Amazing Facts bible study guide

[Patrick_Murebil]

None of us were there with angels to see "what laws they had/have; but that doesn’t even matter. God doesn’t hold us responsible for what we don’t know, and He clearly tells us that His ten commandments are for us to obey. All ten of them.

So am I correct in assuming that we are in agreement that:

1. We do not know what “laws” pertained to the angels in heaven;
2. They were not the 10 commandments listed in Exodus chapter 20, and;
3. The 10 commandments are for humans on this planet?

 

[Protestant101]

So am I correct in assuming that we are in agreement that:

1. We do not know what “laws” pertained to the angels in heaven;
2. They were not the 10 commandments listed in Exodus chapter 20, and;
3. The 10 commandments are for humans on this planet?

Actually, no you are way off on this one.

As I consider this question more; I see how the Bible does give us clues as to what “law” the angels had to and still do go by. I believe that you have an agenda in trying to “prove” that we cannot know what laws pertained to the angels in heaven, as well as for your #2 & 3 points above. I would like to hear more on why this is so important to you to try and prove? What point would it make in your mind; and how would this point be supported by official Catholic teaching?

You did not comment on the part of my post where I explained my use of the word “extend” as in the “greatest law.” Do you really believe that the angels would not have the same law to go by now, as well as in all the past and future ages?

While you make a seemingly good case for the seventh commandment; your case is purely circumstantial and anecdotal; it has no real Biblical text basis. I would like to see it explained exegetically from Scripture. Your comments and questions about that point are “leading questions” which are really difficult to discuss.

I am currently studying into all the references I have regarding your questions on what law did the angels go by in heaven, but to me it is best to not post too many of them; until I have it sorted in my mind how best to articulate it all. So I will get back to that point as soon as time permits.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

I understand what you are saying, but I would have to disagree that we on this planet are currently suffering because of that war in heaven. God was well aware of the threat posed to Adam and Eve by Satan when God created this planet. God in his love and infinite wisdom put in place a safeguard for Adam and Eve to avoid partaking in that war. He gave them all creation and one command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Had they obeyed that one command, we would not be suffering and in the condition we find ourselves in on this planet. But they disobeyed and failed by their own choice. We are suffering today because of our first parents choice, and the choices we as individuals make…not because of the war in heaven initiated by Lucifer. And God in His eternal love and infinite wisdom has put a safeguard in place for us, a means of escape from the suffering, sin, and death of this planet…Praise God!!!

To blame our situation on that war sounds much like what someone else said when asked by God as to why they ate the fruit…“The serpent deceived me, and I ate” she said. It wasn’t Lucifer or Adam who said that. Got it.

Actually if you think about this carefully you will see that what Lucifer (Satan) did on earth with Eve WAS an extention of the war in Heaven. Having failed his revolt and being cast down to the earth with his rebellious followers he took his lose out on Adam and Eve, through Eve. Usurping the kingdom of Earth from Adam and therefore becoming the Ruler himself of this world. Yes, Eve had a part in the earthly part of the war, but so did Adam and every man up until the time that Christ came to redeem us. Once Christ came and became our ultimate sacrifice the war for Satan was lost completely. And now what is happening is retaliation by Satan through both his demons and unrepentant men. No, we cannot blame Satan for our short comings, or trangressions, God has given us free will to choose, just as he gave Adam and Eve free will to choose. We have the scriptures and the evidences of Christ, the Apostles and all the patriarchs that witness against us. We have no excuss to blame Satan for causing us to sin, even though he leads us to sin.

Ok, I can see that at least three of the 10 commandments may have been in effect, which is down 4 from my 7 yesterday…the farther back we go and the closer to God we imagine, the number keeps decreasing. Yet I don’t see any evidence that the law in heaven was the 10 commandments, which is not to say that the law given to Moses was not based on principles of heavenly law or God’s love for fallen man. It is only to say that I see no Biblical evidence that the 10 commandments of Exodus 20, were the sum of heavenly law at the time of Lucifer’s rebellion. In fact there is no Biblical evidence that the 10 commandments were in effect before they were given to Moses…and that covers the span of 20 plus generations from the time of Adam.

So I guess what I’m suggesting is that the 10 commandments were implemented when they were given to Moses by God for the covenant they made, which was long long after the fall of man…according to the Bible.

I ask that you once again read the chapters in Genesis before Moses. A pay special attention all the instances where the commands WERE trangressed. The first one I believe you will find soon after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden. Remember Cain?

And please believe me and understand that the lack of the 10 commandments, as found in Exodus 20, in heaven during Lucifer’s rebellion in no way clouded the issues for Lucifer. Whatever governed God’s creatures before the creation of this world was well known and understood by Lucifer I’m sure. He was not uninformed regarding his choice and rebellion. He knew what he was doing.

God bless all!!

As for the laws in heaven, why would the be any different there than here. Even though the Angels may have not NEEDED them, obviously some did, why would God treat one created being with free will any different that another created being with free will?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

To apply the ten commandment law to the angels in heave makes no sense to me. They just don’t apply to immortal sinless beings. So I am going to go way out on a limb here and say that if there was a law in heaven then it must have be the NEW commandment that Jesus gave His disciples: Love God and your neighbor as your self.

Hi Marsha.

No, it wouldn’t make much sense if one does not understand that God created all his creatures with free will, including the Angels. How else could Lucifer (now Satan) have sinned? It makes less sense that God would not have some sort of Laws to govern his created universe, else all would be chaos, which is what Lucifer wanted. And to apply the same laws for all of his creatures is in line with his righteousness and his loving nature.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Hi Marsha.

No, it wouldn’t make much sense if one does not understand that God created all his creatures with free will, including the Angels. How else could Lucifer (now Satan) have sinned? It makes less sense that God would not have some sort of Laws to govern his created universe, else all would be chaos, which is what Lucifer wanted. And to apply the same laws for all of his creatures is in line with his righteousness and his loving nature.

Lucifer did not sin by breaking any of the 10 commandments. He sinned by violating the New Law of loving God and neighbor. Even if you accept EGW as a prophet, you must recognize this because by her version of Lucifer’s fall his sin was pride. The10 commandments don’t cover pride, the New Law of love does because pride is clearly a violation of the love of God and neighbor.

 

[Protestant101]

Lucifer did not sin by breaking any of the 10 commandments. He sinned by violating the New Law of loving God and neighbor. Even if you accept EGW as a prophet, you must recognize this because by her version of Lucifer’s fall his sin was pride. The10 commandments don’t cover pride, the New Law of love does because pride is clearly a violation of the love of God and neighbor.

The Ten Commandments don’t cover “pride?”

 

[Marsha_Adams]

The Ten Commandments don’t cover “pride?”

Nope.

They cover lust, anger, greed, envy, gluttony, and sloth, but not pride.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Nope.

They cover lust, anger, greed, envy, gluttony, and sloth, but not pride.

Pride is self worship, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Lucifer did not sin by breaking any of the 10 commandments. He sinned by violating the New Law of loving God and neighbor. Even if you accept EGW as a prophet, you must recognize this because by her version of Lucifer’s fall his sin was pride. The10 commandments don’t cover pride, the New Law of love does because pride is clearly a violation of the love of God and neighbor.

Dear Sabbath Keeper and Protestant101,

I believe our differences expessed in these posts are due to two different “views”. The “views” we hold determine how we look at salvation history. Those two views are as follows:

1. The foundation of God’s Kingdom is eternal, unchangable, binding law.
2. The foundation of God’s Kingdom is eternal love.

It seems that you hold to view 1. and Marsha, others, and I hold to view 2.

Based on our view, law is necessary when love is absent. Where love abounds there is no need for law.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.

This seems very clear in the example you cite above, Sabbath Keeper, about the sins committed in Genesis before Moses. There were many terrible sins committed. Murder by Cain as you point out. And yet God did not give the law (10 commandments) to men until he made the covenant with Moses in the book of Exodus…20+ generations after Adam.

It is important to go back and look at the covenants God made with humans before the one He made with Moses. Begin to look at salvation history in the covenants God made with man, rather than the laws God gave to man. It is as interesting as it is an enlightening study.

The 10 commandments as found in Exodus 20 provide the basis of moral teaching for humans. These were given to humans through Moses when God met face to face with him.

Matthew chapters 5,6, and 7 (as well as other teachings by Jesus in the Gospels), provide the moral teaching for humans from the first coming of the Messiah for the rest of human history on this planet…which is the history, the present, and the future of The Church in the New Covenant. These were given to humans when God, Jesus, The Living Word, met face to face with man 2000 years ago.

While the law is important to teach morality and to show humans where they are out of sync with God and His Love, it is still love that is the foundation of God’s Kingdom, not law. It is the renewing, the changing, the transformation of our hearts and minds into the heart and mind of our God Jesus Christ. Jesus was the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. He is now our law, our standard for morality, love, and the Christan life.

The Kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed is about love, not law.

We disagree and that is ok. This is a matter of faith.

God bless all!!

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Thanks for the Reply PM,

No we do not disagree that the foundation of God’s kingdom is Love. Absolutely, and that love from God was most graciously and profoundly shown when his Son was Crucified for our sins. However, we must remember that there are to be rewards, both for the righteous and the unrighteous, when Christ returns, during the First Resurrection the Righteous receive their reward and during the Second the Unrighteous receive their’s. Now I ask you, by what standard are these rewards/punishments measured? I submit, by the Law, written not just on stone, but on stone taken from the Throne of God. (For evidence of this statement please reread the account of Moses’ interaction with God and the Seventy Elders.)

In addition to this we are, in several places in scripture, told that we show our love to God by being obedient to his Word by keeping his “Commandments” and the Testimony of Jesus.

If you do a little research you will discover that when every Jesus spoke anything about the Law, he was quoting from the Old Testament, including when he referenced the “New Covenant”, that being that God would “Write them in their hearts and their minds.”

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Thanks for the Reply PM,

No we do not disagree that the foundation of God’s kingdom is Love. Absolutely, and that love from God was most graciously and profoundly shown when his Son was Crucified for our sins. However, we must remember that there are to be rewards, both for the righteous and the unrighteous, when Christ returns, during the First Resurrection the Righteous receive their reward and during the Second the Unrighteous receive their’s. Now I ask you, by what standard are these rewards/punishments measured? I submit, by the Law, written not just on stone, but on stone taken from the Throne of God. (For evidence of this statement please reread the account of Moses’ interaction with God and the Seventy Elders.)

In addition to this we are, in several places in scripture, told that we show our love to God by being obedient to his Word by keeping his “Commandments” and the Testimony of Jesus.

If you do a little research you will discover that when every Jesus spoke anything about the Law, he was quoting from the Old Testament, including when he referenced the “New Covenant”, that being that God would “Write them in their hearts and their minds.”

Hi Sabbath Keeper,

Praise God!! It is apparent that we do agree and that is a good thing!!

We both believe that love is the foundation of God’s Kingdom, the greatest act of love being that God became a man, Jesus, and was crucified to redeem us from sin. And then our response is to love God, and to love our neighbors, and even our enemies.

We both believe that if we love God we are to obey His commands to us, and as you pointed out earlier they are, but are not limited to, the 10 commandments, as well as the commands that Jesus gave us, as well as the commands that the apostles gave us through guidance by the Holy Spirit by the authority God gave to the Church. And especially the 10 commandments are the basis for our instruction in morality which Jesus so beautifully spoke and taught in Matthew chapters 5-7.

And I believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Catholic Church are in agreement with what I said above. I know that the Catholic Church has always taught that the increases in faith, the Christian life, and santification require faith and works. And the Seventh-day Adventist Church agrees with this (at least they did when I was a member of that church). Unlike many protestant evangelicals/fundamentalists that believe “once saved, always saved”.

And yes, it is true that our rewards or punishments on the Judgement day are based on our deeds, our actions.

It feels so good when we agree!!!

God bless all!!!

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Hi Sabbath Keeper,

Praise God!! It is apparent that we do agree and that is a good thing!!

We both believe that love is the foundation of God’s Kingdom, the greatest act of love being that God became a man, Jesus, and was crucified to redeem us from sin. And then our response is to love God, and to love our neighbors, and even our enemies.

We both believe that if we love God we are to obey His commands to us, and as you pointed out earlier they are, but are not limited to, the 10 commandments, as well as the commands that Jesus gave us, as well as the commands that the apostles gave us through guidance by the Holy Spirit by the authority God gave to the Church. And especially the 10 commandments are the basis for our instruction in morality which Jesus so beautifully spoke and taught in Matthew chapters 5-7.

And I believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Catholic Church are in agreement with what I said above. I know that the Catholic Church has always taught that the increases in faith, the Christian life, and santification require faith and works. And the Seventh-day Adventist Church agrees with this (at least they did when I was a member of that church). Unlike many protestant evangelicals/fundamentalists that believe “once saved, always saved”.

And yes, it is true that our rewards or punishments on the Judgement day are based on our deeds, our actions.

It feels so good when we agree!!!

God bless all!!!

Love and Faith can move mountains.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Pride is self worship, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Pride is not necessarily self-worship. If one accepts EGWs explanation of Lucifer’s fall, he had no problem with God, it was his misunderstanding of Christ’s role that “pushed” him over the edge.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Pride is not necessarily self-worship. If one accepts EGWs explanation of Lucifer’s fall, he had no problem with God, it was his misunderstanding of Christ’s role that “pushed” him over the edge.

Sorry it took so long to get back on this, I needed to reference what was presented here.

After reviewing your refered text, I believe your are referring to “The Story of Redemption”. I see no need to draw back from my original statement concerning Satan’s Pride. For it was exasparated by his jealousy of Christ. In his mind, pridefully, he believed he should have been elevated to the same stature. So you see the sin of pride does come into it, and yes, he wanted to be elevated so that he could be exalted, worshipped, by the other angels.

 

[Protestant101]

Sorry it took so long to get back on this, I needed to reference what was presented here.

After reviewing your refered text, I believe your are referring to “The Story of Redemption”. I see no need to draw back from my original statement concerning Satan’s Pride. For it was exasparated by his jealousy of Christ. In his mind, pridefully, he believed he should have been elevated to the same stature. So you see the sin of pride does come into it, and yes, he wanted to be elevated so that he could be exalted, worshipped, by the other angels.

I agree about your comments re Satan’s pride. I will enclose below some scripture references to back up what I had originally said about the commandments above. If you break one commandment, you are deemed to have broken them all:

Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (KJV)

Jam 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (ISV)

Jam 2:10 quicumque autem totam legem servaverit offendat autem in uno factus est omnium reus
(Vulgate)

Jam 2:10 For anyone who keeps all the law, but makes a slip in one point, is judged to have gone against it all. (GNB)

Jam 2:10 And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all. (Douay Rheims)

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (NIV)

Here is one quick example for the idea about pride: If we say that “pride is not covered by the ten commandments;” what are we denying that one who is acting out of pride is STEALING from God?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

I

Here is one quick example for the idea about pride: If we say that “pride is not covered by the ten commandments;” what are we denying that one who is acting out of pride is STEALING from God?

In a sense this is correct. To qualify this consider that pride is basicly basking in your own glory. Scripture tells us, don’t ask me to quote where, I don’t currently have a Bible with me, that all glory belongs to God and that we can do nothing with out him. So in essence, yes, we are attempting to steal God’s glory.

 

[Protestant101]

Dear Sabbath Keeper and Protestant101,

I believe our differences expessed in these posts are due to two different “views”. The “views” we hold determine how we look at salvation history. Those two views are as follows:

1. The foundation of God’s Kingdom is eternal, unchangable, binding law.
2. The foundation of God’s Kingdom is eternal love.

It seems that you hold to view 1. and Marsha, others, and I hold to view 2.

Based on our view, law is necessary when love is absent. Where love abounds there is no need for law.

Actually, this is not quite how it is, although there is agreement on the fact that the foundation of God’s kingdom is based upon “eternal love.” As a Seventh-day Adventist; I was not taught to separate the two in quite the way you have above; for the Bible tells us that God’s law is based upon love; and that His law is ALWAYS needed. So one real difference between us would simply be in the understanding of God’s law itself. Laws cannot be “dispensed with” just because there is “love” in the air. What kind of society would we have if this was so? I believe that huge problems are caused when we teach young people that God has for whatever reasons, ‘cancelled’ His law, and has just ordered everyone to ‘love one another.’ How can we even know what that means without God’s law? How can young people be expected to behave when all the adults tell them that the law is not important to God anymore? This whole thing about God or us not needing ‘the law’ if there is love present is just so far out in left field that it is impossible to believe.

 

[MarysRoses]

Actually, this is not quite how it is, although there is agreement on the fact that the foundation of God’s kingdom is based upon “eternal love.” As a Seventh-day Adventist; I was not taught to separate the two in quite the way you have above; for the Bible tells us that God’s law is based upon love; and that His law is ALWAYS needed. So one real difference between us would simply be in the understanding of God’s law itself. Laws cannot be “dispensed with” just because there is “love” in the air. What kind of society would we have if this was so? I believe that huge problems are caused when we teach young people that God has for whatever reasons, ‘cancelled’ His law, and has just ordered everyone to ‘love one another.’ How can we even know what that means without God’s law? How can young people be expected to behave when all the adults tell them that the law is not important to God anymore? This whole thing about God or us not needing ‘the law’ if there is love present is just so far out in left field that it is impossible to believe.

You are right that there are problems when people say there is no law.

I’m glad you agree that God’s eternal law is a law of Love. Something that existed before Adam and Eve were created, and will always continue. This law is woven directly into his creation… it is an expression of who God is. Societies instinctively know that some laws and rules are good and build up society, and some actions are things that tear apart families and society. Societies that allow murder, adultery, and stealing don’t last. People who live in them have shorter, unhappy lives.

Catholics believe that the ten commandments are binding… as an expression of this natural moral law. God’s law of love. An interesting contrast to me, is that Adventists believe the 10 commandments as written, word for word, in Exodus 20
are this eternal law.

So close… but such a difference.

Small divergences can have huge consequences.

Adventists believe that the sabbath commandment, as given in the 20th chapter of Exodus… is exactly the same as is inscribed on the tablets held in the ark of the covenant. Their prophetess, Ellen G. White, had a vision, that these tablets were now in heaven, and she said she saw a halo of light highlighting this sabbath commandment. She said that this commandment would be a test for believers, whether they truly follow God and are loyal to Him, or have been deceived by man, with an emphasis on sabbath being “given at creation” (her view… and Adventist teaching, the bible actually does not record it being kept by man until the time of Moses) and that the only proper day to “keep” it was the seventh day of the week… our Saturday.

Catholics believe that Exodus 20 is an expression of God’s eternal law…the natural, moral law, just as Deuteronomy 5 is an expression of God’s eternal law. Both passages list the 10 commandments. Both are essentially the same. But… they are not identical. The sabbath commandment has a different rationale in the two different chapters, both of which are accounts of the giving of the 10 commandments:

From Exodus 20:

8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

From Deuteronomy 5:

12 "Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

This difference presents no problem to Catholics… as we believe both passages, and both listings, are expressions of God’s law… not exact transcripts. Catholics believe the Ten Commandments are binding as moral law, not because we believe we are under the same covenant as Israel. Catholics believe Christians are under the New Covenant, and are not bound by the shadows contained in the old covenant.

Adventists have to consider the following… in deuteronomy the reason for the sabbath being given to the Hebrews was this:

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

Probably the first thing about my above statement that will jump out to an Adventist and prompt a quick response… “given to the Hebrews”. They would be quick to insist the sabbath was given at creation and was not just for Israel.

(Cont. next post…)

 

[MarysRoses]

(cont. from previous post)

But look at the introduction to this chapter, Deuteronomy 5:1-3 :
1 Moses summoned all Israel and said:
Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3** It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.
**

The Bible, specifically says this covenant was NOT WITH OUR FATHERS… This same chapter goes on to list the same essential commandments as Exodus 4… in fact this is another account of the same event, the covenant with Israel.

Yes… it is fair to say the sabbath is a memorial of creation. This reasoning is in Exodus 20. But it is also a fact that the sabbath is a memorial of Israel’s deliverance from bondage in Egypt, as recorded in Deuteronomy 5.

It is also an uncomfortable fact (for Adventists) that Deuteronomy affirms that this covenant was made with the Hebrews… at horeb, and explicitly says it was not made with their fathers.

I have not seen any credible biblical argument that the Ten Commandments, as recorded in Exodus 20, are an exact transcript of God’s eternal law. The fact that there are two versions of them in the bible, with different details but the same essentials shows that they are expressions of the same, deeper reality… not a word for word contract.

That said… what about the sabbath? Catholics accept the Ten Commandments are moral law. What is moral about the sabbath? What is shadow? What passed away withe the Old Covenant… what is binding under the new Law of Love that the NT says is written on the tables of our heart?

What is moral about the sabbath, and what is shadow?

Adventists teach that during the end times, the sabbath will become a matter of salvation. (some teach that it already is, but I’m trying to be charitable). Adventists cannot agree on exactly “how” to keep the sabbath. Some go out to eat, some won’t. Some warm food up… some don’t. Some will cook simple foods, some will only re heat. Some will go to the grocery store for necessities, some won’t.
All they can agree on is that whatever you do to keep “sabbath” holy, is that mostly, it involves going to church and even more importantly, that it has to happen on Saturday. Sunday will not do. To keep Sunday is to disobey God. “knowingly” keeping Sunday instead of Saturday if you have been given the “light” on the sabbath, will cost you your salvation.

Problem is, Saturday is an arbitrary, human designation. As such, Catholics do not see a moral precept that rest must be on Saturday. Saturday is not natural, and in actuality, you can’t even be sure what day you designate as Saturday, is in fact the biblical sabbath.

Adventists will argue the Jews have never lost sabbath… that is not quite correct. For most of the planet west of Jerusalem, that our “saturday” is congruent with the NT sabbath is fairly certain. East of Jerusalem to the international dateline, that is more tricky. In the polar regions where you may go days without a sunset… trickier still. And we now have the technology to live in space, where there is no sunrise/sunset at all. Even the Jewish scholars disagree on exactly how to keep the biblical sabbath on the International space station, or in the arctic where there is no sunrise/sundown some times during the year. There are rabbis that argue, that because of the international dateline ( a totally man made, imaginary line), Jews living EAST of Jerusalem and WEST of the dateline should not keep sabbath before it begins in Jerusalem, even if that means they keep sabbath on the day recognized by civil government as Sunday. Adventists follow the dateline, not the beginning of the sabbath in Jerusalem (which is biblical? who has the authority to say?)

The 10 commandments are binding as an expression of Natural, moral law. The old covenant and its shadows have been fulfilled. There is nothing natural about keeping “saturday” over any other day of the week. It doesn’t exist in nature. There is a moral precept in having time set aside for regular rest. (If you actually read the commandment, worship and assembly are not in there)

There is nothing morally superior about Saturday over Sunday for rest.

Adventists will argue that there is nothing natural about a 7 day week, and therefore, it only exists because of the sabbath, a Proof. Again… that is not correct. That is putting the cart before the horse. The natural origin of the week is apparent to anyone who has watched a mother cut up fruit or a sandwich for her child. You cut it in half… if the pieces aren’t quite small enough, you cut it in half again. The lunar cycle is 28 days… a little too much for humans to order their lives around… half of that is 14… still a bit too much… half again is 7. And there is the week, a perfectly natural, logical division of the lunar month. What mother wastes time cutting an apple into fifths?

Within the cycle though, no day stands out as having any quality different from another.

Even in the commandment, the word seventh is not the name of a particular day, but an ordinal number… as in the third planet, the fourth apple, or the seventh day. If you mix up a plate of apples and recount them, a different one might be the “seventh” one each time you order them.

(cont. Next post…)

 

[MarysRoses]

(cont. from previous post)

The church recognizes this moral precept of setting aside regular time for rest, and also the NT precept of not neglecting to assemble ourselves together… and applies these to the first day of the week… Sunday. The day of the resurrection. The first day, which is also the Eighth… which cannot be found in the natural weekly cycle. It stands outside time. God’s rest stands outside time… Eternity. The Jewish people looked at sabbath and remembered creation .(Exodus 20:8). Christians look at Sunday and remember the NEW creation. (2 Cor 5:17) The Jewish people looked at sabbath and remembered their deliverance from slavery in Egypt. (Deut. 5:15) Christians look at Sunday and remember their deliverance from slavery to the law. (Romans 8:2) The Jewish people looked at sabbath and carefully guarded its edges, looking forward to entering into God’s eternal rest. Christians experience Sunday as a joyful feast, a weekly Easter, a celebration of their rest in Christ, who is the fulfillment of the old covenant sabbath, and in whom Christians find their sabbath, their rest. (Hebrews 4:10)

One of the old covenant shadows, was the offering of the first fruits. Jesus is referred to in the New Testament, as the first fruits of those who are raised from the dead. On what day was the offering of the first fruits made? (Leviticus 23:39) The Eighth day!

Jesus is our sabbath rest.

Sunday is the feast of the Church, a celebration of what Jesus has done for us. Sunday is not the sabbath on another day.
There is no explicit biblical command for Christians to worship on Sunday, this is not a matter of old covenant law. It fulfills the moral precept of regular rest and worship, “keeping” the commandment, as Christians should keep the commandments. As moral law. In spirit and truth, not in letter and shadows.

Adventists love to trot out statements that the Church “changed” the sabbath to Sunday. You can find them. They summarize the externals (The day of the week has changed) without delving into the deeper meanings and history. Adventists take these simple explanations, which were not meant to be in depth theological statements, and twist them to their own meanings.

In common English usage, ‘sabbath’ means any day of rest and worship. This is frequently and correctly used in the English language to designate the Sunday rest day as well as the Saturday Sabbath. The Church, did indeed change the day of worship. Christians no longer rest and worship on Saturday, they rest and worship on Sunday. So the Church did indeed “change” the sabbath… as the English word is commonly understood meaning a day of rest. If you look for specific clarification about the status of the biblical sabbath in regards to Sunday, the Church is very clear. Saturday is the biblical sabbath. Sunday is not the sabbath on another day… it is a day distinct from the Jewish sabbath. These documents and explanations are widely available. For Adventists to use these statements to bolster their own assertions without taking into account context and language… is in fact academic dishonesty.

A Catholic understands “Church” to mean the one Church, which has existed from the day of Pentecost. The authority which is referred to in the statements… is the authority Jesus gave his Apostles to teach and establish His Church. Not something that came along long after the apostles. This is indeed “the Church” and the Church did change the day of assembly. These statements were not made with an idea in mind that the “church” came about hundreds of years after Jesus. They are not statements verifying that the day of worship was changed hundreds of years after Jesus. Yet adventists will tack them on after asserting that Sunday became the day of worship under Constantine in the fourth century… as if they confirm their statements. This is another form of academic dishonesty. Catholic statements have to be understood with Catholic definitions of the terms… not Adventist definitions. This is simple fairness.

Adventists claim that Catholics keep Sunday as an act of rebellion against God’s law. Sunday came about not as an act of rebellion against God, but of recognizing the need for Christians to express their new reality and what Jesus has done for us. This was done in the freedom that Jesus paid for with his life, by the apostolic authority which Jesus gave his fledgling church, to teach in His name.

MarysRoses