I also commented on Jesus and Johns teaching on these commandments. What would you say regarding that?

Yes, we are required to work and do all that pertains to our own interests six days a week and to rest on the seventh day. So, Sunday is a regular day for work and any other secular and/or recreational activities.

Now, we don't know all the details of a probable future Sunday law, what kind of global commitment it could bring. It could come as part of a "package" with many features, because ecology is not the only big preocupation of the world leaders today. These days I learned that the American deficit is around 1.5 trillion dollars, something that could implode not only the US, but the entire world economy. And everybody has heard different world leaders, including Pres. Obama (and the pope) speaking of the necessity of setting a "new world economic order". What could be involved in that? We know that the prophecy speaks of some measures that will represent a boycott to whoever won't accept the "mark of the beast" (Rev. 13:17). So, we just have got some hints of the potential of problems that this could entail to the faithful ones who won't accept the agenda of this economical/political/ecological/religious dictatorship which will unite the entire world under a same "save the planet" umbrella.

As to what Jesus and John said, remember that when Jesus expressed the "new commandment", based on love to God/love to the neighbor He was simply quoting Moses (compare Mark 12:28-34 with Deut. 6:5 e Lev. 19;18). So, the "new" commandment is basically the same as always, because Christ's law is not different from God's law.

So much so that for centuries the confessional documents of Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians and Anglicans state that the first 4 commandments of the Decalogue have to do with our duties towards God, and the last 6, the same towards the neighbor. Before the Protestant Reformation that was already basically taught by Catholics and Ortodoxes.

And the commandment to love Jesus doesn't replace the ones related to both our commitment to God or to our neighbor. On the contrary, that is the basis of it all, for whoever really loves Jesus will show in a practical way--by keeping His commandments--"If you love Me, keep My commandments".

So, if there is one day a worldwide law that says you may not use anything with an engine on sundays, how exactly would this be the mark of the beast, which as you pointed out earlier is likely about worship? You cant go to work, you cant mow your lawn and you cant go shopping, but does that mean you are by doing this worshipping someone other than God? How does such a law as you describe relate to a conflict in worship?Jesus: You have heard it said... but I say to you... Ticking the boxes next to the ten words is adhering to the first while failing to appreciate the second.
You have heard it said, dont commit adultery... I didnt commit adultery today, tick.
But I say to you, when you look at someone lustfully... Oups...

Christs law differs from the law of Moses by removing the loopholes of eye-service.So Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox are sealed by the Spirit and the gospel together with Adventists. I am positively surprised. Usually when an Adventist starts discussing Revelation 13 and the seal/mark, he or she intends to show how Adventists stand out among the Christian churches by having an exclusive claim on being sealed. Actually it is, "Believe in Jesus and Love one another" in Johns letter. As far as being sealed is concerned, thats all there is to it. The rest is fruit of the Spirits working in us.

I partly agree. But the main distinction I see between sign and seal is that, although both are closely related, “seal” is a stronger word than “sign.” In Revelation the sign becomes a seal, that is, it becomes an open and public mark of allegiance to one of the two opposing powers, and divides the whole humanity into two classes.


Explained above.


OK, I agree. However, it’s clear that there will be a point of truth, a point among the teachings of the Holy Spirit, which will be especially controverted. And the view that this point will be the Sabbath/Sunday issue is very, very plausible.


Vaster, this sincerely is a kind of reasoning I don’t understand. Any Christian should know better than trying to put the 10 commandments in opposition to the 2 commandments of love to God/love to neighbor, or to the simple commandment of “love.” It’s more than clear that the first four commandments have to do with our love to God, and the last six, with our love to man. The 10 are the unfolding of the 2, and the 2 are a summary of the 10. “Love” unfolds into the 2, which unfold into the 10.

“The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. 13:9, 10).

“And now I beg you, lady, not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we follow his commandments; this is the commandment, as you have heard from the beginning, that you follow love” (1 John 1:5, 6).


Nominally, 9 of them. Like the rich young ruler, people don’t consider themselves transgressor of these commandments. But there is a general consensus as to one of the commandments having been abolished or changed.

If you could only make this last point through biblestudy alone..
Ad it is, we might not come to agreement on this question. DitoIt is possible, but certainly not the only nor the strongest candidate for the honor of being breaking point doctrine. Well, you could have quoted the last sentence in this paragraph of mine also, where I make reference to Jesus sermon on the mount, which speaks on the last 6 of the 10. That reference was important for avoiding the issue you noted.The interesting thing with this letter is that John gives us his definition of commandment. Taking verses as prooftext, you can show anything, but taking the letter as a whole, there is little room for misunderstanding what he means to say. People dont generally consider themselves transgressors of 10 of the commandments simply because they are found irrelevant as the Lawgiver is found irrelevant. There may be a consensus about the sabbath command by the subgroup of people who interest themselves in such questions within the much smaller subgroup of people who find the Lawgiver relevant. In Sweden, I believe there are less than 10% christians. For 90 % of the population this is a non-issue by default. Out of those christians, maybe 10 % care about the sabbath/sunday question. Assuming these numbers to be correct, there is interest in the question for 1% of the population. As this includes Adventists, there isnt even consensus among this subgroup.

I suppose we have agreed that the seal of God is the truth, or a special point of truth, revealed by the Holy Spirit, while the mark of the beast is a false doctrine.
Please bear in mind that a seal of God placed on the forehead obviously means the person accepted the whole body of truths revealed by the Holy Spirit. If, at the end of time, light is brought upon the whole world about a particular point of truth which most of its inhabitants weren’t aware of before, it’s obvious that those who accept it will receive the seal of God, while those who reject it will receive the mark of the beast.
And please, bear also in mind that the point of truth related to the seal of God/mark of the beast must be something easily visible, not something general as loving God and loving your neighbor – otherwise, how will it be known on which side you are? The side taken by every person must be clearly known if people are going to be persecuted and threatened with death for following true doctrine instead of false doctrine (Rev. 13: 15-17).


What you are claiming is that John gives a definition of his own to the word “commandments”? And when he defines sin as the transgression of the law, do you also claim he gives a definition of his own to the word “law”?


Accoding to Wiki, an article on Sweden's official website lists the following facts about religion in Sweden:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden
I’m not sure if the information is contradictory, or if Swedens are contradictory. Still according to Wiki:

Is the percentage of atheists 46%, 85% or 17%? If such a large percentage of Swedes are atheists, how come 7 out of 10 children are christened in the Church of Sweden? And how come 9 out of 10 Swedes have Christian burials?
It seems to me most of them are nominal Christians.


You are speaking in terms of now. You can’t judge what will happen then by what happens now.

That would actually be a mix of the two seals found, but so far so good. I am thinking that since it is the beast who does the marking, what is marked doesnt necessarily have to be clearly visible to human eyes. John grew up in a society where "the law" referred to the entire corpus of the books of Moses, there were 613 laws recognized and lots of auxiliary laws to hedge in the 613. He then walked with Jesus throughout His years of ministry, seeing the auxiliaries abolished and the 613 reformed. He often heard Jesus tell His disciples, [John 13:34 John 14:15 John 14:21 John 15:10 John 15:12 John 15:14 John 15:17] He then sat through the council of Jerusalem where the question apparently was raised, which of the signs given to Israel relate to non-jewish believers? Maybe he even saw the destruction of the temple, making a whole bunch of the 613 obsolete.

Adventists on the other hand grow up in a subculture where any reference to "law" or "commandment" means the contents of exodus chapter 20.

I am not saying John gives a definition of his own to the word "commandment", I am saying he defines the word so that we non-jewish believers will know what he is talking about. Most of those members of the church of Sweden would not describe themselves as believers in the God of christianity. They will go to a church service for baptisms, weddings and funerals. Questions such as "who wrote the gospels", giving alternatives to choose from with only one set of names being the correct one give mid-range points at televised pop quizzes. Are they christian in any meaningful sense of the word, when they wont even identify themselves as such?You were judging the relative importance of the 9 vs the 1 based on the present situation.

Dear friend

First, what you ask me about details of the "Sunday law" I explained clearly that we don't have the complete picture as yet. It is like a jigsaw puzzle, with pieces still missing, but with the ones already in place giving us a good idea of the basic landscape pictured in the complete set.

Remember that in Matt. 5:21ff Jesus is not giving any NEW LAWS, but stressing the ethical, moral and spiritual aspects of the law that had been lost sight of by His hearers due to the bad instructors they had. It was always wrong to look at a woman lustfully, as Job already knew (Job 31:1). That was not a new rule to start at that point, just created by the Christ to His followers.

See that when Jesus refers to the tithing practice of the Jewish leaders, He confirms that technically they were right in doing what they did, but they missed the "justice, mercy and faith" (Matt. 23:23). That BELONGED TO THE LAW, but they lost sight of. So, He was not adding to the law those virtues as He said that. They were already there, but were missed by the religious leaders of Israel.

At the end of His ministry Jesus recommended that His disciples and the "multitudes" followed strictly ALL that was taught by their religious leaders, except for theit hyppocrital attitudes (Matt. 23:1-3). This "ALL" includes inescapably the Sabbath commandment (see Luke 13:14). If Jesus had in mind to limit God's law to nine commandments, He would have mentioned that the Sabbath was out of the picture. Remember, that was His last public address.

As to the confessional documents of the different churches, yes, they OFFICIALLY teach that the 10 Commandments is God's Moral Law, which contrasts with the "Cerimonial" and "Civil" laws, these last two no more applicable to the Church. But in practical terms, there is a tremendous ambiguity regarding the 4th commandment. So much so that I have been highlighting among Brazilian Evangelicals the dilemma they face as the World Cup (soccer championship) is approaching.

By their own rules, they are not supposed to watch sports on TV (or a stadium) on the "Lord's Day". Even the more recent "Doctrinal Statement" of the two most important Baptist conventions in Brazil, say that on the "Christian Sabbath", which would be Sunday, no secular or recreational activity should be engaged in by a Christian Baptist.

However, nobody takes this seriously. I doubt of any Brazilian Baptist (or Presbyterian, who have about the same rule clearly defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith) who would miss the games on their TV sets on Sundays, especially if the Brazilian team is playing, knowing how Brazilians are crazy regarding soccer.

A faithful 7th-day Adventist would not see any games on the Sabbath day. The priority on this day is God's will, not man's accomplishments.

I would say that the lack of importance attributed to this "keep Sunday" question is lack of CONVICTION that there was really any change of the sanctity of the Sabbath to Sunday, for the "proofs" provided in these documents are not convincing at all. I think that even the members of these Sunday-keeping churches don't believe what they hear their leaders say, according to what their confessional documents allege about that.

In effect reforming the law, similar to how Francis of Assisi or Martin Luther did later with the church. Absolutely so. I dont deny that the Sabbath is in the law when I question some peoples assertion that it would be the centerpiece of the law. Would you say the situation is any better in the SDA church? That there is no difference between official teaching and on the ground practice among us?Id say this statement would ensure that the ratio of member to faithful member is about the same in SDA churches as it is in Baptist churches in Brazil.

Hello, my friend.

I wouldn't establish any 'index' of faithful/unfaithful members in any Church. What I am stressing is the OFFICIAL TEACHING and the OFFICIAL ATTITUDE. Nobody would deny that as a Church, Seventh-day Adventists do everything to highlight the importance of ALL the commandments of God's law, and there is no ambiguity regarding the relevance of the 4th commandament and how to keep it faithfully, which is not what we see with the other Christians.

One example of that we had recently in Brazil, when there were entrance exams that are to be taken by all those who want to enter any college across the country. These exams were slated to two days--Saturday and Sunday.

SDA authorities made arrangements with educational authorities that the members of the SDA Church were assigned a special room where they waited, reading their Bibles or other Christian literature, while the Sabbath hours were past. Only after sunset they got their exam sheets to start filling out their answers.

I don't know of any religious leader of other denominations that had the same preocupation regarding having the members of their churches respecting the Sunday principle. . . And the funny thing is that even a "Baptist Newsletter" that I regularly receive brought news about the arrangement of these SDA authorities regarding respect to the Sabbath principle. They never did anything similar to that, as far as I know, regarding their Sunday.