7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[Esaias]

Seems Mr Preble is the E. N. Bell of the 19th century Sabbath keeping movement....

[Esaias]

His first argument begins by assuming the Sabbath is the Jewish Sabbath of the seventh day of the week. Interesting since in his introduction he tried to cast doubt on the idea that the seventh day of the week is what was sanctified as the Sabbath.

Anyway, he then argues it was a sign between God and the Jews throughout their generations, and that their generations ended with Christ, according to Matt ch 1.

A very strange argument, indeed.

He then makes a non conclusive argument about types and antitypes, and then his next real argument is that since the repeal of a penalty constitutes a repeal of the law, and since the penalty of death executed by the civil power for transgressing any of the ten commandments has been repealed and replaced by "shall not enter the kingdom of heaven", therefore the fourth commandment has been repealed and is no longer obligatory. It has been replaced by a Christian fourth commandment about resting in Jesus, I suppose.

So far, not very impressive, in my opinion.

[Esaias]

I'm kind of not interested in reading Preble's work any further. I mean, if these specious "arguments" are the sort of thing I have to look forward to, it's going to be very poor fare indeed.

[Esaias]

Concerning the "transferance" of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day of the week, I never understood the Protestant reasoning. I mean, I get it, I just don't see how anyone could fall for it. There is no Scripture which authoritatively transfers the obligation. The papists are more consistent in claiming ex cathedra and Holy Tradition for ecclesial authority for the transferance. Campbellites are somewhat consistent in citing "approved example" from Acts 20, but I never got how a single example overthrew reams of explicit commands?

The Presbyterian approach seems to be a modified form of the catholic one, where the apostles are cited as the origin of the "holy tradition". I think Rushdooney may have fallen for that same scam, I'd have to double-check him on that as it's been a while since I've read his Institutes.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The first edition had to be no later than 1867, since it is referenced by a Sunday sabbath apologetic book in 1867:

The First-day Sabbath: Clearly Proved by Showing that the Old Covenant, Or Ten Commandments, Have Been Changed Or Made Complete in the Christian Dispensation : in Two Parts (1867)
Thomas M. Preble
https://books.google.com/books?id=szgQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA232
https://books.google.com/books?id=szgQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA423

Thomas M. Preble (1810-1907) had actually advocated the 7th day sabbath in 1845-1847, having slid to the Sunday position might explain the "pretended":
https://www.aplib.org/thomas-m-preble/

It would be interesting to look closer at his objections.

So we have the 1873 edition online from John Nevins Andrews (1829-1883).

History of the Sabbath (1873)
John Nevins Andrews
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZlpOo4hl6CsC

And a 1912 edition:

History of the Sabbath and the first day of the week (1912)
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZTERAAAAIAAJ

modified by:

Louis Richard Conradi (1886-1939).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_R._Conradi

And I have not checked about identifying the PDF editions.
http://www.champs-of-truth.com/reform/ADW_HOSB.PDF
http://sabbathtruth.com/portals/20/d...he_Sabbath.pdf

Andrews 1st edition was 1862, I believe.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Since God never said anything about bestiality or honouring your parents until Moses' day, were those things not forbidden/commanded until Moses' ime? And are we therefore free to practice bestiality or to dishounour our parents today?

That reaosning fails.

We need records of specific was that are not things that morality would instinctively tell us about. Committing beastiality or dishonouring your parents is not something God needs to write down for us, for we already know that is immoral. But no one would ever naturally think that the seventh day must be kept without work.

Romans 2:26.. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

No pagan or heathen would know of the seventh day like they would prohibition against beastialilty or disrespect. It's ceremony they do not know about.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Concerning the "transferance" of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day of the week, I never understood the Protestant reasoning. I mean, I get it, I just don't see how anyone could fall for it. There is no Scripture which authoritatively transfers the obligation. The papists are more consistent in claiming ex cathedra and Holy Tradition for ecclesial authority for the transferance. Campbellites are somewhat consistent in citing "approved example" from Acts 20, but I never got how a single example overthrew reams of explicit commands?

The Presbyterian approach seems to be a modified form of the catholic one, where the apostles are cited as the origin of the "holy tradition". I think Rushdooney may have fallen for that same scam, I'd have to double-check him on that as it's been a while since I've read his Institutes.

Not sure anyone here believes in the transference concept.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I'm kind of not interested in reading Preble's work any further. I mean, if these specious "arguments" are the sort of thing I have to look forward to, it's going to be very poor fare indeed.

i actually was interested on his objections on the specific early church writer citations, where he used “pretended”.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Not sure anyone here believes in the transference concept.

When Christians were sounder doctrinally, they would accept sabbath permanence arguments, due to the Decalogue authority. Thus, if they rejected the creation 7th-day sabbath, they by necessity went to transference. Arthur Pink is one of many examples.

Their arguments are far more significant than the general sabbath opposition arguments on this forum, and writings today by evangelicals and fundamentalists are generally low quality.

Thus my references tend to be 1700 (or earlier) to the 1800s and a small number of 1900s.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

i actually was interested on his objections on the specific early church writer citations, where he used “pretended”.

I'll skim through to see what he says about that.

[Esaias]

On p 36 he argues Christ did NOT fulfill the Passover (that is still future).

Argues the old testament law (all of it) was repealed and replaced by the "new testament law", same as the Campbellites do, replacing one book of law with another.

Still looking for the parts you mentioned.