Does the Sabbath Doctrine Diminish the Gospel?

[Bob Sands]

Deut 5: 12 "Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

Bonnie Rose you ..... out some of the most improtant of the verses, that this was addressed to a set group.

[Bob Sands]

A person may not always join a Presbyterian Chruch because they believe every tenet but because they find they can grow in Christ and not be divisive on every issue. Even in the SDA church one can find legitimate differences on doctrinal positions that do not need to divide.

[bonnierose333]

Dear Bob,

Actually, I like Shane's answer the best: [Of course not, silly!] I told you I wasn't a Bible scholar...lighten up, please.

[Bob Sands]

Unable to understand your last post. You left out the most important parts of the verse you quoted. If you get involved in the conversation you need to realize that. The issue is not lightening up but being accurate with the truth not trying to conceal it. His response has nothing to do with your response, sorry!!!!

[Bob Sands]

Gerry, using your logic, the SDA's don't believe in the same God as the rest of Christianity. It's doctrines have been labeled as aberrant and certainly not supportive of orthodox Christianity.

Most of SDAism does not believe in one universal (catholic, with a small "c") but in one church with a big "S", SDA. That you have to belong to it to be saved, whether they will admit it or not.

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Gerry, using your logic, the SDA's don't believe in the same God as the rest of Christianity.

---

[:"blue"]Do all who profess the name Christian worship the same God? I doubt it. Some have their stomachs as their god, according to Paul. Some worship they know not what. But all true believers worship the same God. We just understand Him & His requirements differently. [/]

Quote:

---

It's doctrines have been labeled as aberrant and certainly not supportive of orthodox Christianity.

---

[:"blue"]SDAs aberrant? By whose standards? As long as I know that what I believe squares up with the Bible, I don't care one bit what labels others may put on me. Jesus Himself was labeled as having a demon because He did not fit the expectations of the Scribes & Pharisees.

But let's look at orthodox Christianity, and see who has aberrant doctrines. Let's take the Roman Catholic Church first. Have you accepted the pope, their priesthood, the worship of the saints & Mary, indulgences, & purgatory?

Have you accepted the doctrine of an eternally burning hell that both Catholics & Protestants believe in where unrepentant sinners will suffer forever & ever & ever?

Have you accepted the Baptists' doctrine that once you have accepted Christ that there is no longer any possibility of you being lost?

Have you accepted the Calvinist viewpoint that God has predestined some to be saved & some to be lost?

Have you accepted the currently popular evangelical belief of a secret rapture?

Have you accepted the use & worship of statutes & icons found in both the western & eastern orthodox churches?

The Bible clearly says, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." The rest of Christendom with few exception remember the first day of the week instead.

Now, who is being aberrant? [/]

Quote:

---

Most of SDAism does not believe in one universal (catholic, with a small "c") but in one church with a big "S", SDA. That you have to belong to it to be saved, whether they will admit it or not.

---

[:"blue"]Bob, if this is what someone taught you about what SDAs believe, then someone had done you a terrible disservice. Nowhere that I am aware of has the SDAC ever claimed that salvation belongs only to those who become SDAs. Please show me in any official SDA publication that what you are charging is official teaching, otherwise you ought to stop making such charges. It is unbecoming for Christians to bear false witness about another.

EGW, one of the founders of the SDAC, has said that the greater portion of God's people are still in the Protestant & Catholic churches. I am not at home, so I can't tell you the chapter & verse of that quote. [/]

Gerry

[Bob Sands]

Gerry, we are not that far distant from a time when our founders believed in a "SHUT DOOR". I have not studied deeply to find out what caused them to come to their senses, maybethe risk of being labeled exclusive or elitists, huh?

Wasn't you that used the term, "revealed light"? What about an organization that in the mid 1800's claims to have a different view that all the rest of Christiandom. Isn't that questioning revealed light? If it is oK for progressive or new light to be given, then why are the views stated in this thread not taken on their merits and not whether the SDA Church has or has not accepted them.

I agree with you on most of the points you list in your last post, but why are you limiting your views to those, why not open up your view on issues such as the Sabbath, and the Covenants?

Also, by your arguments, instead of saying we can differ on the Sabbath and still be part of the universal church, I do not hear you being that flexible, therefore I interpret that you feel that being SDA is salvific.

[Clio]

Nothing, at any place, or time, is capable of diminishing the wonderful Good News of the Gospel.

Whether we choose to focus on Jesus or on precedence, the incredible glory of what my wonderful Jesus did for me and what Abba has done for all eternity remains as the same absolute truth. Acceptance of that, diminishes all else.

He has asked me to keep His Sabbath Holy. How can I not? How can I even quibble? It doesn't mean I have to be in church every week... in fact, I am less and less inclined to go to church on Sabbath, than I am to stay home, and fellowship with my Abba Father and Jesus.

I am NOT an orphan, I am a greatly beloved Daughter of the King's House. He delights in me, and I in Him. I need not go to a "house" to find Him and to grow in His Truth. I thank Abba Father that my dh is willing to indulge me with an ongoing accumulation of study aids....

Clio

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Gerry, we are not that far distant from a time when our founders believed in a "SHUT DOOR". I have not studied deeply to find out what caused them to come to their senses, maybethe risk of being labeled exclusive or elitists, huh?

Wasn't you that used the term, "revealed light"? What about an organization that in the mid 1800's claims to have a different view that all the rest of Christiandom. Isn't that questioning revealed light? If it is oK for progressive or new light to be given, then why are the views stated in this thread not taken on their merits and not whether the SDA Church has or has not accepted them.

I agree with you on most of the points you list in your last post, but why are you limiting your views to those, why not open up your view on issues such as the Sabbath, and the Covenants?

---

[:"blue"]If by opening my views about the Sabbath you mean accepting the notion that it has been done away with that flies in the face of what is already clearly revealed is to go the route of Adam & Eve or King Saul who defied a direct command of God. No thanks. Do so at your own risk.

BTW, that was not me who used the term "revealed truth" that I can recall. But it is a good phrase. Truth previously revealed by God cannot stop being truth. It may be truth that is no longer applicable under certain circumstances. What I see in Scripture is God adding truth to truth. [/]

Quote:

---

Also, by your arguments, instead of saying we can differ on the Sabbath and still be part of the universal church, I do not hear you being that flexible, therefore I interpret that you feel that being SDA is salvific.

---

[:"blue"] [/]

---

[:"blue"]I've said it before & I'll say it again. God's true universal church is made up of all the saved from all the churches or even from no churches. Then why can't these saved people who are not SDAs belong to the SDAC? How then can the SDAC trumpet give a certain sound if there is a cacophony of other sounds?

Let me ask you. Is the issue of idolatry salvific? Murder? Adultery? Bearing false witness?

You have charge Adventists with aberrant doctrines because it doesn't agree with many doctrines of the orthodox churches & what you think we should believe. So, per my previous post, who are teaching aberrant doctrines? There would have been no need for God to raise up another church if with each reformation movement the entrenched church had accepted further light. The apostolic church became corrupted with paganism, that's why you see so many pagan & unscriptural practices in the RCC. The way to salvation became corrupted. Along came with Luther & justification by faith, and what did the RCC do with this light? They fiercely rejected it. So what did Luther & his followers do? They had to leave RCC. It was not their desire to split from it.

Then what happened to the Lutherans? They got stuck on justification by faith & went no farther.

The Wesleys came along, not only accepting justification by faith, but also with additional light of holy living. How were they received by the entrenched churches? The revival & reformation they began was rejected & so they too had to separate themselves.

Then the Advent movement of the 19th century came along with more light. They too were rejected by the entrenched churches. So they too had to separate themselves.

In case it has escaped your notice, Bob, you will find that the Adventist Church has taken the truths from each God-raised movement throughout the Christian era and incorporated them in SDA teaching. Even the Sabbath came from the 7th day Baptists. I think only the sanctuary, healthful living, & non-immortality of the soul doctrines are uniquely SDA, and even these I wouldn't be surprised if some other churches hold them also.

So, aberrant SDA doctrines? Come on! We have taken all the Scripturally sound truths from all the other churches & put them all in one package & you charge us with aberrant doctrines? [/]

Gerry

[Clio]

I couldn't agree more Ron...

But the real point is, nothing on earth, in heaven, or in hell can diminish in any way the Gospel of a risen Saviour.

Thank You Jesus so much... and thanks again for rent money!

Clio

[Stan Laurel]

Quote:

---

Stan Laurel, come on, you are really splitting hairs when you try to differentiate between remembering the Sabbath and remembering to observe the Sabbath.

---

Splitting hairs??? I think not, since observance is the central point of this whole discussion. Remember, we are not discussing Saturday vs. Sunday. We have already established the the Sabbath as given to Israel in Exodus was Saturday. That's not in dispute. The contention is whether the Gentiles are required to observe that Sabbath. So observance is the primary focus of the discussion. It appears that if you can't refute my point, it's easier to just brush it off as "splitting hairs."

Quote:

---

When you read the various commandments, how do you know they were not written by Hammurabi or someone else?

---

Well, this is just my humble opinion, but the Bible tells me that's the word of God and that's good enough for me. I believe that Hammurabi and others have expressed some of the same laws. It doesn't matter, I go by the Bible.

Quote:

---

Your demand for an explicit command to keep the Sabbath is unreasonable. There is no such command given in Genesis not to commit murder, either, but it is clear that Cain was judged guilty of the sin of murder. The inescapable fact is that God made the Sabbath on the seventh day of Creation week, and He gave it to man--not just the Jews. What does "made for" mean, if man was not to follow God's example and rest on the day? This is so obvious and straightforward, it is frankly amazing that anyone would even try to suggest there was any question whether Adam and Eve were expected to keep the Sabbath.

---

I disagree, sir. The admonition against murder is quite obvious. Every society on earth has had some law against murder. Sabbath keeping is anything but obvious. How many societies on earth have kept the Sabbath? How would anyone know to keep it without being told? How could the Gentile be expected to keep the Sabbath when Jesus, nor the Apostles, nor anyone else ever told them to? You're just making assumptions with nothing whatever to substantiate them and consider them to be natural law. I'm amazed that you just assume that Adam and Eve were expected to keep the Sabbath since you want to believe it, yet you offer not one shred of evidence to support your claim.

Stan

[Ron Lambert]

Stan, what is obvious to you now may not be what was obvious to people thousands of years ago. It is interesting that over 100 languages on earth have words for the name of the seventh day of the week that derive from "Sabbath" (as in the Spanish "Sabbados"), or "rest" or "no labor."

You missed my point about the Sabbath commandment being the seal of the Law, following the pattern of other Suzerainty treaties of the time (between a King and his people upon his ascension to the throne).

You are splitting hairs by insisting there is a difference between "remembering" the Sabbath and "observing" the Sabbath. Logically, the burden of proof is on you to disprove what any person would recognize is common sense.

And Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man (Mark 2:27), and Genesis 2:2, 3 presents to us the only place in the whole Bible where we are told when the Sabbath was made; and it was at a time when the entire human race was comprised in Adam (and Eve, if she was made on day 6).

[Stan Laurel]

Quote:

---

Stan, what is obvious to you now may not be what was obvious to people thousands of years ago.

---

This is probably true. Totally irrelevant to the current discussion, but I suppose true nonetheless.

Quote:

---

It is interesting that over 100 languages on earth have words for the name of the seventh day of the week that derive from "Sabbath" (as in the Spanish "Sabbados"), or "rest" or "no labor."

---

Again, true but irrelevant. I'm not sure if it's over 100. It may be. Other languages derive their word for the seventh day from the planet Saturn. Incidentally, since you seem to have missed the point, I have never disputed that the Sabbath of Exodus is Saturday.

Quote:

---

You missed my point about the Sabbath commandment being the seal of the Law, following the pattern of other Suzerainty treaties of the time (between a King and his people upon his ascension to the throne).

---

Sorry. I didn't miss it. I ignored it since it's also irrelevant. However you seem to have missed my point that the Bible tells us that God gave the 10 Commandments to Israel and since I accept the Bible as the word of God, that gives them the highest authority. Apparently you place the authority of kings higher.

Quote:

---

You

are

splitting hairs by insisting there is a difference between "remembering" the Sabbath and "observing" the Sabbath. Logically, the burden of proof is on you to disprove what any person would recognize is common sense.

---

Now this is getting downright comical. I already provided a logical proof. You simply restated your claim with nothing whatever to back it up and that makes you right. I don't think "any person" would consider common sense to consist of unwarranted and unsupported assumptions. So the burdon of proof is on me? Okay, the Bible records no command to observe the Sabbath before Sinai. It also records no command for Gentiles to observe the Sabbath. Can you prove I'm wrong?

Quote:

---

And Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man (Mark 2:27),...

---

And again you present that tired half-sentence taken out of context. Your point has already been thoroughly refuted by simply looking at the entire sentence and its context that man is not made to serve the Sabbath.

Quote:

---

... and Genesis 2:2, 3 presents to us the only place in the whole Bible where we are told when the Sabbath was made; and it was at a time when the entire human race was comprised in Adam (and Eve, if she was made on day 6).

---

You missed it again, sir. I never disputed when the Sabbath was made. Just when the command to observe it was given.

(sigh)

Stan

[Ron Lambert]

Stan Laurel, you never, ever, refuted anything, you just falsely claimed you did. Propaganda is not argument. Frankly, I do not think you are very logical; the most obvious arguments you dismiss just by being contrary.

[Stan Laurel]

Okay Ron. I think at this point we have both stated our cases and I don't see much value in rehashing further. Other readers may make their own assessment of our statements. Thank you again, sir, for the intriguing discussion. I don't plan to post on this thread further.

Yours in Christ,

Stan

[benherndon]

Positive value of the attitudes exhibited here? Stan is a nonSDA visitor. Think there's any chance he might consider Adventism as a place to worship?

Seems to me attitude is a Christian attribute and abrasive attitude is a 'negative' for SDA-type Christianity.

Ben

[Bob Sands]

Ron,

1. Gen 2: 1-3 gives no command to observe the Sabbath before Sinai.

2. Deut 5 states that the covenant, that included the 10 Commandments was not with the fathers of those alive at Sinai.

Quote:

---

Deut 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.

---

Quote:

---

2 Cor 3:7Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

---

[Bob Sands]

Ron, Mark 2:27 does not say what you want it to say, it is saying that the Sabbath is not more important than man. It was something for him not he was not created for a day. You refuse to see that. He would have been killed if the Jews believed he was preaching the Sabbath was for everyone. What do you think Acts 15, the Jersulam conference was for. You had to be circumcised or a Jew to keep Sabbath, and this was after Christ died and was resurrected.

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Ron, Mark 2:27 does not say what you want it to say, it is saying that the Sabbath is not more important than man. It was something for him not he was not created for a day. You refuse to see that. He would have been killed if the Jews believed he was preaching the Sabbath was for everyone. What do you think Acts 15, the Jersulam conference was for. You had to be circumcised or a Jew to keep Sabbath, and this was after Christ died and was resurrected.

---

[:"blue"] Bob, what part of "man" [anthropos - a human being, whether male or female; generically to include ALL human individuals - Strong's] don't you understand?

If you are really into following the truth wherever it may lead, why don't you follow what this text says? Why is the Sabbath which the Lord blessed & sanctified as a gift to mankind such a sore point to you? [/]

Gerry

[Bob Sands]

Take just about any commentary on this, except an SDA one, and you will have my answer. I am not the stubborn one, believe me.

[Bob Sands]

http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/mark/gill/mark2.htm

Quote:

---

. By "man," is not meant all mankind; for the sabbath was never appointed for all mankind, nor binding upon all; only the Jews, who are emphatically called "man," or "men"; see Ezekiel 34:30, upon which the Jewish writers remark {o}, that "they are called, Mda, "man"; but the idolatrous Gentiles, and nations of the World, are not called 'men';" but dogs, beasts, &c. Our Lord may here be thought to speak in their language, as he does in Mt. 15:26, See Gill on "Mt 15:26." And that the observation of the seventh day, was only designed for the children of Israel, seems manifest from Exodus 31:16, "wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant; it is a sign between me and the children of Israel"; and not between him and the rest of the world: and in Exodus 31:14, "ye shall keep the sabbath, for it is holy unto you": on which the Jews {p} make this remark, Nymme ravl alw Mkl, "to you, and not to the rest of the nations": nor did they ever think that the Gentiles were obliged to observe their sabbath, only such who became proselytes to their religion; even those who were proselytes of righteousness: for a proselyte of the gate, was not bound to observe it; for so says {q} Maimonides, "those who take upon them the seven commandments of Noah only, lo! they are as a proselyte of the gate, and they are free to do work on the sabbath day for themselves, openly, as an Israelite on a common day."

Yea, they not only say, they were not obliged to keep the sabbath, but that it was not lawful for them to observe it; and that it was even punishable with death them to regard it; for so they say {r}, "a Gentile that keeps the sabbath before he is circumcised, is guilty of death, because it is not commanded him." They judged them unworthy of having this precept enjoined them, as being not men, but beasts, and worse than they, and had not the privilege the ass has: hence one of their commentators {s} says, "concerning the rest of an ass, thou (O Israelite!) art commanded; but concerning the rest of a Gentile, thou art not commanded."

---

[Bob Sands]

http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/mark/wesley/mark2.htm

Quote:

---

Verse 27. The Sabbath was made for man - And therefore must give way to man's necessity.

---

[Bob Sands]

http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/mark227k.htm

Quote:

---

Is that what Mark 2:27-28 tells us? Let’s look at the context of Mark 2 to see what Jesus’ purpose was in saying what he did in verses 27 and 28. One Sabbath, Jesus and the disciples were picking heads of grain (verse 23). Jesus’ action and that of his disciples was immediately challenged by the Pharisees. "Why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" they demanded to know (verse 24). The Pharisees had set themselves up as religious authorities, defining what could or could not be done on the Sabbath.

What the Pharisees objected to was Jesus and his disciples picking the heads of grain on the Sabbath. They regarded this as reaping. It was one of the many acts the teachers of the law had decided should be forbidden on the Sabbath. The people challenging Jesus in Mark 2:27-28 would all have rightly assumed that the Law of Moses commanded them to keep the Sabbath. As the old covenant people of God, they were obligated to observe it. The question for these people – not us – was how to keep it under certain circumstances.

---

[Bob Sands]

http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/mark227k.htm

Quote:

---

In summary, let us ask what has been and has not been said about the Sabbath in Mark 2:27. Jesus was addressing the Sabbath issue in the context of speaking to the religious leaders of old covenant Israel and the interpreters of the Law of Moses in his day. He was telling them as old covenant people how they should apply the law of the Sabbath, that is, with mercy and thought to human need. And he was telling them he had the authority to define how they should observe the Sabbath.

What isn’t said here? The issue of whether Gentiles or Christians need to keep the Sabbath is not mentioned. Please note that. Jesus is not commanding Christians to observe the Sabbath as "holy time." Read the passage carefully: Jesus does not issue a command to keep the Sabbath. That is not the question under debate in this verse. Therefore, we should not import this idea into this passage of Scripture. That is, we shouldn’t first assume that Christians must observe the Sabbath, and then claim that this idea is found in Mark 2:27-28, because it isn’t there.

To conclude, Jesus’ comments about the Sabbath being made for humanity reflect the idea that the Pharisees (as representatives of old covenant Israel) should have taught an enlightened Sabbath observance, not missing the reason why God gave the nation this holy time. Jesus’ statement about being the Lord of the Sabbath challenged the Pharisees’ attempt to subvert his authority in the matter and claim it for themselves.

---

[Ron Lambert]

Bob, your repeated attempts to explain away clear and explcit texts merely by arbitrarily claiming they mean something other than what they obviously say are getting pretty old.