What will happen to Christians who reject the Sabbath?

[BarneyFife]

I only asked you to pray about it.

Sorry, but you said more than that:

"it's not mandatory now to keep A DAY, and the mistaken idea that it is, causes you to look at others with a judgmental heart."

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Oh they have....ever since Paul said to. But due to the lack of proper hermeneutics and the instructions of Hebrew linguistics Laurie White was able to fool the same people that Miller did.
And even the briefest of glances at her writings proves that the woman had some severe mental health issues that are obvious to everyone today. (Laurie White is the instigator of the SDA movement)

The four Gospels and Paul's writings (as well as Hebrews) explain very clearly that where morals are required ritualistic practices are not acceptable....and Saturday assembly is not wrong but not any more right than Sunday services.

So much for proving that your arguments existed pre-Internet. You could have just said: "I can't prove it." Instead, you went on a rant about some "Laurie White" person and lots of other non-proof.

.

 

[JohnDB]

So much for proving that your arguments existed pre-Internet. You could have just said: "I can't prove it." Instead, you went on a rant about some "Laurie White" person and lots of other non-proof.

.

Well I did already explain very clearly....you are claiming I've proved nothing.

Well....you have as yet to refute anything I've said and proven. So you now have 3 points to prove:

Collective singular exists in Hebrew.
Gospel writers were wrong in the theologies of Jesus (especially John)
Paul and the writer of Hebrews were wrong in their theological focuses.

And there you go....what are you going to do?

Claim I've proven nothing? Claim these scriptures don't exist?

 

[BarneyFife]

I understand Sabbath-keeping as an option for Christian believers, but certainly not as a requirement.
If it was a requirement, then consequences would apply. But since it isn't... rejection of the Sabbath is within our rights.

Pardon me, Chum, but aren't you applying an at least slightly arbitrary standard here? Where does the Bible (New Testament, I'm assuming) say that consequences apply specifically to the breaking of certain commandments to the exclusion of others?

And how do we know there aren't consequences for refusing to rest and worship every Sabbath? In fact, evidence is mounting quite to the contrary.

And, besides, isn't the rejection of any law or even the Lawgiver Himself within our rights?

As I understand it, the Sabbath was given to Israel alone through Moses. This happens in Exodus chapter 16 with the giving of manna (bread from heaven), which was to be collected for six days, but the seven day was a day of Sabbath rest. The Israelites struggled to understand this completely new concept. They went out on the seventh day expecting to find manna.

In Exodus 16, God refers to the Sabbath as though it were an already existing commandment—which it was, of course. Folks like to point out that no explicit command was previously given, but they generally omit the fact that the same applies to the other 9 as well, and that arguments from silence can go both ways—not just in favor of Sabbath objection.

So, for whom should consequences apply?
- To those whom it was given, or...
- to those whom it was not given.

Deuteronomy 5:3 NIV
It was not with our ancestors[a] that the Lord made this covenant,
but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.

Exodus 12:49 — One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

This was admittedly declared even before the law was codified at Sinai. Of course, this is often seized upon as a disqualification but, again, it seems to me that an open mind would see it as having possibility on either side of the question, since it is so often claimed that no law existed before Sinai and yet here we find God Himself seeming to say that just ain't so.

A thought question that just occurred to me:

Did the covenant God made with the ancestors include what is being called, by God, part of the "law" here in Exodus 12—the Passover?

:)
.

 

[BarneyFife]

Well I did already explain very clearly....you are claiming I've proved nothing.

Well....you have as yet to refute anything I've said and proven. So you now have 3 points to prove:

Collective singular exists in Hebrew.
Gospel writers were wrong in the theologies of Jesus (especially John)
Paul and the writer of Hebrews were wrong in their theological focuses.

And there you go....what are you going to do?

Claim I've proven nothing? Claim these scriptures don't exist?

What I'm going to do is to ask you once again for some evidence that your theories regarding the 4th commandment were being taught before the advent of consumer Internet service—which you've thus far flatly declined to do.

I'm not interested in doubled-down explanations of the theories themselves. I've heard it all too many times.

My basic claim has always been that these theories supplanting literal Sabbath-keeping were virtually non-existent outside of the terminally bored minds of students at Ivy League, artificial seminaries, and certainly that no one brought them into Sunday School discussions pre-1990 for fear of being laughed out of the building.

And so far, not a single, solitary person has brought forward any kind of documented/recorded evidence to the contrary.

My good friend @St. SteVen has mentioned some material from an offshoot of the Worldwide Church of God (I believe it was) that I actually found, but I'm afraid that it in no way suggests the kind of broad general knowledge that would prevent us from having to conclude that, for nearly two millennia, the church at large had the whole Sabbath-keeping business entirely wrong.

And all of your indignant, virtual jumping up and down and hand waving isn't going to change that.

Sorry.

.

 

[PS95]

Sorry, but you said more than that:

"it's not mandatory now to keep A DAY, and the mistaken idea that it is, causes you to look at others with a judgmental heart."

.

puts you on the path to perdition

Ok Barney,
Yes, I did.
From a cursory reading of SDA teachings and your Brother here, Hobie- it's the only logical conclusion.
Unless, you disagree with your church and brother.

 

[BarneyFife]

Ok Barney,
Yes, I did.
From a cursory reading of SDA teachings and your Brother here, Hobie- it's the only logical conclusion.
Unless, you disagree with your church and brother.

So, the "only logical conclusion" is that all Seventh-day Adventists think and believe alike on some undetermined number of detailed issues.

Got it.

.

 

[PS95]

So, the "only logical conclusion" is that all Seventh-day Adventists think and believe alike on some undetermined number of detailed issues.

Got it.

.

Barney, Do I really need to supply quotes from Ellen?
How about Hobie & "perdition"? Did you correct him? No.
Either you disagree with your SEVENTH DAY church & Hobie or you don't.
I am not here to argue with you. If what I said bothers you, then denounce your church's teachings on this.
You want it both ways and that doesnt pass even a cursory sniff test.
Just think on it.

 

[BarneyFife]

Barney, Do I really need to supply quotes from Ellen?
How about Hobie & "perdition"? Did you correct him? No.
Either you disagree with your SEVENTH DAY church & Hobie or you don't.
I am not here to argue with you. If what I said bothers you, then denounce your church's teachings on this.
You want it both ways and that doesnt pass even a cursory sniff test.
Just think on it.

So, rather than address the point of my post you divert and resort to threats of the GOTCHA sort.

Nice

You could do the same thing with the Bible but, of course, you won't. That would be gauche at a Christian forum, wouldn't it? Critics of Ellen White always hold her written works to a far higher textual standard than they would ever dare to hold the Bible.

Can you really not see the genetic fallacy you're perpetrating here?

You're actually insisting that I fall in line with your "cursory," cookie-cutter perception of Adventism—or renounce it flatly.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to correct everyone who holds different views than I on every detail of faith and practice.

And Hobie's remarks may be of infinite concern to your sense of propriety, but in the end we agree on many more things than those upon which we have differing views.

It must be really nice to be able to just believe what you believe without having to answer to appeals to either be a good robot or change teams. But, on second thought, I guess it doesn't really matter how broad the bullseye is. Except when the time comes to garner some sympathy or support.

By the way, you're doing an awful lot of arguing for someone who's not here to argue. You have just as much ability to let this thing go as do I. Sorry, but I'm committed to countering your nonsense for the time being.

.

 

[JohnDB]

What I'm going to do is to ask you once again for some evidence that your theories regarding the 4th commandment were being taught before the advent of consumer Internet service—which you've thus far flatly declined to do.

I'm not interested in doubled-down explanations of the theories themselves. I've heard it all too many times.

My basic claim has always been that these theories supplanting literal Sabbath-keeping were virtually non-existent outside of the terminally bored minds of students at Ivy League, artificial seminaries, and certainly that no one brought them into Sunday School discussions pre-1990 for fear of being laughed out of the building.

And so far, not a single, solitary person has brought forward any kind of documented/recorded evidence to the contrary.

My good friend @St. SteVen has mentioned some material from an offshoot of the Worldwide Church of God (I believe it was) that I actually found, but I'm afraid that it in no way suggests the kind of broad general knowledge that would prevent us from having to conclude that, for nearly two millennia, the church at large had the whole Sabbath-keeping business entirely wrong.

And all of your indignant, virtual jumping up and down and hand waving isn't going to change that.

Sorry.

.

So you cannot answer my questions or the points I've made....

Instead you claim I've stated/proven nothing?

That's narcissistic. Pure narcissism. Completely undignified and dishonest.

And a reason you are more than phariseeacle in your approach to scriptures.

 

[PS95]

So, rather than address the point of my post you divert and resort to threats of the GOTCHA sort.

Nice

WHAT is your point? I have no idea.

You could do the same thing with the Bible but, of course, you won't. That would be gauche at a Christian forum, wouldn't it? Critics of Ellen White always hold her written works to a far higher textual standard than they would ever dare to hold the Bible.

Can you really not see the genetic fallacy you're perpetrating here?

You're actually insisting that I fall in line with your "cursory," cookie-cutter perception of Adventism—or renounce it flatly.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to correct everyone who holds different views than I on every detail of faith and practice.

And Hobie's remarks may be of infinite concern to your sense of propriety, but in the end we agree on many more things than those upon which we have differing views.

It must be really nice to be able to just believe what you believe without having to answer to appeals to either be a good robot or change teams. But, on second thought, I guess it doesn't really matter how broad the bullseye is. Except when the time comes to garner some sympathy or support.

By the way, you're doing an awful lot of arguing for someone who's not here to argue. You have just as much ability to let this thing go as do I. Sorry, but I'm committed to countering your nonsense for the time being.

.

I have no idea why you're so angry. I just gave you facts. You're the person who has to deal with them, Barney.
Take care. Nothing left to say on my end. I wish you well.

 

[JohnDB]

WHAT is your point? I have no idea.

I have no idea why you're so angry. I just gave you facts. You're the person who has to deal with them, Barney.
Take care. Nothing left to say on my end. I wish you well.

I'm ready to put this NPC on my ignore list. He is completely dishonest in any discussion.

 

[BarneyFife]

So you cannot answer my questions or the points I've made....

Oh, I can answer them. This isn't my first rodeo. But you posed your questions and points in response to a claim I've made that you refuse to address. I'm sure you're hoping I've gotten distracted by now and have forgotten that, but I haven't.

Instead you claim I've stated/proven nothing?

No, I claim, and rightly so, that you're moving the goal posts around. I'm unimpressed with your explanation of the theories. I'm only interested in seeing evidence that the church either taught the goofy, neo-new covenant theories folks are now espousing on the Internet, or that they had an entirely erroneous view of how to observe the 4th commandment—which you're still dancing around doing.

That's narcissistic. Pure narcissism. Completely undignified and dishonest.

And a reason you are more than phariseeacle in your approach to scriptures.

This is pretty much standard, usually late-stage argument, uninformed ad hominem. But it's to be expected, I guess.

.

 

[St. SteVen]

A thought question that just occurred to me:

Did the covenant God made with the ancestors include what is being called, by God, part of the "law" here in Exodus 12—the Passover?

Here's the context. Note verses 4-5.

Moses summoned all Israel and said:
Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them.
2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.
3 It was not with our ancestors[a] that the Lord made this covenant,
but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.
4 The Lord spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain.
5 (At that time I stood between the Lord and you to declare to you the word of the Lord,
because you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain.)
And he said: -- Deuteronomy 5:1-5

My understanding of the law is in several parts. Not one thing. (rather four, including Christ's law)

Observations about the law, the Law, God's law, Christ's law - four different things

- What's the difference between the law and the Law? (capital L) - What's the difference between the law and God's law? - What's the difference between the law, God's law, and Christ's law? The law, the Law, God's law, Christ's law; four different things. Agree, or disagree? Points...

www.christianityboard.com

- Prior to Sinai there was God's law (human conscience) Cain was a murderer.
- The law known in the Bible as "the law" was given to the Israelites alone through Moses.
- That law was recorded in the Books of the Law, also known as the Law of Moses. (note the capitalization)
- Christ's law came in the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 9:21 NIV
To those not having the law I became like one not having the law
(though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law),
so as to win those not having the law.

In Exodus 16, God refers to the Sabbath as though it were an already existing commandment—which it was, of course.

I'm arriving at a different conclusion there, as evidenced by the text. Perhaps you see something I don't? I see no evidence that anyone kept the Sabbath prior to Exodus chapter 16.

Exodus 16:27-30 NIV
Nevertheless, some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather it, but they found none.
28 Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you[a] refuse to keep my commands and my instructions?
29 Bear in mind that the Lord has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days.
Everyone is to stay where they are on the seventh day; no one is to go out.”
30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

]

 

[BarneyFife]

WHAT is your point? I have no idea.

I have no idea why you're so angry. I just gave you facts. You're the person who has to deal with them, Barney.
Take care. Nothing left to say on my end. I wish you well.

All you have to do is go back and re-read our conversation. I've brought no impassioned expression to this discussion. Your "facts" are judgmental demands—not even well-veiled ones.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Here's the context. Note verses 4-5.

Moses summoned all Israel and said:
Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them.
2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.
3 It was not with our ancestors[a] that the Lord made this covenant,
but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.
4 The Lord spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain.
5 (At that time I stood between the Lord and you to declare to you the word of the Lord,
because you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain.)
And he said: -- Deuteronomy 5:1-5

My understanding of the law is in several parts. Not one thing. (rather four, including Christ's law)

Observations about the law, the Law, God's law, Christ's law - four different things

- What's the difference between the law and the Law? (capital L) - What's the difference between the law and God's law? - What's the difference between the law, God's law, and Christ's law? The law, the Law, God's law, Christ's law; four different things. Agree, or disagree? Points...

www.christianityboard.com

- Prior to Sinai there was God's law (human conscience) Cain was a murderer.
- The law known in the Bible as "the law" was given to the Israelites alone through Moses.
- That law was recorded in the Books of the Law, also known as the Law of Moses. (note the capitalization)
- Christ's law came in the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 9:21 NIV
To those not having the law I became like one not having the law
(though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law),
so as to win those not having the law.


I'm arriving at a different conclusion there, as evidenced by the text. Perhaps you see something I don't? I see no evidence that anyone kept the Sabbath prior to Exodus chapter 16.

Exodus 16:27-30 NIV
Nevertheless, some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather it, but they found none.
28 Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you[a] refuse to keep my commands and my instructions?
29 Bear in mind that the Lord has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days.
Everyone is to stay where they are on the seventh day; no one is to go out.”
30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

]

I think we've established in the past (maybe not) that we have widely different views of what constitutes law in the Bible.

As to Exodus 16, I honestly don't see how verse 28 can be read any other way than seeing God as already having an established law (commands, instructions) which He then goes on in verse 29 to stipulate includes the Sabbath command.

:)
.

 

[BarneyFife]

I'm ready to put this NPC on my ignore list. He is completely dishonest in any discussion.

Promises, promises

.

 

[PS95]

All you have to do is go back and re-read our conversation. I've brought no impassioned expression to this discussion. Your "facts" are judgmental demands—not even well-veiled ones.

.

I welcome anyone to read our discussion.

 

[PS95]

I'm ready to put this NPC on my ignore list. He is completely dishonest in any discussion.

Not sure what NPC is. Just pray for him. It's a terrible spot to be in. He seems to be a nice person.

 

[St. SteVen]

I think we've established in the past (maybe not) that we have widely different views of what constitutes law in the Bible.

I agree.

As to Exodus 16, I honestly don't see how verse 28 can be read any other way than seeing God as already having an established law (commands, instructions) which He then goes on in verse 29 to stipulate includes the Sabbath command.

I agree. (sort of) The Sabbath was established in verse 23. The first use of the word Sabbath in the Bible.

Exodus 16:23 NIV
He said to them, “This is what the Lord commanded:
‘Tomorrow is to be a day of sabbath rest, a holy sabbath to the Lord.
So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil.
Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.’”

]