Sabbath-Keeping

[Keeth]

<<Sorry, but Sabbath keeping well beyond the first century is historical fact,>>

So give a citation which can be checked. So far, all you have done is say it's a fact but have offered absolutely nothing to substantiate your claim.

So prove it.

Also cite proof of revisions of historical data by "roman catholic libraries" by disinterested parties. (And, no, SDA "scholars" are not disinterested parties.)

[SIZE=12pt]"The primitive Christians did keep the Sabbath of the Jews;..therefore the Christians for a long time together, did keep their conventions on the Sabbath, in which some portion of the Law were read: and this continued till the time of the Laodicean council." The Whole Works of Jeremey Taylor, Vol. IX, p416 (R. Heber's Edition, Vol.XII, p.416)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and did spend the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the Apostles themselves, as appears by several scriptures to that purpose." Dialogues on the Lord's Day. p.189. London: 1701. By Dr. T. H. Morer.(church of England divine) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"It is certain that the ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed (together with the celebration of the Lord's day by the Christians of the East Church) three hundred years after the Saviour's death." A learned Treatise of the Sabbath, p.77.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"The seventh-day Sabbath was.. solemnised by Christ, the Apostles, and primitive Christians, till the Laodicean Council did in a manner quite abolish the observation of it." Dissertation on the Lord's Day, pp.33,34,44. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the Law, not for idleness of the hands." The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol.7, p 413, From Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, A document of the 3rd and 4th centuries. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"It was the practice generally of the Easterne Churches; and some churches of the west..For in the church of Millaine [Milan];.. it seemes the Saturday was held in farre esteeme ..Not that the Easterne churches, or any of the rest which observed that day, were inclined to Iudaisme [Judaism]; but that they came together on the Sabbath day, to worship Iesus [Jesus] Christ the Lord of the Sabbath." History of the Sabbath (original Spelling retained) Part 2, par. 5, pp. 73,74, London: 1636, Dr. Heylyn. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"The ancient Christians were very careful in the observation of Saturday, or the seventh day..It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival..Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious assemblies on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same." Antiquities of the Christian Church, Vol. II, Book XX, chap. 3, Sec. 1, 66.1137, 1138 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"From the apostles' time until the council of Laodicea, which was about the year 364, the holy observation of the Jew's Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors: yea, notwithstanding the decree of the council against it. Sunday a Sabbath, John Ley, p.163 London 1640. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"Ambrose, the celebrated bishop of Milan, said that when he was in Milan he observed Saturday, but when in Rome observed Sunday. This gave rise to the proverb 'When you are in Rome, do as Rome does,' " Heylyn, The History of the Sabbath, 1613 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church." Ancient Christianity Exemplified, Lyman Coleman, Ch.26, sec. 2, p.527. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"For although almost all Churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries [the Lord's Supper] on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this." The footnote which accompanies the foregoing quotation explains the use of the word "Sabbath" It says : "That is, upon the Saturday. It should be observed, that Sunday is never called 'the Sabbath' by the ancient Fathers and historians." Sacrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, chap. 22, p. 289. [/SIZE]

 

[Phoneman777]

[SIZE=12pt]"The primitive Christians did keep the Sabbath of the Jews;..therefore the Christians for a long time together, did keep their conventions on the Sabbath, in which some portion of the Law were read: and this continued till the time of the Laodicean council." The Whole Works of Jeremey Taylor, Vol. IX, p416 (R. Heber's Edition, Vol.XII, p.416)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and did spend the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the Apostles themselves, as appears by several scriptures to that purpose." Dialogues on the Lord's Day. p.189. London: 1701. By Dr. T. H. Morer.(church of England divine) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"It is certain that the ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed (together with the celebration of the Lord's day by the Christians of the East Church) three hundred years after the Saviour's death." A learned Treatise of the Sabbath, p.77.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"The seventh-day Sabbath was.. solemnised by Christ, the Apostles, and primitive Christians, till the Laodicean Council did in a manner quite abolish the observation of it." Dissertation on the Lord's Day, pp.33,34,44. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the Law, not for idleness of the hands." The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol.7, p 413, From Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, A document of the 3rd and 4th centuries. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"It was the practice generally of the Easterne Churches; and some churches of the west..For in the church of Millaine [Milan];.. it seemes the Saturday was held in farre esteeme ..Not that the Easterne churches, or any of the rest which observed that day, were inclined to Iudaisme [Judaism]; but that they came together on the Sabbath day, to worship Iesus [Jesus] Christ the Lord of the Sabbath." History of the Sabbath (original Spelling retained) Part 2, par. 5, pp. 73,74, London: 1636, Dr. Heylyn. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"The ancient Christians were very careful in the observation of Saturday, or the seventh day..It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival..Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious assemblies on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same." Antiquities of the Christian Church, Vol. II, Book XX, chap. 3, Sec. 1, 66.1137, 1138 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"From the apostles' time until the council of Laodicea, which was about the year 364, the holy observation of the Jew's Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors: yea, notwithstanding the decree of the council against it. Sunday a Sabbath, John Ley, p.163 London 1640. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"Ambrose, the celebrated bishop of Milan, said that when he was in Milan he observed Saturday, but when in Rome observed Sunday. This gave rise to the proverb 'When you are in Rome, do as Rome does,' " Heylyn, The History of the Sabbath, 1613 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church." Ancient Christianity Exemplified, Lyman Coleman, Ch.26, sec. 2, p.527. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"For although almost all Churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries [the Lord's Supper] on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this." The footnote which accompanies the foregoing quotation explains the use of the word "Sabbath" It says : "That is, upon the Saturday. It should be observed, that Sunday is never called 'the Sabbath' by the ancient Fathers and historians." Sacrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, chap. 22, p. 289. [/SIZE]

"...yet the Christians of Alexandrian (the ancient capital of occultism) and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this." What ancient tradition? Why, the ancient tradition of SUN WORSHIP. Roman Catholicism is nothing more than ancient Babylonian Sun worship perfected, and although the exoteric doctrine for the Catholic masses is a tremendously washed down Gospel, the esoteric doctrine held by the ruling authorities is and has always been Luciferian Sun worship.

At the tower of Babel, Lucifer's devotees resorted to a new language which even God could not confuse - the language of occult symbolism - and anyone willing to cannot but see that the symbolism of Lucifer and that of the Roman Catholic church could never be attributed to mere coincidence.

 

[Keeth]

<<Sorry, but Sabbath keeping well beyond the first century is historical fact,>>

So give a citation which can be checked. So far, all you have done is say it's a fact but have offered absolutely nothing to substantiate your claim.

So prove it.

Also cite proof of revisions of historical data by "roman catholic libraries" by disinterested parties. (And, no, SDA "scholars" are not disinterested parties.)

It should of course be noted, that before Rome ever began her more modern revisionist history campaign, she simply burned all written materials which recoeded her errors and atrocities, along with those who wrote or recorded them. There was no real need for a revisionist history campaign when she possesed the power to do such, and often did.

[SIZE=12pt]There is a book entitled The Lies and Fallacies of the Encyclopedia Britannica (Joseph McCabe) written quite some time ago. This book is about how the Catholic Church has basically rewritten much of the history in regard to itself, found in the Encyclopedia Britannica. The author gives many examples from the various additions of the Encyclopedia. He also gives the following warning to his readers.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]" But I give here a mass of evidence of the corrupt use of the great power which the Catholic Church now has: a warning of what the public may expect now that that Church has, through its wealth and numbers, secured this pernicious influence on publications, the press, the radio, and to an increasing extent on education and even the cinema. "[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Here is a bit more that he had to say on the subject. A little lengthy, but of great importance none the less. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]J. McCabe, Rationalists Encyclopedia[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“It will be gathered from a large number of articles in this Encyclopedia that the great gain of the adoption of scientific methods in modern history and of extensive discoveries in archaeology is offset by a lamentable falsification owing to concessions to religious writers or sectarian influence. It has gravely increased the difficulty of the Rationalist education of the public that, just when science has generally succeeded in silencing "the drum ecclesiastic" (in Huxley's phrase), history is increasingly listening to it. Recent issues of the leading encyclopedias have permitted very serious alterations of historical articles or invited clerical writers to contribute articles on subjects on which they could not be expected to be impartial or accurately informed. Serious attempts have been made even to impose the new spirit of accommodation upon teachers of history in universities, colleges, and the national schools. Poynter tells of an amazing plot of this nature in his Roman Catholics and School History Books (1930). However one may analyze the motives or the influences, conscious or subconscious, the evil begins with a number of professors or writers of history of some distinction, especially in the United States. [See, for example, the articles Arabs; Christianity; Dark Age; Democracy; Middle Age; Monasticism; Papacy; Philanthropy; Reformation; Rome; Thirteenth Century; and subsidiary articles mentioned in them.] The intellectual and moral status of pre-Christian civilizations is vindicated against ancient calumnies by virtually all modern authorities; yet in the case of Rome, while Protestant writers like Dr. E. Reich and Sir S. Dill have been generous in stating the truth, a number of recent historical writers, men who show no command of classical literature and the inscriptions, have used language in conformity with the old prejudices. This encourages theological writers to repeat their discredited claims that the Gospels brought a new and higher type of religion and ethic into the contemporary Roman world; that the Christians generally exhibited a superior type of character which attracted thoughtful Greeks and Romans; and that the acceptance - in reality enforcement - of the Christian religion was followed by a social and moral improvement. But greater evil is done by a falsification of the social history of the Christian, or at least the Catholic, era. In this respect Catholics have had a remarkable success in adulterating history. On the plea that the Protestant and Rationalist historians of the last century were moved by a prejudice against Catholicism, or that the development of psychology and of economic and social science gives the historian a new equipment for the study of earlier peoples, some historians - this does not apply to the Cambridge Mediaeval History - profess to give a new and sounder estimate of the period of solid Church influence. The title given to the first half, the Dark Age, is, largely on the quite false ground that it means the whole of the Middle Ages, declared to be unjust, and the second part, the Renaissance in the broader sense, is described more or less in harmony with the claims of Catholic writers. The historians in question betray that they have no command, as the historians of the last century had, of medieval literature. They ignore completely the immense literature which tells the licence and coarseness of life of the clergy, monks - all that they say of monasticism is to give a description of the ideal of a Benedictine abbey or describe Francis of Assisi - and people of all classes; and they profess that it is a mark of liberality to follow Catholic writers on the work of Gregory VII or Innocent III, the Massacre of the Albigensians and the Hussites, the Inquisition and the Reformation (See Coulter's Sectarian History, 1937). Admirable as it is to trace neglected social, political, and economic factors in this stretch of history, the deliberate suppression of its many evil features falsifies history and the sociological valuation of institutions. The same tendency is seen in the deliberate depreciation of the Arab-Persian civilization, which conceals the real source of the European Renaissance and confirms the preposterous claim that the Roman Church inspired it. Even in the modern period we find the same grave departure from the canons of history in the undiscriminating condemnation of the French Revolution, the suppression of the terrible injustices of French life which led to it, and especially the concealment of what Lord Acton called the savagery of the Roman Church in its fight against progress from the fall of Napoleon to 1870 (in Spain and Russia until recently). This falsification of history, at least by the suppression of facts and of relevant but distasteful contemporary documents, is one of the most unfortunate features of modern culture. The scores of articles in this Encyclopaedia in which it is exposed show that a new and thorough history of the Christian era is urgently needed.” [/SIZE]

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Everyone Uppsala who maintains that the Ten Commandments are a part of the law that was nailed to the cross must invariably claim that grace is in opposition to obedience, because they use Ga 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

You seem to by trying to make Gal 5:4 say that Christ has no effect on those who are obedient to God. That is not what the verse says. The law was given to the Jews because of disobedience, not in order to produce it. They too were given the gospel, but they rebelled against it. In immediate response to their rebellion they were given the 10 commandments and fell in bondage to the law.

In all my experience of discussing these matters over the past ten or more years on the internet, I have yet to meet anyone who agrees with me that it is possible to obey God's commandments by the grace and power of God and at the same time not consider their obedience being a source of their justification.

Well, if no one is agreeing with you, then perhaps it could be because you are wrong. Have you ever considered that possibility? Nowhere does scripture say that we have been given power to obey a law that we are not even under. The argument, which is one I once considered myself at one point in time, partly because I had a hard time reconciling the idea that we are no longer under the 10 commandments, sounds really good. But scripture warns us against being deceived by "fine-sounding arguments".

If you have a theology that is scriptural, then you should have scripture that proves what you say. You don't. And what it actually does is contradict scripture.

It appears to me that when anyone comes to this discussion, they are blinded to this completely Biblical paradigm. That
1.it is possible to obey all the Ten Commandments...Phil 4:13;

That verse makes no mention at all of the 10 commandments. If you read the context you will notice that what Paul is discussing here has to do with his perserverance in obeying the gospel. Pulling this verse out of context like that can make it say anything at all!

Is this the way you interpret scripture???

As I said before you cherry pick certain verses and try to make them say what you want them to say. Don't worry about the fact that this same Paul wrote "I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out". That verse, in the other hand, actually does refer to keeping the commandments!
So much for that argument...

2.That it is God's will and purpose that we do so for it is only through His power that it can be done...John 14:15;Matt. 6:33; 1 John 2:3-5; John 15:5

Well, let's take a look at those verses shall we..

John 14:15:

"If you love me, you will obey what I command"

This is Jesus speaking to his disciples. OK?

Does the verse say "If you love me, then obey the 10 commandments"? No it doesn't.

Did Jesus EVER command his disciples to keep the 10 commandments? No he did not.

Apart from Matthew 5, the ONLY audience to which Jesus even quotes the old testament, was 1) satan, 2) the Pharasees, and 3) a rich guy who abandoned him.
So where is your evidence that Jesus was trying to get his disciples to obey the 10 commandments?

Matt 6:33:

"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well."

Again, no mention of the 10 commandments. And surely, the gospel, from which this verses is taken, advocates righteousness by faith, not by works!

1 John 2:3-5:

"We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him".

Once more, no mention of the 10, and in fact, the same John, writes in same epistle:

"And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us." (1 John 3:23)

As I have already pointed out NONE of the NT authors indicate that the 10 commandments apply to Christians. Not one of them! And yet you post these verses as if they prove your point...

John 15:3:

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing."

And???

So much for the "completely Biblical paradigm"!

3.That the commandment regarding the remembering to keep holy (how can we be expected to keep anything holy without the power of God in us ) the Sab0bath (the one that is not a shadow of things to come as opposed to the Sabbaths that are shadows) is one of the ten....Exodus 20:8-11; Col. 2:17

"We" are not required to keep the Mosiac Sabbath holy.

Exodus 20 describes the commandments that God gave to the people who rebelled against him, not us.

Col 2:17 supports what I have already said. So what's your point?

4.And that all is by grace through faith...... Eph.1:15-23; 3:14-21; Romans 8:4,7-10; Gal. 2:16-21;Gal. 3:11; Romans 2:12-15; Hebrews 8:10;

And???

5.And no amount of obedience, Sabbath keeping included, contributes one iota towards our justification, but if you do not have the faith to believe God has the power to change you into Christ's image (Christ was obedient to all God's commandments and never sinned) is what faith you do have sufficient?

Why are you implying that I don't have faith to be changed into Christ's image?

Putting oneself under the 10 commandments do not change you into Christ's image. Obeying 1 John 3:23 does.
I really don't see anything difficult in the above 5 points. This is my perspective on scripture and the Christian life when it comes to the relationship between grace and obedience. This is also the official position of my church. What is the problem with that? So simple. It is the gospel.

It is not the gospel at all. On the contrary, it denies the gospel. The gospel teaches us that we are no longer under the law. You are teaching the opposite!

The laws of God have never changed. They stand forever, as they are transcripts of His character.
It is the manner in which obedience is effected that has changed. I, nor anyone else, can keep the law by following it to the letter. That is, by focusing upon the written law and attempting in my strength to obeying all the commandments. That is walking in the flesh. (See Romans 8:1-10) But if by the Spirit I do mortify the flesh and allow God to work in me His righteousness, and by His strength then I can find the power to obey all the commandments. It is by focusing upon Him; worshiping Him in Spirit and truth, that He then abides in me and I begin to take on the nature and character of God, my Father. Obedience to the commandments then becomes the natural thing for me to do, and it becomes my delight and greatest pleasure. Jesus said that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be filled. This righteousness expresses itself through obedience.

This is totally incorrect! While you are busy trying to find one verse that teaches us that it is only the "manner in which obedience is effected that has changed", let me show you what scripture actually says:

"For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law." (Hebrews 7:12)

 

[Keeth]

What is DOCUMENTED is that, from the first century, the Church met on Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.

Ignatius (C. 50-117 AD, Bishop of Antioch) The Epistle to the Magnesians ; Chapter IX.—Let Us Live with Christ.

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day…[SIZE=1.5pt] [/SIZE]

…And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, “To the end, for the eighth day,” on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, …

…At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord’s Day contains the resurrection.

Note: the way a Jew "observes" the Sabbath is to do no work. The Pharisees and Sadducees were constantly angry with Jesus for healing ( which they considered a "work" ) on the Sabbath. Rest is not worship other than being an act of obedience to the Lord.

The reason the Jews met on the Sabbath is that they were forbidden to work that day. It was the only day when they COULD meet together.

[SIZE=12pt]CHAPTER IX.--LET US LIVE WITH CHRIST. (All emphasis mine)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]" If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us when He says, "If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me;" and again, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad; for before Abraham was, I am; " how shall we be able to live without Him? The prophets were His servants, and foresaw Him by the Spirit, and waited for Him as their Teacher, and expected Him as their Lord and Saviour, saying, "He will come and save us." Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat." For say the[holy] oracles, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread." But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner[/SIZE], rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days[of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, "To the end, for the eighth day," on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, whom the children of perdition, the enemies of the[SIZE=12pt] Saviour, deny, "whose god is their belly, who mind earthly things," who are "lovers of pleasure, and not lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." These make merchandise of Christ, corrupting His word, and giving up Jesus to sale: they are corrupters of women, and covetous of other men's possessions, swallowing up wealth insatiably; from whom may ye be delivered by the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ! " ( THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE MAGNESIANS LONGER VERSION, CHAPTER IX.--LET US LIVE WITH CHRIST. ) [/SIZE]

What is documented in the above, is that the seventh day Sabbath was still being observed at the time, while the day of the Sun was also beginning to be introduced as a more important day meant to eventually replace the Day God HImself had established for His people. We see here, Ignatius mixing the truth with errors beginning to creep into the apostate church. He speaks against some of the same burdonsome rules and regs. Jesus also addressed, and then adds some of his own to it, and then suggests that the day not be observed as a day of rest. The latter is to be found nowhere in scripture. Nor either of course is anything about Sunday being the queen and chief of days.

Ignatius is not a father of the Church of Christ, but rather a father of the Church of Rome. Accordingly of course, he helped begin the process of exalting a man made day of worship and rest, in opposition to the God appointed day of worship and rest. He is also responsible for beginning the process of exalting a man to the place of God in his writings, thus in this also revealing himself as a father of the church of Rome, and not the Church of Christ. It was this mindset which eventually lead to the position of a Pope over and above all others in the Church. Observe the following(All emphasis mine) -

[SIZE=12pt]THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]TO THE EPHESIANS[/SIZE]

CHAPTER 4 [SIZE=12pt]- [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Wherefore it is fitting that ye also should run together in accordance with[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] the will of the bishop who by God’s appointment rules over you.[/SIZE]

CHAPTER 6 HAVE RESPECT TO THE BISHOP AS TO CHRIST HIMSELF

[SIZE=12pt]Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]would upon the Lord Himself.[/SIZE]


CHAPTER 21 EXHORTATIONS TO STEADFASTNESS AND UNITY

[SIZE=12pt]being under the guidance of the Comforter, in obedience to the bishop and the presbytery with an[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] undivided mind,[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]TO THE MAGNESIANS[/SIZE]

CHAPTER 3 HONOR YOUR YOUTHFUL BISHOP

[SIZE=12pt]Now it becomes you also not to treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth, but to yield him all reverence, having respect to the[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance [of their bishop],[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all. It is therefore[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey [your bishop],[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] in honor of Him who has willed us [so to do], since he that does not so[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] deceives not [by such conduct] the bishop that is visible, but seeks to[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] mock Him that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man,[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] but to God, who knows all secrets.[/SIZE]

CHAPTER 4 SOME WICKEDLY ACT INDEPENDENTLY OF THE BISHOP

[SIZE=12pt]It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality. For it is not the being called so, but the being really so, that renders a man[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] blessed. To those who indeed talk of the bishop, but do all things without[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] him, will He who is the true and first Bishop, and the only High Priest by[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] nature, declare, “Why call ye Me Lord, and do not the things which I[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] say?” For such persons seem to me not possessed of a good conscience,[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] but to be simply dissemblers and hypocrites.[/SIZE]

CHAPTER 6 PRESERVE HARMONY

[SIZE=12pt]I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God,...................................[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Let nothing exist among you which may divide you; but be ye united with your bishop, being through him subject to God in Christ.[/SIZE]

CHAPTER 7 DO NOTHING WITHOUT THE BISHOP AND PRESBYTERS

[SIZE=12pt]As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, “I can of mine own self do nothing,” so do ye, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] layman, do anything without the bishop. Nor let anything appear[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] commendable to you which is destitute of his approval. For every such[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] thing is sinful, and opposed [to the will of] God.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]TO THE TRALLIANS[/SIZE]

CHAPTER 2 BE SUBJECT TO THE BISHOP, ETC

[SIZE=12pt]Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for “he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]It is therefore necessary, whatsoever things ye do, to do nothing without the bishop.[/SIZE]

CHAPTER 7

[SIZE=12pt]And do ye also reverence your bishop as Christ Himself, according as the blessed apostles have enjoined you[/SIZE]. He that is within the altar is pure, wherefore also he is[SIZE=12pt] obedient to the bishop and presbyters: but he that is without is one that[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] does anything apart from the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] Such a person is defiled in his conscience, and is worse than an infidel. For[/SIZE] what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and[SIZE=12pt] authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, [/SIZE]who according to[SIZE=12pt] his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ of God?[/SIZE]

CHAPTER 13 CONCLUSION

[SIZE=12pt]Fare ye well in Jesus Christ, while ye continue subject to the bishop, as to the command [of God], and in like manner to the presbytery.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]TO THE PHILADELPHIANS[/SIZE]

CHAPTER 3 AVOID SCHISMATICS [SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]For as many as are of Christ are also[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] with the bishop; but as many as fall away from him, and embrace[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] communion with the accursed, these shall be cut off along with them. For[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] they are not Christ’s husbandry, but the seed of the enemy, from whom[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] may you ever be delivered by the prayers of the shepherd, that most[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] faithful and gentle shepherd who presides over you.[/SIZE]

CHAPTER 7 I HAVE EXHORTED YOU TO UNITY

[SIZE=12pt]But the Spirit made an announcement to me, saying as follows: Do nothing without the bishop;[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]TO THE SMYRNAEANS[/SIZE]

CHAPTER 8 LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP

[SIZE=12pt]See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the[/SIZE] people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic[SIZE=12pt] Church.[/SIZE] It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate[SIZE=12pt] a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.[/SIZE]

CHAPTER 9 HONOR THE BISHOP

[SIZE=12pt]“My son, honor thou God and the king.” And say I,[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] Honor thou God indeed, as the Author and Lord of all things, but the[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] bishop as the high-priest, who bears the image of God[/SIZE]

Nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop, who ministers as a priest to God for the salvation of the whole world.

[SIZE=12pt]He who honors the bishop shall be honored by God, even as he that dishonors him shall be punished by God. For if he that[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] rises up against kings is justly held worthy of punishment, inasmuch as he[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] dissolves public order, of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] he be thought worthy, who presumes to do anything without the bishop,[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]TO POLYCARP[/SIZE]

CHAPTER 6 THE DUTIES OF THE CHRISTIAN FLOCK

[SIZE=12pt]Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbytery, and to[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] the deacons: may I have my portion with them from God![/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: 44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. 45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Mark 10:42-45 (KJV)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]It is no wonder, that you as a Roman Catholic look to the writings of[/SIZE] Ignatius as over and above the testimony of scripture. He exalts the day that the exalted man of your denomination also exalts, with no authroity or admonition to do so from scripture, and in open opposition to much said within the same.

[SIZE=12pt]The following is from the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.(All emphasis mine)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]2188 In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church's holy days as legal holidays.They have to give everyone a public example of prayer, respect, and joy and defend their traditions as a precious contribution to the spiritual life of society. If a country's legislation or other reasons require work on Sunday, the day should nevertheless be lived as the day of our deliverance which lets us share in this "festal gathering," this "assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven."[125] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]2190 The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]2192 "Sunday . . . is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church" [/b](CIC, can. 1246 # 1). "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass" (CIC, can. 1247). [/SIZE]

That is confused. The Sabbath was not a day of worship. It was a day of rest which the Jews were commanded to keep. ( [SIZE=12pt]EX 16:29; EX 16:29; 31:14; 35:1; LEV 23:3; DT 5:12)[/SIZE]

Worship is supposed to go on constantly in every thing we do, every day, year after year.

Rom 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.

Are you saying we should only do that on Saturdays?

[SIZE=12pt]CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH(All emphasis mine)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]PART 3 - SECTION TWO[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]THE TEN COMMANDMENTSdecalog.html / TEN[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]A day of grace and rest from work [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]2184 Just as God "rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done,"[121] human life has a rhythm of work and rest. The institution of the Lord's Day helps everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives.[122] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]2185 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body.[123] Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest. The faithful should see to it that legitimate excuses do not lead to habits prejudicial to religion, family life, and health. The charity of truth seeks holy leisure- the necessity of charity accepts just work.[124] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]2186 Those Christians who have leisure should be mindful of their brethren who have the same needs and the same rights, yet cannot rest from work because of poverty and misery. Sunday is traditionally consecrated by Christian piety to good works and humble service of the sick, the infirm, and the elderly. Christians will also sanctify Sunday by devoting time and care to their families and relatives, often difficult to do on other days of the week. Sunday is a time for reflection, silence, cultivation of the mind, and meditation which furthers the growth of the Christian interior life. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]2187 Sanctifying Sundays and holy days requires a common effort. Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord's Day. Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure. With temperance and charity the faithful will see to it that they avoid the excesses and violence sometimes associated with popular leisure activities. In spite of economic constraints, public authorities should ensure citizens a time intended for rest and divine worship. Employers have a similar obligation toward their employees. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]2188 In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church's holy days as legal holidays. They have to give everyone a public example of prayer, respect, and joy and defend their traditions as a precious contribution to the spiritual life of society. If a country's legislation or other reasons require work on Sunday, the day should nevertheless be lived as the day of our deliverance which lets us share in this "festal gathering," this "assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven."[125] [/SIZE]

Your own Pope understands that rest and worship go together, thus he instructs the same regarding Sunday. Is he saying we shouls only do this on Sundays? No he isn't, he is saying Sundays are different than the rest of the days, not that no one should worship God on other days. Why will you accuse us concerning the seventh day in this regard, established by the word of God, but not bring the same accusation against your own concerning the first day established by the word of men, when they promote the same for it? Is this not a double standard? Are you not simply using whatever argument you can against a truth you do not want to admit of, not realizing that the principles of your argument war against the teachings of your own denomination as well?

Nonsense challenge. No one is suggesting that.

HOW one keeps the Sabbath is NOT part of the 10 commandments.

So, please, try to keep your argument straight. Either state that Christians have to keep all 316 commandments of the entire Law of Moses (which includes how to keep the Sabbath) or that they have to keep the 10 commandments. (Which says nothing about how to keep the Sabbath.)

You can't have it both ways but you insist on trying.

How one keeps the Sabbath is part of the 10 commandments, and the fourth commandment.

Ex 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 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: 11 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.

Why can you not comprehend the above obvious rest commanded?

You yourself acknowledge the difference between the 10 commandments, and the other laws, every time you use the phrase 10 commandments. The NT spends a good bit of time addressing changes to the 316? laws you refer to, though I think you might have meant 613. Are you saying Jesus and the Apostles were wrong when teaching and addressing these changes, while at the same time admonishing all to keep the 10 commandments?

 

[JimParker]

Of course you've admitted that "the Ten Commandments no longer apply to believers" - we've heard that all before.

Now publicly declare that a Christian believer may worship Buddha, sleep with your wife, steal your car, kill anyone he wishes, idolize NFL or Hollywood stars, etc., if you truly believe that "the Ten Commandments no longer apply to believers" and get stop trying to have it both ways: either we are free to break them or we are obligated to keep them. I won't call your doctrine a "doctrine of devils" because a more fitting opprobrium is "doctrine of cowards".

Sorry, but Sabbath keeping well beyond the first century is historical fact, just not consider such in the libraries of the most infamous revisionist historians that have ever graced the topside of the earth - Roman Catholic libraries.

Read what Socrates Scholasticus and others had to say about Sabbath keeping among the early church.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." - Sherlock Holmes

<<Read what Socrates Scholasticus and others had to say about Sabbath keeping among the early church. >>

That's not a citation. He wrote many books.

What you have referred to is the 7th Day Adventist quote of Scholasticus which is taken out of context. What he also said his introductory words to Book 5, Chapter 22
is: "IN THE 4TH CENT., CHRISTIANS WERE CALLING SUNDAY THE SABBATH." So, when he spoke of the Sabbath, Socrates was, in fact, speaking of Sunday.

SDA, JW, and Mormon references, such as your reference to Scholasticus, are consistently unreliable. In the age of the internet, it took me less than 2 minutes to discover your "reference" to be a distortion of the facts. (Which is common for SDA, JW, and Mormon "proofs".)

Friend, the info is at your fingertips. All you have to do is an Internet search.

No. YOU made the assertion. YOU back it up with a citation.

If you don't now where your "information" came from then don't cite it.

 

[brakelite]

@UppsalaDragby
Hi. Your response is somewhat typical of those who persist in the idea that being not 'under the law' equates with freedom from any obligation to obey it. The following however is a direct refutation of that idea. Read the following passage carefully and see if you can detect who it is precisely the class of people who are 'under the law'.
Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

So, here are the principle points as I see it from the above passage.

• We as Christians must walk in the Spirit if we are to inherit eternal life.
• Walking in the flesh is set in contradistinction to walking in the Spirit, with opposite results.
• The works of the flesh shown, many of which are direct transgressions against God's Ten Commandments, with the remainder offshoots of the same, are all sin.
• Those that walk in the flesh do not inherit the kingdom of God.
• It is those who live according to the flesh, the ones who transgress God's commandments among other things, the ones who live in sin, that are under the law (Verse 18.
• Therefore being 'under the law' does not mean as commonly believed, that is those who choose to obey the commandments, but on the contrary, being 'under the law' applies directly to those who choose to disobey the commandments. (See also Romans 8:7)
• Thus repeating the assertion that you 'are not under the law' as an excuse for not observing the Sabbath is in fact a contradiction in terms. It is in fact those who choose not to observe Sabbath that are 'under the law'....for they stand as lawbreakers...transgressors.

You may reply that Sabbath breaking isn't listed in the above passage, therefore is exempt. Much like those who ridiculously cite the Jerusalem council's short list of advice to the Gentile believers as reason for ignoring the Sabbath. In the above passage there is a category under which all excuses for Sabbath breaking could be listed. Heresies.

Because my citations in my previous post were inadequate, perhaps the following might convince. Far be from me that I would rely solely on just one or two scriptures to justify obedience to all God's commandments, although it beats me why I should need to justify such an idea.

1. it is possible to obey all the Ten Commandments...You spoke of context...in the context of commandment keeping Jesus said "with men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible". (Matt. 19:17-26)
2. That it is God's will and purpose that we do so for it is only through His power that it can be done...love does not void the Ten Commandments, but on the contrary it is through love that all the commandments are kept. It is this love infused into the believer through the Holy Spirit that empowers obedience. It is love that forbids adultery. It is love that forbids idolatry. It is love that forbids theft. It is love that forbids Sunday sacredness. etc etc.
3. That the commandment regarding the remembering to keep holy (how can we be expected to keep anything holy without the power of God in us ) the Sabbath (the one that is not a shadow of things to come as opposed to the Sabbaths that are shadows) is one of the ten...You said , quote: we are not required to keep the Mosaic Sabbath holy....Jesus informs us that the Sabbath was made for mankind, not just for Jews Mark 2:27...as for the church now instructed to disregard Sabbath, perhaps then you should have told the early church....Acts 13:42,44; acts 16:13; Acts 17:2; Acts 18:4,11,19.
   As for Col. 2:17, Paul qualifies what Sabbaths he is referring to when he says that no-one ought to be judged regarding them...that is the ones that are shadows. Therefore what he is saying is if someone wanted to keep passover etc(which were shadows) then they were to be left alone...he himself continued to observe that feast. What he did not say was that the weekly Sabbaths of the 4th commandment were included...they were not shadows. The shadows UD were instituted as means by which Israel could understand the gospel...they were shadows of the coming ministry of the Messiah...They were a major component of the Mosaic law and established because of disobedience to God's law...they were the remedy to sin...they were not appointed to point out sin....they were appointed to point to the Savior from sin.....they were established because of transgression...the weekly Sabbath was established before transgression.
4. And that all is by grace through faith......The scripture says that everything that is not of faith is sin. If I, through faith, accept the perpetual nature of the Sabbath commandment as indicated in scripture, then what of those who through lack of faith in God's word (I cite Exodus 20 as just one example) do not remember the Sabbath?
5. And no amount of obedience, Sabbath keeping included, contributes one iota towards our justification, but if you do not have the faith to believe God has the power to change you into Christ's image (Christ was obedient to all God's commandments and never sinned) is what faith you do have sufficient? Are you suggesting that someone can be recreated in the image of Christ can be so fully while in disobedience to God's commands? It would seem to me from reading of scripture that this idea was established in the mind of man in the garden of Eden. (Genesis 3:5) Eve thought it was possible to be like god through disobedience, that idea seems to have taken hold on people since.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

@UppsalaDragby
Hi. Your response is somewhat typical of those who persist in the idea that being not 'under the law' equates with freedom from any obligation to obey it. The following however is a direct refutation of that idea. Read the following passage carefully and see if you can detect who it is precisely the class of people who are 'under the law'.
Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Brakelite, I assure you that I have read those verses very carefully. But what you are doing here is confusing morality with law. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, morality is not the fruit of being under a written code of law. If it was then the Jews, who were under that law, would not have crucified their Messiah. I have also pointed out something you need to consider carefully. We are not "lawless" as many SDAs seem to accuse us of being. We are under the law of Christ - a law that is "not like" the Covenant he made with the Jews.

Now let me ask you this. If you are following the law of Christ, and therefore led by the spirit rather than a written code of law, which of the following acts do you think you would be practicing:

Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like.

Scripture is clear about this! Whereas it explicitly points out that the law is powerless to subdue such things, it is equally explicit in pointing out that folowing the Spirit does:

"live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature." (Gal 5:16)

Now you might claim that this somehow indicates that the Spirit is leading us to "keep the 10 commandments", but the fact remains that we are not under ANY of the Old Covenant laws, and suggesting that we focus on written laws rather than Christ is a corruption of the Gospel and a distraction from where our focus should ultimately be - on Christ. Again, focussing on laws neither produces good fruit, nor prevents bad fruit from growing in our lives. We are "commanded" to fix our eyes on Jesus - the prefector of our faith (Hebrews 12:2) - not on something that made "nothing perfect" (Hebrews 7:19)

So, here are the principle points as I see it from the above passage.
•We as Christians must walk in the Spirit if we are to inherit eternal life.
•Walking in the flesh is set in contradistinction to walking in the Spirit, with opposite results.
•The works of the flesh shown, many of which are direct transgressions against God's Ten Commandments, with the remainder offshoots of the same, are all sin.
•Those that walk in the flesh do not inherit the kingdom of God.
•It is those who live according to the flesh, the ones who transgress God's commandments among other things, the ones who live in sin, that are under the law (Verse 18.
•Therefore being 'under the law' does not mean as commonly believed, that is those who choose to obey the commandments, but on the contrary, being 'under the law' applies directly to those who choose to disobey the commandments. (See also Romans 8:7)
•Thus repeating the assertion that you 'are not under the law' as an excuse for not observing the Sabbath is in fact a contradiction in terms. It is in fact those who choose not to observe Sabbath that are 'under the law'....for they stand as lawbreakers...transgressors.

When you catch me advocating walking in the flesh then I will concede that you have a point. And unless you can point out where scripture teaches us that following the Mosaic law is equvalent to walking in the Spirit then why are you making these baseless claims. Scripture is full of accounts of people who were led by the Spirit. None of these accounts show anyone being led by the Spirit to keept the 10 commandments. Read Hebrews 11. It list the kind of people God commended in scripture. Were any of them commended for their ability to keep the 10 commandments? No, not one of them! Gods "commandments" to those who please him are NOT the 10 commandments. NO... those commandments were given to those who displeased God.

1.it is possible to obey all the Ten Commandments...You spoke of context...in the context of commandment keeping Jesus said "with men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible". (Matt. 19:17-26)

That particular quote is Jesus reply to his disciples question "Who then can be saved?" It answers that question, not whether or not anyone can keep the 10 comamndments. We know now that scripture reveals a salvation that is by faith, not by works. God has made it "possible" for us to completely fulfill the requirements of the law by putting our faith in what Jesus did for us through his crucifiction.

2.That it is God's will and purpose that we do so for it is only through His power that it can be done...love does not void the Ten Commandments, but on the contrary it is through love that all the commandments are kept. It is this love infused into the believer through the Holy Spirit that empowers obedience. It is love that forbids adultery. It is love that forbids idolatry. It is love that forbids theft. It is love that forbids Sunday sacredness. etc etc.

That's a "fine-sounding argument", and even though it contains elements of the truth, it largely tacks on something scripture does not say. One could just as easily claim that getting circumcised is based on love.. or any of the other commandments given in the Old Covenant. We are not under that covenant.

3.That the commandment regarding the remembering to keep holy (how can we be expected to keep anything holy without the power of God in us ) the Sabbath (the one that is not a shadow of things to come as opposed to the Sabbaths that are shadows) is one of the ten...You said , quote: we are not required to keep the Mosaic Sabbath holy....Jesus informs us that the Sabbath was made for mankind, not just for Jews Mark 2:27...as for the church now instructed to disregard Sabbath, perhaps then you should have told the early church....Acts 13:42,44; acts 16:13; Acts 17:2; Acts 18:4,11,19.

You are adding to scripture, which scripture itself forbids. The verse given in Col 2:17 does not make any kind of distinction between "sabbaths". You need to manipulte scripture in order to make you theology hold together, which is a very bad thing to do. And the word used in Mark 2:27 simply means "man", not "all of mankind" as you would like it to say.

And unfortunately for you, not one of the verses you provided from Acts teaches us that the "early church" regarded the sabbath. The reason why Paul chose to teach on the sabbath is obvious.

As for Col. 2:17, Paul qualifies what Sabbaths he is referring to when he says that no-one ought to be judged regarding them...that is the ones that are shadows.

Really? Where is that "qualification" made? There is nothing in Col 2:17 that indicates that Paul was only referring to "the ones that are shadows". If that was what he meant, then you can be assured that that is what he would have written.

4.And that all is by grace through faith......The scripture says that everything that is not of faith is sin. If I, through faith, accept the perpetual nature of the Sabbath commandment as indicated in scripture, then what of those who through lack of faith in God's word (I cite Exodus 20 as just one example) do not remember the Sabbath?

Once again, we are not commanded to "remember the sabbath", just as we were not given the sabbath in order to remember that we were slaves in Egypt (Deut 5:15).

5.And no amount of obedience, Sabbath keeping included, contributes one iota towards our justification, but if you do not have the faith to believe God has the power to change you into Christ's image (Christ was obedient to all God's commandments and never sinned) is what faith you do have sufficient? Are you suggesting that someone can be recreated in the image of Christ can be so fully while in disobedience to God's commands? It would seem to me from reading of scripture that this idea was established in the mind of man in the garden of Eden. (Genesis 3:5) Eve thought it was possible to be like god through disobedience, that idea seems to have taken hold on people since.

Where did I advocate being disobedient to God's commands? The 10 commandments were given to the people of the Old Covenant, not to us. This is what God has commandments to the people of the New Covenant:

"to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us." (1 John 3:23)

 

[Phoneman777]

<<Read what Socrates Scholasticus and others had to say about Sabbath keeping among the early church. >>

That's not a citation. He wrote many books.

What you have referred to is the 7th Day Adventist quote of Scholasticus which is taken out of context. What he also said his introductory words to Book 5, Chapter 22
is: "IN THE 4TH CENT., CHRISTIANS WERE CALLING SUNDAY THE SABBATH." So, when he spoke of the Sabbath, Socrates was, in fact, speaking of Sunday.

SDA, JW, and Mormon references, such as your reference to Scholasticus, are consistently unreliable. In the age of the internet, it took me less than 2 minutes to discover your "reference" to be a distortion of the facts. (Which is common for SDA, JW, and Mormon "proofs".)

No. YOU made the assertion. YOU back it up with a citation.

If you don't now where your "information" came from then don't cite it.

You actually want people to believe that S S meant to say that everywhere Christians were keeping the first day counterfeit "Sabbath" except in Alexandria and Rome, where their ancient tradition of keeping the true seventh-day Sabbath prevented them from adopting what everyone else had adopted?????

You are clearly the most sad, obstinate, confused, Biblically and historically ignorant cowardly (because you refuse to publicly declare that we may freely break the rest of the Ten Commandments as freely as you claim we may the seventh-day Sabbath commandment) non-Catholic devotee to Jesuit Futurism I've ever seen and only the Lord can help you.

 

[JimParker]

It should of course be noted, that before Rome ever began her more modern revisionist history campaign, she simply burned all written materials which recoeded her errors and atrocities, along with those who wrote or recorded them. There was no real need for a revisionist history campaign when she possesed the power to do such, and often did.

[SIZE=12pt]There is a book entitled The Lies and Fallacies of the Encyclopedia Britannica (Joseph McCabe) written quite some time ago. This book is about how the Catholic Church has basically rewritten much of the history in regard to itself, found in the Encyclopedia Britannica. The author gives many examples from the various additions of the Encyclopedia. He also gives the following warning to his readers.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]" But I give here a mass of evidence of the corrupt use of the great power which the Catholic Church now has: a warning of what the public may expect now that that Church has, through its wealth and numbers, secured this pernicious influence on publications, the press, the radio, and to an increasing extent on education and even the cinema. "[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Here is a bit more that he had to say on the subject. A little lengthy, but of great importance none the less. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]J. McCabe, Rationalists Encyclopedia[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“It will be gathered from a large number of articles in this Encyclopedia that the great gain of the adoption of scientific methods in modern history and of extensive discoveries in archaeology is offset by a lamentable falsification owing to concessions to religious writers or sectarian influence. It has gravely increased the difficulty of the Rationalist education of the public that, just when science has generally succeeded in silencing "the drum ecclesiastic" (in Huxley's phrase), history is increasingly listening to it. Recent issues of the leading encyclopedias have permitted very serious alterations of historical articles or invited clerical writers to contribute articles on subjects on which they could not be expected to be impartial or accurately informed. Serious attempts have been made even to impose the new spirit of accommodation upon teachers of history in universities, colleges, and the national schools. Poynter tells of an amazing plot of this nature in his Roman Catholics and School History Books (1930). However one may analyze the motives or the influences, conscious or subconscious, the evil begins with a number of professors or writers of history of some distinction, especially in the United States. [See, for example, the articles Arabs; Christianity; Dark Age; Democracy; Middle Age; Monasticism; Papacy; Philanthropy; Reformation; Rome; Thirteenth Century; and subsidiary articles mentioned in them.] The intellectual and moral status of pre-Christian civilizations is vindicated against ancient calumnies by virtually all modern authorities; yet in the case of Rome, while Protestant writers like Dr. E. Reich and Sir S. Dill have been generous in stating the truth, a number of recent historical writers, men who show no command of classical literature and the inscriptions, have used language in conformity with the old prejudices. This encourages theological writers to repeat their discredited claims that the Gospels brought a new and higher type of religion and ethic into the contemporary Roman world; that the Christians generally exhibited a superior type of character which attracted thoughtful Greeks and Romans; and that the acceptance - in reality enforcement - of the Christian religion was followed by a social and moral improvement. But greater evil is done by a falsification of the social history of the Christian, or at least the Catholic, era. In this respect Catholics have had a remarkable success in adulterating history. On the plea that the Protestant and Rationalist historians of the last century were moved by a prejudice against Catholicism, or that the development of psychology and of economic and social science gives the historian a new equipment for the study of earlier peoples, some historians - this does not apply to the Cambridge Mediaeval History - profess to give a new and sounder estimate of the period of solid Church influence. The title given to the first half, the Dark Age, is, largely on the quite false ground that it means the whole of the Middle Ages, declared to be unjust, and the second part, the Renaissance in the broader sense, is described more or less in harmony with the claims of Catholic writers. The historians in question betray that they have no command, as the historians of the last century had, of medieval literature. They ignore completely the immense literature which tells the licence and coarseness of life of the clergy, monks - all that they say of monasticism is to give a description of the ideal of a Benedictine abbey or describe Francis of Assisi - and people of all classes; and they profess that it is a mark of liberality to follow Catholic writers on the work of Gregory VII or Innocent III, the Massacre of the Albigensians and the Hussites, the Inquisition and the Reformation (See Coulter's Sectarian History, 1937). Admirable as it is to trace neglected social, political, and economic factors in this stretch of history, the deliberate suppression of its many evil features falsifies history and the sociological valuation of institutions. The same tendency is seen in the deliberate depreciation of the Arab-Persian civilization, which conceals the real source of the European Renaissance and confirms the preposterous claim that the Roman Church inspired it. Even in the modern period we find the same grave departure from the canons of history in the undiscriminating condemnation of the French Revolution, the suppression of the terrible injustices of French life which led to it, and especially the concealment of what Lord Acton called the savagery of the Roman Church in its fight against progress from the fall of Napoleon to 1870 (in Spain and Russia until recently). This falsification of history, at least by the suppression of facts and of relevant but distasteful contemporary documents, is one of the most unfortunate features of modern culture. The scores of articles in this Encyclopaedia in which it is exposed show that a new and thorough history of the Christian era is urgently needed.” [/SIZE]

<<[SIZE=12pt]There is a book entitled The Lies and Fallacies of the Encyclopedia Britannica (Joseph McCabe)>>[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I had asked for scholars, not atheist crackpots.[/SIZE]

 

[brakelite]

Brakelite, I assure you that I have read those verses very carefully. But what you are doing here is confusing morality with law. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, morality is not the fruit of being under a written code of law.
I am confused? Of course morality isn't a fruit of being 'under the law'! I am agreeing with Paul who says that very thing. . Paul said that those "under the law" are those who practice those sins (among others no doubt). Some of them are specific commandment breaking. Sin is transgression against the law. Being 'under the law' has nothing to do with new/old covenants. It has everything to do with whether one is under condemnation. That is why Paul set grace as being its opposite. (Romans 6:15) Therefore it is quite ironic, even illogical Biblically, to claim that those choosing to keep the Sabbath are 'under the law'.

If it was then the Jews, who were under that law, would not have crucified their Messiah. I have also pointed out something you need to consider carefully. We are not "lawless" as many SDAs seem to accuse us of being. We are under the law of Christ - a law that is "not like" the Covenant he made with the Jews.
The law of Christ is expressed in a number of different ways. "bearing others' burdens'....doing unto others as you would have them do to you....Mt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Notice....the golden rule we call it....Jesus says thisis the law and the prophets. He did not say that the law is superceded by the law of Christ...but rather it IS the law.


Now let me ask you this. If you are following the law of Christ, and therefore led by the spirit rather than a written code of law, which of the following acts do you think you would be practicing:

Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like.

Scripture is clear about this! Whereas it explicitly points out that the law is powerless to subdue such things, it is equally explicit in pointing out that folowing the Spirit does:

"live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature." (Gal 5:16)

Now you might claim that this somehow indicates that the Spirit is leading us to "keep the 10 commandments", but the fact remains that we are not under ANY of the Old Covenant laws, and suggesting that we focus on written laws rather than Christ is a corruption of the Gospel and a distraction from where our focus should ultimately be - on Christ. Again, focussing on laws neither produces good fruit, nor prevents bad fruit from growing in our lives. We are "commanded" to fix our eyes on Jesus - the prefector of our faith (Hebrews 12:2) - not on something that made "nothing perfect" (Hebrews 7:19)

Now we are getting somewhere. I have written that very thing time and time again throughout the forum...our focus must always be upon our Savior. On this we agree. So tell me then. This being the case and you and I agreeing upon it, what then is the fruit of our focus on Jesus? Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Eph 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth Notice that love is the first and foremost fruit of our relationship with Jesus. Elsewhere, as in Ephesians 5:9 previously, Paul describes these fruits as ....Php 1:11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God. If love is a fruit...and righteousness is a fruit...and love is the fulfilling of the law....and the law of Christ IS the law and the prophets...then commandment keeping must necessarily be simply another way of saying 'fruits of righteousness'. Righteousness by faith' you mentioned previously...not just imputed, but imparted also.



those commandments were given to those who displeased God.
Oh please, really? God was displeased with Israel when He spoke to them from Sinai? Truly? And He started by saying "I am the Lord thy God who brought you out of the house of bondage ? He gave the TC as some form of punishment? That truly has to be the most absurd statement I have read on this subject.


That particular quote is Jesus reply to his disciples question "Who then can be saved?" It answers that question, not whether or not anyone can keep the 10 comamndments. We know now that scripture reveals a salvation that is by faith, not by works. God has made it "possible" for us to completely fulfill the requirements of the law by putting our faith in what Jesus did for us through his crucifiction.
Revel. 21:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Fairly simple really isn't it. Inside are commandment keepers. Outside are commandment breakers. I am not saying anyone is saved BY their obedience, but the above verse, well, what can I say?


That's a "fine-sounding argument", and even though it contains elements of the truth, it largely tacks on something scripture does not say. One could just as easily claim that getting circumcised is based on love.. or any of the other commandments given in the Old Covenant. We are not under that covenant.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...love your neighbor as yourself...compare James 2:8...Romans 13:9....Matt.19:18,19....


You are adding to scripture, which scripture itself forbids. The verse given in Col 2:17 does not make any kind of distinction between "sabbaths". You need to manipulte scripture in order to make you theology hold together, which is a very bad thing to do. And the word used in Mark 2:27 simply means "man", not "all of mankind" as you would like it to say.
444 ἄνθρωπος anthropos anth’-ro-pos

from 435 and ops (the countenance, from 3700); man-faced, i.e. a human being; n m; TDNT-1:364,59; {See TDNT 72} {See TDNT "the Son of Man" 807}

AV-man 552, not tr 4, misc 3; 559

1) a human being, whether male or female
1a) generically, to include all human individuals
1b) to distinguish man from beings of a different order
1b1) of animals and plants
1b2) of from God and Christ
1b3) of the angels
1c) with the added notion of weakness, by which man is led into a mistake or prompted to sin
1d) with the adjunct notion of contempt or disdainful pity
1e) with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul
1f) with reference to the two fold nature of man, the corrupt and the truly Christian man, conformed to the nature of God
1g) with reference to sex, a male
2) indefinitely, someone, a man, one
3) in the plural, people
4) joined with other words, merchantman
When Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man, is it your contention that He was meaning a particular individual? Did He say a man? Or some men? When He called Himself the Son of man, what did He mean, because He used the exact same word.

And unfortunately for you, not one of the verses you provided from Acts teaches us that the "early church" regarded the sabbath. The reason why Paul chose to teach on the sabbath is obvious.
It is so true that even the most highly regraded and most honored theologians refuse to see what they refuse to practice.


Really? Where is that "qualification" made? There is nothing in Col 2:17 that indicates that Paul was only referring to "the ones that are shadows". If that was what he meant, then you can be assured that that is what he would have written.
Col.2:16 ¶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Tell me. What is the weekly Sabbath a shadow of? Remember as you reply, the Sabbath was first instituted before sin entered the world, therefore was not remedy for sin. The shadows were remedies. All of them. So, What is the Sabbath a shadow of? Chapter and verse please, or a 'thus sayeth the Lord'.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Brakelite, I assure you that I have read those verses very carefully. But what you are doing here is confusing morality with law. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, morality is not the fruit of being under a written code of law.
I am confused? Of course morality isn't a fruit of being 'under the law'! I am agreeing with Paul who says that very thing. . Paul said that those "under the law" are those who practice those sins (among others no doubt). Some of them are specific commandment breaking. Sin is transgression against the law. Being 'under the law' has nothing to do with new/old covenants. It has everything to do with whether one is under condemnation. That is why Paul set grace as being its opposite. (Romans 6:15) Therefore it is quite ironic, even illogical Biblically, to claim that those choosing to keep the Sabbath are 'under the law'.

So you "keep the law" do you???

That clashes quite badly with 1 John 1:8. And if you think you are not under condemnation because you think you keep the law, then why does the same passage of scripture that teaches us that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, show that it is despite the fact that do not keep the law that condemnation no longer exists, not because of it! Read Romans 7!

The law of Christ is expressed in a number of different ways. "bearing others' burdens'....doing unto others as you would have them do to you....Mt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Notice....the golden rule we call it....Jesus says thisis the law and the prophets. He did not say that the law is superceded by the law of Christ...but rather it IS the law.

That is just another example of bad interpretation aiming to pick out certain verses that you think supports your theology - without taking the slightest effort to harmonize them with the rest of scripture. To start with, what are you trying to prove by referencing Matthew 7:12? The law AND the prophets, according to Jesus, was not simply the 10 commandments. It was ALL of the Old Coventant - every dot and tittle. And despite the fact that Jesus says this in order to point out that the entire covenant was an indivisible unit (with both dots, tittles and prophets involved), SDAs and other sabbatarians try to use it in order to prove that the 10 commandments are still in effect! How so when it DISPROVES your false distinction of there being a "moral" and "ceremonial" law. Don't add to scripture! There is absolutely NO evidence that the Old Covenant had any such division.

Now we are getting somewhere. I have written that very thing time and time again throughout the forum...our focus must always be upon our Savior. On this we agree. So tell me then. This being the case and you and I agreeing upon it, what then is the fruit of our focus on Jesus? Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Eph 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth Notice that love is the first and foremost fruit of our relationship with Jesus. Elsewhere, as in Ephesians 5:9 previously, Paul describes these fruits as ....Php 1:11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God. If love is a fruit...and righteousness is a fruit...and love is the fulfilling of the law....and the law of Christ IS the law and the prophets...then commandment keeping must necessarily be simply another way of saying 'fruits of righteousness'. Righteousness by faith' you mentioned previously...not just imputed, but imparted also.

Yes, we agree that love fulfills the law, but that is as far as our agreement goes. Fulfilling the law is not synonymous with keeping the law, so why do SDAs pretend that it is? We "fulfill" the righteous requirements of the law through our faith in Jesus. If we fulfilled it by "keeping" it, then just as Paul said - "Christ died for nothing" (Gal 2:21). Now you can convince yourself that Christ died so that we no longer have to keep the so-called "ceremonial" law, which is something you need to believe in order to defend your theology, but if you take scripture as it stands then you will realize that it just doesn't make sense.

Oh please, really? God was displeased with Israel when He spoke to them from Sinai? Truly? And He started by saying "I am the Lord thy God who brought you out of the house of bondage ? He gave the TC as some form of punishment? That truly has to be the most absurd statement I have read on this subject.

Is that so? Absurd? Well perhaps you should read the following, which deals explicitly with why the Jews were given the "shadow" of the sabbath, AFTER rejecting the real thing:

"So, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert, where your fathers tested and tried me and for forty years saw what I did. That is why I was angry with that generation, and I said, 'Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways.' So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest.' " See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first. As has just been said: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion." Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert? And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed ? (Hebrews 3:7-19)

All of this occured immediately BEFORE the 10 commandments were given. And the stone tablets were given to them at the HEIGHT of their rebelllion! Do you think that it was all just a coincidence? Do you think the law was given to them as a reward? Read on and wake up to what scripture says:
"Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?
For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief."
Now notice here that Paul compares those who want to be under the law (something you ridiculously attempt to equate with people who are disobedient to the law - now that REALLY makes sense), are children of the slave woman, whereas those of the free woman were born due to a "promise".

Notice also that scripture distinguishes between the sabbath "promise" and the sabbath "law". The law was for slaves, but the promise for those who are free. The two are NOT the same. A law is not a promise, it is a binding requirement! And If you continue to read on in Hebrews 4 (after the verses I quoted from chapter 3 above) then you will discover that the promise of the sabbath is in no way equivalent to the law of the sabbath:
Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.
"For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith."

Now before you try to claim that this verse is referring to the weekly sabbath then take note that not only does Paul explicitly refer to a "promise", rather than a "law", the "they" he is referring to is those who rebelled in the desert, complaining about lack of water, and testing God BEFORE the law was given to them.
And not only that, nothing in the rest of that chapter indicates that what Paul was writing about seems to have anything to do with the Mosaic observance of the sabbath law - the rest was something one "entered", it was modelled according to the fact that God CEASED to work on the seventh day, (not the he rested one day every week), and in fact the only reference of a "day" in that chapter is "Today", not the seventh day of every week.

"Anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (verse 10).

Now if you think that God gets weary and has to rest one day of the week then you had better keep the Mosaic version of the sabbath. But if you realize that the Mosiac version was just a shadow, then I think it would be a better idea if you enter the same kind of eternal rest that God enjoys!

Revel. 21:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Fairly simple really isn't it. Inside are commandment keepers. Outside are commandment breakers. I am not saying anyone is saved BY their obedience, but the above verse, well, what can I say?

Well then, there is another thing we agree on.

When Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man, is it your contention that He was meaning a particular individual? Did He say a man? Or some men? When He called Himself the Son of man, what did He mean, because He used the exact same word.

I think he meant those men to whom the Sabbath was made.

It is so true that even the most highly regraded and most honored theologians refuse to see what they refuse to practice.

Not that I care that much about "highly regarded and honored theologians", but what on earth are you talking about?

Tell me. What is the weekly Sabbath a shadow of? Remember as you reply, the Sabbath was first instituted before sin entered the world, therefore was not remedy for sin. The shadows were remedies. All of them. So, What is the Sabbath a shadow of? Chapter and verse please, or a 'thus sayeth the Lord'.

I think the verses I quoted in Hebrews 3 and 4 teach us that the "reality" of the sabbath is the rest we have in Christ (the Gospel) - that our righteousness is not based on our own efforts (works) but on faith in Christ (rest). Does that mean that we do not produce good works? No, but they are not the kind of works that are found on a globally common check-list of things that we are all supposed to struggle to do (which produces pride), but on unique works that the Holy Spirit prompts each of us to do. In other words, they are not based on human striving or the moral standard that we might think we have, but on things that God has decided beforehand that we are to do (Eph 2:10).

 

[Phoneman777]

So you "keep the law" do you???

I and others have boldly and publicly declared that God has never removed from Christians our obligation to obey His Ten Commandments, not to be saved, but because we love Jesus. You and others who believe as you do have failed to publicly declare that we may freely disregard the rest of His Ten Commandments as freely as you claim we may disregard the seventh day Sabbath of the Ten Commandments, because you know that it will never be acceptable in the sight of God to have other gods before Him, blaspheme His name, engage in idolatry, kill steal, lie, etc.

As much as you would like to, you cannot have it both ways. Either cease from this cowardly behavior and once and for all publicly declare that we may worship Satan, curse Jesus, sleep with anyone's wife we choose, etc., or publicly state that the Ten Commandments remain forever and ever INCLUDING the seventh day Sabbath. Stop trying to stand on both sides of the street.

 

[brrrilliantsteve]

For anyone interested in the history behind this topic I have recently found a short book published in 1657 and available on Google docs. You can find it by searching...

"The seventh day sabbath sought out (1657)"
By Thomas Tillman - a minister of the gospel.

(Sorry I couldn't find the actual link)
The Author is responding to a "Mr Aspinwal" so he "may recieve a full answer to his piece against the sabbath"

I recommend this reading to those on both sides of the fence. I am in the midst of reading this now, so cannot give a full review, suffice to say that the author writes with power on all the points of contention still being discussed even here on this thread 358 Years later. And it is shorter at 109 pages than the 354 posts now on this thread.

God bless you all in your earnest searching of the scriptures.

 

[zeke25]

For anyone interested in the history behind this topic I have recently found a short book published in 1657 and available on Google docs. You can find it by searching...

"The seventh day sabbath sought out (1657)"
By Thomas Tillman - a minister of the gospel.

(Sorry I couldn't find the actual link)
The Author is responding to a "Mr Aspinwal" so he "may recieve a full answer to his piece against the sabbath"

I recommend this reading to those on both sides of the fence. I am in the midst of reading this now, so cannot give a full review, suffice to say that the author writes with power on all the points of contention still being discussed even here on this thread 358 Years later. And it is shorter at 109 pages than the 354 posts now on this thread.

God bless you all in your earnest searching of the scriptures.

brrr,

I checked it out. It has nothing of value to say.

Here's an excerpt from an excerpt of chapter one: "The first Royal Law that ever Jehovah instituted".

I checked my Bible, the sabbath is not a royal law.

Zeke25

 

[brakelite]

Upsalla Dragby asked..."so you keep the law do you?"
I remember vividly the night in 1976 I first received Jesus into my life. I was lying on my bed, and He came into my room with such love and acceptance and forgiveness I will never forget. This resulted in two things. One, several hours of weeping for joy and relief. The second, an ongoing answer (even to this day) to the prayer that prompted that visit from my Creator.
"Please make my life something you can approve of". You see, up to that point my life was one of excess, selfishness, and pleasure seeking that impacted the lives of many to their detriment and to my loss. Sin sucks. Jesus has changed me. I am grateful that He still is doing that. The depths of depravity that sin has engendered in the human heart knows no bounds, and is utterly deceitful above all things, (to quote Jeremiah). It is, in summary, lawless. The unregenerated human heart is not subject to God's laws, neither can be. (to quote Paul). However, the born again Christian who is being renewed in the spirit of his mind and is being changed into the image of His Savior can and does keep the laws of God. Not perfectly, but he has an advocate whose blood always avails for him, and whose intercession always is able to strengthen and give grace to stand after falling, and keep walking to higher ground.
Regardless of anyone else's opinions of the relevance of Sabbath keeping, I am convinced that this tenet of Christian practice was revealed to me and confirmed as truth by the same Person who created it in the first place, and Who entered my life nearly 50 years ago. I have yet to be shown from scripture that the weekly Sabbath has been changed, discarded, upgraded, or altered in any way by God. What I do see is a determined attempt by the enemy of men's souls to convince the world that it has been. What I do see is that it has been forgotten, and that men should pay heed to the admonition to 'remember' the Sabbath day to keep it holy, just as Jesus did, just as the apostles did, just as the early church did, just as over 600 different denominations or independent churches, house churches, on every continent and in every nation of the world do so today. Here are they that keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus. (to quote John).

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I and others have boldly and publicly declared that God has never removed from Christians our obligation to obey His Ten Commandments, not to be saved, but because we love Jesus. You and others who believe as you do have failed to publicly declare that we may freely disregard the rest of His Ten Commandments as freely as you claim we may disregard the seventh day Sabbath of the Ten Commandments, because you know that it will never be acceptable in the sight of God to have other gods before Him, blaspheme His name, engage in idolatry, kill steal, lie, etc.

As much as you would like to, you cannot have it both ways. Either cease from this cowardly behavior and once and for all publicly declare that we may worship Satan, curse Jesus, sleep with anyone's wife we choose, etc., or publicly state that the Ten Commandments remain forever and ever INCLUDING the seventh day Sabbath. Stop trying to stand on both sides of the street.

Please don't puff yourself up and try to get all haughty with me. You won't get very far, I assure you. If you have something to say to me then don't forget that you have an obligation to back it up with scripture. What you do NOT have an obligation to do is to construct faulty arguments and ad-hominim attacks. If you can show me ONE comment I have made in this thread where I claim that it is "acceptable in the sight of God to have other gods before Him, blaspheme His name, engage in idolatry, kill steal, lie, etc." then you would have a point!

As it is you don't!

What I have provided you with is SCRIPTURE, not my opinion, that teaches us the the law, whether or not is written on papyrus or stone, does not help us to aviod such sins. You have NOT provided scripture to the contrary, nor can you do so, so why do you think that your opinion counts?

Upsalla Dragby asked..."so you keep the law do you?"
I remember vividly the night in 1976 I first received Jesus into my life. I was lying on my bed, and He came into my room with such love and acceptance and forgiveness I will never forget. This resulted in two things. One, several hours of weeping for joy and relief. The second, an ongoing answer (even to this day) to the prayer that prompted that visit from my Creator.
"Please make my life something you can approve of". You see, up to that point my life was one of excess, selfishness, and pleasure seeking that impacted the lives of many to their detriment and to my loss. Sin sucks. Jesus has changed me. I am grateful that He still is doing that. The depths of depravity that sin has engendered in the human heart knows no bounds, and is utterly deceitful above all things, (to quote Jeremiah). It is, in summary, lawless. The unregenerated human heart is not subject to God's laws, neither can be. (to quote Paul). However, the born again Christian who is being renewed in the spirit of his mind and is being changed into the image of His Savior can and does keep the laws of God. Not perfectly, but he has an advocate whose blood always avails for him, and whose intercession always is able to strengthen and give grace to stand after falling, and keep walking to higher ground.
Regardless of anyone else's opinions of the relevance of Sabbath keeping, I am convinced that this tenet of Christian practice was revealed to me and confirmed as truth by the same Person who created it in the first place, and Who entered my life nearly 50 years ago. I have yet to be shown from scripture that the weekly Sabbath has been changed, discarded, upgraded, or altered in any way by God. What I do see is a determined attempt by the enemy of men's souls to convince the world that it has been. What I do see is that it has been forgotten, and that men should pay heed to the admonition to 'remember' the Sabbath day to keep it holy, just as Jesus did, just as the apostles did, just as the early church did, just as over 600 different denominations or independent churches, house churches, on every continent and in every nation of the world do so today. Here are they that keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus. (to quote John).

Brakelite. Firstly, the fact that you have a strong personal testimony does not answer the question whether or not you keep the law. Secondly, you have NO idea, nor have you made the slightest attempt, to inquire about the kind of experience I had when I converted to Christianity. You simply assume that what you experienced somehow trumphs anything that I experienced when I was saved - something that neither occured in a church, nor was in response to ANY kind of human interaction, but was supernatural, incredibly strong, confirmed by the Spirit of God and totally undeniable! You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about! My testimony is actually incredible! I do not say this in order to brag and boast, but because it actually is. I can gladly share it with you, or with anyone else, and I can assure you that many of the things I have experienced down through the years would make your jaw drop. But salvation testimonies and experiences do not override scripture, and neither do they confirm that everything we have come to believe is correct. We ALL have an obligation to make sure that we do not fall offer to deception, and the ONLY way we can satisfy that obligation is to make sure that what we believe conforms to, harmonizes with, and does not contradict the Word of God. I have clearly show you and all the other SDAs here that what you claim to be the truth does not do that.

 

[brakelite]

What I have provided you with is SCRIPTURE, not my opinion, that teaches us the the law, whether or not is written on papyrus or stone, does not help us to aviod such sins.

I am not sure what sins you refer to, but whatever they may be, I can assure you that no Sabbath keeper or contributor thus far to this thread believes the law is there to in order to give us the ability to obey it. What it clearly does do is present God's standard of righteousness. Righteousness that must come to us by faith. Righteousness that comes by the grace of God, not our own efforts, not through striving, but by the power of God in the life of the individual through the presence of the Holy Spirit infusing the love of God to and through the one who believes. I have said this on numerous occasions, it is how I live, it is how I survive, it is what I teach, it is the gospel. I do not know how clearer I can put t. Yet you, and others, cast that ersonal testimony aside as if it is of no account, believing it to be a lie, and continue to accuse Sabbath keepers of working for their salvation. Do we accuse you of working for your salvation because you are honest in your tax declarations? Do we accuse you f seeking to be justified by your works because you dare not look upon your neighbors wife in any way that may give rise to temptation? Do we accuse you of being justified by works of the law because you honor your mum and dad? Do we accuse you of being under the law when you preach and teach that one ought never worship idols? I repeat what I said before, this time it may be clearer to your understanding. No theologian recognizes truth when he doesn't want to obey it.

Brakelite. Firstly, the fact that you have a strong personal testimony does not answer the question whether or not you keep the law. Secondly, you have NO idea, nor have you made the slightest attempt, to inquire about the kind of experience I had when I converted to Christianity. You simply assume that what you experienced somehow trumphs anything that I experienced when I was saved - something that neither occured in a church, nor was in response to ANY kind of human interaction, but was supernatural, incredibly strong, confirmed by the Spirit of God and totally undeniable! You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about! My testimony is actually incredible! I do not say this in order to brag and boast, but because it actually is. I can gladly share it with you, or with anyone else, and I can assure you that many of the things I have experienced down through the years would make your jaw drop. But salvation testimonies and experiences do not override scripture, and neither do they confirm that everything we have come to believe is correct. We ALL have an obligation to make sure that we do not fall offer to deception, and the ONLY way we can satisfy that obligation is to make sure that what we believe conforms to, harmonizes with, and does not contradict the Word of God. I have clearly show you and all the other SDAs here that what you claim to be the truth does not do that.

The question UD is not whether or not I keep the law. That is not the issue. How well I keep it, whether 90% or 40% is irrelevant. I have , and will always need, the blood of Christ to cover my shortcomings, no matter at what stage of sanctification I am at. My salvation is not based on my law-keeping, it is based on grace. Period.
The question that we all should be asking ourselves is are we willing to obey God's laws? If we are willing, then, and only then, God will give the power to obey. What I see in this forum, at least among the contributors to this thread, is an unwillingness to obey, on account of the fact that they have gone out of their way to devise excuses from scripture that justifies their disobedience. I'm with Phoneman on this one. No-one is brave enough to step up and say they are not willing to disobey the 7th commandment, and no-one is seeking excuses to be exempt from it. Yet when it comes to the 4th, the double standards appear from every side. Those who are willing to obey the 4th are accused of seeking to be justified by their obedience, while those doing the accusing would not tolerate the same accusation being levelled at them for their obedience to the 7th. Double standards and hypocrisy.

 

[zeke25]

Acts 13:39 KJV, " And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."

Acts 15:10 KJV, "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

Acts 15:24 KJV, "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment[.]"

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I am not sure what sins you refer to

You don't? They were clearly listed in the post that I was responding to?

Why on earth are you "not sure"?

Are you listening?

I can assure you that no Sabbath keeper ...

So you label yourself as a "Sabbath keeper"? Please point out where scripture defines exactly what a "Sabbath keeper" is, what such a person does and doesn't do, and more impotantly, where it applies that definition to Chistians..

...or contributor thus far to this thread believes the law is there to in order to give us the ability to obey it. What it clearly does do is present God's standard of righteousness. Righteousness that must come to us by faith. Righteousness that comes by the grace of God, not our own efforts, not through striving, but by the power of God in the life of the individual through the presence of the Holy Spirit infusing the love of God to and through the one who believes. I have said this on numerous occasions, it is how I live, it is how I survive, it is what I teach, it is the gospel.

And???

Did I say anything to the contrary? Did I say that God's standard of righteousness was not embodied in the law? What exactly is your point?

My point is clear! We are no longer under the law of Moses, and therefore no longer obligated to observe ANY kind of weekly sabbath whatsoever. If you disagree then prove your point with scripture. Nothing else counts as far as I am concerned. SDAs ALWAYS like to point out that they are "not under the law", that their righteousness does not come from their efforts to keep the 10 commandments, and that what they do is based on their "love" for God, rather than the rest of us cowards who love to indulge in sin. Don't be so easily deceived!!! Remember who our enemy is and how subtle his attemts to deceive us are.

Yet you, and others, cast that ersonal testimony aside as if it is of no account, believing it to be a lie, and continue to accuse Sabbath keepers of working for their salvation.

I neither "casted your testimony aside nor did I claim it was a lie!

Try for once to be accurate in your accusations, rather that just pretending, for the sake of the argument, that they are correct.

If you have any complaint about the way I dealt with your personal testimony then please use quotes and point out exactly what you are referring to. I have the utmost respect for your personal testimony and never even ONCE claimed that your testimony was false!

Did I????

And neither did you respond to anything I said about my own testimony!

I don't doubt in the slightest that your experience, (as long as it doesn't contradict scripture) was genuine!

Did I indicate in any way that it wasn't? But in a world, where personal testimonies are abundant and that point out in all kinds of directions, we have scripture to indicate which of these are genuine or not. You had YOUR experience, and I had mine. Did you have an experience that proved to you that we are under the 10 commandments???? Or did you have an experience that demonstrated that God had a standard that we all fall short of? Now PLEASE answer this!!!

No theologian recognizes truth when he doesn't want to obey it.

Who said anything about not wanting to obey anything???

Now think about this!!!!!

Are you simply assuming something - something that you have absolutly no right whatsoever to assume§ - just for the intention of justifying your theology, or do you have any actual evidence for what you claim???

This is what Paul wrote:

"For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it."

Now please! Point out, using quotes, or whatever other method you have at your disposal, where anything I have written in this thread disagrees with the above or otherwise indicates that I don't want to obey God's commandments. Be my guest Brakelite! Win this debate with one easy sweep!