether or not Stanley was a mystic--quite an accusation! Either way I am no fan of the SBC, and never have been.

The examples you use are not representative of all Baptists, and are not representative even of the average Baptist when it comes to doctrine.
Your argument is bogus.

 

[BobRyan]

Again, you put up strawmen, and are not honest in debate tactics.
First you have chosen three men at random who are NOT representative of all Baptists, as you allege.

The honest reply from you would be that you admit that I have never said that all Baptists agree on anything. In fact I have explicitly stated that all Baptists do not agree on a number of topics - not just this one.

Details matter.

I am pointing out that your own Baptist documents and some well accepted thought leaders teachers evangelist theologians (not by all that is for sure - but not obscure authors talking about wearing eye glasses in the pulpit either) - are in opposition to your view here - it is not just me or just SDAs or just Seventh-day Baptists.

I am not a Calvinist; Spurgeon is.

Granted - I too would differ with him on that point.

I am not a Baptist either - so I have a lot of room to differ with the "Baptist Confession of Faith" whenever I wish and it would still be consistent for me to do so.

Very few people could come back to me and state that my view is inconsistent since there is some point of doctrine on some subject where the BCOF differs with my view. I think we both know that.

Moody was an evangelist, not a theologian. He had a grade five education and was deficient in many areas of doctrine. Again his forte was evangelism.

And yet he gets this one right.

That should tell you something about this Bible subject.

(Could not help posting that one)

If you look in the General Baptist section you will find an interesting discussion on whether or not Stanley was a mystic--quite an accusation! Either way I am no fan of the SBC, and never have been.

And yet - I think you and I would agree that the SBC is not some obscure never-heard-of Baptist organization that knows nothing about Baptist beliefs.

The examples you use are not representative of all Baptists

Indeed I don't know of a single source representative of "all Baptists" - so I never make that claim --- you do.

Your argument is bogus.

I believe we actually have a good understanding of our differences on that point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Just think about it GE. What follows the seventh day in order to get to another Sabbath????? The Seventh day stands in two relationships to six working days. It closes it and introduces it.

Exactly; now you talk SENSE!


The Seventh Day Sabbath stands in relationship to the six working days in that it closes the SEVEN days week, AT ONCE introducing the NEXT seven days week in order to WITHOUT BREAK FOREVER CLOSE the seven days week ad infinitum being the Seventh and last day of the seven days week.

The Sabbath as the Seventh Day of the week NEVER SWOPS position with another day of the seven days week. In that sense ONLY is it true,
<<The Seventh day stands in two relationships to six working days. It closes it and introduces it.>>

Just think about it, Biblicist, What follows the Seventh Day Sabbath in order to get to another “Sabbath, the day The Seventh Day”? The following SEVEN DAYS WEEK, Biblicist, the following SEVEN DAYS WEEK!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

!

No contradiction unless it is with God's own application to other days "of the week" in Leviticus 23. Your restrictive interpetation of sabbath law condemns God's own application. Think about that GE! Your theory must condemn God before it can condemn me.

Why on earth are you trying so hard to bring your day that you worship on under the Law?
To bring yourself under the Law!

And that is totally incomprehensible for me.

I see no point in your cumbersome endeavour to get the Law to justify your doctrine and practice.

If Jesus Christ rose on the First Day of the week, THEN, you would have had ALL the Law AND the justification for your worshiping on it as "The Lord's Day"! You would not have needed the Law BECAUSE THE LAW WOULD HAVE AGREED that Christ would have raised on the First Day of the week.

Your trouble besides your fruitless and forced attempt to work out some way the Law might support your day of worship, is that the Law does not support and NEVER FORETOLD THAT CHRIST WOULD RISE ON THE FIRST DAY of the week!

Therefore go back and look for how the Law prophesied concerning the Christ how that his SUFFERING, DEATH, BURIAL AND RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD SHOULD HAVE PROVEN THAT HE WOULD RISE FROM THE DEAD ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK!

Then you would not need no Law NO MORE to worship on the First Day of the week. THEN and then only, you will have had succeeded in getting THE LAW to support your hopes and your doctrines and your practices.

Don't try to be a legalist if you are no legalist; it cannot ever make sense.

But I cannot let the opportunity pass and not warn you, any attempt to find or force the Law to support the notion that Christ rose from the dead on the First Day of the week, IS MORE FUTILE than the attempt to get the Sabbath Day or the Law of the Sabbath form the <principle> or <basis> of a supposed 'Lawful' keeping of the First Day of the week.

Because ALL THE SCRIPTURES breath the Divine Truth Christ WOULD, and "in the fullness of time", DID, RISE FROM THE DEAD, "IN THE SABBATH'S FULLNESS"—“in the Sabbath’s fullness” of FULFILMENT in Jesus Christ and by and through Him "who is the ALL in all fulfilling FULLNESS OF GOD."

 

[DHK]

Originally Posted by DHK
If you are going to carry on debate here at least do it honestly.
There is no "Baptist Confession of faith."[/quote]

Until you actually click on the link

Spurgeon's version
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm

Bob

Do you know what Spurgeon actually believed? Do you read the links that you post?

As it is the law of nature that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, should be set apart for the worship of God, so He has given in His Word a positive, moral and perpetual commandment, binding upon all men, in all ages to this effect. He has particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath to be kept holy for Him. From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ this was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ it was changed to the first day of the week and called the Lord's Day. This is to be continued until the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week having been abolished.

Often it was called the Christian Sabbath, or Sunday. I believe Moody believed in the same thing. Your arguments are still bogus.

 

[DHK]

Moody's Sabbath:

1. CESSATION FROM SECULAR WORK A man ought to turn aside from his ordinary employment one day in seven. There are many whose occupation will not permit them to observe Sunday, but they should observe some other day as a Sabbath. Saturday is my day of rest, because I generally preach on Sunday, and I look forward to it as a boy does to a holiday. God knows what we need....


When I was a boy, the Sabbath lasted from sundown on Saturday to sundown on Sunday, and I remember how we boys used to shout when it was over. It was the worst day in the week to us. I believe it can be made the brightest day in the week. Every child ought to be reared so that he shall be able to say that he would rather have the other six days weeded out of his memory than the Sabbath of his childhood.

• THE SUNDAY NEWSPAPER

With regard to the Sunday newspaper, I know all the arguments that are brought in its favor- that the work on it is done during the week, that it is the Monday paper that causes Sunday work, and so on. But there are two hundred thousand newsboys selling the paper on Sunday. Would you like to have your boy one of them? Men are kept running trains in order to distribute the papers. Would you like your Sabbath taken away from you? If not, then practice the Golden Rule, and don't touch the papers.

http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/Moody.Ten.Commandments.html

Bob you have been dishonest in your portrayal of these men by maintaining that they believe in the Sabbath. They don't. They believe that man should not work seven days; that they should have one day of rest out of seven; that that day of rest should be on a Sunday set apart to worship God. I believe the same thing. Their beliefs are no different than mine.

You are dishonest in your portrayal of their beliefs.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally Posted by DHK
If you are going to carry on debate here at least do it honestly.
There is no "Baptist Confession of faith."

Do you know what Spurgeon actually believed? Do you read the links that you post?

Often it was called the Christian Sabbath, or Sunday. I believe Moody believed in the same thing. Your arguments are still bogus.

[/QUOTE]


DHK believes Spurgeon, that Christ rose from the dead on the First Day of the week.
That's his ---your, problem, DHK, to believe Spurgeon in this matter.

I love 'Spurgeon'. But in this instance he shows he too has only feet of clay.

DHK also in this matter shows he too has only feet of clay.

GE has feet of clay, too; but not in this matter.
Because ALL THE SCRIPTURES prove ALL Sunday-Christianity alleging Christ rose from the dead on the First Day of the week, in error and against the Scriptures.

THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE on which day Christians should worship God corporately, on the Seventh Day Sabbath BECAUSE CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD ON IT, OR, on the First Day of the week BECAUSE CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD ON IT.

NOT THE LAW of Ten Commandments OR <the law of nature> , BUT THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST.

Bob Ryan, do you hear?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob you have been dishonest in your portrayal of these men by maintaining that they believe in the Sabbath. They don't.

The honest response would have been to admit that D.L. Moody strongly insisted on Sabbath Keeping and condemned all who claimed that they found a way around having to keep the Sabbath.

(BTW - you just got through trashing Moody as being unneducated, not a theologian and someone you don't listen to -- but now that you bring him back up. I am glad you did.)

=================
D.L. Moody

DWIGHT L. MOODY​

The Ten Commandments:
Exodus 20:2-17​

.
[FONT=&quot]The Fourth Commandment[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]but the seventh day is the Sabbath[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]LORD thy God[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: 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:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]for in six days the LORD made heaven and Earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]rested the seventh day[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]wherefore the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]LORD blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.[/FONT]


​

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.

"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)

It isjust as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was- in fact, more than ever,[FONT=&quot] because we live in such an intense age.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins withthe 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 thatthe 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;[FONT=&quot] 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.

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

In the quote above D.L.Moody slams the non-Sabbath keeper much harder than most SDA pastors would dare to do it today. And yet this is spun by some this way .... It is left as an exercise for the reader - to see if they find Moody claiming that he did not believe in the Sabbath nor hammer his readers if they rejected it.

Hint: The text above comes from the same sermon that DHK is quoting from.

[/FONT]

Bob you have been dishonest in your portrayal of these men by maintaining that they believe in the Sabbath. They don't.

So also does this "[FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]Saturday is my day of rest, because I generally preach on Sunday, and I look forward to it[FONT=&quot] as a boy does to a holiday"[/FONT]

 

[DHK]

The honest response would have been to admit that D.L. Moody strongly insisted on Sabbath Keeping and condemned all who claimed that they found a way around having to keep the Sabbath.

(BTW - you just got through trashing Moody as being unneducated, not a theologian and someone you don't listen to -- but now that you bring him back up. I am glad you did.)

=================
D.L. Moody

DWIGHT L. MOODY​

The Ten Commandments:
Exodus 20:2-17 ​

.
The Fourth Commandment
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.​

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.
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
[FONT=&quot]It is [/FONT][FONT=&quot]just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was- in fact, more than ever,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] because we live in such an intense age.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The fourth commandment begins with[/FONT][FONT=&quot] the word remember, showing that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stone[/FONT][FONT=&quot] at Sinai.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away [/FONT][FONT=&quot]with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?

I believe that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the Sabbath question today is a vital one for the whole country[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. It is [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the burning question of the present time[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. If [/FONT][FONT=&quot]you give up the Sabbath the church goes[/FONT][FONT=&quot];[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 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.

===============================================[/FONT]

You are being just as dishonest as stating that Psalm 14:1 teaches "There is no God," for indeed that is what it says.

That is what you have done with Moody's sermon. You have only quoted it in part. Neither have you bothered to define terms. You ought to be totally ashamed of yourself.

First, Moody defines Sabbath as "Saturday sundown to Sunday sundown," in other words "Sunday," the first day of the week.
Secondly, he plainly identifies that the Sabbath has been changed to the first day of the week, and identifies it as Sunday.
Thirdly, the culture of the time was to "keep the Christian Sabbath," or Sunday.
Fourth, he admitted that he took his "day of rest" on Saturday, but advocated the rest of his congregation to set aside Sunday as a day of worship. For him Sunday was a day of work, a day that he preached.

If you bothered to read the entire sermon, you would not by hypocritical and only post a portion of it. Moody believes in the Sabbath the same way that I do--resting one day out of seven, and reserving Sunday as a day for corporate worship. That is what he teaches in the sermon from where you have taken that quote.
Why are you misquoting him?
Why be deceptive and dishonest?