Sabbath Keeping: Mandated for Whom? A Question from a Heretical Bapt

October 16, 2011

Paul tells us unequivocally that we should each make up his own mind about which day or days to hold sacred. Keeping the Sabbath,

October 16, 2011

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Paul tells us unequivocally that we should each make up his own mind about which day or days to hold sacred. Keeping the Sabbath,

Just not in the actual Bible.

Quote:

I don't believe that anyone of intellectual honesty could argue that the Sabbath is anything but the 7th day, Saturday. But Scripturally, keeping it was mandated for Jews only.

Just not in the actual Bible.

Mark 2:27 "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND".

Is 66 "From Sabbath to Sabbath... shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, that Sabbath to Sabbath statement means only a time reference, saying from one point to another shall all mankind come before me to worship. The Jewish scholars of Mechon Mamre agree with me on that point.

Personally, I don't think you know the actual Bible. Not that it matters, as long as your hope for salvation is fixed on the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. If you add any other qualification, you depend on your good works. See my next post: we Christians who are saved need depend only on walking this life in love, AGAPE.

God's love,

Despite the volume of Scripture you have poured out, you have not shown that the Sabbath was mandated for anyone but Israel.

And you are ignoring Paul's admonition (NIV):

Rom 14:5 Some people consider one day to be more holy than another. Others think all days are the same. Each person should be absolutely sure in his own mind.

Rom 14:6 Those who think one day is special do it to honor the Lord. Those who eat meat do it to honor the Lord. They give thanks to God. Those who don't eat meat do it to honor the Lord. They also give thanks to God.

Rom 14:7 We don't live for ourselves alone. And we don't die all by ourselves.

Paul is speaking of ONE day. He meant only one thing, the Sabbath. Under the guidance of The Holy Spirit, I am certain of that meaning for Romans 14: 5. Any other interpretation is really dancing a jig around the interpretation, and I say that without rancor, for George Collier King truly respects those committed to keeping the Sabbath. After all, my wife and my second best friend, her older brother, are Adventists.

Paul further means that each person should make up his/her own mind about vegetarianism. Thank God that I am married to an exceptionally good Adventist cook who makes any and every kind of food and every meal a treat for a gourmet.

October 16, 2011

What is the Law?

The Law is our tutor, our instructor until the advent of Christ KJV :

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

1Jn_3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death.

The Law of God is to live in love. Love is the principle of the Law, and Love is the Law. In one of my favorite Bible verses Jesus Himself tells us:

Mat 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.

That verse has been a part of my morning prayers for many years.

What the Law is and what the Law means can’t get any clearer than that verse, but to put it into a popular “modern” translation, NIV,

Mat 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Jas_2:8 NIV If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right.

What is the “royal Law?” Why, the Law of our King, of course, who is YHVH, Yahweh, Jehovah, The Lord God, or however you prefer to address Him.

1Pe_4:8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

1Jn_2:10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble.

1Jn_3:18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

In other words, don’t talk the talk, but walk the walk. Most of us need more exercise, anyway.

1Jn_4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

1Jn_4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

1Jn_4:16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

1Jn_4:18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

Which is one of the reasons I preach not to fear losing your salvation if you are committed to love.

1Jn_4:20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.

And who is your brother and sister? This question is a topic for a long sermon, but one answer is found in the parable of The Good Samaritan and in other teachings of Jesus.

1Jn_4:21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

1Jn_5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

It appears that quite a number of professed Christians stumble or choke on thse words “anyone” and “everyone”. However those word are not qualified, and they need no qualification. It includes any loving person who believes Jesus is born of God.

1Jn_5:2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. (See below)

1Jn_5:3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome,

And what are the verbatim commands of Jesus? They are found in Matthew 19: 16 – 21. That passage is beautiful in its simplicity, and so beautiful in and of itself. Adding anything to it monkies up the passage.

2Jn_1:6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

A rather preemptive statement, don’t ‘cha think? Sort of shuts the door on adding anything else.

Rom_13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.

Wowie! So simple, so inclusive! So simple that some choke on the word “whoever”.

Rom 10:4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Rom 10:5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: "The person who does these things will live by them."

Rom_13:9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not covet," and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Rom_13:10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Elegantly simple. Simply elegant.

Simply by way of clarification, many writers of The New Testament add several other shalls and shall nots to the commandment of love. In none of those New Testament lists does the writer say that keeping the Sabbath is a commandment of the New Covenant.

1Co_13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

1Co_13:3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

1Co_16:14 Do everything in love.

Gal_5:13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.

Gal_5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Entire Law? Gracious, what an all inclusive phrase!

Gal_5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

Col_3:12 Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

Col_3:14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

Here Paul was moved to clarify the commandment to love. The clarification still does not include keeping the Sabbath.

1Th_3:12 May the Lord make your love increase and overflow for each other and for everyone else, just as ours does for you.

Love everyone else? Again, such an all inclusive word. Guaranteed to cause a lot of choking and sputtering.

No Christian who walks in love commits adultery,lies, steals, murders, or does anything harmful spiritually, mentally, or physically to anyone. As Christians, we are under the New Covenant. The essence of the New Covenant is LOVE - AGAPE. Anyone who is under the New Covenant need not worry about do's, don't's, shall's, shalt not's. Under the New Covenant, we have only one rule: ACT IN AGAPE. Anything more or less is probably sin.

October 17, 2011

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Just not in the actual Bible.

Mark 2:27 "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND".

Is 66 "From Sabbath to Sabbath... shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Bob, that Sabbath to Sabbath statement means only a time reference,

I agree -- it is a time reference.

Each Sabbath in all of eternity will be a day for worship in which all mankind will come before God and worship.

Pretty hard to miss that point.

It is not saying "on each Sabbath and on every day between shall all mankind come before Me to worship" - though some might like to imagine such a thing.

We know this is true because the text adds "AND from New Moon to New Moon".

1. There is no reference in all of scripture to the notion that "from Sabbath to Sabbath" was just another way to say "daily".

This point is beyond doubt even by the most determined doubters.

2. The editing "From Sabbath to Sabbath" into "Daily on leaves the reader with the impossible transition starting at "Daily" and trying to ADD "AND from New Moon to New Moon". Trying such a bend and wrench on the text makes utter nonsense of it.

Again - a point impossible to miss".

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

saying from one point to another shall all mankind come before me to worship. The Jewish scholars of Mechon Mamre agree with me on that point.

Mechon Mamre - on Isaiah 66:23 - does not use the term "daily" as if this is the correct rendering.

"23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith the LORD"

Personally, I don't think you know the actual Bible. Not that it matters, as long as your hope for salvation is fixed on the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

God's love,

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Despite the volume of Scripture you have poured out, you have not shown that the Sabbath was mandated for anyone but Israel.

Unless you pay any attention at all to the words of Christ Himself "the Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND" Mark 2:27

Or to Isaiah 66 where instead of claiming that mankind "DAILY" comes before God to worship in the New Earth - they will come before God on TWO specific cycles "From Sabbath to Sabbath" AND from "New Moon to New Moon".

If you imagine that all mankind are "jews" I suppose you could end up at the wrong conclusion you keep drawing.

in Christ,

Bob

October 17, 2011

What is the Law?

The Law is our tutor, our instructor until the advent of Christ KJV :

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Here is your error at the very start - you imagine the text to say "Law is our tutor until the advent of Christ" - but then you SHOW the text to say instead "the law is our tutor to bring US TO Christ --- but after that FAITH HAS COME, we are no longer under a tutor".

In other words - the TEXT describes how the Law brings the LOST to salvation in Christ - brings them to Christ when FAITH COMES.

You bend and wrench it to say that this is the law waiting for Christ to come to EARTH in 27 AD. The text says that the role of the law for the lost ends when the lost come to Christ, which happens for them when FAITH comes.

Paul describes the view of the law that the lost have.

You seem to be stuck at that point trying to get the detail as they are stated in the text.

It is no wonder then that you stumble when reminded that Paul says "What matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19.

in Christ,

Bob

October 17, 2011

Paul tells us unequivocally that we should each make up his own mind about which day or days to hold sacred. Keeping the Sabbath,

October 17, 2011

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Paul tells us unequivocally that we should each make up his own mind about which day or days to hold sacred. Keeping the Sabbath,

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Just not in the actual Bible.

As can be proven by your reference to Romans 14 - where Paul makes no reference at all to Christ our Creator's weekly - seventh-day Sabbath memorial of His own creative work in Genesis 1-2:3.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

And you are ignoring Paul's admonition (NIV):

Rom 14:5 Some people consider one day to be more holy than another. Others think all days are the same. Each person should be absolutely sure in his own mind.

Rom 14:6 Those who think one day is special do it to honor the Lord. Those who eat meat do it to honor the Lord. They give thanks to God. Those who don't eat meat do it to honor the Lord. They also give thanks to God.

Rom 14:7 We don't live for ourselves alone. And we don't die all by ourselves.

Paul is speaking of ONE day. He meant only one thing, the Sabbath.

I appreciate your need to bend and wrench this text as you do since your argument gets no support from the actual wording in the text - and so I understand your temptation to go to the loosely-translated heavily-paraphrased NIV in this case.

But as it turns out the text of scripture itself gives your argument no help at all.

Paul speaks of a SET of days.

the SET that we find in the Bible approved SET of annual feast days in Lev 23.

Quote:

Rom 14
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day (alike is not in the text) Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

NASB

As we see in the strictest rendering of the text - it actually says that one man observes (regards) one in the set of the Bible-approved annual holy days ABOVE the others - while another observes (regards) them ALL.

This was true even of Paul.

Notice there is NO support for "he who observes no day approved by God".

Notice there is NO support for taking off 7 days a week as a day of rest.

Notice there is NO mention at all of the weekly Sabbath.

There is NO support for "The Commandments of God are now edited as you like - pick any day you wish as the fourth commandment day make Holy and Sanctified - or just ignore it if that is your pleasure".

1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

Under the guidance of The Holy Spirit, I am certain of that meaning for Romans 14: 5. Any other interpretation is really dancing a jig around the interpretation, and I say that without rancor

After all, my wife and my second best friend, her father, are Adventists.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, I am afraid that you are the semantics stretcher and bender. You dance around prepositions and phrases to stretch them totally out of the intended meaning. Let's walk through Romans 14: 5:

Rom 14:5 One person considers (believes, feels) one day (the only single one day of recurrent importance in the Old Covenant is the Sabbath. Nothing is even said or implied about "sets">)more sacred than another; (a sacred single day that is NOT part of a "set"? Obviously the Sabbath.)another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. (Paul is obviously respecting the belief of each one.)

Bob, you use a type of dancing around wording and phrasing that is so typical of those who are chained to a doctrine that has no firm Scriptural basis. Such semantic dancing does not make the doctrine any more credible. The sad thing is such cavorting is seen in all denominations.

October 17, 2011

This type of dancing around wording and phrasing is so typical of those who are chained to a doctrine that has no firm Scriptural basis. Such semantic dancing does not make the doctrine any more credible. Such cavorting is seen in all denominations.

It's really typical to everyone who has any opinion. Nobody has absolute evidence of any position, and nobody can perfectly word their arguments. That's why a real discussion does not occur in the minutiae of individual phrases and sentences but in the overall impression of the conversation.

Focusing on semantics distracts from actual discussion and ignores the underlying assumptions behind our language; we all subconsciously interpret words like "commandments", "Sabbath", and "sacred" in different ways, as you show in your dissection of Romans 14:5, which would be very different if Bob did the same thing.

October 18, 2011

Paul tells us unequivocally that we should each make up his own mind about which day or days to hold sacred. Keeping the Sabbath,

October 18, 2011

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

This type of dancing around wording and phrasing is so typical of those who are chained to a doctrine that has no firm Scriptural basis. Such semantic dancing does not make the doctrine any more credible. Such cavorting is seen in all denominations.

It's really typical to everyone who has any opinion. Nobody has absolute evidence of any position, and nobody can perfectly word their arguments. That's why a real discussion does not occur in the minutiae of individual phrases and sentences but in the overall impression of the conversation.

Focusing on semantics distracts from actual discussion and ignores the underlying assumptions behind our language; we all subconsciously interpret words like "commandments", "Sabbath", and "sacred" in different ways, as you show in your dissection of Romans 14:5, which would be very different if Bob did the same thing.

Thank you, SivartM. You are right.

It is so strange to realize that there are those who do not even believe in a subconscious mind(nowadays usually styled "unconscious" mind - I frequently forget that).

Those who do believe in an unconscious mind are more likely to be more accepting of the beliefs, opinions,and (shudder)doctrines of those who hold views different from themselves. Accepting, even though not agreeing with. Accepting that "the mind", a cosmic as well as a personal phenomenon, is multifaceted and works on many levels of consciousness or pre-consciousness or unconsciousness.

God bless you in your further spiritual growth and development.

October 18, 2011

Thank you, SivartM. You are right.

It is so strange to realize that there are those who do not even believe in a subconscious mind(nowadays usually styled "unconscious" mind - I frequently forget that).

Those who do believe in an unconscious mind are more likely to be more accepting of the beliefs, opinions,and (shudder)doctrines of those who hold views different from themselves. Accepting, even though not agreeing with. Accepting that "the mind", a cosmic as well as a personal phenomenon, is multifaceted and works on many levels of consciousness or pre-consciousness or unconsciousness.

God bless you in your further spiritual growth and development.

I just realized that I'd never considered the possibility that there were people who do not believe in the subconscious. Maybe it's just because I had too many cough drops today but my mind is a bit blown. *ahem* Anyway...

I have seen "unconscious" but I didn't know it was actually the new term; I thought it was like people writing "conscious" for "conscience" (please, please don't tell me if that's changed). "Unconscious" makes me feel like I ought to be in a sort of half coma all the time or something, so I prefer the (apparently?) older term.

Few people (including myself) are aware of just how complex the mind is. It seems rather simple when all we're doing is mentally patting ourselves on the back cerebellum, but thinking creatively is actually pretty complicated. Not to mention that pretty much everything we think is cluttered with cognitive biases. And recognizing those cognitive biases just awakens more... it's like a mental whack-a-mole.

Thanks, and same to you!

[/myofftopicbabbling]

October 18, 2011

Bob, you are so snarled up in your interpretation of Scripture that I fear you have no concept of the fundamental message of the Gospel. Anyway you look at it, that message is love, a message straight from our Master,Jesus.

For this post, my new comments are in green.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Paul tells us unequivocally that we should each make up his own mind about which day or days to hold sacred. Keeping the Sabbath,

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Just not in the actual Bible.

Good grief! What Bible do you read? Not which interpretation, but which Bible? All interpretations of the Bible tend to say the same thing.

Rom 14:5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

That verse tells me each person should make up his own mind. If it tells you anything else, you need to go back to English as your primary language. Or at least tell this ole Jawja Bulldawg what else it could possibly AND REASONABLY mean.

As can be proven by your reference to Romans 14 - where Paul makes no reference at all to Christ our Creator's weekly - seventh-day Sabbath memorial of His own creative work in Genesis 1-2:3.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

And you are ignoring Paul's admonition (NIV):

Rom 14:5 Some people consider one day to be more holy than another. Others think all days are the same. Each person should be absolutely sure in his own mind.

Rom 14:6 Those who think one day is special do it to honor the Lord. Those who eat meat do it to honor the Lord. They give thanks to God. Those who don't eat meat do it to honor the Lord. They also give thanks to God.

Rom 14:7 We don't live for ourselves alone. And we don't die all by ourselves.

Paul is speaking of ONE day. He meant only one thing, the Sabbath.

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

I appreciate your need to bend and wrench this text as you do since your argument gets no support from the actual wording in the text - and so I understand your temptation to go to the loosely-translated heavily-paraphrased NIV in this case.

But as it turns out the text of scripture itself gives your argument no help at all.

Paul speaks of a SET of days.

the SET that we find in the Bible approved SET of annual feast days in Lev 23.

Where, oh where, does Paul speak of, even hint of, a "SET" of days?

Quote:

Rom 14
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day (alike is not in the text) Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

NASB

As we see in the strictest rendering of the text - it actually says that one man observes (regards) one in the set of the Bible-approved annual holy days ABOVE the others - while another observes (regards) them ALL.

This was true even of Paul.

Notice there is NO support for "he who observes no day approved by God".

Notice there is NO support for taking off 7 days a week as a day of rest.

You cannot even discern between physical and spiritual rest. I don't know about you, but I find my spiritual rest in God not only daily, but even moment to moment.

Notice there is NO mention at all of the weekly Sabbath.

There is NO support for "The Commandments of God are now edited as you like - pick any day you wish as the fourth commandment day make Holy and Sanctified - or just ignore it if that is your pleasure".

1Cor 7:19 "But what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"

Under the guidance of The Holy Spirit, I am certain of that meaning for Romans 14: 5. Any other interpretation is really dancing a jig around the interpretation, and I say that without rancor

After all, my wife and my second best friend, her father, are Adventists.

And so you are placed in a position of having to explain why you wrenched the text so excessively instead of relying on the most accurate translations for Romans 14.

What is your solution?

Bob, Bob, Bob! The most accurate translation is a highly individual thing, even among Adventists. Some day, God willing, you will realize this. As far as wrenching texts, you seem to be saying I am wrong because I do not agree with you.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Bob, I am afraid that you are the semantics stretcher and bender. You dance around prepositions and phrases

to stretch them totally out of the intended meaning. Let's walk through Romans 14: 5:

Rom 14:5 One person considers (believes, feels) one day (the only single one day of recurrent importance in the Old Covenant is the Sabbath.

Hint - no mention in the entire chapter of "Old Covenant Sabbath".

But you are right about one thing - Paul is speaking of Bible approved Holy Days. A set of them - and the case where some people honored one ABOVE the others while another person honored ALL of them.

Quote:

Rom 14
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day (alike is not in the text) Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

NASB

1. "Observes" is being equated with "regards" in vs 5-6.

2. One man "Observes" one above the other holy days.

3. Another man "observes" them ALL.

All of the Lev 23 set of annual feast days.

Even your own Baptist source - John Gill, gets the point.

It does not get any easier than that.

You are simply using an "any-old-excuse-will-do" approach to scripture that does not support your man-made traditions my friend.

Surely you can do better at this stage.

Thankfully some of your notable Baptist friends have stepped up.

John Gill - author of one of the first Baptist commentaries - writes on Romans 14 as follows.

Quote:

John Gill

Rom 14

Verse 5. One man esteemeth one day above another,.... This is another instance of the difference of sentiments in this church, about the observation of rituals; and is not to be understood of days appointed by the Christian churches for fasting, or abstinence from certain meats, either once a year, as the "Quadragesima," or Lent; or twice a week, as Wednesdays and Fridays; for these are things of much later observation, and which had never been introduced into the church of Rome in the apostle's time; nor were there any disputes about them: much less of days of Heathenish observation, as lucky or unlucky, or festivals in honour of their gods; for the apostle would never say, that a man who regarded such a day, regarded it to the Lord; nor would have advised to a coalition and Christian conversation with such a man, but rather to exclude him from all society and communion: it remains, therefore, that it must be understood of Jewish days, or of such as were appointed to be observed by the Jews under the former dispensation, and which some thought were still to be regarded; wherefore they esteemed some days in the year above others, as the days of unleavened bread, or the passover; particularly the first night, which was a night to be observed throughout their generations; and in their service for it to this day, use these words, twlylh lkm hzh hlylh hntvn hm, "how different is this night from every other night" {n}? and the feast of tabernacles, especially the last and great day of the feast, and the day of Pentecost;

Your "any-old-excuse-will-do" desperate-measures leaves you opposed to your own baptist leaders like John Gill, and Andy Stanley and Charles Stanley, even D.L. Moody himself!

Bob, I do not have Baptist leaders. The bed rock positions of Baptists when I was saved at age 9, 64 years ago (through the offices of the Baptist Church, Southern Baptist Convention) was that each individual was his own primary priest, under Christ, to judge truth for himself (or herself). I read and interpret The Bible for myself, as prayerfully led by The Holy Spirit.

And yet you try to spin this around as if this is all me and my views of Adventism - when in fact it is your own sources, your own Baptist leaders in agreement with me on the very points you treat with "deny-all" subjectivity. At some point it pays to throw away the shovel my friend. Try some other solution, you are at a dead end on this one.

My fellow Baptists are often wrong in Doctrine and spiritual matters. This includes "Baptist leaders", whoever they are. And what I have seen in your voluminous ripostes makes it certain to me that you, too, are frequently dreadfully wrong in spiritual matters, even if my Baptist fellow members agree with you.

I hope that you agree with me that our eternal salvation depends only on the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ for our sins. Anyone holding a doctrine requiring more or requiring less than that bedrock statement is perilously close to being lost.

in Christ,

Bob

October 18, 2011

Bob, you are so snarled up in your interpretation of Scripture that I fear you have no concept of the fundamental message of the Gospel.

October 18, 2011

George question for you. What is your problem with the Sabbath? Lets say your right and God only wants Jews to keep the Sabbath. You'd rather worship him on a day that was man ordained? Or is it that you'd rather not worship on the same day as the Jewish nation? Which by the way God ordained. The Hebrew nation was to be an example to the heathen nations around them, to show them what God had created at the beginning. Just curious my friend, just curious why people would rather hold sunday sacred over the Sabbath?

October 18, 2011

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Bob, you are so snarled up in your interpretation of Scripture that I fear you have no concept of the fundamental message of the Gospel.

Far be it from me to argue that Andy Stanley, Charles Stanley, John Gill, and D.L.Moody are just all "caught up in Bob's interpretation of scripture" -- if you feel you need to go to such an extreme position - well... ok I guess.

From here it looks like we have the very objective example of both Baptist and SDA scholars in agreement on some key points when it comes to the 4th commandment.

Then we have by comparison your "ignore it all" subjective-at-all-costs solution where you "just claim it is only Bob" - solution.

Why do that?

Ignore it all? No, just many of your personal and highly biased beliefs. (Don't get your hackles up. I, by virtue of being a human being, am biased also.

Note: I do not "just claim it is only Bob". Several points:

1. I am not a mainstream Baptist.

2. Even so, the Baptists you reference are not necessarily

mainstream Baptists re current Baptist thought.

3. My preference for doctrine is sola scriptura. George

Collier King is not impressed by the widely varying

opinions of religious scholars. Opinions, which by the

way are quite variable even among Adventists.

4. I am not at all impressed by massive volumes

of Scripture that is misinterpreted,shows poor

understanding of basic grammar, interprets prophecy in

light of garbled and even fictional history, is taken out

of context,leans towards salvation by works (depending

on the denomination, the requirement for specific

works varies from even over time - usually explained by the

desperate and unconvincing rubric of "new light")

Quote:

Rom 14
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day (alike is not in the text) Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

NASB

1. "Observes" is being equated with "regards" in vs 5-6.

2. One man "Observes" one above the other holy days.

3. Another man "observes" them ALL.

All of the Lev 23 set of annual feast days.

Even your own Baptist source - John Gill, gets the point.

It does not get any easier than that.

You are simply using an "any-old-excuse-will-do" approach to scripture that does not support your man-made traditions my friend.

Surely you can do better at this stage.

Thankfully some of your notable Baptist friends have stepped up.

John Gill - author of one of the first Baptist commentaries - writes on Romans 14 as follows.

Quote:

John Gill

Rom 14

Verse 5. One man esteemeth one day above another,.... This is another instance of the difference of sentiments in this church, about the observation of rituals; and is not to be understood of days appointed by the Christian churches for fasting, or abstinence from certain meats, either once a year, as the "Quadragesima," or Lent; or twice a week, as Wednesdays and Fridays; for these are things of much later observation, and which had never been introduced into the church of Rome in the apostle's time; nor were there any disputes about them: much less of days of Heathenish observation, as lucky or unlucky, or festivals in honour of their gods; for the apostle would never say, that a man who regarded such a day, regarded it to the Lord; nor would have advised to a coalition and Christian conversation with such a man, but rather to exclude him from all society and communion: it remains, therefore, that it must be understood of Jewish days, or of such as were appointed to be observed by the Jews under the former dispensation, and which some thought were still to be regarded; wherefore they esteemed some days in the year above others, as the days of unleavened bread, or the passover; particularly the first night, which was a night to be observed throughout their generations; and in their service for it to this day, use these words, twlylh lkm hzh hlylh hntvn hm, "how different is this night from every other night" {n}? and the feast of tabernacles, especially the last and great day of the feast, and the day of Pentecost;

Your "any-old-excuse-will-do" desperate-measures leaves you opposed to your own baptist leaders like John Gill, and Andy Stanley and Charles Stanley, even D.L. Moody himself!

Originally Posted By: George

Bob, I do not have Baptist leaders. The bed rock positions of Baptists when I was saved at age 9, 64 years ago (through the offices of the Baptist Church, Southern Baptist Convention) was that each individual was his own primary priest, under Christ, to judge truth for himself (or herself). I read and interpret The Bible for myself, as prayerfully led by The Holy Spirit.

you missed the point. I was simply demonstrating objectivity - showing that even your own Baptist sources are in agreement with me on this one. this is a case where both Sunday keeping sources (even Baptist ones ) and Sabbath keeping sources agree on a glaringly obvious point - in Romans 14 and on the 4th commandment of God.

And yet you try to spin this around as if this is all me and my views of Adventism - when in fact it is your own sources, your own Baptist leaders in agreement with me on the very points you treat with "deny-all" subjectivity. At some point it pays to throw away the shovel my friend. Try some other solution, you are at a dead end on this one.

Originally Posted By: George

My fellow Baptists are often wrong in Doctrine and spiritual matters.

Ok so that leaves you with "Bob is wrong, the Baptists are wrong, the Bible is wrong,,, I just need a very loose paraphrase like the NIV and I am good to go".

Are you sure that is the level of "objectivity" you want to hold to as your "standard"?

Originally Posted By: George

I hope that you agree with me that our eternal salvation depends only on the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ for our sins.

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Far be it from me to argue that Andy Stanley, Charles Stanley, John Gill, and D.L.Moody are just all "caught up in Bob's interpretation of scripture" -- if you feel you need to go to such an extreme position - well... ok I guess.

From here it looks like we have the very objective example of both Baptist and SDA scholars in agreement on some key points when it comes to the 4th commandment.

Then we have by comparison your "ignore it all" subjective-at-all-costs solution where you "just claim it is only Bob" - solution.

Why do that?

I do not "just claim it is only Bob". Several points:

1. I am not a mainstream Baptist.

2. Even so, the Baptists you reference are not necessarily

mainstream Baptists re current Baptist thought.

3. My preference for doctrine is sola scriptura. George

Collier King is not impressed by the widely varying

opinions of religious scholars. Opinions, which by the

way are quite variable even among Adventists.

4. I am not at all impressed by massive volumes

of Scripture that is misinterpreted,shows poor

understanding of basic grammar, interprets prophecy in

light of garbled and even fictional history, is taken out

of context,leans towards salvation by works (depending

on the denomination, the requirement for specific

works varies from even over time - usually explained by the

desperate and unconvincing rubric of "new light")

Quote:

Rom 14
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day (alike is not in the text) Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

NASB

1. "Observes" is being equated with "regards" in vs 5-6.

2. One man "Observes" one above the other holy days.

3. Another man "observes" them ALL.

All of the Lev 23 set of annual feast days.

Even your own Baptist source - John Gill, gets the point.

He’s not my source. No Baptist doctrine, Methodist doctrine, Adventist doctrine, Catholic

doctrine, etc – all denominations – are my source. My source is sola scriptura under the

guidance of The Holy Spirit.

It does not get any easier than that.

Quite frankly, Bob, you have not shown me anything easy. You have only shown me confusion masked by poorly understood and misinterpreted Scripture, the doctrines of men (those Baptists and others who are your references. If you are going to refer to the phrase “doctrines of men”, then don’t quote to me doctrines of men. There you are being inconsistent and paradoxical.)

You are simply using an "any-old-excuse-will-do" approach to scripture that does not support your man-made traditions my friend.

I don’t need excuses to behave counter to doctrines based on misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Scripture.

Surely you can do better at this stage.

A rather mean spirited and judgmental statement that is begging the question.

Thankfully some of your notable Baptist friends have stepped up.

John Gill - author of one of the first Baptist commentaries - writes on Romans 14 as follows.

Quote:

John Gill

Rom 14

Verse 5. One man esteemeth one day above another,.... This is another instance of the difference of sentiments in this church, about the observation of rituals; and is not to be understood of days appointed by the Christian churches for fasting, or abstinence from certain meats, either once a year, as the "Quadragesima," or Lent; or twice a week, as Wednesdays and Fridays; for these are things of much later observation, and which had never been introduced into the church of Rome in the apostle's time; nor were there any disputes about them: much less of days of Heathenish observation, as lucky or unlucky, or festivals in honour of their gods; for the apostle would never say, that a man who regarded such a day, regarded it to the Lord; nor would have advised to a coalition and Christian conversation with such a man, but rather to exclude him from all society and communion: it remains, therefore, that it must be understood of Jewish days, or of such as were appointed to be observed by the Jews under the former dispensation, and which some thought were still to be regarded; wherefore they esteemed some days in the year above others, as the days of unleavened bread, or the passover; particularly the first night, which was a night to be observed throughout their generations; and in their service for it to this day, use these words, twlylh lkm hzh hlylh hntvn hm, "how different is this night from every other night" {n}? and the feast of tabernacles, especially the last and great day of the feast, and the day of Pentecost;

Your "any-old-excuse-will-do" desperate-measures leaves you opposed to your own baptist leaders like John Gill, and Andy Stanley and Charles Stanley, even D.L. Moody himself!

Originally Posted By: George

Bob, I do not have Baptist leaders. The bed rock positions of Baptists when I was saved at age 9, 64 years ago (through the offices of the Baptist Church, Southern Baptist Convention) was that each individual was his own primary priest, under Christ, to judge truth for himself (or herself). I read and interpret The Bible for myself, as prayerfully led by The Holy Spirit.

you missed the point. I was simply demonstrating objectivity - showing that even your own Baptist sources are in agreement with me on this one. this is a case where both Sunday keeping sources (even Baptist ones ) and Sabbath keeping sources agree on a glaringly obvious point - in Romans 14 and on the 4th commandment of God.

To define objectivity as being in accordance with your beliefs seems rather subjective, and further seems to be somewhat arrogant.

And yet you try to spin this around as if this is all me and my views of Adventism - when in fact it is your own sources, your own Baptist leaders in agreement with me on the very points you treat with "deny-all" subjectivity. At some point it pays to throw away the shovel my friend. Try some other solution, you are at a dead end on this one.

Originally Posted By: George

My fellow Baptists are often wrong in Doctrine and spiritual matters.

Ok so that leaves you with "Bob is wrong, the Baptists are wrong, the Bible is wrong,,, I just need a very loose paraphrase like the NIV and I am good to go".

Dear mercy. I am not about to get in a discussion of the merits, strengths, and weaknesses of different translations. You seem to be discarding the entire NIV translation by your judgment that it is a paraphrase. The NIV is hardly a paraphrase.

Are you sure that is the level of "objectivity" you want to hold to as your "standard"?

Bob, you obviously do not understand the words “objective” and "objectivity". The topic of theology and religioous topics in general do not lend themselves to being “objective”. By the way, nobody who holds any religious belief or doctrine is “objective”. We all carry with us a string of emotionally laden fuzzy opinions and incorrect beliefs. We are all biased. Perhaps when you gather some true wisdom with the maturity of age, you will realize this.

Originally Posted By: George

I hope that you agree with me that our eternal salvation depends only on the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ for our sins.

I have never claimed that anyone is lost simply because there is some truth of God's Word that they do not yet understand.

Not even if that truth is Paul's point in 1Cor 7:19.

Coming full circle again to the New Covenant commandments. They are all readily understood, and are largely based on our love for our fellow man. The New Testament is chock full of lists of commandments. In none of those lists does one find keeping the Sabbath, which was an Old Covenant mandate for the Children of Israel.

To really know and love Jesus is to be saved. And John in 1John 2:4-8 makes it clear that those who claim such a thing while rejecting the truth of Christ's word in their daily lives - do not fully understand the gap.

There you go again – saying your doctrine is necessary for salvation. Which makes it a salvation of works.

In Mark 7 Christ said "in vain do they Worship ME - teaching for doctrine the commandments of men".

There you go again. What are the commandments as listed, as enumerated by Jesus? Easy. Basically love your fellow man:

Mat 19:16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

Mat 19:17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments."

Mat 19:18 "Which ones?" he inquired. Jesus replied, "'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony,

Mat 19:19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Mat 19:20 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

Mat 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

It should not be lost on you that Christ said THE commandments as a preface to that list. Are you going to ignore that emphasis? I suspect so.

And in Gen 4 we see an example of two men coming to the SAME place of worship - coming to worship the SAME God - but one of them did not get the point of Mark 7 - that "To obey is better than to sacrifice".

You cannot choose rebellion against God's Word and then "smooth it over" with "yes but Lord I worship you".

Christ said "I am the way the TRUTH and the life".

Yes. I know that truth – it is the doctrine of love, of agape. Do you know that truth?

Yet many imagine a religion of "Christ without truth" or at least "Christ without inconvenient truth".

Your use of that word “inconvenient” shows deep bias. What you are saying in effect is “the truth as understood by Bob.”

So while I do not know the salvation state of any other person than myself - I do know enough to sound the warning when people are headed off a cliff.

Look at yourself, Bob. Look prayerfully and fully at yourself.

in Christ,

Bob [/quote']

October 18, 2011

George question for you. What is your problem with the Sabbath? Lets say your right and God only wants Jews to keep the Sabbath. You'd rather worship him on a day that was man ordained? Or is it that you'd rather not worship on the same day as the Jewish nation? Which by the way God ordained. The Hebrew nation was to be an example to the heathen nations around them, to show them what God had created at the beginning. Just curious my friend, just curious why people would rather hold sunday sacred over the Sabbath?

pkrause, I do not have any problem with the Sabbath. I honor and respect those who choose to keep the Sabbath. I do not think God only wants Jews to keep the Sabbath because of Romans 14:5 and other Scriptural passages. In accordance to Romans 14: 5, Paul told us each person should decide for himself which day to keep:

Rom 14:5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

Some of those who keep the Sabbath maintain that "day" in that verse means feast days of the Jews. Not so, because "day" in Romans 14: 5 is singular. So what single day do Jews keep sacred, sacred being the term Paul used? The Sabbath and only the Sabbath.

As far as not wanting to worship on a day that Jews keep, for me that is preposterous. I honor and respect Jews, despite the misguided statements made by one poster. I can literally say "some of my best friends are Jews". One of my most esteemed professors in Medical School was a research endocrinologist, Dr. Robert Greenblatt. He employed me while I was going to school, which was an experience I recall with fond memories. I plan to write a Wikipedia article about Dr. Greenblatt.

I truly do not hold any day more sacred than another, which is in accordance with Romans 14: 5. For me, all of time, every day, is Sabbath, a term meaning "rest". God is my constant spiritual rest.

The Hebrew people certainly were to be an example, a nation of priests to reveal the Glory of God to the nations. I do not believe that included keeping the Sabbath. Modern Jewish scholars agree with me on that, and if you are interested, I can show you a recent response from a Jewish scholarly foundation to that effect.

Highest regards,

October 18, 2011

pkrause, I do not have any problem with the Sabbath. I honor and respect those who choose to keep the Sabbath. I do not think God only wants Jews to keep the Sabbath because of Romans 14:5 and other Scriptural passages. In accordance to Romans 14: 5, Paul told us each person should decide for himself which day to keep:

Rom 14:5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

Some of those who keep the Sabbath maintain that "day" in that verse means feast days of the Jews. Not so, because "day" in Romans 14: 5 is singular. So what single day do Jews keep sacred, sacred being the term Paul used? The Sabbath and only the Sabbath.

As far as not wanting to worship on a day that Jews keep, for me that is preposterous. I honor and respect Jews, despite the misguided statements made by one poster. I can literally say "some of my best friends are Jews". One of my most esteemed professors in Medical School was a research endocrinologist, Dr. Robert Greenblatt. He employed me while I was going to school, which was an experience I recall with fond memories. I plan to write a Wikipedia article about Dr. Greenblatt.

I truly do not hold any day more sacred than another, which is in accordance with Romans 14: 5. For me, all of time, every day, is Sabbath, a term meaning "rest". God is my constant spiritual rest.

The Hebrew people certainly were to be an example, a nation of priests to reveal the Glory of God to the nations. I do not believe that included keeping the Sabbath. Modern Jewish scholars agree with me on that, and if you are interested, I can show you a recent response from a Jewish scholarly foundation to that effect.

Highest regards,

Well I do hope that those misguided statements are not being attributed to me.

But I have to disagree with you on Romans 14:5, here is the exact verse from the CJB: 5 One person considers some days more holy than others, while someone else regards them as being all alike. What is important is for each to be fully convinced in his own mind. But to fully understand the passage here's the entire chapter: 1 Now as for a person whose trust is weak, welcome him - but not to get into arguments over opinions. 2 One person has the trust that will allow him to eat anything, while another whose trust is weak eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats anything must not look down on the one who abstains; and the abstainer must not pass judgment on the one who eats anything, because God has accepted him - 4 who are you to pass judgment on someone else's servant? It is before his own master that he will stand or fall; and the fact is that he will stand, because the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One person considers some days more holy than others, while someone else regards them as being all alike. What is important is for each to be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes a day as special does so to honor the Lord. Also he who eats anything, eats to honor the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; likewise the abstainer abstains to honor the Lord, and he too gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives only in relation to himself, and none of us dies only in relation to himself; 8 for if we live, we live in relation to the Lord; and if we die, we die in relation to the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord - 9 indeed, it was for this very reason that the Messiah died and came back to life, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 You then, why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For all of us will stand before God's judgment seat; 11 since it is written in the Tanakh, "As I live, says ADONAI, every knee will bend before me, and every tongue will publicly acknowledge God." 12 So then, every one of us will have to give an account of himself to God. 13 Therefore, let's stop passing judgment on each other! Instead, make this one judgment - not to put a stumbling block or a snare in a brother's way. 14 I know - that is, I have been persuaded by the Lord Yeshua the Messiah - that nothing is unclean in itself. But if a person considers something unclean, then for him it is unclean; 15 and if your brother is being upset by the food you eat, your life is no longer one of love. Do not, by your eating habits, destroy someone for whom the Messiah died! 16 Do not let what you know to be good, be spoken of as bad; 17 for the Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, shalom and joy in the Ruach HaKodesh. 18 Anyone who serves the Messiah in this fashion both pleases God and wins the approval of other people. 19 So then, let us pursue the things that make for shalom and mutual upbuilding. 20 Don't tear down God's work for the sake of food. True enough, all things are clean; but it is wrong for anybody by his eating to cause someone to fall away. 21 What is good is not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22 The belief you hold about such things, keep between yourself and God. Happy the person who is free of self-condemnation when he approves of something! 23 But the doubter comes under condemnation if he eats, because his action is not based on trust. And anything not based on trust is a sin.

Now let me ask you something, if you really figure that Paul is only talking about the Sabbath for the Jews, what does he mean about Jews being OK with eating anything? Pork, Lobster, etc., I don't think so George. I believe that Paul is talking about all of the ceremonal days and as far as the food is concerned hes talking about food that the gentiles used to sacrifice to idols. Anyway just a few thoughts.

October 19, 2011

Bob, you are so snarled up in your interpretation of Scripture that I fear you have no concept of the fundamental message of the Gospel.

October 19, 2011

I have never claimed that anyone is lost simply because there is some truth of God's Word that they do not yet understand.

Not even if that truth is Paul's point in 1Cor 7:19."What Matters is KEEPING the Commandments of GOD"

Recall that Paul taught that the BIBLE is the WORD of God -- in his reference to the OT "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration from God and is profitable for doctrine" 2Tim 3:16

Coming full circle again to the New Covenant commandments. They are all readily understood, and are largely based on our love for our fellow man. The New Testament is chock full of lists of commandments. In none of those lists does one find keeping the Sabbath, which was an Old Covenant mandate for the Children of Israel.

October 19, 2011

In Mark 7 Christ said "in vain do they Worship ME - teaching for doctrine the commandments of men".

There you go again. What are the commandments as listed, as enumerated by Jesus? Easy. Basically love your fellow man:

Mat 19:16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

Mat 19:17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments."

Mat 19:18 "Which ones?" he inquired. Jesus replied, "'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony,

Mat 19:19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Mat 19:20 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

Mat 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

October 19, 2011

In Mark 7 Christ said "in vain do they Worship ME - teaching for doctrine the commandments of men".

Originally Posted By: George

There you go again. What are the commandments as listed, as enumerated by Jesus? Easy. Basically love your fellow man:

Mat 19:16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

Mat 19:17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments."

Mat 19:18 "Which ones?" he inquired. Jesus replied, "'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony,

Mat 19:19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Mat 19:20 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

Mat 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Nice "swing" from Christ's statement in Mark 7 speaking of the OT command to "Honor your Father and Mother" being replaced by NT-age laws of the Jewish "man-made-traditions".

You conveniently ignored both Matt 19 and Matt 22 where Christ not only references the OLD Testament list you are happy with - but also declares that the OT COMMANDMENT of Lev 19:18 "Love your Neighbor as yourself" and the OT COMMANDMENT of Deut 6:5 to "LOVE God with all your heart" are the foundation stone upon which all God's Commandments rest EVEN in the NT age!

Your cut-and-paste, snippet-Bible solution is riddled with places where you "must not look" at what the Bible says, in order to support your blinders-on solution. Why not embrace a full sola-scriptura solution? A Bible that has 66 books, not just tatters and shards of 27 books, sliced up to fit your traditions and preferences?

Originally Posted By: George

It should not be lost on you that Christ said THE commandments as a preface to that list. Are you going to ignore that emphasis? I suspect so.

Christ debunked your "Christ downsized the bible" argument in the book of Matthew starting in chapter 5 where He tells us not to listen to those who claim that Christ has come to downsize the Law of God.

Even your own bend-and-wrench of the Bible trying to downsize the Law of God - is missing the commands not to worship idols are take God's name in vain. Surely the misguided doctrines that you are clinging to - are not telling you that such things died away in the OT - because they are not quoted in Matt 19 or 22.

At some point - I should think that the Bible evidence on this subject would begin to carry some weight with you. After all you freely admit that "sola scriptura" is a good thing. Yet you keep resorting to play-book style suggestions indicating that you are not actually taking the Bible seriously on the points you raise and looking into the details of the chapters you reference.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, your more recent posts are simply reiterations of the same ole non-objective, rote repetition of doctrine, non-Scriptural stuff.

You are a young man fired up with zeal, but you do not ever come close to understanding the words "objective" and "objectivity".

On this topic, I shall not respond to any more of your anger laden posts.

May God be with you and give you better understanding.

October 20, 2011

I repeatedly show that my reference to Romans 14 is to the more accurate translations - you claim that it is "not being objective" to "notice" that the NASB, YLT, NKJV are more literal translations than your preferred loosely translated NIV.

That argument in your part is not as compelling as you seem to suppose.

I repeatedly show that my open acceptance of Bible fact in Romans 14 is not only admitted by fellow Sabbath keeping Christians - but even your own Baptist Bible commentary author - John Gill!!

Again you claim that I am not being objective when I appeal to such objective methods. You claim that your subject deny-all approach is better.

Here is the second place where your less-than-objective solution is not as compelling to the reader as you seem to have at first supposed.

(BTW - I use uppercase - caps for "emphasis" rather than volume. It is faster for me to type the upper case than the quotes or go back and bold the text).

As I pointed out in my prior post - Christ appeals to OLD testament commandments in both Matt 19 and Matt 22 - and you claim that this is an example of abolishing the text of scripture - the Bible, by Christ and starting a new one.

Your solution is not in accord with the Bible facts much less your own Baptist sources.

How you can then turn around and claim you are being even remotely objective is a bit of a puzzler. You appear instead to be using the classic "any old excuse will do" method to cling to your man-made traditions rather than accept the Bible facts in this case.

Far be it from me to dissuade you from your own free will choice in the matter. But I do think it is only fair to warn you of your danger.

Until you come to acceptance of the text of scripture in Romans 14 - you are free to accuse me as you wish of whatever pleases you at the moment. I am simply here to point out the more objective method of rendering the text.

in Christ,

Bob

October 20, 2011

In accordance to Romans 14: 5, Paul told us each person should decide for himself which day to keep:

Romans 14: 1 shows that in this chapter, Paul is discussing "doubtful things,"(NKJV) or "disputable matters" (NIV) The commandments of God-- the Sabbath-- is not among the doubtful things. The commandments of God are certain. Paul says in 1 Cor. 7: 19 that the only thing that really matters is keeping the commandments of God. Therefore, it makes no sense to conclude that Paul is telling his readers that they can decide for themselves whether to keep the Sabbath on the 7th day or on some other day.

We also need to consider the fact that Paul and the other apostles are never found working on the Sabbath. On the contrary, they always treat the Sabbath as a holy day. Neither were they ever accused of breaking the Sabbath or of teaching others to break it.

Romans 14: 5 reads, literally, "One person esteems a day above another; another esteems every day."

October 21, 2011

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

In accordance to Romans 14: 5, Paul told us each person should decide for himself which day to keep:

Romans 14: 1 shows that in this chapter, Paul is discussing "doubtful things,"(NKJV) or "disputable matters" (NIV) The commandments of God-- the Sabbath-- is not among the doubtful things. The commandments of God are certain. Paul says in 1 Cor. 7: 19 that the only thing that really matters is keeping the commandments of God. Therefore, it makes no sense to conclude that Paul is telling his readers that they can decide for themselves whether to keep the Sabbath on the 7th day or on some other day.

We also need to consider the fact that Paul and the other apostles are never found working on the Sabbath. On the contrary, they always treat the Sabbath as a holy day. Neither were they ever accused of breaking the Sabbath or of teaching others to break it.

Romans 14: 5 reads, literally, "One person esteems a day above another; another esteems every day."

This

John, your expositon does not work. First, look at the word “esteemeth” with Strong’s Numbers:

G2919

κρίνω

krinō

kree'-no

Properly to distinguish, that is, decide (mentally or judicially); by implication to try, condemn, punish: - avenge, conclude, condemn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to, think.

The original word was in the flavor of a mental or judicial decision.

The verse could be rendered “One man judges (judgeth) one day above another: another judges (judgeth) every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”

Further more, verse 6 reads

Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

The MS Word reference dictionary definition for regard includes one meaning to be

--- 3. Judge somebody or something

To have and opinion as to the quality or worth

of somebody or something.

Martin Luther’s German Translation, 70 years prior to the King James Version, is based on older translations. He worked with Erasmus with for his translation:

Rom 14:5 Einer hält einen Tag vor dem andern; der andere aber hält alle Tage gleich. Ein jeglicher sei in seiner Meinung gewiß.

In English, One holds one day before the other; another, however holds all days the same. Let each one be certain in his mind.

Verse 6 further verifies that Paul is saying that which day to be regarded is an individual decision.

Of course, you are expounding on a bedrock Seventh Day Adventist doctrine. To believe the doctrine, you must interpret the Bible the Adventist way. Neither you nor I are “scholars”, but we are both well grounded in the study of the Scripture. Both of us have good reasons, whether they be valid or not, for our beliefs. I believe in the depths of my heart that my perception of the Bible is valid, just as you do for your interpretations. But when a doctrine or interpretation requires an unmerited license to interpret a verse one explicit way,or when a passage seems to require long explanatory dissertations, when that interpretation is not at all the obvious to everyone, then I must question the doctrine.

John, I respect the right for anyone to interpret The Bible her or his sincere way. In those “sincere” ways, we are all biased, carrying with us our personal experience, our feelings associated with any particular belief and programmed into us over a long time – even from childhood, our level of education, the locations of that education, the institution teaching that interpretation, and even our level of interest in the teaching.

What I do not respect is a flaunted attitude that one’s beliefs or doctrines are in some way superior to the beliefs of others, or that others are condemned to destruction for having or not having a particular doctrine or belief. I personally know God well enough to realise that He does not judge us on the differing doctrines and beliefs that various denominations and religions take so seriously. Please recognise that there are many Baptists and Christians other than Adventists who would angrily disagree with me on that statement. In fact, some would violently disagree if given the chance.

What ever one believes about the Sabbath or the “Ten” Commandments, there is no room for any misunderstanding of the following simply written verses. These verses state in glorious simplicity God’s expectations of us:

The Law of God is to live in love. Love is the principle of the Law, and Love is the Law. In one of my favorite Bible verses Jesus Himself tells us:

Mat 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.

That verse has been a part of my morning prayers for many years.

What the Law is and means can’t get any clearer than that verse, but to put it into a popular “modern” translation, NIV,

Mat 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

1Jn_3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death.

Jas_2:8 NIV If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right.

What is the “royal Law?” Why, the Law of our King, of course, who is YHVH, Yahweh, Jehovah, The Lord God, or however you prefer to address Him.

1Pe_4:8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

1Jn_2:10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble.

1Jn_3:18 Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

Don’t talk the talk, but walk the walk. Most of us need more exercise, anyway.

1Jn_4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

1Jn_4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

1Jn_4:16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

1Jn_4:18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

Which is one of the reasons I preach not to fear losing your salvation if you are committed to love.

1Jn_4:20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.

And who is your brother and sister? This question is a topic for a long sermon, but the answer is suggested in the parable of The Good Samaritan and in other teachings of Jesus.

1Jn_4:21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

1Jn_5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

It appears that quite a number of professed Christians stumble or choke on thse words “anyone” and “everyone”. However those word are not qualified, and they need no qualification. It includes any loving person who believes Jesus is born of God.

1Jn_5:2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.