SDAs, USA and the End times.

[Jay Ross]

All of that sounds super religious, even spiritual. And every word is true in the right context. But in the wrong context and being used in a manner that was never intended, (to justify disobedience), those words become profane. Like the strange fire of Nadab and Abihu.

We must remember what Christ said about judging the righteousness of others. This judging of the righteousness of others is also a sin in His eyes and both sides sadly are committing the same sin that they are accusing the others of doing.

 

[Brakelite]

No death penalty upon anyone who worked on the 7th day before the flood

I think a global flood through which all but 8 were destroyed is a death sentence. Noah was a preacher of righteousness... As was Lot, and Jesus, after which judgement fell. There is another judgement coming with Christ's return. The only standard of righteousness given in scripture is God's ten commandment law which Jesus's embodied. That's the standard. We are told in Daniel there would come a power that would seek to change the times and the laws. This the papacy has done, and her daughters have followed suit. It has become increasingly popular in recent times (never taught by the early church or the reformers) to claim Jesus Himself as your Sabbath rest. This He never taught. Yes, He invited all to rest in Him. To place their trust, their faith, in His providence and His care. But He never taught that by doing so the Sabbath day itself would become irrelevant. Neither did the apostles. Or the early church. You do well to reject the authority of the papal power which introduced Sunday into ecclesiastical tradition and demanded it's observance under pain of death. But what you have done and others who believe the same, is set yourself up as the ultimate authority.

You take your doctrine to scripture and use scripture as evidence for its authenticity. This ought not to be so. Take scripture and obey it. Scripture is your creed. Your have written your own creed, and tell us we are heretics and cultists for refusing to bow to your creed. Yes, there is a genuine and dinkum rest to be found in Christ. Having faith in Jesus is resting in Him. But as I've said numerous times before, nowhere does Christ or anyone else teach that such faith replaces the observance of the holy 7th day according to the commandment.
It simply isn't taught. And none of your scriptural quotes in the above posts reveal such a change. They reveal a great in Christ yes. But none of them reveal the "thus sayeth the Lord" which warrants the erasure of the 4th commandment as written.

 

[Brakelite]

We must remember what Christ said about judging the righteousness of others. This judging of the righteousness of others is also a sin in His eyes and both sides sadly are committing the same sin that they are accusing the others of doing.

There is only one measure and one standard of righteousness. Christ and the law which He personified.
“19 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. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. 21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. 25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. 27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. ”
Matthew 5:19-29, 31-32 KJV

Unfeigned Bible

Unfeigned Bible

www.unfeignedbible.app

Such a one who breaks one of the commandments and teaches others to do likewise, is not in the kingdom. He is called least by those in the kingdom. It is the duty of the church to point out such as would teach doctrines contrary to scripture.
"Cry aloud, spare not. Show My people their transgressions, and the house of Jacob her sins."

 

[BarneyFife]

All of that sounds super religious, even spiritual. And every word is true in the right context. But in the wrong context, and being used in a manner that was never intended, (to justify disobedience), those words become profane. Like the strange fire of Nadab and Abihu.

It is wildly ironic to me that folks will tell you that you should feel free to do all the Sabbath-keeping you want, while also objecting furiously that the rest of grace in the new covenant—which has been the desire of God for man to receive all throughout history—is ours ONLY if we believe God altered or abrogated ONLY ONE of His commandments; as if rest is only rest if it is exclusively spiritual.

The most enthusiastic—and I'll go so far as to say expressively rabid in one or two cases—objectors can deny this all they want, but the evidence is here for all to behold.

If I say that God still really means what He says in Exodus 20:8-11, and that a letter to an early church in Colossae didn't overturn the meaning of the 4th commandment, then I am, of (the new theology) necessity, a despiser of God's grace.

And, by every implication, so were my Southern Baptist father, and my father's father, as well.

How utterly imbecilic.

I'm going with the new covenant rather than the new theology.

As you've said, Christ never once even hinted that the rest from the Sabbath of which He is Lord should ever be replaced by His easy yoke and His light burden. These things actually connote a kind of figurative labor, which is completely foreign to the Sabbath day.

The straining of the powers of the mind necessary to divest the Sabbath of its perpetuity is marvelous to witness, indeed.

What I've said here would be perfectly acceptable if it were said to support and promote any one of the other nine commandments. They fit underneath the two great commandments just fine, without the noose from which the 4th hangs for those who despise it.

 

[BarneyFife]

We must remember what Christ said about judging the righteousness of others. This judging of the righteousness of others is also a sin in His eyes and both sides sadly are committing the same sin that they are accusing the others of doing.

Were the apostles sinning when they warned the Corinthians and others about immorality in their churches?

Are we not a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that we should shew forth the praises of him who hath called us out of darkness into his marvellous light?

.

 

[BarneyFife]

I think a global flood through which all but 8 were destroyed is a death sentence. Noah was a preacher of righteousness... As was Lot, and Jesus, after which judgement fell. There is another judgement coming with Christ's return. The only standard of righteousness given in scripture is God's ten commandment law which Jesus's embodied. That's the standard. We are told in Daniel there would come a power that would seek to change the times and the laws. This the papacy has done, and her daughters have followed suit. It has become increasingly popular in recent times (never taught by the early church or the reformers) to claim Jesus Himself as your Sabbath rest. This He never taught. Yes, He invited all to rest in Him. To place their trust, their faith, in His providence and His care. But He never taught that by doing so the Sabbath day itself would become irrelevant. Neither did the apostles. Or the early church. You do well to reject the authority of the papal power which introduced Sunday into ecclesiastical tradition and demanded it's observance under pain of death. But what you have done and others who believe the same, is set yourself up as the ultimate authority.

You take your doctrine to scripture and use scripture as evidence for its authenticity. This ought not to be so. Take scripture and obey it. Scripture is your creed. Your have written your own creed, and tell us we are heretics and cultists for refusing to bow to your creed. Yes, there is a genuine and dinkum rest to be found in Christ. Having faith in Jesus is resting in Him. But as I've said numerous times before, nowhere does Christ or anyone else teach that such faith replaces the observance of the holy 7th day according to the commandment.
It simply isn't taught. And none of your scriptural quotes in the above posts reveal such a change. They reveal a great in Christ yes. But none of them reveal the "thus sayeth the Lord" which warrants the erasure of the 4th commandment as written.

All the claims about antinomianism before the flood are arguments from silence—a logical fallacy.

 

[Jay Ross]

Hello,

There is an American registered boat that, to help with the socialisation of their children, the parent owners of that sailing vessel, have invited young people onboard for a cruising adventure so that their children can mix with other young people while sailing for a couple of weeks with the invited young people.

The parents have a Christian background, and initially the young people chosen also had Christian oriented backgrounds. However, the parents have realised that the moral backbone of these "Christian" youngsters have all not measured up to moral standards that they themselves hold to. For the third group of young people, any who indicated a "Christian" background were not invited on board to sail with them for an adventure of a lifetime.

In their last video blog of their journey on their boat, they spoke about how the "non-Christian background youth" seemed to be displaying a higher moral standard this time around, than the two previous invitees on board.

Now when this family is at sea, they do have some serious topic discussions with their children and the people who come onboard their boat/yacht.

Now I feel that I am being picked on by, at this point in time, one side of the discussion, for posting this: -

We must remember what Christ said about judging the righteousness of others. This judging of the righteousness of others is also a sin in His eyes and both sides sadly are committing the same sin that they are accusing the others of doing.

by posts like this: -

Were the apostles sinning when they warned the Corinthians and others about immorality in their churches?

Are we not a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that we should shew forth the praises of him who hath called us out of darkness into his marvellous light?

It seems to me that there is a lack of moral integrity in this discussion with an intention to justify their position on the overall discussion taking place.

I believed that I was being fair and even handed with what I had posted, and yet some believe that I was not and therefore it seems to me that they are justifying their finger pointing at me with the drift of their comments in their posts.

Oh well appearances seem to be what really matters for both sides.

Shalom

 

[BarneyFife]

Hello,

There is an American registered boat that, to help with the socialisation of their children, the parent owners of that sailing vessel, have invited young people onboard for a cruising adventure so that their children can mix with other young people while sailing for a couple of weeks with the invited young people.

The parents have a Christian background, and initially the young people chosen also had Christian oriented backgrounds. However, the parents have realised that the moral backbone of these "Christian" youngsters have all not measured up to moral standards that they themselves hold to. For the third group of young people, any who indicated a "Christian" background were not invited on board to sail with them for an adventure of a lifetime.

In their last video blog of their journey on their boat, they spoke about how the "non-Christian background youth" seemed to be displaying a higher moral standard this time around, than the two previous invitees on board.

Now when this family is at sea, they do have some serious topic discussions with their children and the people who come onboard their boat/yacht.

Now I feel that I am being picked on by, at this point in time, one side of the discussion, for posting this: -



by posts like this: -



It seems to me that there is a lack of moral integrity in this discussion with an intention to justify their position on the overall discussion taking place.

I believed that I was being fair and even handed with what I had posted, and yet some believe that I was not and therefore it seems to me that they are justifying their finger pointing at me with the drift of their comments in their posts.

Oh well appearances seem to be what really matters for both sides.

Shalom

Jay, you can't even recognize that questioning your positions isn't the same as "finger-pointing" and "picking on you" or, worse yet, "lack of moral integrity."

I just barely made it into the baby-boomer generation and, if I recall correctly, you've got a few years on me. I was thoroughly indoctrinated with "Sticks and stones..."

Are you telling me that having your views challenged by questioning is more than you can bear?

But it's okay to compare your questioners to uncharitable Christians on some boat somewhere?

What're we doing here?

.

 

[Jay Ross]

Jay, you can't even recognize that questioning your positions isn't the same as "finger-pointing" and "picking on you" or, worse yet, "lack of moral integrity."

I just barely made it into the baby-boomer generation and, if I recall correctly, you've got a few years on me. I was thoroughly indoctrinated with "Sticks and stones..."

Are you telling me that having your views challenged by questioning is more than you can bear?

But it's okay to compare your questioners to uncharitable Christians on some boat somewhere?

What're we doing here?

Me thinks you lack the ability to discern what it was that I had posted. So now you put words into my mouth that I did not say in a vain attempt to make me look foolish or something.

Goodbye

 

[BarneyFife]

Me thinks you lack the ability to discern what it was that I had posted. So now you put words into my mouth that I did not say in a vain attempt to make me look foolish or something.

Goodbye

Is it foolish to be mistaken?

Or are you above being mistaken?

First I lacked moral integrity; now, I lack discernment ability.

Are there any more conclusions to which you'd like to jump?

How will you go about assuming the worst of this post?

Hello.

.

 

[Jay Ross]

Is it foolish to be mistaken?

Or are you above being mistaken?

First I lacked moral integrity; now, I lack discernment ability.

Are there any more conclusions to which you'd like to jump?

How will you go about assuming the worst of this post?

Hello.

.

When you can demonstrate integrity in what you post, then a discussion might progress between us.

All that I am seeing reflected in what you are responding with is the baggage that you possess.

Goodbye.

PS: - this might be a good place to discontinue this discussion between us.

 

[BarneyFife]

When you can demonstrate integrity in what you post, then a discussion might progress between us.

All that I am seeing reflected in what you are responding with is the baggage that you possess.

Goodbye.

PS: - this might be a good place to discontinue this discussion between us.

Circling back around to "integrity," is it? Run out of insults?

I don't respond well to these fancy ways of telling folks to shut up.

You can stop replying just as easily as I can, Jay.

Care to say "Goodbye" again without really meaning it?

.