SDA's and the Sabbath

Oh yeah! God needs to stop making the Sun shine on Sabbath day because hey thats an awful lot of work making the Sun shine... LOL!

Why do the Pharisees come to mind here?


...and Jesus needed to stop healing people on Sabbath, that's work too!


Because we ALL know that when God made the Sabbath He did it wrong and was way too legalistic and Jesus had to correct Him!

That's why Jesus said "When you've seen Me you've seen the Father"

 

To compare them to IM's pretend-suggestions here is to belittle the Pharisees.

 

Quoting BR:
"If you are serious about inserting the topic of the resurrection of Christ into Gen 2:1-3 it would be good to actually use a Bible text that "Shows it"."

GE:,
Yes I'm very serious; like John when he 'inserted' the first verses of his Gospel in there. That's your problem and your poverty, dear brother Bob, that you cannot do the same.

 

A Bible quote "showing" that Christ's Holy day - in Gen 2:1-3 was based on death --- and resurrection - would be useful at some point.

Or you could just keep making it up.

Your choice.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You have supplied me with the most representative, and therefore best, so far, SDA treatment of the Gospel-light on the New Testament. You have failed to use your God-given brain cells for five seconds. You are as blind as a mole and as happy in your darkness. No wonder you apply the Apocalyptic 'Last Church' of Laodicea to yourselves. You are so self-satisfied in your ignorance you despise the Word of God and you reject with horror its ONLY Content and message: The Message of Jesus Christ and of Him in the resurrection from the dead. You miserably fail to even notice the faintest bearing the Sabbath has upon Him, and that He has, on the Sabbath Day. JUST BECAUSE YOU AND MRS WHITE ARE INFALIBLE (just like the Roman Catholic 'church'); in the process of asserting which infallibility you even despise and dishonour Mrs White herself, who 'prophesied' faithfully that 'more light' was to be received upon the doctrine of the Sabbath Day.
It is fatal to even try to discuss anything else than your stale and dry and tragic and oscilated infalible errors.

 

Quoting Claudia T,
"...and Jesus needed to stop healing people on Sabbath, that's work too!"

ClaudiaT, when I read Bacchiocchi on that point, I was surprised and totally puzzled that he refused to follow through the golden line from Jesus' 'redemptive works' of the Sabbath Day, to His final and completing and fulfilling 'redemptive work' of the Sabbath Day - the one promised and sworn by the mouth of God throughout the Old Testament, His 'redemptive work' reserved, appointed, and confirmed for, and of, and on and in -- and TO -- the Sabbath Day the Seventh of the week: That God on the Seventh Day would "finish all His works": which He did nohow but through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead! Th completing of the creation of God is Jesus Christ in victory over death and nihil. It is stated in so many and such exact words in the NEW Testament it cannot be over-glossed or be misunderstood. It can only be refused; stubbornly, superior to the Word of God, be rejected. For me as a Christian the whole and the sole Content and meaning and improvement and value - faith-value - of the Sabbath, is what Jesus did to it and on it; that He rose from the dead on the Seventh Day Sabbath. It is the only 'Law' for me, and to me, of the Christian Day of worship-rest.
I trust you are not as head-strong as BobRyan as to also reject this light and truth upon God's Day of Rest so quickly and nonchalantly.

 

Quoting M4H,
"If the SDA worship on Saterday who are we to judge how they decide to do it? I guess it all boils down to if it is bibical."

GE:
Yes; and what it is if biblical; that's the crux of the matter! If Biblical, then for the Christian, it should be Christian; it must proclaim Jesus Christ. Now you know as well as anybody else that there wasn't much in the life of Jesus as an opportunity of, for and unto His Messiahship (His calling, office and title) as was the Sabbath Day. Then would God's "all-exceeding greatness of His power while raising Christ from the dead" not be reserved for this very day? Who could deny it would?

 

Ahh another stellar example of whining from GE instead of reason and logic.

Try actually quoting the Bible to make a point GE - why is this concept so difficult for you?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quoting BR:
"If you are serious about inserting the topic of the resurrection of Christ into Gen 2:1-3 it would be good to actually use a Bible text that "Shows it"."

GE:,
Yes I'm very serious; like John when he 'inserted' the first verses of his Gospel in there. That's your problem and your poverty, dear brother Bob, that you cannot do the same.

Or GE could just keep whining instead.

It seems to be difficult for GE to simply choose the Bible "instead". I find that facinating!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Some more "SDA thinking" from Jamieson, Fausset, Brown --- eh?


Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

Col 2:16

16. therefore--because ye are complete in Christ, and God in Him has dispensed with all subordinate means as essential to acceptance with Him.
meat . . . drink--Greek, "eating . . . drinking" (Ro 14:1-17). Pay no regard to any one who sits in judgment on you as to legal observances in respect to foods.
holyday--a feast yearly. Compare the three, 1Ch 23:31.
new moon--monthly.
the sabbath--Omit "THE," which is not in the Greek (compare Note, see on Ga 4:10). "SABBATHS" (not "the sabbaths") of the day of atonement and feast of tabernacles have come to an end with the Jewish services to which they belonged (Le 23:32, 37-39).

The weekly sabbath rests on a more permanent foundation, having been instituted in Paradise to commemorate the completion of creation in six days. Le 23:38 expressly distinguished "the sabbath of the Lord" from the other sabbaths. A positive precept is right because it is commanded, and ceases to be obligatory when abrogated; a moral precept is commanded eternally, because it is eternally right. If we could keep a perpetual sabbath, as we shall hereafter, the positive precept of the sabbath, one in each week, would not be needed. Heb 4:9, "rests," Greek, "keeping of sabbath" (Isa 66:23). But we cannot, since even Adam, in innocence, needed one amidst his earthly employments; therefore the sabbath is still needed and is therefore still linked with the other nine commandments, as obligatory in the spirit, though the letter of the law has been superseded by that higher spirit of love which is the essence of law and Gospel alike (Ro 13:8-10).
http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=002

J-F-B
Gen 2:3 –
3. blessed and sanctified the seventh day--a peculiar distinction put upon it above the other six days, and showing it was devoted to sacred purposes. The institution of the Sabbath is as old as creation, giving rise to that weekly division of time which prevailed in the earliest ages. It is a wise and beneficent law, affording that regular interval of rest which the physical nature of man and the animals employed in his service requires, and the neglect of which brings both to premature decay. Moreover, it secures an appointed season for religious worship, and if it was necessary in a state of primeval innocence, how much more so now, when mankind has a strong tendency to forget God and His claims?
http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=002





In Exodus 20:8-11 God tells us that this act in Gen 2 of resting - is sufficient of itself to obligate mankind to follow God's example.
Some have "guessed" that God was simply obligating Himself to observe the 7th day. The Exodus 20 summary of creation
week refutes that guess.

Mark 2:27 - Christ shows the close link between the MAKING of mankind and the MAKING of the Sabbath - and shows God's intent - explicitly.
"The Sabbath was MADE for mankind and not mankind MADE for the Sabbath "
Obviously a reference to the MAKING of these two - as we see in the creation account.

The climax of the Gen 1-2:3 account - is the Holy Seventh-day upon which religious "sabat" is observed. The verses provide the emphasis, origin
foundation - basis for the holy Seventh-day as a memorial of God's work in creation.

 

An interesting thought from D.L. Moody on ways to honor Christ the Creator's Sabbath - instead of whining about it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=876936&postcount=20

 

You cannot divide it like that and make "holy day" three of the annual days only, and "sabbaths" the rest. They were ALL "holy days", and included "sabbaths" (days in which the basic rules of the 4th commandment applied). I don't know why 3 days when males had to appear at the Temple keeps being brought into this. The text says nothing about that one aspect of the holy days. It just says not to judge over either holy day or sabbath.

Here's a question I never thought of asking. If the sabbath is equal to the other commandments and still binding, why does God hold us innocent? Or why does He not do that with any of the other commandments? Imagine, if people were killing, comitting adultery, wrshipping other gods, and God holds them innocent "until everyone knows it is wrong"? That is basically what Armstrongism believed.* Even those who never heard of God we believe will be held accountable for all those other sins. It seems you all cannot bring yourselves to admit people are now condemned for not keeping the sabbath, but if you were consistent, you would have to.

*This, BTW explains Armstrong's belief in the Azazel=Satan theory, to answer a question on that thread. Since very few people end up dying in their sins (most aren't "called" now, and are held innocent, basically until the judgment when they are first shown the truth), almost all sin ends up ultimately being placed back on Satan's head (since he is the father of it), as he is sent off into the "wilderness" (lake of fire). Since SDA's don't believe this; I never understood their use of the Azazel/Satan theory)

 

Most people do not know the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. Therefore God holds them innocent until they realize the change. If they still persist in ignoring the light then God will condemn them.

Acts:17:30: And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent

 

You missed the point entirely. In Lev 23 those annual days ARE called "Sabbaths" the intent was not to "exclude" them. But J-F-B was showing something else which is that IN THE LIST of annual Sabbaths SOME were even more obligatory than others. Yet all the annual Sabbaths were centered in animal sacrifices - shadows pointing forward to the work of Christ as our substitute.

James says "He who breaks one -- breaks them all" and your response is "IF that is true then why would we all not be guilty when we delberately violate God's 4th commandment thinking we do God service by violating His Holy day given to mankind as a memorial of His creative act in Gen 1-2:3".

Kind of an interesting argument on your part.

Many (including me) would argue that the Catholics violate the 2nd commandment regarding images and idolatry both in their use of images and in their worshipping bread "as though it were God".

They could easily ask me the same question as you since I do not ALSO say that "no Catholics go to heaven". They could argue "well if that is true then how can our sin really really be as bad as all the other sins associated with the other commandments".

But in their defense they do not argue as you do - that they are deliberately violating those commandments since they think God is pleased when they do so - whereas He used to care about it.

Do we both agree that "In the New Heavens and New Earth" from Sabbath to Sabbath "Shall ALL MANKIND come before God to Worship" Isaiah 66??

So in that future day -- When you bring this point up to Him as you come before Him to Worship along with all mankind "from Sabbath to Sabbath" - and you ask about the days when you were deliberately violating that particular commandment - is He going to say "OOPS I must have forgotten to care about that for a while - but now I am back to My old self"???

WDYT?

In Christ,

Bob

 

We do not argue that Satan pays the debt for anyone "else's sin". He only pays the debt of his OWN sins. But in the sins of ALL that the saints have commited we have included "his added sin" of tempting those who are NOT part of his kingdom. This gets back to the idea that for each sin there is a level of guilt and a certain measured level of torment in the lake of fire that is "owed". Not only does he OWE for all the sins he tempts -- but he owes additional "debt" for tempting people outside of his kingdom.

Think of it this way - if people willingly CHOOSE Satan as their leader (goths, wicca, devil worshippers, pagans, atheists etc) then when they sin they do so in harmony with the leader they have chosen. He bears some guilt in that but they willingly join him so much of their own guilt - is their own even in that case. But when a saint is tempted by Satan (who is falsely accuses them and CLAIMs them as members of his own kingdom - the way he did with Job) then Satan owes "more" than he would for tempting the same wicked deed in the life of "one of his own".

Adventists do not argue that satan pays the debt for the saints or even for the wicked. Each person will pay the debt of his OWN sin accordind to Ezek 18 and that is a difference from some of the other groups you mentioned.

In Christ,

Bob

 

GE:
Tiresome repetition of the words logic and reason etc. does not make it logic and reason, but exposure of inability to reason or use logic.

 

"...the Sabbath was changed to Sunday..."

GE:
Claudia, how you think it possible without carrying over from the Sabbath to the Sunday all the meaning and worthiness of the Sabbath to the Sunday? Then WHAT is that wothiness and honour and solid basis so indispensibly necessary for the Christian Day of worship-rest? The Law, or Christ?

 

I was half asleep when I posted that about Sunday. The change of the Sabbath, as many know, was not done by God but by man. The change isnt sanctioned in the Bible. The true Biblical Sabbath is still the seventh day.

Many are ignorantly worshipping on Sunday and as they do this God does not hold them guilty. They are His people and He is calling them out of this false worship.

God doesnt see things as man sees them. Some SDAs who have the light but are not living up to what they know may be under more condemnation from God than some of those who worship on Sunday and are living up to the light that they have.

Its like the Good Samaritan who stopped to help the wounded man while those who were supposed to be God's people and had light just went and passed by on the other side refusing to help him.

That was all I was trying to say. True SDAs dont view people in other denominations as "condemned by God".

There will be a time for this but that isnt now.

 

I don't know if your last answer was meant as an answer to my last post. If it was, then you must have mised my point.
I don't say God changed the Sabbath. Nevertheles in fact He did: He cahnged it from being the legalistic, Jewish, day of abstaining from work, to the Christian Day of Congregational Worship-Rest Fulness. And Christian Faith that isn't Resurectio-faith, is neither Christian, nor Faith, as Moltman says. So then the real Content of the Sabbath was changed from the Law to Christ. Not that the Sabbath changed as pertains the Day of its Divine event - which is exactly what the Church at last tries to do by having Jesus' resurection changed from the Sabbath to the Sunday.

I tried to aske how you could think it possible the Church has changed the Sabbath from the Seventh Day to the First Day, but by dishonestly stealing the Sabath's Content which is Jesus Christ in resurection from the dead, and giving it to the Sunday?

 

I currently experience problems with my keyboard; please excuse the awkward typing.