Conversation with a
Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:54:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rolaant McKenzie
Subject: Re: Paul & Sabbathkeeping
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, SDA wrote:
> > Rom 3:20 indicates that the purpose of the law is to give knowledge of or
> > about sin, not save us from sin. In Rom 3:31, the role of the law in
> > making men conscious of sin is established by everyone who acknowledges
> > sin and comes to Christ in faith.
> The SDA church teaches salvation by grace through faith. I've never
> known an SDA who said the law could save him from sin. Maybe you knew
> some when you were an SDA. I agree with you that the law makes one
> conscious of sin.
Actually, the "gospel" the SDA church teaches adds belief in the IJ,
obligatory Sabbathkeeping, and belief in EGW. It is a different gospel
that is condemned by Paul in Gal 1:6-9.
> > But I have already shown from Scripture that on the Sabbath issue, Paul
> > said that Christians should not judge other Christians on this issue, and
> > they should let every believer be convinced in their own mind. So what
> > you say actually counters what Paul taught.
> > > > Romans 14:4-5 (NASB)
> > > > "Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he
> > > > stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
> > > > One person regards one day above another, another regards every day
> > > > alike. EACH PERSON MUST BE FULLY CONVINCED IN HIS OWN MIND."
> Rolaant, you will be convinced in your MIND when God writes His law
> there (Heb. 10:16)
So because I am not convinced that your interpretation of Scripture is
correct concerning mandatory Sabbath observance, that means Gods has not
written His law on my heart? Who made you the judge of my spirituality?
And Heb 10:16 does not imply in any way that Sabbathkeeping is required of
those who are in Christ. The fact remains that SDAs cannot defend
obligatory Sabbathkeeping in the light of Rom 14:4-5, Col 2:16-17, Gal
4:1-11; 21-31, and 2 Cor 3.
> > I don't judge SDAs for keeping the Sabbath at all, because the liberty
> > afforded by the gospel allows Christians to be "fully convinced" in their
> > own minds regarding what day(s) they want to observe or not observe.
> > Personally, I consider every day alike. I do not consider either
> > Saturday or Sunday a holy day that Christians must observe. I do
> > criticize Saturday Sabbatarians and Sunday Sabbatarians who insist that
> > other Christians observe the day they have chosen or else run the risk of
> > losing their salvation. And that is what your site and the SDA
> > Church teaches. That those who refuse to accept Sabbath observance will
> > receive the mark of the beast. Something, I might add, Scripture does not
> > teach.
> Now that is interesting, Rolaant. First you say that the law makes us
> consious of sin. Now you say that you consider every day alike. Well,
> you know that the law says the Seventh day is holy, and yet you treat it
> as a common day. The law has made you conscious of your sin and yet it
> does not seem to bother you because you seem to think that God's grace
> has alleviated you from obeying Him. Tell me I'm wrong about this!
Why does it not bother you that you disregard Biblical teaching by judging
me on the day(s) I choose to worship?
According to Gal 3, I am not under the law, therefore I am not required to
observe the Sabbath.
God blessed and made holy many things. Some examples include the altar
(Exodus 29:37), the sin offerings the Israelites made (Exodus 30:10), and
the priestly garments of Aaron and his sons (Exodus 39:41). Should it
then be said that since these were declared holy by God they should have
some special place in our worship of God today? The fact that God made
something holy does not necessarily mean that it is holy for all time.
The law also teaches that those under it must be circumcized, keep the
new moon days, all the feast and festivals, and a host of other things
SDAs do not do. When SDAs promote obligatory Sabbathkeeping while
disregarding the other days of observance of the law, they are being
inconsistent in their legalism.
Gal 3:23-25 says that we are no longer under the law when we come to
Christ. Even EGW says that the law being discussed in Gal 3 was
the ten commandments, as I showed you in my last post. Why do SDAs disregard
Biblical teaching in this area?
> > And your interpretation is not consistent with what the Bible teaches.
> > It is impossible to create distinction based upon Moral vs. Ceremonial
> > laws. Sabbatarians create the false impression that there is nothing
> > moral in the "book of the law" and nothing ceremonial in the 10
> > commandments!
> Maybe you missed our study on the Commandments:
I have seen it already and do not believe it to be consistent with
Biblical teaching. Why do you avoid commenting on what I presented to you?
Why not visit my site that deals with this very issue of law?
May the Lord bless your study.
|Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8|