Seventh Day Adventist

[amun]

The New Covenant includes the authority of the Church, and it was the Church which naturally and organically chose Sunday (the day on which the Lord rose) as the day when Christians would rest and worship exclusively together.

Okay then. So finally you’re admitting, consistent with your church leaders, that the sanctity was transferred from Saturday to Sunday by the authority that God gave the church. You could have just said this from the beginning instead of trying to act like there was some Biblical precedent for the keeping of Sunday. It’s a catholic institution – not a biblical one.

Saturday was a day for work. Saturday was spent in the synagogue with non-Christian Jews, evangelizing them and trying to win them to Christ. Read the Acts of the Apostles and you will see this. Christians worshipped together unto themselves on Sunday (see Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2).

The Sabbath is to be spent evangelizing and preaching the Word, what are you talking about? Jesus already gave us that example – and he told s that he was Lord of the Sabbath. He showed us how to keep it by helping others on that day. That is not working in the same way as secular industry (which the 4th commandment tells us about).

And how does the mere fact that Christians came together on Sunday mean anything as far as a transfer of sanctity? They also came together on other days of the week.
In Acts we are told just exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting:

“And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. – Acts 13:32-34

We see here that even the Gentiles who were converted were worshipping together on the Sabbath along with the Jews who had been won over to Christ. Why didn’t the Gentiles ask to be preached to on another day of the week, or even Sunday (the first day)? Because they already REGARDED the Sabbath day – the Sabbath that has never been abrogated.

Your church admits that there isn’t a single command to worship on Sunday. So why are you still trying to find some scriptural basis? It’s simply not there. The early Christians were still keeping the Sabbath.

Right. But, it is not applicable to Christians (1 Cor. 9:20). This is what you do not appreciate.

Sorry, but 1 Corinthians 9:20 is not talking about the Ten Commandments at all – your faulty application notwithstanding. Paul is merely saying that he is meeting people at their level in order to win them to Christ. For instance, the Jews were still keep keeping all of the old rites and ceremonies that had been done away with at the cross, and rather than outright condemning them, he would mingle with them and even engaged in some legalistic purification ceremonies (Acts 21:26).

You are routinely using one or two isolated verses at exclusion of the myriads of other verses which support a very clear understanding that the law is indeed applicable to Christians.

Paul tells us that if it weren’t for the law he would not have known sin.

…continued

 

[amun]

A foolish statement. You refuse to face reality. Sin is not defined by the Law. Sin is an offense against the PERSON of God. Sin existed BEFORE there was the Law. In 1 John 3, John says that Satan was a sinner “from the beginning” - that is, BEFORE the Law existed.

1. We’ve already established via scripture that sin IS defined by the law – You even had to admit that it does, at least “partially”. Again, Paul even tells us that he would not have known sin without the law – so how can you?
2. The law has always been an institution of heaven. The Sabbath in particular was instituted at Creation. The law was merely posted on stone in Exodus, but it existed before and was passed down by word of mouth from generation to generation. We can even see from Scripture that the children of Israel were already keeping the Sabbath before they got to Sinai (Exodus 16— consistent with Genesis 1, where God himself rested on the 7th day which he hallowed after the creation of the world). Abraham also kept the commandments/law of God (Genesis 26:5). Adam and Eve disobeyed the rule that God had made to NOT eat of the forbidden fruit – because they violated this law, they were cast out of the Garden. If there is no law, there is no charge. Period.

What does a “sinner” mean? It means a law-breaker.

Not according to Col 2:16-18. Again, Christians do not celebrate the old creation, but the New Creation.

That’s obviously referring to Sabbath rest days (notice the plural) included in the ceremonial law of Moses. That is not referring to the weekly Sabbath cycle instituted at creation and still observed in apostolic times.

This is why they celebrate on Sunday - the day on which the Lord rose and established the New Creation.

No. That’s simply an unbiblical institution directly from the supposed authority of the Catholic Church. There is no “new creation” that opens to doors for law-breaking.

So what?! In modern Italian and Greek and other Mediterranean languages, the word for Saturday is STILL “sabato” - that is, “the sabbath.”

You are absolutely correct. All Hispanics refer to Saturday as “sabado”. It still means the Sabbath. I’m not sure how this bolsters your position in ANY respect.

Of course we admit to that. But, we did it back in Apostolic times, amun. I hate to break it to you, but the Church of Acts 20:7 is the Catholic Church.

But it didn’t happen in apostolic times referenced in scripture. The Catholic Church did not even start developing until 300 years after Christ. The claim that the Catholic Church was started with Peter as the first pope is a completely unbiblical ruse perpetuated by the catholic church to afford themselves an unfounded originality. But this is completely besides the point, and this should not interfere with the critical issues in our discussion.

We are not bound by obedience to the Law. We are bound by obedience to Christ, Whose righteousness surpasses the Law. I hope some day you will recognize this fact.

You can’t obey something that isn’t defined. Christ kept the law. Yes, His righteousness surpasses the law, but it does not NEGATE it. I hope some day YOU will recognize this fact. You keep going in circles with your own logic while contradicting yourself numerous times.

NO! Again, you don’t get it. We do not obey The Law. We go beyond what the Law asks of us, and we obey the loving and righteous example of JESUS CHRIST!

Yes, we DO go BEYOND what the law asks of us. However, if we are going to use Christ as our righteousness and example we will do as HE DID (you just got done saying that He is our example) OBEY the law that He kept. If you LOVE Him you will KEEP his COMMANDMENTS. You can’t get around this….you have nothing to offer but an endless stream of smoke and mirrors.

And what “law” did Satan break? 1 John 3 says that he was a sinner “from the beginning.” Again, sin is a PERSONAL offense against God. This is its primacy context and meaning. It is only a violation of law AFTER this.

He violated one of the most fundamental principles of the law. He broke the first commandment “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me”:

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” – Isaiah 14:12-14.

…continued.

 

[rstrats]

FCEGM,

re: “Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:2 show us that the Christians met together for worship on Sunday. This shows that the day was a holy day for them.

As has been mentioned earlier, there are only 2 verses - John 20:19 and Acts 20:7 - that has the disciples getting together on the first of the week, and neither verse says that it was for the purpose of worship. There is no further scripture that has anyone ever getting together again on the first of the week.

As for 1 Corinthians 16:2, there is nothing in the verse that indicates that.that NT Christians observed the first day of the week for their day of rest and worship. The text merely says that everyone should “lay by him in store” on the first day of the week. The New Swedish and Norwegian Bibles read: “At home by himself.” The Wemouth reads: “Let each of you put on one side and store up at his home”. Ballantine’s Translation reads: “Let each of you lay up at home”. The Syriac, on this passage reads: “Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home”. And the New Catholic Edition of the Bible reads: “…let each one of you put aside at home and lay up whatever he has a mind to”. This verse says nothing about going to church on Sunday or even assembling together on Sunday.

re: “Likewise, this day is referred to in Rev 1:10 as ‘the Lord’s Day’…”

Revelation 1:10 does not say that the first day of the week is “the Lord’s Day”.

 

[amun]

Sure it is. But, if we have Christ, we don’t need that “indication” any more. This is what you fail to appreciate. Christ automatically shows us what is righteous and not righteous.

Yes we do, because if we didn’t have the law we wouldn’t be able to know what we are doing wrong and right (Romans 7:7). The conscience is given to those who do not have the law and the law is the guideline for those who KNOW (Romans 2:14-15, Acts 17:30).

Christ’s righteousness INCLUDED the fact that he kept the law. Are you going to return to your idea that Christ’s example means nothing because he was under the old covenant?

“And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail”—Luke 16:17

Do you wish to say that the day on which He rose is not sanctified by His resurrection??!!

That’s right – do you wish to say it does, and if so, by what warrant? Now do you have one text to show me otherwise? Of course you don’t. That’s what all your catholic prelates will admit to.

Christ “rested” on Saturday in death, and then rose again on Sunday to initiate the New and eternal Creation.

It’s called, EIESEGISIS. I might as well say that he sanctified Tuesday, according to your logic. When you’re cornered, you’ll admit that the CC changed the day, but then you still want to try to act as though there is some warrant from scripture to keep Sunday. These tactics are not working for you at all. In fact, your arguments are steadily falling short of not only scripture, but pure logic.

Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:2 show us that the Christians met together for worship on Sunday. This shows that the day was a holy day for them.

Nonsense! How does them coming together to break bread mean that they regarded it as a holy day? They met together EVERY DAY: “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,”—Matthew 2:46.
This must show that every day was a holy day for them! I can’t help but notice how far you’re willing to stretch passages.
So pretty much what you’re saying is that it doesn’t matter what I quote from scripture, you’ll read what you want to read in scripture – even though you have absolutely no good reason to pick Sunday out of all the rest of the days. Again, it would be more to your advantage to just go back to the argument that your church leaders use – flat out admitting that there are no grounds for Sunday sacredness in scripture but that they were given some kind of authority to change it.

Likewise, this day is referred to in Rev 1:10 as 'the Lord’s Day" - term that we find in many other examples of late 1st and early 2nd Century Christian literature, and it always refers to Sunday. For example, in A.D. 107, St. Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of both Peter and John) writes:

“Those who lived according to the old older of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord’s Day in which our life is blessed by Him …” - To the Magnesians 9:1.

Likewise, in c. A.D. 155, St. Justin Martyr writes:

We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day, Jesus Christ our Lord rose from the dead." - Apologia 67

Sorry, but what you’re quoting me here has nothing to do with the canon of scripture and is therefore irrelevant to our discussion. We are told “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”—Mathew 15: 9.
The “Lord’s day” does not have anything to do with Sunday, contrary to your unbiblical beliefs on the matter.

This was the understanding and custom of the early Church, amun. Where do you get your understanding from, and how far back can you trace it?

Yes, I’m very familiar that these are customs which can be traced back to your church. My understanding is based directly off of scripture, and it can be traced back to creation (Genesis 1).

…continued

 

[amun]

Summary:

1. You have consistently failed to provide any scriptural evidence to corroborate your idea that sin is not a breaking of the law. However, since it’s impossible to wiggle out of some of the verses which unequivocally define what sinning is, you then altered your original position by saying that sin does INCLUDE breaking of a law, while inserting that it’s not the main definition. However, even if it partially has to do with breaking of a law your position falls nothing short of problematic – because you can’t have it both ways, there is either no law that we are accountable to, or there is. Also, the other verses you gave which purportedly show that sin * primarily* means something other than the breaking of law did no such thing and do not obviate the other definition already given.

2. You use Romans 2:12 in order to bolster your idea that sin does not necessarily mean the breaking of a law, by saying that it can exist apart from the law:
“For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”

However, you conveniently wish to overlook the fact that it’s simply saying that those who have gone against the law contained in their conscience will perish according to the fact that they broke that law. In other words, even though they may sin (break the actual law) without knowing it, they will only be judged according to their consciences and what they knew or didn’t know.

Paul then ILLUMINATES this understanding by telling us: “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another” –Romans 2:14

Since scripture already tells us that sin is a transgression of law (1st John 3:4), you can’t all of a sudden try to throw that out and say that sin has a different definition. That would be called SELECTIVE pick & choose reading.

But even more damaging to your position is the fact that the verse you quoted tells you that if you sin (break the law) after knowing the law, that you will be JUDGED according to the law. Then it goes on to say that it isn’t the HEARERS of the law that will be justified, but that the DOERS of the law SHALL BE JUSTIFIED. This is also not talking about Jews either, look at the context.

3. Since you don’t believe in a law, you are left without a barometer for distinguishing right from wrong. You then tell me that such an example and measurement of righteousness is found in the PERSON of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, when I mentioned that Jesus’ example included the keeping of the law in a non-legalistic way you then resorted to claiming that Jesus was under the old covenant, and proceeded to dismiss it as inapplicable. Since then, you have failed to provide me with any other substantial way for a Christian to know what is doing wrong and what is doing right – since there is no law to point out our sin. Since then, you have contradicted yourself numerous times by pointing out references to Jesus as being our example and not the law.

4. The reason why your position has routinely met scriptural contradiction is because you do not understand that there is a clear difference in scripture between the moral Decalogue (The ten commandments) and the mosaic law of ordinances (law of moses) which is no longer binding. That law of ceremonies and rites was DONE AWAY with at the cross (If you keep those, you are “judaizing”). They were a shadow of things to come (Collossians 2:17). The difference between the old and new covenant is that the law is now to be written in our hearts – we automatically obey the law when we are prompted by love that acts through faith. And we are not justified by the keeping of the law alone. But our obedience to the law (which points out sin) will be an indication of our faith. Paul even tells us that if it weren’t for the law he would not have known sin! “What shall we say then? is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”—Romans 7:7.

In order to disparage the Sabbath you claim that the punishments enacted on those who broke it back then would ALSO HAVE to be applicable. Such a suggestion is completely absurd. Why? You may recall that Achan was put to death for stealing a babylonish garment and lying about it. He was stoned to death for it. Does that mean that it’s okay to steal now then because we won’t be stoned to death? There was simply a change in the METHODS carried out. The wages of sin (breaking of the law) is STILL death.

 

[SDA2RC]

So where in that verse does it say that the sabbath was given specifically to the jewish people? .

Its not in one verse Amun… it is in the entire Bible… there is NO WHERE in the Bible where the Sabbath is commanded to be kept to anyone other than the Jews. However, it is said to be a sign between God and the Jews…

Would God count as one of the Jewish people?.

LOL… um God is not observing a weekly Sabbath in Gen 2, there is no mention of a weekly Sabbath being instituted or anyone commanded to keep the Sabbath until the Exodus.

Isn’t it also interesting how in Exodus 20 God tells us to REMEMBER the sabbath ?.

Not really… I tell my son every Thursday to REMEBER to take the trash out… because I want him to remember it in the future, not the past. The Sabbath did point to creation and it did point to Egypt too… just as the Passover pointed to something in the past… but we dont keep passover either.

I find it surprising that you would attempt to throw out a whole host of spokespersons for catholic doctrine as completely irrelevant to what your church teaches. Are you saying that everyone I quoted, including cardinals and bishops, are all part of some fringe that have nothing to do with the teachings of the church?

LOL… Amun, I dont know all the poeple you quoted, so I dont know if they are part of a fringe… however, yes… there are priests, bishops, and cardinals that some times teach things that are at odds with what the Church teaches. The point is that I could care less what they say on the Subject… they are not authoratative. I never said they were irrelevant or wrong… I am not sure why you claim that I did? They are simply not spokesmen for the entire church. For their dioceses’ they would be if they meant their communications to be taken that way.

I

also can’t help but notice a very blatant double-standard when you disregard a whole train of catholic scholars in order to not have to address what they implicate; but I see that you are very willing to invoke some commentary from bacchiocchi in order to supposedly bolster your position on the waldenses – although he does not represent official documented church theology.?

Funny you should mention that… let me see if I can walk you through it… You are quoting people and saying in essence, this is what the Catholic Church says. When in fact, these folks are not the Catholic Church, just people like you and me.

I on the other hand point to Bacchiocci as a source not as an official spokes person for the Adventist Church, but simply as a learned theologian in your own denomination. Now… if I said… well… The SDA Church says this “XYZ” then quoted Bacchiocci… well then you would have a case… because then I would be using him as you are trying to use non-authoritative folks in our church. I am afraid it is you that is using the double standard.

*Peter Geirmann, **The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine. ***

Dont know who this is? Sorry… means nothing to me… ditto to the rest of your quotes… I find it funny that poeple like yourself, can not quote from actual church documents and official teachings, you have to quote (mainly) from obscure people, who lived quite some time ago, and who no one can check their sources, because the books are usually not even around any more. Which generally often means that you have no clue what the context was either, and are just quoting something from SDA literature or the web… rather than finding out what the Church actually teaches from a source that has authority and can be checked. Its too bad that your case is that weak.

Are you trying to say that the Catholic church would allow all of these unofficial (fringe?) scholars to REPRESENT the church teachings in all of their major publications and documentation, including the catholic encyclopedia? Why would the church allow so many falsehoods to remain uncorrected?

Yep… that’s what I am saying… LOL Any falsehoods are not uncorrected, the true teaching of the Church is spelled out in the official documents. It is usually only uninformed folks who claim that these people are REPRESENTing the entire church.

Again, if you actually read all of the quotes I gave you before, you will notice that many of the quotes are from cardinals, bishops and all sorts of influential people in the church.

Um… again… So? I could give you quotes from Desmond Ford while he was Chair of the Pacific Union Religion Department… that certainly does not mean that it is the official teaching of the Church. I could also give you quotes from other SDA Church leaders if you want, that do not represent the official doctrines of the Church. But why waste my time? I would rather discuss truth, not manufacture it with non-authoritative statements.

 

[SDA2RC]

I would actually liked to apologize for saying what I did. My satire was taken too far and gave the impression that I was trying to ridicule you.

However, I am very surprised at some of the arguments you are using.

No apology needed, I thought it was kind of funny… I enjoy sarcasm too… as you can see in my response.

I would be happy to discuss any of the arguments that you are suprised by.

 

[SDA2RC]

Lysimachus said: There is no command in the New Testament NOT to observe the Jewish Sabbath either.
**True… this is why I have never said there was. You, on the other hand, are trying to tell us that there is a command to observe the Sabbath for Christians. **
Lysimachus Said: The last command in the New Testament came from Christ to pray that our flight not be on the Sabbath. This is a form of observance.
Um… he didn’t tell us that, he told the Jews who were in Jerusalem that. The prophecy of Matt 24 had its primary fulfillment in AD70… during this time the gates to the City were locked on the Sabbath, making it difficult to flee. Why else would it matter if we fled on the Sabbath. Are you saying that the Sabbath forbid fleeing for your life on that day?
Lysimachus said: Also why need we repeat anymore all that which was spoken in the Old Testament? I guess you require a lot more repitition than what the scriptures give. Just because there is no specific command that Christians are to observe the Sabbath in the New Testament means we are not to keep it? I beg you pardon, but this reasoning doesn’t make any sense.
**I don’t need any repetition Lysimachus, one single verse commanding CHRISTIANS to keep the Sabbath… would do fine. However, this you can not provide, because as you know… it doesn’t exist. We do not throw away the Old Testament, but Christ did do away with the Old Covenant, which contained the Sabbath. The Sabbath was never renewed as part of the New Covenant, therefore we don’t observe it. Christ abolished it… not us! **
Lysimachus Said: I guess you can try and read what you want into scripture, but that doesn’t change the overall context of God’s 4th Commandment for all of humanity.
**Um… I didn’t read anything into scripture… the Apostles preaching to the Jews when they were gathered together not working, does not equate to observing a Sabbath Rest. If you equate the two, then it is you who is reading into the text. **
Lysimachus Said: Don’t forget, your Catholic fathers claim to have changed the “Sabbath” from “Saturday” to “Sunday”.
LOL… no the quotes say that the CHURCH transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday… The Church, not the Catholic Fathers. The apostles were part of the Church!

Lysimachus Said: There is no scriptural command anywhere that Sunday is to be observed.
Yea… but we don’t believe there has to be one… so, your point is?
Lysimachus Said I suppose you observe every day SDA2RC? If so, then what was transferred?
Some of the ceremonial observances
Lysimachus: And no matter how many times you will never find a command to “observe” in the New Testament (which it does), it never once mentions that it was “no longer to be observed” since the last time it was commanded.
Um… actually… the Bible does talk about doing away with the Old Covenant… Do you want me to provide verses about the Old Covenant now? I assumed you knew them.

 

[SDA2RC]

Amun,
In one of your posts, you state that SDA’s believe in Salvation by faith not works or the Law. I have to ask you… what do you believe is the Seal Of God that those in the end times have?

In all my years as an Adventist, this has been taught as being Sabbath observance, not faith. Yet, without the seal, those at the end of time, according to Adventist Doctrine, cannot be saved. i.e. without sabbath keeping, you can not be saved.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

 

[SDA2RC]

This is just red herring. How does this mean anything at all? We’re talking about the Bible and what it has to say. Also, my salvation is not tethered to any organization, not even the seventh-day Adventist church.

…continued.

Amun,
Actually… it is quote the opposite… whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in Heaven. Further, the Church is the Body of Christ, you must be united with the Church, either perfectly or imperfectly. Christ established a Church on earth to lead us and to gaurd us against false doctrine, to say that this organization is irrelevant to your salvation is awfully arrogant in my opinion.

 

[SDA2RC]

Revelation 1:10 does not say that the first day of the week is “the Lord’s Day”.

RsTrats,
Contemporary Christians writings tell us that the term “Lord’s Day” referred to Sunday. This term is used from the time of the Bible forward to refer to Sunday. It is NEVER used to refer to Saturday in any Christians writings.

If you want to know what something means, then you look at what it meant when it was written.

 

[SDA2RC]

Amun,
Francis is right, the law is not bigger than the Law Giver, and if the Law Giver is in our hearts, as scripture promises, then why would we rely on something inferior?

The Logos is Christ, not the Bible. Your faith is based on scripture, ours is basedon Christ, the true Word of God. This does not detract from scripture, but rather lifts it into an experience rather than a set of rules. Christ came so that we could experience God, not learn through a book.

Christ commanded the Church to make disciples of all nations, not to hand them a book and tell them to read it and do whatever they believe it said… unfortuntaely, this is what we see in protestantism, and why there are sooo many splinters.

Christ commanded the Church to teach and commanded the people to submit to her teachings. This is what the reformers and by extension you, have refused to do, and where you fall into error. You view scripture as the end all be all… but it is only part of the story. The Church is the living breathing body of Christ, and it is through this body that we view God and scripture. The Church and scripture have one single source, they are not at odds.

After watching all of these discussions, it seems to me that where our real difference lie is in the doctrine and understanding of the Church, the body of Christ. For us it is not an academic pursuit through scripture, but a daily experience in the Mystery of Christ.

It was the doctrine of the Church that was the clincher for me, in my study of Catholicism, and I can see many of the same errors in your understanding of the Church that I had.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I also would add the saying of the second Pope (Isaac the Syrian?) when the was thrown into the lions in the Colisseum. He also used de words Catholic Church as Jesus Church. Being Catholic is to know history.

Not in this case. Those Syrians who have been popes came along in the 8th century. STM you’re confusing Isaac of Nineveh with Ignatius of Antioch. Both of whom are Saints, neither of whom was ever bishop of Rome; though Ignatius was martyred there as described.​

Having myths about the Emperor Constantine as Pope is bad enough…

 

[amun]

SDA2RC,

Its not in one verse Amun… it is in the entire Bible… there is NO WHERE in the Bible where the Sabbath is commanded to be kept to anyone other than the Jews. However, it is said to be a sign between God and the Jews…

Leaving aside for the moment that you are actually mistaken on this specific point, I find it rather interesting that you would choose to single out ONLY the Sabbath in that regard. Where in the Bible does it say not to kill or commit adultery or not to covet without coincidentally being within the context of addressing the Jewish people? You do realize that the Jewish people were God’s people at the time when the law was posted, right? So why WOULDN’T the Sabbath be a sign of faithfulness? Let’s not confuse this with the fictitious idea that it must only mean an exclusive a sign between the Jewish people and God.

“And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:”—Mark 2:27.
He didn’t say “The Sabbath was made for the children of Israel, and not them for the Sabbath”

Now let’s look at the Sabbath in a broader context: “ Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”—Ecclesiastes 12: 13

He didn’t say: “For this is the whole duty of the children of Israel”.
You’ll also notice that in Exodus 16, the Sabbath is being referred to as something already known…the people already knew before Sinai that they were supposed to be keeping the Sabbath – nowhere before that is there some instance where God specifically gave the Sabbath to the children of Israel. This is why God could say “Remember”, because they were already keeping the Sabbath.

LOL… um God is not observing a weekly Sabbath in Gen 2, there is no mention of a weekly Sabbath being instituted or anyone commanded to keep the Sabbath until the Exodus.

Ah I see! So that’s why in Exodus 20: 8-11 (the fourth commandment) it says:
“But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Would you like to argue that this also is not referring to an actual weekly Sabbath? Pretty interesting that God would even draw a parallel between his resting on the 7th day (Sabbath) of his creation of the world and include it in the exceptionally obvious commandment asking for a 7th day observance — especially since they supposedly have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

How is it that this is so unmistakable and yet you can someone conjure up your own idea of what this all means?

Not really… I tell my son every Thursday to REMEBER to take the trash out… because I want him to remember it in the future, not the past. The Sabbath did point to creation and it did point to Egypt too… just as the Passover pointed to something in the past… but we dont keep passover either.

But using colloquial speech in order to justify your position is meaningless. The fact is that in the fourth commandment, which talks about Sabbath observation, takes you BACK TO CREATION and CONFIRMS that the Sabbath God sanctified and hallowed is the weekly Sabbath, otherwise it wouldn’t have even made the reference. Do you just really try extra hard to ignore something that is as plain as day?

LOL… Amun, I dont know all the poeple you quoted, so I dont know if they are part of a fringe… however, yes… there are priests, bishops, and cardinals that some times teach things that are at odds with what the Church teaches. The point is that I could care less what they say on the Subject… they are not authoratative. I never said they were irrelevant or wrong… I am not sure why you claim that I did? They are simply not spokesmen for the entire church. For their dioceses’ they would be if they meant their communications to be taken that way.

Do you believe the Pope is authoritative? Like, if the pope were to say something, do you believe that what he says represents what the catholic church believes and what you believe?

Yep… that’s what I am saying… LOL Any falsehoods are not uncorrected, the true teaching of the Church is spelled out in the official documents. It is usually only uninformed folks who claim that these people are REPRESENTing the entire church.

What you’re saying then is that even official catholic literature which is supposed to be reaching out to people and telling them the “truth” is being run by people who don’t know what they are talking about.

…continued

 

[amun]

Amun,
In one of your posts, you state that SDA’s believe in Salvation by faith not works or the Law. I have to ask you… what do you believe is the Seal Of God that those in the end times have?

In all my years as an Adventist, this has been taught as being Sabbath observance, not faith. Yet, without the seal, those at the end of time, according to Adventist Doctrine, cannot be saved. i.e. without sabbath keeping, you can not be saved.

Do you agree or disagree with this?

But since you were a former SDA you would already know that the keeping of the Sabbath will be an indication of genuine faith – a sign. Faith produces results, it is not dead. When you have a true living experience with Christ you WILL obey his commandments and do what he wants you to do – not so you can be saved by keeping them, but because you ARE having a relationship with Him.

The Sabbath will be the seal because it will distinguish those who are standing firm to principle and choosing to observe the day that God instituted rather than the day instituted by the entity who will “speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws.”

Amun,
Actually… it is quote the opposite… whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in Heaven. Further, the Church is the Body of Christ, you must be united with the Church, either perfectly or imperfectly. Christ established a Church on earth to lead us and to gaurd us against false doctrine, to say that this organization is irrelevant to your salvation is awfully arrogant in my opinion.

The problem is that you’re confusing the “church” (merely meaning god’s faithful commandment keeping people) with an organization structure that’s centered on a building. My salvation has nothing to do with the Seventh - day Adventist church. Most Adventists aren’t even following what they know to be right. “God’s church” is relative to whoever is truly obeying him – God is no respecter of persons. What’s important is that we have a living relationship with him.

Contemporary Christians writings tell us that the term “Lord’s Day” referred to Sunday. This term is used from the time of the Bible forward to refer to Sunday. It is NEVER used to refer to Saturday in any Christians writings.

If you want to know what something means, then you look at what it meant when it was written.

Since when do contemporary Christian writings and tradition mean MORE than what has been laid out in Scripture? So if I write something for long enough it will eventually become truth? I don’t understand why you would even say such a thing. Why can’t you just admit that there’s no precedent in the Bible for Sunday sanctity and worship, not even in apostolic times?

I can understand why most catholic leaders have just relied on the “authority” of the church to change the Sabbath, because it’s the only thing they can say without looking absolutely dishonest.

Amun,
Francis is right, the law is not bigger than the Law Giver, and if the Law Giver is in our hearts, as scripture promises, then why would we rely on something inferior?

So if it’s in your heart, why not keep it out of love? Why try to throw out the whole law? A law that scripture tells us is “just and good”? (“Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good”.–Romans 7:12)

God’s law is written so that people can KNOW good from evil and what the indications of their faith will include. A man cannot be judged for not knowing something or for “sinning” unless they have BROKEN a commandment, otherwise there would be no such thing as sinning and nobody would be lost and Christ’s coming would be meaningless because he came to save us from our sins. Paul said that he would not have known sin if it weren’t for the law.

So do you accept now that true Christians will keep the commandments of God out of love and gratitude?

The Logos is Christ, not the Bible. Your faith is based on scripture, ours is basedon Christ, the true Word of God. This does not detract from scripture, but rather lifts it into an experience rather than a set of rules. Christ came so that we could experience God, not learn through a book.

Yeah but it’s unfortunate that in your world Christ’s example is meaningless . Why? Well, because when I told Francis that Christ’s example included him KEEPING the Sabbath (as well as all of the other commandments) she proceeded to tell me that he was still under the old covenant and therefore what I said was “irrelevant”. I mean, why would you want someone who represents an old covenant being an example for the way we are supposed to live in the new covenant?

So since we have no law to help us know right from wrong and since Christ’s example reflects some meaningless old covenant, where do we look to? Where’s my barometer for determining good from evil?

It was the doctrine of the Church that was the clincher for me, in my study of Catholicism, and I can see many of the same errors in your understanding of the Church that I had.

And whether or not a church’s teachings are true has to be tested by scripture. Anybody can arbitrarily say that they are the “chosen ones”, but if it doesn’t add up to Scripture then their words are meaningless. So how about we get to the bottom of what the Bible has to say about the law (the commandments) and the Sabbath.

 

[rstrats]

sDa2RC,

re: “RsTrats, Contemporary Christians writings tell us that the term “Lord’s Day” referred to Sunday.”

FCEGM wrote in post #151 that “…the first [day] is referred to in Rev 1:10 as the “Lord’s Day’”.

I am well aware that there are early extra-Biblical writings that call the first day of the week, the “Lord’s Day”. However, Revelation 1:10 does not call it that contrary to FCEGM’s assertion that it does.

 

[SDA2RC]

sDa2RC,

re: “RsTrats, Contemporary Christians writings tell us that the term “Lord’s Day” referred to Sunday.”

FCEGM wrote in post #151 that “…the first [day] is referred to in Rev 1:10 as the “Lord’s Day’”.

I am well aware that there are early extra-Biblical writings that call the first day of the week, the “Lord’s Day”. However, Revelation 1:10 does not call it that contrary to FCEGM’s assertion that it does.

Well…actually…if that is what the term meant, and it is, then that is what scripture said…

 

[SDA2RC]

SDA2RC,
Leaving aside for the moment that you are actually mistaken on this specific point,

I wait for proof the contrary

I find it rather interesting that you would choose to single out ONLY the Sabbath in that regard.,

Well…since the Sabbath is the topic of discussion, that is what I limited my comments too… seems reasonable to me.

Where in the Bible does it say not to kill or commit adultery or not to covet without coincidentally being within the context of addressing the Jewish people?.,

First, I never said that all the commandments are repeated in the NT, for example, there is no prohibition against creating images in the New Covenant, which is why I dont feel guilty enjoying photography. In addition, no one said that all the details of the New Covenant are contained in the Bible, the Bible is a partial record of early Christianity, God’s Word is much larger than this and includes the Bible but is not limited to the Bible.

BTW… here is one for adultery… There are more if you need them.
Adultery: Hebrews 13:4 - Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

You do realize that the Jewish people were God’s people at the time when the law was posted, right? So why WOULDN’T the Sabbath be a sign of faithfulness? Let’s not confuse this with the fictitious idea that it must only mean an exclusive a sign between the Jewish people and God.

Scripture specifically says that it is a sign between God and Israel, it was only given to Isreal. Your logic would also have us committing sacrifices and visiting a temple, after all these were given to the Jews too…who were God’s people. Just because something is given to the Jews, does not mean it was meant to be done by everyone, or continued to the New Covenant. This is the fallacy of your logic. You pick and choose what portions of the Law you want to apply to all people, and which of Gods Sabbath and institutions you want to continue to keep. God gave more than the weekly Sabbath to the Jews, yet SDA’s do not keep those either. If your conisistent with your logic, you must!

“And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:”—Mark 2:27.
He didn’t say “The Sabbath was made for the children of Israel, and not them for the Sabbath”

Two things… First, God said it was a sign between He and Isreal, and he said that it was for man. Either God lied once, or the “man” he is speaking of is limited to Israel. The latter makes a lot of sense since he DID NOT give it to all men, he only gave this law to Israel Taking this a step further, Christ was talking to the JEWS when he made the above statement. Context… context… context.

as I mentioned in an earlier post, who was the audience, the JEWS… where was he speaking, ISRAEL, who was his mission to? Israel!

If I am preaching in an Adventist Church and I say, I want all men, women, and children to stand with me and sing, Amazing Grace. Do you really think that I expect EVERY man, woman and child in the world to stand and sing with me? Of course not… I expect those in my AUDIENCE to stand. Likewise, when Christ said it was made for man… who was he talking to… THE JEWS. You have to take the context or you continue to twist around scripture. It would be absurd to think that Christ expected every man to observe the Sabbath, but then only tell a small group of Jews, and NEVER even roam out of Israel or tell his Apostles to preach the Sabbath. Further, if you take this literally meaning every man, as your trying to do, then it is also true that women must not have to observe the Sabbath since the Sabbath is for MAN and not Woman.

Now let’s look at the Sabbath in a broader context: “ Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”—Ecclesiastes 12: 13

Ok… well when Eccl. was written, there were 613 laws (Mitzvah) that God had given Israel. If you are claiming that this verse was written for Christian instruction, rather than information, then you are as big of trouble as we are… because Adventists dont observe all of Gods Commandments of the OT either. This verse does not say “ten commandments” therefore its application cannot be limited only to the 10 you believe are still binding.

You’ll also notice that in Exodus 16, the Sabbath is being referred to as something already known…the people already knew before Sinai that they were supposed to be keeping the Sabbath – nowhere before that is there some instance where God specifically gave the Sabbath to the children of Israel. This is why God could say “Remember”, because they were already keeping the Sabbath.

Now who is adding to the Bible? LOL… where does scripture say that they were keeping the Sabbath prior to Exodus 16? Remember is a command referring to the future… i.e. remember to do this. Further, if the Jews already knew it was the Sabbath, then why, in Exodus 16:23, does Moses have to tell them that “tomorow is the sabbath”… wouldnt it be redundant to tell them something they already knew? The evidence of their actions and Moses words indicates that the Sabbath was a new concept for them, otherwise, it would have been clear why God was not giving Manna on the Sabbath and there would have been no need for Moses to have to explain it to them.

 

[SDA2RC]

Would you like to argue that this also is not referring to an actual weekly Sabbath? Pretty interesting that God would even draw a parallel between his resting on the 7th day (Sabbath) of his creation of the world and include it in the exceptionally obvious commandment asking for a 7th day observance — especially since they supposedly have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

See… here you go getting all hung up one one view again, and not thinking out your position… IF the reference in Exodus 20 means that the Sabbath was instituted at Creation… then does the reference in the other narrative of the Ten Commandments to Egypt mean that it was not instituted until Egypt? You have to apply the same standards to both now… dont be inconsistent

I will absolutely argue that the weekly Sabbath did not originate at creation… and scripture is on my side. There is no mention of a weekly Sabbath, or a command for anyone to observe a Sabbath ANYWHERE in Genesis. Further, we know that the “resting” of God was symbolic of Christ’s future rest in the tomb. Christ himself said that God does not rest. Which is another question I have for you… If God cannot sin, and breaking the Sabbath is a sin… Does God rest every week too?

17But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”

But using colloquial speech in order to justify your position is meaningless. The fact is that in the fourth commandment, which talks about Sabbath observation, takes you BACK TO CREATION and CONFIRMS that the Sabbath God sanctified and hallowed is the weekly Sabbath, otherwise it wouldn’t have even made the reference. Do you just really try extra hard to ignore something that is as plain as day?.

Amun.,. Yes… the weekly Sabbath was a memorial of Creation… absolutely. However, your making up stuff out of thin air if your infering that this means that the Sabbath was instituted at creation. It simply was not. Again, if this is your belief, you please be consistent and apply it also to the reference to Egypt… This must mean then that the Sabbath was instituted at Egypt? Your so bent on one idea that you are not applying your logic to all the angles.

God commanded the Israelites to keep the Sabbath because of their slavery…not creation. It was a memorial to creation, but creation was not the purpose of the Sabbath. They had been slaves working for 430 years non-stop. God gave them a day each week to REST and remember that God delivered them from this work. This is not my reason for the Sabbath, this is Gods!

Deut 5:15 - 'You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.

Read that again… your were slaves and God delivered you…THEREFORE he commanded you to observe the Sabbath. The Exodus 20 narrative does not say WHY God gave the Sabbath, just tells us that it was a memorial of Creation… however, Duet 5 DOES tell us why… because God was giving them a day a week to not have to work, after working for 430 years nonstop!

Right before that, right before giving the Commandments, the narrative of Deut 5 tells us: 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. 4 The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain.

Do you believe the Pope is authoritative? Like, if the pope were to say something, do you believe that what he says represents what the catholic church believes and what you believe? .,

The pope is a person… just like you and I… he is a pastor… and a teacher. He is not perfect or infallible. If the Pope is speaking Ex-Cathedra then he is perfectly authoritative, however this is EXTREMELY rare. If he is speaking day to day, then he is an authority, but his words are pastoral not dogmatic or binding.

What you’re saying then is that even official catholic literature which is supposed to be reaching out to people and telling them the “truth” is being run by people who don’t know what they are talking about.

No…what I am saying is that you seem to have no clue as to what “official” catholic literature is…

A bishop’s letter or a diocese newsletter is not official or authoritative for the Church as a whole. There are hundreds of Catechism’s, you could write one if you wanted… but only ONE is authoritative for the world Church. The sources you quoted are not authoritative. The Catechism found on the USCCB.org site is the official and only official catechism of the Church. It can also be found on the Vatican Website. Church ecumenical councils are authoritative, they can be found on the Vatican Website. The Code of Cannon Law is authoritative… it can be found on the Catholic Website.

What you quoted is like saying that the Clear Word Bible is the official Bible of Adventism because it is sold in her bookstores, called a Bible, and written by a professor in the Church. It wouldnt be accurate, so I wouldnt say it.

It would be like me quoting EGW and saying that everything she says is what the SDA Church says and believes, and represents its official position. Its not true so I wouldnt do it. She is an authority, but her works do not speak for the Church.

 

[amun]

sda2rc,

Well…actually…if that is what the term meant, and it is, then that is what scripture said…

Please tell me what you just said here is not for real as it defies basic comprehension principles. I refuse to believe that your ability to use logic has been hopelessly compromised somewhere along the line.

Well…since the Sabbath is the topic of discussion, that is what I limited my comments too… seems reasonable to me.

But you’re missing the point. The Sabbath is part of the law, the same law that points out sin. If you don’t’ have that law you don’t have sin. You can’t have it both ways. Go read the discussion I had with Francis.

However, you chose to INVOKE the fact that IF scripture DOESN’T mention the Sabbath apart from being in context with the Jewish people that this must mean that it applies ONLY to Jewsh people – when the same could be said for the other commandments which are still applicable. If you choose to dispute this, then you can address the arguments I presented for Francis.

First, I never said that all the commandments are repeated in the NT, for example, there is no prohibition against creating images in the New Covenant, which is why I dont feel guilty enjoying photography. In addition, no one said that all the details of the New Covenant are contained in the Bible, the Bible is a partial record of early Christianity, God’s Word is much larger than this and includes the Bible but is not limited to the Bible.

They don’t have to all be repeated in the NT in order to be extant – THAT is what you are conveniently failing to recognize.

BTW… here is one for Adultery: Hebrews 13:4 - Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

And how is this out of context with the Jewish people? Again, this is only to show you how far you’re willing to take arguments in order to avoid having to acknowledge that it makes sense to keep the law.

Scripture specifically says that it is a sign between God and Israel, it was only given to Isreal. Your logic would also have us committing sacrifices and visiting a temple, after all these were given to the Jews too…who were God’s people. Just because something is given to the Jews, does not mean it was meant to be done by everyone, or continued to the New Covenant. This is the fallacy of your logic. You pick and choose what portions of the Law you want to apply to all people, and which of Gods Sabbath and institutions you want to continue to keep. God gave more than the weekly Sabbath to the Jews, yet SDA’s do not keep those either. If your conisistent with your logic, you must!

This is when I find it hard to believe that you even engaged in a basic bible study on the Sabbath when you were ostensibly an SDA. The Sabbath is merely a part of the law. If you throw out the Sabbath you HAVE to throw out the other 9 commandments as “inapplicable” – but as we’ve established, this can’t be so easily done.

Just as Francis did, you try to muddle the distinction between the moral Decalogue (the ten commandments) and the rites and ceremonies (Law of moses) which were a shadow of things to come. When Christ came those were nailed to the cross – they had come to their fulfillment. They were pointing forward towards Christ and they met their fulfillment. The Sabbath had nothing to do with pointing forward towards Christ’s coming.

This is why YOUR position constantly holds contradiction. You read in one part of scripture “the law was nailed to the cross” and then you read Paul telling you that he would not have known sin if it weren’t for the law (and he specifically mentions “thou shalt not covet” which is part of that Decalogue which you PRETEND has been done away with). And it’s because you don’t understand very simple distinctions that scripture makes.

Christ already said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:17-19.

If you truly believe that the law was only made for the jews then you have a serious problem, because you are saying that Jews can be saved TWO ways and everyone else can only be saved one way.

Two things… First, God said it was a sign between He and Isreal, and he said that it was for man. Either God lied once, or the “man” he is speaking of is limited to Israel. The latter makes a lot of sense since he DID NOT give it to all men, he only gave this law to Israel Taking this a step further, Christ was talking to the JEWS when he made the above statement. Context… context… context.

as I mentioned in an earlier post, who was the audience, the JEWS… where was he speaking, ISRAEL, who was his mission to? Israel!

You’re creating a straw man that has no bearing on scripture nor the Sabbath whatsoever. You are simply CHOOSING to believe (without warrant from any passage) that when God said it was a sign between Him and Israel that he was speaking in terms of making an exclusive rule and this is not the case. It would be like saying that God created all of the ten commandments ONLY for the Jews because they weren’t all spelled out in any other context. If you BELIEVE THIS, then you must address those arguments which deal with the law as a whole.

…continued