SDA Pastor vs: Christian: The First Day Sabbath | Part 1

Well, we want to welcome you back to the SA Sabbath series. We’re looking tonight at a response to Miles Kettlesen, and this is part one. I’ve titled it God’s week. So, we’re going to look at Miles Kettlesson tonight. This is a doctrinal theological investigative study of biblical issues, and this particular series is about the Sabbath. So, we’re going to respond to Miles Kettlesen tonight. And of course, the title of our series is also facing the critics of those who are attacking the 7th Day Adventist Church. We’re going to look at carefully tonight. Miles has done several videos

And I mean a lot of videos actually and podcast he does that and uh quite quite many of them he’s done. And so we’re going to look at them tonight. He’s done stuff on Doug Bachelor and Mark Finley and Ted Wilson and so many people out there. He’s done all these videos on uh attacking and podcast attacking Seventh Day Adventist. So, we’re going to look at it. What we’re going to do is we’re going to answer it’s answering the critics from the Bible one point at a time. You see, when people get into to debates on YouTube and they get into these debates, they go off into all

Kinds of things. And so, I prefer just dealing with the issue right here like we’re doing. And so, we’re going to look at answering the critics from the Bible one point at a time. So, we’ll look at it tonight. Like I said, he attacks Doug Bachelor and the things that Doug says and and also Mark Finley. He attacks all of them. And so we’re going to look tonight carefully at some of the things that Miles actually says. Well, hey there. Thank you for being here, especially if this is your first time with us, Adventist or otherwise. We’re going to be talking about one of my favorite

Topics tonight, especially in the context of Adventism, and that is the Sabbath. So, question of the night. Did SDA pastor Jeff Dowel refute answering Adventism’s position on the Sabbath? Or better yet, does he even understand the position? Did SDA pastor Jeff Dael refute answering Adventism’s position on the Sabbath? This is going to be what we look for tonight and what will be under examination. Along the way, I will have to break down a number of things. But in that intro clip, we heard the infamous I’m attacking the Seventh Day Adventist Church,

Which is the SDA victim complex, rearing its uh head again. Jeff, I didn’t attack any of the men that you mentioned. I critiqued their theology. There have been a handful of times that I have outright stated that these individuals were lying, in which case I stand by those claims. But that also isn’t attacking, sir. The word attack, folks, involves uh violence and aggression. It evokes a certain type of picture for people. This is a sort of, you know, poisoning of the well, if you will, before his hearer gets into, well, you’re not even going to hear anything

From Jeff that I actually say. You’re going to get Jeff’s convoluted understanding of what I said, um, regurgitated to people. Um, and so he poisons the well there at the beginning. You know, he’s one of these critics that attacks the Adventist church, even though he’s going to do the exact same thing that I did in those videos, critique theology. But I’ve stated, Jeff, about all the gentlemen that you mentioned, I think they truly believe what they’re saying. I don’t know them from Adam. I believe they’re sincere and genuine people, but they’re deceived just like you and your

Organization think I am. Which is why this silly charge of being attacked is always so interesting because what we’re about to listen to is this man, like I said, do the exact thing in his presentation that I did in mine, critiquing theology and discussing biblical issues. So, why is he holding inconsistent scales? Why the double standard? I don’t whine and cry that I’m being attacked despite the countless people out there that disagree with my theology and countless Adventists. Like every week I’m getting inundated, folks. That’s the only reason I know about videos like

This. We just get inundated with all these people that make videos about this platform. I don’t sit here and whine, look, they’re attacking me. Oh yeah, it’s time for Adventists that say this to grow up, including Mr. Dowel. If you can tell, it’s going to be a uh feisty night. This charge is childish and it shows one of the the weaker points of SDA pathology. You’re not being attacked by having your theology critically examined. Give me a break. Especially considering Jeff, you’re a part of a movement, sir, that claims to possess the theological God particle, the theory

Of everything, the antidote to theological division which is strictly supposed to be relegated for us Babylonian Protestants. But furthermore, this man is a salesman, folks, for an organization that’s built upon attacking Christians. That is if critiquing theology is considered attacking. Their entire MMO is to criticize Protestant and Roman Catholic theology. an organization that upholds a woman who they claim was divinely inspired and wrote things like that as someone who has rejected their message, my prayers are an abomination to God, that I’m a tool of Satan, that

The time of my salvation is up and there’s no hope for me because I once affirmed the SDA message and I no longer do. SDA pastor Kevin Morgan was just on here a few weeks ago with Steve Daly. We brought this up and he admitted to it. He said, “Yep, that’s that’s what the the the vision was saying.” Things like that. As a former Adventist, people like myself will be leading the charge to hunt down 7th Day Adventists globally to have them murdered. That Christians are worse than heathens. But Adventists aren’t to tell them that, lest it close up opportunities for them

To evangelize us, amongst a mountain of other slanderous claims. So, let’s lay off the attacking rhetoric and not throw stones from a glass house. But before we get too far into it, I have to lay some groundwork. Since we’re not going to hear, like I said, Jeff actually play anything that I said. Instead, we’re going to hear his warped quote mining of my presentation. We’re going to start by playing the introduction from my presentation that Jeff is critiquing and responded to. Pay very close attention here, folks. Tonight we’re going to be looking at a presentation that celebrity

SDA pastor Doug Bachelor did uh a couple of years ago or I guess a few years ago at this point uh titled is Sunday sacred wherein he misrepresents the Christian church but more specifically first day sabotarians I’m going to try and do my best tonight to be clear and thorough as I am fully aware of the sway of this doctrine in particular within Adventist ism as well as the sour taste that it has left in many former Adventists mouths. However, it is important and it’s important that we go where the truth leads and so that is where I’m going to be coming from

Tonight. To do that, it is going to take time. I think you guys are starting to notice a uh pattern here when it comes to live streams. This will be a two-parter. Part two will happen next week because uh this is not a soundbite two-s sentence topic despite the SDA church thinking such. This is a whole Bible topic that needs to be looked at much more deeply than just throwing out proof texts. Whether you’re on the for side, the against side, whatever side. Um it it requires a lot more than that. So, first I want to say I know there will be lots of people that disagree

With me on this, not just Adventists. The ears of a lot of former Adventists are going to be a little twisted and I get that, but track with me, please. All right. So, I made it clear from the very beginning that it was to show two primary things. One, how Doug Bachelor and the standard SDA claims misrepresent the Sabbath position held by people like myself. Doug’s claims not being unique to him. They’re standard SDA arguments and I stated that in the presentation as well. It’s nothing about Doug personally. He just happens to be uh understanding of a

TV slot, for example. He knows how to get through his information quickly, which makes him a good case sample to use because he represents the system typically, the standard fair stuff. So, we just used him as an example. But that was one. And two, it was to simply educate people on the position and help them better understand the differences between what people like myself are saying about the Sabbath versus the Adventist position. Okay? And I also very clearly stated that this is not a sound bites and proof text level topic, but it is a whole Bible topic. Meaning

It spans from Genesis to Revelation. It’s a thematic doctrine that has a thread all throughout uh scripture and it requires an analysis from that vantage point. In other words, I was giving a redemptive historical presentation on the subject. The same thesis was true of the presentation he referenced with Mark Finley. It was even in the thumbnail. Mr. Finley butchered the reason for Christian worship on the first day and I demonstrated as much. It’s irrelevant if Adventists disagree. You should still be able to represent what people are saying by giving a steelman of the position

Even if you disagree. So, Mr. Dowel, that’s what we’re going to look at or look for from you. You claimed at the beginning of your presentation, like we heard in the beginning, that this was a doctrinal, theological, investigative study of biblical issues where you’re going to carefully look at some of what I said. Okay? I will be repeating myself a lot tonight to drive home the points. Repetition is how people learn. He also happens to just keep repeating himself. So, I’m going to keep repeating myself as well. And whether you agree with me or disagree with me, whether you’re an

Adventist, former Adventist, Christian, whatever it may be, hopefully you will have a better understanding either way. Okay. As a heads up, we’re going to listen to Jeff at one and a half speed because we have a lot to get to and not a lifetime to do it. This will only be part one out of a multi-part series. Here we go. House believes that Adventists are not Christian. I’m going let you know that right now. He believes that Adventists are not Christian and that his mission is to expose the false teachings of Adventists and get out of Adventism.

That’s his whole purpose of his videos and podcasts is to attack Adventist, name calling, all these things. Get out of Adventist. It’s a cult and all this and that. Miles claims to have and here’s what he says. I’m quoting him. He says he claims to say that the strongest apologetic against the SDA church’s theology of the Sabbath. He claims to have that apologetic, meaning he’s got the strongest case against Adventists on the subject of the Sabbath. All right. So, already burning straw man right out of the gate. But Jeff, yes, this platform does not consider Seventh

Day Adventism to be Christian. Notice I said Seventh Day Adventism. The SDA church preaches a false gospel and a false god called the heavenly trio. And you guys are stuck with that title because your false prophetist uh that you guys uphold gave you that and you guys bind people’s consciences to that. However, Jeff, I have not said and do not claim, nor have I ever, that all Seventh Day Adventists are not Christian. And the proof of this is on our website, which I’m grateful that the record for exists. Notice from a short article on our website titled, “Our Seventh Day

Adventists saved?” One of the featured articles on the homepage of our website. Folks, it’s never wise to make blanket generalizations, especially when it comes to salvation. We are not elect detectors, nor does God call us to be. Many Seventh Day Adventists are true Christians, but this is in spite of official Seventh Day Adventist teaching, not because of it. There are many souls caught up in Seventh Day Adventism that do not believe the damnable heresies the organization teaches. Nevertheless, it is important to know that the organization teaches a false gospel, Galatians 1 6-9,

And proalitizes a false god. 2 Corinthians 11:1-4. Neither of which can save anyone because they aren’t real. This puts the organization outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. Because of this, born again Christians should not be associated with a false church. Christians should always be ready to share the true gospel in Christ with Seventh Day Adventists like we should with all tribes, tongues, peoples, and nations. And numerous uh you know former Adventists out there can tell you I’ve told them this exact thing. So Jeff, you have once again

Misrepresented answering Adventism because Seventh Day Adventism the organization is not Seventh Day Adventists the individuals. This is my first rodeo with Adventists folks. Yeah, I know there’s a spectrum. I know not all Adventists I’ve been stating this for years well before this platform existed. I distinguish all groups across the board this way. You shouldn’t just say for example all Roman Catholics are lost. No, they’re not. You don’t know all people. There’s a differentiation between an organizational body and the actual individual people. People need to be

Looked at on an individual basis, not damned based on their association that they may have to a particular group. And many seventh adventists do believe in the true Christ and do believe in the true gospel, despite those beliefs clashing with the organization’s officially stated positions. But Jeff, my claim that Seventh Day Adventism isn’t Christian shouldn’t be shocking because you’re a salesman for an organization that says the same thing about me. I’m an apostate, part of Babylon, and I share the same fate as Satan. We’ve looked at this numerous

Times on this platform. Both the SDA church’s website and Ellen White are in perfect harmony on this. So again, I ask, why the double standards, sir? I actually have the wherewithal and the coahjones to state what I believe openly because I care enough about Adventists to shoot it to them straight and not keep quiet letting them walt on into the fire saying kumbaya, you know, everything’s just hunky dory, everything’s great, haha type stuff. Adventists can hate my guts, hate my approach, repudiate me, and many of them do. But I love SDAs enough to say the

Hard part out loud and be honest about it. And you all need tough love, sir. You need tough love, not kumbaya around the fire. And I’m willing to have a target on my back for the sake of being the alarm clock that God hopefully uses to wake up as many Adventists as possible because I want them to be saved and come to know the beauty of the gospel. Purpose of this platform is not to name call. But as a salesman for the SDA organization, Jeff, you’re fully aware of these claims about me being an apostate from the SDA church and would have to at least outwardly profess to

Uphold those yourself, which would include that those of us that reject your guys’ special message will share in the same fate as Satan. Yes, that’s what this church teaches. the sheer irony of him trying to talk about the the mission of answering Adventism from the page regarding the remnant and its mission on the SDA church’s own website. We have looked at this before and there’s numerous others. Notice what part of their mission is. Quote, “The Apostle John, the last of Jesus’s disciples and the one who wrote Revelation, tells us exactly who Satan

Will target. Satan’s goal is to harm those who keep God’s commandments and believe what Jesus taught. But among the lawless uh among the lawlessness of the corrupted world, God will call for his devoted followers to separate themselves from those who have rejected him. Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of Babylon, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues, for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.” Revelation 18:4-5. Those who do not come out of the wickedness of the world will be subject

To the same fate as Satan, utter destruction. God refuses to let sin go on forever. And those who hold on to sin will have to account for their deeds. 2 Corinthians 5:10. But God’s remnant, God’s remnant people are not just supposed to hide in holes as they separate themselves from the world. God has a job for his people to do. A message they, the remnant, will deliver. For many people, this message will make the difference between eternal life with God and the permanent second death. All who hear it will have to make a single vital decision, either to follow God or

Side with Satan and share his fate. Close quote. So all former Adventists are a part of the lawless world supposedly and we share in the same fate as Satan because after hearing the SDA church’s message, if you disagree with it, regardless of how valid your reasons might be, you’ve supposedly rejected God. Rejecting the SDA church’s errant theology is akin to holding on to your sin. And this also has Ellen White’s prophetic stamp of approval as I have shown numerous times before. So just so we’re clear, let’s not try and play this game that I’m some

Attacker of Adventism that doesn’t think Adventists are Christian when your organization holds the same view just in reverse. Except they add to it that you have to become Adventist to be saved and ready for the second coming. Whereas I don’t think you have to be a Presbyterian to be saved. You have to be in union with Christ. with regards to the mission of answering Adventism. He brought that up. Jeff, your description was ironic considering what we just saw from your organization’s mission, especially considering that I cited an actual statement from your organization on your

Guys’ mission, and you didn’t even bother to actually site ours. And since you didn’t, let’s refresh everybody’s mind for those that don’t know, including you, Jeff. This is our public mission statement, and it has been from day one. Started by a third generation former 7th Adventist, we have grown into a vibrant gospeloriented apologetics organization that is clarifying the divide between Adventism and historic biblical Christianity. Our mission is to demystify Adventism, unpacking its doctrines, unraveling its history, and underscoring its leadership through the

Prism of biblical Christianity. We equip we equip Christians with knowledge and reach Adventists with the true Christ and his gospel elevating his sovereign grace and freedom to save for his own eternal glory. Solely deo Gloria very simple and very clear. So Mr. Dowel so far you are not off to a good start sir when it comes to accurately representing me. You are engaging in the logical fallacy called poisoning the well by doing this. Giving your listeners an inaccurate representation to set the stage in their mind that I’m some angry bitter critic of Adventism,

Which has been the standard MMO, folks for a long time, since the movement’s inception. Jeff, you’re not the first Adventist to do this, and you most certainly will not be the last. My mission is not what you claimed. It’s not to name call. It isn’t to expose Adventism. We’re not a discernment ministry or some watchdog blog or whatever. I’ve explained this many times before. This platform is an inward-f facing effort. It’s to raise the general consciousness of the body of Christ to understand the doctrine of this movement, namely, and more specifically

The great controversy worldview and how it distorts standard Christian vocabulary, but means something entirely different which deceives people. This then better protects the body from your guys’ proitizing efforts, which are primarily targeted at Christians. It also equips the body to better be equipped to reach Seventh Day Adventists with the truth, which reinforces that I want Adventists to be saved. No differently than you guys claim to have a special only for you guys present truth end times message that you think people need to hear to be ready for the

Second coming. So shame on you for your caricatured representation of me and your consistent use of unequal weights and measures which God in the proverbs says he hates. Then he mentioned my claim regarding my apologetic for the Sabbath being the strongest. This is exactly correct and I continue to stand by my claim, Jeff, not because it has anything to do with me, but because I’ve studied this topic with a specific detail and I’m convinced it’s the most faithful position to the biblical text. And as I said earlier, I believe the truth is the anvil that can wear out any

Hammer. I’m not going to cry and claim you attacked me for disagreeing and criticizing it. I welcome such. But Jeff, this claim by me is peanuts compared to what your organizational leadership claims and publishes in the official publishing arms of the SDA church. We’ve looked at Herb Douglas on this in the December 2000 issue of Ministry Magazine probably 15 times at this point. It’s linked on our website in multiple articles. He was very forthright and clear-cut as it comes. Your organization allegedly possesses the equivalent of what Stephven Hawking

Called the God particle. Only Douglas calls it the theological God particle, the theory of everything, the mind of God. You guys uniquely possess this. And it’s allegedly what keeps the SDA movement from being doctrinally confused like all those Babylonian Protestants. Which would mean your organization is effectively telling us the exact same thing I said about my apologetic for the Sabbath. Except they’re saying it about all of your doctrines. They’re impenetrable. Allegedly. I’ve never even come close to making a statement at that level. I could be

Wrong on my view about the Sabbath. I don’t think I am obviously or I wouldn’t believe what I do. But this shouldn’t be shocking when one understands the claims your organization has made in comparison to mine. And for the record, this apologetic isn’t unique to me. I didn’t originate it. And I say this all the time. I stand on the shoulders of giants. I am trying to synthesize and share information here. Not originated as some leader or some, you know, just me in my Bible and come follow answering it. That’s not what’s going on here at all. I try and synthesize things into

Digestible bits because we are an education platform. Miles believes and teaches a Sunday Sabbath in creation. This is what he teaches. And for the next several meetings, I’ll be going through each of the points that he raises in his defense against Adventists as an apologetic being claiming to be the strongest apologetic against Adventists on the Sabbath. Now, here’s what he says. The SDA church has no clue what they criticize. No clue. So he’s saying you Adventists have no clue about what you criticize. And here’s his claim. I mentioned it already, but here’s his claim. He claims

To believe that he has the strongest apologetic against the SDA church’s theology of the Sabbath. Well, I’ll tell you friends, as you go through the next few meetings, if he has the strongest, I would really hate to see what weak apologetics is against Seventh Day Adventist. if he’s got the strongest. All right. So, Jeff, there are only three options here. Okay. You either didn’t actually listen to what I said, you did, but you didn’t understand what I presented, or you’re being dishonest because you misrepresented my position. Again, folks, we’re a minute in.

A minute. It’s like a machine gun of error. I do not teach a Sunday Sabbath creation. I’ll save showing how this is a misrepresentation for when he launches into why he’s saying this, but it needs to be stated upfront. Jeff, you are incorrect, sir, and your entire critique is predicated upon these starting point errors. This was also the title he put up on his introduction slide to make it appear like the name of my presentation is what he is calling it like he’s critiquing what I named it. Notice down at the bottom Sunday the Sabbath in creation.

Again I will explain his confusion on this in a little bit. But then he mentions me saying the SDA church does not understand what they criticize. This is exactly correct, Jeff. Which is why, like I showed earlier, part of the thesis of the presentation he is critiquing was to demonstrate all of the SDA church’s favorite straw men regarding new creation sabotarians like myself. And I could have picked countless SDA figures to use as an example of the standard fair SDA arguments. Like I said, Doug simply got through them quickly, allowing for us to respond in a

Timely fashion. And I will look forward to seeing with the audience tonight if this still holds true regarding Mr. Dowel and if he’s able to steal man the position that I put forth before his attempted reputation. It does need to be reiterated though when I say the SDA church adventist etc. in this context I’m referring to 7th day Adventism trademark the organization not random individuals as though there isn’t a single Adventist on the planet that hasn’t encountered these art. Obviously not, Jeff. I’m speaking organizationally here, and I’ve made

This clear in numerous videos. It’s in the mission statement. I distinguish between individual Adventists and 7th Day Adventism, the organization. I’ve been very vocal about this, but remember what he said there, that if my apologetic is the strongest against the SDA position, then he would hate to see what weak is. Remember that as Mr. Dowel, a salesman of the great controversy worldview who allegedly has direct access to the mind of God, seeks to engage my arguments, there’s going to be a lot of stopping and starting tonight, folks. Even with

The audio sped up, we have a lot to address going to see. So, here’s what I’m going to say. I’m going to have a challenge for the viewers and those who are watching tonight’s meeting. A challenge to the critics and viewers of this video that I’m doing tonight. And here it is. Take a piece of paper and write down your answers to every question asked in this video and then go back over your answers and see if you contradict yourself. That’s a very crucial point. So that’s the challenge I have to those critics out there and viewers who may be watching this. Now I want to say it

Again. Take a piece of paper and write down your answers to every question asked in this video and then go back over your answers and see if you contradict yourself. Okay. So this is the crucial point he says. Write down all the questions he asks. Answer them and see if you contradict yourself, which assumes the questions he asks are valid and are built on solid foundations. Remember a couple weeks ago when we listened to SDA critic of Christianity, Ivor Meyers? He did the same sort of thing, but his questions and claims ended up being dead on arrival because

They were predicated on faulty premises. So let’s see how Jeff’s questions pan out. Now, I want to start off tonight with a a PhD, a Dr. Philip Kaser. And Miles has gotten some of his teachings from Dr. Philip Quaser. And we’re going to see some of the things that Dr. Quaser says. And it’s interesting because Miles um has followed some of the very teachings that Dr. Quaser has. Now, Philip Quaser has degrees in education. Did you notice what I said? Degrees. Degrees in education, theology, and philosophy. He was ordained in 1987. He currently serves as senior pastor of Dominion

Covenant Church, a Presbyterian CPC church in Omaha, Nebraska. Now, Dr. Kaser makes his arguments based on his distinction between the first day of the week, Sunday Sabbath, and the seventh day of the week, Saturday Sabbath. He makes a distinction between those two, and he refers to the first day, Sunday, as Sabbath. and he makes a distinction between the first day Sunday Sabbath and the seventh day of the week Saturday Sabbath. Now Dr. Caseer mentions Dr. John’s Parker. Now it’s interesting where some of these guys get their ideas. Now I mentioned this and I’ll

Tell you why. Because remember um Miles claims he has the strongest apologetics against the Seventh Adventist Church on the Sabbath. And he looks at this and says Adventists have no clue of what they’re arguing against. No clue. But I want to share something with the viewers as we go through this tonight. This teaching is actually nothing new. What they’ve done is they’ve modified maybe but it’s really to the core our substance. It’s nothing new at all. Matter of fact, some of the things that Kaser has drawn from is a book called The Sabbath Transferred. Now, the

Interesting thing about this book is it was back in 1902. Okay? I I’ve had this book probably for the last 29 almost 30 years. This very book in my library. I’ve read this book and it’s amazing because the very book that Chaser is drawing from the Miles is drawing from Kaser that Miles says Adventists have no clue what they’re they’re arguing against or criticizing. Oh, I’ve got the book that Kaser’s gone to and I’ve had this book for many years. So, it’s nothing new about that. Right? This teaching is nothing new which I said in the presentation.

One of the central tenants of my claim about this being the strongest argument against 7th day Sabotarianism is precisely that this argument is ancient. It’s not modern. And no, it didn’t originate with John’s Parker’s The Sabbath transferred either. I’m obviously aware of this book and I cite it in the presentation as well as on our website. We’re going to look at it here in a little bit. Jeff, Christians have been dealing with your guys’ arguments long before the inception of Adventism because your guys’s arguments for the binding validity of the Seventh Day

Sabbath aren’t new either. But with regards to him saying that I’m following the teachings of Dr. Kaiser. Yes, because Jeff Dr. Kaiser is a Presbyterian. I’m a Presbyterian. I’m glad that I could catch you up to speed on this, but there’s this denomination out there called the Presbyterians. Some of them refer to themselves as the Reformed branch of the Protestant Reformation. They have this confession called the Westminster Confession of Faith. And that confession has a chapter about the Sabbath. Philip Kaiser is simply in line with that. What Dr. Kaiser puts forth in his book

Is not novel to him. He didn’t originate any of it. Yet, Jeff says this like he uncovered something when I literally bring up slides in the presentation citing Kaiser’s book. And I’m very open about such. I also didn’t learn this from him, Jeff. I already held my position prior to even reading Kaiser’s book. I would actually attribute uh Master John Owen largely to convincing me of this from scripture. And he wasn’t a Presbyterian. Kaiser is only one of numerous individuals that I’ve read on this and they are all appealing to the biblical text, not themselves. What you really

Need to do is deal with what Kaiser and Parker’s biblical arguments are. I used Kaiser’s book in my presentation for the same reason I use any scholar that I reference. And I’m very open on this platform about why I cite scholarship. Because my intent is to show people this isn’t answering Adventism’s private interpretation and to let them weigh the evidence for themselves. I specifically utilized Dr. Kaiser on this because his book explains the subject in a very easy to digest fashion, unlike some of the 16th century works that I like which are a little

Antiquated in their wording and they’re harder for the modern listener to understand. But if he would have actually shown where Dr. Kaiser refers to John’s Parker, by the way, it’s on something he pointed out regarding the Greek language in a specific text of scripture. So really, the focus is on scripture. It’s what John’s Parker uh that’s what John’s Parker is pointing to about the Greek. And the question should be, is what he’s pointing out correct or incorrect? Because it’s a serious argument that carries a whole ton of weight if true. Notice

This is with regards to the Greek in Acts uh 13. Okay. Quote, when Paul and Barnabas were in Antioch in Pacidia on their first missionary tour, we have the most indisputable evidence of the transfer of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Halt right there. Does that sound like in the title of the book name that John’s Parker and Philip Kaiser are saying that in Genesis it was a Sunday Sabbath? Remember that folks, just remember that the title of this book is the Sabbath transferred, which would imply they’re not saying that it was Sunday in the Genesis week.

Again, remember that. But he continues, “Paul first preached to the Jews in their synagogue on the Jewish Sabbath. And when the Jews were gone out of their synagogue, Acts 13:42, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.” And he has the Greek there, which essentially he he renders out and says could be in the Sabbath in between, that is the Sabbath between the Jewish Sabbaths. Did you catch that? Acts 13:42. Some Greek grimarans have argued that what’s being said there is that Paul brought the gospel to the Gentiles

The Sabbath in between the Jewish Sabbaths. Parker’s continues and the narrative continues. Acts 13:44. And the next Sabbath day there he has the Greek and he has on the following Sabbath just at hand came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. When the participle is used in reference to place, it designates a place that is near or next. As in Mark 1 138 where Christ said, “Let us go into the next towns.” Now get this. When the participle is used in reference to time, not place, time, it designates the next day as in Acts 21:26

Where Paul took the men and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple. The evangelist here says the following Sabbath on which the Gentiles would naturally hold religious service was between the Jewish Sabbaths and near at hand that is on Sunday. Can language be framed that would prove the transfer of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday more clearly and indisputably than this language of the inspired evangelist? Close quote. Yeah, Jeff, John’s Parker is irrelevant to the substance of what’s being presented here. He didn’t originate the

Greek language and write the Bible. He simply highlights a fact that one must weigh the thrust of for themselves. Dr. Kaiser points out that for him, he thinks Parker’s was a little too dogmatic here. I tend to agree. If this is the only thing we had in scripture, for example, eh, I don’t know if it carries the whole case. But thankfully we have a whole mountain of scriptures because there are texts outside of the first day ones that can be analyzed. Hebrews 4, Romans 14, etc. There’s far more on this and this goes back to what I was saying about, you

Know, Adventists are so used to the individual leoty is typically used to arguing these individual Acts 20:17, you know, these single first day passages. Shoot. No, that that’s that is down the list of other things like I showed in the presentation. But for those that want access to this book, go to the link in the description box. There’s an article there that’s linked and it’s for an article on our website titled Is Sunday the Christian Sabbath? This quote is there and the citation is in red which means it’s hyperl. So click on it. Go look into his

Arguments for yourself because it’s going to send you to the Bible. not John’s Parker’s private opinions. But what’s fascinating is that this belief and teaching isn’t unique to Presbyterians. Jeff, I’ve cited numerous individuals of various Christian traditions that believed and taught this same thing from scripture. They all saw it from scripture. That article I just mentioned included many of them. So, you’ll see that there if you go check the article out. Adventists tend to adore Adam Clark, Methodist theologian. Well, Clark believed and taught the same thing as a

Methodist. Just look at his commentary on Colossians 2, for example. Commenting on Colossians 2:16, Clark says, quote, “There is no intimation here that the weekly Sabbath was done away or that its moral use was superseded by the introduction of Christianity. I’ve shown elsewhere that remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy is a command of perpetual obligation and can never be superseded but by the final termination of time as it is a type of that rest which remains for the people of God of an eternity of bliss. It must continue in full force till that eternity arrives

For no type ever ceases till the antitype become. Besides it’s not clear that the apostle refers at all to the Sabbath in this place whether Jewish or Christian. His of Sabbaths or weeks most probably refers to the feasts of weeks of which much has been said in the notes on the Pentatuk. Close quote. Yeah, this is before John’s Parker’s book a century prior. Now whether you agree with Clark or not is not the point. I don’t agree with Adam Clark on a lot of stuff. I’m not a Methodist. The point is is that Adam Clark as a Methodist believed the same

Thing myself, Philip Kaiser, Philip Schoff, and countless others do. Adam Clark was not a 7th day sabotarian or a Presbyterian. He was a Christian sabotarian. And he recognized that the weekly Sabbath is a memorial. The day is a memorial. It’s not the substance. It’s the memorial that points to the eternal rest of God. That’s what we mean when we say the phrase God’s rest. That’s what the weekly Sabbath points to and is a memorial of. But once we arrive at that consummation state, once we enter into eternity with God, well, that memorial is no longer necessary. We’ll then be in

The antitype. But until then, the memorial continues. Jumping back to the 17th century, long before Philip Kaiser, John’s Parker, Philip Schoff, and Adam Clark, William twice, the SDA publication review and Herald has actually cited this book when they thought it helped their case for the claim that the weekly Sabbath is morally binding and perpetual. Except William Twice wasn’t a seventh day sabotarian. In his book, the morality of the fourth commandment, he says, quote, the analogy between the Jewish Sabbath and our Christian Sabbath, consisting in two or

Three particulars. One, as on the seventh day, God rested from six day the sixth day’s work of creation in remembrance of which benefit the Sabbath was instituted in the Old Testament. So in the first day of the week after Christ by his death and passion had accomplished the mystery of our redemption, he returned gloriously as a conqueror from the dead in remembrance of which benefit the first day of the week is celebrated in the New Testament. Two, as in the Old Testament, the Sabbath was instituted that it might be a memorial of their deliverance out of

Egypt. Deuteronomy 5:15. So in the New Testament, the Lord’s day is a memorial of our spiritual deliverance out of the kingdom and captivity of Satan, procured unto us by the resurrection of Christ, a type whereof was that deliverance of the children of Israel out of Egypt. And three, by Christ’s death and resurrection were abregated Levitical ceremonies and legal shadows amongst which the Sabbath is reckoned. Colossians 21:17. Therefore, the change of the Sabbath into the Lord’s day is a public testimony that Christians are freed from legal shadows.

Close quote. This is why I say I don’t care what phrase you use, Christian Sabbath, first day, Sabbath, Lord’s Day, we mean the same thing. But Adventists like Jeff are free to disagree with twice. The point is that these individuals are individuals that his own SDA pioneers stole all their Sabbath arguments from, but then tried claiming but but but they were wrong about the day. All their arguments about the per perpetuity of the Sabbath are correct. They’re right about all this other stuff about the Sabbath, but but but but they’re wrong about the day.

Yeah. Tell us you don’t know what you’re talking about without telling us you don’t know what you’re talking about. all as if all these Christian sabotarians had hadn’t thought about this remedial aspect of the subject. Twice recognized the new creation just like Adam Clark did that the Sabbath is rooted in creation and redemption and in the new creation Jesus entered his rest the first day. Jeff, you need to get this. You claimed you’ve read these books. You should understand this and why your questions that we’re about to hear are completely irrelevant to to as some brain buster.

There’s two creation accounts in focus when it comes to the Sabbath, folks. There’s the creation exhilo in Genesis where God brought matter out of nothing. There’s then the recreation of that creation which fell into sin where God entered his rest a different day. We’re not in the old creation anymore, Jeff. We’re in the new creation. God in the old creation. Exnahilo entered his rest the seventh day. In the new creation, he entered the first day. The fact that you guys can’t see this or think it’s some crazy thing, especially when you guys your whole system is built

On this wild typology. You guys are like supposed to be the kings of typology. Everything is some esqueological typology in the Old Testament about the end times. Yet you bring up something like this and you’ll get, “That’s the worst argument I’ve ever heard.” Yeah, it sounds like a guilty conscience, buddy. When the redemption of the creation that fell was accomplished, that was the first day, the resurrection day. The freedom from slavery in Egypt was a type of the bondage and slavery to sin that we are all in. And Jesus is leading a better exodus out of that.

That’s memorialized by the first day when God entered his rest in the new creation. Jeff, not the seventh. Hinrich Wolf. He was a Hebrew professor in Zurich, Switzerland during the Reformation. This is cited in uh Nicholas Bound’s book, the uh I would argue probably the the best book on this subject, the most exhaustive work, his book, the the true doctrine of the Sabbath. He writes, quote, “Christ did appoint the new Sabbath. When our last enemy, death, being overcome, he made an end of the labors of our redemption, which in his humanity were to be born. And the next

Day, with the new man restored, he brought out of the grave a new time, the time of our redemption, and of the new covenant, and did prepare an everlasting Sabbath into uh uh into the which himself then entered for us also at the time appointed by virtue of his resurrection to be entered into. Therefore, as in the time of the creation, that day which was first of the creation finished was made holy for the worship of God, so now in the time of redemption, that day which is first after the finishing of it is to be accounted holy of us. Close quote.

This is what Hebrews 4 is saying. If one simply follows the flow of the epistle and understands that the overarching theme is the lesser to the greater, it covers all sorts of things like Jesus being superior to the angels, a superior priest, a superior Moses and Joshua, etc. And in that we also see the author mentioned the lesser to the greater with regards to the old covenant and the new covenant, the old creation and the new creation. More on Hebrews 4 later, but once again, not unique to Dr. Philip Kaiser. Church historian Dr. Philip Schoff in

His history of the Christian religion volume 3. SDA scholarship seems to love Philip Schoff when they think he helps their case. Pay close attention here, Jeff. Quote, “The observance of Sunday originated in the time of the apostles and ever since forms the basis of public worship with its enobling uh sanctifying and cheering influences in all Christian lands. The Christian Sabbath is on the one hand the continuation and the regeneration of the Jewish Sabbath based upon God’s resting from the creation and upon the fourth commandment of the decalogue which as to its substance

Is not of merely national application like the ceremonial and civil law but of universal import and perpetual validity for mankind. Pause. I’m going to talk about this a lot tonight. Notice Schoff’s distinction between the substance and ceremony. That’s going to become very important. Very important. I brought it up in both of the presentations that Jeff referenced, and I’m going to talk about it a lot more tonight, and I’m going to show you from scripture. There is a substance and that substance is not only applicable to the national Israelites.

The ceremonial form and civil aspect was part of a certain dispensation and that could change. That’s not the universal part. The universal part is the substance. Remember this. It is on the other hand a new creation talking about the the Christian Sabbath. It is on the other hand a new creation of the gospel a memorial of the resurrection of Christ and of the work of redemption completed and divinely sealed thereby. It rests we may say upon the three-fold basis of the original creation, the Jewish legislation and the Christian redemption and is rooted in the

Physical, the moral and the religious wants of our nature. The Christian Sabbath is the ancient Sabbath baptized with fire and the Holy Ghost regenerated, spiritualized, and glorified. It is the connecting link of creation and redemption of paradise lost and paradise regained and a pledge and preparation for the saints everlasting rest in heaven. Just like Adam Clark said, the ancient church viewed the Sunday mainly, we may say, one-sidedly and exclusively from its Christian aspect as a new institution and not in any way as a continuation of the Jewish

Sabbath. It observed it as the day of the commemoration of the resurrection or of the now spiritual creation and hence as a day of sacred joy and thanksgiving standing in bold contrast to the days of humiliation and fasting as the Easter festival contrast with Good Friday. Close quote. Jeff is going to bring up his objections around the phrase Jewish Sabbath over and against Christian Sabbath later. So, I’ll get to what Shaw and Christian sabotarians mean by this after we hear Mr. Dael. But in my presentation regarding Mark Finley and his ridiculous

Claims about why Christians worship on Sunday, I showed this statement from Shaw. And I proceeded to show a large swath of scriptures from Genesis to Revelation, not single proof texts, no large swaths of scripture that prove what Schoff is highlighting of the Sabbath being rooted in creation, rest, and redemption. It’s also why I cited the church fathers in the same presentation to show that the seeds of this understanding are ancient, not modern. And you’re free to disagree with them. I’m not saying because they’re ancient, they’re right. That’s not my point. I’m

Simply explaining that this is not new or modern. And my position is not only biblical, but the seeds of its understanding are ancient. It’s honestly just the logical continuation of studying the new creation more deeply in scripture. The early church understood the roots, but they had other focuses they had to hammer out like Christology. They didn’t dig in as far on this subject as others did later on. So, people have been studying this doctrine deeply long before the Seventh Day Adventist. It’s not some lost truth that they bear and have a monopoly on. Their view of

The Sabbath is very truncated. It’s anemic. It’s warped because they have an extra biblical worldview called the great controversy theme that skews everything in the Bible, especially the Sabbath. But Jeff, you can stop saying that this is a regurgitation of Kaiser. I used him for a specific reason in the presentation, but nothing in his book was unique or novel to him. Not the idea of Adam and Eve’s first day being God’s seventh, or the point that was being made by my chart, which was a redemptive historical visual aid, which he’s going to bring up

Here momentarily. But did you notice that his, you know, his jab at Dr. Kaiser for having degrees? Oh, no. Dr. Kaiser, believe it or not, has degrees. Shocking, I know. Yeah, Jeff, that tends to be what happens when you carry the title of PhD. And oh no, he studied philosophy. Yeah, because believe it or not, philosophy is not an icky word. Believe it or not, it’s beneficial for Christians, especially those holding the office of sacred desk like Dr. Kaiser. It’s important that they understand world views that are not their own and ways of thinking outside of their own

Because we have this mission and command called the great commission that we care about. You know, we’re trying to reach people that might think differently than we do and better understand their ways of thinking. And doing such can help us better understand how to reach them. Shocking, I know. Believe it or not, it doesn’t mean Dr. Kaiser was indoctrinated in like worldly or pagan philosophy, which is basically what Jeff’s statement rire of. I can’t tell you if you’re not a former Adventist, you may not pick up on that, but there’s just in some

Pockets of Adventism, there’s just this sort of downplaying of education and like, see, he you can’t trust them because they’re educated. Yeah. Okay. But Christian, let this be an example for you of how formal theological training is oftentimes downplayed by SDAs. This stems back to their Millerite roots which also put forth the same idea that because William Miller was essentially Bible illiterate. They have to try and you know say like they’re they’re still born out of Millerism and they have these connections and roots back to Millerism. So they can’t just completely cut him

Off, which is why they’ve tried to rebrand him as an American reformer, not a false prophet with that shouldn’t have been doing what he was doing. Completely unqualified, you know, just sitting around with his Bible in a concordance. Completely Bible illiterate. And his interpretation was just common sense. It was common sense. Even though no one was thinking these things before him. Yeah. And we see how that worked out. Jeff, guess what? All the 7th Day Adventist professors I had at SDA University, they had degrees, even the religion professors, many of

Whom studied at non SDA seminaries. He took umbrage with me, saying that Adventists aren’t equipped to deal with uh these arguments. And then he says he owns John’s Parker’s book which is supposed to refute my claim that the standard SDA arguments against this position evidence that they don’t know what they’re actually arguing against. Jeff, your claim is going to age like milk because you yourself will prove that this is true despite your claim that you own John’s Parker’s book which was supposed to prove that means you know the arguments. Apparently, that’s what

You’re trying to like lead on with. It was also proven in my presentation. You’re quoting because I said the statement in question prior to laying out the position and then listening to Doug Bachelor present the standard SDA arguments against the position, which showed how they don’t even engage the arguments. Doug Bachelor burns a bunch of straw men. That’s why the thumbnail says what it says. Just because you own John’s Parker’s book doesn’t therefore mean you understand the arguments. Again, it’s going to be made abundantly clear that you do not.

Nothing new at all. But now notice Kaser, if you get into some of his material, he refers to Sunday, the first day of the week, as the first day Sabbath in contrast with the seventh day Sabbath. Okay. Now, remember what Miles talks about? He’s going to get into this new creation. That’s kind of his drive. this new creation. The motivation for his his study particular on this subject tonight we’re going to look at. So he says Adventists have no clue or idea of this new creation. So we’re going to see that’s his main thrust is this new creation. Yes, Jeff, because I’m a Christian. The

New creation refers to the new covenant, the work of redemption that Jesus accomplished. His rule and reign is the second Adam that did what the first Adam failed to do and how Jesus came and redeemed what man broke. Yes, that’s the thrust of my foundation as a Christian because I believe the Bible and I have a Christian worldview, not an extra-biblical great controversy worldview which is not derived from scripture. Now, I don’t know if Jeff is in this camp, but countless Adventists have tried telling me the new creation is a Roman Catholic doctrine. No, Rome

Just happens to be in accordance with the Bible on this. So, if that’s you, don’t engage in the genetic fallacy, also known as the guilt by association fallacy. But yes, I stand by my claim that Adventist theology does not understand the new creation, because I said this in the context of Doug Bachelor’s arguments, which plainly evidenced as much. Every week, every week I hear arguments from Adventists that prove such because Doug’s arguments weren’t unique to him. He simply was the example I used. I explained how the Sabbath is rooted in rest, creation, and

Redemption. And since it’s rooted in creation, we have to discuss both old and new creation when discussing the subject of the Sabbath. both the original creation in the beginning as well as the recreation of that creation in the redemption of Christ. And since Adventist theology doesn’t understand the Sabbath’s root in redemption, the new creation, and God entering his rest, a new day in that creation, they’re illquipped to deal with the arguments. But he said, “Kaiser refers to Sunday as the first day Sabbath.” Yes, Jeff. The title of my presentation was literally in defense of

The first day Sabbath. It’s like I found it odd that he says this stuff like he’s uncovering something that I wasn’t forthright about. One can just go watch the presentation and see none of this stuff is hidden. Kaiser didn’t originate that term, Jeff. We don’t care if you say first day Sabbath, Lord’s Day, the Christian Sabbath. Doesn’t matter. Various people have used various phrases down through history. In substance, we mean the same thing regarding what the terminology is getting at. I use the phrase first day Sabbath because I refuse to confir uh to concede

The term Sabbath to Adventism since it’s biblical. They don’t have a monopoly on this subject and it’s provocative in the context of Adventist apologetics. And I want to provoke people to intrigue. I want to provoke former Adventists who hear me say I affirm the Sabbath and cause them to go, “Hold up. Wait, what?” And I want them to start listening because I stand by my position being biblical and the most glorifying position to God. I don’t want people to have a tainted view of the Sabbath because of cult groups like Adventism that have misused and abused

It for their own novel worldview and end times paranoia. Now, here’s the paradigm that Miles goes by, and he got that from Dr. Queser. So, tonight’s going to be kind of like educational. We’re going to see where he got some of his ideas. And this paradigm here, Miles got from Quaser. And Queser had read also John’s subject on the transfer of the Sabbath, which was 1902. Okay. Now in this paradigm, this is Miles’s main thought copying you might say from Tacer is this paradigm presents seven key points. The first four are rooted in the last three. So the first

One is God’s week. The second is man’s pre-fall week. The third is man’s postfall week. And number four is Jesus’s restoration. Five creation, six rest, and seven redemption. Now the next few nights or next few meetings, we’re going to cover God’s week, number one. Then man’s pre-fall week. That’ll be a meeting. And then man’s postfall week, an entire meeting. and then Jesus’s restoration, an entire meeting, and then we’re going to summarize the last three in videos. However, what’s interesting is that we’re going to break down each one of these weeks individually in a

Whole presentation because Miles, he matter of fact, he was bragging about he popped this on a Seventh Day Adventist pastor and this pastor was a loss for words or didn’t understand or didn’t know what it was or how to how to refute it. And so Miles kind of was bragging about that very thing. No, Jeff, I didn’t get this paradigm from Dr. Kaiser. You kept repeating this and you’re wrong. Like I already said, I already held my view before even reading Dr. Kaiser’s book. And Dr. Kaiser didn’t originate this either because the the chart that I showed is compiled based

Off of biblical observations. Folks, go watch the presentation. The chart was also a visual aid to help visual learners better understand what I was saying and not be confused. Jeff, if you think Dr. Kaiser originated this, then you’re only further proving the point that you aren’t informed on this subject. Notice, folks, he’s not actually playing any of my presentation. He’s taking screenshots of it and then commenting over it, which allows him to put his own spin on things, which is always fascinating because this is what I’m constantly accused of by Adventists.

Despite the fact that I actually let them speak for themselves before responding, he’s not doing that. This also isn’t really a paradigm, Jeff. The seven things you claimed make up the paradigm are really just different categories that have to do with making sure one has a fully orbed view of the Sabbath and not a truncated one that only latches on to certain aspects of redemptive history. Again, I opened the presentation by clearly stating that I would be giving a redemptive historical analysis on the doctrine. And I said this isn’t a sound bites and

Proof text topic because it’s not. It spans Genesis to Revelation. All seven categories that he showed cover the span of Genesis to Revelation, which is a story of redemptive history. So sure, if you want to call that a paradigm, go ahead. It’s a biblical paradigm, and I like that a lot better than your extra biblical great controversy one. But with regards to the claim that I was bragging about popping this argument on an SDA pastor, again, no, Jeff, I said this in the context of showing how most Adventists haven’t heard these arguments, and it caused

This pastor to be so intrigued, he wanted to stay in contact. That’s not me bragging, sir. It was a case sample to support my claim that you yourself tried implying isn’t true because you own John’s Parker’s book. It was a support statement for my claim. So, I wasn’t just making an assertion. We’re going to be listening for when you actually address the biblical arguments found in his book, which are what truly matter, not you referring to his book and claiming that Kaiser and myself are just parrots of Parker’s own private thinking. We care about what the biblical text and what

Luke wrote in Acts, for example. Not what I want to be there, but what did Luke, the inspired evangelist, intend to communicate. So, I’m going to be attentively listening for when you deal with those arguments. So, this is basically the paradigm in which Miles tries to prove a first day Sunday Sabbath. Now, Miles admits according to the chart in God’s first week before the fall of man is the seventh day Sabbath in creation. God’s Sabbath on the seventh day, the seventh day, God rested, blessed, and sanctified. Why wouldn’t man’s seventh day be God’s seventh day instead of a

Different seventh day than God’s according to the weekly cycle from creation? Now, it’s best to look at this carefully because I’m going to go into it in detail in a minute. This is just kind of in the forefront here. So, like I said, go back and read the questions, answer the questions. All right. So, notice what his question was. God’s Sabbath on the seventh day. The seventh day God rested, blessed, and sanctified. Why wouldn’t man’s seventh day be God’s seventh day instead of a different seventh day than God’s according to the weekly cycle of

Creation? Jeff, did did you did you bother to look at the chart while I was explaining this in the video? I I I mean, wow. Adam and Eve were not there on day 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. How could it have been Adam and Eve’s seventh day if Adam and Eve didn’t exist on days 1, 2, 3, 4, five? That’s what the chart is visually representing. It’s the same creation week. The whole point was that you need to prove that it was their seventh day and how a one-day old individual can be seven days old. I I’d love for you to to explain this for us, sir. Explain for us how a

One-day old human can be seven days old. Let’s hear it. Let’s hear it. On top of that, I said that some of you don’t read carefully enough. I I know you guys think you’re masters of the Sabbath. Everyone else is clueless. But that thinking is going to get you into trouble here. It wasn’t their seventh day, sir. Because they were one day old on the seventh day of creation. That’s what the chart is showing. It’s just a visual aid. I explained all of this. So, why are you asking this question, claiming I wouldn’t answer your questions like you’re going to hear

Him say, thinking this is some slam dunk for you? You seem to think you know my position, which should mean you should know why this question isn’t at all problematic. Based on evening to evening as the measuring stick, man’s first day would have been God’s seventh. They started their week in holy communion with God before then going out to obey the command to subdue the earth and be fruitful and multiply. They would have then done that same thing seven days from that first holy communion with God. This is actually a picture of the prefall disposition of

Man toward God that Jesus as the second Adam rightly restores and returns us to. He didn’t just redeem the physical creation. He redeemed all of the blessings of creation that also became tainted of which the Sabbath is a part. Resting in perfect communion with God. I’m going to talk more about this later and I don’t want to get ahead of myself, but Jeff, your question poses zero problems for my position because you misunderstood what needed to be demonstrated by someone that holds your position. Because in my presentation, I addressed numerous objections to my position and

Demonstrated why they are invalid. So, you need to deal with my objections and explain how they’re incorrect, not just throw questions back at me. So, I look forward to you explaining for us how God’s seventh day could have been Adam and Eve’s when they didn’t exist for six days prior. This is just simple basic observation from the text that doesn’t require any degrees. Once that’s recognized, I simply ask, okay, is that an important detail that could potentially be teaching us something or is it just a random meaningless detail? Folks, I’m going to tell you, the more

That you read the Bible, the more you learn the Bible is to be studied, not just read. There’s a difference. And you quickly learn all this stuff in here is important. It’s not just meaningless. This stuff matters. It has a point. And I explained that in the presentation. I’m going to talk a little bit about that later. But Jeff, you said this apologetic is the uh you said if this apologetic is the strongest against your position, you’d love to see what weak is. So, this should be a cakewalk for you, especially considering you insist you understand the position you’re

Criticizing. Explain for us how a one-day old can be seven days old. I got to hear this. Continue to go from there. Now, the new creation doesn’t change the weekly cycle according to the Bible. The Bible says that all scriptures inspired by God and that includes the scripture that determines the week and each day in the weekly cycle. In my presentation, I will demonstrate and establish that this premise, a Sunday, first day Sabbath in Genesis is a false premise, a false presupposition and cannot stand under close scrutiny. I’m going to establish

That in these next few meetings starting tonight. So, here’s the paradigm. Remember, this is the four key paradigm he has here. God’s week, man’s pre-fall week, and man’s postfall week, and Jesus’s restoration. So contemplate this diagram, contemplate this paradigm, contemplate this chart, look at it carefully, very carefully. So answering the critics from the Bible one point at a time. So tonight’s presentation, we’re going to look at God’s week. We’re going to look at it carefully based upon not what I’m saying, based upon what Miles is saying about the very paradigm he’s

Using to show the first day Sunday Sabbath. Okay? So in his paradigm, God’s week shows that there is the seventh day Sabbath in the Genesis account of creation. And they call it that. It’s God’s Sabbath. They call it God’s Sabbath, the seventh day. So let’s take a careful look. Let’s break it down. We’re going to enlarge it. We’re going to break it down. Let’s take a careful look at the critics’s chart and break it down one point at a time. Now, according to his chart, the seventh day is God’s Sabbath. According to Critics’s charts, God’s week ends with the seventh day

Sabbath. God’s Sabbath. and they call it that. I agree with that. That’s what SDAs believe that God’s seventh day Sabbath is in creation and is at the end of the week, the last day of the week. We do believe that. We believe that very thing right there. Now, in Philip Kaser’s book, here’s what he has to say. Christ’s interpretation when he declares that the Sabbath was made for mankind, Mark 2:27, set in the context of creation. So far, I could agree with that. Can’t you? We go to creation for the seventh day Sabbath right in creation. He’s quoting Mark 2:27 said in

The context of creation man not being made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath being made for man. Now notice what he says carefully. Christ seems to agree that the Sabbath was observed as a creation ordinance when mankind was made. So he’s saying see Jesus agrees with that fact that the Sabbath was in creation for mankind. Now notice what he says. If this is true, then all attempts to treat the Sabbath as an institution unique to Israel are eliminated. That means you can’t use the argument that the Sabbath was just for the Jew if it was a creation ordinance back in

Genesis. That’s what he’s saying. So don’t call it the Jewish Sabbath then if it indeed is for all mankind from creation in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. So how do you understand this statement? Now if somebody’s watching this, here’s what I would say. Here’s what he says and here’s the question I’m asking. How do you understand this statement? Write it down on a piece of paper. Answer the question. How do you understand this statement? Okay, remember he said if this is true, then all attempts to treat the Sabbath as an institution unique to Israel. In other words, for Israel only,

For the Jews only are eliminated. Yes, it would be eliminated because the Sabbath is in creation. This is what he’s arguing right here. So, I’m going to go to the very text he uses, Mark chapter 2. Watch this carefully. Remember what I said about answering the questions. That’s my challenge to the viewers. Just simply answer the questions. Now remember Jesus said he said unto them the Sabbath. So now you have the Sabbath mentioned in Mark 2:27. Therefore the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. You have the Sabbath mentioned right there in Mark 227 and 28. Chapter

2 27 28. Here’s my question. Is this Sabbath made for man in creation? Answer the question. That’s it. Just answer the question. Is this Sabbath right here? Made for man in creation. Here’s the next question. Is this God’s Sabbath, the Sabbath that is the seventh day in Genesis 2:es 2 and 3? Is it? Write your answer down. Or is this Israel’s Sabbath just for the Jews? Answer the question. So here you have Ker saying that the Sabbath if it’s true, then the Sabbath is in creation and that’s for all mankind, not just the Jews. So it wouldn’t be unique to Israel and the

Jews only. Okay. So is this Israel Sabbath just for the Jews right here? Is this Israel Sabbath just for the Jews the same seventh day in the weekly cycle as God’s seventh day in creation in the weekly cycle? Answer the question. Is this seventh day in creation that determines and governs each and every day in the weekly cycle according to the New Testament? The New Testament. his slide said and he said the new creation didn’t change the weekly cycle. Right. And Jeff, this was never claimed. And because you thought something was being said that wasn’t,

You then built your questions on that errant foundation. I simply pointed out that Adam and Eve were not there on days one, two, three, four, and five. And that on day six, they wouldn’t have experienced evening to evening, which would have made the evening of the seventh day the end of their first day. Nothing about the new creation changing the weekly cycle. Again, the chart, notice the annotations at the top right, folks. Before the fall, man started the week on the Sabbath. After the fall, man ended his week on the Sabbath. After redemption,

Man starts the week on the Sabbath again. Not that there are three literal different weeks or that there became a new weekly cycle with the new creation. No, there’s a new day that God entered his rest after the second creation work. the work of recreation, redemption. And I’m going to keep hammering this in hopes that you get it. Jesus entered his rest the first day, sir, not the seventh. That was God in the old creation. In the new creation, God entered his rest on the first day. We’re in the new creation now, not the old creation. 2 Corinthians

5 proves this. It’s here again. It’s like, sir, you claim to have studied this out. You should be engaging with this reality. You’re not doing that. You’re posing a bunch of questions you think are a bunch of gotchas as if people haven’t thought about this before. Are you kidding yourself? There’s two creation acts. God entered his rest two different times. both in the original exhilo creation act but then also after the redemption of that act or or of of that creation but as it pertains to my claims about man’s week beginning on the seventh day

In order to demonstrate your claim against this Jeff you must demonstrate that Adam and Eve were present from day one of creation until then you haven’t falsified the Christian sabotarian position but notice that he says a Sunday, first day Sabbath in Genesis. I pointed this out earlier, Jeff. I never used this language to describe Genesis. I’ve never said this. I never said that in the presentations that you referenced previously. In fact, in part two, we’re going to listen to how Jeff makes a big deal about me saying that Adventists read the word Saturday into the seventh

Day in Genesis. But what he doesn’t mention is that I also say it doesn’t say Sunday either. And I was making a very specific point in saying that in conjunction with highlighting that Adam and Eve’s first day was God’s seventh. Obviously, John’s Parker and Philip Kaiser and everyone else are not claiming what you claim that we believe when the book title of his book is the Sabbath transferred. Sir, we’re not saying a Sunday Sabbath in creation like it was God’s seventh day, but it was Adam and Eve’s Sunday. That’s what Jeff’s trying to put forth here as the

Argument. No, that’s not what’s being said at all. Again, I was making a very specific point that in conjunction with highlighting that Adam and Eve’s first day was God’s seventh. This detail is actually important when you do a redemptive historical analysis of the doctrine of the Sabbath. The first Adam was in holy communion with God on his first day. Based on evening to evening, man was created on the sixth day and his first day would have technically been the seventh day of the creation week. The first Adam then sins and plunges the creation into sin.

The second Adam, Jesus Christ, he comes to fix what man broke, Jeff, and he redeems it. In doing so, he actually paralleled God in the original exnilo creation act by also doing a creation work. The work of redeeming the creation that fell and making it new. This is the new creation. He accomplished that work in full just like God did in the original creation. And then after he finished this new creation, he ceased or rested just like God in creation, the original creation, he sabbaththed. Sabbath means rest or cease. But unlike God in the original creation,

The Genesis creation, God in Christ entered his rest on the first day, the resurrection day, to then return back to holy communion with God in the heavenly places after he resurrected in a glorified body. It comes full circle, sir. Mankind began their first day in holy communion. that breaks. The second Adam then comes and returns us back to that by redeeming us and making us new creatures in Christ. 2 Corinthians 5. And as the second Adam, he entered into God’s rest the first day, just like the first Adam entered God’s rest on his first day. I was giving a redemptive historical

Presentation on the doctrine of the Sabbath. Jeff, this minor detail in Genesis is not arbitrary. It’s why I then went on to talk about preparation day in Exodus being day six and that not being arbitrary. These things are not being read into the text by Philip Kaiser or answering Adventism. They are simple facts based on observation. And if you’re willing to think they’re not arbitrary details, you’ll learn that they actually are teaching you something. It’s like day six for Israel being preparation day before then entering into the Sabbath was not some arbitrary

Thing that’s based on creation. Day six was preparation day in the creation week. Man was prepared to then enter into their holy convocation with God. That’s exactly what Israel was told to do. And it was memorialized by creation. Hello. The seventh day was indeed the seventh day of the week. I never denied this or claimed it wasn’t. When the chart talks of man’s week, it’s not saying a new week started when man came into existence with God’s week being different. That’s what Jeff has errently concluded either ignorantly or dishonestly because I explained this.

This is why I asked if he actually listened to me talk when he took his screenshots of the chart or did he just try and interpret it himself without listening? Because I explained what this chart was saying. And it wasn’t that Adam and Eve had a new week that came into existence with God’s week already being in existence or that the new creation brought about a new week. No, it brought about a new day because God entered his rest a new day. I just want to make sure this is crystal clear. Jeff, you need to demonstrate that Adam and Eve were present from day

One. Otherwise, it wasn’t their seventh day in the creation week. Yes, it was the seventh day of the creation week itself. We’re not denying this, but they were not there to experience the previous days, which is why God’s seventh was man’s first. and every day uh uh every seven days from that first Sabbath would have had holy communion with God. That was my point and I explained why this matters. This is simply one observation and point in a larger scope of things. There is a pattern that’s being presented here and God is teaching us something through the

Order of his own activities and man’s own experience when it comes to the creation. Jeff gets into trying to refute this and take major umbrage with me saying avenist theology, you know, deifies a 24-hour rotation around the sun, but that’ll be in part two, so I’ll save more for that then. But he also said, “We call the seventh day God’s Sabbath.” Yeah, because the author of Hebrews uses the term God’s Sabbath. And it’s a term that means the eternal state, the eternal promised land, what Canaan was only a picture of. It’s what the seventh day pictured.

The first day is when Jesus entered into God’s Sabbath ahead of us. Jesus is God. And this was God entering his rest, but this time after the accomplishment of the recreation of the creation that fell. There are two terms that are used for rest in Hebrews 4. And the Greek text shows this. The author distinguishes between catapos and the sabatismos, which helps us see both the substance of the Sabbath and the memorial that points to that. They’re not identical. And this is going to be a thorn in Mr. Dowel’s flesh as we’re going to see because he’s going to engage in the

Exact thing I said in my presentation that Adventists often do. They will conflate the ceremonial form of the command, the memorial aspect, with the actual substance itself. I’ll explain that when we get to it. But yes, we use the phrase God’s Sabbath because we believe the Bible, Jeff. But then he posed the first question with regards to to Mark 2:27. He asked, “Is this Sabbath made for man in creation?” For starters, I reiterated the same thing that Kaiser said in my presentation about Mark 2:27. So why Jeff thinks this poses some sort of problem for us? Only evidences. He

Doesn’t understand what he’s criticizing. Yet he said he was going to demolish this. Jeff, the reformed have been using Mark 2:27 to prove the perpetuity of the Sabbath long before the SDA movement was even born. And this is why I always say SDAs stole all of their arguments for Christian Sab uh uh for the Sabbath from Christian sabotarians, but then they claim, well, they were wrong about the day, though. All the arguments that we use for the Sabbath being perpetual or valid, but we’re completely wrong about the day. That’s basically what the S SDA is

Telling us. Almost as if no one else has deeply thought about this before. And since I know SDA’s out there will will try and claim no, they our pioneers were influenced by the Seventh Day Baptists, not whoever you’re referring to. Yeah, the Seventh Day Baptists were using arguments from Christian Sabotarians that were around before their movement and made this same claim. All the Christian sabotarian arguments are good and valid. They’re just wrong about the day, allegedly. But here we arrive at yet another error, and it’s one I mentioned earlier. He

Pointed to Mark 2:27 and asked, “Is this Sabbath made for man in creation?” The answer is yes, Jeff. Very obviously, that’s what Kaiser and Christian sabotarians are arguing and agree with. But this isn’t the slam dunk that you think it is. You’re not distinguishing between the substance of the Sabbath over and against its ceremonial aspects like the day. I I went over this in the presentation because what Jeff is trying to claim is that if Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man and it’s hearkening back to the original creation account that was the

Seventh day, therefore the SDA position is the correct one. That’s basically what he’s trying to get at. But no, Jeff, you arrived at this error because you’re not distinguishing between the substance of the Sabbath over and against its ceremonial form. The ceremonial form is not some eternal substantive thing. And it’s your inability or refusal to distinguish this fact that once again leads you to asking questions you think are brain busters but actually pose zero problems. I’ll talk about this more when we look at uh Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy

5 later. But then his second question was, “Is this God’s Sabbath, the Sabbath that is the seventh day in Genesis 2 2 uh through 3?” Yes, Jeff, because there’s only one Sabbath. This is again your inability to think in categories that’s clouding your thinking. The substance of the of the Sabbath has never changed. It will never change because it’s not a day. Days are not eternal. Days are not transcendent. They’re a part of creation. The day is not a part of the substance, sir. Before the creation week, the substance of the Sabbath was still present.

You guys should understand this as your SDA pioneers stole this from the reformed tradition also. But then they twisted it by filtering it through the great controversy theme which results in all sorts of silliness. God resting on the seventh day is not the substance of the Sabbath. The substance is actually God himself. And the Sabbath teaches us something about him. There is then a memorial day given in creation that points to that substance. But the memorial is not the substance. It’s just like a a sign on the interstate for a gas station. Well, is

The sign the gas station itself? No. It’s a sign that’s telling you or pointing you to the thing itself. Mark 2:27 is also being spoken during the old creation period. The substance during that period of time was the same as it always has been. In the new creation, a ceremonial aspect of the command has changed by virtue of God entering his rest a different day, the first day. And the ceremonial form not only can change, but it does change. And I’m going to show that later. But I talked about all this in my presentation, Jeff. So you should already know this. You

Should already know why this question doesn’t pose any problems for me, especially if my position is weaker than weak and you’re allegedly going to demolish it. Then thirdly, he asked, “Or is this Israel’s Sabbath just for the Jews?” And this is where Jeff demonstrates he doesn’t understand the way Christian sabotarians are using the phrase Jewish Sabbath. He mentioned this phrase a little bit earlier, but Jeff, we’re not using that phrase the way antonyomians or dispensationalists are. It is simply a landmark term that we use to refer to the memorial of the Sabbath during a

Specific period of redemptive history, even prior to Israel. But the Jewish Sabbath shared the exact same substance as the Christian Sabbath. No different. Israel simply missed the substance of the Sabbath despite their strict gatekeeping. It’s like I’m I’m I’m chuckling folks just because it’s like I’m not laughing at them and it’s sad when I say this but it’s just it’s the facts is Adventists are like the the Israel wanderers mentioned in Hebrews 3 and4 Israel simply missed the substance of the of the Sabbath despite their strict daykeeping. They wandered around in the wilderness

And didn’t enter into God’s rest. We’re told because they didn’t believe the gospel. Hebrews 4 2-4 yet they were observing the seventh day which further showcases that daykeeping is not the substance of the Sabbath. It’s a ceremonial component of it that points us to the substance. That’s what a memorial does. So the answer is simple. Yes. Your errant understanding of the Sabbath is the problem, not Mark 2:27. Then fourthly, he asked, “Or is this Israel’s Sabbath just for the Jews the same seventh day in the weekly cycle as God’s seventh day in creation in the weekly

Cycle?” Uh the answer to which is the same as it was to the you know the previous ones. Yes. Because the ceremonial form of the command isn’t the gift given by uh to man by God. It’s really about God giving himself to us. That that’s ultimately what the substance is about. not a day. That’s why I keep saying you guys deify a 24 rota hour rotation around the sun thinking that that’s some like transcendent eternal thing as if that’s like some core component to to really observe the Sabbath. You have to be going to church on Saturday. No, dude. You’re like

Israel in the wilderness. You’re completely missing it. Jesus truly is the substance of the Sabbath and what it’s rooted in. The memorial, the day points to that the seventh day did in the old creation, the first day does in the new creation. It points to the same thing. Then fifthly, he asked, is this the seventh day in creation that determines and governs each and every day in the weekly cycle according to the New Testament? Again, Jeff, the same as the last few answers. It’s you’re not delineating between the substance of of the Sabbath and the ceremonial form that

Accompanies it. And the New Testament is the period in which the new creation begins. This doesn’t mean it changed the weekly cycle like he said earlier, but the author of Hebrews explains this and I went over it in the presentation he’s referencing. God and Christ in redemption paralleled God in creation. God did a mighty miraculous work of creation, accomplished that work, and entered his rest the seventh day. Jesus, God in Christ, did a mighty miraculous work of redeeming that creation, making it new, accomplished that work, but then entered his rest not on the seventh day,

The first day. The memorial day is determined based on when God entered his rest. Jeff, you agree? But you fail to to grasp that in the new creation, God entered his rest on a different day. Creation, rest, and redemption. That’s what the Sabbath is rooted in. And to truly understand this doctrine, you have to understand all three of those aspects and look at all of redemptive history, not just little cherrypicked portions that you guys look at and then try and drag out exhaustively beyond those. You’re missing the forest for the trees. Basically,

Jesus did a new creation act that was greater than that of the Genesis creation. Yes, the redemption of the creation from Genesis was a greater act than the original creation. And you have two different days of God entering his rest. Originally, he entered the seventh. In redemption, he entered the first. None of these questions are problematic when one understands the old and new creation and how Jesus entering his rest the first day, just like God and creation entered the seventh, establishes the new memorial of the new creation. But that new memorial still points to

The same substance that the old creation memorial did. It points us to God himself. I I don’t really know any other way to say it. I said the same thing in that presentation. That’s what Hebrews 4 is saying. Notice what Thomas Watson says on this. I’ve been showing this a lot recently because it’s a home run explanation. This is from his book, The Ten Commandments. Long before John’s Parker, Mr. Dowel quote now there is a grand reason for changing of the Jewish Sabbath remember what we mean by that to the Lord’s day because this puts us in mind of the

Mystery of the redemption by Christ. The reason why God did institute the old Sabbath was because God would have it kept as a memorial of the creation. But the Lord hath now brought the first day of the week in the room of it, in memory of a more glorious work than creation, and that is redemption. What he means by that is a more glorious work of recreation, a greater creative work. Great was the work of creation, but greater was the work of redemption. As it was said, Haggi 2:9, the glory of the second temple was greater than the glory of the first temple. So the glory

Of the red of of the redemption was greater than the glory of the creation. He’s just pointing to a an example of the lesser to the greater. There’s all sorts of these in the Bible. Even that’s what I’m saying. All these details, folks, sorry not to to sidetrack from the the quote here, but folks, all these details in the Bible like that, like the first temple to the second temple, is this just some arbitrary thing that’s happening that’s documented down in the Bible? No. There’s these little nuggets there that are teaching you something. The glory of the second temple was

Greater than the first temple. The glory of the new creation is greater than that of the old creation. There’s all sorts of parallels like this. That’s what the whole book of Hebrews is about. Great wisdom was seen in the curious making of us, but more miraculous wisdom in saving us. Great power was seen in bringing us out of nothing. The creation x nahilo in Genesis. But greater power in helping us when we were worse than nothing. It cost more to redeem us than to create us. In the creation, there was but speaking a word. Psalm 148:5. In the redeeming of

Us, there was the shedding of blood. 1 Peter 1:19. The creation was the work of God’s finger. Psalm 8:3. Redemption was the work of his arm. Luke 1:5. In the creation, God gave us ourselves. In the redemption, he gave us himself. By creation, we have a life in Adam. By redemption, we have a life in Christ. Colossians 3:3. By creation, we had a right to an earthly paradise. But by redemption, we have a title to an heavenly kingdom. So that well Christ might change the seventh day of the week into the first because this day puts us in mind of our

Redemption which is a more glorious work than the creation. Close quote. Man, this is why the resurrection is appealed to as support for the first day Sabbath. Mr. dowel. It isn’t just because well uh the resurrection and we just think that’s a good thing to remember which is basically one of the arguments Doug Bachelor tried making and I hear countless Adventists argue and it’s because they don’t understand why the resurrection day is being pointed to. And I get it. I get it folks to be fair. I get it. I get it. Lots of Christians do not have a deep theology

On this subject. The Bible is complex in terms of it has all sorts of topics and different depths and levels of of depth on various doctrines etc. I get it. So lots of Christians have just said well because the resurrection day and they’ve heard this from other people but that is a summation statement. The resurrection day is the day that God entered his rest in the new creation. That’s why that’s being said. That’s why the resurrection day is being pointed to. That was when Jesus entered his rest and the new creation was inaugurated. Meaning Jesus ceased from the work of

Redemption. He had accomplished it in full. It was not applied in full but accomplished in full. Meaning, so for example, part of what Jesus accomplished in redemption is our resurrection. But that hasn’t happened yet. So it hasn’t been applied by the Holy Spirit yet. That is a future thing to still come. But it was all completely accomplished at the resurrection. That’s what Paul hinges it on in 1 Corinthians 15. But it was that first day that he ceased from that work as the suffering servant and entered his rest. The evidence of Jeff not distinguishing

Between the substance versus the ceremonial aspects of the Sabbath is that he treats the day as though it can’t change. When ceremonial aspects of it not only can change, but they do change in scripture as redemptive history unfolds. Again, I’m going to show this later. It’s also why this subject is a lot bigger than just the original creation act in Israel. It’s why I went to great lengths to lay out a bigger picture than the SDA position does. The Adventist position has latched on to certain aspects of redemptive history and then misses the bigger picture in the process.

But Jeff, I have a challenge for you regarding Mark 2:27. Okay. This is what your prophetus had to say regarding the Sabbath in heaven. quote, “All heaven is keeping the Sabbath, but not in a listless, do nothing way. On this day, every energy of the soul should be awake. For are we not to meet with God and with Christ our Savior? We may behold him by faith. He’s longing to refresh and bless every soul.” Close quote. So Jeff Jesus in Mark 2 said that the Sabbath was made. So, it isn’t eternal in the sense that you guys try and claim it is. But furthermore, he said it was made for

Who? Man. Not angels. Not heavenly beings, not beings on other worlds. Yet, your prophetus claims heavenly beings are keeping the Sabbath when it was made for man. On top of that, how are they keeping the Sabbath if days are a part of creation? creation of the earth. In the great controversy paradigm, you guys teach that the ten commandments were around before the creation of the earth and all of heaven was following them, which would include the Sabbath. So, are they keeping the seventh day Sabbath? How if days were created when the earth was?

You either have to say that they’re keeping the substance of it, but they’re not on the same weekly cycle that we are, which is the defense I’ve heard from numerous Adventists. To which I say, I rest my case. Thank you for concinged that the day is not a part of the substance of the command and one can keep the Sabbath apart from the seventh day. Or you have to make the seventh day in the creation week eternal somehow. say the weekly cycle has eternally existed and then poured it to heaven where angels and spirit beings are on the same weekly cycle that we are.

Your prophet has tried to prove too much here and Mark 2:27 based on what she says about Mark 2:27. You as an Adventist pastor are bound to uphold what she claimed here. So that’s my challenge to you on this point, Jeff. Looking forward to your answer. see why I asked that question because Miles a sidekick Sam Shimone he says that he interprets the Old Testament from the New Testament. So we’re going to go that direction. You’re going to see that in a moment. Is this now remember I’m talking about Mark 27:28. Is this the Sabbath that is written in the Ten Commandments

In Exodus 20:es 8-11? So is this Sabbath right here in Mark 227 the Sabbath that is written in the Ten Commandments? Just simply answer the question. This question is for the critics. But any viewers, if you want to do this, just sit down and write your answers to these questions. Is this the Sabbath that is written in the ark of the covenant, Revelation 11:19, and the tabernacle of the testimony in Revelation 15:5? Is this the Sabbath that is in those arcs, in the ark of the covenant? Now, remember the context. Is the Sabbath day in Mark 2:27, the first day of the week,

The Sunday Sabbath, or the seventh day of the week, the Saturday Sabbath, the same seventh day according to the weekly cycle in Genesis 1 and 2? Is the Pharisees charging Jesus and the disciples for breaking the first day of the week, Sunday Sabbath, or the seventh day of the week, the Saturday Sabbath? Very important questions there. Very important. Remember, Jesus said this before he ever went to the cross, didn’t he? He made this statement before he ever went to the cross. So, did the Pharisees know anything about the first day of the week, Sunday Sabbath? Did the

Pharisees keep the first day Sunday Sabbath? Is this first day Sunday Sabbath found written in the law of God? So, he says Sam Shimone is my sidekick. For those of you that know, for those of you that know Sam in the audience that are friends with him, please relay that message to him. He’ll get a kick out of that. Jeff, Sam is a friend. He’s not my sidekick, though. I did get a good chuckle out of that when I first heard it, and I’m still getting cut up here. It’s really irrelevant to bring up Sam, though, as Sam doesn’t even have an identical view to me on the Sabbath.

How’s he How is he my sidekick on this? We don’t even have an identical view. we agree in terms of the substance, but I would just go a step further and say, but there’s still a Memorial Day that points to that substance, which is ultimately what the seventh day was previously. He he would disagree and he would well, he’s actually going to bring that up a little bit later, so I’ll save it for there. But I’m not sure why bringing him up deals with anything in my presentation. But Sam was also correct in what he mentioned there that the New Testament

Interprets the Old Testament, not the other way around. I mean, this is just hermeneutics 101. The New Testament is further revelation from God that speaks to prior revelation. All cults have this backward, folks. All of them. They try interpret the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, which is exactly what the SDA system does. But then he asked another series of questions, and my answer is still the same, Jeff. Yes, because the substance of that Sabbath is eternal and doesn’t change. The day is not a part of the substance, which is what Jeff is ultimately trying

To argue for. And his inability to distinguish between the substance and the memorial is why he thinks this is some sort of home run that thwamps my view and all the brilliant minds that came before his sect. Jeff, the Sabbath in Genesis fell on Adam and Eve’s first day. Until you’re able to prove for us that Adam and Eve were there on day 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, you won’t be able to convince me that the seventh day of that week was actually their seventh day because it wasn’t. And like I showed, you also need to demonstrate how the Sabbath in Mark 2:27,

What you’re trying, you know, you’re tying the seventh day to as some sort of eternal, unalterable, unchangeable aspect of this eternal command. How that seventh day was around and functioning for all of heaven before the earth was even created. You need to explain why Jesus says it was made for man. Yet your prophetus that you’re bound to yield to claimed that angels and all sorts of beings are keeping it. You need to explain how they’re doing so despite the weekly cycle on earth being a part of its creation. And you guys believe these other creatures were around long before

The earth’s creation. But then the question about the Pharisees, he asked, “Are the Pharisees charging Jesus and the disciples for breaking the first day of the week, Sunday Sabbath, or the seventh day of the week Sabbath?” Again, Jeff, you said you read the book by John’s Parker, which is titled The Sabbath Transferred. Like I said earlier, folks, his questions are all predicated upon his faulty, errant understanding of what was claimed. I never said the Sabbath in Genesis was a first day Sunday Sabbath. Jeff, you really need to better study what you’re criticizing. You’re not

Demolishing anything. You’re embarrassing yourself. It’s not this isn’t the gotcha that you think it is. And if your questions are posed at me since I’m your reference here and you said, you know, these are for the critics, I’m beginning to think you didn’t actually watch my presentation because I repeatedly explained that the Sabbath was tainted by the fall and thus even man’s rest became tainted. He’d have to work now by the sweat of his brow and have to work to enter rest versus how he started off his original disposition in holy communion with God.

Jesus then comes and restores that disposition. The term first day Sabbath is not referring to the seventh day in creation being Sunday. Again, he’s going to make a big deal about this in part two where he’s like he he says Adventist read Saturday into the into Genesis when my whole point was it doesn’t say Saturday or Sunday because that that that’s not the point and my chart was to support what I was saying and be get behind out of the way of all that fog to look at a a greater point. So that alone proves I was not saying that the Sabbath in Genesis was Sunday and that

It was like it was God’s seventh day and it was Adam and Eve’s first day. So it was Sunday for them or something like that. When I said Adam and Eve’s first day was God’s seventh, I’m not saying it was Sunday for them, but Saturday for God to use vernacular that we would in our day. So if Jeff actually watched attentively, he would know my answer to this already because Doug Bachelor used the same reasoning that that Jeff is all Adventists do. Yes, Jesus and the disciples observe the memorial of the old creation. I said this repeatedly in the presentation.

It was two parts, six hours. I said that I don’t know how many times. He even mentioned that Jesus said what he did in Mark 2:27. And he said these words before the cross. Yes, before the new creation was inaugurated and Jesus entered his rest on the first day from the work of recreation. I’m going to scoot back from the mic, Jeff, and I’m going to say it a little bit louder. Maybe that will help you get it. This was before the new creation was inaugurated.

We aren’t in the old creation anymore, Jeff. The memorial in the new creation is when God in Christ entered his rest the first day. I I wish you guys would get this so you could understand why Christians rejoice, why we celebrate what the first day is actually memorializing instead of trying to say, “Well, that’s about Satan and the Pope.” No, it’s not. It’s why you guys aren’t Christians for the most part. Totally confused. don’t understand the gospel. Don’t understand what was accomplished that day. Don’t understand don’t understand anything about what’s

Going on. It’s like bing and scoffing at me earlier saying this is the paradigm he’s coming from. Yeah, cuz I’m a Christian. I believe the gospel. I want Adventist to understand this. That’s why I’m getting worked up. Jesus entered his rest the first day, not the original, not the seventh day when God entered the original creation. Deuteronomy 5 proves that the ceremonial form of the commandment can change and that there’s a difference between the ceremonial form and the substance. The day is a part of ceremony, not substance. I showed all this. Why are you not

Engaging with any of it? You’re just taking sound bites of what I said, twisting it, and then posing questions that pose zero problems for anything I I said, knocking down a bunch of straw men. It does however prove that you don’t know what you’re criticizing despite insisting that you do. So is Mark 2:27 talking about a a first day Sunday Sabbath made for man in creation? Well, let’s read the text in Exodus 20. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is and rested the seventh day. Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and

Hour it. Now there’s Mark 2:27. And he said unto them, the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. So think about it. Is this Sabbath day according to the weekly cycle in order of each day the same Sabbath here and here? Is that what he’s talking about? Is it the same Sabbath? Just answer the questions. Or is this Sabbath according to the weekly cycle in order of each day a different Sabbath? Is this Sabbath the first day Sabbath or the seventh day Sabbath? Now remember these guys, I’m going to get into it here so you can see what they say. You’re going to see that

Miles believes that there was the first day Sabbath in creation. So I’m just asking the question, which one of these is it? Is it the seventh day Sabbath or the first day Sabbath? Is this Sabbath according to the weekly cycle and order of each day the same seventh day or a different seventh day than the seventh day in the first week of creation? Now, you may not understand some of this now, but you will by the time we get through it. Now, Jeff, you’re either ignorant on this, misunderstood, or you’re dishonest. I already explained this earlier, so I’m not going to belabor the

Point, but he entirely misunderstood what my chart was conveying and my own words explaining it, which is why he hasn’t even bothered to play a single second of my own words. Jeff, you really need to study the differences between the commands substance and its ceremonial form. Days are not eternal. You’re treating the days as though they have some sort of inherent eternality. Folks, here’s another visual for you all, including you, Jeff. Hopefully, you aren’t confused by another visual aid paired with me explaining it. I’ve shown this before. There are two creation accounts in

Reference here. Redemption was a creation act of God. It wasn’t creation xnahilo, the creation of the physical matter. One of the creation acts was he brought about the matter from nothing as the first cause. This creation then became tainted due to sin. The first Adam failed to do what God commanded of him. He was supposed to obey, be fruitful and multiply, subdue the earth, and take dominion of it. And he was blessed to be in holy communion with God. The second Adam did what the first Adam failed to do. Not only does he perfectly do what the first Adam failed to do, but he also

Recreates, restores, redeems the creation that man broke. Then he rules and reigns over it, subduing all of his enemies as they’re being made his foottool, which is the true fulfillment of the command to subdue the earth and take dominion over it. He obeyed God perfectly as a man which the first Adam did not. In the original creation act, God did a mighty miraculous work. He accomplished that work successfully. Then he entered his rest on the seventh day. Meaning he ceased from creation exnahilo. He’s not doing that anymore. And he hasn’t been doing that since he

Entered this rest. God in Christ parallels God in creation in the work of redemption or recreation. He also did a mighty miraculous work accomplished that work in full but entered his rest on the first day. Thus the new memorial is when God entered his rest in the new creation. I don’t want to sidetrack, but part of the issue is the SDA idea of redemption being an afterthought, a plan B. Because part of what I’d argue is that the memorial in the original creation typified the new creation because God was not unawares of what Adam and Eve would do.

And from eternity past, it was always the will and desire of the son to freely give of himself as the one who would redeem and save a people whom the father had given him before the foundation of the world. But Jeff, that’s what Hebrews 4 is talking about. The author is explaining how just like God in creation did what he did, so too God in Christ in redemption parallels that work and then entered his rest. This is why you have to understand the Sabbath being rooted in creation, rest, and redemption, not just focus on the creation aspect. There’s a lot more going on here than

Just hyperfocusing in on the memorial day, the old creation memorial day at that, which is a part of the ceremonial form of the command and then missing the bigger picture. So, we compare Genesis 2 with Exodus 20. on the seventh day. The seventh day. Now, so we mention, we see here that God mentions the seventh day and the seventh day. Notice Exodus 20:10, but the seventh day. All right. So, let’s ask, is the seventh day in Exodus 20:10, according to each day in its order of the weekly cycle, the same seventh day as Genesis 2:2? Now, remember Genesis 2, it says that

The Lord did what? God blessed the seventh day. And then, of course, we find the seventh day and the ten commandments, don’t we? Exodus 20:1. So, we find Genesis 2, the 7th day. We find Exodus 20, the 7th day, the Sabbath day. Now, is the seventh day the Sab the Sabbath day? It is, isn’t it? Is that what Exodus 20 says? Is this Sabbath day in Exodus 201, according to each day in its order of the weekly cycle, the same seventh day in Exodus 20:1? Yes, it is. It is right there. It is. Now, this Sabbath day on the seventh day is not simply one day in seventh because you’re

Going to hear people say that, but rather the seventh day in sequential order based on the weekly cycle of the seventh day in creation. Not one single time in the entire Bible is the seventh day a cardinal number seven. Not one single time. The seventh is ordinal, not cardinal. Ordinal means a consecutive sequential order. Okay? Not one time. And is this seventh day in Exodus 2011 the same seventh day in Genesis 2:3 according to each day in its order of the weekly cycle. These Bible texts and contexts does a devastating blow to Miles’s first day, Sunday Sabbath in

Genesis as man’s first week. This idea of man’s week and a different week, God’s week, is a manmade idea. Now, what I’ve done is I’ve actually brought this out before I got to what he actually says because now you’re going to be able to see what he says on this very thing. So, if this is true, does it mean that if the Sabbath is in creation for all mankind, does that include Adam? And if all mankind includes Adam, then that eliminates the idea that the Sabbath was or is just for the Jews only. Correct? Why then does our first day of the week Sunday keepers use the terms the Jewish

Sabbath and Christian Sabbath to make this artificial distinction between the two when the Sabbath is for all mankind? Jeff, it’s only an alleged devastating blow when you’re arguing against something that wasn’t claimed. I already explained earlier what I meant by the chart and man’s week and God’s week. Go watch the presentation, folks. It’s in the description box. I never claimed what he said. The chart is simply a visual to show how Adam and Eve came into existence and based on evening to evening, their first day of existence would have been the

Seventh day of the week. I did not say that there were two different weeks with Adam and Eve’s first day being Sunday and God’s week is his seventh day. Jeff entirely misunderstood or is misrepresenting the reason for me even bringing this up. This was the start of a redemptive historical explanation of the doctrine of the Sabbath. And I was showing how it’s a lot bigger than the SDA church makes it. They zoom in on small aspects of the hole and then try and draw those out to be universals. So in true irony, Jeff, you’re burning all these straw men playing with fire

And it’s only burning yourself. What’s sad is you think that people like myself, Philip Kaiser, and a merid of others haven’t heard these objections before, haven’t thought about this before, etc. is exactly why I said what I did regarding SDA’s not knowing what they’re criticizing and why I said earlier this is going to age like milk because all this stuff is predicated on your faulty misrepresentations. I didn’t claim there’s a first day Sabbath in Sunday Sabbath in Genesis. Again, I’m going to keep bringing this up. You yourself are going to make a big

Deal in part two saying he says that Adventists read the word Saturday into Genesis and you leave off the fact that I said it doesn’t say Sunday either. John’s Parker’s book says the Sabbath transferred talking about the new creation which means we’re not saying what you claim we are saying. You need to study the way others are using words and terminology and understand what they mean by those words. It’s why on this platform I’m always talking about the great controversy worldview and explaining for my audience how the SDA system is defining things,

Not putting my own spin on what they’re claiming by reading into it definitions they don’t meet. Notice he only cites Exodus 20. I brought this up in my presentation. I’ve said multiple times we’re going to get to this. They always cite Exodus 20 and don’t look at the conjunction or or look at it in conjunction with Deuteronomy 5. So, let me help Jeff out here. Before even reading, I’m going to be crystal clear about my point. Adventists will hear this and say, “It still says the seventh day.” Yes, we’re aware. The point of bringing this up is that

Within the second giving of the law, that’s what Deuteronomy means. Deuteros is second and and is is law. The second giving of the law. Exodus was the first giving. Deuteronomy is the second. In the second giving, we see that the fourth commandment changes in its ceremonial form. And I’ll explain what I mean by that. Notice the sidebyside of the two. What’s the difference? Exodus 28-11. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son,

Or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or your sojourer, who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy. And then Deuteronomy 5:12-15. 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 a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work. You or your son or your

Daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock or the sojourer who is within your gates that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore, the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. And thus, the reading of God’s holy word. Is everything about those identically the same? Every single aspect?

No, they’re not. Part of the ceremonial form of the command has changed. what is to be remembered changes. Now, this doesn’t mean that they weren’t to still remember God as creator. That’s not what I’m saying. But we see an addendum, if you will, which is added to the ceremonial form that is uh that it was to also memorialize redemption. Creation, rest, redemption. As redemptive history is unfolding, more revelations happening. It’s rooted in creation, rest, and redemption. This is why the author of Hebrews in chapter 4 ties the Sabbath to both creation and redemption. The

Largest portion of New Testament literature we have on the subject of the Sabbath is Hebrews 4. And the entire point is that after explaining in Hebrews 3 that Jesus is a better Moses and a better Joshua, Jesus is leading a better Exodus out of a worse slavery than Egypt, slavery to sin. and he’s leading us into a better promised land. Not earthly Canaan, but the city of God. This was made possible by the Lord Jesus Christ, who redeemed the creation that fell in the beginning. That’s why the gospel is good news. It’s the news about the person and work of Jesus, who he is,

And what he did. It’s why Christians are right when they say Jesus is their Sabbath rest. Yes, this is true. Some of us are simply willing to recognize one step further that just like of old, there’s still a memorial day that serves as a landmark for when we remember and celebrate the gospel, which is what church worship is. We’re celebrating the accomplishment of our redemption in the gospel. And we have biblical basis for why we do this on the first day. It’s not traditions of man. It’s the day Jesus entered his rest after accomplishing this recreation work

And entered his rest. And until we physically arrive there, that memorial day will continue until we arrive at that place where our bodies are glorified and we no longer need physical rest. Rest for our soul is a true and present reality. But our bodies still need rest until they’re resurrected and glorified. But in the first giving of the law found in Exodus, the Sabbath roots in creation. Later on in redemptive history, it’s rooted in redemption. And what that proves is the ceremonial aspects of the command can change. That’s my point. The day is a part of

The ceremonial form. And later in redemptive history, that changes. It becomes the day that God in Christ entered his rest from the recreation of the fallen creation which was the act of redemption creation rest and redemption folks perfectly consistent with this. That’s what the Sabbath and redemptive history pointed to. It’s all pointing to Jesus even the days. The reason I made such a big point about Adam and Eve’s first day being God’s seventh was because of this. It’s not arbitrary. that’s pointing to Jesus, the second Adam. It’s a small detail in scripture that

Points us to Jesus even in the smallest of details. So Jeff, don’t try and tell us that the day can’t change. Don’t try and act like it’s some eternal unalterable, you know, he talks about these things like, well, in Revelation it says the ark of the covenant with the ten commandments in heaven. I mean, we’re not going to get into interpretive methods of of of apocalyptic literature, etc. But stop acting like the days are some sort of eternal unalterable thing because then like you’re prophetist you try and prove too much. Just because there isn’t a verbatim text that says

The Sabbath was changed to Sunday, that doesn’t prove that the essence of that claim isn’t present in the Bible. 95% of your guys’ teachings aren’t verbatim stated in the Bible. investigative judgment, health message, Ellen White possessing the spirit of prophecy, national Sunday law, and on and on and on. Don’t hold unjust weights and measures. God in the Proverbs says he hates that. Hebrews 4 explains exactly what I said despite it not being verbatim worded that way. And I showed this in the presentation that he’s criticizing as it pertains to the phrases Jewish

Sabbath and Christian Sabbath. Like we saw from William Twice and Philip Shaw, they both use these two phrases. Jeff pointed to Kaiser’s book where he also uses the phrase the Jewish Sabbath. And the only reason Jeff thinks this is a problem is because he doesn’t understand what’s being said. To reiterate from earlier since he’s bringing this up again, myself and those that hold my position are not using the term Jewish Sabbath to refer to the Sabbath only being for the Jews. It is a landmark term. We are using it to refer to a certain period of time.

It’s a delineation between old and new creation. Jewish Sabbath refers to the period from the beginning of in Genesis to the inauguration of the new creation. The Christian Sabbath refers to the period from the resurrection through to the second coming when the consummation state is ushered in and we enter into the antityypical promised land, eternity with God, physically entering into God’s rest where Jesus has already gone ahead of us as the forerunner. That’s the true veil that he entered in as a forerunner. Hebrews 6:19-20, the presence of God.

We’re not using it like modern evangelicalism and dispensationalists do, which both came later in history than my position. They use it to say the Sabbath is exclusive to the Jews. So, I agree your question would be problematic for that position, but not for mine. Jeff, you were so confident earlier that you knew this position and you boked and scoffed at my claim that most Adventists don’t. Yet over and over and over again in this presentation, you vindicate my claim by your own questions and your own claims. If you understood the position, you

Should already know the answer and why this question isn’t a problem and how the terms Jewish and Christian Sabbath are being used by Christian sabotarians. So, now let’s look at God’s week. SDAs believe that God’s seventh day Sabbath is in creation and is for all mankind and precedes Moses and the Jews. Now, let’s get to Sam and Miles. Watch what they say. So, I’m going to ask a question here. So, tell us Sam and Miles, is the Sabbath in creation for all mankind? Simple question. It’s either yes or no. Remember Jesus said in Matthew 12:37, here’s what Jesus says. For by thy words

Thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. So be careful what you say when you answer these questions. Be very careful. Isaiah chapter 1 verse 18 tells us, “Come now and let us reason together.” So in this discussion or dialogue in regard to answering these questions, there should be no name calling. I’m not going to call Miles a name and I’m not going to call Sam a name. So there should be no name calling. We’re just dealing with the questions I’m raising about the very text and the things we’re going to talk about in regard to this first day Sunday

Sabbath. So Sam was asked a question about the Sabbath. Do you keep the Sabbath? Well, Sam says, “Yes, I do keep the Sabbath.” Sam is saying this. He says, “Yes, I do keep the Sabbath as defined, explained, interpreted in the New Testament.” Okay. Well, let’s see if that’s true. Sam argues that he keeps God’s Sabbath of creation based on two points. Now, before I get into this, what Sam does is he’ll say, “You don’t know what he believes, so you’re creating a straw man argument.” No, I know exactly what Sam believes, and I’m going to go into it. In the seal next

Videos, I’ll be covering exactly what Sam and Miles believe on these passages. Jeff, no, you don’t. You don’t. You’ve misrepresented my position on this more than anyone I’ve ever engaged with on this thus far. And that’s saying a lot because I’ve engaged with thousands thousands of people. And here you really evidence you don’t know what you’re talking about because Sam and I don’t have identical positions on this. So how are you going to show what we believe when we disagree on some of the components that you’re trying to call into question? This is why I said in my defense of the

First day Sabbath presentation that Adventists often operate in a false binary on the subject. You either believe what they do or you automatically fall into this other camp. It’s only those two options when no it isn’t. Bringing up Sam Shimone is irrelevant to the presentation that you’re critiquing, Jeff. You’re now jumping to a discussion that I had where he asked me to come on to his program and sit down and listen to an SDA YouTuber who made a video about it. So, we engaged that totally different focus than my defense of the first day Sabbath.

Again, Sam and I don’t agree on every aspect of the Sabbath, and that’s fine. Believe it or not, I’m friends with lots of people that disagree with me theologically on all sorts of matters because believe it or not, I think you can actually learn things from people that think differently than you do. I already answered his question. Yes, it is. The ceremonial form of it can change though, and it does change, but the substance has always been the same. The promise of entering God’s rest is to be proclaimed to all of creation. In the highways and byways compel people to

Come in. When one enters into Christ by faith, they receive rest for their soul and the promises of the gospel. One of which is the promise of entering the city of God, the eternal rest of God, where Jesus has gone ahead of us as he has already entered as the forerunner. And until that happens, we have a memorial that we gather on to celebrate this, which is the first day of the week when Jesus accomplished that redemption and entered his rest. Sam doesn’t agree with me on the Memorial Day aspect, but he does on the substance. And that’s fine. Most

Christians that disagree on this still functionally recognize such by corporately gathering on that Memorial Day to celebrate our redemption. So I don’t really care if they disagree. People are at varying stages in their theological studies. Folks, I didn’t always affirm what I do now on this. This didn’t come to almost a decade after being a Christian. But I kept studying the biblical texts in this area with a more dedicated focus and was persuaded. But trying to inject other people into the mix doesn’t disprove the presentation you’re primarily focusing

On. You’re referring here to Sam uh to when he was speaking for himself regarding a claim that Bible Flockbox made about it. That doesn’t deal with me or my presentation. But it’s interesting because his way around it would be, well, you’re bringing up a straw man argument of something he never said. Well, we’re going to go on what he does say. And Sam argues that he keeps God’s Sabbath of creation based on two points. Number one, there’s no evening and morning, the seventh day. He uses this. And number two, he uses Hebrews chapter 4 in the New Testament. On these two, he bases

His conclusion about the Sabbath, God’s Sabbath, in distinction from Israel’s Sabbath. So, I’m not creating some kind of straw man here. I’m just simply going to tell you what he says, what he believes. Jeff, in the exact discussion with Sam you’re referencing, I presented how Sam and I have different understandings on certain aspects of the Sabbath, namely Hebrews 4. So, you’re either ignorant or dishonest. Shoot, Sam and I went talked about this in the presentation, our differences. He sat and and quietly listened. We talk offline. He said, “Yeah, you actually pointed out

Some good things. I hadn’t thought about before. Hey, thanks. And yes, you are attacking straw men because you’re bringing up Sam and his own claims to then try and disprove my presentation from a totally different context when Sam doesn’t speak for me. You ignorantly think that Sam and I have identical views on every aspect of the Sabbath. And we don’t. Your entire presentation thus far has been beating up straw men because you don’t actually understand what you criticize despite your insistence that my claim that most Adventists don’t understand is unfounded.

All because you own John’s Parker’s book. Give me a break. Give me a break. This is the evidence. You are totally out of your depths on this and you show that you haven’t even tried studying to learn what other people actually believe, even if you disagree. Same with Miles. So point one, Sam comes from the point of no evening and morning. Now Del Riff says something interesting about this. Dell Rasliff says the seventh day account does not have the formula and there was evening and there was morning. This is what Dell Rasv says in his books. So if every day,

This is Sam’s conclusion that from God’s Sabbath to the seventh day and the next day and the next day after and the day after that is all considered God’s Sabbath. That means every day not just one day the seventh day but every day is God’s Sabbath. So if every day is the Sabbath as sand interprets no evening and morning and the seventh day is not limited to the seventh day only that is that God rested and blessed and sanctified then all the days that follow the seventh day to the new heaven and earth that Sam says the Sabbath ends then that is indefinite days of time

Undefined by the days of creation week in the weekly cycle. Now this gets interesting. So if I was to put a paradigm together from that very first week of creation and there’s the seventh day, this is what Sam would be teaching that the day after the seventh day and the day after that and the day after that, all this would be every day would be the Sabbath. That’s what Sam’s talking about when there’s no evening and morning in Genesis in regard to the seventh day. Yeah. Because God hasn’t been creating exilo since he ceased. That was Sam’s point.

But then he brings up Dale Ratzoff. Jeff, Dale Ratzoff wasn’t a sabotarian. He and I don’t have identical views on this. I have all the books you’re referencing. Just like you said, you have John’s Parker’s book and I’ve read all of Dale’s books and I love Dale. He was a great man. He was a godly man. You’re actually going to slander him in part two like we’re going to hear. So, I I’ll leave some of that for there. But if you think arguing Dale’s view on the Sabbath somehow refutes me, you only further evidence you have no clue what you’re talking about, despite your

Insistence to the contrary. But now we have to correct what he said here. We’ll leave some of the other stuff for part two. We have to correct Jeff’s misrepresentation of both Sam and Dale. Jeff, you are a dishonest man and you’re incredibly ignorant and have zero business lecturing uh lecturing on this. Despite my differences with Dale, he was a sincere and godly man who loved the Lord. And I’m going to silence your misrepresentation of him. Jeff claimed that Dale Ratzoff said the Sabbath day, not having evening and morning, means that every day was the Sabbath. But what

Jeff isn’t telling you is that they don’t mean the same thing by the term Sabbath that Jeff does. They’re using it in its literal sense, rest. He ceased from the work of creation exhilo. He hasn’t been doing that ever since. It’s not that he’s not doing any work after that. It’s specifically that work that he ceased from, which would mean that every day after that, God is at rest from that specific work. Jeff, that’s not what you’re portraying their view as here. Let’s listen to Dale Ratzoff now speak for himself and see if it matches what Jeff claims about him.

Okay, we’re going to start with the Sabbath in Genesis, the seventh day. Now, remember that creation was completed on which day? That there is no creation week. So, if you hear of creation week, you say, “Oh, that’s not right.” Creation was completed on the sixth day. And God did not keep the Sabbath on the seventh day. The Hebrew word there means ceased. He ceased what? He ceased creating the other things. Okay? And the seventh day in Genesis is a very unique day for a number of reasons. First, there is no formula. And there was evening and there was morning, a seventh

Day. And I believe that the conditions present on that first seventh day would have continued forever. Now I’m not saying there wouldn’t be an eighth day, ninth day and so on if man had not sinned. And that was the one day uh when in scripture when man and God were in right relationship with each other. Now, is that how Jeff portrayed what Dale Ratzoff was saying regarding the seventh day not having evening and morning or not? No, it isn’t. Dale’s point was that God ceased from creation and did not resume such activity on the eighth day, 9inth day,

Etc. Sam was saying the exact same thing and explain such in the video that you’re trying to cherrypick from. And your chart only further proved the point, Jeff. God didn’t pick back up creating Xnahilo. He’s been done with that since he created or or since he entered his rest from the original creation act. And in my presentation you referenced at the beginning of your video responding to Mark Finley, I walk through John 5 where Jesus himself reiterates this. In fact, Sam did as well in the video you referenced with him. Jesus chastises the Jews for trying to

Condemn them uh him and the disciples because he says that both he and his f excuse me because he says that he and his father had been working on the Sabbath. He doesn’t mean that they were creating exilo creation out of nothing but they were upholding the creation redeeming that creation etc. That’s a work. Jeff made a big deal multiple times in this presentation that Christians will use the terms God’s Sabbath in distinction to Israel Sabbath. Yes, Jeff, because the psalter and the author of Hebrews do. It’s biblical. Notice Hebrews 4 1-10 to close things out here. We’re going to

Walk through this yet again. Therefore, this is after the author has explained Moses and Joshua were a type that pointed to Jesus, who’s a better mediator and a better Joshua, leading a better Exodus out of a far worse bondage to slavery than Egypt, the bondage to sin. So therefore, while the promise of entering his rest, that’s God’s rest, still stands, let us fear, lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news, that’s gospel, came to us just as to them, Israel. But the message they heard, the gospel, did not benefit them

Because they weren’t united by faith with those who listened. Ah, so you enter into this rest by faith, by believing. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, now he quotes the psalter. As I swore in my wrath, they shall not enter my rest, God’s rest. Although his works were finished from the foundation of the world, ah the creation work exnahilo. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way. And God rested on the seventh day from all his works. And again in this passage he said they shall not enter my rest God’s rest

Since therefore it remains for some to enter it God’s rest and those who formally received the good news failed to enter because of disbelief or disobedience Israel again he appoints a certain day today saying through David so long afterward in the words already quoted today if you hear his voice do not harden your hearts. This is talking about the belief. You can believe today, right now, any day, and have rest for your soul. For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a sabatismos,

A Sabbath rest for the people of God. For whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Thus the reading of God’s holy word. So I gave my ex Jesus of this paricopy in the presentation that Jeff is critiquing. We also have an article on our website where I break it down as well. And we heard no engagement with this thus far, just assertions that I got this from other people. Well, that doesn’t prove that my understanding isn’t consistent with the biblical text. And the uh at this point in the message, like I said, the author is explaining

The type before then explaining the antitype. Just like there was a rest proposed to the Israelites to enter into, there’s also a rest that’s extended to us, New Testament Christians, for us to enter into. They had Canaan preached to them as the promised land. We have the eternal city of God. This is not to say that the promise of eternity with God wasn’t for them also. But their story is a picture for the modern Christian and that’s how the author is using them. Remember the lesser to the greater this Sabbath rest that remains for us to enter into. That’s God’s rest. God’s

Sabbath. That’s the author of Hebrews, Jeff. Not Sam Shimone, not Philip Kaiser, not Johns Parker, not John Owen, not answering Adventism, the biblical writer. And he’s using the psalter to explain for us what’s going on here. Notice another thing that Owen actually points out regarding verse six specifically. Another non-presbyterian scholar before John’s Parker’s day, by the way. So regarding verse six which says since therefore it remains for some to enter it and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience. Owen writes this therefore

Is the substant uh the substance of this verse besides the rest of God from the foundation of the world and the institution of the seventh day Sabbath as a pledge thereof. There was another rest for men to enter into, namely the rest of God, and his worship in the land of Canaan. This being proposed unto the people of old, they entered not into it by reason of their unbelief. Close quote. So, catch that. Beside the rest of God in creation at the foundation of the world, which the seventh day Sabbath was a pledge of, there’s another rest for men to enter

Into, the rest of God. This is why verse four brings up the creation account in Genesis. Owen points out that there being a a rest of God would mean that a type of work would have would have to precede it. If you rest from something, that means you had been doing something to rest from, basically. And this is when the author of Hebrews is still talking about Israel, the type and shadow before transitioning to how Jesus is better. And Owen rightly notices how in the text there are two types of work in focus. Both the act of God and creation at the

Beginning, as well as the mighty act of God delivering Israel out of Egypt. Two things the Sabbath are rooted in, creation and redemption. He continues, quote, “This thing done, God rests or enters into his own rest.” Then he cites the psalter here. He in the ark of his strength arose and entered into his rest in answer to his rest after his finishing of the works of the first creation. Psalm 132:8. The settlement of his worship and the typical representation of his presence among the people therein, shadowing out his glorious presence in him in whom the

Fullness of the godhead was to dwell bodily. He calls it his rest and his own rest. And here on ensued a double rest proposed to the people. Ah, this is why the Greek grammar, regardless of what the SDA church says, oh, you don’t need any of that. Yes, you do. Yes, you do. The Bible was not written in English. It is helpful to refer to people who understand the Greek language and can help point out these things that can oftenimes be lost in translation. Praise God that we have translations in our own vernacular. But there is a double rest that is

Proposed here. The Greek language shows this one, a spiritual rest in God as having entered into a special covenant with them. Upon God’s rest on the creation, men were invited to enter into God’s rest as the God of nature upon the terms and according unto the law of creation. But by sin, this rest was rendered useless and unprofitable unto all mankind. And the covenant itself lost all its power of bringing men unto God. This is what I was saying, Jeff, about the rest of man became tainted in the fall. But now in this erection of a new church state among the posterity of Abraham,

The foundation of it was the premise made unto Abraham, which contained in it the substance of another covenant, where unto God through Jesus Christ would enter and rest therein, whereon he invites them by faith and obedience to enter into it also into the rest of God. And then two, there was a pledge of this spiritual rest proposed unto the people, and this was the land of Canaan, and the quiet proposition thereof, and exercised of the worship of God therein. By this, and their respect unto it, God tried their faith and obedience as to that spiritual rest, which, as it were, lay

Hid under it. And herein it was that they failed whose example is proposed and considered in this chapter. Close quote. The author of Hebrews is using Israel as an example for us and he’s making a compare and contrast for his original Jewish convert here. He points out these realities that the Jewish believer would have been acutely aware of like Moses and Joshua and the Exodus and the Sabbath, etc. And he’s explaining how Jesus is what all of that pointed to. But within all of those things, there are parallels that Jesus himself did. Israel in the wilderness had the gospel

Preached to them, but they failed to enter Canaan due to their unbelief. So too, there’s a rest being offered to us, the New Testament Christian, to believe the gospel and also enter into Christ by faith and receive spiritual rest. The phrase God’s rest essentially refers to the gospel, the person and work of Jesus, and the call to believe the gospel and enter in. Don’t harden your hearts like Israel did. The wilderness is like a picture of life. And Jesus is leading his people through this wilderness to the promised land, the eternal consummation state.

And as I showed in the presentation that Jeff is critiquing, verses 8 to 10 become pivotal. For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then there remains a sabatism, a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Two pivotal aspects are the phrase sabatismos, which is uniquely used here. The author actually made this word up and it’s translated as Sabbath rest in verse 9. Or it could be Sabbathkeeping or Sabbath day. This is different from elsewhere in this

Chapter where the term rest or God’s rest is translated as cataposis and this matters badly or big time. Sabatismos refers to daykeeping, weekly daykeeping. Cataposus refers antypically to God’s rest, the eternal state. Which is why Owen points out, and I agree with him, the text is saying that there’s a day that remains to memorialize this rest of God that we can enter into just like there was a day that memorialized God entering his rest in the original creation, that day in the new creation being the first day. But that leads to the second pivotal

Component, the phrase for whoever in verse 10, as the uh ESV renders it. Owen and other Greek grimarians point out that this for whoever is singularly personal in the Greek, meaning it’s referring to one individual, not a corporate group of individuals. So some translators will say that what’s being said is that when a believer believes the gospel, they cease from their works and then enter into God’s rest like God rested from his. And that’s what verses 9 and 10 are saying. Now, it’s true that the author did say back in verse three that when we

Believe, we enter. But something of bigger magnitude is being said in verses 9 and 10. The author says the one who entered into God’s rest did so in like manner to God back in creation. That’s pivotal. He’s making a parallel. God in creation and the Exodus did a mighty miraculous work, accomplished that work, and then entered his rest. That’s not what the believer does when they ceased from their works and trust in Christ. God rested and then looked over his work with joy. The believer doesn’t rest from their sinful works and then look back over

Those works with joy. It’s not a good parallel. It doesn’t fit. However, Jesus, the single person, does fit both grammatically and contextually because he did do a parallel work that was mighty and miraculous. He redeemed or recreated the sinstained creation. He accomplished that mighty work in full. And then he entered his rest after accomplishing that work, looking back over that accomplished work with glee and joy. But he entered the first day when the work was finished, not the seventh. That’s why a Sabatism moss, a Sabbath day does still remain for the people of

God that memorializes this work, the day that God in Christ entered his rest in the new creation, the first day when he walked out of the tomb. Now, we will pick back up where we left off in part two. But so far, all Jeff has proven is that my claims still hold water. And to answer the question of the night, no, Jeff Dowel didn’t refute my position. He hasn’t even entered the arena of reasoning together like Isaiah, who he referred to, says. You need to do better homework, Jeff. I’m not just saying that. You have no clue what you’re talking about.

The whole thesis of my presentation that he referred to was to explain for people regardless of if they agree or disagree what my position is, how it’s arrived at, and then show how Adventist criticisms miss the mark. And I use Doug Bachelor as a case sample and his claims were not unique to him. They’re standard par for the course SDA objections. And Mr. Dowel only reinforced this fact in what we heard this evening. I have yet to encounter the Adventist that can steal man the position even if they disagree. Once that happens, I will shake that

Adventist hand, look him dead in the eyes and say, “You have my respect. Good on you.” But Jeff, you have not earned that respect. I sat under Adventist teaching for two decades, believed the teachings, learned the teachings, procilitized the teachings, understood the teachings up through the university level. Don’t tell me that I’m just paritting other people. Now, I studied this topic very broadly, sir. And I didn’t always hold to this position. It’s very clear he doesn’t respect my biblical studies, and he thinks I’m just regurgitating others. And in one sense,

Yes, I am because I stand on the shoulders of giants. I’m not some rogue theological agent. But this idea did not originate with John’s Parker or Philip Kaiser, and I didn’t get it from them. I read widely on this subject, hearing varying ideas and views and tested them against scripture to see who’s whose works best, whose is most consistent. And this also involved studying various hermeneutical methodologies and seeing which one is the most consistent in its application. And I am convinced of the Christian Sabbath view. Not because that’s what I

Personally prefer. That’s not how it works. I want to know what the actual what the author intended to communicate. Not what I want to be there. Not what I think supports my own personal, you know, whatever, but because I believe it’s the most faithful to not just solar scriptor, but tota scriptor, all of scripture, not just cherrypicked proof texts, and then just having a proof text war back and forth with an adventist. When looked at holistically and in full, this position can make sense of the Sabbath in full, not cherrypicked portions of redemptive

History. And that goes for both the Adventist view and the non-sabotarian view. I know a lot of people, the vast majority of people in my audience disagree with me. That’s fine. I’m just stating where I’m coming from, sharing the information. Study it out for yourself. But Jeff, you shouldn’t be throwing stones in a glass house, buddy, because you’re an Ellen White parrot. You have an extra biblical worldview that the leadership of your organization tells us doesn’t come from scripture itself, but was uniquely given to you all by way of your prophetus. You then bring this

Worldview to the Bible to do the interpreting. So, I look forward to hearing your responses to my challenges. I don’t know if you’ll spend the time, you know, responding to literally every or I don’t know if I’ll spend the time, you know, responding to literally every video he makes because it sounds like he’s going to be doing four or five parts. Mercy, we made it through not even like a quarter of this first one. But if he continues this poorly in the rest of them, I’m not sure it’s going to be worthwhile. However, Jeff, I look forward to you

Addressing the issues I’ve raised tonight. Things I’ve been waiting for an Adventist to answer for me for I don’t even know how long. And thank you all for being uh for being here. And may Christ richly bless you in the grace and peace won by Jesus Christ and his vicarious death on the cross for sinners. Hallelujah. Marinatha. Until next time.