Why do SDA preach

tall73 said:

I think it was a passive aggressive response. But it is also a reaction to not being up to speed on the issues, trying to get up to speed, but having limited time, and information coming at him from all angles.

And while he didn't immediately understand what Bob meant, he was trying to read things.

Asking him to respond to the Bible text if he is going to draw conclusions makes sense.

Asking him about Moody and the Westminster confession, to me seems not all that helpful when he has said he has limited time.

Click to expand...

I would think most of us have limited time. And I think that's something someone should take into consideration when making posts. I've seen this before where people post walls of text that go different directions, and then start badgering and belittling people to keep track of and respond to all of it.

tall73 said:

But if you were in an in-person Bible study would you press for the decision the moment you presented it all, or let him do as he said and pray and think over it?

Click to expand...

I agree with your point fully - I just can't get to more complex issues before enough time is given to reading/contemplating/considering the easy part.

It's like saying - "I want to discuss differential equations but I am still not convinced that addition is a thing or that 2+2 = 4 is all that solid"

If someone where saying "ok 2+2=4 but I want to talk more about imaginary numbers that when squared are a negative value" -- I say fine the easy part is known and now lets move to the next part. We may never agree on the more complex part but at the end of the day we could at least have the easy part covered.

MMXX said:

I would think most of us have limited time. And I think that's something someone should take into consideration when making posts. I've seen this before where people post walls of text that go different directions, and then start badgering and belittling people to keep track of and respond to all of it.

Click to expand...

you and I are in agreement on this. It is nuts to think that someone can drop every thing and write you an essay because they want you too. very foolish

tall73 said:

I do notice that. And I also notice he read Moody, etc. because he was trying to follow your line of reasoning.

But if you were in an in-person Bible study would you press for the decision the moment you presented it all, or let him do as he said and pray and think over it?

I think it is a drawback here that people immediately press for decisions, and then once that post is out there and you get the alert you feel the need to respond right away and acknowledge the response. But I don't think he would have a basis for answering whether it has changed his mind yet.

Click to expand...

I think some folks seem to think they're conducting their own Bible school. And then expect people to follow their curriculum. That's not how discussion forums are supposed to work.

BobRyan said:

I agree with your point fully - I just can't get to more complex issue before enough time is given to reading/contemplating/considering the easy part.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. So perhaps when there is the perception that no real exchange is happening we need to step back and mention that if there is no time to address the details, or if more time is needed to think it over, then let's take a break until that is possible.

tall73 said:

Fair enough. So perhaps when there is the perception that no real exchange is happening we need to step back and mention that if there is no time to address the details, or if more time is needed to think it over, then let's take a break until that is possible.

Click to expand...

Sounds good to me .. I am fine with keeping things simple and easy and letting people have time to look it over and decide for themselves.

MMXX said:

I think some folks seem to think they're conducting their own Bible school. And then expect people to follow their curriculum. That's not how discussion forums are supposed to work.

Click to expand...

True, both parties need to have input.

I actually had one thread with @LoveGodsWord where this became such an issue we had to each have a post that the other responded to before going to the next one.

That ...sort of worked. It was a pain. But then we couldn't say the other wasn't listening or responding.

Although he was frustrated that some points I didn't think added to the conversation so I just didn't respond to them. We were trying to get to the differences, and understand each others view. I let him know I would respond to the parts I thought furthered that. I did still read the rest, however.

Let's say someone reads section 19 of the Baptist Confession of faith (which does not read like rocket science) and says "ok I see what they are saying but I am not sure I agree with them" ... and the same for the "Westminster Confession of faith section 19" and the same for D.L.Moody's statement on the Sabbath commandment.

ok that's fine.

But when someone says " the Sabbath is in the Ten and the TEN are written on the heart under the New Covenant" (which we see in those confessions of faith) the response cannot be "only SDAs say that" - it can be "I don't agree and I know that possibly SDAs and all those other groups do agree here - but I myself am not yet convinced it is true" or "I think they are all wrong" or ..... That is perfectly logical.

tall73 said:

True, both parties need to have input.

I actually had one thread with @LoveGodsWord where this became such an issue we had to each have a post that the other responded to before going to the next one.

That ...sort of worked. It was a pain. But then we couldn't say the other wasn't listening or responding.

Although he was frustrated that some points I didn't think added to the conversation so I just didn't respond to them. We were trying to get to the differences, and understand each others view. I let him know I would respond to the parts I thought furthered that. I did still read the rest, however.

Click to expand...

Conversations work well when both parties are concise.

BobRyan said:

Let's say someone reads section 19 of the Baptist Confession of faith (which does not read like rocket science) and says "ok I see what they are saying but I am not sure I agree with them" ... and the same for the "Westminster Confession of faith section 19" and the same for D.L.Moody's statement on the Sabbath commandment.

ok that's fine.

But when someone says " the Sabbath is in the Ten and the TEN are written on the heart under the New Covenant" (which we see in those confessions of faith) the response cannot be "only SDAs say that" - it can be "I don't agree and I know that possibly SDAs and all those other groups do agree here - but I myself am not yet convinced it is true". That is perfectly logical.

Click to expand...

Bob, you know my view on this. You have a hobby horse on this subject, and I think it is most definitely your worst apologetic ever.

However, maybe some appreciate it. Great, if they seem interested, follow up.

Or if they blow it off just announce to the lurkers that you met your burden of proof that it is not just an SDA view.

But at best it is an attempt to have him understand it is not a unique Adventist doctrine, and that many hold to it, so it might merit looking into. Getting worked up over how he phrases his reaction to Moody, etc. is just odd.

That many groups agreeing is not insignificant. It is also not doctrinally authoritative if SDA and Moody, and the rest agree on something. And it undercuts your Scripture testing claim to put so much emphasis on how someone respond to your apologetics tactic.

My suggestion would be try it, and if the person finds that of note, follow up. Otherwise, move on.

I am aware of Sunday Sacredness views, and am aware of how they get to that conclusion, and don't find them persuasive.

Yet even though you know I take a different view, you keep after me about it as well. I already got your point from it--that it is something worth looking into because so many agree on one aspect. But if I don't find the Scripture argument convincing, I don't care how many think it. And you know Adventists don't either when it comes to various distinctives. And no, it doesn't matter to me that so many others AND Adventists agree with this. There are still others who don't agree with it, and I am one of them. So you have to convince me on the text, and not the nose counting. Which is kind of what Adventists emphasize anyway because they usually lose nose counting arguments.

So when you keep after me about the topic I seriously think you are barking up the wrong tree, and actively working against having me listen to you. And that is a shame, because on various Scripture topics you respond to details and have good insights.

So while this technique may serve you well at times, this is just another reminder, know when to cut bait and try a different lure.

MMXX said:

Conversations work well when both parties are concise.

Click to expand...

I assure you, neither I nor LGW are concise! But at least we would be wordy in bursts!

I do want to look at the details. We just can't look at the details in 10 directions at once.

And with you being put in the position of various ones trying to throw new lines of thought at you, that is somewhat unavoidable in this context.

tall73 said:

Bob, you know my view on this. You have a hobby horse on this subject, and I think it is most definitely your worst apologetic ever.

However, maybe some appreciate it. Great, if they seem interested, follow up.

Click to expand...

I don't mind differences of opinion. But I can't ignore the objective fact that when two major opposing sides agree on a few key details - those are objectively the easiest details on the table.

BobRyan said:

I don't mind differences of opinion. But I can't ignore the objective fact that when two major opposing sides agree on a few key details - those are objectively the easiest details on the table.

Click to expand...

And when there are more than two opposing sides at the table, don't be surprised when the ones not in on that agreement don't immediately consider those details "easy" because the other two groups agreed.

tall73 said:

Bob, you know my view on this. You have a hobby horse on this subject, and I think it is most definitely your worst apologetic ever.

However, maybe some appreciate it. Great, if they seem interested, follow up.

Or if they blow it off just announce to the lurkers that you met your burden of proof that it is not just an SDA view.

But at best it is an attempt to have him understand it is not a unique Adventist doctrine, and that many hold to it, so it might merit looking into. Getting worked up over how he phrases his reaction to Moody, etc. is just odd.

That many groups agreeing is not insignificant. It is also not doctrinally authoritative if SDA and Moody, and the rest agree on something. And it undercuts your Scripture testing claim to put so much emphasis on how someone respond to your apologetics tactic.

My suggestion would be try it, and if the person finds that of note, follow up. Otherwise, move on.

I am aware of Sunday Sacredness views, and am aware of how they get to that conclusion, and don't find them persuasive.

Yet even though you know I take a different view, you keep after me about it as well. I already got your point from it--that it is something worth looking into because so many agree on one aspect. But if I don't find the Scripture argument convincing, I don't care how many think it. And you know Adventists don't either when it comes to various distinctives. And no, it doesn't matter to me that so many others AND Adventists agree with this. There are still others who don't agree with it, and I am one of them. So you have to convince me on the text, and not the nose counting. Which is kind of what Adventists emphasize anyway because they always lose nose counting arguments.

So when you keep after me about the topic I seriously think you are barking up the wrong tree, and actively working against having me listen to you. And that is a shame, because on various Scripture topics you respond to details and have good insights.

So while this technique may serve you well at times, this is just another reminder, know when to cut bait and try a different lure.

Click to expand...

The only thing Moody said that I hadn't heard before form non-sda, was keeping sabbath from sunset Saturday to sunset Sunday. In my 50 years of experience it just starts Sunday morning. Other than that I didn't read Moody really saying anything new. Although he was a bit more hardcore than most.

tall73 said:

That many groups agreeing is not insignificant. It is also not doctrinally authoritative if SDA and Moody, and the rest agree on something.

Click to expand...

I never claim it proves they are right - what it proves is that objectively it is a very easy detail since opposing sides all admit to it . Even if it took me a month to master that "detail" it is at least "the easy one in the list"

tall73 said:

And it undercuts your Scripture testing claim

Click to expand...

Only if I were saying "don't read the Bible just notice that they agree".

My point is that in our Bible study those points that they find in common are likely to be the easiest ones to work through.

And If I were to differ with all of them - I at least have to admit that I am taking the odd-one-out position rather than casting my view as the main prominent one. So just keeping everything in context.

BobRyan said:

I never claim it proves they are right - what it proves is that objectively it is a very easy detail since opposing sides all admit to it .

Click to expand...

An even easier detail is that not ALL sides agree to it. Just the two you reference.

BobRyan said:

And If I were to differ with all of them - I at least have to admit that I am taking the odd-one-out position rather than casting my view as the main prominent one. So just keeping everything in context.

Click to expand...

In other words, what Adventists admit to on a number of distinctives, and have no problem doing.

Sure. That is fine. I would think my position is a minority viewpoint.

Comparing a classic "Steve Gregg" argument -- vs -- D.L. Moody and those "Confession of Faith"

Gregg would likely make many of the same Sabbath opposing views that you find on "Sabbath and the LAW" forum even if Bible scholars typically would not take that position.

1. No mention of Sabbath keeping prior to Ex 20
2. Just for Jews not gentiles in OT or NT
3. Christians keep the Lord's Day on week-day-1 as a reference to Christ' resurrection on week day 1.
4. The Sabbath remains as God stated it - the 7th day Saturday and we ignore it.
5. People can choose to keep Sabbath if for some reason they "like it" but that is "Old Covenant" not New Covenant , not the Lord's day
6. God's Law cannot be "edited"
7. Ten Commandments are old Covenant and not compatible with New Covenant.

========================================

Now lets take D.L. Moody and the Confessions of faith.

1. The TEN - all TEN - written on the heart under the New Covenant.
2. All TEN for mankind in Eden. "Made for MANKIND" Mark 2:27
3. Sabbath in Eden and still binding on all mankind today.
4. Sabbath "edited" to point to week day 1 at the cross
5. Christians should be keeping that very same Sabbath as edited to point to week-day-1
6. It is an entire day holy devoted to God and non-secular activity as D.L. Moody points out
7. Ten Commandments fully compatible with the New Covenant
8. Most would admit that keeping some other day than Sunday is not keeping the "Christian Sabbath"
9. Sabbath is a day of "sacred assembly"/"Holy Convocation" - Lev 23:3
10. Sanctified set apart from secular activity Is 58:13

========================= The Bible view

1. Gen 2:1-3 is when the Sabbath was set apart and created "FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27
2. Neither "Do not take God's Name in vain" nor "Remember the Sabbath" commands are quoted before Ex 20 but that does not mean they did not exist.
3. The command "do not take God's name in vain" has no equiv of Gen 2:1-3 pointed to by Ex 20:11 yet it is and was always binding.
4. Man cannot edit God's Commandments Mark 7:6-13
5. Sabbath remains for the people of God even in the NT - Heb 4
6. Numerous "Sabbath after the Sabbath" services in the NT with gentiles asking for more Gospel preaching "next Sabbath"
7 Sabbath for all mankind after the cross in the New Earth for all eternity Is 66:23
8. One Gospel Gal 1:6-9 in OT and NT so Adam was saved under the New Covenant just as we are today.
9. Ten Commandments fully compatible with the NEW Covenant where they are written on the heart Jer 31:31-34
10. Same moral law of God that defines what sin is - in OT and NT - but different covenants for individuals "OC for the lost" and "NC for the saved" in both OT and NT. (and of course there was an OC Nation-covenant as a 'type' of the OC individual form)
11. The Bible Sabbath is "the Lord's Day" Is 58:13 "Holy Day of the Lord" , Mark 2:28 "Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath"
12. Sabbath is a day of "sacred assembly"/"Holy Convocation" - Lev 23:3
13. Sanctified set apart from secular activity Is 58:13

Nobody was ever saved under the Old Covenant of "Obey and Live" as noted in Gal 3, Rom 3:19-20
Nobody who is actually under the New Covenant today is lost today.

tall73 said:

An even easier detail is that not ALL sides agree to it. Just the two you reference.

Click to expand...

The sunday-group list is much longer I am just keeping it simple with three for the Sabbath in Eden written on the heart under the New Covenant vs all the Sabbath groups.

Trying not to overwhelm those who need to check stuff out first.

But I also admit that "popular views" that you see in "Sabbath and the Law" don't fit into any of those groups of Bible scholars I mentioned.

tall73 said:

In other words, what Adventists admit to on a number of distinctives, and have no problem doing.

Click to expand...

Any distinctive a group has - is by definition "distinctive" in most cases (or at least mostly distinctive) - so if it turns out that everybody all up and down the street agrees on those "distinctives" then they were not very "distinctive" - and I think you and I would agree on that as would most everyone here.

And you are right - those "distinctives" are not likely to be something that all those other groups in my list sign up for.

But if you try to use my argument on the "easy part" in that scenario "who are the two opposing sides"?

In My example the "two sides" are all the Bible-Sabbath-not-edited-still-binding groups , vs all the "others" whose scholarship teaches week-day-1 as the Christian Sabbath

So not just one person or one denomination on one side vs one-person or one-denomination on the other.