Seventh Day Adventists in the Bible

[Starhunter]

I have heard about rumblings and splits in the SDA church, which seem to be replicated in nearly every religion that I know of, people are finding it hard to sleep, while there is a contest going on between those who want to sleep and those who are awake but don't know what to do because they are not used to it. Maybe God is sifting the chaff from the wheat, maybe there is a shaking going on in the world?

Yes, Paul makes it clear that the law is death to the sinner, especially after they know about it. He says that after he was aware of the spiritual demands of the law, he was slain by it. But Christ opened up a new life for him, a life of faith and consequential victory over sin.

The law of God demands perfection, and fortunately Christ has it, and when we have company with Him, a change begins in our lives. This change is mostly not perceived by the receiver.
Remember the night Peter denied the Lord in the most crucial moment, the people could tell by his speech that he had been influenced by Christ, and Peter made a poor attempt at hiding it by cursing. It must have sounded weird...
Christ changes lives.

We don't remove guilt by removing the law, all we are doing is making it easier for us to deny the truth. But God does not have to do away with the law, while Christ is alive, because Christ saves people from their sins - from the condemnation of the law.
The trouble is that we would like to be in control of that cleansing by, measuring our goodness or our progress, even by our feelings. So we feel we are making progress as Christians, but that is not faith, that is presumption, blindness and self deception.

So by removing the law and having certain niceties to look up to, we are in control of our own righteousness.
That is not the experience of Paul, who was slain by the law, and saw no hope within himself to make a good life, but then and only then was he ready to receive the righteous works of Christ within him.

If we remove the law, we are legalists, - people who depend on their idea of progress judged by their idea of what is good and bad. But if we acknowledge the veracity of the law as Paul did, we desperately need Christ.
But the gospel really only works for the totally lost, those who have nothing to bring to Christ but broken promises, and legalism, and or denial mechanisms.
If we have replaced the law with generally good feelings of progress and self assessment, then we don't need a Savior.

What is more, if righteousness could be attained in any way, then Christ is nothing but another good man. But if the righteousness of the law is impossible for fallen man to do, then nothing short of the Son of God can make him whole.

I doubt whether the majority of SDA's are legalists, because they acknowledge the law of God, which would make it impossible to be a legalist. A legalist has to make their own set of rules which they can keep or think they can keep, like the Pharasees did. So legalism has nothing to do with the law of God, but with the laws and traditions of men, and the assumptions of what men think the law says.

The Pharasees did not recognize that the law of God, us spiritual, as Jesus pointed out, it has to do with inner motives and thoughts, not just the outward appearances.

Paul used to be a Pharasee, and could appear to keep the letter of the law, but Christ revealed the spiritual expectations of the law, which cut him up.

[Mallz]

Hmm, I was talking about the SDA church itself. The birth of the SDA church split the existent fragmented church even further. It was wrong to do and goes against what we are taught in the NT, for one example: 1 Corinthians 1:10-17

Maybe God is sifting the chaff from the wheat, maybe there is a shaking going on in the world?

This is why there is not physically one church of Christ. The only physical representation of His church would be from believers of many denominations and walks. But they aren't grouped together.
But this is predicted to happen as seen in Romans 14:1-23 And every denomination is born from sin. And the original church was infiltrated and changed or ignored scripture becoming sinful.

Remember the night Peter denied the Lord in the most crucial moment, the people could tell by his speech that he had been influenced by Christ, and Peter made a poor attempt at hiding it by cursing. It must have sounded weird...
Christ changes lives.

They could tell he was with Christ because he was seen with Jesus, not because of his speech...

I'm confused over some of the things you are saying.

So by removing the law and having certain niceties to look up to, we are in control of our own righteousness.

How are we in control of our own righteousness? The law shows we can't be righteous on our own merit.

If we remove the law, we are legalists, - people who depend on their idea of progress judged by their idea of what is good and bad. But if we acknowledge the veracity of the law as Paul did, we desperately need Christ.
But the gospel really only works for the totally lost, those who have nothing to bring to Christ but broken promises, and legalism, and or denial mechanisms.
If we have replaced the law with generally good feelings of progress and self assessment, then we don't need a Savior.

I'm confused as to what you're saying here too. You can't be a legalist if you have no law. Legalists take the law and make it their salvation, badge of righteousness as the pharisees and Sadducees did.
Yes, the law shows we need Christ. But before He ever came that was evident but largely ignored. Just because you hold most of the law, doesn't make you self-righteous, an impossible feat the law reveals.

I doubt whether the majority of SDA's are legalists,

I agree, but I don't care to judge individuals. I don't know enough to do so. But we sure can judge institutions. And the SDA is a religion born from legalism. Its doctrines trap people back to the law instead of releasing them into the freedom of Christ.

A legalist has to make their own set of rules which they can keep or think they can keep, like the Pharasees did. So legalism has nothing to do with the law of God, but with the laws and traditions of men, and the assumptions of what men think the law says.

I think you have the term legalist confused with something else? legalism is about the laws of God (or any set of laws really, but in this context, the laws of God). One definition for example: strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, especially to the letter rather than the spirit. the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works. the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.
This is what the Pharisees were guilty of, among others and why they were called dead men walking by Jesus. The had the law but no love meaning they missed the point.

[RickD]

I have heard about rumblings and splits in the SDA church, which seem to be replicated in nearly every religion that I know of, people are finding it hard to sleep, while there is a contest going on between those who want to sleep and those who are awake but don't know what to do because they are not used to it. Maybe God is sifting the chaff from the wheat, maybe there is a shaking going on in the world?

Yes, Paul makes it clear that the law is death to the sinner, especially after they know about it. He says that after he was aware of the spiritual demands of the law, he was slain by it. But Christ opened up a new life for him, a life of faith and consequential victory over sin.

The law of God demands perfection, and fortunately Christ has it, and when we have company with Him, a change begins in our lives. This change is mostly not perceived by the receiver.
Remember the night Peter denied the Lord in the most crucial moment, the people could tell by his speech that he had been influenced by Christ, and Peter made a poor attempt at hiding it by cursing. It must have sounded weird...
Christ changes lives.

We don't remove guilt by removing the law, all we are doing is making it easier for us to deny the truth. But God does not have to do away with the law, while Christ is alive, because Christ saves people from their sins - from the condemnation of the law.
The trouble is that we would like to be in control of that cleansing by, measuring our goodness or our progress, even by our feelings. So we feel we are making progress as Christians, but that is not faith, that is presumption, blindness and self deception.

So by removing the law and having certain niceties to look up to, we are in control of our own righteousness.
That is not the experience of Paul, who was slain by the law, and saw no hope within himself to make a good life, but then and only then was he ready to receive the righteous works of Christ within him.

If we remove the law, we are legalists, - people who depend on their idea of progress judged by their idea of what is good and bad. But if we acknowledge the veracity of the law as Paul did, we desperately need Christ.
But the gospel really only works for the totally lost, those who have nothing to bring to Christ but broken promises, and legalism, and or denial mechanisms.
If we have replaced the law with generally good feelings of progress and self assessment, then we don't need a Savior.

What is more, if righteousness could be attained in any way, then Christ is nothing but another good man. But if the righteousness of the law is impossible for fallen man to do, then nothing short of the Son of God can make him whole.

I doubt whether the majority of SDA's are legalists, because they acknowledge the law of God, which would make it impossible to be a legalist. A legalist has to make their own set of rules which they can keep or think they can keep, like the Pharasees did. So legalism has nothing to do with the law of God, but with the laws and traditions of men, and the assumptions of what men think the law says.

The Pharasees did not recognize that the law of God, us spiritual, as Jesus pointed out, it has to do with inner motives and thoughts, not just the outward appearances.

Paul used to be a Pharasee, and could appear to keep the letter of the law, but Christ revealed the spiritual expectations of the law, which cut him up.

Starhunter,
I think your definition of legalism is a little "off". Especially with what I underlined. Acknowledging the Law of God (however you define that), does not keep one from being a legalist. And, legalism most certainly does have something to do with the law of God.

Maybe these will help:
https://carm.org/what-is-legalism

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-Chris ... alism.html

[Starhunter]

I deliberately put the term legalism out of its common use, because it is misused.

The Pharisees are used as the examples of legalism, when in fact they did not understand or keep the law.
Because the law demands that there is no other god before the Creator. That means to love the Lord.

They only understood how to oppress people with a thousand traditions, while they were full of self sufficiency.
According to the Biblical view, the law is holy and spiritual. If not, then Psalms 119 should be banned. You can understand why people have had to demolish the old testament altogether, and get rid of the law, because it's everywhere.

But then they find it again in the new testament, and so they say that "here are a new set of commandments which Jesus" proposed, "which do away with the old ten from Mt Sinai, and every other Jewish tradition."

A proper legalist of the ten commandments would worship the Lord with all their heart.

However, if legalism is a negative thing, then it should not refer to the keeping of the ten commandments at all, but to holding onto the traditions and treatises of men, and not God.

Honestly, once you remove God's law, the traditions of men and your own perceptions of what is right and wrong, is all you have left.

So today, every man is walking after their own idea of what is good, and so why should we not accept the promised cosmic Christ as the world leader in faith - bringing all religions, Christian, Jew, pagan and other, all under one umbrella?


But we find that the law of God defines the standards of His government, and the cross stands as proof that they cannot be abolished, or made of none effect. If they could have been changed, Jesus need not have suffered.

The last church in the Bible keeps the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

I am not saying that you are disagreeing, because you believe that only Christ can bring righteousness and a new life for the sinner. And I fully agree with your view of legalism so far as it is hopeless for man to save himself by trying to keep them.

But you and I believe that the law can only be kept through the power of the indwelling Christ, enabling us to live an obedient life. A life of faith. And we hold onto the promises of God to write them into our hearts and lives, not as the dead letter, but as living principles of love. We hate stealing, we hate killing, we love the Lord and we love truth.

The way you have defined legalism - in a negative sense, and we know that anything which tries to get salvation other than through plain faith is sin.
It is in God's hands to honor the law in His own people, it will happen as promised in Hebrews 8.

[EssentialSacrifice]

But the context - the surrounding texts, show what law this is talking about. Hebrews 7:11
It says that the law was given under the Levitical priesthood. The ten commandments were given before there was a priesthood and a sanctuary, so the law cannot be referring to the ten commandments.
Hebrews 7:5 says that the law here is talking about tithing. There is no law of tithing in the ten commandments.
Hebrews 7:28. The ten commandments have nothing on appointing a priesthood.
Hebrews 7:16,18 "a carnal commandment" the law which applied to the old priesthood was only as good as the longevity of the priest, but Jesus is under the law of an "endless" priesthood -"after the order of Melchizedek."

So it is not talking about the ten commandments at all.

If you do the same check on all the texts provided, you may find that they don't support Sunday at all...

The quotes I gave you were self sustaining, need no other verses to explain. they are all well documented and succinct. No prest-o-change-o involved. Your quote above is saying nothing, addressing nothing of the verses I gave you...

Hebrews 7:12 is in reference to a change from the priesthood of Judaism to that of Christianity... when change necessitates so then also must he law ... meaning the Sabbath is no longer necessary in Judaic terms (because of the change to Christ, crucifixion and redemption) and the 1st day Sunday is the new...

I urge you to go back and reread my post... read each and every verse and see if you can deduce their individual significance to this topic.

If the argument for Sunday sacredness cannot be found in the Bible

There most certainly is and it seems to have passed you by...

[RickD]

Starhunter,

The Sabbath is still sundown Friday, to sundown Saturday. The Catholic Church didn't change the sabbath to Sunday. Sunday worship for believers, goes back to the New Testament.

There is no Catholic conspiracy to change the Sabbath to a different day. Sunday is called The Lord's Day. It's the day that the early Christian church met to worship God.

As many OT laws, the Sabbath day observance by Israel, was a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ IS our Sabbath rest. And anyone who thinks believers MUST adhere to Sabbath laws, is making a mockery of the cross of Christ.

[Starhunter]

But the context - the surrounding texts, show what law this is talking about. Hebrews 7:11
It says that the law was given under the Levitical priesthood. The ten commandments were given before there was a priesthood and a sanctuary, so the law cannot be referring to the ten commandments.
Hebrews 7:5 says that the law here is talking about tithing. There is no law of tithing in the ten commandments.
Hebrews 7:28. The ten commandments have nothing on appointing a priesthood.
Hebrews 7:16,18 "a carnal commandment" the law which applied to the old priesthood was only as good as the longevity of the priest, but Jesus is under the law of an "endless" priesthood -"after the order of Melchizedek."

So it is not talking about the ten commandments at all.

If you do the same check on all the texts provided, you may find that they don't support Sunday at all...

The quotes I gave you were self sustaining, need no other verses to explain. they are all well documented and succinct. No prest-o-change-o involved. Your quote above is saying nothing, addressing nothing of the verses I gave you...

Hebrews 7:12 is in reference to a change from the priesthood of Judaism to that of Christianity... when change necessitates so then also must he law ... meaning the Sabbath is no longer necessary in Judaic terms (because of the change to Christ, crucifixion and redemption) and the 1st day Sunday is the new...

I urge you to go back and reread my post... read each and every verse and see if you can deduce their individual significance to this topic.

If the argument for Sunday sacredness cannot be found in the Bible

There most certainly is and it seems to have passed you by...

I can't find any texts that say that the first day of the week is to be the new Sabbath.

[Starhunter]

Starhunter,

The Sabbath is still sundown Friday, to sundown Saturday. The Catholic Church didn't change the sabbath to Sunday. Sunday worship for believers, goes back to the New Testament.

There is no Catholic conspiracy to change the Sabbath to a different day. Sunday is called The Lord's Day. It's the day that the early Christian church met to worship God.

As many OT laws, the Sabbath day observance by Israel, was a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ IS our Sabbath rest. And anyone who thinks believers MUST adhere to Sabbath laws, is making a mockery of the cross of Christ.

That may be the case, Rick, but I have not found in the Bible that the law of God has been altered or done away with.
I doubt that keeping the Sabbath harms the gospel, especially if it done out of gratitude for creation etc.

[RickD]

Starhunter,

The Sabbath is still sundown Friday, to sundown Saturday. The Catholic Church didn't change the sabbath to Sunday. Sunday worship for believers, goes back to the New Testament.

There is no Catholic conspiracy to change the Sabbath to a different day. Sunday is called The Lord's Day. It's the day that the early Christian church met to worship God.

As many OT laws, the Sabbath day observance by Israel, was a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ IS our Sabbath rest. And anyone who thinks believers MUST adhere to Sabbath laws, is making a mockery of the cross of Christ.

That may be the case, Rick, but I have not found in the Bible that the law of God has been altered or done away with.
I doubt that keeping the Sabbath harms the gospel, especially if it done out of gratitude for creation etc.

Keeping the Sabbath? Hmmm...
If that's the case, you must keep the Sabbath as God intended. God said it. His words don't change, right?
So go for it! Observe the Sabbath! But do it God's way, not your own way.

HOW TO KEEP THE SABBATH

What Is required in keeping the Sabbath according to Mosaic Law:

1. No work done at all (Ex. 20: 10; Lev. 23: 3; Jer. 17:21-22). No watering the lawn, no working in the yard, no hobbies, no surfing, no fixing flat tires, etc. By law if a person did not stop all types of activity in honor of the Sabbath, he was breaking the law. In Numbers 15:32-36 a man was caught collecting sticks on the Sabbath, and he received a rock concert from the people he knew.

2 No kindling of a fire (Ex. 35:3). No fellowship cookouts or barbecues. You can't go into a restaurant and get a hamburger that's been flame broiled, you can't cook eggs, or pancakes in the morning because you'd be kindling a fire for cooking. To drive a car would be to "kindle a fire" In the combustion chamber of your engine.

3. No traveling (Ex. 16:29). Later the Jews added to this law, allowing only a half mile of travel on the Sabbath which we see observed in the NT. But the pure law says "stay at home." Actually, If you kept this part of the law, you could not travel to your church gathering unless it was less than one-quarter mile away from home. If you had an emergency you could not drive to the hospital.

4. No trading (Amos 8:5). If you happened to need gas to get to church service, you could not "trade" money for gasoline. You would not be allowed to buy a cassette tape of that morning's message or a book at the store. There is to be No exchanging of money for goods. If you worked with stocks and you needed to sell you couldn’t.

5. No marketing (Neh. 10:31; 13:15,19). Make sure you do no shopping whatsoever. You can't buy any ice cream for dessert after dinner or anything else. If you run out of food or drink at home you can’t go out to purchase any, you can’t even by a stick of gum.

6."... a holy assembly with double the daily offering along with the other offerings. In other words, you are to give twice as much on the Sabbath (Num. 28:9).Do we practiced this today In compliance with Old Testament law. Do Sabbatarian's really practice the law? I have yet to see people go to Shabbat and give twice as much each week.

7. New showbread In the holy place (Lev. 24:8). Of course this cannot be done today since there is no temple, so this part of the Sabbath cannot be followed by the church. The fact Is the Sabbath was not made for the gentiles, but for the Jews and their generations Ex. 31:12-17). It's a law given between God and the Jews.

8.The last part of the requirements for keeping the Sabbath day law Is the penalty for breaking It. DEATH

(adapted from B. Stonebrakers trac Sabbath breakers)

God instructed how the Sabbath was to be observed: Do Sabbatarian's abide by all these laws?

THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS FOR SOMEONE TO BE PUT TO DEATH.

Lev 16:2 7.Unauthorized entrance into the holy place of the tabernacle:

Lev.20:1, 2 -- Sacrificing their children to Molech (abortion, killing infants) this was a heathen divinity of the Ammonites.

v.6 If one goes to Mediums and familiar spirits.

v.9 Curses at one's parents.

v.10 Commits adultery.

v.12 'If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death.

v.13 Homosexuality, a man lying another man.

v.14 Marries a woman and her mother.

v.15, 16 Men or women having sex with animals. both man and beast are to be killed.

v.16 'And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD

v.27 If one is a medium, or a witch or one who practices the occult. ( astrology, talking to the dead, predicting the future)

Lev. 24:21 'And whoever kills an animal shall restore it; but whoever kills a man shall be put to death.

Ex. 12:12-13,19 those who do not keep the feast of unleaven bread and the Sabbath Ex.31:14 are cut off for violation of both days. The Death penalty

Exod. 19:12-13 or touching the mount Horeb:

Exod. 21:12 If a man kills another he is to die 15 "And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.16"He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.17"And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.'

v.22 "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, and the baby dies he will give life for life.

Deut. 13:5 One who leads people to other Gods by prophecy or dreams.

Deut.17:12-13 For disobeying ceremonial commands of any Priest.

1 Sam 6:19 For looking into the Ark; For touching the Ark: 2 Sam 6:7 3.Aaron's sons, (Nadab and Abihu) priests were killed for violating ceremonial law when offering incense to Yahweh.

how many days are you to work and rest?

Lev. 23:3 "Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work on it; it is the Sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings."

Deut. 5:12-14 "Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall not do any work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you." If you have any friends over that are not Christian they must observe the rest day also.

Also Remember there is to be no traveling (Ex. 16:29) No trading no buying (Amos 8:5). Not only does it affect your household but in Exod. 16:23 Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD has said: 'Tomorrow is a Sabbath rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD. Bake what you will bake today, and boil what you will boil; and lay up for yourselves all that remains, to be kept until morning.'" Since you are not allowed to trade or buy you can't cook either it must be done the day before.

Now lets look at the penalty for breaking the Sabbath and apply what we now know to rightly observing it.

Num. 15:32-35 "Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp."

Exod 31:14-15 "You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, 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. 'Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." (also Num. 15:32-36).

Exod. 35:2 "Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh day shall be a holy day for you, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death." You cannot separate the punishment from the breaking of the law,

Here's a good question, Do you or your congregation work for 6 days? Or 5? The actual whole command is to work 6 days with only the 7th observed as a rest day. Many Sabbatarian's observe Sunday just like Saturday except for the gathering in Church (which there is no command to do). So if your not doing this your still breaking the Sabbath, even if you take Sunday off.

How many times does one need to break the Sabbath to receive its penalty? Only once. All one has to do is look at the penalty of breaking any of the law to prove its requirements are not enforced today. Nor would they want them to be.

Was there ever a law God gave that reversed ANY of the Sabbath day restrictions? NO! Were the punishments ever negated or are they still enforced. One has to be consistent, they can’t say we are under grace for the penalty and not under grace in the keeping of the day. Either the Sabbath is no longer to be practiced by obligation or one needs to practice it correctly.

Those who worship on Saturday are not actually keeping God's command for the Sabbath, because they break the letter of the law. Especially when they try to lay guilt upon others for not keeping the Sabbath. Many say we are observing it by the Spirit of the law and then reinterpret it the way they want to. Either they practice by the letter which it is written in or they should admit to not upholding it correctly. When someone forces their practice upon others without upholding it themselves it then becomes legalism, and is hypocritical to say the least. Jesus dealt with the Pharisees, of whom he said, "they tie up heavy loads and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.' (Matt. 23:4) Those who seek to lay guilt on others for not keeping the Sabbath are practicing modern-day Pharsaism. They break the Sabbath themselves, but are ignorant of the laws requirements in the word of God. They become something they would certainly want to avoid.

I posted this link for purposes of showing the way the Sabbath should be observed. The way God told Israel to observe it. I don't necessarily agree with everything else on the website.
http://www.letusreason.org/7thAd4.htm

[Starhunter]

The ceremonial laws ended, as did the civil laws of Israel when the earthly sanctuary service, and the nation as a Theocracy ended respectively. You have deliberately mixed these in for effect, but they don't apply here.

The Law of God simply says, not to work on the Sabbath.
Not to do the things which take up your energies during the week, and have a break, relax and enjoy learning and contemplating about the Creator. That's not so hard is it? That's resting in Christ.

The Sabbath is a sign and symbol of connection with Christ, of accepting His law and salvation. You cannot enter that rest without faith.

Why don't you try it?

Pray about it, prepare some food on Friday, so that on Saturday you don't have to cook, give your Mrs a break, take the kids to a natural reserve, away from the city. Chill out.

[RickD]

This link is very good, albeit long. For anyone interested in understanding if Sabbath observance has ever applied to us as believers:
http://www.equip.org/article/should-we- ... e-sabbath/

[Starhunter]

I read the link Rick.

The Bible does not support Sunday worship or the neglect of the Law of God.

Plenty of people are against the Law of God because their institutions are loyal to the Antichrist, but that will not annihilate it, as the world will find out shortly.

You will find plenty of arguments to support the view that the Sabbath is redundant, but not from scripture, unless you are dishonest.

If you don't mind, I don't want to argue about the Sabbath issue anymore, because it is clear we have opposing views without any signs of change.

[Philip]

Sabbath keeping a MANDATE for Christians? Absolutely NOT! Is Sunday a mandate? No! Is keeping a Saturday Sabbath okay? Sure! Does a SPECIFIC day matter? No!

Some key points: http://www.gotquestions.org/Sabbath-keeping.html

[RickD]

I read the link Rick.

The Bible does not support Sunday worship or the neglect of the Law of God.

Plenty of people are against the Law of God because their institutions are loyal to the Antichrist, but that will not annihilate it, as the world will find out shortly.

You will find plenty of arguments to support the view that the Sabbath is redundant, but not from scripture, unless you are dishonest.

If you don't mind, I don't want to argue about the Sabbath issue anymore, because it is clear we have opposing views without any signs of change.

Of course the bible supports Sunday worship! The bible says believers can worship on any day or every day. It's up to the individual, and between him and God.

Romans 14:5-6
5 One person [c]regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, [d]does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

[Starhunter]

Here is a book written by Joseph Bates in the first half of the 19th century.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27266/27 ... 7266-h.htm

Joseph Bates was one of the people that introduced the Sabbath to the new world (post Papal).

It may help to understand why the early Adventists listened to what he put forward. It also covers the major arguments used by former protestants against the Sabbath and ten commandments of God.