sabbath day

[Guest shiloh357]

On 11/4/2016 at 0:20 PM, Remnantrob said:

From the book from Sabbath to Sunday p. 29 by Samuele Bacchiocchi

 

Yes, he is making the argument I was making if you go back and look at my previous remarks about that passage in Mark. 

[brakelite]

That there is a strong perception within the Christian world that the SDA church teaches that by the keeping of the 'law', one can be saved, there can be no doubt.Whether this is because of members ignorant of the truth, or because of poor PR I do not know. Not only do I disagree that we can be justified by keeping the law, but to my understanding of SDA teaching, they do not teach that either.
What I do believe however is this.
I am justified by faith in the shed blood of Jesus. His death paid in full the price I owed God for my sin. His resurrection ensured that I may have hope of eternal life when He returns and I am raised to meet the Lord in the air and so shall I ever be with Him.

In the meantime, I have a battle to fight. It is against the flesh and carnal nature with which I was born. Against 'self'. Christ's death and resurrection however gives me huge advantage in this battle, because God included me in the death of His Son. A wonderful transaction has occurred. His life for mine. His righteousness for my sinfulness. Not only is my name now recorded in the books of heaven, but God has sent me His Holy Spirit that my life in the here and now may be so drastically changed, that it is actually transformed into the very image of the character of my Savior.
This takes time however. Some changes came overnight, (like the drugs and alcohol) but other things have taken somewhat longer. After 40 years a Christian (22 as an SDA) the battle is still being fought. But praise God, He is winning.
This new character, or new birth, is a daily fight. I must daily submit my self to the cross and die. To surrender daily is my only hope of continuing to overcome sin in all it's hideous and myriad forms.
The new character that is being formed within, being the very character of Christ's, is in harmony with the law. How could the character of Christ not be in harmony with a law that He came to obey and make honorable? If whatever character being formed within is not in harmony with God's commandments, then the flesh or carnal nature is gaining ground, and I must once again humble myself, repent,  and allow God to get me back on track. Because if I persist, whether intentionally or through neglect, or perhaps through allowing the love of the things of the world to distract or overcome, in allowing the carnal nature to overcome the work God has done, sooner or later all will be lost. I have ceased to abide in the vine, and will be cast forth as a fruitless branch and be lost. Yet while lawkeeping does not merit salvation, sin, or lawlessness, certainly causes one to lose his salvation.
This is not a works based salvation, all is of faith. I can of myself do nothing. It is all Christ formed within. By His grace, His power, His Spirit. It is not I that lives, but Christ that lives in me. Christ in me, the hope of glory.  I cannot any more keep the 6th or 7th commandment by my own strength than I can the 4th.
But I have not seen, in my years of study and prayer, any reason why the 4th commandment should be excluded from the 10. Regardless of the absence of any specific instruction in the NT to observe the Sabbath, neither is there any specific instruction that the Sabbath has been done away. I repeat what I have said previously, excluding Sabbath keeping from the walk of any Christian life is based purely on subjective reasoning, nothing more. To rest in Christ is to believe and have faith in the work that Christ did, and still is accomplishing of behalf of the Christian. Our salvation is not based solely on being justified, but also sanctified, which is an ongoing life-long process.
It is not the ten commandment law that was nailed to the cross on Calvary.
It was me. The law still lives, in all it's entirety.
Romans 7 shows this. The husband represents the flesh. He died. The law that the wife was bound to because she was bound to her husband, still lives. She is free however from the condemnation of that law, but because she is married to another (Christ) , and He now gives us the grace and power to overcome sin, and walk as He walked, in harmony with the law.
As a child now of the Father, I delight to obey Him. And allow Him to mold me into the person He needs me to be in order to advance His kingdom. and glorify Him.
The question, are SDA's saved? Yes. If they trust in the shed blood of Christ, if they abide in Him, if they repent of sin, if they daily surrender their lives to Him in order that Jesus may be Lord and no other, if they allow the character of Christ to be formed within, and not in their keeping of the law. So does that mean our salvation is conditional on certain things? Absolutely! But law-keeping is not one of them. Our law-keeping is a result or fruit of being saved, even a sign that we are saved, but certainly not the reason we are saved.

[brakelite]

12 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

You have provided no evidence that the Sabbath is an obligation for NT followers of Jesus.

As I have said previously, it is not up to Sabbath keepers to "prove" an obligation which has stood for 4000 years and never once been abrogated. It is for you to show a "thus saith the Lord" as proof of the removal of that obligation.

To be clearer, perhaps I could use the term "obedient". Once it was essential for children of God to be obedient. Just as it was for us to obey our natural parents, how much more for us to obey our spiritual Father in heaven? So just as it was essential for God's children to obey all His commandments, it is incumbent upon you to show why it is no longer essential to obey all of them. The absence of that commandment being repeated is insufficient evidence. Once commanded ought to have been enough. It wasn't for Israel, God had to repeat it several times, even stressing that they should "remember the Sabbath to keep it holy". But how often should God repeat something so obvious? You have said yourself the Sabbath itself has not been done away with, that being the case what do you do with a day that is still holy, sanctified, and sacred?

[Guest shiloh357]

6 hours ago, brakelite said:

As I have said previously, it is not up to Sabbath keepers to "prove" an obligation which has stood for 4000 years and never once been abrogated. It is for you to show a "thus saith the Lord" as proof of the removal of that obligation.

The only people to whom the Sabbath was given as a commandment to follow was Israel.   That command was never given to the church. The dietary commandments were not given to the church, nor the sacrifices.    So it is up to you to demonstrate that the Sabbath was carried over to the church as an obligation.   I can show many commandments that are in the law that Sabbath keepers do not keep.

Quote

To be clearer, perhaps I could use the term "obedient". Once it was essential for children of God to be obedient. Just as it was for us to obey our natural parents, how much more for us to obey our spiritual Father in heaven? So just as it was essential for God's children to obey all His commandments, it is incumbent upon you to show why it is no longer essential to obey all of them. The absence of that commandment being repeated is insufficient evidence. Once commanded ought to have been enough. It wasn't for Israel, God had to repeat it several times, even stressing that they should "remember the Sabbath to keep it holy". But how often should God repeat something so obvious? You have said yourself the Sabbath itself has not been done away with, that being the case what do you do with a day that is still holy, sanctified, and sacred?

God gave Israel 613 commandments of 1o of which are the 10 Commandments.   If you are going to be consistent consistent in your approach, there is more than one Sabbath in the law.  There were seven annual High Sabbaths in conjunction with the seven annual festivals.   And there was also the new moon celebration as well.   

Why are those Sabbaths not observed by the SDA?  Why are those festivals not observed by the SDA?   I mean, those festivals and high Sabbaths were not abrogated either.  

I mean if we want to go by the standards you are erecting to defend some notion that the Sabbath is binding on the church, then let's apply that standard to entire Torah, not just one commandment.   Let' apply that standard to all 613 of God's commandments to Israel and pretend that they are for everyone.   That would create some very incoherent theology.

[brakelite]

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The only people to whom the Sabbath was given as a commandment to follow was Israel.   That command was never given to the church. The dietary commandments were not given to the church, nor the sacrifices.    So it is up to you to demonstrate that the Sabbath was carried over to the church as an obligation.   I can show many commandments that are in the law that Sabbath keepers do not keep.

God gave Israel 613 commandments of 1o of which are the 10 Commandments.   If you are going to be consistent consistent in your approach, there is more than one Sabbath in the law.  There were seven annual High Sabbaths in conjunction with the seven annual festivals.   And there was also the new moon celebration as well.   

Why are those Sabbaths not observed by the SDA?  Why are those festivals not observed by the SDA?   I mean, those festivals and high Sabbaths were not abrogated either.  

I mean if we want to go by the standards you are erecting to defend some notion that the Sabbath is binding on the church, then let's apply that standard to entire Torah, not just one commandment.   Let' apply that standard to all 613 of God's commandments to Israel and pretend that they are for everyone.   That would create some very incoherent theology.

I sense, correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense that you, among many others, believe the Sabbath to be some kind of burden, a yoke if you will, that you are unwilling to bear. If you had to, then perhaps you would consider it. Same as the dietary "requirements". That you view them as "requirements" says a great deal. As if they were bad for Israel, and even worse for the church. That taking a day off work to spend with God was terribly hard for Israel, so "thank God He doesn't want Christians to do it!"  No doubt you see and understand why God would 'impose' restrictions on murder and robbery, that is not only a good thing that Christians aren't killing anyone or stealing from their neighbors, but it's good for society too right? So God's love and care for His people, and even for mankind in general, is recognized in the other 9 commandments, but the Sabbath? Oh no, God commanded  Israel to observe Sabbath because he wanted to be mean. He wanted Israel to be weighed under a burden they couldn't bear. That God gave the Sabbath as a gift for their benefit is unthinkable. And for the church? Never! Heresy!!! Shiloh, it frankly astonishes me that Christians actively seek and search out reasons for not keeping the Sabbath, irregardless of the countless testimonies of Christians throughout all ages of the immense blessings to be received if observed as scripture recommends.

I will tell you why SDAs, as a rule, do not observe the other sabbaths. The sanctuary service of the OT. For what was its purpose? It was the gospel for Israel. Its services, its sacrifices, its laws, the priesthood, the sanctuary itself with all its furniture, from the outer court to the Most Holy Place, every feast day, throughout the religious year, was the gospel. It was God's means by which Israel would find forgiveness, peace, and mercy. It was established for one reason, and one reason only. It was an answer to the problem of sin. All the accompanying laws and requirements were given to Israel because of sin, not to be confused with the Ten Commandments which were to point out sin. The Ten Commandments were not given as a result of sin, but to reveal the righteousness of the Lawgiver. Those ceremonial sabbaths were an integral part of that gospel message. Each particular sabbath a prophecy regarding the coming ministry of the Messiah. And so all but two of those prophecies have been  precisely fulfilled by our Lord and Savior. Passover/Calvary..... Unleavened bread/....Firstfruits/resurrection..... Pentecost/Annointing by Holy Spirit.... Feast of Trumpets/warning of second coming.....Day of Atonement/second advent....feast of tabernacles/celebration in heaven. How Jesus fulfilled those last 3 autumn feasts is another thread, and is uniquely Seventh Day Adventist teaching. Probably not allowed on this forum. Suffice to say, we do not celebrate these sabbaths because Jesus has met every requirement, or is in the process of doing so through His ministry in the heavenly tabernacle.

The weekly Sabbath however is vastly different. Why? Because that Sabbath was never a prophecy of the future ministry of Messiah. It was given to Adam before he sinned. It was never a part of the gospel to Israel, it was never a part of the means by which God used to bring Israel to repentance. The weekly Sabbath was not, never was nor ever intended to be, a remedial activity that was a shadow of things to come, or a portent of the ministry of Christ.

The other laws to Israel all had a specific purpose. Some were civil requirements for a nation under theocratic rule. That cannot be said of the church. Some were specific to the ministry of Christ, and therefore were shadows no longer to be observed as the body has come. Others were specific to Israel's health and well-being. Even you observe those laws because you recognize in them common sense and medical truth. An example, You wash your hands after handling a dead animal. SDAs believe eating healthy is only common sense, and medical truth. If you aren't aware of the advantages of a vegan or vegetarian diet, then you need educating. If you aren't aware of the communities of peoples on the planet who live longer on average, more healthily than most, and are more productive at much older ages than all others, then you haven't been watching. Loma Linda community in California is one such community. Predominantly Adventist. And predominantly the diet of set out in the OT, as close as is possible in this day and age to that given by the Manufacturer to His first creation.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

52 minutes ago, brakelite said:

I sense, correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense that you, among many others, believe the Sabbath to be some kind of burden, a yoke if you will, that you are unwilling to bear. If you had to, then perhaps you would consider it. Same as the dietary "requirements". That you view them as "requirements" says a great deal. As if they were bad for Israel, and even worse for the church. That taking a day off work to spend with God was terribly hard for Israel, so "thank God He doesn't want Christians to do it!"  No doubt you see and understand why God would 'impose' restrictions on murder and robbery, that is not only a good thing that Christians aren't killing anyone or stealing from their neighbors, but it's good for society too right? So God's love and care for His people, and even for mankind in general, is recognized in the other 9 commandments, but the Sabbath? Oh no, God commanded  Israel to observe Sabbath because he wanted to be mean. He wanted Israel to be weighed under a burden they couldn't bear. That God gave the Sabbath as a gift for their benefit is unthinkable. And for the church? Never! Heresy!!! Shiloh, it frankly astonishes me that Christians actively seek and search out reasons for not keeping the Sabbath, irregardless of the countless testimonies of Christians throughout all ages of the immense blessings to be received if observed as scripture recommends.

No, it's like that at all.   We simply don't see commandments that are non-ethical in nature as binding on the church, as those commandments served  as types and shadows of Christ.  

What I see in your responses is a lot of assumptions about what you think is going on in the minds of other people, as if you know what we are thinking and you base your responses upon assumptions and values that you assign to us.   It is pretty obvious that you don't know beans about what other people are thinking, but that isn't going to stop you from drawing up those assumptions, is it?

The Sabbath, the dietary commandments, the festivals, none of that is given to the church as commandments.   The moral/ethical commandments are given to the Church   You simply have provided no evidence that the Church is under the obligation to keep the Sabbath.

Quote

I will tell you why SDAs, as a rule, do not observe the other sabbaths.

I don't really care.   I simply pointed out the inconsistency in how you approach the Scriptures.   I am not interested in your excuses.  The fact that you feel you MUST observe the OT dietary laws pretty much cancels out everything you posted.

Quote

SDAs believe eating healthy is only common sense, and medical truth. If you aren't aware of the advantages of a vegan or vegetarian diet, then you need educating.

I am fully aware of that, but that is not commanded in the Bible either and is simply a matter of conscience.

[GoldenEagle]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 5:15 AM, brakelite said:

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 6:47 AM, shiloh357 said:

The Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament, but is not commanded to the church.

Yes, a total of over 50 times, and in all instances positively. Not once could it be said that it was no longer part and parcel of the Christian walk.

@brakelite & @shiloh357

It is always interesting to me this discussion.

Sabbath day keeping is a non-essential to the faith in Jesus Christ. It is not a non-negotiable. In other words you can still be a follower of Jesus and not adhere to the modern version of the Sabbath.

If people want to keep their own version of the Sabbath (much like the 7th Day Adventists do) as a personal conviction then go for it. Just don't expect it to be treated as a Biblical truth for all Christians.

Much like tithing in the modern sense was never given as a command to the Church. Or the dietary laws for that matter. Yet some people still practice such things today as personal convictions.

The problem is when people try to take a specific command to a specific people such as Israel and translate that command to the Church. It creates a lot of inconsistences.

God bless,

GE

[Remnantrob]

In another thread I see that you mentioned:

Quote

 

If Christ were the termination of the law, then it would be okay to murder, dishonor parents, covet, steal and worship idols.    So Matthew Vines is quite a bit off in his presentation here.    Hebrew 8:13 says the Old Covenant is obsolete; it DOES NOT say that the old law is obsolete.  The Old Covenant refers to the old administration of the law, not the law itself.   The Writer of Hebrews isn't talking about the abrogation of God's laws at all.  Besides, Hebrews was only talking about the laws pertaining to the sacrifices, not the entire law.   His point is that the law is under a new administration.  We still have a sacrifice, blood, and a high priest just like in the OT.   But all of those things are now met in Christ.

 

and

 

Quote

 

The Bible never mentions same sex marriage.  True.  But it doesn't mention child molestation or spousal abuse, either.  Should we assume those things are okay simply because they are not explicitly mentioned?  

The Bible doesn't mention every sin that can be possibly committed.   What it does do is it provides us with a behavioral paradigm with the sins it does mention that we can use to judge as sin, the things it doesn't explicitly mention.

 

Why can't the sabbatarian use the same logic with regards to the issues of whether or not the sabbath is an obligation for the Christian?

[Guest shiloh357]

On 11/12/2016 at 5:51 AM, Remnantrob said:

Why can't the sabbatarian use the same logic with regards to the issues of whether or not the sabbath is an obligation for the Christian?

Because as I said, when it comes to moral sins, the Bible doesn't have to list every sin; rather it provides us with a behavioral paradigm.  The moral sins not listed can be judged in the light of the sins that the Bible does mention.   It's really very simple.  There is no such paradigm provided with regard to the Sabbath for the Christian, because the Sabbath is not a moral commandment.  It has no moral value, and it was only given to Israel.  

[JohnD]

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Because as I said, when it comes to moral sins, the Bible doesn't have to list every sin; rather it provides us with a behavioral paradigm.  The moral sins not listed can be judged in the light of the sins that the Bible does mention.   It's really very simple.  There is no such paradigm provided with regard to the Sabbath for the Christian, because the Sabbath is not a moral commandment.  It has no moral value, and it was only given to Israel.  

Under the old covenant.

Psst, have you heard? There's a new one! Pass it on!