SDA's and the Sabbath

Yes, levels of conviction can be different. But still, noone is naturally convicted over the sabbath, unless they have been indoctrinated by your doctrine and interpretations of scripture.

 

I cant see how nobody would be naturally convicted by the Sabbath when the New Testament says all over the place that we are to keep the commandments and God never said the Sabbath was changed.

Let's say someone was on a desert island and found a Bible and had never read one before... would he or she automatically think the Sabbath was the first day of the week? I dont think so.

The only reason people keep Sunday holy is because their fathers and their fathers fathers did it, by tradition. A poor reason to hold a doctrine.

 

BR:
"God convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" ... the Spirit convicts ...

GE: The Spirit doesn't do it through mysterious feeling; but through convicting a person of Jesus Christ; if he sees Jesus, he is convinced of sin and righteousness and judgement. A 'spirit' that would convince by himself, 'speaks of himself' and isn't the Spirit of Christ. Just so with the Sabbath. One is convinced of the truth of God's Sabbath Day not because of some 'inner work', but because he is convinced of Christ by the Spirit of Christ. The Law cannot do that; only Jesus Christ is able; He is the Law unto the Christian.


EricB:

Yes, levels of conviction can be different. But still, none is naturally convicted over the sabbath, unless they have been indoctrinated by your doctrine and interpretations of scripture.

GE:
So there aren't 'different convictions' or 'different levels of conviction', for indeed, 'none is naturally convicted over the sabbath', unless they have been indoctrinated by 'law' and legalistic 'interpretations of scripture'. Anyone 'convicted over the sabbath', is convicted by the life and works of God in Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ isn't the reason and cause and end and purpose - the Essence and Content - of His own Holy Day of Worship-Rest, it isn't His, but a 'sabbath' of works and of man's self-righteousness.

 

BR:
"Christ the Creator's own memorial of Creation MADE holy in Gen 2:3"

GE:
... in the NT has become: Christ the Saviour's own Day of salvation sanctified through Him and in Himself by having risen from the dead on it. Only thus "God finished all His works on the Seventh Day ... He thus concerning did speak".
The Sabbath is NOT, a "memorial of creation"; it is the Day of God's rest, of His finishing, of His blessing, of His sanctification -- through jesus Christ ALONE; and through and in Him by resurrection from the dead, finally and in fulfilment of the Word of God from Genesis 2:3 to Matthew 28:1-4.

The Sabbath is the New Testament Seventh Day of God's works of the redemption and salvation of His creation wrecked through sin; it has been it since the very first Seventh Day of God 'energising' or 'creating' upon it by 'resting'. It through all ages never had been any different. The Sabbath is Christian.
That's why the Jews have no right to claim the Sabbath their day of rest devoted to God. They dishonour God through their observance of the Sabbath. And so does any legalist.

 

CT:
"The only reason people keep Sunday holy is because their fathers and their fathers fathers did it, by tradition. A poor reason to hold a doctrine."

GE:
How mistaken you are! I am a Calvinist and should know why Calvinists "keep Sunday holy". It is NOT, "because their fathers and their fathers' fathers did it, by tradition". They 'hold to' the very best and only reason possible for that 'doctrine' and 'tradition' - through gross ignorance and foul misleading. They 'hold to' it because they are taught and indoctrinated and coerced the falsity Jesus rose from the dead on the First Day of the week. That's the truth, while God's truth of all times and dispensations has been and ever will be, that Jesus on the Seventh Day of completion of His works by Divine REST, would, and indeed did, finish all God's works through and in and by rising from the dead "In the Sabbath's fullness of daylight - OPSE SABBATOHN EPI-FOHS-k-OUSEHI".
God kept Promise; was faithful to His Word; established Covenant; finished creation. It spells: The Sabbath of the Lord your God.

 

The day Jesus rose from the dead has no bearing on when the Sabbath is. The Sabbath is the 7th day because the Ten Commandments says it is. There needs to be no additional reason. It makes no sense. In addition, the Bible says God finished His work on the 7th day and the 7th day is the Sabbath.

There was however an element of "It is finished" when Jesus DIED on the cross, which was that Satan's selfishness and cruelty was completely revealed at that time as contrasted to God's love and selflessness as shown in the death of Christ... God giving up His own Son for the sins of the world.

 

BR:
"... through the law comes the knowledge of sin ..."

GE:
No longer -- not for the Christian, in any case. It is Christ through whom comes the knowledge of sin. "Hupereperisseusen heh charis" "Grace all-surpassing abounding" through Jesus Christ the while HE, in His Divine glory and perfection, brings about that most accute knowledege of sin. Against the sinlessness of God, our sins reflect the clearer and grosser. Against His purity our impurity is unmistable and seemingly unforgiveable --- were it not for the love of God we would never be forgiven it, so great and wicked it is.

 

That's why Paul said the Law retired; Jesus s doing its job so much better it has become superfluous --- for the believer. For the transgressor though, says this same Paul, the Law still is the condemnation itself. Sunday-keepers, hear! Sabbath-legalists, hear!

 

GE:
Follow the thread on this utterance from the cross ...
It can all too easily be over-simplified.

 

Sorry, I'm confused. It is the utterance, "Why hast thou forsaken me" that is current.

So, These words of Christ (in the Greek one single word, 'tetelestai'), means MUCH more than what you have here said. In essence it is Christ taking hold across death and grave of His prize and victory by rising from death and grave. With these words Christ exited hell. That's how Klaas Schilder explains it, and I take hold of his explanation with all my soul.

 

CT:
"The day Jesus rose from the dead has no bearing on when the Sabbath is. The Sabbath is the 7th day because the Ten Commandments says it is. There needs to be no additional reason. It makes no sense."

You just repeat; and I just repeat. You repeat your negation though of the only 'Truth' the Scriptures contains; I repeat this 'Truth' for nothing else 'makes sense' --- to me.

 

You find the REASON; you find this only SENSE, and nothing additional will satisfy, not even the Ten Commandments.

Only AFTER, we might return to the Ten Commandments -- just to analise and confirm the correctness and soundness of our 'finding' of the Pearl of great pric. We have sold everything in order to buy HIM, Sole Proprietor of "the Sabbath of the Lord your God". We sold the Law to obtain Grace.

 

Foe example, come let us reason together:
Take your statement: "The Sabbath is the 7th day because the Ten Commandments says it is."
Just get it straight, first, and then see! Does the Ten Commandments say, quote, "The Sabbath is the 7th day"; does it say, "The Sabbath is the 7th day because the Ten Commandments says it is"?. It says neither! The Law states: "The Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God". That means, The Seventh Day is god's 'Day' - His, in the exercising of the exceeding greatness of His power towards finishing and victory - in every respect, of ALL His works!
You see the difference? Your sequence of words, places emphasis on the numbered day itself, as if that in itself is everything that matters. The Commandment's order of words do exactly the opposite: It places the emphasis on what God has done so that this Day actually became the 'memorial' - a monument - to the honour of HIM and His DEEDS!
The purpose of the Law is to tell why this Day the Seventh Day became God's Day, namely, His Sabbath - 'rest' - "the Sabbath of the LORD your God. The Letter of the Law wants you to see its 'spirit' - which is God, and the deeds of God.

 

. :flower:

It isnt that we condemn anyone for worshipping on the Sabbath! Christians should be worshipping every single day of the week!

The problem is 'why' they choose to come together on what they term the Sabbath.
It is an erroneous understanding of scripture.
Sabbath rest in the OT was for a purpose, to show the Israelites they worked six days, rested one!
When Christ came, He is our All in All, our Sabbath day of rest and all we will ever need is in Him! We no longer need to honor one day over another, but to know the meaning and all the purpose of Jesus Christ and for Him to be the ultimate fulfillment of all to us! Christ is our Sabbath rest!!

 

That's not what Acts is saying. Please read the CONTEXT, and not make up your own meanings! It is speaking of TIMES past, to THEM reading at that time; not the "sins past" of every single person to the present, as if He didn't command us to repent before any given moment in our lives.

And most committed Christians today are not convicted, neither newly, nor all along, of the sabbath. None of us have said "yes, you are right, but we still choose to follow our own way". Instead, we keep showing that you are wrong. You may be able to intellectually convince SOME people of it, but you have not proven it from scriptures; you only reinterpret scriptures, such as below.

You continue to mistake meeting in the SYNAGOGUE (not "in the CHURCH"!) on the sabbath (which the synogogues kept, of course), with KEEPing the sabbath; such as refraining from all work, etc. If you go into Sunday churches, (like the one you said converted), on their day of worship to preach, or visit, or whatever, are you "keeping" Sunday, then? I don't see how you can keep using this argument!

Nobody said that Acts 15 was the only scripture we base this on. It was just a perfect chance to mention the sabbath, since other commands previously associated with MOSES were the subject. Love for God and neighbor are clearly taught elsewhere in the NT.

No one is saying the OT wasn't the scripture. But again, which you haven't answered, they were not to keep everything that was commanded in the OT. If a gentile was to JOIN Israel in the OT, they WERE to be circumcised, and basically become exactly like a Jew. But not in the NT when we join the new spiritual Israel. So it's not "they were to keep all of the OT then and now--just with the exception of circumcision". Yet in trying that argument, even you affirm that Gentiles were never required to keep the whole law. So why do you use that "but they read the OT" argument, then?

Again, you are the one making stuff up. Once again, the sabbath is not "quoted" from even in part. You dig out one verse mentioning a universal quality of God, that was included in the sabbath command; and now turn any use of those words into a "quote" of the command. But God as "Creator of the heaven, earth etc" is mentioned in other places in the OT, where the sabbath is not mentioned. It is just who He is, and as GE points out, you define God by the sabbath, rather than the other way around.
And even if it was "quoted" and "more of it than the other commandments", the argument is not how many words from each command are used proves which is still in effect. You can see blasphemy condemned by name in the NT. There is no mention of "sabbathbreaking".
And your argument of "according to the commandment" as a matter of fact goes against your view! First, no one denies that it was a "commandment" then so of course, they could say "according to the commandment". That says nothing about who it was binding on, and when.
You're right that it never says "they refrained from blasphemy according to the commandment". Also, "they refrained from murder according to the commandment". It doesn't have to, because those are universal. They transcend a written commandment. That right there shows the PERSPECTIVE of Luke, a gentile, writing to gentiles, to whom the sabbath was a "commandment [of Moses]", rather than a universal mandatory moral or spiritual law.

 

The point is, a person would not even need a Bible to know that murder is wrong.
Yes, a person can pick up a Bible, start reading and think he has to keep the sabbath when he reaches the Ten Commandments. But if he doesn't read the whole thing, with all the historical context, he will also think he has to slaughter animals and be circumcised.
To give my testimony, before I became a Christian, when I first started peeking into the Bible and reading popular passages, I too noticed that the seventh day was specified, and wondered why the Christians kept the first. Then; I came into contact with Armstrongism, and when I couldn't get close enough to that group (without committing), I then went to the Adventists also. So I heard all the arguments, and even began debating against Sundaykeepers myself. I had heard their basic arguments in Walter Martin's and other apologists books as well. However, it was when one person opened up Romans, Galatians and Colossians and really broke them down, all the arguments began melting away. So I've been on both sides of the issue and weighed all the biblical evidence on both sides, and it clearly is in favor of the sabbath not being binding.
Now, when I come to you all, you all have your counter arguments, where you deny that these scriptures are referring to the weekly sabbath, and try to explain them all away. But those are just that: defensive last minute counter arguments; not sound biblical exegesis. The fact that you all have to turn a passing reference to people meeting on a sabbath into a "command", and a passing reference to God being creator of the heaven, earth and sea as a "quote" of the commandment shows at worst utter desperation, and at best that the issue is not as clearly in favor of the sabbath as you insist it is. That is another reason why the sabbath does fit into Rom. and Col. as a matter of conscience. It is just not as universal or as clear as the commandments against murder, idolatry, etc.

 

Quote:
I have always said "to the one that KNOWS to do right and does it not to HIM it is sin".When the RC person is fully convicted on bread-worship as idolatry and then says "YES but I want to stay with the RCC anyway - I don't care if this is idolatry" they are revoking their own choice to follow Christ.Christ said "I AM The way THE TRUTH and the life" Christ calls Peter "SATAN" when HE chooses to REJECT truth - newly convicted truth.I just don't see how this point is so hard for you Eric.In Christ,Bob

I agree that although there are millions of Catholics turning from idolatry and image worship to a purer form of worship outside of Catholicism and although there are 100's of thousands of Christians turning from Sabbath breaking to Sabbath keeping each year -- STILL the vast majority in each case are choosing to stay as they are without making the change.

This is exactly what the Catholics who choose NOT to come out of image worship say when they stay where they are --

Agreed.

You show that you wish the Bible had made your case in that regard - you just don't actually make a solid Bible case for it.

It is proven from scripture to Christians year after year that make the change to accept the Bible for what it says.

They accept that Christ said that HIS Sabbath was made FOR MANKIND and not mankind MADE for the Sabbath - speaking of the MAKING of both in Gen 1-2:3.

He said that in the earth made new ALL MANKIND will come before Him from Sabbath to Sabbath to worship.

He said that Christ IS LORD of the Sabbath Mark 2:28 -- something that is NEVER said of "weed day one", not in all of scripture.

James tells us that he who is guilty of breaking one is guilty of breaking all -

Many 100's of thousands of Christians see these scriptures each year "and make the change" to a Sabbath-keeping Commandment-keeping "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments" doctrinal position.

This is simply a fact of history - a fact of scripture and witness to what God is doing in these days.

your argument has been that if you can consistently ignore the scriptures that do not please you - all other Christians who are not keeping Christ the Creator's Sabbath commandment will hold to your position.

That simply is not true Eric.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quote:Bob said
Wrong.In ACTS 13 we SEE gentiles in church "sabbath after Sabbath".In Acts 18 we see it again.In Acts 15 we see that the issue of doctrine for Gentiles is being sovled by the fact that they are hearing the OT preached "every Sabbath" in the synagogue JUST AS WE SAW in Acts 13!!

#1. There were no church buildings for the early NT christians and this is why James points out that each Sabbath they are hearing the scriptures read in the synagogues in Acts 15. This is why we see "Sabbath after Sabbath" meetings for worship and Bible study of BOTH Jews and Gentiles -- EVEN when the Jews are not accepting the message at all!

#1. I did not claim that a Sunday keeping church converted - I said that a church full of non-Sabbath keeping Christians was hearing the Bible position on Christ the Creator's Holy day and choosing to take a stand for it - but this is because they came to that church as non-attending Christians and upon hearing the message began to accept the very texts of scripture that you are trying to avoid.

#2. IF I were to go to a sunday keeping congregation where the elders and deacons rejected the scriptures that each about Christ the Creator's Holy memorial of creation - while all the others fully rejoiced in it - I would not say "Lets come back again NEXT Sunday at this same place to hear more of the same" since the leaders of that church were clearly rejecting it. RATHER I would say "lets meet outside this church and on Sabbath lets all celebrate at a church that does keep Sabbath".

Obviously.

But in Acts 13 when we see the Jews all REJECTING the message - they do not decide to "meet tomorrow on Sunday for more Bible lessons and worship since the Jews are not accepting this anyway". RATHER what they do is WAIT - and only meet SABBATH AFTER SABBATH even when it is ONLY the Gentiles that are accepting the message!!!

A more devastating case could hardly be imagined for your position Eric!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quote:
Totally false.Their SCRIPTURE as we see in Acts 17 AND in 2Tim 3:16-17 IS THE OT!!!Inventing the notion that "scripture was burned and all they had was oral tradition until Paul wrote a letter" is purely "making stuff up"!!How in the world you can be satisfied with that approach is beyond me.In Christ,Bob

This is the real problem you are having Eric. You have no idea how the Gentiles could have the reverence and respect for "scripture" that we see being proclaimed in 2Tim 3:16-17 WHILE they were being asked to "IGNORE SCRIPTURE".

But your error is in thinking that they WERE being asked to "IGNORE SCRIPTURE" and that this was the rule for NT saints.Your approach is a total rejection of "sola scriptura" at this point.you don't know of any good way to "get out of the OT" without tossing it out the window so you assume that when something is IN SCRIPTURE for them IN THE OT that STILL they must be accepting it as "ORAL TRADITION" instead of "READ FROM SCRIPTURE" since they are being taught to REJECT the OT scripture in your view.

How far out on that limb are you willing to climb Eric?What if "ALL SCRIPTURE" really means "ALL SCRIPTURE" in 2Tim 3:16-17!!Why do you go to such lengths to reject this truth of the NT???In the OT Gentiles were NOT required to become Jews or to be circumcised - in Acts 15 this point is REPEATED.In Christ,Bob

#1. I believe in doctrine that is established "sola scriptura" because I SEE the NT saints endorsing and practicing that principle in their use of the OT "scriptures". Instead of tossing it all out and saying "just oral tradition until someone REPEATS in a letter what we ALREADY HAVE in scripture fellas". (As you have stated that you assumed they were doing).

#2. your method of tossing OUT the scripture and saying that everything is nothing more than "oral tradition" EVEN when it is written there ALREADY plainly inscripture UNTIL someone writes it down AGAIN in a letter - is NOT sola scriptura AT ALL!! It is "pure tradition" being evolved eventually into 'scripture". A pure RC model as I understand it!

#3. The fact remains that the gentile nations were NOT being asked to "BECOME Jews" or live in Palestine - they were being called to worship and serve the ONE TRUE GOD -- but they were never told to be circumcised and "become Jews" not in ALL of the OT!!

#4. Your problem with this concept has repeatedly been that you feel the NEED to toss out select parts of the OT - but you claim you have no way to do it without denying all of the OT text - reducing all doctrine to "oral tradition" in the NT while they waited for "Someone to write a letter" EVEN if it was simply to REPEAT what they were already reading in scripture!!

Your model is totally exposed here Eric. INSTEAD of allowing the Bible to speak for itself - INSTEAD of finding a way to see "sola scriptura" practiced in the NT- you are opting for "tradition that evolved into scripture" in the NT while the OT was being junked!!

In Christ,

Bob