1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Sunday Sermons

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by jacob62, May 7, 2005.

  1. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well, you should ask what terms I use for this division, instead of trying to do it for me, and then using it to suggest that I am "Arguing for lawbreaking".
    By "Lawkeeping" (should really be cap.) I mean those who insist on a literal application of the OT Law of Moses beyond the universal moral and spiritual laws (Gen. 31:19-36; 3:1-4, 6; 4:8-10-16, 6:11, 9:4-6, 19:1-9; 5-7, 20:3, 31:19), which are also commanded in the NT. The opposite would be "non-Lawkeeping" (which is NOT the same as "lawBREAKING"!), or "non-sabbatarian".
    Once again; none of us even preternds to keep the WHOLE Law, and Moody did not even preach the chrief one you argue over, so I don't know why you keep using him. The Church was mistaken for a long time, in saying that we were "under the Law", but then changing the 4th from the seventh day to the first. That was wrong, and most people today recognize it. His version of Christianity is the very one that would argue for your much dreaded "National Sunday Law", so once again, you do not want to hold him up as your true spokesman!
    I didn't say NOBODY saw it that way. MOST people here have not argued that Sunday is the Sabbath. One or two may occasionally, but most here say we are not under the OT Law. The point is to argue with those who are here, not Christians from centuries ago. But then, your church's whole "National Sunday Law mark of the Beast" conspiracy theory would fall apart!
    Thus "superseded". This is just semantics.
    Those aren't simply "two out of 613", but rather the two that the WHOLE LAW hangs on (Matt.22:40). The individual laws themselves can change, as you even acknowledge many ceremonial ones did. But by keeping in principle the two, we establish the wole Law.
    "[ceremonially] clean and unclean" is spiritual; not physical. (2 Cor.6:17)
    True. Nobody said anything about "bad laws". It was man who was bad, not keeping the Law.
    But the SDA, and COG's have claimed it is "the sign" of God. They actually take Ex.31:13 and change it to "the" sign!
    No one is using any "Catholic argument". The Catholists claim that their church is the ONLY [ONE] true Church. So they keep throwing up all the "multitudes of disagreeing denominations" to try to prove that only under their authority would there be any unity. We here are not arguing that. Protestants' basic defining doctrine is salvation by faith alone, but they do not hold this up as a particular "sign of God" the way sabbathkeepers do the sabbath. They believe it is necessary to be orthodox, but that is not the same as this talk of a "sign" og God; especially in contrast to the Mark of the Beast!. So the Catholics' arguments against us have nothing toi do with this.

    There are many "messianics" who are just regular evangelical groups who meet on the day to reach Jews. I was referring, basically, to the Assemblies and Houses of YHWH ("sacred names"), and the multitude of others in the Directory of Sabbath Observing Groups. They all one-up each other as not keeping the Law right.
    You're probably referring to the Denver and Salem groups. The Denver group is a bit more open minded, but they do think the Passover on Nisan 14th is necessary, so they would not agree with the SDA on that. They are officially binitarian, but seem to have opened up on that as well. The Salem group is more exclusive. (It is from them that Armstrong came out of). So you've found one more little group that might accept you. Still, this does not erase the Armstrongs, Sacred Names, etc; all of which claim this one practice ios the sign of God. That is the point.
    His people in the OT. They were the ONLY group of people who kept it; so it WAS "the sign". But they did not keep the rest of the Law, so all of that changed with Christ.
    But it's your side that keeps using that statement: "Sign of God vs. Mark of the Beast". Just look at Claudia's posts above. You yourself may not have used the exact phrase, but you can't deny that that is what SDA's do say all the time.
    Answered above.
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The term "LawKeeping Sects" was first introduced -- by you.

    I was just asking if you were dividing Christdianity into "lawkeeping" vs "lawbreaking" or is it just "law-ignoring"?? It appeared that you wanted to put "lawkeeping" on one side and so that suggests "lawbreaking" for the other.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clear as mud.

    You seem to be doing a lot of dancing around trying to say "non-law-keeping" in a way that is not actually "law breaking".

    Try to non-law-keep the 65 MPH speed limit without actually breaking the law.

    You seem to need a lot of doublespeak on this one Eric.

    For everyone else - you either go the speed limit or you ignore it but in the end it is "obvious" that you are not limiting yourself to the minimum and maximum speeds posted -- even to the Police who don't know that you are thinking to yourself "non-law-keeping not the same as lawbreaking".

    The fact that you choose to ignore the 4th commandment in a "non-law-keeping" way is in no way different than actually not honoring Christ the Creator's own Holy Day.

    D. L. Moody on the other hand took the position that we NEED to honor Christ's commandment regarding Sabbath and that it is STILL as authorotative as it ever was when first given to mankind in Eden.

    To that extent - he gets it.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I have been to many Messianic Christian churches that DO recognize Adventists and other Christian denominations as "Christian". Though I have no doubt you could find some extreme local congregation among them that did not.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I don't know of any Messianic Christian church that does NOT think the Sabbath is Holy.

    If you have found one - point that odd bird out to me.

    All the ones I have attended think the Ten Commandments are still valid AND they think the 4 th commandment is still one of them.

    AND they think the Sabbath is from Friday evening to Saturday evening.

    Where in the world would you get the idea that they have some non-Sabbath view "but attend worship on Sabbath anyway to reach Jews"???

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    By "Strict adherence" do you mean "refusal to break Christ the Creator's Holy Day that HE made Holy in Gen 2:3 as God's Word states"???

    If so -- will you also condemn D.L. Moody and all those HE quotes in support of the 4th commandment as well as Seventh-day Baptists and anyone who dares to honor Christ the Creator's Holy Day?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just as a side note...

    Many false impressions about what Seventh Day Adventists believe and teach are out there, including the idea that we condemn people as being "lost" or as "not Christians"... because they aren't Seventh Day Adventists... which is untrue. The reason that in the Book of Revelation God says "Come out of her My people that you be not partaker in her sins" [Revelation 18:4] is because many who ARE His people are ignorantly bowing to the false idol Sunday Sabbath without realizing there is no Biblical foundation for it.

    No one has yet received the mark of the beast. Sundaykeeping is not yet the mark of the beast, and will not be until the decree goes forth causing men to worship this idol sabbath. The time will come when this day will be the test, but that time has not come yet. God has given men the Sabbath as a sign between Him and them as a test of their loyalty. Those who, after the light regarding God's law comes to them, continue to disobey and exalt human laws above the law of God in the great crisis before us, will receive the mark of the beast. The Sabbath will be the great test of loyalty, for it is the point of truth especially controverted. When the final test shall be brought to bear upon men, then the line of distinction will be drawn between those who serve God and those who serve Him not.

    While the observance of the false sabbath in compliance with the law of the state, contrary to the fourth commandment, will be an avowal of allegiance to a power that is in opposition to God, the keeping of the true Sabbath, in obedience to God's law, is an evidence of loyalty to the Creator. While one class, by accepting the sign of submission to earthly powers, receive the mark of the beast, the other, choosing the token of allegiance to divine authority, receive the seal of God. None are condemned until they have had the light and have seen the obligation of the fourth commandment. But when the decree shall go forth enforcing the counterfeit sabbath, and the loud cry of the third angel shall warn men against the worship of the beast and his image, the line will be clearly drawn between the false and the true. Then those who still continue in transgression will receive the mark of the beast.

    When Sunday observance shall be enforced by law, and the world shall be enlightened concerning the obligation of the true Sabbath, then whoever shall transgress the command of God to obey a precept which has no higher authority than that of Rome, will thereby honor popery above God. He is paying homage to Rome, and to the power which enforces the institution ordained by Rome. He is worshiping the beast and his image. As men then reject the institution which God has declared to be the sign of His authority, and honor in its stead that which Rome has chosen as the token of her supremacy, they will thereby accept the sign of allegiance to Rome--"the mark of the beast." And it is not until the issue is thus plainly set before the people, and they are brought to choose between the commandments of God and the commandments of men, that those who continue in transgression will receive "the mark of the beast."


    ------------------

    Claudia Thompson

    http://www.christiangraphics.org
    http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
    http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org
    http://www.templatehog.com
     
  6. prophecynut

    prophecynut New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Come out of her my people" refers to the descendents of Jacob living in America, and not SDA members.

    You are a legalist, insisting on strict adherence to the law, what ever happened to the grace of God, do you have any idea what grace is?
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    D.L Moody appeaers to have more on the ball when it comes to this subject than PN -

    How could this be when Moody wrote and taught so long ago.

    Could it be that today - people are just not reading?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. prophecynut

    prophecynut New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Moody is mistaken.

    I'm finished with you and Claudia. [​IMG]
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Outstanding - I am sticking with D.L. Moody's view on this point about the Law continued and the 4th commandment still part of the Ten Commandments -- and being able to read scripture without having to pretend not to see the texts about Christ the Creator's Sabbath past present and future.
     
  10. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    4
    Once again, you do not keep the ENTIRE Law. You say there are some parts that we do not have to keep, and yet are not a "lawbreaker". It's like if everyone is interpreting the speed limit differently (misreading the signs, or didn't realize it was changed), and someone who earlier saw a 55 MPH speed limit judges you for going 65.
    "MEssianic" is a very broad category. The Jews For Jesus and other similar ministries can be considered "Messianic", but they do not keep the day. There are some Churches that meet on the day but do not teach it is Law. Then there are the Sacred Name groups I was mentioning, and they DO keep it, plus the annual days, plus many other things thus they they do not see SDA's as really obedient in that matter. Those were the groups that I was referring to (you are the one who mentioned those who accepted SDA's), and that was my point there.
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote: Bob said --
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Clear as mud.

    You seem to be doing a lot of dancing around trying to say "non-law-keeping" in a way that is not actually "law breaking".

    Try to non-law-keep the 65 MPH speed limit without actually breaking the law.

    You seem to need a lot of doublespeak on this one Eric.

    For everyone else - you either go the speed limit or you ignore it but in the end it is "obvious" that you are not limiting yourself to the minimum and maximum speeds posted -- even to the Police who don't know that you are thinking to yourself "non-law-keeping not the same as lawbreaking".

    The fact that you choose to ignore the 4th commandment in a "non-law-keeping" way is in no way different than actually not honoring Christ the Creator's own Holy Day.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Law of God is abolished then "we do not ESTABLISH IT" by our faith because it NO LONGER exists.

    Contrary to your abolished law - God says our faith is to ESTABLISH the LAW of GOD and the saints KEEP the commandments of God and the LAW of God is WRITTEN on the heart!!

    ON "Tablets of the human heart" 2Cor3 rather than merely "tablets of stone".

    So there is nothing here about the 10 commandment unit being done away with in order for you to "non-law-keep" what you "claim to ignore".

    Your scenario fails.

    AS in the case above - even YOU admit that you are NOT honoring Christ the Creator's Seventh day Sabbath! It is NOT a question of "not knowing about it".

    Again - your argument fails.

    Your "non-law-keeping" is in direct reference to IGNORING Christ the Creator's Holy day of Gen 2:3 MADE for MANKIND and kept by ALL MANKIND from Sabbath to Sabbath in the New Earth of Rev21 (the ONLY place the NEW earth doctrine is spelled out in time in the NT).

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    All the "Messianic Jewish" congregations I have attended first hand - DO accept the Ten Commandments, DO accept Christ the Creator's Sabbath as REAL and valid and DO keep the day.

    This is true also of Adventists, Seventh-day Baptists and other groups that ACCEPT OTHER Christians.

    The point remains about Sabbath KEEPING Christian groups that recognize not only other Sabbath keeping Christians BUT ALSO non-Sabbath keeping Christians.

    Your straw man fails because it is simply a snippet approach trying to paint with a broad brush as do the Catholics with non-Catholic Christians.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    4
    No, your tactic fails. Because "the Law" is more than the 10 Commandments, and no scripture ever makes such a distinction as you make. (And you do keep some of the others besides the 10, but you use a different criterion fo maintaining those). Once again, the 613 hung on the 10, and the 10 hung on the TWO. Just as many of the 613 can be changed, so can the 10, and it's only the universal moral/spiritual laws that remain.
    That was an EXAMPLE. Not the best one. but the point it, the speed limit could be changed. It could be changed according to space or time. It could be changed in the same location, or it could change as you drive further down the road. In either case, the person who no longer obeys 55 is not breaking the law.
    Even if this were true, that would be an ex-post-facto. The person doing 65 here, and then the speed goes down to 55 further down could not be judged for what he did back here. Or if he did 65 yesterday, then it is made 55 tomorrow. You are coming up with everything but clear scripture showing that the sabbath is mandated TODAY. We do not rip things out of scripture and apply them where they are not applied, trying to generalize what we think is universal.
    So you have a handful of groups that supposedly accept each other and us. The other groups besides the SDA are small and relatively few. The majority of the sabbathkeeping movement, in some way descended from Armstrongism, do not accept anybody. But my point is proved bythe presence of just one sabbathkeeping group that does not accept anybody. You all say it is the SIGN of God. If it was, then God Himself would ensure that all those who kept it had unity. He is involved in this whole thing, isn't He? (Or is it just man and his prideful one-upmanship?) But the true sign must be something other than that.
    And it is very debatable about how much you all "accept" us, when you come here to judge and accuse us of "lawbreaking", or "ignoring" things of God. So we don't have the mark of the beast "yet". Big deal! We are still deceived and disobedient to you, nonetheless, so you need to quit pretending to be accepting of us.
     
  14. prophecynut

    prophecynut New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Better yet, you need to quit deceiving us.
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:Bob said
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All the "Messianic Jewish" congregations I have attended first hand - DO accept the Ten Commandments, DO accept Christ the Creator's Sabbath as REAL and valid and DO keep the day.

    This is true also of Adventists, Seventh-day Baptists and other groups that ACCEPT OTHER Christians.

    The point remains about Sabbath KEEPING Christian groups that recognize not only other Sabbath keeping Christians BUT ALSO non-Sabbath keeping Christians.

    Your straw man fails because it is simply a snippet approach trying to paint with a broad brush as do the Catholics with non-Catholic Christians.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SDA are among those that DO accept other Sabbath keeping groups as Christians AND other non-Sabbath keeping groups as well.

    Your smear against the Sabbath-keeping Christians claiming they DO NOT accept each other or other Christian groups - has failed just as that same style tactic failed for the RCC when it rants about non-Cathlics claiming "all non Catholics are not agreeing with each other so they must be wrong".

    Not even close!

    If the RCC had been able to sustain ITS case by showing that "even ONE non-Catholic Christian group was critical of the others" they would have rejoiced to "declare victory over themselves". It did not work for them - it is not working for you.


    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The Catholic argument is that IF the non-Catholics "are being led by the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit is the author of confusion" since "they don't accept each other" IF EVEN ONE does not!!

    Eric tries the same ploy here.But my point is proved bythe presence of just one sabbathkeeping group that does not accept anybody. You all say it is the SIGN of God. If it was, then God Himself would ensure that all those who kept it had unity

    How "transparent".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote: Bob said
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your "non-law-keeping" is in direct reference to IGNORING Christ the Creator's Holy day of Gen 2:3 MADE for MANKIND and kept by ALL MANKIND from Sabbath to Sabbath in the New Earth of Rev21 (the ONLY place the NEW earth doctrine is spelled out in time in the NT).
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What??? "Even if it were true that you are NOT choosing to keep Christ the Creator's Seventh-day Sabbath"???

    If you ARE claiming to KEEP it - this is the FIRST time I have seen it.

    How exactly are you "keeping it"??

    Please explain in detail!!

    Is that your "claim"? Do you "Claim" that the 4th commandment has been "edited"???

    What is the "edit"??

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. Eric B

    Eric B Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,835
    Likes Received:
    4
    You're getting further and further from the point. It's no "smear" against sabbath keeping Christians. You and the SDB's and whatever Messianics you are referring to may accept each other, but you do not accept groups that deny the Trinity or who add other laws, and then condemn you for not keeping them. You, just like us, would say that they were "denying faith alone". The fact that there are such groups proves that the sabbath is not the sign, because some keep it, and are yet still "false" (not God's people) in another's eyes.
    Now you're getting back to the point, but once again, it is still a big difference between us claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, and taking a particular PRACTICE and identifying it as "the sign of God". "Led by the Holy Spirit" is a general claim. Anyone can claim it, and we know that men can be wrong and come up with different interpretations; some of them obviously false, claiming the Spirit led them. Sometimes the Spirit did lead them, but certain convictions are only for certain people. But some deny this, and insist everyone should believe exactly the same. Here is where the more radical fundamentalists and the Campbellists, and Catholics all agree. So the fundamentalists use it to push "separation" from anyone they don't agree with. The Campbellites use it to push the Church of Christ as the true Church. And the Catholists use it to push the RCC or the EOC, or (around here) some immaterial ideal of a "one true catholic and apostolic Church".
    Once again, this is a general ideal of unity in the Spirit these groups are opposing. Nobody here has identified any one particular practice as the "sign of God"; such as saying "non-Catholicism is the sign of God". Non-Catholisicm is every group except the Catholic Church, and has no claim to any "unity". We can say that leading of the Spirit is the sign of God, but this is not defined by us in terms of one single practice.
    It is the sabbathkeepers, in their zeal to prove themselves, that have made the extravagant claim that ONE SINGLE PRACTICE of theirs is the sign of God. So that is why you can be held to a higher standard of "unity". If that was true, then all people who keep the sabbath would be shown to be the people of God. In the OT, it was, but then; it was for the nation of ISRAEL, only!
    "Even if it were true" that the Sabbath will be kept in the Milennium. Read the context. It was in response to what you posted, and I quoted the whole thing clearly.
    That according to Heb.4, our "sabbath rest" is trusting in Jesus rather than trying to work our way to salvation. Just like you would probably admit (and the Armstrongs, and others would accusing you of "making an excuse to ignore") the annual feast of unleavened bread is spiritualized in 1 Cor.5.
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I see your point - however since we all claim to be led by the Holy Spirit -- the point the RCC makes to "disprove that" would INCLUDE the claim of Mormons and JWS (non-Catholics) that other non-Catholic groups would NOT accept as Christian EVEN though ALL of them claim that the Holy Spirit is leading them and that they have no need to listen to Catholic tradition.

    You are using the same style of over simplification. My argument is that the argument is no more "effective" at proving that "the Holy Spirit does NOT lead as He says in scripture" than your method is for taking Christ the Creator's Holy day and trying to revoke the "Sign" status Christ gave it as a "Sign between God and His people".

    God's Word stands in BOTH cases against that style of argument.

    IN Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Is that your "claim"? Do you "Claim" that the 4th commandment has been "edited"???

    What is the "edit"??
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Heb 4 makes no claim to change the Sabbath commandment. In fact it quotes the OT for "rest" in Psalms relying on the SAME fact of rest that WAS ALREADY TRUE at the time of David!

    It says nothing about "a change" to the 10 commandments or to the Sabbath commandment.

    I don't admit that it is spiritualized away. I claim that from the very beginning the Lev 23 annual sacrifices were given as predictive shadows "predicting" the work of the Messiah. In Heb 10 we have an EXPLICIT statement that all sacrifices and offerings have been "put to an end".

    By contrast the work of Christ the Creator in Gen 2:3 is explicit. It is HE who gives the day as a memorial of his finished work at Creation.

    ADDING the application of rest in Heb 4 does nothing to abolish the 7th day of rest.

    Even D.L. Moody gets this point.

    IN Christ,

    Bob
     
Loading...