Would you fellowship with a Seventh Day Adventist Family?

[BobRyan]

DHK

But to review some of the verses that you refer to time and again. First God rested on the Sabbath day, and the Scriptures do say:

"And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." (Gen.2:3)

Why was it sanctified or set apart from the rest of the days? Because that is the day that He rested or ceased from creating.

Indeed - the text says "God blessed THE Seventh day." -- not "A Seventh day" -- not "any seventh day of man's choosing". It was God who chose it - selected it - and placed HIs placing on the very day. It does not say "God blessed a seventh day - OR God blessed the action of MAN in selecting man's OWN choice for a seventh day". - Though clearly you "need" the text to say it.

God "sanctified it" - not "God sanctified the act of MAN in selecting any Seventh-day of his own choosing". Although "again" I can see why your view "needs" that to be said here.

The principle set forth for us here is that When God SELECTS the day, Blesses the day, Sanctifies the day of HIS own selection - MANKIND was fully obligated to notice that fact.

And taking the text IN CONTEXT - this is the FIRST full day of "life" for mankind after having been created on the 6th day. Mankind "could not MISS" the act of God as He completed creation week with the MEMORIAL. Mankind would be RIGHT IN STEP with God's act - in perfect Harmony with God's own command.

And in Exodus 20 - when God provides HIS OWN summary of that act - He HIMSELF delcares is act in Gen 2:3 to be specific, sufficient, and authorotative regarding the very day that HE sets apart - as "A holy day".

But ignoring the details in that context - mankind today seeks to water it down to "any day in seven" as in The principle set forth for us is that man needs one day out of seven for rest.

But God is much more explicit about "The very day" not just "pick any day in seven" as we see in God's own Words...


Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 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:
11 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.

This command is explicitly based on the Gen 2:3 facts where all of MANKIND (Adam and Eve) are present.

Isaiah 66 goes on to apply this consistently to ALL mankind "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship".

And Christ in perfect agreement says "The Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND" Mark 2:27.

Impossible to miss -

Notice that the 10 commandments do NOT say "Now to Israle I say -- Keep Sabbath -- but to ALL mankind I say things like "Do not KILL".

God explicitly shows in the 4th commandment that Israel is under the blessing AND the obligation of the SAME Sabbath day "made for MANKIND" in Gen 2:3.

Yet -- ignoring that detail - many today would RATHER hope "--Of all the commandments, this one specifically was given to the Israelites and no other."

As if an earasure of Gen 2:3 and the APPEAL to the Gen 2:3 "ALL MANKIND" facts in the Sabbath commandment - were "possible" so we could add "AND no Other of mankind receive the Sabbath blessing".

Nothing could be further from the truth of scripture.

The fact that Israel was ALSO called to honor father and mother, keep sabbath, refrain from idols etc DOES NOT mean that "ALL MANKIND" was not keeping Sabbath in Gen 2:3 or that "ALL MANKIND" is not worshipping God in Isaiah 66 or that Mark 2:27 can be changed to say "The Sabbath was NOT made for Mankind - just Israel" Mark 2:27

DHK

If you want to keep the Sabbath why not be circumcised and keep all their dietary laws as well?

That is another subject. But suffice to say - Gen 6-9 does refer to some of the distinctions PRe-Israel that are "Supposedly only applicable to jews".



Mark 2:23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.


Christ was not in the role of "proving Sabbath to the Jews".

In fact Galations 4 makes it clear that Christ was "under the law" and under full obligation to keep and teach God's Law perfectly - even by your own view of this.

DHK
According to the Jews Jesus was breaking the Sabbath. He was gathering food, and eating that which he had gathered. The Jews considered this a violation of the Sabbath. Jesus demonstrates two things here. One, He is the Lord of the Sabbath. He created the Sabbath.

To that point you are accurate. But Christ is NOT arguing "My own Sabbath means nothing to Me" - RATHER He is arguing "YOU have invented your own laws - but MY LAW regarding Sabbath STANDs and my actions ARE NOT in violation of MY OWN directives. RATHER I GAVE Sabbath as a BLESSING when rightly observed".

INSTEAD of "I don't have to pay no attention to no stinking sabbath" doctrine - Christ is demonstrating the OPPOSITE approach.

Yet much of Christianity prefers to turn a blind eye supposing that
The Creator is not subject to the creation. Second, remember the principle of one day of rest out of seven. That is all that is applicable in this New Testament dispensation.

Truly a circular arugment. You can't "help" but admit that this was NOT the command God gave so you qualify it with "IN this dispensation". YET you tried so hard to get Gen 2:3 to state ONLY what you had HOPED to water down the Sabbath to "in this NT dispensation".

Don't you see how transparent your eisgetical model is??

And then "Making up rules" like "the 3rd commandment about taking God's name in vain is not quoted in the NT" does nothing to abolish the 3rd command NOR does such reasoning abolish the 4th.

DHK
Demonstrate from the New Testament any command to keep the Sabbath. Jesus did not subject himself to the Sabbath.

You see how you make the Jews argument against Christ? You are in complete agreement with the Jews in Mark 2 - accusing Christ of breaking HIS OWN Sabbath directive given in the OT.

Christ is in Mark 2 - PRE-CROSS while the law is fully in effect EVEN BY your OWN reasoning.

Malachi does not quote the Sabbath - are we to conclude that the Sabbath ended-pre-cross with Malachi.

As you point out - the pre-Cross Gospel texts in the NT ALSO do not quote the Sabbath - are we to conclude that this gives ANY basis for the Sabbath being abolished 30 years before the death of Christ on the cross?

Your argument is pure eisegesis. Christ did not argue "man is free to break the sabbath just as I do".

RATHER Christ argues that "you condemn the innocent". Christ argued in that debate that THEIR altering of HIS Sabbath was "in error" - HE DID NOT argue "MY Sabbath is pretty much meaningless these days and you are free to do with it as you please".

DHK
No man can keep the law. The law, by pointing out our sin, leads us to Christ.

That is true in a sense. Certainly of "Love God with all your heart" as with "Love your neighbor as yourself" and also with "Do not commit adultery" and with "do not take God's name in vain" and also with "REMEMBER the Sabbath day to Keep IT Holy".

They all point out the fact that we are sinners in need of a Savior.

Are we free to rush headlong into rebellion because of that fact? "God forbid! RATHER Our Faith ESTABLISHES the Law of God" Romans 3:31.

Praises to God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK So your basic objection is that the term that Paul uses "first day of the week" doesn't have an official name like "sabbath?" That seems like a petty excuse for rejecting his arguments.

You failed to follow the points listed for 1Cor 16.

#1. Barnes HIMSELF SHOWED that the term "week-day-one" was not sufficient for establishing the worship-obligation point he needed in 1Cor 16 and so HE HIMSELF uses "The Lord's Day" because THAT IS NEEDED to make the point in the ONE text in ALL of scripture that commands Christians to do ANYTHING at all on week-day-one.

#2. The only explicit element IN The text of 1Cor 16 that deals with "Association" on week-day-one is "BY ONEs SELF" - a devasting point that EVEN Barnes highlights in his own text.

You ignored both of those points just made - but how can you expect me to "forget them" just because you don't want to look at them? you need to address the arguments made.


(Rev 1:10 KJV) I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

Notice that we have NO association in this ONE text (the only one in ALL of scripture that provides this NAME for a day) - with Week-day-one.

So if we use SCRIPTURE to identify a day of hte week with "the LORD's day" "The Holy Day of the LORD" Isaiah 58, The DAy "Christ is LORD of" Mark 2 - we have only ONE given.

Today we find the custom of man that
"The Lord's Day" is commonly used to refer to the first day of the week, the day that we now refer to as Sunday. But we do NOT find that in scripture itself.

I know that - and every Sabbath keeping member on this message list can read it and see that it is the case in scripture as can those who do not keep God's Seventh-day memorial of Creation - made a Holy Day in Gen 2:3 - the Sabbath.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> DHK
Demonstrate from the New Testament any command to keep the Sabbath. Jesus did not subject himself to the Sabbath.

You see how you make the Jews argument against Christ? You are in complete agreement with the Jews in Mark 2 - accusing Christ of breaking HIS OWN Sabbath directive given in the OT.

Christ is in Mark 2 - PRE-CROSS while the law is fully in effect EVEN BY your OWN reasoning.

Malachi does not quote the Sabbath - are we to conclude that the Sabbath ended-pre-cross with Malachi.

As you point out - the pre-Cross Gospel texts in the NT ALSO do not quote the Sabbath - are we to conclude that this gives ANY basis for the Sabbath being abolished 30 years before the death of Christ on the cross?

Your argument is pure eisegesis. Christ did not argue "man is free to break the sabbath just as I do".
</font>[/QUOTE]You failed to touch Exodus 31, which really ties this all together. The Sabbath is a sign between Israel and Jehovah, throughout their generations forever. It has nothing to do with you or I. That is made very explicit in Exodus 31. So, yes, it is right to conclude that the Sabbath is pre-cross based on that information. That is when God was dealing with the Jews--before the cross. Now Israel has been set on the shelf for a season. Now God is calling a nation out for Himself. Now that nation, in remembrance of the resurrection of Jesus Christ normally meets on the first day of the week, but according to Romans 14 is not bound to. In another country that I lived in we met every Friday instead of Sundays. I am still alive; the Lord didn't strike me dead for this apparent sin.
Read Hebrews chapter 4. The only Sabbath that the believer has is Christ himself. He is our Sabbath. We are to enter into His rest. He is our rest. The old levitical system is done away with. Christ has fulfilled the law. In Col.2, it refers to the sabbbath as a "shadow," that is, not the real thing, but an image of something that is to come. I have the real thing; I have Christ. The Sabbath is but a picture, an image, a shadow of Christ. My Sabbath is Christ. I have entered into his rest. (Mat.11:28-30). We are not under the bondage of the law. The Sabbath was specifically given to the Jew as a sign between them and Jehovah--a covenantal sign. It was never given to the gentile or the Christian.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

You failed to follow the points listed for 1Cor 16.

#1. Barnes HIMSELF SHOWED that the term "week-day-one" was not sufficient for establishing the worship-obligation point he needed in 1Cor 16 and so HE HIMSELF uses "The Lord's Day" because THAT IS NEEDED to make the point in the ONE text in ALL of scripture that commands Christians to do ANYTHING at all on week-day-one.

This seems to be a frivilous objection. The verse says "first day of the week." Rereading Barnes's original post, I fail to see where you would derive that conclusion.

#2. The only explicit element IN The text of 1Cor 16 that deals with "Association" on week-day-one is "BY ONEs SELF" - a devasting point that EVEN Barnes highlights in his own text.

Again, do you fail to see the phrase "the first day of the week?" It is right there in black and white (at least in my Bible). Your objection is frivilous.

You ignored both of those points just made - but how can you expect me to "forget them" just because you don't want to look at them? you need to address the arguments made.
Arguments addressed.


(Rev 1:10 KJV) I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

Notice that we have NO association in this ONE text (the only one in ALL of scripture that provides this NAME for a day) - with Week-day-one.

So if we use SCRIPTURE to identify a day of hte week with "the LORD's day" "The Holy Day of the LORD" Isaiah 58, The DAy "Christ is LORD of" Mark 2 - we have only ONE given.

Today we find the custom of man that
"The Lord's Day" is commonly used to refer to the first day of the week, the day that we now refer to as Sunday. But we do NOT find that in scripture itself.

I know that - and every Sabbath keeping member on this message list can read it and see that it is the case in scripture as can those who do not keep God's Seventh-day memorial of Creation - made a Holy Day in Gen 2:3 - the Sabbath.

Here is an interesting bit of research done by Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown. Notice how he refers to most of the early church fathers, who all worshipped on the first day of the week--the Lord's Day. (So much for a Catholic conspiracy!)

"on the Lord's day--Though forcibly detained from Church communion with the brethren in the sanctuary on the Lord's day, the weekly commemoration of the resurrection, John was holding spiritual communion with them. This is the earliest mention of the term, "the Lord's day." But the consecration of the day to worship, almsgiving, and the Lord's Supper, is implied in Act_20:7; 1Co_16:2; compare Joh_20:19-26. The name corresponds to "the Lord's Supper," 1Co_11:20. IGNATIUS seems to allude to "the Lord's day" [Epistle to the Magnesians, 9], and IRENÆUS [Quæst ad Orthod., 115] (in JUSTIN MARTYR). JUSTIN MARTYR [Apology, 2.98], &c., "On Sunday we all hold our joint meeting; for the first day is that on which God, having removed darkness and chaos, made the world, and Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead. On the day before Saturday they crucified Him; and on the day after Saturday, which is Sunday, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught these things." To the Lord's day PLINY doubtless refers [Epistles, Book X., p. 97], "The Christians on a fixed day before dawn meet and sing a hymn to Christ as God," &c. TERTULLIAN [The Chaplet, 3], "On the Lord's day we deem it wrong to fast." MELITO, bishop of Sardis (second century), wrote a book on the Lord's day [EUSEBIUS 4.26]. Also, DIONYSIUS OF CORINTH, in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 4.23,8]. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [Miscellanies, 5. and 7.12]; ORIGEN [Against Celsus, 8. 22]. The theory that the day of Christ's second coming is meant, is untenable. "The day of the Lord" is different in the Greek from "the Lord's (an adjective) day," which latter in the ancient Church always designates our Sunday, though it is not impossible that the two shall coincide (at least in some parts of the earth), whence a tradition is mentioned in JEROME [Commentary on Matthew, 25], that the Lord's coming was expected especially on the Paschal Lord's day. The visions of the Apocalypse, the seals, trumpets, and vials, &c., are grouped in sevens, and naturally begin on the first day of the seven, the birthday of the Church, whose future they set forth." [WORDSWORTH].
Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown)
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

DHK - you see the above - you just replayed "that game you play" - dropping the point when it is failing and ignoring the details.

sooo - getting you BACK on track.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2. The only explicit element IN The text of 1Cor 16 that deals with "Association" on week-day-one is "BY ONEs SELF" - a devasting point that EVEN Barnes highlights in his own text.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHK offers a non-response hoping to change the topic --
Again, do you fail to see the phrase "the first day of the week?" It is right there in black and white (at least in my Bible). Your objection is frivilous.

Again --- the POINT was that EVEN BARNES highlights that ON week-day-one the FORCE of the 1Cor 16 text is to EXPLICITLY command an action to be peformed ALONE - "by ones SELF". Barnes goes to a GREAT deal of trouble to show this one-person-SINGULAR action that is commanded IN DIRECT opposution to the ASSOCIATIVE communial action of collective gathering for worship on WEEK-DAY-ONE.

Responding that "week-day-one IS Day One of the Week" is a non-response of the highest order.

You are simply dropping the devastating impact that Barnes OWN comments have on your case.

This is "why" you are seen on this board as "playing games" rather than really discussing any one point.

As soon as your are caught short - you change tactics and ignore the need to respond to the devastating case made against your own arguments - often times by your own sources.

Is any of this sinking in?

Do you think that IF you don't come out and admit it - those on this board won't be able to see this in black and white?

The third devastating case against your argument that comes out of Barne's comments is that HE basis HIS ENTIRE case for community worship in 1Cor 16 ON "I can't imagine WHAT OTHER reason Paul MIGHT have for asking people to GO BY THEMSELVES and LAY BY THEMSELVES a small some of money on WEEK-DAY-ONE".

Devastating!!

A better question for his to be asking would have been "WHY in the World did Paul not take this ONE AND ONLY text that COMMANDS anything at all on WEEK-Day-One and MAKE EVEN ONE reference to weekly corporate Worship OR to the WEEK-Day-One now being called THE LORD's DAY"???

your ability to objectively, fairly and honestly consider the point is in question. You seem more married to "your games".

In Christ,

Bob

You ignored both of those points just made - but how can you expect me to "forget them" just because you don't want to look at them? you need to address the arguments made

 

[DHK]

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2. The only explicit element IN The text of 1Cor 16 that deals with "Association" on week-day-one is "BY ONEs SELF" - a devasting point that EVEN Barnes highlights in his own text.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHK offers a non-response hoping to change the topic --
Again, do you fail to see the phrase "the first day of the week?" It is right there in black and white (at least in my Bible). Your objection is frivilous.

Again --- the POINT was that EVEN BARNES highlights that ON week-day-one the FORCE of the 1Cor 16 text is to EXPLICITLY command an action to be peformed ALONE - "by ones SELF". Barnes goes to a GREAT deal of trouble to show this one-person-SINGULAR action that is commanded IN DIRECT opposution to the ASSOCIATIVE communial action of collective gathering for worship on WEEK-DAY-ONE.

Responding that "week-day-one IS Day One of the Week" is a non-response of the highest order.

You are simply dropping the devastating impact that Barnes OWN comments have on your case.

This is "why" you are seen on this board as "playing games" rather than really discussing any one point.

As soon as your are caught short - you change tactics and ignore the need to respond to the devastating case made against your own arguments - often times by your own sources.

Is any of this sinking in?

Do you think that IF you don't come out and admit it - those on this board won't be able to see this in black and white?

You are reading too much into Barne’s comments. I dismissed your objection as frivolous and I believe it is, because linking the phrase “by oneself” to the “first day of the week” does nothing to make your case, or take away from his. I fail to see what you are getting at.
First, “the first day of the week” is clearly mentioned in the text so there ought to be no dispute about what day we are talking about. Agreed?
Second, the phrase “by oneself,” has to do with the gathering of the money. How on earth is this devastating to any argument? He is simply describing how the money was gathered during the week, and then brought to church on the first day of the week, where it would be available to Paul when he met with them on that day. Remember that most of these people were self-employed business people. For example Lydia was a seller of purple (her own business). Paul himself was a tent-maker. Some of the other apostles were fishermen, tax-collectors, Joseph was a carpenter. In these occupations Paul was telling them to take some of their profits day by day and lay some aside. Then, on the first day of the week bring what you have laid aside to the church. These are his exact words:

“Lay by him in store. par eautw tiqetw qhsaurizwn. Let him lay up at home, treasuring up as he has been prospered. The Greek phrase, "by himself," means, probably, the same as at home. Let him set it apart; let him designate a certain portion; let him do this by himself, when he is at home, when he can calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity.”

So what is your complaint, your objection? I fail to see what you are harping on here? They laid aside an offering throughout the week and brought that offering on the first day of the week. That is not difficult to understand.

The third devastating case against your argument that comes out of Barne's comments is that HE basis HIS ENTIRE case for community worship in 1Cor 16 ON "I can't imagine WHAT OTHER reason Paul MIGHT have for asking people to GO BY THEMSELVES and LAY BY THEMSELVES a small some of money on WEEK-DAY-ONE".
Devastating!!

Maybe you better describe how this is so devastating. Barnes simply says that the reason Paul asks them to lay aside money on the first day of the week is because that is the day they regularly gathered together. This is devastating to your position if anything. The church gathered on the first day of the week. That much is obvious from this passage. Paul would come to them when they gathered, collect the money when they gathered together, and they gathered together on the first day of the week. As Barnes points out this instruction was no doubt given to the churches in Galatia and in all the surrounding area by apostolic authority.
Why? They met on the first day of the week.

A better question for his to be asking would have been "WHY in the World did Paul not take this ONE AND ONLY text that COMMANDS anything at all on WEEK-Day-One and MAKE EVEN ONE reference to weekly corporate Worship OR to the WEEK-Day-One now being called THE LORD's DAY"???

Not everything is spelled out as clearly in black and white as we all would like it to be. That is why study is necessary. This of course is not the only reference to the first day of the week. We find Paul preaching on the first day of the week in Acts 20:7, and in the first chapter of the Book of Revelation, “the Lord’s Day,” being mentioned. All together the phrase “first day of the week,” in the New Testament is used eight times.
DHK

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Singer:
To 3AM:

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh......make that BROTHER if ya don't mind !!

Cya in heaven.
H. Charless

My sincerest apologies BROTHER.

I don't know why I thought you were a girl. I thought I saw someone calling you Lisa. That must be someone else.

Sorry.

God Bless

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Singer: 3AM:

Hey I almost forgot.......don't SDA's believe in the rapture ?

Yes, but our beliefs follow the Bible to a T. We don't cut off the 70th week of Daniel and give it to the Antichrist. We leave it where God put it. It ended at the Stoning of Stephen. We see the Rapture scriptually as well, a climactic, visible, audible, return.

Well I don't believe in RCC's "baptism by desire"

What is that?

Regenerative baptism

Again, define that for me.

Mormon's Visions, or JW's Whatevers

yeah, we agree on that aspect.

the importance of Sabbath

Actually, what you need to say is 'the importance of obedience', because the Bible says that if you break one, you are guilty of all.

exclusivism.

I am constantly accused of this fallacy. I find more Baptists, who have actually posted to this thread stating they wouldn't fellowship with me, who are exclusivists.

When I learned the Seventh Day Adventist message, one of the things that the Pastor said, when teaching us, was that there are God's people in EVERY denomination. THAT is FAR from exclusivism!

No great loss though wouldn't you say ?

What I would say is that you are really selling yourself short on the Blessings of God, by your refusal to see God's will for you in the Bible. He didn't give the Sabbath to man so that it would be a burden, but a blessing. By refusing to acknowledge His Day of Rest, you are only taking away a blessing for yourself, and in turn are telling God that you don't want His Blessings.

Don't be so quick to believe the false doctrine that tells you that you don't need to obey God anymore. It is very evident from Scripture that Grace is the means by which we are forgiven, but that Grace is NOT an occasion for us to sin.

God Bless

 

[3AngelsMom]

Some statistics for all:

Sabbath: 17 NT occurances (55 total)

There a several that reoccur due to the gospel accounts, which make up 7 which are Jesus and the deciples going into the Synagogue on the Sabbath to teach.
There are several references to Sabbath between argument with Pharasees, which is not counted in the 17 (9 total, not counting gospel repetition).
8 of which are in Acts, and referring to gathering for teaching. Jews and Gentiles requesting teaching on the Sabbath.
One where Paul tells us not to let anyone judge us in our keeping of the Sabbaths.
One phantom text, see below.

First Day: 4 NT occurances (8 total)

One for the Day of resurrection.
One for the same day when Jesus appeared when they were hiding because they were scared of the Jews. (note: they weren't having church)
One for the day Paul preached after the Sabbath, before he departed.
One in the 'lay by himself in store' passage.

At no point in any of these passages does it indicate that the Sacredness of the Sabbath is NOW transferred to Sunday. NONE.

In every mention of the Sabbath, the Apostles, Jesus, and everyone else present were KEEPING the Sabbath commandment.

In NONE of the mentions of the first day is there any mention of transference of the sacredness to that day.

Phantom text:

Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

The word translated 'rest' is sabbatismos which means 'Sabbath Rest'.

So there are actually more than 55 directly relating to the Sabbath, and the observance of it.

NT command to keep the Sabbath?

Here it is:

Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a [Sabbath]rest to the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of [disobedience]unbelief.

Sunday Sacredness?

Weighed in the balances and found wanting.

God Bless

[ February 15, 2003, 02:07 AM: Message edited by: 3AngelsMom ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
Sabbath: NT occurances total: 55

First Day: NT occurances total: 4

It is true that the word "sabbath" is used much more in the New Testament than the phrase "first day." But what value does that statistic really have?

Col.2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Much of the time "sabbath" is used in a negative way, or in a way that disproves your position, as in Col.2:16,17. The sabbath, Paul teaches, is simply a shadow, an image of the real thing which was to come, which is Christ. Now that Christ is come, the sabbath is no longer necessary.
DHK

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
Sabbath: NT occurances total: 55

First Day: NT occurances total: 4

It is true that the word "sabbath" is used much more in the New Testament than the phrase "first day." But what value does that statistic really have?

Col.2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Much of the time "sabbath" is used in a negative way, or in a way that disproves your position, as in Col.2:16,17. The sabbath, Paul teaches, is simply a shadow, an image of the real thing which was to come, which is Christ. Now that Christ is come, the sabbath is no longer necessary.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]When was Collosians written? Before or after Jesus came?

Paul says "these ARE a Shadow", not these WERE a shadow.

They are still a shadow.

The BODY is of Christ. Substance. The part that GOD gave. Don't let anyone judge you in THAT. You are mistaken in your interpretation of this passage.

This verse is a command for ME, a Sabbath keeper, not to let anyone judge me in MY KEEPING of the Sabbath.

It is NOT for you, a Sabbath ignorer to confirm in your own mind that you are now permitted to disgrace and profane His Holy Sabbath.

God Bless

I edited the other post, the one here you quoted.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:

When was Collosians written? Before or after Jesus came?

Paul says "these ARE a Shadow", not these WERE a shadow.

They are still a shadow.

The BODY is of Christ. Substance. The part that GOD gave. Don't let anyone judge you in THAT. You are mistaken in your interpretation of this passage.

This verse is a command for ME, a Sabbath keeper, not to let anyone judge me in MY KEEPING of the Sabbath.

It is NOT for you, a Sabbath ignorer to confirm in your own mind that you are now permitted to disgrace and profane His Holy Sabbath.

God Bless

I edited the other post, the one here you quoted.

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Here is the entire context so we may examine it a little closer.
Yes, the sabbath is a shadow, and always will be a shadow. I don't observe a shadow; I worship in remembrance of the real person of Jesus Christ.

Paul is speaking of all the Old Testament ordinances that were under the law.
We are complete in Christ, Paul says. We are no longer under the law. We are circumcised without hands (if you have believed on Him for the forgiveness of your sins). Thus the rite of circumcision is no longer necessary.
He has blotted out the handwriting of ordinances, which was contrary to us. He nailed it to the cross. Handwriting refers to anything that is written by hand, and thus refers to the writings of Moses--the Mosaic law. Christ fulfilled the law. He nailed it to the cross. The burdensome requirements of the law have all been abolished with Christ's death at the cross.

Verse 15: He has triumphed over our enemies.
Verse 16: THEREFORE: let no man judge you for you have been freed from the observances of the law. He goes on to mention various aspects of the law: meat or drink--referring to keeping the dietary laws of Leviticus. They were free from that bondage. "In respect of a holy day"--the various holy days of the Israelites they now no longer were required to keep. They were free from that bondage. "Or of the new moon"--certain festivals were held in conjunction with the new moon. They were no longer required to keep those. They were not in bondage any longer. "Or of the sabbath days"--No longer were they in bondage to keep ANY of the sabbath days, including the seventh day. For all of these were just a shadow, a dim outline of Christ, whom we now have. We don't need the Jewish holy days, circumcision, their cerremonnial laws or the sabbath. We have Christ. He is our Sabbath.
DHK

 

[3AngelsMom]

DHK,

"Handwriting refers to anything that is written by hand, the writings of Moses"

The Sabbath isn't one of those.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10 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:
Exo 20:11 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.

That was written with the Finger of God in STONE.

The Sabbath DOES NOT prefigure Jesus!

Where on earth did you get that idea?

Seriously, there is NO indication that the Life, death or resurrection, or atoning work, or anything else that Jesus did, is a fulfillment of the Sabbath.

The shadows that are in the Bible are just like YOUR shadow. It is JUST LIKE YOU.

The Sabbath prefigures something that is JUST LIKE IT.

Jesus is NOTHING like a day set aside for rest and worship.

Jesus is not a day. He is not the Sabbath.

The Body is of Christ. The Church is the Body.

"We have Christ, He is our Sabbath".

YOU don't have a Sabbath, remember? "no longer in bondage to keep the Sabbath"

GOD made the Sabbath. He made it ONE time. There is no fulfillment in this world of that day. NONE. It prefigures the FINAL rest we will be given. ETERNITY. And in that New Heaven and Earth EVEN THEN, we will continue to come before Him on HIS Holy Sabbath to worship Him.

That hasn't come yet, therefore the Shadow, is still here.

THERE REMAINS a SABBATH REST for the people of GOD.

REMAINS.

Unchanged from it's original state.

Praise God!!

God Bless

 

[Abiyah]

The bottom line remains: Where, in Scriptures, did
our Lord change the day?

We could add to that: Where in history was the
day changed?

The answer to the first question is that there was
no change to Sunday in the Scriptures. That
change came after the final book was written,
when the perversions of Scriptural teaching
began. It is mentioned in the Didache, along with
such ideas as works salvation and baptism by
various manners not mentioned in the Bible.

Sunday as the main day of worshp was later
commanded by Constantine, with the death
penalty upon those who cntinued to worship on
the Sabbath.

It is all just that simple, that straight forward. 8o)

I do not hate those who worship on Sunday; I do
not even dislike them. I have much respect and
love for many who do this, including my husband
and children, but these facts remain, and they
cannot be changed by arguing, although some
try. I know that it goes against tradition, but what
is tradition when measured against our God's
word?

One of the things that further astound me is that
many who are very stern and harsh regarding
Sunday being the "new Sabbath" go to churches
where they may buy things in their little church-
stores, buy breakfast in their snack shops, and
where the children sell their fund-raisers on
Sunday. I simply do not understand these things.
If Sunday truly is the "'new Sabbath," why all the
buying and selling inside the churches?

Further confusing is that many who are so stern
on this issue think nothing of working on Sunday,
doing their shopping, mowing the lawn, etc. I
simply do not understand.

 

[DHK]

Abyiah,
With respect to your comments:
1. There is no command anywhere in the New Testament for any believer to observe the Sabbath.
2. However, we do have the examples of believers observing the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1Cor.16:2).
3. We have the command of Paul (Col.2:16,17) not to allow anyone to judge a believer who does not keep the Sabbath or any other Old Testamen ordinance for we are not under bondage to such.
4. We have the command of Paul in Romans 14 that no one should judge a believer for not worshipping on the first day of the week, and that every day is alike. The key here he points out is: "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
5. We have Hebrews 4 teaching us that Christ Himself is the fulfillment of the Sabbath. He is our Sabbath.

To use Constantne as an example of the one who made the change from Saturday to Sunday is just plain wrong. Constantine was not a Christian, but a wicked man who used Christianity for his own political gains. He paganized Christianity, and Christianized paganism. He introduced many pagan concepts into the church at that time including the worship of idols. This is not when Christianity began, but it is when the Catholic Church began. It has nothing to do with the Sabbath or the first day of the week, as believers were already worshipping on the first day of the week. The New Testament gives ample evidence of this.

I am not as legalistic as some in "doing nothing but worship" on Sunday. However I do agree, that things were much better in that age when on Sundays all but the most necessary of things were closed (police, hospitals, etc.). They were closed in order that people could go to church. Since times have changed so has our society. It has become much more secular, and much more godless.
DHK

 

[Singer]

(Quote by Bob Ryan)
BTW - SDAs do not believe in Baptismal regeneration (Church of Christ)
or baptism for the dead (like the Mormons) and they do not teach that
only Sabbath keepers are going to heaven, or that Sabbath keepers
are the only Christians.

(Singer)
When reading instructions or a book, sometimes I like to look
ahead and in doing so, one can eliminate all the unnecessary
steps in between to reach the same goal. You have done that
for me with this comment, Bob. I also know I can go to heaven
without being a Sabbath keeper just as Catholics, when backed
into a corner, will admit that non-Catholics can go to heaven. It
still comes back to a personal relationship with God through
the sacrifices of Christ and our confession of that.

I accept by faith that God's grace will suffice for me.

Additional debate only clutters the airwaves....I agree !

Singer

 

[Singer]

Abiyah:
I do not hate those who worship on Sunday; I do
not even dislike them. I have much respect and
love for many who do this, including my husband
and children, but these facts remain, and they
cannot be changed by arguing, although some
try. I know that it goes against tradition, but what
is tradition when measured against our God's
word?

Do I correctly gather from this admission that your husband and
children are not Sabbath Keepers..?

If so, it must grieve you that they are not able to see your standards.
Bob Ryan said it is not necessary to be a Sabbath worshipper to go
to heaven, so you can at least rest in that assurance. 3AM seems to
think that Sabbath keeping is of more importance, as you do.

Don't be so concerned for your family as the "works" of keeping the
Sabbath is not a requirement to salvation. The law cannot save, it
can only convict.

As an afterthought, this is Saturday and I'm preaching. Do you
suppose your pastor feels guilty about working on the Sabbath.
After all....he gets paid for his services does he not ? IT is his life's
vocation for him much as mine is singing on Saturday nights.
(I also witness for the Lord in my setting...a form of preaching, but
I don't get paid for that additional feature)

Gee whiz...another afterthought :
I preach on the Sabbath and take no pay for it..or even expect it.
Your pastor preaches on the Sabbath (which is work for him) and
he expects to get paid for his Sabbath labor; but probably won't accept
pay until Sunday for work done on Saturday.



Singer

[ February 15, 2003, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Singer ]

 

[Singer]

Hey 3AM, you've got alot of questions here.

You asked what the baptism of desire and baptismal regeneration is.
Those are Catholic terms used to depict the idea that a person can die
without having been baptized and still have that act "credited" to his account
if he had the mere desire to do so in life.

Baptismal regeneration is the belief that the Holy Spirit is imparted unto a believer
during and ONLY during water baptism...that goes hand in hand with their
belief that "accepting the Lord" has no merit.
There is a 12 page thread on this board dealing with that issue.
See:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001298
_______________________________________________
Your response on my remark to not seeing the importance of the Sabbath was this:
"Actually, what you need to say is 'the importance of obedience', because the Bible says
that if you break one, you are guilty of all."

I might add that if you're going to live by the law; you will be judged by the whole
law and not by grace. (The law that you hope will save you will actually accuse you)
__________________________________________________

You said:
"When I learned the Seventh Day Adventist message, one of the things that the Pastor
said, when teaching us, was that there are God's people in EVERY denomination. THAT is FAR from exclusivism!"

That statement should have caused you to realize then that DHK and myself are
saved. To deliver yourself from exclusivism, you'll have to further let go of the
Sabbath Syndrome.....you already admit there are God's people elswhere, or are
you only referring to Sabbath keepers of other denomination. (Like SDBs) ?
_____________________________________________________

This comment of yours, re: Sabbath, that follows is the same approach used
by Catholics to attempt to shed guilt upon others for not succumbing to Catholic
conversion. They have convincing biblical evidence that God expects everyone
to join the "One true Church" (as they see it) and for those who do not do so, will
be judged for the 'light that they do have'. You're saying the same thing only displacing
Sabbath worship for some other fallacy. So far, I've found someone to dispute nearly
every bible truth that is the makeup of my total belief. Why would I separate out their
misleadings and accept yours...?

You said:
" Don't be so quick to believe the false doctrine that tells you that you
don't need to obey God anymore. It is very evident from Scripture that
Grace is the means by which we are forgiven, but that Grace is NOT an
occasion for us to sin."

Saved by Grace
Singer

 

[BobRyan]

(Singer)
When reading instructions or a book, sometimes I like to look
ahead and in doing so, one can eliminate all the unnecessary
steps in between to reach the same goal.

You have done that
for me with this comment, Bob. I also know I can go to heaven
without being a Sabbath keeper just as Catholics, when backed
into a corner, will admit that non-Catholics can go to heaven. It
still comes back to a personal relationship with God through
the sacrifices of Christ and our confession of that.

You are welcomed.

Christ said in John 14 "I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life" and "NO one comes to the Father but by Me".

To love God with all your heart and soul means you must love Christ with all your heart and soul and that means you must love "The Way, Truth, and Life".

I can not tell you that you must accept the doctrine of the Trinity or of the Sabbath before you can go to heaven. But I can tell you that you must accept a real "love of the Truth" because to Claim to Love Christ but hate truth is not really loving "the Way the Truth and the Life".

Adventists don't teach that you must accept the Sabbath before you can be saved or that a Christian who IS saved will lose their salvation if they never get to the point of accepting the Sabbath, or the Trinity.

We do teach that the Bible (ALL 66 books - not just 23 of them) is the Word of God. We teach that James is one of those books and that God said through James "He who is guilty of one is guilty of all" (JAmes 2) -- He also said in that same chapter "SO live and act as those who ARE to be judged by the LAW of Liberty that contains the list of commands Do not Kill, Do no Steal, Do not commit adultery...".

Though some reject that idea idea - SDA's accept it. And that is really what this thread is about. Not the need to "keep Sabbath or go to hell" nor even "Accept the Trinity or go to hell".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Abyiah,

Sometimes people ask "what is eisegesis" - the answer is "reading into scripture what you WISH it had said".

Here is a good example of it..

DHK
Abyiah,
With respect to your comments:
1. There is no command anywhere in the New Testament for any believer to observe the Sabbath.
2. However, we do have the examples of believers observing the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1Cor.16:2).

Notice that fallacy number 1 above pretends not to notice that

"the book of Malachi does not mention the trinity but that does not mean the Trinity is not a true doctrine".

"the book of Malachi does not mention the Sabbath but that does not mean the Sabbath was abolished 300 years before the cross".

"the 4 Gospels do not repeat the Sabbath commandment - nor do they Command Sabbath observance - PRE Cross - but that does not mean that the law of God PRE-Cross did not exist or was not binding. EVEN non-Sabbath keepers admit to this obvious fact."

Basically fallacy number 1 above seeks to "make up a rule" rather than appeal to Bible "exegesis".

-----

Fallacy number two above is stated as "2. However, we do have the examples of believers observing the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1Cor.16:2)."

But as has "already been shown" on this thread EVEN Albert Barnes could find NO "OBSERVANCE" of week-day-one in 1Cor 16 and so HE inserted in HIS Own discussion "I suppose, maybe, possibly" forms of "speculation" that the "BY themselves ALONE" instruction of 1Cor 16 MIGHT ALSO be associated with some corporate worship NOT mentioned in the text itself. How devastating to DHK's point. How necessary for him to to a blind eye to that point.

And of course Acts 20 contains NO reference to "OBSERVING anything as a holy day, a day of worship, a NEW Lord's Day" but that is "needed" by DHK's argument so he simply "inserts" that they were "OBSERVING" week-day-one.

I address you in this only because DHK took the time to do so in his speculation above and I thought he was being so excellent in illustrating the concept of eisegesis that I could not resist noting that point.

Happy Sabbath!

In Christ,

Bob