Remember,
I said it is all throughout the Gospel - the first thing you should do is read again Exodus 31:12-17
Keep in mind Genesis chapters 1- 3 as well
No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven,
that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.
14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
15that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
16For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18“
He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already
SHALOM
I had asked you to "Post the scriptures along with your claims."
Rather what you've given us above is another
non sequitur, a lazy reply, weak sophistry.
For clarity, read Angelina's post directly above.
In the meantime, you have "thrown up a Hail Mary" with a careless mention of
Exodus 31. Question: If the Sabbath was intended for all people, both Jew and Gentile, then why does
Exodus 31:16-17 state that the Sabbath was a sign between God and the "children of Israel" instead of clarifying that it should be kept by all people of all nations for all time?
Question: If breaking the Sabbath was punishable by death in the Old Testament (
Exodus 31:14 & 35:2), why is it not condemned in any way, shape, or form in the New Testament? Various passages in the New Testament list numerous types of sinners who will not inherit the kingdom (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, and Revelation 21:8 & 22:15), but none of those lists ever mention Sabbath-breakers. Why is that?
Question: If the Sabbath was for Gentiles and Adam, Noah and Abraham, then why is the Sabbath a sign to remind their exodus from Egypt?
Exodus 16:23,29;
31:13-18. Were either Abraham or Seventh-day Adventists ever slaves in Egypt?
In John chapter 3, the LORD reiterates Exodus 31:12-17 in His Fullness of Understanding
...and again another "Hail Mary." So again, let's look closer at this, your second cite.
In
1 John 3:4, sin is the transgression of the law. From this text Seventh-Day Adventists claim that all sins of every kind are a violation of the ten commandments which is the law here meant.
However:
1 - Does it say that this law is the ten commandments? No, nor any hint of such a thing. Here, as ever,
sabbatarians assume the very thing to be proved.
2 - The decalogue was not given till Moses, 2500 years after the creation. Ex. 2O; Deut. 5:2-6. But sin existed all that time. The angels sinned, 2 Pet. 2:4; Adam sinned, Rom. 5:12; the Sodomites sinned, Gen. 13:13; "the Gentiles which have not the law," Rom. 2:12-14, sinned; hence sin is something more than a violation of the decalogue. A neglect to do good is sin, James 4:17, but that would not violate the decalogue. Unbelief is sin, Rom. 14:23, but that is no transgression of the decalogue. So, many are damned because they neglected to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, take in the stranger, clothe the naked, or visit the sick, Matt. 25:41-43, none of which are mentioned in the decalogue. John says, "All unrighteousness (unrightness, wrong) is sin." 1 John 5:17.
There are scores of wrongs which the decalogue does not notice at all.
3 -
The decalogue ended at the cross, 2 Cor. 3:7; Rom. 10:4, so it cannot condemn sin now.
4 - In the original of 1 John 3:4, the word
law does not occur at all. Thus: "Sin is lawlessness," Revised Version. "Sin is iniquity," Diaglott. "All sin is iniquity," Syriac. "Sin is wickedness," Sawyer's Translation. "Sin is the lawlessness," literal Greek. This is the correct idea. So a correct translation entirely spoils this text for sabbatarians/Adventists. It simply affirms that all sin is iniquity, wickedness or lawlessness, a disregard of law,
without any necessary reference to the decalogue.
Or, are you referring to
1 John 3:22? Well, it's "The Ten Commandments" again. The same old assumption again, viz., that "the commandments" are always the ten commandments. But the next verse explodes this hobby by naming what is meant: "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment."
This is not the decalogue at all.
