The Reformed Sabbath

bob · 04-24-10 9:33 am

Jesus, while on Earth, did not reform anything. Now we are hearing from 3 people that He indeed did reform the Sabbath while living here among us. Either you are telling us that Jesus lied when He said in Matt 5:18"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." or you are spreading falsehood. It is that simple.

Jesus didn't come to Earth to reform Sabbath. He came to save mankind because we cannot save ourselves.

Well Dexter and Tom, maybe you are doing some good. At least I get a good chuckle out of the things you claim in your posts.

Last edited by bob (04-24-10 9:34 am)

bob · 04-24-10 9:44 am

Dexter said:
"I say: So you want to make your position on this discussion a matter of sounding “better” rather than of acknowledging the Lordship of Christ over His Reformed New Covenant Sabbath? This is hardly a wise move.

Moreover, it seems you are not paying much attention to this discussion either. One of the key points of this discussion IS that the Old Covenant Sabbath has ended and replaced by the New Covenant Reformed Sabbath. How is it you missed this?

So whatever point it is you were trying to make is nullified, even as it highlights your need to pay attention.

Well did the apostle warn about the generation who would no longer endure sound doctrine nor pay attention to truth. For the lust of what “they want to hear” they deny the Lordship of Christ and turn a deaf ear to the counsel of those who tries to help them understand."
---------

Good example of the chuckle for today. I wasn't the one who wrote "better" Dexter. Go argue with the one who did write it.

Once I allowed a crackpot to guide me (Ellen), now I know better. Scripture only. Show me from scripture that the Sabbath is reformed. Reformed, that brings on a smile. What a farce.

Last edited by bob (04-24-10 9:45 am)

bob_2 · 04-24-10 5:30 pm

Bob, personally, I have asked for scholars that back this theory of a Reformed Sabbath and I can't even find it when I Google it. I find lots of other Covenant Theologians preaching CONTINUITY of the Covenants with no break, but then worship on Sunday. NCT takes care of that problem with Jesus Christ Himself, the SEED, who ACCOMPLISHED everything on the Cross. The beginning of the New Covenant is believed to be either at His death or at Pentecost when the promised Holy Spirit was poured out.

Dexter · 04-25-10 9:15 am

Bob said: Jesus, while on Earth, did not reform anything. Now we are hearing from 3 people that He indeed did reform the Sabbath while living here among us. Either you are telling us that Jesus lied when He said in Matt 5:18"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." or you are spreading falsehood. It is that simple.

I say: Those who are as confused about the Gospel and the Covenants as to suggest that Christ’s words in Matt. 5:18 contradicts, or in any way opposes His Sabbath reforms, have no right to pretend they understand anything about what Jesus did while on earth, let alone take upon themselves to explain any of Christ’s sayings – seeing they are “adulterous” in their dealing with Christ’s words and only provide lip-service to fidelity to Him.

They are yet “veiled” in their darkened understanding and cannot fathom the otherwise clear teachings of Christ, let alone these “hard sayings”. Thus they give evidence that they are the true descendants of those who went away confused and baffled at the teachings of Jesus. And thus is MUST be, for thus says the Lord about those who refuse to acknowledge the authority of His teachings and take offense because of it: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:44. They have not been given the gift of the “knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven” and prove this in their doctrinal confusion and insatiable craze about finding “scholars” to “teach” them to acknowledge the authority of the words of Christ.

Matt. 13:9 He who has ears, let him hear."

Matt. 13:10 The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

Matt. 13:11 He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

Matt. 13:12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.

Matt. 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

Matt. 13:14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

Matt. 13:15 For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'

Matt. 13:16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.

Matt. 13:17 For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Moreover, their claim that anyone is saying Jesus “lied” about His purpose here on earth is silly and a sorry attempt at a diversion. You are doing nothing but making yourself look foolish and incompetent. So you want to quote Jesus’ words in Matt. 5:18 to explain why you have not been “drawn” by the Father and thus cannot understand the teachings of Christ? What you need is not to twist some text to explain away your confusion and refusal to acknowledge Christ’s work on Sabbath Reform, but humility and a good portion of eye-salve.

How utterly shameful and “wicked” it is indeed for those who know nothing of loyalty and fidelity to Christ’s word to take it upon themselves to misquote His words to suit their own corrupt and misguided agendas. That they are too enamored in their desire to see only what they want to see, yet dare to misquote Christ and Paul, is both a witness and verdict on their condition. Thus their own blindness condemns them and fulfills the words of the prophet Isaiah quoted by Christ.

Furthermore, had you understood this same Old Covenant you and the other Bob claim to understand, and pretend to express the “continuity” of “discontinuity” about, then you would have understood the thrust behind Christ’s words in Matt. 5:18.

Christ understood and taught that the mechanics of mankind’s salvation depended on the fulfillment of the principles expressed in the Old Covenant. Thus He qualified and honored the importance of that Covenant and of the “Law” which embodied its terms for the salvation of man. THIS is the reason why such importance is placed on the fulfillment of “the law” in that text. Blind guides! How is it they feel no sense of caution against misrepresenting Christ’s words is wickedly daring.

Matt. 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Matt. 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Matt. 5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matt. 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Thus does Christ here both esteem the importance of the principles of the Old Covenant as well as use such estimation as a platform on which to restate the “terms” of the New Covenant. Here also, aught the believers under the New Covenant to esteem with same importance the principles of the Old Covenant as well as find a warming against breaking or otherwise teaching against the terms of that Covenant in the Moral law.

That mankind’s salvation is to be found in the fulfillment of the principles expressed and foreshadowed in this covenant, who would dare to “break” and “teach others” to break the terms of this covenant? Yet this is exactly what many preach and teach as “Gospel”. They think it is “good news” to cast down the law which defined man as sinners (thus emptying salvation of any meaning) and of the Sabbath it featured. The whole concept is absurd and very wicked indeed.

Moreover, Jesus continued:

Matt. 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'

Matt. 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Here we see Christ decking with a renewed and exalted stature the principles of the Decalogue of the Old Covenant now reformed for the body of New Covenant believers.

Yet those blinded by an infatuation to see only what their view of the Bible allows, as well as fail to yield to authority of Christ’s words fails to see these things. They are enamored and encased in their own confusion, incapable of seeing beyond their “veiled” comprehension. And this they will remain, for “only in Christ”, the apostle says “is it [the veil] taken away” (II Cor. 3:14)

Bob said: Jesus didn't come to Earth to reform Sabbath. He came to save mankind because we cannot save ourselves.

I say: How is it both you and the other Bob resort to the same smokescreen argument about salvation when you are not able to defend your defeated views? Listen carefully: you are NOT fooling anyone with the obvious claim that Christ came to save mankind because we cannot save ourselves. This true statement neither legitimizes your absurd position, nor does anything to hide your obvious incompetence. You need to quit the charade.

Every one of Christ’s Sabbath confrontation with the Scribes and Pharisees carried the same “you have heard it was said…but I tell you” reforms of Christ. At this point, it is quite obvious why you are the other Bob are incapable of seeing this. Thus the only thing that is of concern here is why you insist on showing yourself as one who understand any of this? This is strange.

Matt. 12 and the Reformed Sabbath

Matt. 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them.

Matt. 12:2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."

Matt. 12:3 He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?

Matt. 12:4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.

Matt. 12:5 Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent?

Matt. 12:6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here.

Matt. 12:7 If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.

Matt. 12:8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

Chapter twelve of Matthew’s Gospel provides a great glimpse into this doctrine of the Reformed NC Sabbath. Here we see Christ making some changes to this doctrine that flies directly in the face of the Old Covenant version of the Sabbath – hence a REFORM.

It should interest the reader of these texts that Christ’s disciples felt no apprehension against the “unlawful” act of picking grain to eat on the Sabbath. Did they not know it was “unlawful”? What gave them a sense of “permission” to do this “unlawful” act?

The very wording of the verse should help provide insight into what gave them this sense of approval. That the Pharisees came to Jesus and said, “Your disciples” or the guys under “Your” teaching “are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath” brings to view what must have given them the okay to do this “unlawful” act – they were taught so by Christ.

However, this is no mere casual observation. The Pharisees, meant to implicate Jesus when they used these words “your disciples”. They saw in this instance a clear “aha” moment to lay blame on Jesus and find a fault in His ministry. But the Lord knew what He was doing, even as He meant this kind of confrontation to jar them from their comfort zone on their Old Covenant Sabbath and use it as the platform to teach a new and radically different REFORMED Sabbath.

Moreover, it should also be a point of interest to notice that Christ never denied the Pharisees’ claim that this act was an “unlawful” activity on the Sabbath. In fact, by the examples Christ gave to teach this lesson, He validated the fact that this act was indeed “unlawful” on the Sabbath.

Thus in the examples that follow, Christ both validated what was considered appropriate observance of the Sabbath in the Old Covenant, but now Reforms it showing that what things were previously considered “unlawful” are no longer a matter of sin and that all are now “innocent” of the charges all who would cast judgments on them over such matters. Perhaps here too, should those yet confused about the proper understanding of Col 2:16 find the correct explanation for the apostle’s meaning?

Furthermore, while traditional interpretations focused on the fact that David and his companion was “hungry”, thus the argument of permitting certain activities on the Sabbath due to “necessity” while involved in the ministry of preaching the Gospel, the true and greater picture here only comes to light in the reading of the sixth verse.

Matt. 12:6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here.

Thus the main point in both examples of these “unlawful” activities Christ cited involved them occurring in God’s house/temple. Hence, the activity in God’s house/temple is really the point to be considered and is what the Lord establishes His lesson on.

Christ is here saying that in God’s kingdom (to which fallen humanity will be brought back in the work of Christ), represented by God’s house/temple amongst His covenanted people, the “basic principles of the world” application added to terms of the Old Covenant and specifically here the order of the Sabbath do NOT apply (Gal. 4:1-7, Col. 2:6-9, Col. 2:20-23). Therefore, when Christ says “one greater that the temple is here” He means for us to see in Him an authority greater than that of the temple in which was allowed these “unlawful” activities. He alone, the one “greater that the temple” has the authority to teach and mandate what defines the order of the reformed New Covenant Sabbath. Thus he concludes, “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

Therefore, as members of the body of New Covenant believers, who are all “priests” who are to minister the good news of the Gospel in our surroundings we are all permitted to “desecrate” the day and yet be found “innocent”

Bob_2 said: Bob, personally, I have asked for scholars that back this theory of a Reformed Sabbath and I can't even find it when I Google it.

I say: Those who refuse to yield to the Lordship of Christ on His reformed Sabbath, all the while asking for “scholars” to tell them His teaching is correct are “wicked” and “adulterous”. Their blindness prevent them from seeing this “adulterous” request for a “teacher” in their requests for “scholars” to validate the authority of Christ’s words, is precisely what the Lord meant when He forbade us to call anyone a “teacher” and to seek such a role in any other than Himself.

Matt. 23:8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.

Matt. 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Matt. 23:10 Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.

Matt. 23:11 The greatest among you will be your servant.

Matt. 23:12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

While it is true that the spiritual gift of “teaching” is given to the Lord’s Church, all such serves under Christ, the “head”, and are to teach what He taught and cannot trump the words of Christ. So what is the point of this smokescreen request other than to sidestep to the issue and subvert the authority of Christ?

Bob_2 said: I find lots of other Covenant Theologians preaching CONTINUITY of the Covenants with no break, but then worship on Sunday. NCT takes care of that problem with Jesus Christ Himself, the SEED, who ACCOMPLISHED everything on the Cross. The beginning of the New Covenant is believed to be either at His death or at Pentecost when the promised Holy Spirit was poured out.

I say: What you need to find is a true sense of loyalty to Christ and accept the authority of His Lordship on the doctrine of the Reformed New Covenant Sabbath. You also need to find a fundamental understanding of the Covenants and stop masquerading yourself and someone who understands what things you try to associate yourself with. Neither you, nor your buddy Bob, are fooling anyone with this NCT foolishness.

bob_2 · 04-25-10 5:34 pm

My position has been stated clearly. Unless you can show someone other than you, Tom or Des Ford that believes it, I wouldn't keep saying the same thing over and over. I have supplied numerous sources and scholars that support my postion. I will not be responding to Dexter or Tom until they accomplish this. Sorry.

Last edited by bob_2 (04-25-10 6:31 pm)

bob · 04-25-10 6:35 pm

Dexter wrote:

Bob said: Jesus, while on Earth, did not reform anything. Now we are hearing from 3 people that He indeed did reform the Sabbath while living here among us. Either you are telling us that Jesus lied when He said in Matt 5:18"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." or you are spreading falsehood. It is that simple.
I say: Those who are as confused about the Gospel and the Covenants as to suggest that Christ’s words in Matt. 5:18 contradicts, or in any way opposes His Sabbath reforms, have no right to pretend they understand anything about what Jesus did while on earth, let alone take upon themselves to explain any of Christ’s sayings – seeing they are “adulterous” in their dealing with Christ’s words and only provide lip-service to fidelity to Him.
They are yet “veiled” in their darkened understanding and cannot fathom the otherwise clear teachings of Christ, let alone these “hard sayings”. Thus they give evidence that they are the true descendants of those who went away confused and baffled at the teachings of Jesus. And thus is MUST be, for thus says the Lord about those who refuse to acknowledge the authority of His teachings and take offense because of it: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:44. They have not been given the gift of the “knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven” and prove this in their doctrinal confusion and insatiable craze about finding “scholars” to “teach” them to acknowledge the authority of the words of Christ.
Matt. 13:9 He who has ears, let him hear."
Matt. 13:10 The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
Matt. 13:11 He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
Matt. 13:12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
Matt. 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
Matt. 13:14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
Matt. 13:15 For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'
Matt. 13:16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.
Matt. 13:17 For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
Moreover, their claim that anyone is saying Jesus “lied” about His purpose here on earth is silly and a sorry attempt at a diversion. You are doing nothing but making yourself look foolish and incompetent. So you want to quote Jesus’ words in Matt. 5:18 to explain why you have not been “drawn” by the Father and thus cannot understand the teachings of Christ? What you need is not to twist some text to explain away your confusion and refusal to acknowledge Christ’s work on Sabbath Reform, but humility and a good portion of eye-salve.
How utterly shameful and “wicked” it is indeed for those who know nothing of loyalty and fidelity to Christ’s word to take it upon themselves to misquote His words to suit their own corrupt and misguided agendas. That they are too enamored in their desire to see only what they want to see, yet dare to misquote Christ and Paul, is both a witness and verdict on their condition. Thus their own blindness condemns them and fulfills the words of the prophet Isaiah quoted by Christ.
Furthermore, had you understood this same Old Covenant you and the other Bob claim to understand, and pretend to express the “continuity” of “discontinuity” about, then you would have understood the thrust behind Christ’s words in Matt. 5:18.
Christ understood and taught that the mechanics of mankind’s salvation depended on the fulfillment of the principles expressed in the Old Covenant. Thus He qualified and honored the importance of that Covenant and of the “Law” which embodied its terms for the salvation of man. THIS is the reason why such importance is placed on the fulfillment of “the law” in that text. Blind guides! How is it they feel no sense of caution against misrepresenting Christ’s words is wickedly daring.
Matt. 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Matt. 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Matt. 5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matt. 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Thus does Christ here both esteem the importance of the principles of the Old Covenant as well as use such estimation as a platform on which to restate the “terms” of the New Covenant. Here also, aught the believers under the New Covenant to esteem with same importance the principles of the Old Covenant as well as find a warming against breaking or otherwise teaching against the terms of that Covenant in the Moral law.
That mankind’s salvation is to be found in the fulfillment of the principles expressed and foreshadowed in this covenant, who would dare to “break” and “teach others” to break the terms of this covenant? Yet this is exactly what many preach and teach as “Gospel”. They think it is “good news” to cast down the law which defined man as sinners (thus emptying salvation of any meaning) and of the Sabbath it featured. The whole concept is absurd and very wicked indeed.
Moreover, Jesus continued:
Matt. 5:21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
Matt. 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Here we see Christ decking with a renewed and exalted stature the principles of the Decalogue of the Old Covenant now reformed for the body of New Covenant believers.
Yet those blinded by an infatuation to see only what their view of the Bible allows, as well as fail to yield to authority of Christ’s words fails to see these things. They are enamored and encased in their own confusion, incapable of seeing beyond their “veiled” comprehension. And this they will remain, for “only in Christ”, the apostle says “is it [the veil] taken away” (II Cor. 3:14)
Bob said: Jesus didn't come to Earth to reform Sabbath. He came to save mankind because we cannot save ourselves.
I say: How is it both you and the other Bob resort to the same smokescreen argument about salvation when you are not able to defend your defeated views? Listen carefully: you are NOT fooling anyone with the obvious claim that Christ came to save mankind because we cannot save ourselves. This true statement neither legitimizes your absurd position, nor does anything to hide your obvious incompetence. You need to quit the charade.
Every one of Christ’s Sabbath confrontation with the Scribes and Pharisees carried the same “you have heard it was said…but I tell you” reforms of Christ. At this point, it is quite obvious why you are the other Bob are incapable of seeing this. Thus the only thing that is of concern here is why you insist on showing yourself as one who understand any of this? This is strange.
Matt. 12 and the Reformed Sabbath
Matt. 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them.
Matt. 12:2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."
Matt. 12:3 He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?
Matt. 12:4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.
Matt. 12:5 Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent?
Matt. 12:6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here.
Matt. 12:7 If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.
Matt. 12:8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
Chapter twelve of Matthew’s Gospel provides a great glimpse into this doctrine of the Reformed NC Sabbath. Here we see Christ making some changes to this doctrine that flies directly in the face of the Old Covenant version of the Sabbath – hence a REFORM.
It should interest the reader of these texts that Christ’s disciples felt no apprehension against the “unlawful” act of picking grain to eat on the Sabbath. Did they not know it was “unlawful”? What gave them a sense of “permission” to do this “unlawful” act?
The very wording of the verse should help provide insight into what gave them this sense of approval. That the Pharisees came to Jesus and said, “Your disciples” or the guys under “Your” teaching “are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath” brings to view what must have given them the okay to do this “unlawful” act – they were taught so by Christ.
However, this is no mere casual observation. The Pharisees, meant to implicate Jesus when they used these words “your disciples”. They saw in this instance a clear “aha” moment to lay blame on Jesus and find a fault in His ministry. But the Lord knew what He was doing, even as He meant this kind of confrontation to jar them from their comfort zone on their Old Covenant Sabbath and use it as the platform to teach a new and radically different REFORMED Sabbath.
Moreover, it should also be a point of interest to notice that Christ never denied the Pharisees’ claim that this act was an “unlawful” activity on the Sabbath. In fact, by the examples Christ gave to teach this lesson, He validated the fact that this act was indeed “unlawful” on the Sabbath.
Thus in the examples that follow, Christ both validated what was considered appropriate observance of the Sabbath in the Old Covenant, but now Reforms it showing that what things were previously considered “unlawful” are no longer a matter of sin and that all are now “innocent” of the charges all who would cast judgments on them over such matters. Perhaps here too, should those yet confused about the proper understanding of Col 2:16 find the correct explanation for the apostle’s meaning?
Furthermore, while traditional interpretations focused on the fact that David and his companion was “hungry”, thus the argument of permitting certain activities on the Sabbath due to “necessity” while involved in the ministry of preaching the Gospel, the true and greater picture here only comes to light in the reading of the sixth verse.
Matt. 12:6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here.
Thus the main point in both examples of these “unlawful” activities Christ cited involved them occurring in God’s house/temple. Hence, the activity in God’s house/temple is really the point to be considered and is what the Lord establishes His lesson on.
Christ is here saying that in God’s kingdom (to which fallen humanity will be brought back in the work of Christ), represented by God’s house/temple amongst His covenanted people, the “basic principles of the world” application added to terms of the Old Covenant and specifically here the order of the Sabbath do NOT apply (Gal. 4:1-7, Col. 2:6-9, Col. 2:20-23). Therefore, when Christ says “one greater that the temple is here” He means for us to see in Him an authority greater than that of the temple in which was allowed these “unlawful” activities. He alone, the one “greater that the temple” has the authority to teach and mandate what defines the order of the reformed New Covenant Sabbath. Thus he concludes, “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
Therefore, as members of the body of New Covenant believers, who are all “priests” who are to minister the good news of the Gospel in our surroundings we are all permitted to “desecrate” the day and yet be found “innocent”
Bob_2 said: Bob, personally, I have asked for scholars that back this theory of a Reformed Sabbath and I can't even find it when I Google it.
I say: Those who refuse to yield to the Lordship of Christ on His reformed Sabbath, all the while asking for “scholars” to tell them His teaching is correct are “wicked” and “adulterous”. Their blindness prevent them from seeing this “adulterous” request for a “teacher” in their requests for “scholars” to validate the authority of Christ’s words, is precisely what the Lord meant when He forbade us to call anyone a “teacher” and to seek such a role in any other than Himself.
Matt. 23:8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
Matt. 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Matt. 23:10 Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
Matt. 23:11 The greatest among you will be your servant.
Matt. 23:12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
While it is true that the spiritual gift of “teaching” is given to the Lord’s Church, all such serves under Christ, the “head”, and are to teach what He taught and cannot trump the words of Christ. So what is the point of this smokescreen request other than to sidestep to the issue and subvert the authority of Christ?
Bob_2 said: I find lots of other Covenant Theologians preaching CONTINUITY of the Covenants with no break, but then worship on Sunday. NCT takes care of that problem with Jesus Christ Himself, the SEED, who ACCOMPLISHED everything on the Cross. The beginning of the New Covenant is believed to be either at His death or at Pentecost when the promised Holy Spirit was poured out.
I say: What you need to find is a true sense of loyalty to Christ and accept the authority of His Lordship on the doctrine of the Reformed New Covenant Sabbath. You also need to find a fundamental understanding of the Covenants and stop masquerading yourself and someone who understands what things you try to associate yourself with. Neither you, nor your buddy Bob, are fooling anyone with this NCT foolishness.

More excess dribble from the confused.

bob_2 · 04-25-10 6:44 pm

If you guys are the only three believing in a Reformed Sabbath, everyone should lookout.

tom_norris · 04-26-10 9:55 am

The Continuity versus Discontinuity debate is based on how close a Christians views are with Judaism, versus how far away. It is a necessary, serious, and worthwhile debate about how the Two Covenants interrelate and interact with each other. It is a debate that Jesus started, and one that must be correctly understood in order to understand the Gospel and the Gospel Sabbath correctly.

There is a range of views, starting with the Judaizers, on the “Continuity” side of the scale, all the way to Marcion, who represents the most “Discontinuity.”

Here are the two opposing ends of the debate.

The Judaizers on the extreme left and Marcion on the far right. This defines the historic and theological parameters of the C/D debate, which few really comprehend very well. All views must fall within this range of views. To embrace Marcion or go beyond him, is to leave the Christian Faith, even as those that fully embrace OC Judaism are not Christians.

The Judaizers, which included some of the highest church leaders, represent continuity, while Marcion, who declared that the OT, and all its laws abolished, represents discontinuity. Even the Jewish God was abolished as far as Marcion was concerned. Thus he had no use or respect for Judaism, even though he claimed to follow the teaching of Jesus, a Jew.

In the early church, those in favor of the most “continuity” with the laws and teachings of OC Judaism were the Judaizers. They were former Pharisees and Levitical priests that had embraced Jesus as the Messiah and now they wanted to make the church fully Jewish. The book of Galatians was written to expose their false views.

The Judaizers promoted the continuation of Judaism to such an extent, that ritual circumcision became a lightening rod for their cause. But they also embraced many other errors including the OC, non-working Sabbath of Moses instead of the reformed Sabbath of Jesus.

Paul, who had learned the Gospel from Jesus, vigorously repudiated the Judaizers, even as he publicly condemned Peter and James for embracing a false Gospel that had embraced too much of Judaism.

But Paul never went so far as Marcion. He never abolished the law or wrote off the Jews. Thus he could make the point, against the Judaizers, that the Moral law was not abolished, and that the Christian Faith represented the promise of the fathers.

1Cor. 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

Rom. 15:7 Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God.

Rom. 15:8 For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers,

Rom. 15:9 and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy; as it is written,

“THEREFORE I WILL 1GIVE PRAISE TO YOU AMONG THE GENTILES,
AND I WILL SING TO YOUR NAME.”

Rom. 15:10 Again he says,
“REJOICE, O GENTILES, WITH HIS PEOPLE.”

Rom. 15:11 And again,
“PRAISE THE LORD ALL YOU GENTILES,
AND LET ALL THE PEOPLES PRAISE HIM.”

Rom. 15:12 Again Isaiah says,
“THERE SHALL COME THE ROOT OF JESSE,
AND HE WHO ARISES TO RULE OVER THE GENTILES,
IN HIM SHALL THE GENTILES HOPE.”

Acts 13:32 “And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers,

Acts 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’

Thus Paul promoted a strong, but limited form of “discontinuity” that takes a middle position between the Judaizers and Marcion (who was not a contemporary of Paul).

In order to better understand the C/D debate, a chart can be developed that shows a spectrum of views as it relates to Judaism. Those that embrace the most Continuity” are on the left, while those that embrace the most discontinuity on the Right. If one goes beyond Marcion, who was wrong, they are off the chart to the right. If anyone embraces ritual circumcision, they are as far left on the scale as possible. Thus receiving the condemnation of Paul.

At no time is there a full disconnecting with Judaism. Not even Marcion went that far. For example, he still held to a weekly Sabbath for the church. But he also removed the entire OT, with all its laws, and even its God. He claimed to follow Jesus and Paul almost exclusively, which explains why Marcion's Bible was so very small.

Who ranks where in the C/D Spectrum?

The RCC is very close to Judaism because they have retained the priestly, OC system from the Jews. So they are in the Continuity category, and so too the SDA’s. They have also embraced many OC doctrines, ranging from tithe and a priestly hierarchy model as well as the OC Sabbath and even some of the Jewish food laws.

Thus the RCC and the SDA’s have embraced too much OC Judaism. They do not have the correct balance. They do not understand Paul or the Gospel correctly.

The Reformers however, are in the middle of the C/ D spectrum. This is because they have made a clear separation between Law and Gospel, even as they support the priesthood of all believers, which is the opposite of what Judaism represents. Thus the Protestants are closer to the Discontinuity side of the debate.

So the Protestants, following the lead of Paul, stand for more “discontinuity” but not near so much as did Marcion. He was out of bounds and correctly branded a heretic.

Today understanding some fundamental points about the law and the Gospel can solve this debate.

1. Both the OC and NC are 100% Jewish.

The Christian Faith is Jewish, which means that there is going to be a rather high level of “Continuity.” This is natural and required. Thus the Christian faith is actually reformed Judaism, and the sooner people understand this theological and historical fact, the quicker they will understand this debate, especially as it relates to the Sabbath.

Marcion, refused to believe that the Christian Faith was Semitic at all. Consequently, this error pushed him into a level of “discontinuity” that was dysfunction and heretical. He went too far away from Judaism, even as others, like the RCC and the SDA’s have embraced too much of OC Judaism.

The Gospel, when correctly understood embraces some points of Judaism, while rejecting and disconnecting from others. The Sabbath is a key doctrine that when fully understood, reveals the proper relationship between the Old and New Covenants. Jesus Reformed Sabbath has the proper Gospel balance.

2. The Reformed Sabbath contains the proper balance of “continuity” and “discontinuity.”

The 7th day Sabbath is central to Judaism, even as the Moral law is also the basis for the OC. However, Jesus NC Sabbath is not a copy of the OC Sabbath, nor is it based on the time-honored law that forbids work. Rather, the Gospel Sabbath is based on an EXEMPTION to the OC Sabbath law of the 10 C’s.

So the OC Sabbath is not continued in the NC as the SDA’s claim. Rather, Jesus, invents a new, working Sabbath for the Church, one that fits with the major change to the Priesthood of all believers.

While there can be no separate priesthood or tithing in the church, or an OC Sabbath (or Sunday) that prohibits work, there is a NC Sabbath for the church. It encourages work on the 7th day, even as it also encourages the saints to gather to hear the Gospel. Jesus Sabbath doctrine reflects the correct balance between C and D. And so too does the teaching of Paul.

Not even Marcion, the heretic that promoted the most radical form of “discontinuity,” ever tried to abolish the weekly Sabbath of church. Any that do so today are taking a position that is even more wrong than Marcion. They are repudiating Judaism as the context and source of the NC, even as they revise the Gospel story, trying to make it anti-Semitic.

All denominations today have failed to understand the C/D debate correctly. They do not understand the Gospel correctly, which is evidenced by all the confusion and error surrounding the Sabbath debate. Even the SDA’s are wrong, in spite of the fact that they do have the correct DAY.

But so too did the Jews, and they still failed to understand or embrace the Gospel. What a pity that the SDA’s have made the same mistakes as the Jews. Very sad.

Here are some links about this C/D debate:

http://www.amazon.com/Continuity-Discon … 0891074686

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_h … n28721667/

http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/O548.html

http://dispensationalist.blogspot.com/2 … nuity.html

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache%3Ac … l=en&gl=us

http://www.newcovenantjournal.com/archi … heolo.html

http://www.giveshare.org/HolyDay/sabbat … c3p1a.html

http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-ele … 6Dec04.htm

The Reformed Sabbath of Jesus is the correct doctrine for the church. This has always been the case, even though the Gentile church misunderstood this doctrine and embraced the NC Sunday Sabbath. Such anti-Semitism was a great error that only led to additional errors over the years, leaving the church with only a form of the Gospel and legions of error.

When the Gospel is fully and correctly preached, the 7th day reformed Sabbath will emerge for all to see. It is part of the Gospel Story, as well as solid truth for the church. Those that reject this Gospel truth are also rejecting the Gospel and refuting the clear teachings of Jesus on this important point of law and grace.

I hope this helps.

Tom Norris for the REFORMED, Gospel Sabbath of the NT

bob_2 · 04-26-10 10:58 pm

Tom said:

The Judaizers promoted the continuation of Judaism to such an extent, that ritual circumcision became a lightening rod for their cause. But they also embraced many other errors including the OC, non-working Sabbath of Moses instead of the reformed Sabbath of Jesus.

Show me, Jewish Encyclopedia, or whatever source, how Jesus worked on Sabbath violating the OC Sabbath while He was alive. He didn't violate it, he clarified the OC from what the Jewish Leaders had corrupted, by dropping hankies at strategic spots on Friday so they could have a longer "Sabbath day's walk" or saying eating grain in a grain field was violating the OC. How is eating grain in a grain field violating the OC, not Pharisaical law, but the OC and the Decalogue.

Your Reformed Sabbath is not there, Discontinuity, fulfilling the OC is the answer. New tenets were given in the New Covenant, some are similar to the OC, that does not preach Continuity, though, Tom.

Tom in John 5:

John 5:16So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Tom if what you are saying is true, God and Jesus violated the very law they gave at Sinai before all things were fulfilled, Jesus death on the cross. There is no Reformed Sabbath and none of what you have presented shows a following of that idea or theory.

Last edited by bob_2 (04-26-10 11:01 pm)

Dexter · 04-27-10 6:17 am

Bob_2 said: Show me, Jewish Encyclopedia, or whatever source, how Jesus worked on Sabbath violating the OC Sabbath while He was alive. He didn't violate it, he clarified the OC from what the Jewish Leaders had corrupted, by dropping hankies at strategic spots on Friday so they could have a longer "Sabbath day's walk" or saying eating grain in a grain field was violating the OC. How is eating grain in a grain field violating the OC, not Pharisaical law, but the OC and the Decalogue.

I say: Sorry Bob, but your view here is incorrect. Matt. 12 makes it quite clear that Jesus DID in fact consider this act of picking grain to eat on the Sabbath “unlawful”. This clear concession of Jesus spoils your claim that this was just some “Pharisaical law”. The fact that Jesus used two teaching points, both involving “unlawful” acts, qualifies and recognizes this act of the Disciples also as “unlawful”. Or else, the value in these examples would be wholly lost.

Moreover, many are confused about how to appropriate the teachings of the Pharisee and the teachers of the law. They look at Jesus’ harsh dealings and stern rebukes He had for them and suppose they may cast off their teachings as worthless and legalistic. However, while it is true that they had many traditions and practices that were contrary to the Word of God and were, in fact confused about the true meaning of the Scriptures they prided their knowledge on, as well as deserving of every last rebuke, Christ, nonetheless, made it clear that their teachings, as representatives of Moses, were to be followed completely.

Matt. 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:

Mat. 23:2 "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.

Matt. 23:3 So you must obey them and do EVERYTHING they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Matt. 23:4 They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

Thus here again we see Jesus honoring and upholding the terms of the Old Covenant. That the Pharisee sat in “Moses’ seat” as “lawgivers” of the terms of that covenant, they represented the medium through which God stipulates His will for their obedience.

So while the people were warned against doing as “they do”, their teaching on what constituted the will or “terms” of God, and specifically what we see here in Jesus’ Sabbath showdown in Matt. 12, was to be followed as lawful behavior.

This, again, we see Jesus doing by not challenging the claim of “unlawful” by the Pharisee about this act of picking grain to eat on the Sabbath. In fact, He uses this necessary platform to show the difference between the two Sabbaths.

This also helps provide insight and context to Christ’s words in John 5:17. The issue is not a matter of qualifying what is “work”, after all, what does physical labor have to do with life and holiness, let alone to a Holy God? The two are as separate and mutually distinct as the carnal nature and the new creature in Christ.

Our physical labor or “work” (or lack of it) has nothing to do with God and “adds nothing” to our spiritual man. This condition and prohibition was strictly a matter suited for the children of Israel in their spiritual infancy. This “basic principles of the world” application was added only to teach and carries no value on the true principle of the Sabbath command.

Thus for Christ, the “Messenger” of the New Covenant, to say that both He and His Father has always “worked” and continues to do so, this is Christ again, showing the order of the New Covenant Sabbath.

Bob_2 said: Your Reformed Sabbath is not there, Discontinuity, fulfilling the OC is the answer. New tenets were given in the New Covenant, some are similar to the OC, that does not preach Continuity, though, Tom.

I say: This is confusion; and pointlessly so. Nowhere do the apostles teach this complete Discontinuity as you claim. You need to tear down this altar you have erected to your NCT god and reassess the teachings of Christ and those of His witnesses.

Bob_2 said: Tom if what you are saying is true, God and Jesus violated the very law they gave at Sinai before all things were fulfilled, Jesus death on the cross. There is no Reformed Sabbath and none of what you have presented shows a following of that idea or theory.

I say: How can you violate something that has no bearing on you? This is ridiculous. Once again, the “basic principles of the world” application which was suited to the terms of the Old Covenant, and given to the children of Israel in their spiritual infancy, “adds nothing” to the life of holiness, let alone have any bearing on a Holy God. The mere idea is laughable. They were strictly “…external regulations applying until the time of the new order” (Heb. 9:10) and were only given to “teach” the spiritual infants the principles of the nature of sin, holiness, judgment, justification, etc. How is it you do not get this from the book of Galatians? This is EXACTLY the “veil” Paul speaks about in II Cor. 3:12-18

Christ is the bringer of this “new order” and defines what constitutes the teachings therein. Therefore, let all bow before Jesus, the Apostle, Messenger, and Bringer of this “new order” in which we are freed from the subjection of “basic principles of the world” (Gal. 4:3, Col. 2:20) and BE GLAD!

bob_2 · 04-27-10 10:39 am

Tom, the act of plucking grain by the disciples was not a sin, but the justification of David's act of eating the shewbread that was unlawful was the lesson here:

“Jesus expressly admits that what David did was unlawful; and some have supposed that he here intends to justify it on the ground of necessity, and then to argue that his disciples, though guilty of violating the law of the Sabbath, are justifiable on the same ground. There is no doubt that on this ground David excused himself for eating the show-bread, and that the Pharisees did the same for him. But it cannot be that he who refused to turn stones into bread when tortured by the forty days' fast, and who said, "Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and teach men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven," would approve such a violation of law as David was guilty of. Neither can it be that he allowed his own disciples while under the law to break the Sabbath. If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end of suffering in the name of Christ, and an end ever of self-denial. But it is clear that by the Pharisees David's act was thought excusable; otherwise they would have retorted on Jesus thus: Out of your own mouth we condemn you: you class your act with David's; but David sinned, and so do you. Now the real argument of Jesus is this: David, when hungry, ate the show-bread, which it was confessedly unlawful for him to eat, yet you justify him: my disciples pluck grain and eat it on the Sabbath, an act which the law does not forbid, and yet you condemn them” (Matthew p. 104).

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarti … athLaw.htm

Also note:

Of special interest to us are the laws regarding harvesting and healing on the Sabbath. Even the slightest activity involving picking grain—removing the husks, rubbing the heads, cleaning or bruising the ears or throwing them up in the hand—was forbidden. Yet if a man wanted to move a sheaf on his field, he had only to lay a spoon on it; then, in order to remove the spoon, he might also remove the sheaf on which it lay! ...
The record of Scripture is that Jesus kept the Sabbath faithfully, as God intended it to be kept. In doing so, He set us an example. "He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked" (1 John 2:6).

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/t … 1115662605

Dexter and Tom, all your "Reformed Sabbath" is, is Jesus clarifying what the original law was meant to be. It was fulfilled on the cross, and this example has nothing to do with the New Covenant but to show how the Pharisees had corrupted the OC Law. Read both articles completely before responding. Google further and I'm sure you will find the same answer.

Last edited by bob_2 (04-27-10 9:52 pm)

bob_2 · 04-30-10 1:36 pm

Note some of Christ's last words to his disciples:

John 16: 1"All this I have told you so that you will not go astray. 2They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. 3They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. 4I have told you this, so that when the time comes you will remember that I warned you. I did not tell you this at first because I was with you.

Thrown out of the synagogue, if that happens, they are to worship where and when? It isn't stated, because that is not the Gospel priority. Is it?

Last edited by bob_2 (04-30-10 1:39 pm)

bob_2 · 04-30-10 1:42 pm

Were all of Christ's words to be taken literally, note from Christ Himself:

John 16: 25"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father...."

Last edited by bob_2 (04-30-10 1:43 pm)

Dexter · 05-01-10 11:14 am

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarti … athLaw.htm

The issue between Jesus and the Pharisees over the Sabbath law was not one that had to do with which was greater, law or love. This is nowhere brought up in the exchange. Jesus does teach that he is Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8), and in this way he asserts his authority over the Sabbath law. He also teaches that the service rendered to him by his disciples was greater than the temple (Matthew 12:6). On this latter point, McGarvey observes, "It was their duty to serve him which was greater than the temple; that is, greater than the obligation of the temple service on the priests. If, then, the priests were justifiable, much more the disciples" (Matthew p. 104).

One of the key points to the article referenced here if found in the above paragraph. While the general argument of the piece is correct in denouncing the doctrinal flaw of exalting love above law in the way situation ethics exponents view it, it nonetheless, makes some assumptions that neither the context of Matt. 12, nor a proper appropriation of Jesus’ examples given there can support. Observe, for instance the following:

He also teaches that the service rendered to him by his disciples was greater than the temple (Matthew 12:6).

In this way the writer makes an arbitrary application to Christ’s temple analogy here and suits it to build his position on. However, there are at least two applications that can be derived from Jesus’ analogy of the temple here, the first being that Jesus is comparing what the presence of the temple represented – which would render unity in both examples; the second would be the comparison to the service performed inside the temple by the priest – which destroys the unity between the examples and makes it two separate points. The writer chooses the later.

Yet the question must be asked: does the exegesis of this verse really support his conclusion? Does the Lord’s statement in v. 6 necessitate the implication that the disciples were rendering him a service of which it can be compared to the service performed by the priest in the temple? If so, where does the example of David and his companions fit in? This conclusion fails on at least two points.

First, the writer makes the warrantless conclusion that the disciples every moment with Jesus had to involve “service” to him. This is observed in the writer’s implying thus in the face of a clear lack of any such service being performed in this instance. The text does not suggest that the disciples were involved in any sort of ministry; they were not running an errand, or instructed to perform any act of service. The record states plainly, “At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them” (Matt. 12:1, 2).

In fact, the argument can be easily made that it is on this very lack of “service” is what lends a legitimate cause for the Pharisees to cry foul. The disciples were not here commissioned to serve the Lord in any way. They were simply walking through the grain fields. The record is even without a purpose for the walk through the grain fields. It does not say they were on their way to do anything. So on what does the writer make this claim of “service”?

We are left to conclude that the writer believes the disciples every moment with Jesus was one of service. But this conclusion amounts to conjecture at best. It is falsifying the record, and needlessly so. While none can gainsay the obvious in that it was indeed for “service” that the disciples were called (Matt. 4:19), the Bible also teaches that they also had times of rest (Mark 6:13), and what of the times Jesus was off to pray (Matt. 14:23) were they involved in service then? There is neither a reason nor a ground for such a conclusion – unless of course, you need to twist the evidence to make a point.

However, in spite of rejecting the writer’s claim of service, the point not to be missed here is not that the disciples were not involved in service or that they, perhaps, were not on a service-bound mission. The point is that the record here does not support such. Therefore, to inject such into the exegesis of v. 6 is warrantless and destroys the thrust of the point made.

Second is the matter of harmony in the examples provided to establish the lesson. With the writer’s rendering of Matt. 12:6, there is an unnecessary break in the examples provided as though, two separate lessons were intended. Yet Jesus’ summation is singular, “One greater than the temple is here.”

Therefore, whatever the thrust of these examples, they had both to do with His reference to being greater than the temple. Sadly both the writer and his quoted source missed this obvious mark.

Hence the proper rendering of that verse should be thus: If inside God’s temple – which was a representation of God’s presence amongst His covenanted people – the “basic principles of this world” application of the law is removed, how much more is this so in the presence of Immanuel? This is the force of Jesus’ analogy and is what He crowns by claiming Lordship over the new order of the Sabbath.

This also, is the wisdom of such examples; by using legitimate examples under the Law of the Old Covenant to show God’s “desire” in our obedience is in preference to the spirit (mercy) and not letter (sacrifice), Jesus thus provides a foundation on which His listeners could see the transition to the order of the Sabbath. Thus it was left for them to reason, if in God’s house (the symbol of God’s very presence, mind you), the “unlawful” and “desecrate” acts were permitted, then perhaps the virtue of obedience(as God sees it) is not to be found in these “external regulations”.

Observe also the following:

Jesus had justified the action of the priests in rendering certain acts of service in the temple on the Sabbath, thus showing that the Sabbath law permitted some work on the Sabbath day. It is noteworthy that in this example Jesus does not justify the conduct of his disciples' act of plucking and eating grain on the Sabbath on the basis of "the law of love."

In truth, the matter wasn’t that “Jesus had justified the action of the priest”, but that He used the example of the exemption that was built into the Old Covenant Sabbath law for the priest in the temple to teach this new order of the Sabbath for all – being all priests in the New Covenant. In this way He expresses God’s true desire in our relation to obedience (the New Covenant’s order), “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (v. 7). This accords to what God “desire” from His children, who now have come to spiritual maturity (Gal. 4:1-7); we are to obey in the way of the “Spirit” – or mercy – and not “Letter” (II Cor. 3:6) – or sacrifice.

More from the writer:

Mercy shown toward the disciples in this matter would have been more acceptable to God than sacrifice, but we must not overlook the fact that Jesus says that in condemning the disciples for their action they "condemned the guiltless" (v. 7).

Here we see the writer making the same mistake the class of both Bobs make of looking at this from the appropriation of the subjective human rather than from God’s perspective. Perhaps this is why Bob sought out such a “scholar” or “teacher” to present this study?

The issue Jesus raises here is not so much a matter of how the Pharisees understood the quoted text (v. 7) as it regarded their obedience, but a matter of Jesus teaching them how God viewed things (i.e. in His temple) and how that should thence influence their appropriation of obedience.

This verse, combined with the previous (v. 6) is how Jesus guides His listeners from Old Covenant Sabbath to the Reformed New Covenant version.

The writer continues:

“In other words, they were not violating the Sabbath law when they plucked the grain and ate some of it. If some work is permitted on the Sabbath day, as Jesus clearly shows that it was, then to do some work on that day was within the scope of that law, not above it or outside of it.”

Jesus’ handling of this situation flatly denies this view that the disciples were not in violation of the Sabbath law. In fact, the Lord recognized that the Pharisees would have been within their right to point the finger, had this been a matter of the Old Covenant Sabbath observance. He, and everyone else involved here knew it was common knowledge that this activity was “unlawful” according to the rules of the Old Covenant.

On this account does the Lord’s admonition to His disciples in Matt. 23:1 bears its significance. It is impossible that the laws given to the children of Israel by Moses could have encompassed every scenario to which a question of lawful behavior may arise. This is where Jesus both qualifies and attests to the responsibility of the spiritual leaders to act in such an office. This also is what we observe in the record of Matt. 12 and where inspiration dictates we end our search for truth on this matter. Jesus’ words must be final.

However, this confrontation is NOT about the Old Covenant Sabbath observance, but about teachings on the Reformed New Covenant Sabbath. This is the entire point of this teaching point and is why it was necessary that Jesus both qualifies the Old Covenant version – by not denying the claim of “unlawful” – yet at the same time teach the new – by showing (with the aid of his “temple” examples and God’s desire in obedience) that the disciples are now considered “Innocent”.

Furthermore, while the observation made here about “work permitted” is correct in the particular sense as it relates to the work of the priests in the temple on the Sabbath, it should not be missed that Jesus was specific in this example to state that it was expressly for the priest in the temple this allowance was made. This was in no way a universal application of the Sabbath law. In other words, none but the priests were allowed this exemption, and, according to Jesus, it was limited to their work “in the temple”. Therefore, the writer is wrong in applying a universal application of this allowance as seen in his conclusion:

If some work is permitted on the Sabbath day, as Jesus clearly shows that it was, then to do some work on that day was within the scope of that law, not above it or outside of it.

Yet the disciples were not priests and thus it follows that they were not included in the exemptions made where in one may “desecrate the day”.

We also observe the following from the quoted source:

“Jesus expressly admits that what David did was unlawful; and some have supposed that he here intends to justify it on the ground of necessity, and then to argue that his disciples, though guilty of violating the law of the Sabbath, are justifiable on the same ground. There is no doubt that on this ground David excused himself for eating the show-bread, and that the Pharisees did the same for him.”

The observation here ought not to be that the Pharisees didn’t fine David guilty on the basis of hunger, this view accords to seeing things through the veil of human’s appropriation. When will these NCTers ever learn? Rather, the observation that lends itself to the thrust of Jesus’ lesson is WHY. Why did the Pharisees not condemn David’s action as wrong. Was it because they thought hunger trumped obedience, or because there was no Divine action taken or recorded against David and his companions? Only the latter would suit the class of such an accusing lot.

Therefore, if this bold act by David and his companion, in God’s very presence, met with no Divine retribution, who among men can find fault with them? On this account could the Pharisees have been able to accept Jesus’ verdict of “innocent” on account of His disciples, were they so inclined. Thus did the Lord give sufficient justification to His teachings on the reformed order of the New Covenant Sabbath. That they, and many today refuse to yield to His teachings is more a matter or rejecting Christ’s Lordship over the Sabbath, as well as refusing Him the honor of being greater than the temple – the authority on which He bases His lesson –, than a lack of proper justification. It was a pity then and it remains so to this day.

bob_2 · 05-01-10 12:57 pm

Unless you can show some Jewish source that says the "grain plucking" is work forbidden, then it probably was a corrupt Pharisaical law that they were quoting and Jesus was trying point that out to them, how they had justified David's unlawful act, and condemned the innocent disciples for their violation of their concocted regulation of do's and don'ts.

tom_norris · 05-08-10 9:38 am

Gospel Sabbath Hidden:

The Gospel as well as the Reformed Sabbath that accompanies it, are not self-evident or easy to comprehend. In fact, these doctrines are very different from what is expected and taught by all. They are counter-intuitive to our fallen minds.

Consequently, it takes some effort and study to correctly comprehend the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. It takes a commitment to understand truth, and courage to repudiate the religious propaganda and tradition that has overwhelmed every Laodicean church member.

Luke 11:9 “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

In the 1st century, those Jews that refused to comprehend the teachings of John the Baptist and then Jesus, did so on purpose. They “rejected God’s plan for them” and refused to co-operate with this new theology. Their questions were meant to trick and trap Jesus, even as they pretended that they could not understand his amazing Gospel teachings.

No matter how much Jesus tried to explain theology to them, including the NC Sabbath, or how spectacular his healings were, they would not change their views. They were being contrary and unteachable on purpose, like little children, stubbornly refusing to play nice.

Listen to Jesus:

Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.

Luke 7:31 “To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like?

Luke 7:32 “They are like children who sit in the market place and call to one another, and they say, ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.’

Luke 7:33 “For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’

Luke 7:34 “The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’

Jesus teaches that his Gospel and his Gospel Sabbath are “hidden” from those that were not honest in their search for truth. Many today, including the SDA’s cannot understand the Gospel because the do not want to understand. Like the Jews, they are doing this on purpose. They don’t want to admit they are wrong and repent. So they pretend they can’t understand, and soon succeed. They are blind on purpose, by their own dishonest attitudes.

Notice how Jesus views those that could not comprehend the Gospel or the Reformed Sabbath. He teaches that these doctrines are “hidden” from those with the wrong attitude, and from those that think too highly of themselves and their incorrect religious views.

Matt. 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

Matt. 11:26 “Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.

Matt. 11:27 “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Matt. 11:28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.

Matt. 11:29 “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.

Matt. 11:30 “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

Matt. 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat.

Matt. 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.”

The Jews refused to understand the Gospel and the Reformed Sabbath that Jesus offered to them. This is why the Gentiles eventually took control of the church and developed up their own, Sunday Sabbath. Had the Jews embraced the Gospel, history would have looked very different, and so too would the Sabbath.

(Jerusalem, not Rome, would have been the center of the Church. And there would never have been a Sunday Sabbath.)

There is only one Gospel and one Gospel Sabbath. The problem however, is with people. Adults are very stubborn and full of their own opinions, motives, and views. Those that seek Eternal Life must drop their bad attitudes, and become teachable, like a child. They must pay attention to the Word, and to those that know the Gospel, or they will never understand. They will be lost, regardless if they think otherwise.

Matt. 18:3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Bob, you are acting just like those who refused to understand and believe Jesus in the 1st century. You are playing the role of an unruly child who will not play nice.

If you do not wise up, your fate will be sealed and you will never be able to understand. Who knows, you may have already past the point of no return. Many people are living in such a sad state and thus they will never be able to read the Bible correctly or understand the Gospel Story.

Moral Law Not Abolished

Jesus did not abolish the Moral law or devalue it in any way. Rather, he magnified its meaning and application, even as he warned all to be careful how they viewed this doctrine.

Matt. 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

Matt. 5:18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Matt. 5:19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The Old Covenant Law said; do not kill. But Jesus said, “do not even think about such a crime. Because if you do, you are guilty of murder. And so too with Adultery. To even THINK about breaking this law in the New Covenant is the same sin.

Matt. 5:21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be 2liable to the court.’

Matt. 5:22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be 1guilty before the court;

Matt. 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’;

Matt. 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Jesus teaches that the Moral law is alive and well in the NC. Which is why the Jewish and Gentile Church, as well as the Protestants, all agree that the Moral law was not abolished in the New Covenant. This is why the church has always had a Sabbath. And why they also think Adultery and murder is a sin against God’s law. Thus the law is in full force in the NC, ready to condemn all for the slightest sin, which may be only a fleeting thought.

Although the OC Sabbath is part of the Moral law, it is different from the other laws that prohibit murder, or adultery, etc. Why? Because there was an exception to the Sabbath law. It was not applied to everyone the same. Those that were Levites, had an exemption, others did not. It is this exemption that comes into play, which allows Jesus to create his own Gospel Sabbath for the NC church.

Sabbath & Sin

Is it a sin to work on the Sabbath in the NC?

Many Christians think so, regardless if they think Sunday or Saturday is the Sabbath. Many Christians think that Jesus said: “You must not work on the Sabbath, nor should you even think about working on this holy day. To do so is breaking the Moral law.”

But Jesus did not say any such thing. In fact, he said the opposite, over and over again. Which is why the Jews became so angry with him.

Jesus treats the Sabbath law very differently from the other Moral laws. He is not saying that working on this day is bad, nor does he teach that THINKING about working on the Sabbath is sinful, like he does about murder or adultery.

Rather, Jesus is using an exemption to the Sabbath law so that he could introduce a very different kind of Sabbath for the church.

The Gospel Sabbath is NOT the same as the OC Sabbath. They are very different, even opposing doctrines. The former says no work, except for a few (the Levites), while the latter says all are free to work.

The Moral law has not been abolished, and neither has the Sabbath, which is part of it. But it is not the OC, schoolmaster Sabbath that survives in the Church. Only the NC, reformed Sabbath of Jesus, is the genuine Sabbath doctrine for the church. It is only on the 7th day, and it does not, and cannot, prevent anyone from doing all manner of activity and work. It is an active Sabbath, full of good works, worship, and Gospel preaching,

THIS is the Gospel Sabbath, while all others are frauds and pretenders.

Anti-Sabbatarians

It is interesting to note that those most critical (so far) of the Reformed Sabbath, are the anti-Sabbatarians. But they are such a tiny minority, it hardly matters what they think. Their rants that the law and the Sabbath have been abolished are absurd and heretical, outside the fundamentals of the Christian Faith and even more extreme than the heretic Marcion.

The dramatic new understanding of the Reformed, 7th day Sabbath is for Sabbatarians. It is for all those who go to church on either Sunday or Saturday and that correctly understand that this is a routine part of church practice and Gospel doctrine.

Jesus promoted the reformed Sabbath only to the Jews. Only those that were Sabbatarians were targeted to hear this new Sabbath doctrine and revise their views.

So it is today.

The RS is a (seemingly) new doctrine for the church. It corrects the long-standing Sabbath error that has infected every church and denomination in the world, including and especially the SDA’s.

The Gospel Sabbath exposes all other Sabbath doctrines as FALSE, whether they are Sunday or Saturday based, proving that organized religion is totally worthless and wrong about the Gospel.

Thus all members of every church, including the SDA’s, must repent of their false Gospel and false Sabbath. Those that do, will embrace the correct Gospel and the correct Sabbath and go forward and receive Eternal Life. Those that refuse are doomed.

Bob 2, the anti-Sabbatarian quoted: "Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and teach men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven,"

“If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end of suffering in the name of Christ, and an end ever of self-denial. But it is clear that by the Pharisees David's act was thought excusable; otherwise they would have retorted on Jesus thus: Out of your own mouth we condemn you: you class your act with David's; but David sinned, and so do you.”

“Now the real argument of Jesus is this: David, when hungry, ate the show-bread, which it was confessedly unlawful for him to eat, yet you justify him: my disciples pluck grain and eat it on the Sabbath, an act which the law does not forbid, and yet you condemn them” (Matthew p. 104).

Tom said: First, whoever wrote this believes there is a Sabbath for the church. But you do not believe this and have argued stubbornly and incoherently for this position from the start.

So why do you quote authors that you fundamentally disagree with? Your general view of the Sabbath is very different from this source, even as your view is out of bounds for anyone that claims to follow Jesus.

The source you quoted said:

“The record of Scripture is that Jesus kept the Sabbath faithfully, as God intended it to be kept. In doing so, He set us an example. "He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked" (1 John 2:6).

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/t … 1115662605

In fact, your Sabbath view is far more radical than Marcion. So you are way off the C/D chart. You are not part of the church, or the Kingdom of God, nor will you ever be unless you repent of embrace the genuine Gospel, as well as the Gospel Sabbath.

Just think of it; the heretic Marcion, the poster boy for Discontinuity, would claim you are too radical and wrong about the Sabbath. Wow! This makes you a super heretic.

Good for you! If you are going to be a heretic, why not be a good one?

Second: This pro Sabbatarian author has missed a major point. Many think that the OC Sabbath is the same as the NC Sabbath. Thus, how could Jesus sin and break the Sabbath? He could not, they say. So some conclude that he was just clarifying the true OC Sabbath.

But this is not what is taking place.

When Jesus and his disciples are accused of working on the Sabbath, Jesus does not deny or debate the fundamental point that it is wrong to work on the OC Sabbath. (How could any Jew make such an absurd claim? The Sabbath law clearly says “no work.”)

Jesus meets this charge by pushing forward an EXEMPTION to the OC Sabbath law. He does not deny it, nor does he try to manufacturer a new set of Sabbath rules that go beyond what was allowed. No. He claims that his followers are EXEMPT from the law, just like the OC Priests.

The reference to David is a reference to the Messiah. David, by virtue of his calling to be the leader and King of Israel was also exempt from the Temple rules. Thus Jesus is making another theological case to EXEMPT his followers from the traditional and long held prohibition against work on the Sabbath.

Matt. 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.”

Matt. 12:3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions,

Matt. 12:4 how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?

Matt. 12:5 “Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple 1break the Sabbath and are innocent?

Matt. 12:6 “But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.

Matt. 12:7 “But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

Matt. 12:8 “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

Jesus has not only EXEMPTED all his followers from the OC Sabbath rules and regulations against work, he also teaches a 7th day Gospel Sabbath that promotes activity and good works.

This is why he claims the title of Lord of the Sabbath. He is the inventor of the active and working Gospel Sabbath, which is VERY different from the OC Sabbath, even the opposite when it comes to work.

Bob 2 said: Dexter and Tom, all your "Reformed Sabbath" is, is Jesus clarifying what the original law was meant to be.

Tom said: WRONG! The OC, “schoolmaster” Sabbath of the Jews was NEVER meant to reflect, “what the original law was meant to be.” In fact, the OC Sabbath is so very different from what Jesus teaches, that it should become obvious that there are TWO very different Sabbaths.

There is an OC Sabbath were it is a sin to do most any type of work, (unless you were a priest or King). It was forbidden to harvest, light a fire, or cook, etc. So strong was this law against work, that the very word for Sabbath means to rest, or not work, even as the penalty for working on the OC Sabbath was DEATH.

Ex. 20:10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.

Ex. 31:14 ‘Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.

Ex. 35:3 “You shall not kindle a fire in any of your dwellings on the sabbath day.”

If Jesus and his disciples were operating under the OC, their Sabbath activity would be sin. But they are operating under the NC, and thus there is a different and superior theology that defines the Gospel Sabbath.

The NC Sabbath is not like the OC Sabbath whatsoever. Although it is on the 7th day, as it must be to even qualify as a Semitic Sabbath. But the prohibition against work is gone, and so too the death penalty. This is a very different Sabbath. A working, active Sabbath for those that follow the Gospel and have the spiritual rest of being in Christ.

The Gentile church correctly understood that the OC Sabbath was changed, and that there was a new Sabbath for the Church. Thus Sunday was the result, which became the NC Sabbath. But it also contained prohibitions against work, like the OC Sabbath. So here was a double error that is very obvious to see.

Consequently, the Gentile Sabbath doctrine is wrong on both the day and its regulations against work. It is a hybrid Sabbath, twice wrong, even as those who embraced it had a false Gospel and were essentially following the Judaizers, but in a Gentile mode.

Just as the Gospel was hidden from the Jews until the 1st century, so too the Gospel Sabbath. Then it only lasted during the short duration of the Jewish church. Then it became changed to Sunday, and was essentially treated much like the OC Sabbath.

Bob 2 said: The Sabbath was fulfilled on the cross, and this example as nothing to do with the New Covenant but to show how the Pharisees had corrupted the OC Law.

Tom said: The weekly OC Sabbath was perfectly obeyed by Christ prior to his public ministry. However, as soon as his NC ministry started, Jesus introduced his reformed Sabbath, which he taught was based on an EXEMPTION to the OC Sabbath law.

Moreover, Jesus never claimed that he was the fulfillment of the 4th Commandment, nor did the apostles ever teach such a strange view of the Sabbath. The Gospel Sabbath was a new doctrine for the Jews, as was the Gospel, but this idea that Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath and thus did away with it is absurd and mythical. Those that are very shallow and incompetent theologians promote it.

Thus, Jesus is not trying to “show the Pharisees” how to obey the OC Sabbath correctly. He was doing away with this “schoolmaster’ Sabbath, replacing it with another, very different Sabbath.

Jesus justifies this new Sabbath behavior and teaching because of an EXEMPTION in the law. He was inventing a new Sabbath for the church, one that was very different from what they had embraced under the OC.

Jesus knew that all who embraced his Gospel were going to be priests, and thus all were all going to have this special exemption that allows for very different Sabbath behavior in the NC.

Matt. 12:5 “Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?

Matt. 12:6 “But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.

Those that follow Jesus can do all manner of work on the NC Sabbath without sin. While they ARE breaking the OC law, as Jesus admits, so what? The NC trumps the OC. The NC is not the OC, and many things that were considered sinful in the OC are not in the NC. Thus ritual circumcision, tithe, and a hierarchical organization, and even food laws, are very wrong and against the Gospel. And so too the OC, non-working Sabbath. The Gospel Sabbath has replaced it.

Those that understand the Gospel correctly, will also understand and embrace the 7th day, reformed Sabbath as taught by Jesus. THIS is the only correct Sabbath for the church. There is no other.

The SDA’s need to admit this fact and be the first to repent. Why? Because they have been loudly promoting the WRONG, OC Sabbath, as if it were their special mission from God, claiming this is what Jesus teaches and what every church must embrace. But it is not. They are very wrong about this point as well as many others.

Jesus teaches a reformed, active, 7th day Sabbath. This Gospel Sabbath is part of legitimate Sabbath Reform for SDA’s. THIS is the Sabbath of the Gospel and the 4th Angels Message, which is very different from the legalistic, OC Sabbath of the 3rd Angels Message.

As the Advent Movement moves more fully into the light of the Gospel, they will repent of their OC Sabbath and embrace the very different Gospel Sabbath. Thus all will better understand the Gospel prior to the Second Coming, even as the Sabbath becomes a lighting rod for debate and schism.

I hope this helps.

Tom Norris for the Reformed Sabbath

tom_norris · 06-15-10 7:05 pm

Matthew said: Tom, I appreciate your attempts to answer my questions, you have a little better understanding than most SDA's, but I must say I have to disagree with your answers.

Tom said: Matthew, thank you for your many thoughtful questions. However, please note that many of my “answers” are not opinions, but facts. So I am not sure if you are having problems with the facts of religious history and theology or with my opinions, which are based on the NT record?

Many are very confused about religion for a number of reasons. With so many different viewpoints being promoted from so many different denominations and cults, how can anyone find truth in such a dysfunctional, confused, and dishonest environment?

Answer: One must be a seeker for Gospel truth, open to the Spirit and to the Word of Christ, through the Protestant Hermeneutic. One must understand the issues and be honest with the evidence, the NT being the highest authority.

If you are such a person, then you will be able to work through the issues, separating fact from fiction, and finally reaching the correct Gospel conclusion.

The Reformed, 7th day Sabbath is very different from what all Christians embrace, including the SDA’s. Consequently, everyone is going to have many questions about this “new doctrine,” even as many automatically reject anything so different and paradigm changing. But the facts are what they are. The Gospel that is taught in all churches today is wrong, and so too the doctrine of the Sabbath that accompanies this epidemic of “wretched” error.

Matt said: Also, your SDA roots are very apparent with your terms used, such as Reformed Sabbath, Laodicean Church, Three Angels Message, etc... Your historical view of the scriptures, prophecy, and your interpretation thereof surely stand out.

Tom said: We all come to this discussion with our various cultural, religious, and educational backgrounds. The fact that I was born, raised, and educated an SDA allows me some insight into this unique and complex history that has changed Protestant theology forever.

The Adventists invented modern eschatology, and the SDA’s went on to further refine and articulate how they thought the end of the world would play out. Any today that want to try and understand 21st century eschatology must first go back and understand Adventist history, including their terminology, and its ongoing development, (for better or worse). The Adventists were, and still are, far ahead of all others when it comes to eschatology. The fact that they are confused, corrupt, and self-destructing is beside the point. They were the modern eschatological Pioneers that shifted the prophetic paradigm for the modern world.

I make no apologies for understanding Adventist terminology, or the history of their doctrinal development. In spite of the present confusion and corruption that has overwhelmed Adventism, SDA theology still represents a very sophisticated and worthwhile source to help the church better understand Gospel eschatology and how the world will end.

Moreover, while there are many confusing SDA doctrines, along with their unique terminology, (like the Three Angels Messages, Investigative Judgment, or the Pre Advent Judgment, Loud Cry, etc), few today actually know the actual historical or theological meaning of these terms. In fact, most SDA’s have been so indoctrinated with propaganda over the years, that few have any idea what the Pioneers really taught. It is a very sad and dishonest situation.

I know how the Advent Movement developed, and how the Pioneers used these various terms. Some of their points were correct and some were not. But these terms, and the concepts behind them, need to be better understood by SDA’s so they can correct their false views and move forward to develop a workable, Gospel based, eschatology for the 21st century.

While the Adventists today are very confused and wrong about many things, including their own history and theology, they still get credit for reforming how the 19th century church viewed the Judgment and the end of the world. In fact, the Adventists were so correct about basic eschatology, that virtually every denomination today has now embraced their pre-millennial views about the Second Coming. What all churches claimed was great error by Miller, was later adopted as truth. Thus all denominations today have embraced Miller’s main point about eschatology. Fundamental Adventist doctrine has been adopted by all, even though few know this fact.

Do not underestimate Adventist theology. It is paradigm changing and powerful. The Advent Movement, which is Protestant, is not over; its best days may be just ahead.

Matt said: One breath you say the New Covenant Church is not under the Old Covenant law anymore and the next breath you say it's still binding to a degree (7th day Sabbath). And the reason for this is that you can't accept the fact that the Sabbath has become obsolete in its Old Covenant terms, along with all the rest of the old letter of the law, and has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ under the New Covenant.

Tom said: I am not surprised that so many are confused about the topic of the Two Covenants and the Sabbath. This is difficult material to master. The relationship between the Old and New Covenants, that is to say, between the law and the Gospel, must be better understood by every Christian. Those who fail to comprehend this necessary distinction will not be able to understand the Gospel correctly.

At this point, no denomination teaches the Gospel or the Sabbath correctly, least of all the SDA’s. This is a stunning but true statement, one that is also the fulfillment of prophecy.

The debate between the Old and New Covenant started with the ministry of Christ. Many Old Covenant Jews refused to move forward and embrace Jesus New Covenant teachings. The leaders were horrified at this new Sabbath that Jesus promoted in such a public manner. They had never heard such amazing theology in their lives, and thus great division and debate resulted with the preaching of these new doctrines.

Jesus taught that the Old Covenant Sabbath was being replaced with a different, Gospel version of the 7th day; -but the Jews killed him rather than embrace his reforming views. Jesus, during his ministry, teaches that the OC Sabbath has become obsolete. But not the NC version that is featured in all four Gospels. Thus it is critical to understand what is taking place in the Gospels about the Sabbath, and to realize that there is a battle taking place between the OC and NC Sabbaths.

This new, working Sabbath was made for the church, and for all that followed Jesus as Lord. The Gospel Sabbath replaces the non-working, OC Sabbath of the Jews.

Note: There are TWO different Sabbaths being debated in the Gospels. All Christians should only follow the REFORMED Sabbath of Jesus; not any of the various frauds that are so popular in the church today.

Regardless how one views the Sabbath today, there has never been a time in the history of the church when they did not teach a weekly Sabbath day. Never. Those who claim there is no Sabbath for the church are taking a position that is heretical; against the record and doctrine of the church. They are taking a view that has been repudiated by billions of people over the ages.

Matt said: You can’t make Sabbath keeping a matter of commandment before God and the choice of worshipping on another day a sin for those of the faith without placing the believer back under the OC law.

Tom said: While my background is SDA, I do not agree with their legalistic view of the Gospel or the Sabbath. But they are correct to claim that Sunday is a fraud, and that only the 7th day can be the proper day to embrace the New Covenant Sabbath.

Too bad that they failed to understand the difference between the “schoolmaster” Sabbath of the Pharisees and the Gospel Sabbath as taught by Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath and head of the church.

There is more to the doctrine of the Sabbath than the day. Much more. In fact, there are two primary types of Sabbath. There is an OC Sabbath and a NC version. Both are on the 7th day. They are very different from each other because each one represents a different Covenant. So while it is true to say that the OC Sabbath has been abolished, not so for the NC Sabbath. The NC Sabbath replaces the OC Sabbath of the Jews.

There is a NC, Gospel Sabbath for the church. It is very different from the version that was abolished. So different that the “reformed” Sabbath of Christ is not about “Sabbath keeping” in the Old Covenant sense. In fact, it is the opposite. Why? Because Jesus taught a new, counter-intuitive, Sabbath that allowed for all manner of activity and work.

This new doctrine caused division and debate from the start. In fact, this new Sabbath doctrine is what started the plot by the Jews to murder Christ.

The Gospel Sabbath is not like the OC “commandment keeping” Sabbath of the law, which the SDA’s promote. It is something much better and much different. It is based on the teaching, authority, and example of Christ in all four Gospels.

Matt said: First of all, when you use a term like "Reformed Sabbath", you are using a term that is not even found in scripture. There is no such thing as a reformed Sabbath. If I was going to label the change, a better label to use would be: “The Fulfilled Sabbath.”

Tom said: The term “reformed Sabbath” is a reference to Jesus’ new Gospel revisions to the Sabbath. Jesus did not abolish the 7th day Sabbath of the Jews or change the day to Sunday in honor of his resurrection. No. He REFORMED the Sabbath for the New Covenant Church. This is what the NT record clearly shows.

Note: The genuine Gospel of Christ was accompanied by the REFOMRED, 7th day Sabbath in all four Gospels. This is a fact of the record. (The Sabbath doctrine existed in a different form prior to the giving of the law to the Jews. And it is to this original, more ancient doctrine of the Sabbath that Jesus, the co-creator of the world, is preserving for the church.)

Moreover Jesus is not the Sabbath Day as some today foolishly claim, nor did he fulfill the OC Sabbath so that he could remove the entire doctrine of the Sabbath from church. This is absurd because the NT does not teach such a view. Jesus should never be accused of destroying the Sabbath; rather he defended and reformed it for the church, establishing it forever.

Jesus is not any day, not Monday, Tuesday or Thursday, much less the 7th day. You need to repent of this false view.

Did Jesus proclaim himself to be the Lord of the “abolished” Sabbath? Hardly. Did he or his apostles teach that he was the fulfillment of the Sabbath, and thus there is no Sabbath for the church? NO!

That is the end of the matter. Repent of this myth and move forward.

Matt said: Jesus Christ fulfilled the OC Sabbath and now He is the Sabbath rest that is spoken of in Heb. 4:1-12...and in particular vs. 8-12. These verses are telling us that the Sabbath is not about a particular day,

Tom said: Jesus is not a day. Nor is he the law. He is many things, like the co-creator of the world, and the savior of mankind, as well as the head of the church and the Good Sheppard, and the supreme teacher, etc. etc. But he was never viewed as the “fulfillment” of the Sabbath.

This is a trite and amateur view, which is nothing more than anti-Sabbatarian myth. Which is why the church, meaning both RC and P, has never embraced this anti-Sabbatarian position. The church has always had a weekly Sabbath and there is no reason to pretend this is not the case. You say the church is wrong, and I say you are wrong. The church has correctly embraced a weekly Sabbath all during its history, even to this very day. (The fact that there is a dispute over which day is the Sabbath is beside the point.)

As for the Sabbath in Hebrews 4 (and in Colossians), I suggest that you do some research and educate yourself on what these books are really saying about the Sabbath. Here is a discussion about this.

http://www.atomorrow.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=242

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … s-2-16.htm

I think you are going to be surprised to discover that Hebrews IS talking about the NC weekly Sabbath, even as this Jewish group of believers was urged to keep up with their church meetings, which of course, would be on the 7th day.

Heb. 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;

Heb. 10:24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,

Heb. 10:25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

Matt said: it is about our peace with God and our rest from works that has been obtained through the salvation that has been provided to us by our Lord Jesus Christ. The day that is spoken of here is the day when we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8, 9) we enter that Sabbath rest. This was God's intention from the foundations of the earth.

Tom said: Everyone needs to step back from their traditional Sabbath views in order to see things clearly. All must return to the NT in order to find truth, and study for themselves.

The authority and reference for the Gospel Sabbath comes from the teachings of Jesus in all four Gospels, as well as from the rest of the NT, including Hebrews, Colossians, or Acts.

The Word is clear that Jesus was not abolishing the Sabbath, but revising and changing it into something that better represented the Gospel and the Priesthood of All Believers. Those who follow Jesus, will also embrace his Gospel Sabbath. It’s just that simple.

TWO SABBATHS

Many overlook that there were always TWO different versions of the weekly Sabbaths in Judaism. This is the key to understanding what Jesus is teaching about the Gospel (Reformed) Sabbath.

It is even more correct to say that the Sabbath was made for two DIFFERENT groups, within Judaism. One group were Levites and the other group, -is everyone else.

When Jesus REFORMS the Sabbath for the NC church, he does so by abolishing the non-priestly application of the 4th Commandment, embracing only the priestly Sabbath position (via an exemption from the law), which results in a working, active Sabbath for the church.

The NT does not teach that Jesus spiritualized away the weekly Sabbath of the 4th Commandment. Or that he fulfilled or abolished it.

He never claimed to be the fulfillment of the Sabbath, but he did claim ownership of this unique doctrine, claiming the rare title of Lord of the Sabbath. (Why would Jesus abolish the Sabbath, while at the same time claim to be its Lord?)

The NT clearly shows that Jesus revised the Sabbath, and turned it on its head. He marginalized the Levites and elevated all to the priesthood, allowing all to be equal before God, without the need for the religious elite to control peoples lives. Thus the Reformed Sabbath featured the Priesthood of All Believers, which was a revolutionary and divisive concept that would end in the death of Jesus and the criminalization of the Gospel.

What a pity that the SDA’s embraced the WRONG Sabbath! What a pity that all others, (Sunday keepers,) have also made the same mistake. All have the wrong Gospel and thus all have the wrong view of the Sabbath.

Few in the Adventist Community can even comprehend such a reformed Sabbath doctrine. It makes their brains hurt. Why? Because all they know is the non-working, OC Sabbath of the law. The Gospel and the Gospel Sabbath has eluded them. Pity.

Matt said: If the 7th day Sabbath is such a critical issue for the church to honor that we may be in the will of God in our worship of Him, then why would Paul say in Rom. 14:5 “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind?”

Tom said: It is most critical that the church understand, honor, and embrace the Gospel. For the Laodicean church, everything depends upon whether they will pay attention to the LM and repent of their many false doctrines. Everything depends on whether individuals embrace the genuine Gospel or not. The Reformed, NC Sabbath is part of the genuine Gospel. Those who understand the Gospel correctly will also understand the Gospel Sabbath. Those who don’t, won’t.

Like I said, the church has ALWAYS had a weekly Sabbath. Because the apostolic church was Jewish, their Sabbath was only on the 7th day. But as the Gentiles took control, that day was changed to Sunday. But regardless, the church has ALWAYS had a weekly doctrine about the Sabbath, even to this very day.

Paul does not promote the OC Sabbath, or anything close to it. In fact, he was in a battle with the Judaizers. They not only promoted ritual circumcision in the church, but also Old Covenant Sabbath keeping, with its many rules and regulations against work. But Paul would never embrace their legalistic agenda or their OC Sabbath.

However, Paul does acknowledge and follow the Reformed, Gospel Sabbath. He is always careful to acknowledge the Sabbath, even as he is careful never to teach that it was abolished. Paul knows that only the Gospel saves, not obedience to the law or the NC Sabbath. He is correct.

If the Sabbath was abolished after the cross, why do we see Paul inviting the town to hear him preach the Gospel on the Sabbath? Did he invite people to hear him preach the Gospel on a non-extent day? Hardly.

Paul understood that the Sabbath was not abolished, and that it takes place every 7th day. However, it is the Reformed Sabbath of Christ, which he follows, which is why we see him preaching the Gospel on the Sabbath to the Gentiles. He did not teach them the Sabbath was abolished, but that it was a day to hear the Gospel. Nor did he lecture them to not work when they went back to their homes, or to put out their fires and observe a long list or rules and regulations. But neither did he pretend the 7th day Sabbath was abolished or that it was not a day to preach and hear the Gospel.

Acts 13:42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath.

Acts 13:43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.

Acts 13:44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.

Paul follows the Reformed, 7th day Sabbath of Christ. He did not go around teaching that Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath, or that it was abolished. Such views are against the facts, heretical and wrong.

Matt said: Paul is saying right here that the day we observe is not what matters, what matters is taking a time and setting it aside for the edifying of Christ and being content with it. This is a part of the liberty that the Church has been given which is spoken of so much in the NT.

Tom said: If Paul thought that all days were alike, why would he set up an appointment to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, on the 7th day Sabbath? Why not invite the town to hear the Gospel on Tuesday? Or better yet, why not on Sunday, the supposed NC Sabbath for the church?

This was no mistake by Paul. He knew that the Gospel is Semitic and that the Sabbath (reformed) is a Gospel doctrine. So he is making a statement about the close association of the NC Sabbath and the Gospel. He is supporting and following the Reformed Sabbath that Jesus invented for the church.

Furthermore, Paul was hardly as double-minded as you suggest. Neither Jesus nor Paul taught that the church had the authority to make up whatever doctrine it wanted about the Sabbath or anything else.

Paul is not against the Moral law as many assume. Few have read enough of Paul to know what he is really saying about the law. Paul was not under the law, but neither was he without the law. He acknowledged the Moral law, even as he embraced the “law of Christ,” which is his teachings that include his reformed, active, 7th day Sabbath.

Paul’s correct view of the law is what all Christians should follow.

1Cor. 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.

1Cor. 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;

1Cor. 9:21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

1Cor. 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.

1Cor. 9:23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

While Paul was a war with the Judaizers, who wanted to bring the believers back under the law and enforce ritual circumcision and OC Sabbath keeping, etc., he still upheld the Moral law and made it clear that it was the duty of all.

1Cor. 7:17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in call the churches.

1Cor. 7:18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.

1Cor. 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

Of course Paul does not think one can be saved by keeping the law, but neither does he teach that the law has been abolished. If the law were really abolished, there would be no more sin or love, because the NT teaches that both are defined by the law.

If the Moral law were abolished at the cross, there could be no Sabbath doctrine for the church after that time. But we see Paul, in Acts acknowledging that there is a Sabbath Day and thus he plans public meetings to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles-on the Sabbath. How could he do this if the law and the Sabbath were abolished? None of the apostles ever taught that the Sabbath was abolished, much less that it was changed to Sunday. There was a change in the Sabbath, but this change has eluded many.

Acts 13:42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath.

Acts 13:43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.

Acts 13:44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.

The NT teaches that the doctrine of the Sabbath was still operative after the cross. But it is not the OC Sabbath that is to be embraced by the church. Rather, it is the NC, Gospel Sabbath of Jesus. A day to hear the Gospel and do good works. A day where no believers can be condemned as Sabbath breakers because there is no prohibition against work or play. There is an exemption of the OC Sabbath rules for all that embrace the Gospel.

Matt said: You also see this issue presented again in Col. 2:16,17 When Paul says: "So let no man judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or in Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ."

Tom said: Once again, we see that Paul is not denying the existence of the Sabbath, but upholding the freedom and purpose of the Gospel Sabbath.

Jesus is the Lord of the (reformed) Sabbath. He is the primary authority about Sabbath behavior. Not any religious leaders, like the Pharisees in the church, who were promoting a legalistic, OC Sabbath.

Here is a discussion about this passage:

http://www.atomorrow.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=242

Matt said: And he even goes on to say in vs. 18 "Let no one cheat you of your reward." So we are not going to lose any rewards if we don't keep the 7th day Sabbath.

Tom said: Only the Gospel is salvific. There is no salvation in either OC or NC Sabbath keeping. But the way one views the Sabbath reveals ones view of the Gospel. Those that follow Christ and believe in his Gospel, will follow his teaching on the Sabbath, an all other topics. Those that refute his Gospel and his reformed Gospel Sabbath, will not be given Eternal Life.

In fact, Jesus teaches about a group of Christians that had removed the law and embraced a false Christ and a worthless Gospel. This could apply to those that have embraced Sunday, as well as to those that claim the Sabbath Law has been abolished.

Jesus teaches that the NC Sabbath does not “abolish” the Sabbath law of the 4th commandment, but rather, the Gospel believer is given an EXEMPTION from the rules against working. God’s law remains, and so too the Sabbath for the church through the teaching of Jesus.

Matt. 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

Matt. 7:22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’

Matt. 7:23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

While the SDA’s practice of the Sabbath exposes them as legalists, those that keep Sunday are also guilty of “practicing lawlessness” because there is no such Moral law within the Bible or the Two Covenants. Every Sunday millions show their ignorance of the Gospel by going to church on the 1st day of the week. This is a lawless position that has no support from Jesus or the apostles.

Although Roman Catholics are correctly taught that Sunday observance is based on the Sabbath law in the Decalogue, it is nonetheless an error, as well as a lawless act of rebellion against Christ.

The Sabbath existed before the Jews and their law, even as it was made part of Judaism and later Christianity. The Sabbath plays a large role in the J/C paradigm and so it will ever be. Which is also why all four Gospels contain the Sabbath debates between the Jewish leaders and Christ.

Matt said: We are told in Ex. 31:13 that the “Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel for the other nations to see.” We are also told in Heb. 8:13 “In that He says, a New Covenant, He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” So, if the Sabbath was a sign of the covenant between God and Israel, and the Old Covenant has become obsolete the sign has become obsolete along with it. Thus the Old Covenant Sabbath is not required for the Church.

Tom said: Today, the Gospel Sabbath is a sign of who understands the Gospel teachings of Jesus and who does not. Thus, the way one views the Sabbath reflects their view of the Gospel. A false Sabbath evidences a false Gospel.

The OC Sabbath has been abolished, along with Judaism. They are both OBSOLETE. And so too is the Friday “preparation” day that precedes the Jewish Sabbath. But this does not mean there is no doctrine of the Sabbath for the church in the NC. There is. In fact, the Savior of the church is also the Lord of the Gospel Sabbath, as well as its inventor and promoter. This is a very different Sabbath from the OC Sabbath, as the debates in the Gospels prove.

Those that claim to follow the teaching of Jesus should also embrace his Gospel Sabbath. This is what the NT teaches.

John 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.

John 14:24 “He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.

John 15:10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

Jesus teaches a very clear doctrine of the Sabbath in all four Gospels. One that is the opposite of what the Jews were teaching and what all denominations teach today. Jesus teachings are the basis for the Gospel Sabbath that I am advocating. Thus the “reformed” Sabbath is based on the record of the NT.

Furthermore, Jesus does not teach this absurd myth that pretends he has fulfilled the Sabbath and thus there is no Sabbath for the church. While Jesus did fulfill and obey the OC Sabbath all during his life, he stopped when his Gospel ministry started. This is when he introduced his new version of the Sabbath for the Jews, and for the church.

While this view that Jesus is the Sabbath view is utter nonsense, not so the Reformed, 7th day Sabbath of the Gospel. This is a real doctrine that was once practiced by the apostolic church and will once again be embraced by the repentant Laodicean church at the end of time.

Matt said: Also, if the 7th day Sabbath was of such significance in the early church, Why is it, in Acts 15 at the council at Jerusalem when the issue of whether the gentiles should be required to keep the law of Moses (please remember that the 7th day Sabbath was as much a part of the law of Moses as any of the other laws were), the church leaders (Peter and James) found it to be “a yoke that neither they nor their fathers were able to bear” (vs. 10)? And they determined that it wasn’t necessary to burden the gentiles with such a yoke of bondage, and made a decree of it in vs. 23-29.

Tom said: The significance of the (Reformed) Sabbath is established by the prominence, authority, and articulation it is given in all four Gospels. The Sabbath was so significant to Jesus that it formed the background for his Gospel ministry. His view of the Sabbath was a lighting rod for attention and debate, even as his enemies used it to send him to the cross.

Jesus claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath, which is the opposite of abolishing it. But he also dramatically changed how it was to be viewed. He is Lord of the Gospel Sabbath. He is not Lord of the OC Sabbath of Moses.

While it is true that Peter and James fell into legalism, and embraced the OC Sabbath instead of the Gospel Sabbath as taught by Christ, so what? They were wrong to do this, as Paul points out in Galatians. Anyone that embraces the OC Sabbath, or tithe, has fallen from grace. Which means the SDA’s are not saved. They are great Judaizers that refuse to confess their errors and repent.

The SDA’s have embraced the OC Sabbath of the Pharisees. They have the right day but the wrong doctrine. They have the “schoolmaster” Sabbath, which is a yoke of bondage. This is not the correct Sabbath for the church.

Matt said: In the decree the only things that the church leaders found necessary for the Gentile believers was that they ”abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well” (vs. 29). There wasn’t any mention of 7th day Sabbath keeping in that decree.

Tom said: The Jewish leaders were not reviewing the teachings of Jesus in detail, much less dealing with the Sabbath. Rather, they were faced with a specific dispute within the church about ritual circumcision and its relation to the Gospel.

Both sides of the debate were pro Sabbath. It was Paul versus the Judaizers. Both believed in the Moral law and the 7th day Sabbath. But Paul subordinated the law to the Gospel and embraced the Reformed Sabbath of Christ, while the Circumcision Party elevated the law and focused on sanctification, including the OC Sabbath.

Paul embraced the reformed, working Sabbath of Christ, while the Judaizers viewed the Sabbath in an Old Covenant manner, with many rules and regulations. No doubt that also upheld Friday as the “preparation day” for their OC Sabbath. But Paul refused, even as he condemned ritual circumcision.

So the debate was not about the existence or continuance of the 7th day Sabbath. Thus any assumption that the Jerusalem Council removed the Sabbath or changed it to Sunday is only wishful thinking. Regardless what side won, the Sabbath would still be standing. Which is why there was never a time in the long history of the church when there was a no Sabbath doctrine. There is no such time or doctrine. It is myth.

Matt asked: Why would Sabbath keeping be left out if it was something so vital to our obedience to God and our spiritual walk? I think the answer to that question is quite obvious; it’s not something that’s vital to our spiritual walk.

Tom said: The Sabbath was not left out of that historic discussion, (nor out of all four Gospels). You just assumed it was. In the ancient world, the Jewish religion was well known for its weekly Sabbath. This was one of its most prominent features and was viewed positively by the Gentiles, unlike circumcision.

But the Sabbath was not on trial, as was the doctrine of circumcision. Nor was there any hint that the Sabbath was abolished or changed to Sunday.

Acts 15:19 “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,

Acts 15:20 but that we write to them that they abstain from 1athings contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

Acts 15:21 “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

While you think the leaders are saying forget the 7th day Sabbath, “no one need pay any attention to this doctrine that Christ reformed.” They are not. In fact, they are encouraging the practice of Kosher eating as well as Jewish morality and also warning about idol worship. Things, which are fundamental to Judaism and also compatible with 1st century Christian faith.

All Christian doctrine is Jewish, and thus it should come as no surprise that there is a (7th day) Sabbath for the church. The JC did not deny this fact.

Jesus, as the co-creator of the world, invented the first Sabbath, so there is no chance he would now repudiate the memorial to his creation, and it is an irrational and unsupported assumption.

The Sabbath plays a large role in the Gospel Story and so it shall always be. The Jerusalem Council never said otherwise, and in fact reminded all that the Sabbath was a well-known doctrine that is showcased in every city around the ancient world.

Matt said: You and I both know that there is no such thing as a short discussion on this topic and this is a subject that requires some very in-depth study to be able to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

Tom said: I agree. But whether the discussion is short or long, there is only one Gospel and one Gospel Sabbath for the church. There is no basis to claim that Jesus is the Sabbath, or that he abolished this weekly memorial to creation, of which he was a part. Jesus revised and reformed the OC Sabbath and made it into a new, Gospel version for the church. This is what the NT clearly teaches, even though no denomination teaches such a correct point. As yet.

--One day, when the repentant Laodicean Church repents and embraces the Gospel, so too will they also embrace the 7th day Gospel Sabbath. The two fit together, even as the honest will run away from what is obviously false and worthless doctrine.

Matt said: If we are to be able to rightly divide the truth, then obviously there is a wrong way to divide it! Think about it. Why was Sabbath keeping one of the most, if not the most controversial issues between Jesus and the religious leaders in the Gospels, and then again also in the early churches?

Tom said: Jesus Reformed Sabbath was such a major change for the Jews, that they could hardly comprehend it or the Gospel that it represented. They fought back by defending their OC Sabbath, which “angered” Christ and made him even more determined to “break” the Sabbath by teaching the Reformed, active, Gospel Sabbath.

The way one views the law, and the Sabbath as part of that law, reflects how one views the Gospel. The Old Covenant Jews did not want to understand the Gospel, nor did they want to embrace it. So they held fast to the paradigm of Law, which included the OC Sabbath. When Jesus tried to explain the Gospel and the Gospel Sabbath to them, they would not listen. They rejected his new Sabbath and his radical idea that all in the church would be like priests, exempted from the restrictions against work and Sabbath breaking.

What kind of a religion let everyone become a Priest? What kind of theology reformed the Sabbath to such an extent that it did away with Sabbath-breaking? Jesus had some very different ideas that still seem strange today. Few really understand him very well.

Matt said: Jesus was preparing the way for a change to the Sabbath law. He knew that once His mission here on earth was complete, the old covenant law would expire and the new covenant would be set forth, and there would be some changes in the way of worship for His church. The old way of worship; e.g. the synagogue, sacrifices, circumcision, the priest, feast days, and the day of worship (things physical) would come to a close and the new way of worship (things spiritual) would be set forth under the new covenant by means of the Holy Spirit.

Tom said: Jesus changed the Sabbath doctrine when he was here on earth. This is why the Sabbath debates are recorded in all four Gospels. It is hard to miss all this debate and instruction about the Sabbath.

Jesus teachings in the Gospels are New Covenant in nature and doctrine. His words and actions were meant to prepare the way for the development of the New Covenant church. The change in the Sabbath was part of this transformation from Judaism, which is the Old Covenant, to the New Covenant, which is the Church.

All church doctrine is based on Judaism and is in fact Semitic. Whether it is baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or the Sabbath. All genuine church doctrine is Jewish. Such a point helps explain the Sabbath.

The synagogue system, which never had animal sacrifices, became the model for the weekly church service, even as Passover became the model for the Eucharist and baptism replaced circumcision. The 7th day OC Sabbath is the model for the Reformed Gospel Sabbath. Complete with congregational worship services every 7th day.

Matt said: Thus the physical day of worship was not what was pleasing to God anymore; it was the intention of our worship.

Tom said: WRONG! The NT does not support your view. In fact, it is Jesus who claims to know what is pleasing to God and what is not. Those that follow him will embrace his views about God and even the Sabbath.

John 8:29 “And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.”

John 8:30 As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him.

John 8:31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;

John 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

Jesus taught that the Sabbath, his reformed version of it, matters a great deal to God. Which is why we see Jesus claiming that he has the authority to re-interpret the Sabbath as instructed by God. Thus his claim to be the Lord of the 7th Day Gospel Sabbath is not an idle boast.

Those that call Jesus Lord must also view the Sabbath in the same manner as Jesus. He does not teach a Sunday Sabbath, or an “abolished” Sabbath doctrine. Much less an Everyday Sabbath, or a legalistic, non-working Sabbath of the Pharisees and now the SDA’s.

Jesus clearly teaches a different type of Sabbath from the 1st century Jews. His REFORMED Gospel Sabbath is recorded in all four Gospels to see. But they almost seem as if they were hidden. Those that deny these passages, and pretend that there is no 7th day Gospel Sabbath for the church, have misread the Bible, denied Christ, and repudiated his testimony about God and man.

The following words of Jesus were made in the context of Sabbath debate. Those that refused to embrace his working, Gospel Sabbath, preferring to cling to the non-working, OC Sabbath of Moses, were not speaking for God. They will not be saved.

John 10:1 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.

John 10:2 “But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.

John 10:3 “To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.

John 10:4 “When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.

John 10:5 “A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.”

There is only one Gospel and one Gospel Sabbath. At the end of time, those that are serious about the Gospel will not allow themselves to be fooled into embracing a fraudulent Sabbath, (or no Sabbath) and a false Christ.

Matt said: Let’s face it, either God’s word is the truth, or it’s a lie. If the men that wrote the bible were inspired of the Holy Spirit (2Tim. 3:16, 17) this is God speaking these words not mere men, and if it’s truth, it’s truth! We can believe it for what it says, we can deny it, or try to read something into it that’s not there, the choice is for each and every individual soul to make. We can’t pick and choose what scriptures we want and which ones we don’t to set forth doctrines for the church.

Tom said: I agree 100%. However, God’s OT Word includes a Sabbath for the Jews and his NT Word includes a different type of 7th day Sabbath for the Church. The fact that most all are confused about the Gospel and the Sabbath is beside the point. The NC contains a weekly, 7th day Sabbath for the church. This is Gospel truth.

Matt said: Nowhere in the NT under the new covenant is a man condemned for not keeping the 7th day Sabbath. As a matter of fact we are told any day is good in the eyes of God as has been shown in the above scriptures, so long as we are settled in it, convinced in our own minds, and giving it to the Lord. And these are just a few scriptures that I have presented; there are many others that will also speak for themselves.

Tom said: There can be no OC Sabbath keeping in the church. This is why there is never any “condemnation” for such OC Sabbath breaking in the NT. But what many do not understand is this; There is a NC Sabbath for the church. THIS is what Jesus teaches in the NT. THIS is the REFORMED Sabbath for the church. Not the OC Sabbath of Moses or the Sunday Lord’s day.

Moreover, the rest of the NT supports Jesus reformed Sabbath. Thus the few Sabbath passages in Acts, Romans, Colossians, Hebrews, and Revelation are all reinforcing the REFORMED Sabbath of Jesus. They do not support Sunday or the OC Sabbath of the Jews. (Or this silly idea that there is no Sabbath for the church.)

Those OT Jews that followed God, embraced the teachings of Moses, including the weekly, non-working, 7th day Sabbath. But those in the NT must follow Jesus, and his different view of the Sabbath. The 7th day Sabbath of Jesus is very different from the Sabbath of Moses. Which is why the Jews wanted to kill Christ in the first place. They thought he had lost his mind and gone insane.

The religious leaders hated Jesus new version of the Sabbath that allowed all manner of work, and that made the common people, even women, equal with the priests. They hated the Gospel Sabbath that Jesus promoted, just like they hated his Gospel. Many today will do the same thing when given the chance. (But at this point, few understand the genuine Sabbath enough for such a choice to take place.)

There is a correct Sabbath doctrine for those in the OC and a correct Sabbath doctrine for those in the NT. The understanding of this Gospel fact will help clarify this “new” Gospel doctrine that is coming to light for the wretched and confused Laodicean church.

Matt said: If we say that Jesus kept the Sabbath, so therefore we are to follow His example, we are wrong. What has to be considered is, Jesus was born and lived under the old covenant law of Moses, so He had to be obedient to it in order to live a sinless life, so that He could be counted worthy to be the lamb of sacrifice.

Tom said: Jesus was a transitional figure. He lived at a time when both the Old Covenant and the New were both active. While he perfectly obeyed the OC Sabbath for most of his life, this had to stop when he started his Gospel ministry. At that time, Jesus stopped observing the “schoolmaster” Sabbath of Moses, and switched over to the New Covenant Sabbath that was full of good works and activity. This reformed Sabbath would also reinforce the Priesthood of all Believers, one of the hallmarks of the Gospel Faith.

The REFOMED Sabbath played a large part in the Gospel ministry of Christ. It was a lightening rod for debate, even as it “amazed” and divided all that heard it, enraging the Jewish leaders and driving them to murder Christ.

Make no mistake; the Gospel Sabbath is duty for the church. Those that follow Jesus must also follow his Gospel teaching about the Sabbath, as well as everything else. They cannot claim there is no Sabbath for the church, or that the day for congregational study, prayer, and worship was changed to Sunday. Nor should any teach, as the SDA’s do, that one must follow the Old Covenant, schoolmaster Sabbath of the Jews. These are great errors, from those that do no understand the Gospel correctly.

Matt said: Jesus also kept the feast days, went into the sanctuary that was under the Aaronic priesthood’s authority at the time, adhered to the food laws, made sacrifices, told the healed leper to go and present himself before the priest so that he could be deemed clean and be fellowshipped back into the fold of Israel, and taught His disciple to do the same. The veil wasn’t torn until His death on the cross. These are not requirements for His church to adhere to under the new covenant that He set forth.

Tom said: Jesus lived the New Covenant in an Old Covenant world. The context for the NC is Judaism, even as all Christian doctrine, without exception, is Jewish. Both the Old and the New Covenants are Jewish, and so too is all genuine church doctrine. Thus the challenge is to understand what doctrines were left back in the OT, and which ones are just for the church. Peter and James became confused about this, and Paul had to correct their error. Many have made the same mistake, and few today understand Paul or his Gospel.

Jesus did not declare himself to be the Lord of the Old Covenant feast days, but he did teach that he was the Lord of the reformed, active Sabbath, a doctrine that supported the Priesthood of All Believers. Jesus “New Covenant” teachings about the Sabbath and salvation were meant for the church.

Today, the church misunderstands both the Gospel and the Sabbath. Which is why there must be Gospel and Sabbath Reform in every church, starting with the SDA’s.

Matt said: The letters to the churches were for the most part teaching the early church a new way of worship and emphasizing that the old way of worship had been made obsolete through the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. By the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (the new birth) the Holy Spirit would now be the teacher, comforter, and guide. The NT teaches us in Gal. 3:19-25 that “It was added because of transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made…” (vs. 19) The purpose now for the law is to be”...our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (vs. 24) “But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” (vs. 25)

Tom said: The words of Jesus in the four Gospels are the most authoritative source for Christian doctrine. Here are the very words and teachings from the head of the church and the Savior of the world. This is also the source for the Reformed Sabbath.

Moreover, neither Paul nor any other apostles has the authority or the intention of challenging Jesus Sabbath doctrine, much less abolishing the weekly Sabbath of the Moral law. Thus, the church has always had a weekly Sabbath, and the NT has never said otherwise.

Besides, if the scriptures are so clear, why are they so many different churches? Why so much confusion about the Sabbath? Why did the apostles get into a fight about the law and the Gospel? If it is so clear, why did they disagree?

It is not easy to understand the Gospel or the Reformed Sabbath that was part of it, -as the NT proves. But it must be done. And it can be done. So everyone needs to put aside their particular traditions’ and myths and not confuse the Old Covenant, “schoolmaster” Sabbath with the New Covenant, active Sabbath that Jesus teaches in the Gospels. These are two very different Sabbaths.

The fact that this is not how the Sabbath has ever been presented, by any church today, is beside the point. This is what NT is clearly teaching. One would have to be blind not to see that there is a big debate in the NT over the Sabbath. Those that claim to follow Jesus should not only understand the debate, but also embrace Jesus interpretation of the Sabbath.

Continued

tom_norris · 06-15-10 7:06 pm

Matt said: So the scriptures make themselves more than clear that the church is by no means still under the old letter of the law, and 7th day Sabbath keeping was a very vital part of that law.

Tom said: I am not advocating OC Sabbath keeping. The SDA Sabbath is as wrong as was the Sabbath of the Pharisees in the Gospels. I am advocating the NC Sabbath, which is a Gospel Sabbath. And to prove that it is not the OC Sabbath, one is free to do all manner of work and not be guilty. Why? Because it is not the OC Sabbath!

The church is to be under the NC Sabbath and under the Gospel teachings of Jesus.

When Jesus started his Gospel ministry, he made it clear that he was changing the rules about the Sabbath. This is why the Jews became so enraged with him. His insistence that it was fine to work on the Sabbath, and that everyone that followed him would be EXEMPT from the guilt of Sabbath breaking was seen as blasphemy. And so too was his testimony that God had shown him this new version of the working Sabbath and approved it.

John 5:15 The man went away, and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well.

John 5:16 For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath.

John 5:17 But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”

John 5:18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

John 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

Jesus teaches a 7th day, working Sabbath for the church. He claims that this doctrine comes from God. It is a very different Sabbath from Moses and the Old Covenant, even though it is on the same day and is a memorial for the same creation event.

Jesus claims that this new Sabbath comes from God and that he too works on the Sabbath. So how can it be abolished or changed to Sunday?

While most all have a picture of God as very demanding and particular about his laws, always looking to catch bad behavior, the Gospel Sabbath underscores the opposite point. Those that embrace the Gospel are viewed as priests of God, accounted righteous, and considered by heaven free from sin and guilt 24/ 7.

Jesus Gospel Sabbath, which represents the opposite of the law based Sabbath, allows for all manner of activity on the Sabbath, without guilt. Such a doctrine re-enforces the Gospel, (not the OC Sabbath of Moses). Thus no Sabbath breaking is possible for those of faith, they are free to use the day as they see fit; not how organized religion demands.

Jesus Gospel Sabbath is the opposite of what the Jews taught. They said “No work” on the Sabbath, unless one was a Levite. But Jesus said; “let all become like the Levites and let all be exempt from the rules. Let all do many good works on the New Covenant Sabbath.” The Reformed Sabbath is no longer a burden. It is a day to rejoice in our salvation and do whatever works are necessary for the good of those around us. No man, or denomination, except Jesus and the apostles, has any authority over the Sabbath behavior of any believer.

Matt said: God saw it as good to remove the burden of the law from those of the faith, just as He saw it good to place the sins of the world upon His Son, and if we try to place that burden back upon those of the faith then we have gone completely against the standard of righteousness that God has set forth in the new covenant through His Son Christ Jesus.

Tom said: Moses had his Old Covenant Sabbath; But Christ is the author and teacher of the New Covenant Sabbath- in all four Gospels. It is a “light” Sabbath; an “Easy Sabbath,” not to be confused with the heavy yoke of the OC Sabbath, which came with the death penalty for Sabbath breaking.

Note how the “Light” and “Easy” NC Sabbath is introduced in Matthew.

Also understand that (Jesus teaches) this NC Sabbath is hidden from the arrogant religious leaders, even as Jesus underscores the authority upon which this doctrine rests. What a powerful testimony for the Reformed, 7th day Sabbath!

Matt. 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

Matt. 11:26 “Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.

Matt. 11:27 “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Matt. 11:28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.

Matt. 11:29 “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.

Matt. 11:30 “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

Matt. 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat.

Matt. 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.”

The SDA’s claim that we need the OC Sabbath to rest one day of the week. But they fail to understand that in the NC, Jesus gives rest, 24/ 7. Not the Sabbath. Jesus is our everyday rest, thus the NC Sabbath does not need to give rest. Which means it can be active and works oriented. The opposite of the OC Sabbath.

The Gospel Sabbath allows the Christian the freedom to be active and do many good works on the Sabbath. The OC Sabbath rules have been ABOLISHED. Let all do much good work on the Sabbath.

Those that embrace the Gospel are not under the law of the Old Covenant Sabbath, but they are under the teaching of Christ. Those that follow him must also embrace his active, 7th day Gospel Sabbath, and repudiate Sunday or the non-working, OC, Sabbath of the SDA’s.

While the OC Sabbath is a burden, being full of rules and restrictions against work, the Gospel Sabbath is no such thing. Which is why it is almost impossible to break the NC Sabbath. Jesus advocated an active and counter-intuitive Sabbath and so too did Paul. This is the genuine Sabbath of the last church.

Matt said: God hasn’t changed in any way. He hasn’t changed the old letter of the OC law. He has fulfilled it through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

Tom said: The change from the OC to the NC was dramatic and painful for the Jews. The Jews rejected the Gospel because they refused to believe that God could ever change. They figured things would be the same forever. But they were wrong. God was going to make some dramatic changes that would make the OC look very outdated, even as a new paradigm, the church, would replace OC Judaism as the path to salvation.

So God must like “change” because the NC represented great change, even as these changes were vast improvements to the OC.

However God is consistent, which is why no one should be surprised that the Sabbath survived in the NT. But it survives as a very different doctrine from the OC Sabbath. The Gospel Sabbath is based on the teaching and authority of Jesus, not directly on the Law of Moses. Christians follow the teachings of Jesus, not the law. All Christians are under the teaching of Christ.

Matt said: Jesus is the reality of the shadow that the old covenant reflected. We are foolish as believers to live in the shadow when the light has been made available. So let us live our lives in the light and be blessed with the blessings (spiritual and physical) that the Father has in store for “those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.” (Rom. 8:28), and let us quit being stumbling blocks for those of the household of the faith.

Tom said: Jesus teaches a New Covenant, 7th day Sabbath for the church. He does not teach a Sunday Lord’s Day, nor the Old Covenant, non-working Sabbath of the Pharisees or the SDA’s. Neither does he teach that there is no Sabbath because he fulfilled it. All three of these views are false and very wrong.

When the Gospel is correctly understood, the New Covenant Sabbath will emerge for all to see. This process is starting to take place. A distorted Gospel will result in a false doctrine of the Sabbath.

Matt said: My mother belongs to the SDA religion and some of my siblings believe the SDA doctrine to be the true doctrine for the church, although my siblings, for the most part, don’t live according to their faith. But they are all for the most part “Blind as a bat”, please pardon the expression, when it comes to the truth of God’s word! They have been brainwashed for so long by the SDA’s over the teachings of the Sabbath, Ellen White, and the three angel’s message, etc… that these teachings have become to a degree in their mind the deciding factor for salvation. It seems as though Jesus Christ, our Lord and savior, has taken a back seat to these teachings.

Tom said: The Advent Movement made some important corrections to Protestant eschatology. The SDA’s represent the high water mark of this prophetic history. Following their Millerite roots, they pushed modern eschatology forward, embracing the Sabbath and connecting it to the last day events and the preaching of the Gospel. They also became leaders in Health Reform.

The SDA’s have a remarkable and compelling story that has been embraced by millions over the years. I understand why people can believe so strongly in their story, giving a blind eye to the many problems that have emerged. However, there are some serious problems that must be addressed and corrected before the SDA’s can claim to have “truth.” What they have been calling truth has turned out to be something else even as the present course is not sustainable.

Those that truly support the Three Angels Messages, the 7th day Sabbath, and Ellen White, will stop ignoring the issues and call for Gospel Reform in the SDA church. They will call for Reform in the White Estate and for the church leaders to get serious about modern eschatology and the Gospel.

All religion goes bad. This is a pattern of history that the SDA’s have not avoided. But “brainwashing” and propaganda can only go so far in the 21st century. There is too much (negative) information in the public domain for Traditional Adventism to survive in the modern world. (Adventism only grows in Third World countries). The closer one looks, the worse things appear. So at some point, there will be a collapse and subsequent reform.

What was once a sincere, progressive, Protestant based religion has now degenerated in to a farce that resembles a hybrid of the RCC and the Mormons. The SDA’s are almost beyond hope of reform. They are out of touch and out of control. No thinking people will buy into their confused and self-serving story anymore, which is why their growth is only in third world countries.

As for the Sabbath, which is always a major point for SDA's, I am not saying that they have the wrong day, they don't; but they do have the wrong doctrine. They have embraced the Sabbath of the Pharisees and the Judaizers, not the Gospel Sabbath that Jesus taught in the NT. They have placed themselves under the Law of Moses instead of under the Gospel of Christ.

The Seventh Day Sabbath, as reformed by Jesus, IS BINDING on the church. In fact, the Seventh-day Sabbath is just as binding on the church as are the rest of the nine commandments. Not for salvation of course, because no sinner is saved by keeping the law. But the Moral law is still the standard of conduct for all of mankind, including the church, and thus the 4th Commandment, as REFORMED BY JESUS, and set forth in the Gospels, is binding on the church.

The problem with the SDA's is that they have made the Old Covenant Sabbath binding instead of the Gospel Sabbath, which is very different. They do not understand the law or the Gospel correctly, or the interrelationship between the Two Covenants. They must repent and so too all others.

Matt said: I hear Ellen White and Sabbath keeping preached more than Jesus Christ, and this is very sad. Ellen White is not infallible, she is not my savior, she did not die for my sins, and she does not have the final word.

Tom said: It is true that the Takoma Park SDA’s preached Ellen White more than the Bible. The White Estate turned her into an Old Testament Prophet, as well as a New Covenant apostle, an all-knowing saint who had doctrinal authority about all things. But this is not how she was viewed in Battle Creek, nor is this how the real Ellen White viewed herself.

Ellen White never had any doctrinal authority nor did she allow any of her writings to be quoted from the pulpit or placed in the Sabbath School lessons. But this all changed after she died, when a new generation of SDA’s had moved to Takoma Park. The 20th century SDA’s embellished and misused Ellen White’s writings for their own purposes, and succeeded in ruining her reputation and dividing the church, which is now about to collapse.

The SDA’s are guilty of great sin when it comes to Ellen White, so all need to beware of this situation and be very skeptical of what is said about her.

Thanks to the dishonesty and incompetence of the SDA leaders, Arthur White was encouraged to hide thousands of Ellen White documents, and to misrepresent her views to the church. Consequently, what all SDA’s have been taught about Ellen White, and her views, and church history, is contaminated with much fraud, myth, and misdirection.

Most of what all SDA’s think they know about Ellen White and SDA theology is not really true. So everyone needs to be very careful what he or she thinks about Ellen White, because her true views have been hidden by the White Estate.

Today, the SDA’s are embarrassed and divided about Ellen White. The educated no longer pay any attention to her writings, thinking she was a fraud and plagiarist. Others, more Traditional minded, still try to defend what they think she teaches, not realizing that they have never known her real views, which were being kept hidden from the church. So the SDA’s have destroyed themselves with all these dishonest games. How pitiful and unnecessary.

The point here is that the real Ellen White has yet to be made public, so don’t make any final determination about Ellen White or even Adventism, until all the facts are understood. There is a big surprise awaiting the SDA’s. They have been following an avatar, a clone with Arthur White’s mind, inserted into Ellen White’s body. Thus the White Estate has been promoting a massive fraud about Ellen White that is being exposed for all to see.

Matt said: I don’t judge the SDA religion for Sabbath keeping, and adhering to the OT food laws, if that is their choice for their way of worship the word of God is totally content with that,

Tom said: No person or denomination has any right to teach false doctrine in the name of Jesus or the apostles. It is absurd and outrageous to think otherwise. God is never “content” with false doctrine and you have no right to say otherwise.

The NT teaches that any who promote a “distorted” and false Gospel are to be publicly condemned. The NT is clear about this in Galatians and in other passages.

So the SDA’s MUST be condemned for following the Old Covenant food laws that the NT teaches has been abolished. They are also very wrong to practice tithe and pretend their pastors are like the Levites, and to preach the OC “schoolmaster” Sabbath of the Jews. And on and on goes the list of their errors and sins… Those that choose false doctrine, and refuse correction, will be banished from the Kingdom of God. Period.

God is NOT “content” with such error and it is outrageous to even think such a thing. God hates liars and those that teach a false Gospel in his name. The SDA’s must confess and repent what they have done or they are doomed.

Matt said: I judge them for telling others that it is a sin if they, are not a member of the SDA religion, don’t keep the 7th day Sabbath, or abide by the OT food laws…e.g. vegetarianism, and all their other absurd unscriptural doctrines. These are false teachings and goes completely against the word of God. The scriptures tell us that those who live their faith according to things such as these, Sabbath keeping and dietary food laws, etc. are “those who are weak in the faith.” (Rom. 14: 2)

Tom said: All denominations should be judged on how they view the Gospel and respect the Word. At this point they have all failed, including the SDA’s. They all have a false Gospel and a false Sabbath. This is why they all need to repent and reform. This is what the Pre-Advent Judgment of the Laodicean Church is saying.

Matt said: And Tom, as for the term used, the “Laodicean church”, well that’s another subject in itself, but I will give a quick statement of my beliefs on the letters to the 7 churches at Asia in Rev. 2 and 3.

Tom said: The Laodicean Message is the Pre-Advent Judgment for the last church. This last church is the worst church, they have almost nothing correct. Which is why the language is so harsh and all encompassing.

Matt said: I know that the church in the day and time that we live in, for the most part fits the description of the letter to Laodicea, but what also has to be considered is; what is the NT church? It is the body of believers, those who are of the household of the faith. The church is made up of each and every individual believer. The characteristics of each one of those 7 letters to the churches can be applied to each and every individual believer, and their spiritual walk with the Lord.

Tom said: The church is defined as those individuals that claim to follow Jesus and his Gospel. This means that the members of every denomination, even those like the Mormons, who teach a false and absurd Gospel Story, are called to repent and reform.

Moreover, the church in every age has been judged by Heaven, so it is not only the last church. There are 7 pre-advent Judgments of the church in Revelation 2 & 3, which cover every time period and all individuals.

Matt said: We may at times in our spiritual walk fit the description of the church at Philadelphia while at other times our walk with the Lord may fit the description of the church of Laodicea, or the church at Pergamos, or any one of the other 7 churches.

Tom said: This is true. But so too is the fact that Revelation is about eschatology and things that will take place in the future. The Laodicean church is the last church. Those living at the end of time need to pay special attention and wake up.

Matt said: You know yourself we all as believers have our spiritual highs and our spiritual lows and these spiritual conditions are a reflection of the characteristics of the 7 letters that were written to the churches in Asia. I will agree with you to a degree that these scriptures may also be somewhat applied to the church in a historical way, but that’s only a part of the message that’s being sent to us through those letters.

Tom said: There are many passages in the NT that deal with our spiritual walk and such pastoral issues. However, Revelation is about prophecy. Heaven has seen fit to divide the church into 7 eras, and to thus specially communicate with the church, through these messages, until the end of the world.

All in the church should pay attention to all 7 pre-advent Judgments of the church, paying special attention to Laodicea, the last church.

Matt said: I will say that it’s wrong to classify any believer that you have no knowledge of their spiritual walk with the Lord into any one of these 7 churches descriptive categories.

Tom said: How can it be wrong to proclaim what the NT is clearly teaching? I did not write the book of Revelation. So if you think John got it wrong, then have a debate with him.

The great sin of Laodicea is that they think they have truth, when they do not. They think their doctrines are correct, when they are dead wrong. There is no defense for the “wretched” and impossible theology that is being taught by all churches today. For example, not one of them has a correct view of the Sabbath. Not one! This is because not one of them has a correct Gospel. Which is exactly what the LM is saying! They are blind to not understand the Gospel Sabbath.

The LM is not only the PAJ of the church; it is also prophecy that is being fulfilled. It is a direct warning to each individual in the church to examine his or her Gospel doctrines and to repent for getting it so wrong.

Rev. 3:17 ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,

Rev. 3:18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.

Rev. 3:19 ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

Heaven is clear that the last church is delusional, arrogant, and very wrong about the Gospel and the Sabbath; Christ has rejected even their works. Those that are serious about Eternal Life will not try and refute the point, but investigate to see what is truth and what is not.

So be careful how much you protest. Those that think they have no doctrinal errors are in the greatest danger. Those that refuse to study and understand the Gospel Sabbath as reformed by Christ are risking eternal life. Beware.

Matt said: I know that this is a very lengthy follow-up Tom, but I felt in my heart that this was something that was much needed and hopefully someone that reads this post will be relieved of their confusions over Sabbath keeping, and benefit spiritually from it.

Tom said: You have asked some excellent questions, even though your position that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Sabbath cannot be supported. And neither can your view that there is no Sabbath doctrine for the church. Such views are outside the teaching of the church, and this is where they must remain.

However, once you admit that there is a Sabbath for the church, then you will be able to move forward and understand this paradigm shifting point about the reformed, NC, Sabbath that is featured in all four Gospels. But you can’t understand this truth if you think there is no Sabbath for the church.

In fact, the Sunday keepers are correct to the extent that they understood that the OC Sabbath of the Jews could not be the NC Sabbath for the church. On this point they were correct.

So rather than embrace the 7th day, reformed Sabbath in the Gospels, the anti-Semitic Gentiles switched the OC Sabbath day to Sunday, calling it “the Lord’s Day,” complete with the rules and regulations against work. Not only is the day wrong, so too are the OC rules and regulations that have always accompanied the Sunday Sabbath. (This is why Blue laws were invented).

Today the Laodicean Church, meaning all denominations, has forgotten the Gospel. They fail to understand church history as well as the teachings of Christ. Thus every wind of doctrine ravages the church, making it a spiritual wasteland. None have a correct Gospel or the genuine Sabbath of the New Covenant. Not even the SDA’s.

It is time to fully understand the Gospel, including the NC Sabbath as taught by Jesus. This is what the SDA’s were supposed to be doing with their “Sabbath Reform.” But they too misunderstood the Gospel and the Sabbath. They too need to repent for their false Sabbath doctrine, and many other errors.

There is a 7th day, New Covenant Sabbath for the church. Those that study the Word and embrace the Gospel will understand this point, refusing to accept any false substitutes.

I hope you will continue to study the issues so that you will better understand the Gospel, and the Reformed, 7th day, Gospel Sabbath.

Mark 4:23 “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Tom Norris for All Experts.com

tom_norris · 06-27-10 11:33 am

Winty said: I need to understand just by reading some of your answers; you stated that SDA needs to update their teachings on the Sabbath. My question is how can you verify the Sabbath day in your own words against Bible and what we read and learned from the bible.

Tom said: You must be confused about this discussion. The 7th day, Gospel Sabbath is a NT doctrine that is clearly taught by Jesus in all four Gospels. This is what I advocate. The SDA’s have embraced the Old Covenant Sabbath, which is a great error, for which they must repent.

Winty said: For example the 10 commandments states in the 4th command a single version of the Sabbath day. This is not from a book of Pharisees or their writings, this is from the Bible in which Jesus on every Sabbaths stands in front of the people and reads it to them in scrolls, and if you go through some of the bible versions you will read that nothing states or says anything about another Sabbath day besides the 7th day.

Tom said: The Gospel Sabbath is based on the New Covenant teachings of Jesus. Jesus exempts his followers from the guilt of working on the 7th day Sabbath, even as he teaches and explains a very different Sabbath from what all the Jews were practicing.

Adventist Reform promotes the same Sabbath, as did Jesus in all four Gospels. This is a different Sabbath from what the SDA’s promote.

Winty said: In the Bible it mentions Sunday but just as the first day of the week.

Tom said: The SDA’s are correct to teach that the Sunday Sabbath is a fraud. I agree.

Winty said: If you believe that the answers we are looking for comes only from the bible alone, then how can you confirm and verify that the SDA's are not correct in their teachings also.

Tom said: Adventist Reform embraces the Protestant Hermeneutic. All church doctrine must come from the NT, including the Sabbath. The modern SDA’s are not honest with the scriptures, nor do they correctly understand how to read the Bible.

Consequently, they have a long list of doctrinal errors that feature Old Covenant Sabbath keeping and tithing, as well as a false Gospel and mythical judgment. These are great errors that will not be tolerated by heaven, which is why the Laodicean Messages demands zealous repentance from the SDA’s as well as all others.

I suggest that you continue to carefully study the issues and the Word. Those that find the Gospel will also discover the Gospel Sabbath, while those that misunderstand the Gospel will naturally embrace a false Sabbath.

While the SDA’s have indeed embraced the correct day for the Sabbath, so too did the Jews. But they both failed to understand the Reformed Sabbath as taught by Christ in all four Gospels. This is the problem. Few are paying any attention to the teachings of Christ, and this is very wrong, even fatal.

Winty said: The book of Daniel and Revelation states everything that we need to know about the end of the world...it is not only because you will see the true Christians and who belong to Gods family but also one of the worst teachings there is when Sunday Law will be enforced and the mark of the beast will prevail. So please Sir, I need to know since you are the expert, if the things said and taught in the Bible correct or not?

Tom said: Daniel and Revelation do not stand alone. There are other books of the Bible that also deal with eschatology. For example, Jesus, the head of the church and it premier theologian teaches much about eschatology in all four Gospels, and it is his views that must be taken into account before one even tries to read Dan or Rev.

Moreover, the rest of the NT also contains some important eschatological teachings. Thus Jesus, Peter, John, James, and Paul have some important things to say about the end of the world, in addition to what is said in Dan or Revelation.

I suggest that you keep studying the Gospel Sabbath, trying to understand the difference between the Old Covenant Sabbath of the SDA’s and the New Covenant Sabbath that Jesus teaches.

Tom Norris for All Experts.com and Adventist Reform

tom_norris · 07-18-10 10:29 am

Here are some more questions about the Reformed Sabbath. It is apparent that the SDA’s are having a difficult time comprehending this discussion. Let’s see what happens?

Hanna said: Being a Christian means loving and believing in Christ and His morals, and wanting to be like Him.

Tom Norris said: A Christian must first and foremost embrace the Gospel teachings of Jesus and the apostles. This is a more accurate description of a Christian.

Moreover, the primary goal for any sinner embracing the Gospel, is to obtain Eternal Life. This is guaranteed only through the doctrine of Justification by Faith. Our Sanctification is not the basis for Eternal Life, nor does our “morality” or “love” give us any credit towards salvation.

Furthermore, this idea that we should “want to be like Christ” is a dangerous and legalistic view that must be repudiated. Paul says that we are to follow his “example,” meaning Paul’s example, behavior, and instruction.

Phil. 3:17 Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us.

Paul is the “model man” for the Christian. But yet many think they are to try and follow Jesus’ perfect behavior in order to obtain salvation, which is very wrong.

1Th. 1:7 so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.

2Th. 3:7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example,

2Th. 3:9 not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example.

While Christ is our Lord and Savior, Paul is the “modeI" man for all Christians to follow. I point this out because some SDA’s think that we can be “just like Jesus,” and that he is our “model man” and to act like him in all things is the object of the Christian Faith.

But such views are impossible, blasphemous, and untrue. We can never be like Jesus, nor does the NT teach that this is the goal or the object of the Gospel. Jesus was not born like us, nor is his nature just like ours, and those SDA’s that make such reckless and wrong assumptions are making great fools of themselves, even as they are forfeiting Eternal Life.

The object of the Gospel is to grant sinners Eternal Life. This takes place only because of the doctrine of Justification by Faith. Our Sanctification is not salvific. Which is why it is so blasphemous for the SDA’s to teach otherwise.

The SDA’s call their Gospel a “balanced Gospel,” one that is supported by a Celestial Judgment way out in deep space called the Investigative Judgment. But they could not be more wrong. This kind of legalistic thinking is against the Protestant Gospel, making our sanctification salvific, misunderstanding the Gospel and the Judgment as well.

This false Gospel and false Judgment was made official in 1980 at Glacier View, and the SDA church has been self-destructing ever since. Unless they repent of Glacier View, and the many errors of Traditional Adventism associated with this cultic confusion, they are doomed. They will continue to self-destruct in front of our eyes for all to see.

The Adventists have not only chosen the wrong Gospel and a wrong Judgment, they also forced this great error on all their members in 1980, even as they exiled their greatest Gospel scholar, Dr. Ford, who was trying to help them understand correct theology and honest church history.

Such reckless action and Gospel persecution by the SDA’s comes with a price, and this is why the SDA’s are self-destructing in confusion, corruption, and false doctrine. They are doomed unless they stop pretending they have no errors and repent.

This popular assumption that “being a Christian means…wanting to be like him” is very wrong theology. This is the not what the NT teaches, and many that speak this way are guilty of teaching character perfection, as well as the doctrine of the IJ, the Old Covenant Sabbath keeping, tithe, and food laws, etc.

This is all very wrong and the SDA’s should be ashamed for allowing the Denomination to become so confused and wrong about the Gospel and church history. There is no excuse for so much double-talk, division, and false doctrine from the SDA’s. Which is why there must be serious Adventist Reform.

Hanna said: Being a Seventh-day Adventist is another step to take.

Tom Norris said: There is only one genuine and correct Gospel, and the SDA’s do not have it!

The SDA’s have their own strange and very Roman Catholic version of the Gospel, even as all others have their own peculiar, incorrect brand. So being an SDA is not a closer step towards Heaven, but one that forces all further away from the genuine Gospel that alone can save sinners.

Thus all SDA’s must REPENT of their false Gospel that was officially embraced in both 1888 and 1980. Unless and until the Denomination repents, and reforms their many false doctrines, the Adventists will continue their free-fall into confusion, corruption, and irrelevance. They are doomed, not blessed, as the Laodicean Message makes very clear.

Let all understand: the SDA Gospel is very wrong, (and so too all the others). In fact, they may have the worst Gospel of any the Protestant church. Only the RC Church, (which is the opposite of Protestant), has a worse one, and the SDA’s essentially follow Rome’s version of the Gospel, but in Protestant dress.

So the arrogant SDA’s are not as correct as they think. In fact, they are full of error about almost every point, which must be corrected- or they are doomed. They are even wrong about the Sabbath! Who knew?

Hanna said: The Seventh-Day Adventist name says that our religion is strongly related to the Seventh-Day (and therefore to the Fourth Commandment).

Tom Norris said: One of the main features of SDA doctrine is their claim that:

A.) The popular Sunday Sabbath, aka the Lord’s Day, is a fraud, and

B). Only the 7th day is the correct Sabbath for the church

The SDA’s are correct on both counts. Period!

However, misunderstanding the Gospel, they have embraced the WRONG 7th day Sabbath. That is, they have followed the OC, 7th day Sabbath of the Pharisees. Not the NC Sabbath as taught by Christ. These are two very different and opposing doctrines, even though they are both on the 7th day.

So the SDA’s have turned out to be partially correct about the Sabbath. It cannot be on Sunday, and it can only be on Saturday. But they have made a great error to think that the NEW Covenant Sabbath is like the OC Sabbath, where work is considered sinful and wrong.

The NC Sabbath is an active and very different Sabbath from what the SDA’s have taught. Too bad that so few SDA’s even know about it! This discussion about the Reformed Sabbath has stunned the SDA’s even as their leaders have been unwilling and unable to respond.

In fact, the SDA leaders have tried to shut down this discussion about Adventist Reform a number of times so that this community will not hear how wrong the church is about the Sabbath and so many other things.

But even a church like the SDA’s, where their leaders censor all discussion and keep their members in the dark, full of propaganda, will not be able to hide from this true Sabbath doctrine that condemns the SDA ‘s. The more they try to pretend they have no errors, the greater their sins appear to all.

There is a new Gospel Sabbath emerging for the Laodicean Church to see. THIS is the Sabbath that will anchor the 4th Angels Message and condemn the entire Laodicean Church for their false Gospel.

I suggest that all SDA’s pay close attention, even as they understand that their leaders are not being honest about doctrine or church history.

Hanna said: Well, we do not reject the Fourth Commandment, so we accept it - we keep the Sabbath.

Tom Norris said: The SDA’s are trying to keep the Sabbath of the10 C’s, which is based on the Old Covenant rules of Moses. This is a great mistake that proves they have misunderstood the Gospel, and that they are NOT paying attention to the New Covenant teachings of Jesus, the Lord of the Gospel Sabbath.

When the SDA’s understand the genuine Protestant Gospel, then they will be able to embrace the correct Gospel Sabbath. At this point they have the WRONG Gospel and the WRONG 7th day Sabbath!

Hanna asked: All of the above are facts, are they not?

Tom Norris said: A number of your assumptions and views are not true, as explained above. I suggest that you go the Adventists of Tomorrow Forum where you can read more about the Reformed Sabbath and other important issues.

http://www.atomorrow.net/forum/viewforum.php?id=11

http://www.atomorrow.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=228

http://www.atomorrow.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=227

Hanna said: My question is, can you really call yourself Seventh-day Adventist, if you don't willingly keep the Sabbath?

Tom Norris said: Today, the SDA’s are so divided, angry, and confused that it is difficult to determine how to define an SDA.

While you are trying to make the issues clear and simple, you have overlooked the fact this is much more complex than assumed. Let me help you with a proper definition.

First, to be an SDA, one must embrace the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Angels Messages. This is the real definition of an SDA.

"I saw a company who stood well guarded and firm, giving no countenance to those who would unsettle the established faith of the body. God looked upon them with approbation. I was shown three steps-- the first, second, and third angels' messages. Said my accompanying angel, 'Woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin of these messages. The true understanding of these messages is of vital importance.'"

(Early Writings of Ellen G. White, 1858, also known as: Spiritual Gifts / and The Great Controversy. page 158, Chapter Title: A Firm Platform.)

Not only do many SDA’s not understand this historic definition, they don’t correctly understand what each of these messages means, much less the Gospel or the Judgment, which doctrines are foundational to the 1st Angels Message.

The Three A's represent eschatological truth for the modern world. These messages are to remain intact, without dishonest revision until the end of the world. It is time for all who are Protestant and Adventist to take another look at this remarkable eschatological paradigm and to pay close attention to the truths that they contain.

Listen again to Ellen White on this point;

"While you hold the banner of truth firmly, proclaiming the law of God, let every soul remember that the faith of Jesus is connected with the commandments of God. The third angel is represented as flying through the midst of heaven, crying with a loud voice, 'Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.'"

"The first, second, and third angels messages are all linked together. The evidences of the abiding, ever-living truth of these grand messages, that mean so much to us, that have awakened such intense opposition from the religious world, cannot be extinguished.

Satan is constantly seeking to cast his hellish shadow about these messages, so that the remnant people of God shall not clearly discern their import, their time, and place; but they live, and are to exert their power upon our religious experience while time shall last."

Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, page 926, paragraph 3.

Today, the SDA’s no longer comprehend the fundamentals of the Three Angels Messages, or what the Pioneers meant by these terms.

In fact, the church officially teaches that the IJ is the Judgment pillar in the 1st Angels Message and thus it can never be questioned or removed.

But this is not true, nor has this interpretation ever been supported by Ellen White or the Pioneers, as the 20th century leaders have dishonestly claimed. It is pure myth and great error. The only Judgment pillar in the Three Angels Messages is the 2nd Coming, in the 1st Angels Message. The modern SDA’s have made a horrible and fatal mistake.

http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/message … #POST42602

http://www.atomorrow.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=227

Ellen White is clear about how important it is for an SDA to embrace the correct view of the 1st and 2nd Angels Messages- before they can become an SDA. Too bad that the modern SDA’s have repudiated this critical position, which means that are not genuine Adventists according to Ellen White.

All SDA’s today have a false and wrong view of the Gospel and the Judgment, which are the two great doctrinal pillars found in the 1st Angels Messages. Get these two doctrines wrong, and one is not really an SDA. This is what has happened to all SDA’s.

"In like manner those who have had no experience in the first and second angels' messages must receive them from others who had an experience and followed down through the messages."

"As Jesus was rejected, so I saw that these messages have been rejected. And as the disciples declared that there is salvation in no other name under heaven, given among men, so also should the servants of God faithfully and fearlessly warn those who embrace but a part of the truths connected with the third message, that they must gladly receive all the messages as God has given them, or have no part in the matter."

(Early Writings of Ellen G. White, page 188, 189, Chapter Title: Spiritual Gifts. AKA Great Controversy, 1st edition 1858.)

In other words, any that claim the IJ is the Judgment pillar in the 1st Angels Message, are not only wrong, but also they must repent or “have no part in” SDA theology. They are not true SDA’s.

Ellen White makes herself clear, both as to how the Pioneers defined the Judgment in the 1st message, and that such an interpretation was not to be changed. But the Takoma Park apologists, led by Arthur White, have ignored and repudiated Ellen White and the historic fundamentals that define SDA theology.

The modern SDA leaders have made great and unauthorized changes to the Fundamentals, which explains why the church is so confused and dying.

Woe is the SDA Denomination for what they have done. They are reaping what they have sown.

The SDA’s are very confused about their history and doctrinal development, and because they don’t understand the Gospel, their doctrine of the Sabbath is also very wrong and worthless.

They have the right day, the 7th day, but the wrong doctrine. They have embraced the non-working, OC Sabbath of the Pharisees. NOT the active, Reformed, Gospel Sabbath of Christ, as taught in all four Gospels.

SDA’s are Frauds

Those SDA’s that reject the original and true definition of the Judgment in the 1st Angels Message are misled and are not really SDA’s according to Ellen White. They are just pretending. Thus most SDA’s are not really SDA at all, and neither are the leaders. In fact, any that embrace the IJ today, have disenfranchised themselves from not only the Gospel, but from being true SDA’s.

Ellen White would condemn them. She would not consider them SDA’s.

Today, any that embrace the IJ are repudiating the Gospel, Historic Adventism, and Ellen White. They are rejecting the foundational doctrines that define the Advent Movement. They are turning their backs on the Gospel, as well as the correct and historic interpretation of the Judgment in the 1st Angels Message, disqualifying themselves as Adventist.

Do you understand?

Hanna asked: why do so many people have issues with the Sabbath?

Tom Norris said: The issues are far more complex and problematic than you have assumed. The SDA’s promote the Sabbath because they think one must obey the Law for salvation. But this is the WRONG Sabbath and the WRONG Gospel.

While the SDA’s have focused on the OLD COVENANT Sabbath as their featured doctrine, they should have understood that there is a NEW COVENANT Sabbath for the church. Until they wake up to this theological fact, they will continue to make fools of themselves for all to see.

TWO SABBATHS

First off, there is not just one 7th day, weekly Sabbath. There are TWO Sabbaths fighting each other in the Gospels. Few, if any, SDA’s know this fact. But as soon as it is pointed out, the Gospel Sabbath will quickly come into view. Why? Because this doctrine has been in the NT from the beginning. Once pointed out, it is very obvious and easy for all to see.

Moreover, while Sunday is not a valid Sabbath doctrine for the church, only one of these two, 7th day Sabbaths is correct. And the SDA’s have embraced the wrong one!

They must repent and make things right, just like all the Sunday keeping churches that have also embraced a false Gospel and a fraudulent Sabbath.

No one should dare think that the SDA’s promote honest, true, or correct doctrine. They do not. They have a wildly distorted Gospel and a very false view of the Sabbath, as well as a very wrong doctrine of the Judgment and many, many other things.

They do not understand the Three Angels Messages correctly, much less their own history of what their Pioneers, like Ellen White, teach. This is why there must be major REFORM in the corrupt and cultic SDA church.

How can any honest person say otherwise?

I hope this helps?

Tom Norris for All Experts. Com and Adventist Reform

bob · 07-19-10 4:54 pm

Tom, why would you quote Ellen White and then refute what she said how the Sabbath should be observed? If you can't trust her on how to observe Sabbath why would you trust her and quote her on any other subject? I see a definite double standard. And if you tell us she changed her mind then I would have to go to some of the statements concerning where she got her inspiration for all she wrote. Ellen was like double sided tape, two faced.

tom_norris · 07-21-10 11:59 am

Bob asked: Tom, why would you quote Ellen White and then refute what she said how the Sabbath should be observed?

Tom answered: Bob, I quoted Ellen White to show how the SDA’s viewed the Judgment pillar in the 1st Angels Message. Her views were the same as all of them, and thus she is a good source.

All the SDA Pioneers were very clear that this original interpretation of the Judgment in Rev 14: 7, which they correctly said was the Second Coming, could never be changed.

But yet the Takoma Park apologists did exactly what Ellen White, (and the others), said should never happen! They taught everyone that the Judgment “pillar” in the 1st Angels Message is the IJ! But they were very wrong. This interpretation was never true. Nor has the passage of time changed the facts.

Do you understand?

Dr. Ford knew better.

So he told the truth; the IJ was not a “pillar” from Historic Adventism at all. Ellen White agrees. The TSDA’s are incompetent liars and fools. Ellen White condemns them.

More than that, Dr. Ford came to realize that the IJ was pure error that was against the Gospel, which is the first pillar in the 1st Angels Message.

So Dr. Ford was correct about the Gospel and the doctrine of the Judgment in the NT! He was also correct to defend the genuine, correct, and timeless Fundamentals from Historic Adventism.

He is still correct today.

The SDA leaders were very wrong at Glacier View. Like their Battle Creek ancestors, they too misunderstood what was fundamental and true and what was not.

Now, this great fraud, both 1888 and Glacier View, must become exposed to all 21st century SDA’s, even as their leaders are forced to come to their senses and repent.

The SDA’s must return to the original interpretations about the Fundamentals, even as they repudiate the many errors and myths of Traditional Adventism. This is the only way for them to go forward.

Traditional Takoma Park Adventism- is a FRAUD!

Not only is it correct to say there is no IJ pillar in the Three Angels Messages, it is also correct to say that Traditional Adventism is a fraud. It has no endorsement from Ellen White as the leaders claim. In fact, Ellen White condemns this impossible theology and manipulated church history, which is the opposite of Historic Adventism.

Today, there can be no doubt that Glacier View was based on great error and deception from the White Estate, for which they must repent or face the consequences of their long running fraud.

This point is very important because so many have been taught incorrectly that Ellen White supports this view that the IJ is the Judgment pillar in Rev 14: 7. Most SDA’s still think this myth is true, when it is a total fabrication. It is a complete lie.

Ellen White NEVER endorsed this view, and neither did U Smith, or any 19th century SDA. So how did such a MYTH ever become an official teaching of the church?

ANSWER: Glacier View, and the GC, which followed. Here is where the modern SDA’s lost their way and went into darkness and self-destruction.

All SDA’s have been greatly DECEIVED by their incompetent and foolish leaders. But the truth is emerging for all to see. Do you see it?

The Sabbath:

The 7th day Sabbath is the great pillar of the 3rd Angels Message. While the Millerites where all Sunday keepers, the SDA Pioneers soon repudiated Sunday and switched over to the 7th day. A decade later, they had to revise their Sabbath doctrine once again, even as Ellen White’s view was proven wrong.

So there is a clear progression of doctrinal development about the Sabbath. They arrived at their views in stages.

Ellen White WRONG about the Sabbath

Ellen White did not discover the Sabbath, and when she learned it from Bates, she still got it wrong, and others had to correct her error.

So this idea that Ellen White is the source of the Sabbath doctrine, or that she was an expert about the Sabbath, is more myth from the White Estate. Ellen White is not the source for the Sabbath, nor should anyone look to her for such advice or example.

Those that think Ellen White understood the Sabbath correctly, without any error, have to re adjust their thinking. The facts prove otherwise, and everyone in Battle Creek knew it.

When Ellen White switched to the 7th day, she made the error of starting and stopping the Sabbath at 6 pm. They followed this error for about 10 years until J. N. Andrews exposed it, and then they switched to sundown.

So Ellen White was not an expert on the Sabbath, which is why others had to correct her.

More Sabbath Error

As the SDA’s promoted the Sabbath to the public, during the 1870’s they eventually embraced the OC Sabbath, as well as tithing. Their Gospel could no longer be called Protestant. They became great legalists and Judaizers without knowing it.

At this point, they have the correct day, the 7th, but they still have the WRONG doctrine. But at least they were well positioned to make another Sabbath correction. All they needed was another JN Andrews to step forward and push the SDA’s further into truth.

Someone did step forward. This young man’s name was E. J. Waggoner. But this time James White was not around to make sure there was a fair investigation. So none took place. Rather than moving forward to find more truth, the SDA’s became confused and divided.

The 1888 debates were a great opportunity for the SDA’s to keep correcting their doctrine of the Sabbath. However, because Gospel Reform was rejected by the leaders, so too was any further Sabbath development and correction.

When the SDA’s retreated to Takoma Park, they promoted their OC Sabbath from sundown to sundown, even as tithing became a great doctrine that was promoted every Sabbath. They were blind to the fact that they were repeating the same errors of their Judaizing ancestors.

Thus the 20th century SDA’s were all indoctrinated into the OC Sabbath and the myth of the IJ, as a pillar. They were never told anything about the New Covenant Sabbath that we are discussing, much less what happened in Battle Creek. The SDA’s are blind to the Gospel and to the Gospel Sabbath, and they will remain so until they can be honest and repent.

Had the 20th century leaders not hid the 1888 debate, the SDA’s would have been able to figure all this out at Glacier View. Then the church could have moved forward to the 4th Angels Message, which would feature, not the IJ, tithe, and the OC Sabbath, but the Gospel, the Second Coming, and the Gospel Sabbath.

Today, the SDA’s have the WRONG Gospel and a false Sabbath. They are so dishonest and confused that the truth seems impossible, while great error is viewed as truth. Ellen White does not support any of this confusion or false doctrine. And it is very wrong to think she is the problem.

Bob said: If you can't trust her on how to observe Sabbath why would you trust her and quote her on any other subject? I see a definite double standard.

Tom said: Ellen White is a great source and witness. I use her often. But not a one who has doctrinal authority.

The doctrine of the Sabbath was not fully understood by the SDA’s when they first adopted it. It is not even fully understood today. In fact, Ellen White is the one that keeps pushing the leaders forward to better understand truth.

Furthermore, no one should ever look to Ellen White in order to understand how to define or “observe the Sabbath.”

In fact, the opposite took place in Battle Creek. Ellen White learned about the Sabbath from Bates, and thus she followed his 6 pm start and stop time. They all did.

However, someone stood up and said this was wrong. Thus, the youthful and forceful J. N. Andrews squared off against Ellen White and Bates to prove them wrong.

He did just that, as Ellen White agreed with the evidence from the Bible, and the SDA’s adjusted their Sabbath doctrine for all to see. Thus all SDA’s once again REVISED their doctrine of the Sabbath, in the 1850’s.

So any in Battle Creek that “trusted” Ellen White about the Sabbath, had to back track, repent, and reform. They all learned the lesson that only the Bible can be “trusted” for doctrine. Ellen White had ZERO doctrinal authority in real life.

To the credit of the early SDA’s, when a debate broke out about doctrine, it was NOT settled by the views, visions, or practice, of Ellen White. They were Protestant, and they all knew that only the Bible could be the basis for any doctrine.

They did not double-talk or try to pretend that there was no error, like the SDA’s do today. No. They admitted there might be a doctrinal problem, even as the leaders allowed the critics, in this case a young SDA scholar, to freely make his case.

The SDA’s did not “trust” Ellen White about the Sabbath, nor should anyone trust Ellen to be fully correct about any doctrine. She was never an apostle, nor did she make any such claims. Neither did her peers think she had ANY doctrinal authority. These myths came in later, thanks to the dishonest White Estate.

Unlike what many assume, the Battle Creek SDA’s admitted that both Ellen White could be wrong about the Sabbath, and this is what in fact happened. Andrews corrected the errors of Ellen White (and Bates), and reformed the Sabbath doctrine for the SDA’s.

Had the White Estate been around in the 1850’s, they would have shut down the Sabbath debate and exiled Andrews for taking views that Ellen White did not support or practice. They would have treated the passionate, young SDA scholar with the same slander and contempt that they used against Dr. Ford for telling the truth about the IJ at Glacier View.

Unlike the modern SDA’s, the early SDA’s were honest and sincere. So rather then set up a phony debate like Glacier View, where the evidence was contaminated and the outcome pre-determined, the early Pioneers promoted an honest trial about the Sabbath.

They seriously studied the issue FROM THE BIBLE, and held public discussion for all to see. Ellen White’s views were proven wrong. Andrews was correct. The Sabbath debate was settled because J N Andrews proved the “traditional” and “original” SDA interpretation in error.

Consequently, a REVISED Sabbath doctrine emerged from the process, even as they all learned that Ellen White had zero doctrinal authority.

Ellen White happily submitted to this new and improved understanding about the Sabbath, even as James White made the point that Ellen White is never, never, never to be used as the basis for any doctrine.

James White was actually glad that she had been on the wrong side of the issue. Why? So that everyone would fully understand that Ellen White has no doctrinal authority. NONE!

No SDA doctrine was to ever based on Ellen White, and this early debate over the Sabbath forever proves this point. Too bad the White Estate hid this critical history from the church so that they could give her, and themselves, doctrinal authority. Which they immediately abused and used to promote dishonest church history and false doctrine.

Who was ever told that young J N Andrews trumped Ellen White in a doctrinal debate over the Sabbath, proving that she had no doctrinal authority? Did anyone ever hear of such a thing? It is a fact, and so too that the White Estate is an incompetent and criminal enterprise.

What the SDA’s say about Andrews is that he was a great Sabbath scholar. Which is why their University is named after him. But who knew that Andrews was really famous for proving that Ellen White had no doctrinal authority?

The White Estate knew this fact, but they had another agenda. They wanted to make the real Ellen White into a prophet like Joseph Smith of the Mormons. And this is what they have done. THEY have given her doctrinal authority, even as they set up a phony “test” that supposedly proves she is a true prophet. But they have no right, authority, or permission, from Ellen White or anyone, to promote fiction and myth, pretending it is true.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … e-true.htm

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … rophet.htm

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Seventh-Day- … ipture.htm

In fact, the modern leaders teach the opposite from what Ellen White really believed, even as they dishonestly claim that they are correctly representing her views.

The White Estate is not an honest archive, but an evil propaganda machine for the false paradigm called Traditional Adventism. They have so badly misinterpreted her; it can only be called fraudulent and criminal.

All the critics of Ellen White need to take a time out and understand the real facts. What the think they know about Ellen White and SDA history is manipulated and contaminated by the White Estate and others. Do not judge Ellen White by the false information from the White Estate. While it may look official, it is very misleading and untrue.

Bob said: And if you tell us she changed her mind then I would have to go to some of the statements concerning where she got her inspiration for all she wrote. Ellen was like double sided tape, two faced.

Tom said: Like I said, the doctrine of the Sabbath was understood in stages. Ellen White made a number of errors about the Sabbath, even as she had to repent and reform like Bates. After this revision, she never said that the SDA’s had all the truth possible on the Sabbath.

On the contrary, she said there was much more truth for SDA’s to understand, even as there were many errors for them to remove.

Ellen White correctly understood the Three Angels Messages, even as she understood the Gospel after 1888. Consequently she would have agreed with Dr. Ford at Glacier View.

Moreover, she would also endorse the 7th day Gospel Sabbath that Dr. Ford is credited for unleashing within the Adventist Community.

I hope this helps.

Tom Norris for Adventist Reform

bob · 07-22-10 9:05 am

Tom, didn't she have visions about Sabbath, tithing and the IJ? If she did, and I am pretty sure that she did, shouldn't we question as to where those visions really came from? I understand that you use her for a source for the three Angels message, so what makes you so sure she was correct?

bob · 07-22-10 9:55 am

August 27, 1861 Perilous Times.

Those among Sabbath-keepers who have been unwilling to make any sacrifice, but have yielded to the influence of the world, are to be tested and proved. The perils of these last days are upon us, and a trial is before the young which they have not anticipated. They are to be brought into most distressing perplexity. The genuineness of their faith will be proved. They profess to be looking for the coming of the Son of man, yet some of them have been a miserable example to unbelievers. They have not been willing to give up the world, but have united with them, have attended picnics, and other gatherings of pleasure, flattering themselves that they were engaged in innocent amusement. Yet I was shown that it was just such indulgences that separate them from God and make them children of the world. God owns not the pleasure or amusement seeker as his follower. He has given us no such example. Those only who are self-denying, and who live a life of sobriety, humility and holiness, are true followers of Jesus; and such cannot engage in and enjoy the frivolous, empty conversation of the lovers of the world. {RH, August 27, 1861 par. 1}

I was shown that the precious promises of Isaiah 58:12-14 apply to those who labor for the restoration of the true Sabbath. {CET 87.1}

Isa 58: 13 "If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
and from doing as you please on my holy day,
if you call the Sabbath a delight
and the LORD's holy day honorable,
and if you honor it by not going your own way
and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,

14 then you will find your joy in the LORD,
and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land
and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob."
The mouth of the LORD has spoken.

It was on my first journey east to relate my visions that the precious light in regard to the heavenly sanctuary was opened before me and I was shown the open and shut door. We believed that the Lord was soon to come in

-229-

the clouds of heaven. I was shown that there was a great work to be done in the world for those who had not had the light and rejected it. Our brethren could not understand this with our faith in the immediate appearing of Christ. Some accused me of saying, "My Lord delayeth His coming," especially the fanatical ones. I saw that in '44 God had opened a door and no man could shut it, and shut a door and no man could open it. Those who rejected the light which was brought to the world by the message of the second angel went into darkness and how great was that darkness. {8MR 228.5}

tom_norris · 07-26-10 12:40 pm

Hanna said: Being a Christian means loving and believing in Christ and His morals, and wanting to be like Him.

Being a Seventh-Day Adventist is another step to take.

The Seventh-Day Adventist name says that our religion is strongly related to the Seventh-Day (and therefore to the Fourth Commandment). Related in what way? Well, we do not reject the Fourth Commandment, so we accept it - we keep the Sabbath.

All of the above are facts, are they not?

My question is this Tom, can you really call yourself Seventh-Day Adventist, if you don't willingly keep the Sabbath? Stupid question, huh? Then why do so many people have issues with it?
----------------------------------------------------

Tom said: Hanna, let’s break down your statement.

Hanna said: Being a Christian means loving and believing in Christ and His morals, and wanting to be like Him.

Tom Norris said: A Christian must first and foremost embrace the Gospel teachings of Jesus and the apostles. This is a more accurate description of a Christian.

Moreover, the primary goal for any sinner embracing the Gospel, is to obtain Eternal Life. This is obtained and guaranteed only through the doctrine of Justification by Faith. Our Sanctification is not the basis for Eternal Life, nor does our “morality” or “love” give us any credit towards salvation.

Furthermore, this idea that we should “want to be like Christ” is a dangerous and legalistic view. Paul says that we are to follow his example, meaning Paul’s example, and instruction. But yet many think they are to try and follow Jesus perfect behavior in order to obtain salvation, which is wrong.

Phil. 3:17 Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us.

1Th. 1:7 so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.

2Th. 3:7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example,

2Th. 3:9 not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example.

While Christ is our Savior, Paul is the “modeI" man for all Christians to follow. I point this out because some SDA’s think that we can be “just like Jesus,” and that he is our “model man” and that to act like him in all things is the object of the Christian Faith. But such views are impossible, blasphemous, and untrue. We can never be like Jesus, nor does the NT teach that this is the goal or the object of the Gospel.

Although this kind of legalistic thinking is against the Protestant Gospel, many SDA’s have embraced it, making our sanctification salvific and misunderstanding the genuine Gospel. This is why the Adventist teach about a Celestial Judgment way out in deep space, to see if we are good enough to be saved.

This false Gospel was made official in 1980 at Glacier View, and the SDA church has been self-destructing ever since.

The Adventists have not only chosen the wrong Gospel and a wrong Judgment, they forced this great error on all their members in 1980, even as they exiled their greatest Gospel scholar, Dr. Ford, who was trying to help them. Such reckless action and Gospel persecution has a price, and this is why the SDA’s are self-destructing in confusion, corruption, and false doctrine. They are doomed unless they repent.

This popular assumption that “being a Christian means…wanting to be like him” is very wrong theology. This is the not what the NT teaches, and many that speak this way are guilty of teaching character perfection as well the very wrong doctrine of the IJ, as well as the Old Covenant Sabbath and food laws, etc.

This is all very wrong and the SDA’s should be ashamed for allowing the Denomination to become so confused and wrong about Gospel theology and church history.

Hanna said: Being a Seventh-day Adventist is another step to take.

Tom Norris said: There is only one genuine and correct Gospel, and the SDA’s do not have it!

The SDA’s do have their own strange and very Roman Catholic version of the Gospel, even as all others have their own peculiar, incorrect brand. So being an SDA is not a closer step towards Heaven, but one that forces all away from the genuine Gospel that alone can save sinners.

Thus ALL SDA’s must REPENT of their false Gospel that was officially embraced in both 1888 and 1980. Unless and until the Denomination repents, and reforms their many false doctrines, the Adventists will continue their free-fall into confusion, corruption, and irrelevance. They are doomed, not blessed, as the Laodicean Message makes very clear.

Let all understand: the SDA Gospel is very wrong, (and so too all the others). In fact, they may have the worst Gospel of any the Protestant church. Only the RC Church has a worse one, as the SDA’s essentially follow Rome’s version of the Gospel, but in Protestant dress.

So the arrogant SDA’s are not as correct as they think. In fact, they are full of error about almost every point that must be corrected- or they are doomed. They are even wrong about the Sabbath! Who knew?

Hanna said: The Seventh-Day Adventist name says that our religion is strongly related to the Seventh-Day (and therefore to the Fourth Commandment).

Tom Norris said: One of the main features of SDA doctrine is their claim that:

A.) The popular Sunday Sabbath, aka the Lord’s Day, is a fraud, and

B). Only the 7th day is the correct Sabbath for the church

The SDA’s are correct on both counts.

However, misunderstanding the Gospel, they have embraced the WRONG 7th day Sabbath. That is, they have followed the OC Sabbath of the Pharisees. Not the NC Sabbath as taught by Christ. These are two very different and opposing doctrines, even though they are both on the 7th day.

So the SDA’s have turned out to be partially correct about the Sabbath. It cannot be on Sunday, and it can only be on Saturday.

But they have made a great error to think that the NEW Covenant Sabbath is like the OC Sabbath, where work is considered sinful and wrong. The NC Sabbath is an active and very different Sabbath from what the SDA’s and the Old Covenant Jews have taught. Too bad that so few SDA’s even know it!

Hanna said: Well, we do not reject the Fourth Commandment, so we accept it - we keep the Sabbath.

Tom Norris said: The SDA’s are trying to keep the Sabbath of the Jews, which was based on the Old Covenant rules of Moses. This is a great mistake that proves they have misunderstood the Gospel, and that they are NOT paying attention to the teachings of Jesus, the Lord of the New Covenant Sabbath.

When the SDA’s understand the genuine Protestant Gospel, then they will be able to embrace the correct Gospel Sabbath. At this point they have the WRONG Gospel and the WRONG 7th day Sabbath! A perfect match!

Hanna asked: All of the above are facts, are they not?

Tom Norris said: A number of your assumptions and views are not true, as explained above. I suggest that you go the Adventists of Tomorrow Forum where you can read more about the Reformed Sabbath and other important issues.

http://www.atomorrow.net/forum/viewforum.php?id=11

http://www.atomorrow.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=228

Hanna said: My question is, can you really call yourself Seventh-day Adventist, if you don't willingly keep the Sabbath?

Tom Norris said: Today, the SDA’s are so divided and confused that it is difficult to determine how to define an SDA.

While you are trying to make the issues clear and simple, you have overlooked the fact that this is more complex than many have assumed. Let me help you with a proper definition.