What will happen to Christians who reject the Sabbath?

[marks]

Amen! The moral aspect of the law is written on our hearts.

At the end of the day, we serve Christ, not Law.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Your grandparents and their pastor didn't believe any of this junk.

Is that so??

Huh! I had no idea you knew so many people so many years ago! My grandparents were NOT Sabbath keepers. Nor was their pastor!

You would dare to appropriate my relatives for your argument? No way.

Much love, and hope for better!

 

[marks]

Hi Barney. For me it's not about having an anti-Sabbatarian ax to grind.

There is a LOT of rhetoric on this thread!

Much love!

 

[marks]

If keeping the weekly sabbath day is still in effect today, then why don't Sabbatarians seek to obey ALL that the Lord commanded in regard to it?

Exactly! As it is with ALL "Law Keepers". They always select which parts to keep, and which parts not, making it entirely their own Law, some of it approriated from God's Law, but never the entire Law and Prophets.

Always!

Much love!

 

[BarneyFife]

Is that so??

Huh! I had no idea you knew so many people so many years ago! My grandparents were NOT Sabbath keepers. Nor was their pastor!

You would dare to appropriate my relatives for your argument? No way.

Much love, and hope for better!

I didn't say his grandparents were Sabbath-keepers. And I wouldn't speculate that yours were, either. But I don't think it's much of a stretch to suspect they didn't believe any of the anti-Sabbatarian nonsense that gets loaded onto this board. If I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

"Dare?" "Appropriate?"

Aren't you taking something I said to someone else a little more personally than even they did?

By the way, the "no law without the temple" stuff doesn't really work very well considering that after the veil was rent in two when Christ breathed His last, the concept of the temple on Earth was revealed to be the human individual (1 Corinthians 6:19) where it really always belonged. God always meant for the atonement prefigured by the Levitical system to be internalized in the soul. David, especially, understood this. There's only one covenant that has ever saved anyone—New/Everlasting.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Did you have a real response, or just throwing rocks?

You should think this through!

Love and Trust. Rest in Christ, the true spiritual rest, rather than a material observance to keep you right with God.

Much love!

I see you're having some personal conflict with other Adventists.

Try to keep in mind that we're not identically programmed robots.

I don't hesitate to speak harshly to folks who won't seem to have it any other way, but I never call into question other people's standing with God or their love for Him except in the most drastic of cases.

Just clearing the air.

.

 

[marks]

Just clearing the air.

That's what I was doing also.

I've learned to pay attention to how people address others, for, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Aren't you taking something I said to someone else a little more personally than even they did?

Consider what you posted. You grabbed onto a generation as your support. Not valid.

Much love!

 

[BarneyFife]

Consider what you posted. You grabbed onto a generation as your support. Not valid.

Much love!

Non-answer

.

 

[marks]

By the way, the "no law without the temple" stuff doesn't really work very well considering that after the veil was rent in two when Christ breathed His last, the concept of the temple on Earth was revealed to be the human individual (1 Corinthians 6:19) where it really always belonged. God always meant for the atonement prefigured by the Levitical system to be internalized in the soul. David, especially, understood this. There's only one covenant that has ever saved anyone—New/Everlasting.

Then how is it that the internalized Sabbath seems to escape you?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Non-answer

.

No, I'm not taking it personally, only, you don't have the right to speak for others whom you don't even know. It's a purely invalid argument.

I didn't say his grandparents were Sabbath-keepers. And I wouldn't speculate that yours were, either. But I don't think it's much of a stretch to suspect they didn't believe any of the anti-Sabbatarian nonsense that gets loaded onto this board. If I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

This sounds like a more balanced statement. I happen to know what my grandparents believed. They believed in a rest in Christ, as the Bible teaches.

Your grandparents and their pastor didn't believe any of this junk.

It would be interesting seeing you try to validate this statement.

Mostly, I think it's just rhetoric. Vanity. There seems to be a lot on this thread! Isn't it enough to just discuss the Scriptures without characterizing others poorly?

Much love!

 

[BarneyFife]

That's what I was doing also.

I've learned to pay attention to how people address others, for, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Much love!

I don't address everyone and every circumstance in the same way. That might pose difficulties for your practice.

Then how is it that the internalized Sabbath seems to escape you?

Much love!

For one thing, the Sabbath isn't part of the Levitical system and, secondly, I internalize the Sabbath like you could hardly imagine.

No, I'm not taking it personally, only, you don't have the right to speak for others whom you don't even know. It's a purely invalid argument.

What are my rights? I wasn't speaking for anyone. If you want to take something I said to someone else uber-seriously, you're certainly within your rights.

This sounds like a more balanced statement. Though You don't know what they did and didn't believe. I do. They believed in a rest in Christ, as the Bible teaches.

I didn't say they didn't believe in a rest in Christ apart from the Sabbath, as the Bible does indeed teach. On the other hand, you didn't say whether or not they had biblical objections to keeping a literal day of rest and worship once a week. And I suspect they didn't, as much as that seems likely to offend you.

It would be interesting seeing you try to validate this statement.

Mostly, I think it's just rhetoric. Vanity. There seems to be a lot on this thread!

Validate it? I hardly think that'll be necessary, since it was just rhetoric, but it wasn't my intention to convey vanity. And, again, it was directed to someone I know well enough to justify making the leap.

And I think you're being disagreeable more than just disagreeing.

And if that's the way you intend to continue, I wouldn't be interested in any further exchange.

.

 

[rockytopva]

Newsflash! There was a church before the Adventist church! I have read of "The Great Disappointment" in which the Adventist prophecies that Jesus Christ would return to the Earth by 1844 (or the Second Advent) did not happen. I have read that a great many people gave up on Adventist teachings as a result. - Adventism - Wikipedia

If we all are in trouble for rejecting Adventist teachings then a great number of us are in trouble!

 

[marks]

That might pose difficulties for your practice.

No, no problem at all, actually. How people address others tells me about them, it's just like the Bible says.

For one thing, the Sabbath isn't part of the Levitical system and, secondly, I internalize the Sabbath like you could hardly imagine.

It's a part of the Law covenant God made with Israel. Which you would enforce the material observance upon all people, apart from Israel. Nowhere is it commanded in the Bible EXCEPT to Israel.

What are my rights? I wasn't speaking for anyone. If you want to take something I said to someone else uber-seriously, you're certainly within your rights.

I'm just saying, it's not a valid argument.

I didn't say they didn't believe in a rest in Christ apart from the Sabbath, as the Bible does indeed teach.

Your grandparents and their pastor didn't believe any of this junk.

Which "junk" didn't they believe, and how do you know this?? Serious question. Tell me, should we be able to support our statements?

OK, if you only meant that one person's grandparents, and their pastor, and you know these people well enough to say this, I stand corrected, and I apologize.

On the other hand, you didn't say whether or not they had biblical objections to keeping a literal day of rest and worship once a week. And I suspect they didn't, as much as that seems likely to offend you.

Hey, I don't have an objection to you resting on Saturday. Maybe that offends you?

Validate it? I hardly think that'll be necessary, since it was just rhetoric, but it wasn't my intention to convey vanity. And, again, it was directed to someone I know well enough to justify making the leap.

OK, no worries.

And I think you're being disagreeable more than just disagreeing.

And if that's the way you intend to continue, I wouldn't be interested in any further exchange.

I'm just pointing to what I see as poor arguments.

You don't have to reply.

Much love!

 

[rockytopva]

Doctrine and Salvation...

Salvation - As easy as... "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." - Romans 10:9

Doctrine - Much possibility of error. Before being burned alive Michael Servetus said, "I consider it a serious matter to kill men because they are in error on some question of scriptural interpretation, when we know that even the elect ones may be led astray into error." - Michael Servetus, shortly before being executed by John Calvin.

If the Adventist confess the Lord Jesus and believe in their heart that God has raised him from the dead then yes, I believe they are saved. But... As in the rest of us... There is much possibility of error in man made doctrine.

 

[BarneyFife]

It's a part of the Law covenant God made with Israel. Which you would enforce the material observance upon all people, apart from Israel.

Enforce? It's clear that you don't know me at all.

Hey, I don't have an objection to you resting on Saturday. Maybe that offends you?

Why would that offend me? I really don't understand your attitude. Either you know whether they had such an objection or not. Perhaps you'd rather not say.

Like I said, I've done hundreds of surveys. The hostility towards the Sabbath that pervades online Christian forums today simply didn't exist just a few decades ago. Feel free to try to prove otherwise.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Exactly! As it is with ALL "Law Keepers". They always select which parts to keep, and which parts not, making it entirely their own Law, some of it approriated from God's Law, but never the entire Law and Prophets.

Always!

Much love!

This has been explained so many times, there's hardly any need for anyone to be exhibiting this attitude.

The laws that Adventists, in particular, keep from the Torah are only the ones that support the principles contained in the Ten Commandments.

We don't believe we have any right to practice things that would tend to degrade the stewardship of the things for which God holds us responsible such as body, mind, family, property, etc.

It's really quite simple and reasonable, contrary to wildly popular belief.

I don't know why obedience is labeled "legalism" by so many Christians.

I don't assume that anyone who believes in eternal security, for instance, necessarily assumes a license to sin. I know many people do, but I don't see why there has to be so much genetic fallacy and equivocation along these lines.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

If the Adventist confess the Lord Jesus and believe in their heart that God has raised him from the dead then yes, I believe they are saved.

I don't think it matters what I believe about whether someone else is "saved" or not, and if I did, their denomination would certainly have nothing to do with it.

.

 

[marks]

Why would that offend me?

Exactly! And why is it I would be offended? Something about sauces, and geese, and ganders . . .

The hostility towards the Sabbath

I don't see hostility toward the Sabbath, but I do see strong oppositions to requiring people to keep the Mosaic Law.

This has been explained so many times, there's hardly any need for anyone to be exhibiting this attitude.

What is the "attitude" here? I'm saying, anyone who says we are to keep the Law invariably doesn't mean all the Law. If making this statement shows some certain attitude, OK.

The laws that Adventists, in particular, keep from the Torah are only the ones that support the principles contained in the Ten Commandments.

Proving my assertion. You've selected a portion of God's covenant with Israel to take for yourself.

We don't believe we have any right to practice things that would tend to degrade the stewardship of the things for which God holds us responsible such as body, mind, family, property, etc.

I agree, from the place of trusting Jesus and loving others.

We need to be careful with what we say is required for Christians. What is required is to be redeemed by Jesus' shed blood. To join Him in death and resurrection and thereby be saved. Nothing adds to that.

And Just So You Know . . . I'm not a "Sabbath Hater". I love the Sabbath, as God intends it for me, a gentile, to rest in Christ.

Much love!

 

[BarneyFife]

Exactly! And why is it I would be offended? Something about sauces, and geese, and ganders . . .


I don't see hostility toward the Sabbath, but I do see strong oppositions to requiring people to keep the Mosaic Law.


What is the "attitude" here? I'm saying, anyone who says we are to keep the Law invariably doesn't mean all the Law. If making this statement shows some certain attitude, OK.


Proving my assertion. You've selected a portion of God's covenant with Israel to take for yourself.


I agree, from the place of trusting Jesus and loving others.

We need to be careful with what we say is required for Christians. What is required is to be redeemed by Jesus' shed blood. To join Him in death and resurrection and thereby be saved. Nothing adds to that.

And Just So You Know . . . I'm not a "Sabbath Hater". I love the Sabbath, as God intends it for me, a gentile, to rest in Christ.

Much love!

I have no idea what most of this means. A lot of it seems like rhetoric. And, frankly, some of it seems vain.

.