The Sabbath Day

[Robert Gwin]

like every single liar Robert Gwin -- anyone who violated the LAW against LYING had AND STILL IS to be put to death - HYPOCRITE - BIGOT!

You have a very valid point there Ger, Christians are to conduct themselves honestly in all things, lying comes so easily to us, yet although each and every one of us have done it, it is something that we can get a grip on, will we ever be completely free from it in this system, I doubt it, but we can definitely make it a rare event. I lied just a couple of months ago, but it is extremely rare that I do. I desire to be known for my honesty, so I work very hard to do what I say. Mat 5:37

 

[GEN2REV]

Acts 20:7 DOES NOT <depict Paul preaching to a crowd on the first day of the week.>
First, there is NO <crowd>; just 8 "waiting companions" plus 1 only "certain young man Tychicus who fell asleep" in the window in the THIRD and upper loft, the smallest room of the house!
Did Paul <preach> to the <crowd> while sitting with the 7 companions, bent over ON THE FLOOR where there were many lights needed because of the DARK, discussing their itinerary?!

NEVER COMPROMISE GOD'S TRUTH WITH THE DEVIL'S LIES! WHAT HAVE YOU GAINED? MULTIPLYING LIES BECAUSE YOU ARE AFRAID OF ANTICHRIST'S SUNDAY GO TO CHURCH MEN!

Acts 20:7 DOES NOT <depict Paul preaching to a crowd on the first day of the week.>
Two, there is NO <preaching> mentioned, only IMPLIED.

What a joke that Luke uses "dialoguing" the word picked out by Sunday worship protagonists par excellence to 'PROVE' the apostles 'NEVER preached' but ONLY 'argued disagreement' on the Sabbath! The bigots!

Three, the 'preaching' definitely IMPLIED in Acts 20:7 exists through Luke's using NO FINITE VERB for to preach the Gospel but only the Church-ACTION-of "having been assembling together" in worship of course AT SOME POINT IN TIME, in this instance Acts 20:7 and Luke's use specifically of the in Greek PERFECT Participle which strictly designates the Moment of Beginning in the PAST continued in the PRESENT. In Acts 20:7, 7 Ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων συνηγμένων ἡμῶν κλάσαι ἄρτον ὁ Παῦλος διελέγετο αὐτοῖς, μέλλων ἐξιέναι τῇ ἐπαύριον, παρέτεινέν τε τὸν λόγον μέχρι μεσονυκτίου

On the First Day of the week : Ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων
us having assembling together STILL after having had assembling together BEFORE : συνηγμένων
to of us break bread (or to observe the Lord's Supper) : ἡμῶν κλάσαι ἄρτον.

It was before the First Day started (sunset Saturday) the disciples had come together and had had the Lord's Supper with some preaching of course; but it was on the First Day of the week when being together assembling STILL, that Paul dialogued with the group in the upper room.

Ok.

Good points.

 

[Robert Gwin]

That is a conundrum, isn't it?

Why would God do such an illogical thing?

Let's think about that a minute.

If God accidentally put that 4th Commandment there, not realizing He'd later change His mind and remove it, He wouldn't be God. Would He?

If God put that there knowing that He'd later remove it, that throws all the other Commandments into question. Doesn't it?

If God chose to make a very dramatic gesture of inscribing into stone those Laws that literally define HIM, who He is, and how He see things, putting one Law in among the rest there, that was impermanent, would completely neutralize the effect of writing them in stone to begin with. Wouldn't it?

If God never intended for any of the Laws, that He so dramatically wrote in stone with His own finger twice, to be everlasting, that would mean that sin (the breaking of the 10 Commandments 1 John 3:4) would not be everlasting - which would mean that God would not have any reason at all to send His only Son to earth to die for mankind. Wouldn't it?

So we arrive at a problem, Robert.

See, if that 4th Commandment wasn't supposed to be there, or if it was supposed to be and its transient presence negated all of God's Commandments, that means that sin doesn't exist, that nobody will go to hell, that all mankind is going to heaven (if that even still remains) and that the entire Biblical Saga was all for naught.

If you believe the Sabbath is in effect today, may I ask why you violate it Gen?

 

[Robert Gwin]

Rob, this is very confusing to me. Can you see why it might be a little perplexing?

But it was Christ who gave the law at Sinai.

Jehovah's will is the law of Christ. God doesn't change. My head hurts, Rob. (just ribbin' ya a little)
It sure is interesting since I can't find that change anywhere in the Bible.

I will see if I can address these questions sir.
Rob, this is very confusing to me. Can you see why it might be a little perplexing?
No I do not understand, we no longer are under many laws of the Law covenant.

But it was Christ who gave the law at Sinai.
It was credited to God sir, but with Jesus as the chief spokesman I would not doubt that.

Jehovah's will is the law of Christ. God doesn't change. My head hurts, Rob. (just ribbin' ya a little)
It sure is interesting since I can't find that change anywhere in the Bible.[/QUOTE]

We refer to Christian law as the Law of the Christ based on Gal 6:2

Thanks for asking Q.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I was recently in a discussion with a Roman Catholic on a different Christian forum site who claims that the Roman Catholic church does not teach salvation by works, then afterwards, he contradicted himself by stating this below:

We are saved by faith - as long as you properly define "Faith". Faith is NOT simply "believing". Faith INCLUDES:

Being baptized (Matt. 28:19-20, John 3:5, Rom. 2:29, Rom. 6:1-11, Col. 2:12-17, 1 Peter 3:21)
Eating His body and drinking His blood/partaking the Lord's Supper during Mass (John 6:53-56)
Works of mercy and charity (Matt. 19:21, 25:31–46, Luke 18:22)
Obeying his commandments (John 15:10)

His argument about faith being "defined as" and INCLUDES these works above is just sugar coated double talk and equates to salvation through faith (his version of faith) + works.

Someone else from a different Christian forum site who attends the church of Christ made this statement - It is works of obedience that help to save us and not works of the law or works of merit.

A SDA made this statement - The counterfeit Gospel is out there. What is the other Gospel? It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's Law (10 commandments) from the Cross. It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's 10 commandments from the plan of salvation. God’s Law has always been part of the true Gospel of Christ. The counterfeit Gospel does not have it. God's forever Law (the 10 commandments) is the foundation of both the Old and the New Covenant and the very foundation and basis of the true Gospel of Christ.

There are others who teach we are saved by BOTH faith AND works and hold fast to "type 2 works salvation." From this site - We are justified by both faith and works. James 2:24 says we are justified by works and not by faith alone. You are simply double talking your way out of why Abraham was justified by works in James 2:21. James asks the question imply that Abraham was justified by works. It’s not saying faith that underlies works is what really saved him and not the works. James implies that Abraham was justified by works. That is what he is plainly saying that you don’t like. Yes, we are not first justified by works. Works only follow after we are first saved by God’s grace (Which is a process of salvation without works because it is based upon God’s mercy and grace). Being saved by God’s grace is how we are first initially saved. But if works in no way saves, then you can not lift a finger for God, and still be saved in this life. In the Parable of the Talents, we learn that the servant who was faithful over a few things was told to enter the joy of His Lord, and yet the unprofitable servant was cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This is just a sample.

Well done

 

[Jim B]

Acts 20:7 DOES NOT <depict Paul preaching to a crowd on the first day of the week.>
First, there is NO <crowd>; just 8 "waiting companions" plus 1 only "certain young man Tychicus who fell asleep" in the window in the THIRD and upper loft, the smallest room of the house!
Did Paul <preach> to the <crowd> while sitting with the 7 companions, bent over ON THE FLOOR where there were many lights needed because of the DARK, discussing their itinerary?!

NEVER COMPROMISE GOD'S TRUTH WITH THE DEVIL'S LIES! WHAT HAVE YOU GAINED? MULTIPLYING LIES BECAUSE YOU ARE AFRAID OF ANTICHRIST'S SUNDAY GO TO CHURCH MEN!

YOU SHOULD NEVER COMPROMISE GOD'S TRUTH WITH THE DEVIL'S LIES!

 

[Jim B]

Not at all Jim, like I said Christians are not under the Sabbath Law, but there many of the laws in the Law covenant that still govern Christians. You still have to worship and serve Jehovah exclusively Mat 4:10, 22:37 and love your neighbor as yourself v 39. etc

Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit to be our guide, not the written law. If you put yourself back under the written law you are denying Christ.

 

[Brakelite]

It might be interesting to note that out of the 10 Commandments, observing the Sabbath is the only one that we are no longer obligated to obey

On what authority do you make such a claim?

The topic was the Sabbath Ger, under the law covenant anyone who violated it was to be put to death Nu 15:32-36. Every single individual I know, and likely those you know as well has done work on the Sabbath.

Also for adultery. In fact, the NT testifies to theOT truth that all sin is deserving of death. Is the 4th commandment the only one you've disobeyed,?

 

[Brakelite]

No human can make a day holy.

We aren't required to make any day holy. It is already holy. How you keep it holy according to the commandment is the question.

Now we can obey the Sabbath commandment by entering into Christ...to rest in His life.

Possibly the most common assertion made by the anti sabbatarians. Always without scriptural support.

 

[BarneyFife]

I was recently in a discussion with a Roman Catholic on a different Christian forum site who claims that the Roman Catholic church does not teach salvation by works, then afterwards, he contradicted himself by stating this below:

We are saved by faith - as long as you properly define "Faith". Faith is NOT simply "believing". Faith INCLUDES:

Being baptized (Matt. 28:19-20, John 3:5, Rom. 2:29, Rom. 6:1-11, Col. 2:12-17, 1 Peter 3:21)
Eating His body and drinking His blood/partaking the Lord's Supper during Mass (John 6:53-56)
Works of mercy and charity (Matt. 19:21, 25:31–46, Luke 18:22)
Obeying his commandments (John 15:10)

His argument about faith being "defined as" and INCLUDES these works above is just sugar coated double talk and equates to salvation through faith (his version of faith) + works.

Someone else from a different Christian forum site who attends the church of Christ made this statement - It is works of obedience that help to save us and not works of the law or works of merit.

A SDA made this statement - The counterfeit Gospel is out there. What is the other Gospel? It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's Law (10 commandments) from the Cross. It is a Gospel that tries to separate God's 10 commandments from the plan of salvation. God’s Law has always been part of the true Gospel of Christ. The counterfeit Gospel does not have it. God's forever Law (the 10 commandments) is the foundation of both the Old and the New Covenant and the very foundation and basis of the true Gospel of Christ.

There are others who teach we are saved by BOTH faith AND works and hold fast to "type 2 works salvation." From this site - We are justified by both faith and works. James 2:24 says we are justified by works and not by faith alone. You are simply double talking your way out of why Abraham was justified by works in James 2:21. James asks the question imply that Abraham was justified by works. It’s not saying faith that underlies works is what really saved him and not the works. James implies that Abraham was justified by works. That is what he is plainly saying that you don’t like. Yes, we are not first justified by works. Works only follow after we are first saved by God’s grace (Which is a process of salvation without works because it is based upon God’s mercy and grace). Being saved by God’s grace is how we are first initially saved. But if works in no way saves, then you can not lift a finger for God, and still be saved in this life. In the Parable of the Talents, we learn that the servant who was faithful over a few things was told to enter the joy of His Lord, and yet the unprofitable servant was cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This is just a sample.

I don't how much effort you had to put into collecting these examples but, in any case, I appreciate it.

Unfortunately, they do very little to substantiate the concern of so many that the church is in imminent danger of being overrun by teachers of salvation by and/or from works. Only one of the examples you gave conveys the belief that works are in any way meritorious toward atonement. The request I made was pretty specific. (The justification mentioned by James is not that which is imputed initially in the legal sense.) And I guess I should have specified non-Catholic because I think most everyone knows that the Catholic faith is some sort of a mixture of faith and works. Was it necessary for you to go outside this forum to find examples? If so, that makes them seem somewhat rare to me.

There is, I think, a telling amount of anxiety expressed over whether we shall be saved or not. I don't believe that is God's will for us. The very fact that so many people so vehemently oppose any talk of obedience on the part of Christians betrays a lack of assurance in God's faithfulness. The notion that anything more than a nod toward God pertains to their salvation seems to horrify so many.

I know I've beaten this drum to death, but the attitudes I see displayed on this and other forums just did not exist just a generation or two ago. (No one ever addresses this claim when I make it—never.) The amount of brainpower and typing people put into justifying their own course of action or inaction is almost completely identical to that of unbelievers. It's truly shocking to me to see how so many other believers of my generation fell for this deception. I know it was foretold in Scripture but watching it unfold has really traumatized me.

Evangelicals (because it sounds nicer than "antinomians") generally believe that Christians must keep the 2 great commandments. And if one doesn't (then comes the argument as to whether they are still secure or that they were never "saved" in the first place, blah, blah). But, regardless, doesn't obeying the 2 great commandments require any work? And, if so, why aren't those who advocate this theology deemed "legalists." Disobedience just doesn't make any sense to me. Not everything that is required by God has saving power. Why must we kid ourselves? We can't escape obedience.

When you get right down to it, the only commandment people really object to is the 4th and they will go to any lengths to justify their objection, and the only reason I can think of for that is the claims that observing it would make on their lifestyles.

It's as simple as that.

Even worldlings know that the ten commandments are the moral standard of God.

You probably shouldn't take this reply too personally because I don't know how much of it applies to you.

Just rambling and venting, as I so often do.

 

[Jim B]

We aren't required to make any day holy. It is already holy. How you keep it holy according to the commandment is the question.

Possibly the most common assertion made by the anti sabbatarians. Always without scriptural support.

Jesus violated the Sabbath, which infuriated the Pharisees. Whom do you identify with? Judging by your post I would say the latter.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You err in your interpretation in that the ministration of righteousness IS the 10 Commandments.

For the Law is good and holy.
Romans 7:12
1 Timothy 1:8
James 1:25
Psalms 19:7It's ok. They do.

Funny enough, the modern mainstream church actually does claim a Sabbath. It just claims that it is on Sunday.

Vestiges of its overwhelming influence from the Catholic Church - who admits to changing the day from Saturday to Sunday.

The Protestant churches all believe they are doing their own thing, apart from Catholicism. All the while, they are observing many of the same doctrines.

That is what the unwitting church member has to trudge through on a daily basis since the majority of them will not pick up a Bible and learn for themselves what God has to say about it all. They are all led into a ditch by the blind leaders they pledge their trust in rather than God Almighty and His Word.
2 Thessalonians 2:10

It's OK, we don't, but if one wishes to observe a Sabbath Day they are free to do so, that is what Romans 14 is all about!

Paul in writing to the Corinthians acknowledged the early church met on Sunday>

1 Corinthians 16:1-3
King James Version

16 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.

2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

3 And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.

Paul strongly implies here that the church met on Sunday. But Sunday is not the Sabbath and the church is not bound to the Sabbath. The Sabbath was given to the jews as a sign between them and God!

Exodus 31:13
Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.



also, when the church was all jewish, the believers would stay after Sabbath service and when sundown came (beginning of Sunday) they would hold a Christian worship service.

 

[GEN2REV]

It's OK, we don't, but if one wishes to observe a Sabbath Day they are free to do so ...

You are either SDA or your church worships on Sunday, Ron.

Paul in writing to the Corinthians acknowledged the early church met on Sunday

No, actually he didn't. None of that speaks of gathering on Sunday to worship in place of the Saturday Sabbath.

The Sabbath was given to the jews as a sign between them and God!

Wrong as usual.

The 10 Commandments were given to everybody.
Deuteronomy 29:14-15

They were also given prior to the event at Sinai.
Exodus 16:4-5; Exodus 16:22-23

also, when the church was all jewish, the believers would stay after Sabbath service and when sundown came (beginning of Sunday) they would hold a Christian worship service.

Nice story you just conveyed there which has not a single letter that exists in Scripture to back it up.

Great way to end your completely unscriptural post.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The 10 Commandments were given to everybody.
Deuteronomy 29:14-15

Wrong again! It was given to the Jews and all the proselytes to Judaism.





but it does when coupled with history.

No, actually he didn't. None of that speaks of gathering on Sunday to worship in place of the Saturday Sabbath.

They were also given prior to the event at Sinai.
Exodus 16:5; Exodus 16:22-23

You say Paul didn't speak of Sunday worship in Corinth. but yet without a mention of the Sabbath in the Exodus passage you say it was there before the Sinai writing. what Chutzpah!

Nice story you just conveyed there which has not a single letter that exists in Scripture to back it up.

Great way to end your completely unscriptural post.

Well SCripture doesn't say if Corinth obeyed Paul, but we know they did. Scripture doesn't tell you to tie your shoes, so do you leave them untied???

But once again as you wish to obey the law.

Do you abstain from Pork, shellfish, scaleless fish, meat from split hooved animals?
Do yo0 not wear mixed fabrics?
Do you observe all seven feasts God commanded all to observe?

 

[BarneyFife]

,

So then you do not eat shellfish?
You do not wear mixed fabrics?
You do no labor on Saturday?
You do not eat pork?

Nor scaleless fish?

,
I don't eat creeping things and unclean things because I don't want to waste away miserably for years in assisted care because, by overdosing on cholesterol, parasites, and arachidonic acid, I effectively committed slow suicide on the layaway plan.

The mixed fabrics and all the other odd things people like to bring up to object to Sabbath-keeping are about ceremonial purity, which was fulfilled in Christ.

I do no labor on the Sabbath except that which is necessary to sustain life, health, and spirituality.
,

or any of the other 613 commands god instructed to Moses for Gods people to obey? After all these are Scripture as well and the only Scripture available in Pauls time! Either Gods Word is settled in heaven or it is not! so do you obey all those other Laws?

,
The 613 "Mitzvot" thing is bogus because even the Jewish rabbinical order can't agree on what constitutes it.

I hold fast to that which is good and rely on the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ alone for the ministration of my title to citizenship in the Kingdom of God.

Do "New Covenant" evangelicals adhere to the 1050 commands given in the New Testament (Covenant)?
,

2 Corinthians 3:7-12

,
If you can demonstrate to me an exegetical reconciliation of 2 Corinthians 3 with the same penman's words in Romans 7 and Romans 8 concerning the writing on tables of stone, I'll be glad to discuss this passage with you.
,

Romans 14

,
Romans 14 is about judging and despising, neither of which I'm of a mind to do.

But sin is to be made plain to the sinner (which is simply an application of the Golden Rule—I would want someone to tell me if I were sinning out of ignorance). It is the transgression of the law, the 4th article of which is:

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

,

So Sorry, but the church has no Sabbath.

,
The church has had a Sabbath for 6000 years. That is why folks can almost nowhere enter a bank or post office on Sunday. Why deny reality and obvious evidence? All of this general anti-Sabbath sentiment is a post-modern construct. The idea of the church being out of the loop on their duty to God as regards the 4th commandment for nearly 2000 years is simply ludicrous.

 

[BarneyFife]

Paul strongly implies here that the church met on Sunday. But Sunday is not the Sabbath

Then why bring it up?

The Sabbath was given to the jews as a sign between them and God!

The church is the Israel of God.

also, when the church was all jewish, the believers would stay after Sabbath service and when sundown came (beginning of Sunday) they would hold a Christian worship service.

...which kinda-sorta proves nothing.

The hate for God's law is raging on.

 

[BarneyFife]

Jesus violated the Sabbath, which infuriated the Pharisees. Whom do you identify with? Judging by your post I would say the latter.

If Christ violated any of the laws in the Old testament we are all doomed, for we have no spotless sacrifice to atone for us. The entire point of the remarks made by Jesus to those who accused His disciples of Sabbath-breaking is that which you copy-and-paste into every one of these Sabbath-decrying threads which is:

Wherefore it is lawful (not lawless) to do well on the Sabbath days.​

 

[Enoch111]

You're not giving me much to work with, brother.

Here's what you can do. Assign six days to labor. For each day assign 8 hours to hard work, 8 hours to sleep, and 8 hours for all other activities including leisure. Now you may choose to sleep only 4 hours and work 12 hours, but that is entirely up to you. Then the 7th day (whether Saturday or Sunday) means absolutely no work.

 

[BarneyFife]

No I do not understand, we no longer are under many laws of the Law covenant.

Make no mistake Dan, Christians are under law as well, a different covenant, but remember God doesn't change. Many of the laws of the law covenant we are still obligated to observe.

,
It just doesn't make sense to me to state that Christians are under different law and then to say God doesn't change without explaining what appears to be a distinction without a difference.
,

We refer to Christian law as the Law of the Christ based on Gal 6:2

,
But Galatians 6:2 isn't descriptive of that law at all, Rob.
,

Thanks for asking Q.

,
'Pleasure's all mine, my friend. Nice jabberin' with you.

 

[Enoch111]

It just doesn't make sense to me to state that Christians are under different law and then to say God doesn't change without explaining what appears to be a distinction without a difference.

Should it not be obvious to Christians that the finished work of Christ brought an end to the Law of Moses? The Law of Christ supersedes the Law of Moses, just as Christ supersedes Moses, and is far greater than him. The Ten Commandments have been incorporated into the Law of Christ, and the Lord's Day has replaced the 7th day Sabbath (given to Israel). This is how simple the matter it. The very fact that a new term -- the Lord's Day -- is found in the Bible should make everyone strive to understand its significance.