The Great Controversy

reply to post by Seed76
Seed76,

You didn't include this one from Heb. 4:-
Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. ( Sabbath means seventh )

To John the "Lords day" wan't Sunday, Sabbath was seventh to him. I think he was referring to and I would take this to be his idea. - "My Holy Day", He hallowed and sanctified it, the seventh day, therefore the "Lords Day".

Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

Jesus never changed the day as He never changes, you can trust Him because He don't.

Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

If, if, if He had of changed the Sabbath to another day He would have changed the commandments and make a special forthright command about it.

In my reply before this I stated the latest Great Controversy book was 1889, that is wrong it is 1911.
I goofed, I admit it.

Truthiron.

reply to post by truthiron

You didn't include this one from Heb. 4:-
Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. ( Sabbath means seventh )

Truthiron,

The reason that i have not included the verse from Heb.4- is because i have posted a link, which goes in to depth analysis(The whole Sabbath issue). Here is a small quote on Hebrews and the Sabbath from the link that i posted on my previous post.

3. Hebrews 4:9-10 and the Sabbath A passage of Scripture that is important in the debate regarding the perpetuity of the weekly sabbath is Hebrews 4:9-10: “There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.

For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.” This passage has been interpreted three different ways. Some interpreters use this passage as a proof text against the perpetuity of the Sabbath. They argue that when a person believes in Christ, he then ceases from his evil works, and his whole life as a Christian is one long sabbath rest.

Thus they argue that the weekly sabbath was but a type of the Christian’s rest in Christ and is no longer binding on the church. Gary North writes, “Calvin followed the tradition laid by Irenaeus and Augustine, interpreting the sabbath as an allegory of the believer’s rest in Christ from the bondage of sin, a rest to be made perfect in eternity.

This, of course, was simply the teaching of Hebrews 4, and Calvin was unwilling to break from its perspective. He went lawn bowling after church on Sunday, a fact which later sabbatarians have chosen to ignore.” [55] This interpretation, as shall be shown, is not correct.

An examination of the context (3:7-4:11; cf. 9:11) proves that the sabbath rest spoken of throughout chapters 3 and 4 is the unending rest in the consummate new heavens and new earth. Therefore, this passage cannot be used as a proof text against the weekly sabbath, because the looking toward the great eschatological sabbath when believers enter their perfect rest with God applied to Adam, Moses, David, and believers of every age. If the Sabbath as the perfect future rest did not abrogate the keeping of one day under the old covenant, there is no reason for it to abrogate the new covenant Lord’s day, for the eschatological meaning is the same in both dispensations. [56]

A second interpretation common among strict sabbatarians is that Hebrews 4:9 is actually a statement regarding the weekly sabbath and not the future eternal sabbath. The author of Hebrews discusses the eternal future rest in chapters three and four, but in 4:9 he argues for a remaining weekly sabbath. Since new covenant believers have the same hope of eternal rest as old covenant believers, the weekly sabbath remains to foreshadow that future rest. In his examination of chapter 4, R.L. Dabney argues: “That God has an eternal spiritual rest; that he invited Old Testament believers to share it; that it is something higher than Israel’s home in Canaan, because after Joshua had fully installed Israel in that rest, God’s rest is still held up as something future. The seventh day (verse 4) was the memorial of God’s rest, and was thus connected with it.

It was under the old dispensation, as under the new, a spiritual faith which introduced into God’s rest, and it was unbelief which excluded from it. But as God’s rest was something higher than a home in Canaan, and was still offered in the ninety-fifth Psalm long after Joshua settled Israel in that rest, it follows (verse 9) that there still remains a sabbatism, or Sabbath-keeping, for God’s people under the new dispensation; and hence (verse 11) we ought to seek to enter into that spiritual rest of God, which is by faith.” [57] A strong support for this interpretation is the fact that the word used to describe God’s rest throughout both chapters (3-4) is a different word then the one used in verse 9. In 3:11, 18, and 4:1, 3, 5, 10, and 11, the Greek word katapausis is used.

But in 4:9 sabbatismos is used. [58] Although it is true that both words can be translated as rest, why use a different word only once, a word usually translated as sabbath? Lee writes, “‘Katapausis’ and ‘katapauo’ in the LXX are used in respect of the (uninterrupted and therefore unrepeatable) rest of God in Gen. 2:2-3 and Ps. 95:11, but ‘sabbatizo’ and ‘sabbatismos’ are used in Ex. 16:30 and II Chr. 36:21 to indicate the (intermittent and therefore repeatable) keeping of a sabbath at regular intervals. Conclusion: the ‘sabbatismos’ of Heb. 4:9, which the (saved) people of God must keep, is the intermittent and repeatable Sabbath at regular (weekly) intervals.” [59] According to this interpretation the passage should be translated: “There remains therefore a sabbath for the people of God” (v. 9).

This interpretation is supported by other aspects of the book of Hebrews. The book was written to Jews who no doubt needed reassurance, given the fact that they had (from an unconverted Jewish standpoint) turned their backs on their nation when they followed Christ.

They also needed to be warned that the only way really to remain the people of God and enter God’s eternal rest was by faith. Since Christ’s work of redemption and first-day resurrection gave the new covenant people a new day of rest and worship (a day obviously not recognized by their unbelieving brethren), they also needed reassurance regarding sabbath-keeping on the new day. The reasons for keeping a sabbath were no less relevant for Christians as for old covenant saints.

Both looked back to the creation and redemption and both looked forward to the eternal sabbath. Pink concurs: “‘There remaineth therefore a sabbath-keeping for the people of God.’ The reference is not to something future, but to what is present. [60] The Greek verb (in its passive form) is never rendered by any other English equivalent than ‘remaineth.’ It occurs again in Heb. 10:26. The word ‘remain’ signifies ‘to be left after others have withdrawn, to continue unchanged.’ Here then is a plain, positive, unequivocal declaration by the Spirit of God: ‘There remaineth therefore a sabbath-keeping.’ Nothing could be simpler, nothing less ambiguous. The striking thing is that this statement occurs in the very epistle whose theme is the superiority of Christianity over Judaism; written to those addressed as ‘holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling.’ Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid [i.e., denied] that Heb. 4:9 refers directly to the Christian Sabbath. Hence we solemnly and emphatically declare that any man who says there is no Christian Sabbath takes direct issue with the N.T. scriptures.” [61] The third view (the majority view) holds that verse 9 refers to the believer’s future everlasting sabbath in heaven. Thus, the verse does not teach an explicit sabbatarianism but an implicit. “This verse indirectly establishes the obligation of the Sabbath still; for the type continues until the antitype supersedes it: so legal sacrifices continued till the great antitypical Sacrifice superseded it. As then the antitypical heavenly Sabbath rest will not be till Christ comes, our Gospel Joshua, to usher us into it, the typical earthly Sabbath must continue till then.” [62]

The Christian Sabbath should focus the believer’s attention on the past, the present, and the future. The worshiper must look at God’s rest from His creative labors and remember that, had Adam obeyed the covenant of works, he would have participated in God’s rest. In the present, Christians celebrate an accomplished redemption and resurrection joy. Believers are to look to the future and the eternal sabbath rest in the presence of Christ. “The purpose of the Sabbath from the first was eschatological; it was a sign of the end, not only of creation but re-creation. The Sabbath in history took its pattern from the creation week of Genesis, but its time and date on the calendar from the day of salvation.

Thus, in the Old Testament, the Sabbath celebrated and commemorated the passover, Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. Since Christ, the Sabbath is dated from the day of resurrection. In both cases, it is future-oriented, looking forward to the great restoration of all things.” [63] The second and third views are acceptable interpretations compatible with the thesis of this book.

Peace

reply to post by Seed76

This thing you posted, is that something you subscribe to?
If so, do you think you could explain it how you understand it.
Reading it myself, it seems completely unconvincing.
Maybe there is some essential knowledge that I am deficient
in to where it goes over my head, or something.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Seed76

 

This thing you posted, is that something you subscribe to?
If so, do you think you could explain it how you understand it.
Reading it myself, it seems completely unconvincing.
Maybe there is some essential knowledge that I am deficient
in to where it goes over my head, or something.

No i am not subscribing or anything. I have just posted the link as points some good points on the Sabbath issue. And i am in the same position as you. I am also having deficient knowledge to grasp it completely, but the conclusion from Mr. Brian Schwertley, which have written the The Link from the previous Post is this :

It is not an accident that the great decline of Lord’s-day observance has occurred at the same time that unbelief, apostasy and wickedness have permeated western culture. [168] The love of God and of His day go hand in hand.
When the love and fear of God no longer exist, His day is not honored. “If we did indeed love God as we ought, with all our heart, and soul, and mind, and might, we would not say, when we have been attending upon him two or three hours in public worship, ‘Now we have surely done enough for this day,’ when we are invited, encouraged and appointed still to continue our communion with him,—still to feast upon his holy word, and repeat our addresses at the throne of his grace in our closets and families.
Would we be so soon weary of an intimate conversation with a friend we love and take pleasure in? No; with such a friend we contrive how to prolong the time of converse, and when the hours of sitting together are expired, we stand together, and, as those that are loath to part, bid often farewell, are we add to this a walk together for further discourses; is this thy kindness to thy friend, and wilt thou say of communion with thy God, ‘Behold what a weariness is it!’ and contrive excuses to contract it, to break it off, or cut it short?” [169]
May God increase our love toward Him and thus enable us to sanctify His day as we ought. “The stream of all religion runs either deep or shallow, according as the banks of the sabbath are kept up or neglected.” [170]

Peace

reply to post by Seed76

The love of God and of His day go hand in hand.

That much I can agree with.
The problem, as mentioned by Calender, is that someone will come
along with a backwards idea that enforcing a Lord's Day will bring about
godliness, which would create the situation that Calender thinks is
unlikely and an indication of paranoia and bad theology.
The idea is not so far fetched and the current Pope, upon
taking the papacy, issued a mission statement that he will
put as top priority instituting mandatory Sunday worship.

reply to post by Seed76
Seed76.

I think for my part there is a name given by that man's testimony and I won't give mine as it is the same. I will let the Word speak for it's self.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Ps 56:5 Every day they wrest my words: all their thoughts are against me for evil.

People do this to have another way but the way appointed. I do not coerce, I point out only what I see to be the Truth as I know, God says what he means and Means what He says and He does not change it ever.

Truthiron.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Seed76

 

The love of God and of His day go hand in hand.

That much I can agree with.
The problem, as mentioned by Calender, is that someone will come
along with a backwards idea that enforcing a Lord's Day will bring about
godliness, which would create the situation that Calender thinks is
unlikely and an indication of paranoia and bad theology.
The idea is not so far fetched and the current Pope, upon
taking the papacy, issued a mission statement that he will
put as top priority instituting mandatory Sunday worship.

It´s true i have also heard, that the pope try to change a day, but the fact still remains, Sunday is the first day of the week and Saturday is the Seventh.

Peace

reply to post by Seed76
I find the documents ambiguous, when you see what was written
in the earliest Christian times, about the Lord's day. I don't find it
conclusive one way or the other.
There is a mention of people who would hold vigil or something
before sunrise on Sunday. That could be the origin of Sunday
celebration among Christians. Like a weekly Easter, sort of.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Answer this question then, was Jesus Christ bound to the Mosaic Law?

As I see no one asked, I was curious. Is the starter of the thread a JW? Was that the reason for the link, and the message? Though the thread went into a scriptures match, I was wondering, if this was somehow overlooked.

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver
It started on another thread where the OP of this thread was giving some
theology and I was trying to explain I was already familiar with it being a SDA.
I then went about giving some criticism of that theology which apparently
resulted in this tit for tat.

The answer to the question is, yes. (there are certain bits of theology that
cross over between the two religions)

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


Thank you for your addition to the thread NoRegretsEver. I apologize if this thread became a scriptures match, as that would be improper. I believe that the SDAs and others who came in here explained why they feel they are obliged to keep the Sabbath did so sincerly, and I respect their opinions about the matter according to their understanding of scripture. Mine is obviously different than theirs, and I explained why, and used scripture as the basis. It would be improper for me to do anything less than that, and be improper to do anything more.

From my understanding of Paul's argument in Galatians a Christian is free, and it is wrong for one Christian to try and impose on another Christian stipulations and regulations that go beyond what scripture says. The religiuos leaders of the Jews in the first century were guilty of this and Jesus told them in no uncertain terms that they made God's word invalid because of it:


(Mark 7:13) . . .and thus YOU make the word of God invalid by YOUR tradition which YOU handed down. . . .

When one tries to interpret scripture in such a way that burdens and puts restrictions on themselves and their fellow Christians that goes contrary to the Christian freedom that Jesus gave us when he freed the congregation of God from bondage to the entire Mosaic law code, they are going contrary to what they are commanded in Romans 14:

(Romans 14:2-4) . . .One [man] has faith to eat everything, but the [man] who is weak eats vegetables. 3 Let the one eating not look down on the one not eating, and let the one not eating not judge the one eating, for God has welcomed that one. 4 Who are you to judge the house servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand.

If someone believes they are still obliged to fulfill the Mosaic Law code though, they must remember that if they do not keep all of it they condemn themselves:


(Galatians 3:10) . . .For all those who depend upon works of law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is every one that does not continue in [bold]all the things written in the scroll of the Law in order to do them[/bold].”

If you agree with this or not must be respected. As for myself, one of the reasons I became a Jehovah's Witness is that although I see certain truths contained in these other religions, I also see they are still following many traditions of men, and apostate teachings that seeped into the apostate Church during the great apostasy that was prophised. I still find it hard to comprehend that when one really sits down and studies these scriptures, if they are moved with sincerity and humbleness and holy spirit, how they can pass these truths up which seem so evident and obvious to your servant.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Answer this question then, was Jesus Christ bound to the Mosaic Law?

God is continually working, as explained by Jesus, and the Son is also.
Jesus had a desire to follow the religion, as much as was possible and practical under the circumstances.
I doubt that he was restrained by the law, since he was the lawgiver.
You know, I'm not going around telling people to obey the law and the law as I interpret it.
It just so happens that someone is attempting to run it down, which I feel a certain obligation to say a word in its defence.
I think there is a verse pertaining to Jesus somehow that he was zealous for the law.

reply to post by Calender


I would like to thank you for your reply. I was unsure about where the thread was going. I see that it is scriptural difference, interpreted by many, and still misunderstood.

When I originally read the OP, and clicked on the link, I was unsure of the message, it seemed to go into 3 different directions. And then seeing someone asking questions concerning the JW's, and their beliefs, I really wasn't sure where it was going. I didn't know if it was about JW's, or other christian denominations. As now I see this is just different religion's discussing scripture, as opposed to discussing the interpretation's of JW literature, or the link.

So thanks again for a speedy reply,
Peace, NRE.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Well there are many points within the law the have benefit for us today, because it gives us Gods thoughts on certain matters. Don't get me wrong, the law has value, but our salvation doesn't hinge on keeping aspects of it that aren't verified by the New Testament. For example how many of the ten commandments are verified by this scripture.

1 Corinthians 6: 9&10

Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,
10or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.

The basic morality code of the 10 commandments are still there, that part never changed. What changed is the immediate punishments, in the long term it is still the same however.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

That's cool.
Truthiron made what may be a fair assessment of the Seventh Day Adventist
Church as it exists today. You have to figure every institution is going to be
infiltrated by globalists. You may have to go to five SDA churches before
finding one even close to the kind of church I grew up in. It's really kind of
sad to me, so I am not partisan to defend it in general. The ideology that
goes back to the earlier times of being independent are good things to
live by. The world as a whole is not an indication of the good way to go.

I had to look up this man's threads because of something read of his.

And now I know this is meant for someone today reading.

Will leave it at that.