Try This Testimony of Sabbath

[doug yowell]

"Do you believe that the OT allowed for the believer to ignore a daily rest in Christ except on the seventh day?"

Those in the OT could not have what we have today, I've shown that already. They could not rest in Christ, that's why He said He came to give us rest, because they did not already have it.

If you really believe this there is a bigger problem than the Sabbath here. The entire message of the NT is that we are to follow their example of faith. The whole concept of "resting in Christ" that springs from the message of Heb.3,4 is founded upon the examples of those mentioned in Heb.11 Rest in Christ is something that has always been a salvation requirement. What do you think the Passover was all about?? The ark? The cloud in the wilderness? The Psalms? We simply rest after the fact (of His resurrection) they before. So great a cloud of witnesses!!

[BibleOnly]

"The commandment does NOT command (or allow) anyone to rest everyday!!"

This is precisely the sort of legalism that creates questions like 'who is my neighbour'.

"It DOES,in accordance with the principles of heaven (God worked 6 days and didn't rest 7 days)require that man do his work during the alloted time."

So you do your paid job on a Sunday ? No wonder you love the Sabbath so much, you get one day off work a week, and most people get two !!!

"God sanctified the 7th day NOT any day or no day."

Hbr 10:10 By 1722 the which 3739 will 2307 we are 2070 sanctified 37 through 1223 the offering 4376 of the body 4983 of Jesus 2424 Christ 5547 once 2178 [for all].

In the NT, God sanctifies us and makes us His temple. So, how can one day be more holy than another, inside the Temple of God ?

"How can that which God instituted specifically for man's happiness and which He Himself modeled in action, be legalistic, even if it is kept according to the detailed command? "

The same could be said of the whole law, and Paul's answer is that the law was perfect, but we are not.

"You are attempting to rewrite what actually occurred (caveat?)in order to sell your readers a false sense of the Sabbath meaning."

Not at all. I am just reading the whole bible, not just a half chapter.

"Is it also blindly following the detailed command to become one with one spouse?"

To be honest, I don't do that only because God said I would, nor does He command it, He just says it would happen.

" Your Sabbath caveat requires the same mindset towards one of God's institutions as those who challenge the traditional model of marriage.I don't think you really want to do that."

I'm sorry, but that is just plain ridiculous, it's typical SDA word games because you can't defend Sabbath keeping on it's own merits. Not one NT scripture says we need to keep the OT Sabbath. Three passages say we do not.

[Neil D]

I'm sorry, but that is just plain ridiculous, it's typical SDA word games because you can't defend Sabbath keeping on it's own merits. Not one NT scripture says we need to keep the OT Sabbath. Three passages say we do not.

There is one NT passage that says that there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God.

There are 12 NT references which state that Jesus, Paul, or the disciples were in church on the Sabbath day.

There are over 17 verses which referenced a healing, doing good on the sabbath, taking an animal out of a pit, harvesting grain....all on the sabbath...and it was concidered a good thing...

There are 56 passages indicating that the Sabbath is a day to be observed, because the discipes did it, Jesus did it, a future Sabbath was hopefully not to be profained, people asked the disciples to come back on the Sabbath to explain Jesus, Jesus made Sabbath special by healing eyes, released bonds of Satan, oked that animals could be pulled out of a ditch on the sabbath, religious work was ok to do on the Sabbath, and generally do good on the Sabbath....

There are text that point out that there are different types of Sabbaths, ie "high Sabbath" verse "regular" sabbaths. There are texts that point out that we are not to do unnecessary work on Sabbath...

All these 56 positive texts point that the sabbath is to be observed....Your 3 texts that speak negatively I suspect that references to a different type of Sabbath, not the weekly Sabbath...Wanna compare?

[Overaged]

Hey; how are you "BibleOnly?" Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier re that video I posted a few days ago; and the comments you made about it.

I think I understand what you meant when you said it was not really a complete/accurate gospel message, but I chose that video to illustrate my point that the Sabbath gave me a picture of how we all need Christ; and I know that this video I posted did atleast emphasize that. That's why I posted it.

When I first learned about the Sabbath; I also learned about Jesus. There was just no separating the two by the people who gave me Bible studies when I first joined the church, and gave my heart to Christ.

The Bible tells us that the seventh-day Sabbath is to be "a sign between us and God;" and this is why I tell people that I decided to accept what the Bible tells us about the seventh day. Because of Jesus; I have a special sign between Him and I only, and this makes my walk with Him very personal; instead or prescribed to me by some pastor or Church.

[Overaged]

Now who's playing word games? Misrepresenting what Scripture says is the lowest form of word games.

This is nary any good for Bible study and christian fellowship.

Are you looking at BibleOnly as an opponent, or as a fellow pilgrim? I see him as the latter. I like the way he resorts so often to scripture - and each time he does so; it is an opportunity to clarify and understand more of one another. (just sayin).

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Now who's playing word games? Misrepresenting what Scripture says is the lowest form of word games.

This is nary any good for Bible study and christian fellowship.

Are you looking at BibleOnly as an opponent, or as a fellow pilgrim? I see him as the latter. I like the way he resorts so often to scripture - and each time he does so; it is an opportunity to clarify and understand more of one another. (just sayin).

BO is not my opponent he is the Bible's opponent. He says that the Bible doesn't say what it does say and misrepresents what he says it does say (see HB's last post).He claims that it is legalism (what is legalism but a generic term for unbelief?)to believe that God's law is binding.He accuses others of playing word games with texts like "there remaineth therefore a rest for the people of God" while claiming those same texts are the basis for his belief that there is no literal rest remaining for God's people. I am convinced of the opposite. Where then is the fellowship when discussing this basic subject?

[doug yowell]

"The commandment does NOT command (or allow) anyone to rest everyday!!"

This is precisely the sort of legalism that creates questions like 'who is my neighbour'.

Then you accuse God Himself of creating and being a legalist. For He Himself rested on a specific day and demanded, upon pain of death,that His people rest on that same day.You call it legalism to obey? "And to whom did He sware that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey...for indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them..."

[Overaged]

Sometimes, we "christians" give the Bible and God the bad name by the nature of our "defense."

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

"The commandment does NOT command (or allow) anyone to rest everyday!!"

This is precisely the sort of legalism that creates questions like 'who is my neighbour'.

Then you accuse God Himself of creating and being a legalist. For He Himself rested on a specific day and demanded, upon pain of death,that His people rest on that same day.You call it legalism to obey? "And to whom did He sware that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey...for indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them..."

Doug; BibleOnly has accused God of nothing. They are simply trying to say how they see a particular Bible view on Sabbath; and I might add, he was given this view by "Adventists." Might be better to just explain the texts instead of this...

[Tom Wetmore]

Moderator note:

Let's refrain from derailing a topic by making one another the topic of discussion. Keep the topic the subject of your post, not each other.

Thanks.

[BibleOnly]

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

I'm sorry, but that is just plain ridiculous, it's typical SDA word games because you can't defend Sabbath keeping on it's own merits. Not one NT scripture says we need to keep the OT Sabbath. Three passages say we do not.

There is one NT passage that says that there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God.

[BibleOnly]

Hey; how are you "BibleOnly?" Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier re that video I posted a few days ago; and the comments you made about it.

[BibleOnly]

BO is not my opponent he is the Bible's opponent. He says that the Bible doesn't say what it does say and misrepresents what he says it does say (see HB's last post).He claims that it is legalism (what is legalism but a generic term for unbelief?)to believe that God's law is binding.He accuses others of playing word games with texts like "there remaineth therefore a rest for the people of God" while claiming those same texts are the basis for his belief that there is no literal rest remaining for God's people. I am convinced of the opposite. Where then is the fellowship when discussing this basic subject?

ROTFL - you see, I've had a ton of private messages in my time here that say things like 'it's clear you only want to argue and have no interest in the truth' and 'you will rue the day you missed the chance you had here'. I don't make pronouncements like that, because I can very easily list off scriptures that say one thing plainly and you claim they say another, but that's just being argumentative, being fleshy and trying to win a natural argument. I see this post as an attempt at natural justification. The Bible does have a clear message, and if your message is clear, you'll be able to show that it is, for example by providing one NT verse that says that Christians need to keep the Sabbath. What the Bible says is all that matters, not how good we might be at using words to take pot shots at one another.

I am more than happy to state that I am sure you are sincere about what you believe, and trying to sincerely represent it. You are wrong, of course, but you are sincere, and not trying to argue, or attack the Word of God. I don't mean to blow my own trumpet, but I really feel that I show more of the fruit of the Spirit than many here, and I am certainly more careful with my integrity. Perhaps I need to be, I am the outsider here. I do wonder why no-one notices this, though, and asks themselves how people telling me that the fruits are the proof of the Spirit, show less fruit than I do ( or rather, God in me, the old me would have insulted you all roundly and stormed off )

[BibleOnly]

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

"The commandment does NOT command (or allow) anyone to rest everyday!!"

This is precisely the sort of legalism that creates questions like 'who is my neighbour'.

Then you accuse God Himself of creating and being a legalist. For He Himself rested on a specific day and demanded, upon pain of death,that His people rest on that same day.You call it legalism to obey? "And to whom did He sware that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey...for indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them..."

You miss several important points.

1 - This was given to Israel, not the church. We plainly do not stone people to death any more, so it's clear that your example does not hold to the NT church.

2 - the legalism is not in God telling them to keep a certain day, but in your reading that God also demanded they work 6 days. He did not, He told them to take one day off, on the basis that they were working 7. Therefore, He stated they could work 6. There is no record of anyone being put to death for not working on a non Sabbath.

Obedience is obedience. Straining at turns of phrase and emphasising things that were not meant to be emphasised, is legalism. God does not demand us to work 6 days a week. You are yet to answer if, in accordance with your beliefs, you do paid work 6 days a week.

[Overaged]

I show more of the fruit of the Spirit than many here, and I am certainly more careful with my integrity.

[BibleOnly]

LoL. We will never know what's "hiding in the closet," will we?

[doug yowell]

I'm sorry, but that is just plain ridiculous, it's typical SDA word games because you can't defend Sabbath keeping on it's own merits. Not one NT scripture says we need to keep the OT Sabbath. Three passages say we do not.

Hebrews 4. Paul talks about the Sabbath moving from Saturday to 'today' and how the Sabbath did not give rest, but that the concept remains in the Gospel. It's one of the four passages that states that we don't keep the OT Sabbath.

Again, speaking of word games,this is exactly the kind of incoherent argument that is Biblically indefensible. Not one NT text says what you say it says. Not one of the texts that you quote says anything about NOT having to keep the OT Sabbath yet that's exactly what you claim. At least be clear and say that although it doesn't say that we don't have to keep the OT Sabbath it implies it by what is said.Neither does Paul state that the Sabbath has "moved" to "today" or how the Sabbath did not give rest (one wonders why God rested, sanctified and blessed something that He named rest but that didn't actually give rest? BTW what did it give?)And how can it coherently follow that something that was named rest but could not give rest was used as the concept for rest? "Therefore, there remains (is left behind) a (Sabbath) rest for the people of God." Remember the words of Jesus in the NT: "The Sabbath was made for man"? No,Jesus doesn't demand Sabbath sanctity here, but He makes it clear that what you now view as an unnecessary infringement on Christian freedom was actually created for man's good. Your relegating His teaching to a Biblically unspecified point of time needs more Biblical clarification.

[Woody]

I don't know what you have found - but after being a Christian for some 50 years - I have yet to find anyone who believes in scripture as I interpret scripture. I think the SDA is closest - but still I am willing to bet that you haven't met anyone who agrees with your interpretations of scripture in all areas and aspects.

[Overaged]

Yes, that's really why I keep coming here, I do like to discuss the Bible and while I feel the core SDA doctrines have failed the Bible test, I will always listen to anything anyone says from the Bible and try to compare my views to the Bible alone.

I bolded a bit of this in red; because I really like it when i come across this attitude. Maybe I am just a really weird Adventist, but the differences you have just expressed don't even matter to me as long as you keep talking like this.

Do you remember how in the four different gospels of the NT, the disciples each wrote about the crucifixion, and there were a few differences in what each of them saw, perceived, and wrote?

It is similar with the sabbath, or any other Bible topic, there are things that we can't see, which you can, and vise-versa, so it would be really unfortunate if we could not discuss topics and exchange notes. Each of us may have something that the other one needs to hear/know. Refusing to hear one another out politely, and with respect would be like trying to use the old analogue computer (pictured below) to get online and post our messages to this forum with it.

I personally do not see you as "twisting the Bible;" nor do I see you as "an enemy of the Bible;" just because you think the "core SDA doctrines have failed the Bible test." I am quite fine with you thinking this way, because of what I have underlined in red above. Applied to this sabbath issue for this thread; I can't think of a better way to have online fellowship.

(I'll be back to reply more soon!).

[BibleOnly]

Again, speaking of word games,this is exactly the kind of incoherent argument that is Biblically indefensible. Not one NT text says what you say it says. Not one of the texts that you quote says anything about NOT having to keep the OT Sabbath yet that's exactly what you claim.

[BibleOnly]

I don't know what you have found - but after being a Christian for some 50 years - I have yet to find anyone who believes in scripture as I interpret scripture. I think the SDA is closest - but still I am willing to bet that you haven't met anyone who agrees with your interpretations of scripture in all areas and aspects.

I honestly can't think of a major area where I disagree with anyone in my church, or the platform of the church as a whole. Sorry :-)

[doug yowell]

Sometimes, we "christians" give the Bible and God the bad name by the nature of our "defense."

True, and sometimes the nature of that defense is misunderstood and maliciously maligned by "Christians" as being "unchristian" when it is not. And sometimes "Christians do not understand the spiritual ramifications of misportraying God's Word.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

I don't know what you have found - but after being a Christian for some 50 years - I have yet to find anyone who believes in scripture as I interpret scripture. I think the SDA is closest - but still I am willing to bet that you haven't met anyone who agrees with your interpretations of scripture in all areas and aspects.

I honestly can't think of a major area where I disagree with anyone in my church, or the platform of the church as a whole. Sorry :-)

Ahhh - but there you see the 'out'. You said major. It is my belief that there should be few 'majors'. Most of the stuff is little stuff and I find no problem disagreeing over the little stuff.

[Overaged]

Neither does Paul state that the Sabbath has "moved" to "today" or how the Sabbath did not give rest (one wonders why God rested, sanctified and blessed something that He named rest but that didn't actually give rest? BTW what did it give?)

I think I understand here what you are trying to explain; however, this is the kind of idea that I feel gives the public some erroneous views on the sabbath.

The Sabbath does not give rest. The Bible doesn't say that. Due to a number of circumstances beyond my control; I have had some Sabbaths which were far more exhausting than even the hardest work days! So, no. The Sabbath, in and of itself does not impart rest at all! Our "rest" is given to us by Someone else; and our "rest" is not in the sabbath itself; it is always and only in Christ, and even the "Sabbath rest' that is "left" "for the people of God," is not just in the Sabbath; it is in Christ, who made the seventh-day Sabbath. "there remaineth a Sabbath rest' refers to rest in Christ, including on the seventh day, not because of.

There is a type of rest which results from obedience to the fourth commandment; but really, that rest is also in Christ; just as it would be on all points of obedience. The rest is always in Christ, not in the obedience thereof.

There are other titles that the Bible gives to the seventh day Sabbath; such as "a sign between us and God." It would be good to compile a list of all the other descriptors the Bible uses for the seventh day sabbath. Might be quite revealing!

[doug yowell]

just because you think the "core SDA doctrines have failed the Bible test." I am quite fine with you thinking this way, because of what I have underlined in red above. Applied to this sabbath issue for this thread; I can't think of a better way to have online fellowship.

If God's truth didn't matter one way of the other.If believing anything I wanted as long as I used the Bible to justify it made no difference in anyone's life. If I wasn't convinced that God intended the Sabbath to be a blessing for all mankind. If I didn't think that the call to Sabbath sanctity was a part of God's last call to a dying world. If I was sure that the perpetuity of the 4th commandment was nothing more than a theological ping pong ball. Then I would agree with you,OA.