A Confused Christian Community on Campus


, ,

David Lipscomb College or, as it is known today, David Lipscomb University, in their student on-line “paper” “Lumination Network” has an article “in recognition of National Coming Out Day.”

Reflect on this for just a moment, a Christian university that supposedly stands for the moral foundations of the Lord allows students to come out in support of “National Coming Out Day”, an effort to buttress or reinforce the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community. Is this acceptance of the behavior? It appears to be exactly that.

It is reported this is “about freedom to be who you are” on this Nashville campus. Student Aria Bartley said, “There’s a difference between acceptance and supporting, and although not everyone is going to be supportive, this is about learning to accept everyone for who they are.”

Does she realize what she is saying? The behavior of the transgender and homosexual community – does the Lord support and accept them.


For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due (Rom. 1:26-27, ASV).

One can’t read the above passage and conclude the Lord accepts and supports the behavioral lifestyle that is contrary to His will. One can’t accept it unless one’s thinking is clouded with the ways of the world.

Perhaps those who came out to support the LGBT day simply wanted to educate others, at least this is what was said: “The students had conversations with the student body and sought to educate outsiders on what it means to be a part of the LGBT community to anybody who stopped by the community gathering around the Bison.

I am curious about what would be said. Would the education be with regard to what the Lord teaches, or would it be the desires of a secular, progressive and atheistic world? I suspect the latter. That will be too bad for those who accept and support people who live contrary to the Lord’s will. His standard of holiness will not be compromised by any without there being accountability on the ultimate “coming out” day, otherwise known as Judgment Day.

What a sad day when the Lipscomb handbook speaks about standing up for “biblical standards of sexual morality” but then has a staff member (Dr. Paul Prill) as an unofficial advocate for the community as they “come out”.

Those who struggle with the immoral behavior need support and education to change their way of thinking from the ways of this world to the ways of the Lord. There are a great many people in this world who would willingly support and help those who bend their knees before the Lord and ask to be forgiven. Jesus said to all, “Come unto me…take my yoke…my burden is light…”

The Lord’s burden is much lighter to carry than one’s own. RT



The Straw Man That Was Not


, ,

The following article (https://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/07/02/obama-george-w-bush-quinnipiac-poll-reagan-clinton/11985837/) generated a discussion that was strange.

There was nothing in relation to this link that I said except “Hmmm.” I made no argument concerning the content, made no remarks concerning agreement or disagreement; in fact, I said nothing about it.

Someone did, though.

One brother typed, “Fake News.”

An interesting remark, since it came from the USAToday website.

I replied to that: “Then USAToday is Fake News”

He replied: “The article is fake news. 1st is outdated. 2nd. Its sampled from a very small minority. 3rd. A similar poll has Trump as the worst (same circumstances applied).”

Note that he called it “fake news.” To speak of something as “fake” is to say that it is not real, not true, thus false. Yet, nothing in what he said gives indication of anything false. It is “outdated” does not say that it is false, “sampled from a very small minority” does not say that it is false or untrue and Trump has worse numbers also does not say that something written within is false or untrue.

I replied to this: “dated is not fake, your denying notwithstanding. The sampling can be criticized if you like, but if it’s the norm for such actions, then you not liking it means nothing. Perhaps Trump is worse, I don’t know. I don’t follow or reverence him like some do with others.”

What did he say to this?

“Ron Thomas thats a strawman argument. You posit that I dont like the results and then criticize the assertion. You have no idea if I like the results or not. I simply stated that the message of the article is false. Misleading at best. To gather 35 ultra conservatives and ask them who is the worse president ever is prejudicial and you know it. It produces fake results, making this article fake news.

Notice what I said above. There is no argument from me in anything I said to this point, neither did I say anything about his liking or not liking. My remark about “your denying not withstanding” was not a comment on his liking or disliking the contents of the article, only that he wrongly attributed “fake news” status to the article. He said, moreover, that my reply to him was a “strawman argument.” Go back and see what I said – I said nothing that can be construed as an argument, not even a syllable’s worth. He said the article is false, which means the data used in the content of the article is nothing but lies (at worse), untrue otherwise because “to gather 35 ultra conservatives” alters the results.

35 ultra conservatives? I don’t remember reading anything about the sampling being conservative, to say nothing of ultra conservative.

To what he said, I replied: “Do you even know what a ‘straw man’ argument is? What about the article that is fake/false? It was a report in 2014 of a survey of popularity concerning presidents. Do you know if there are 35 ultra conservatives who thus judged? If your assertion is right, then I agree it is unbalanced. But do you see ‘ultra conservatives’ in the piece, or even ‘republican’? If not, then why assert?”

For the benefit of understanding, here is a definition from a Logic Textbook: “It is argument by caricature. It avoids dealing with the real issue by changing the opposition’s view” (Come Let Us Reason Together, p. 101).

The one who replied to what I posted asserted I made an argument (when I made none), then tried to tag me with this fallacy, the fallacy of setting up a straw man. Here is another source: “The Fallacy of “straw man” is changing or exaggerating an opponent’s position or argument to make it easier to refute” (The Fallacy Detective, p. 68).

With these two definitions in mind, see if what I said to him, to this point, is a straw man. Did I change anything he said or exaggerate his position? I simply considered the words he used.

He did not like what I said, he replied: “still attacking my intelligence huh? Thats called an ad hom fallacy. Smh. My statements stand. You disagree. Carry on.”

Now, I am “attacking his intelligence”? More than that he said I am doing it “still.” Wow!

I called into question, only, his use of the term “straw man” – this is not questioning his intelligence, not even close! Amazing!

Then he says I used an ad hominem reply to him. From the same two sources, here is the definition of ad hominem: “This is argument by character assassination. ‘reject whatever he says because he is a bad person’” (Reason, p. 93); “attacking an opponent’s character, or his motives for believing something, instead of disproving his argument” (Fallacy, p. 47).

In all that I said to this point, is there any character assassination, an ad hominem attack? No reasonable person will agree with his interpretation of what I wrote.

So, I replied: “Ken, you used the term, but you did not properly apply the term, so I asked. Shake your head if you like. You assert ‘ultra conservative’, so I asked for evidence, shake your head if you like. You said I insulted your intelligence by asking you a question and then said, ‘I spoke against the man’ (the meaning of the Latin term), when you give no evidence I spoke against you as a man. Shake your head if you like. Others will have to read and discern.”

The brother in the Lord replied to me, “Accusing me of incorrectly using the term is another attack upon me. (Ad hom). I in fact did use the term (strawman) properly”.

Be sure to note the authoritative source definitions and his use of the terms to see if there is a match.

Moreover, he said, “You posited an argument, (actually an assertion) that I do not like ‘sampling’ as a way of polling, and consequently implied that I do not like the results. It is a strawman argument because I have never said nor asserted that I do not like “sampling” as a way of polling, nor have I implied that I do not like the results.”

Again, go back and see what I said; you will notice I said nothing of the sort. He said, “nor have I implied that I do not like the results” and compare with his remark below when he said “the poll is skewed.”

Here is his point in this discussion: “You set up a strawman…and proceeded to knock it down. Further your comments contributed nothing to my original statement that it is fake news. The message of the article is that Obama is the worse president since WWII. And that is a lie. The poll is skewed, the article is misleading, and it is the epitome of the definition of ‘fake news’.”

From this, I brought my part in the discussion to a close: “Ken, this conversation is going nowhere. Others will have to read and judge.”

It is clear to me, from this discussion, the brother does not know what an argument is in a debate context. In posting a news-link, I made no argument. In posting a news-link, the piece online was simply a survey of opinions, not a substantive story that made a case for or against a person.

There was nothing I posted at the outset that can be in any way construed as an argument. I did not assert a single thing, I did not say premise one is the case, premise two is the case, therefore the conclusion stands (a formal deductive argument in debate). I did nothing of this sort. He perceived I said something when I said nothing.

Neither does he know the meaning of the terms he used, though he said he does. If he does know the meaning, then he terribly misused the terms in discussion. I did not speak against the man, I only question his use of the terms he used – which is NOT “attacking the man.”

Is this brother a partisan political apologist? Perhaps.


A Morality Test the Community Would Fail

One will hear people in the public sector of the community speak about morality in such a way there is no doubt about the moral standard used to judge an action wrong.

For instance, “Appearing alongside a deacon and other religious leaders at a Capitol Hill news conference on Tuesday, Booker said that in a ‘moral moment,’ one is called to either fight against ‘evil’ or be ‘complicit’ in it”.

Why was this a moral matter? Because it was asserted the Judge Kavenough of the DC Court of Appeal would role back voting rights, gay rights, civil rights, reproductive rights and access to healthcare. What was the evidence for this hysterical moment of the Senator from New Jersey? To complicate his unhinged remark, he referred to a portion of Psalm 23, “we are walking through the valley of the shadow of death” attributing the words to Abraham (see link above). It appears some fellow senators are distancing themselves from him and also mocking him.

It appears the senator knows little of his own moral code except it be politically based. Moreover, there is no chance he could defend his moral code in public dispute as being anything objective, transcendent and obligatory on any other person – except to compel others to submit by force of arms or the Law. As Dr. Robert Price would argue, emptily I might say, this is a social contract that some few people (elitists) would compel on others.

In Ohio, a text was put on administrative leave because in her classroom she gave the students a moral test. Parents were outraged.

With regard to the report and two of the questions, I understand why some parents might have seen this as troubling. One question read: “Using both a condom and a pill, a brother and a sister decide that they want to sleep with each other — just once, to see what it would be like.” The student was asked if this was OK or Not OK, with varied options in-between.

Is it okay? Not a chance! Yet, many in the community would fail this simple test because, like Senator Booker, their moral compass is fluid, it’s based on what many others are saying. Even if one thought it to be wrong, on what basis would the one who thinks it to be wrong say that it’s wrong?

Here is another question that stirred some of the parents: “Sarah’s dog has four puppies. She can only find a home for two of them, so she kills the other two with a stone to the head.”

Okay, I get it. It is troubling to have to consider a question like this, whether it is okay or not okay or somewhere in-between. I am sure, however, some of those who would be troubled by this question are the same as those who support killing innocent children in the womb! Consider the following link.

Some liberals consider this not wrong at all – so why the outrage with killing puppies?

I will tell you why. From the Lord’s perspective, the value of a human life is far greater than the value of an animal, but animals should not be abused in any sort of way. The Lord created them for man’s use, not abuse. What rights do animals have? There is nothing in animals that are associated with inherent rights, or the ethical principles of freedom associated with right and wrong. Animals are amoral.

A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast; But the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. (Proverbs 12:10, ASV). Notice the word “righteous.” A righteous man will take care of his animals, his livestock; he will care for them in a way that allows their life longevity and productivity. The word righteous, however, can’t be properly understood outside the ways of God. When used and defined by man, the definition is like a piece of driftwood on the waters, going back and forth until water-logged and sinks.

Many in our community would fail a moral test, even those who consider themselves well-informed on such matters. RT

What was Peter thinking?



Why did he think it was okay to take Jesus aside and try to prevent Him from going to Jerusalem? From Peter’s perspective this was not the only option available for the “Christ of God”? Before we criticize Peter, ask yourself the same two questions.

What in the world am I thinking when I place myself at the head of the ship I am navigating in this world? “I don’t do that!” Really? Consider, then, whether or not you cast all your anxieties on Him (1 Peter 5:7), have you done so? If so, do you believe He is the solution to those worries, and are you patient enough to allow His solutions to be yours?

Why do we think it’s okay to say to Jesus (and anyone else) that I truly have the love of Jesus in my heart even if my actions might allow someone to wonder whether this is so or not? We know that we should attend with the saints, but I am very sleepy, and I only got three hours of sleep last night because of ______ (fill in the blank); Jesus understands. We know we need to be on guard against Satan, he is an adversarial lawyer and seeks to devour us. We justify our approach that nothing is going to happen as we watch this television program full of violence, sex and misbehavior – it’s only fictional. We fail (on purpose?) to give thought or remember the programming we watch infiltrates minds and sows’ seeds.

What was Peter thinking? Whatever it was, the Lord put Peter’s thinking in the proper place when he said to him, in the presence of all, “Get behind me Satan!”

The point is that Peter was not thinking clearly, and neither are we along these same lines.

Does God Hear?


, ,

It is a wonder of the heart: does God hear my prayer? Does He hear when I am wallowing in my sin, consumed by the aggressive tones and deeds of Satan? Does He hear when my heart aches for a loved one who passed? Does He hear when I begin to walk the valley where much suffering is experienced? These questions and many more can be (and are) asked. So, what about it?

Notice the following translations: ASV: He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, Even his prayer is an abomination. Brenton’s Translation of Greek Old Testament: He that turns away his ear from hearing the law, even he has made his prayer abominable. ESV: If one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination. Jewish Publication Society: He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.

The key to answering the question “Does God hear?” is in the phrase “turneth away.” In other words, when a person does not have any interest in hearing and obeying the Lord, that person has turned away from the Lord. In such an approach, the answer can only be “No, the Lord does not hear that person’s prayer.” There is no chance I am wrong on this because the verse states it plainly. In John 9:31 and 1 Peter 3:10-12 it is repeated.

If this is so, then how can I get the Lord to hear me when I call. “Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy” (Prov. 28:13, ESV).

Isn’t this kind of harsh? Not at all. We can’t dictate the life we choose to live and then expect the Giver of life to grant us His blessings in our rejection of His course of life offered.

Words of Wisdom (Proverbs 10:6)


, ,

Blessings are upon the head of the just: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked (KJV). The English translation of the Greek Old Testament reads this way, The blessing of the Lord is upon the head of the just: but untimely grief shall cover the mouth of the ungodly (Brenton). Another English reading goes like this: Blessings are upon the head of the righteous; but the mouth of the wicked concealeth violence (Jewish Publication Society Translation). The thought seems clear enough, which is those who are righteous will be blessed, but those who are in rebellion have hidden within a violent, conniving heart. None of this escapes the Lord. Proverbs 15:26, The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD, but gracious words are pure (ESV). The one who loves the Lord and obeys, the Lord blesses him. The one who looks on the Lord and turns away has nowhere to go to hide from the Lord. RT

“You are the Christ of God!”


, , ,

For the benefit of clarity, the word “Christ” means anointed. Thus, to speak of Jesus as the “Christ of God,” is to speak of Him as the anointed (chosen) of God. When Peter declared to Jesus and others around him that he (Peter) believes Jesus is the Christ of God, he had come to recognize what God promised through Moses, David and Isaiah was before him as he looked at Jesus. Jesus was pleased with his answer (Matthew 16:16-17). Many of us can answer similarly, but with the academic answer, does our life reflect the answer made as it did with Peter? To say, as Peter did, that Jesus is the Christ of God is to speak something that is in the heart of emotions, not just in the mind of knowledge. Without the latter the former wanders all over the place; without the former, the latter is sterile information. Perhaps you are desperately trying to have both. Many of us are trying to do the same. Stay the course, allow Jesus to be the Captain of your soul, the one you call Lord (cf. Hebrews 5:8-9; Luke 6:46). Doing so means, at the end of the day, you will arrive at your destination. RT

Unscriptural Songs—He Lives



     This is the second song on the list I have that is considered unscriptural. In what way is it unscriptural? The unscriptural phrase is alleged to be “You ask me how I know he lives: he lives within my heart.” I candidly ask, what in the world is wrong with this? Does not Colossians 3:16 teach this sentiment when Paul writes, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (NKJV). Yes, there is more to the idea of knowing Jesus lives than that He only lives within one’s heart. Jesus is a historical figure; the New Testament is a historical document. The historical figure and the historical document can be investigated (as it has been through the centuries) whereby one can know, not only believe, that Jesus is the Christ of God. That said, is it really a troublesome thing for a person to speak in a favorable way about Jesus living within the heart of the believer? If you have been around for any length of time as a Christian, then you know well that some people are very academic-oriented, and some are not. Some who are overly academic-oriented want to be exactly right; others who are not so academically-oriented still want to know that which they believe, that which they are doing and in that which they are participating is right (I am not speaking, not even a little bit, about people’s intellectual ability to understand deeper things, or to be less academic and more emotional).

“I serve a risen Savior…” is based on knowledge of God’s word. “…the day of His appearing will come at last” is based on knowledge of God’s word. “Eternal hallelujahs to Jesus the King” is based on the knowledge of God’s word. Thus, when one says he (she) knows Jesus lives because He lives within the heart, one is saying this based on knowing God’s word. RT



, , ,

My son, forget not my law; But let thy heart keep my commandments: For length of days, and years of life, And peace, will they add to the (Proverbs 3:1-2, ASV). A mother in all her years tries to give counsel to her children in such a way her counsel will not only be helpful in navigating the difficulties of life, but counsel that will help the children live a long and prosperous life. Parents like these can say they truly love their own children. This is not always the case, however. Some recent headline: “Police: Parents starve, bind, cage, 21-year-old disabled son” (7.11.2018), “’Faith healing’ parents plead guilty in newborn’s death” (7.10.2018), “Man convicted of attempted homicide in spiking of girlfriend’s drink with abortion pill” (8.2.2018). It is possible the second headline will generate more sympathy and/or understanding with these parents who were deceived by false religion; not likely one will say these parents did not love their child. This is hardly the case with the other two headlines. The problem with all three is their source of philosophy in life: man! With the Lord, however, the guide in life is His way. There is NO CHANCE a child, an adult or anyone will be hurt morally and or spiritually by the Lord’s way of thinking, for He gives guidance in life to instruct people away from moral failings, away from the pitfalls of life that others find themselves in. It is true, it must be admitted, some who have refused the Lord’s way will feel threatened by this way of thinking and seek to administered punishment to the others living in accordance with the Lord’s way. They did this to Jesus should be expected by those who love Him that will be done to those who love the Lord. Nevertheless, as one applies the Lord’s way, before him or her is understanding, moral protection, prosperity and long life. In place the Lord has set the components of life that is best for each.

United Church of God (Sabbatarians)


, ,

United Church of God (Seventh-Day Adventist, Portsmouth, Ohio)


Below is RT’s summary of a television transcript, including direct quotes. Participants are Steve Myers, Announcer, Darris McNeely, Gary Petty.

Steve Myers leads in with a series of questions, asking whether one can know if what is being taught by the various churches is the truth of God. “Do most churches really follow Jesus? How can you know whether the variety of teachings and customs faithfully represent the way Jesus taught and lived?”

Steve said the reason why division prevails among the church is because “only a weak understanding of what Jesus taught” is possessed by these churches that are divided. In observing this, a following question is asked, “Is any church just as good as another?” He answers this question with no, one church is not as good as another. Why is this the case, Because Jesus taught people must follow Him, not some teaching of a particular church. Referring to Matthew 7:21, “Christ Himself said: ‘Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). The application of this, as in Luke 9:23, is one must take up the cross of Jesus and follow Him.

All of this leads to a question whether one is following Jesus in keeping the Sabbath. Here is how this is approached. 1) if one does not follow God’s commands, the one who says he/she loves Jesus is a liar and does not in truth love or follow; 2) the Sabbath is one of God’s commands; 3) therefore if one does not follow (observe) the Sabbath, that one is a liar and does not love God. This argument is based on 1 John 2:4-6.

From this, the following remarks are made: “Did you know that you cannot find anywhere in the Bible that Sunday is the day of worship? Search the Old and even the New Testament and you’ll find the biblical Sabbath is not Sunday. History and Scripture show that the New Testament Church worshiped on the true Sabbath—Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Shocking as it may be, most are surprised to realize there is no other day of worship mentioned from Genesis to Revelation.”


RT – This is simply false. Notice the Scripture: And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7, ASV). What day of the week? The first day! Was it called “Sunday”? It was not called “Sunday” in the New Testament, but that particular name, moniker or nomenclature is of no substance because, in the Scripture, it was on the first day of the week the Christians came together. Just to support the point of this being false, note the following:

  1. The Expositor’s Greek Testament Commentary says: “We must remember that 1 Cor. had been previously written, and that the reference in 1 Cor. 16:2 to ‘the first day of the week’ for the collection of alms naturally connects itself with the statement here in proof that this day had been marked out by the Christian Church as a special day for public worship, and for ‘the breaking of the bread’.” (E-Sword).
  2. Robertson’s Word Pictures says, “Either the singular (Mar. 16:9) sabbatou or the plural sabbaton as here was used for the week (sabbath to sabbath). For the first time here we have services mentioned on the first day of the week though in 1Cor. 16:2 it is implied by the collections stored on that day. In Rev. 1:10 the Lord’s day seems to be the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the grave. Worship on the first day of the week instead of the seventh naturally arose in Gentile churches, though John 20:26 seems to mean that from the very start the disciples began to meet on the first (or eighth) day.

To support their point of Sabbath-keeping, five translations are used to show the rendering of Mark 2:27. These translations all speak to the point of fact that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath and the Sabbath was made for all people, not just the Jewish people. “It’s certain that Jesus taught that the Sabbath was not made for the Jews…It’s not an Old Covenant thing made just for Moses and the Israelites—it’s actually a New Covenant thing—established at creation and continuing as true worship in the New Testament Church.”

RT – Really? Notice what Scripture says:

Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel for ever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He ceased from work and rested.” (Exodus 31:15-17, Jewish Publication Society). Notice the following points:

1)      The Lord said the command to observe the Sabbath was for the Israelites.

2)      Those who work on the Sabbath are to be killed (that is, the death penalty is rendered for violating the Sabbath command).

3)      It is a sign between the Lord and Israel, no one else. Moreover, with these words, the death penalty is applied if one does not observe. Will it be applied?  

Tie this in with the words of Nehemiah,You came down on Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven and gave them right rules and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and you made known to them your holy Sabbath and commanded them commandments and statutes and a law by Moses your servant” (9:13-14).

1)      From Exodus, it is a sign to the Israelite people

2)      In Nehemiah, it was made known unto them at Sinai.

3)      Made known by Moses.

Before the words of Exodus 16 there are no exhortations to observe the Sabbath, not even at the time of creation!

Then they declare, “Even after the crucifixion the apostles and the New Testament Church continued to observe the seventh-day Sabbath from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset as the day of true worship.”  RT – This is a lie; nothing in the pages of the New Testament teaches this is what they did. Neither is there any exhortation from any of the apostles this is what one should do! On the other hand, as one reads in Acts 20:7, they did meet on the first-day of the week to break bread, that is, to fellowship with the saints in the Lord’s Supper.  

“Nowhere in the Bible can you find the Sabbath changed to some other day. Imagine if it were changed, there would have been a huge discussion on it, and recorded for us—especially in the New Testament.” RT – No, one can’t find “The Sabbath has been changed to the first-day of the week” in Scripture. Nevertheless, one can find where the disciples did worship on the first day of the week (as mentioned above), led by apostolic authority. Moreover, to the saints in Corinth, Paul said they were to lay aside on the first day of the week, each week, every week that which the Lord prospered them. Why the first day? Because it was the day when the saints would gather together to worship the Lord. Thus, at best the remark is misleading; at worse, it is plain deceptive. The assumption there would have been a “huge discussion” if it were to have taken place is nothing but presumptive.

There is then a brief discussion concerning what people think relative to the Lord nailing the Sabbath on the cross. “Now there are multitudes who have been told and who honestly believe, that worshipping on the seventh-day Sabbath was abolished at the cross.” To address this perspective, they reply the Lord has a day, that day is the Sabbath day, and this was instituted at the time of creation. Confidently they assert the Lord’s day is not Sunday. This is maintained because of the 4th commandment in the Decalogue, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy”. Moreover, it is declared that God is the same today, yesterday and forever (Heb. 13:8). Therefore, since the Lord does not change, then He did not change His day from the seventh to the first. “To claim to be Christian means we must follow Christ. To follow Jesus means we must observe the Sabbath!”

RT – This speaks much of their failing to understand Scripture. There are two points worth notice from Ephesians and Colossians. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace” (Ephesians 2:14-15, ESV). The context of Paul’s words is the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. What separated them was the law of commandments God gave the Israelite people at Mount Sinai, otherwise known as the Law of Moses. According to Paul’s words in Ephesians, the Lord nailed that teaching to the cross, thereby removing the wall that separated the two peoples from spiritual fellowship. How do I know this is the context? Paul said it is it in 2:11-13.

Again, In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:11-14). The initiation into the old Covenant was for the male via circumcision; this is no longer the case since Jesus was nailed to the cross taking the “hand-writing requirements” (NKJV) with him. As Albert Barnes said, “The word rendered handwriting means something written by the hand, a manuscript; and here, probably, the writings of the Mosaic law, or the law appointing many ordinances or observances in religion” (E-Sword).

If Hebrews 13:8 is applied, as they apply it, then the Lord’s directive of animal sacrifices given in Leviticus still is authoritative for Christians today, as is circumcision for the males at eight-days of age. If they say a portion of the Law of Moses has been nailed to the cross, let them declare what portion that is.

At this point, two others participate in the discussion (Darris McNeely and Gary Petty). Darris said since the Sabbath day was at the point of creation, “Sabbath has been in effect since creation.” By this he means that Sabbath day observance goes back to the time of creation. Gary supports this thinking when he says the “Sabbath is for all humanity, not just Jews, for all humanity. You put those two things together and it is obvious the Sabbath was created for everyone, and it hasn’t been done away.” Steve then gives his support to this also.

R T – What can be said about the Lord resting on the seventh day, after six days of creative work (since this is relative to the conversation of sabbath day observance)? This is all that can be said, nothing more. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made (Genesis 2:2-3). God finished His work in six days; He rested on the seventh day; God blessed the seventh day, that is, He made it holy. From this man draws what? There is no decree from the Lord that man is to observe and rest. A person can reasonably draw a conclusion that one should emulate the Father in heaven and thereby rest on the seventh day. But there is nothing from the Lord that speaks to this being a matter of obligation. The first obligation set forth by the Lord does not take place until Exodus 16, to Moses and the children of Israel.

Also, was it not the case the apostles took on the authority of the Lord when they preached the Gospel message to the lost in the world (1 Cor. 14:37)? If that is the case, and they worshiped on the first day of the week, then they established the pattern of worship in a New Testament context. The alternative is they disobeyed the Father of glories by not observing the Sabbath.

BeyondToday.tv or write to us at the address shown on your screen [Beyond Today, PO Box 541027, Cincinnati, OH 45254].

Sent to the television program on 7.20.2018