Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You guess you should finally answer points after they've sat for a very long time.
Read this passage again, with a bit more care. Moses wanted to lead Israel out on a three-day journey, offer sacrifices, and return. This is a "rest from their labor" that entailed nearly, if not an entire week. There isn't any hint of a sabbath in this account, and the sacrifices don't fit your mold of a creation origin that you introduce later.
False.
This is one of several proofs that shows the origin of the sabbath with Moses. The account in Exodus 16 records the first instance of the sabbath, which was ordained with the manna experience as a test to determine Israel's readiness for the covenant that would be dictated about a month later at Sinai (Exodus 16:4).
Do you remember the second of the two points I introduced early in this thread, where Adventism departs from Biblical Christianity? Here it is again:
- The Genesis account doesn't record a repetitive day observed by any human.
- Exodus 20:11 clearly delineates the seventh day apart from the sabbath.
- Hebrews 4 calls the seventh day of creation God's "My rest" that remained to be attained by a people who were already observing the sabbath.
- Jesus distinguishes the sabbath apart from God's rest recorded in the Genesis account when He said it was "made for man" in Mark 2:27.
- Moses testifies that the ten commandments were unknown to the generation previous to his own in Deuteronomy 5:2-3, and lists the sabbath as a memorial of deliverance from Egyptian bondage in Deuteronomy 5:15.
- Nehemiah 9:13-14 attributes the origin of the sabbath with Moses.
Your consistency with Ellen White's alleged authority makes your claim easily predictable: "In order to support this thesis concerning the sabbath, an origin for the sabbath in contradiction to Scripture is insisted upon...". The Genesis account records God's rest, Hebrews 4:4 quotes directly from Genesis 2:2, and His rest was referred to as a promise yet to be attained and another day differentiated from the sabbath that Israel already had for 1500 years.
Yet this remains a point of contention you cannot support, for the reason that you cannot distinguish God's permanent rest at creation from the sabbath "made for man" (Mark 2:27) that repeated over and over and didn't last.
Return to your own quote from Exodus 5, above. You have contradicted the point that Moses wanted to lead Israel out for a sabbath, as his purpose was to offer a sacrifice and there is no mention of a sabbath.
Colossians 2:16-17 calls the sabbath itself a shadow:
16 ¶ So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,
17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
The very reason no one has grounds to judge another in respect of the dietary laws and convocations in the annual/monthly/weekly cycles is because the law that drove those was "wiped out" as mentioned 2 verses previous.
k4c, the sabbath is spread out all over the law in places you probably aren't aware of. If you end the jurisdiction of the book of the law, the sabbath comes to an end. If you end the jurisdiction of the ten commandments engraved on tablets of stone, the sabbath comes to an end. This is the nature of Israel's "one law" (Numbers 15:16), the is not divisible into "ceremonial" and "moral" precepts. If the "ceremonial" comes to an end, the sabbath doesn't exist anymore. That extends to the ordinances that mandated burnt offerings:
Hebrews 10
8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law),
9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.
Hebrews describes the change of covenants, from the first mediated by Moses to the second mediated by Jesus under a priesthood Moses never authorized. God has no pleasure in the burnt offerings required under the law, and that includes the sabbath. That very displeasure in the burnt offerings that God Himself ordained is linked again with His displeasure with the sabbath in Isaiah 1:
11 "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, Or of lambs or goats.
12 "When you come to appear before Me, Who has required this from your hand, To trample My courts?
13 Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies--I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting.
14 Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; They are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them.
God hates the shadows He ordained Himself! They were never intended to be permanent, but shadows ordained to reveal sin to us and drive us toward our Redeemer.
The sabbath itself was an appointed feast as shown in Leviticus 23:3.
The new moon and the sabbath are both mentioned in context, and both of these share one thing in common: they both mandate burnt offerings above the daily oblations, as specified in Numbers 28.
Hebrews 10:8-9, quoted above, shows God's Hand ending the sabbath forever when it was taken away with the first covenant.
This is true, and consistent with Hebrews 7:27, but this has no relation to the burnt offerings nor the sabbath.
I had accurately predicted that you would insist on an origin of the sabbath in deference to Scripture's documentation regarding it. We can document when the sabbath began and ended, and document God's rest when it began and when we entered into His rest - but that rest hasn't ended and isn't going to.
It would be a simple matter of quoting your own posts in this thread to show that you're bearing false witness, a violation of the very law inscribed onto tables of stone that you claim to have jurisdiction over you.
What does the law prescribe for that transgression, k4c?
Leviticus 4 defines your duty under the law. If Jesus Christ isn't your sufficient atonement, you need to resurrect the Levitical priesthood and fulfill the requirement for atonement yourself. There is no "second and final phase of atonement" as SDA Fundamental Belief #24 asserts.
I agree with you that the shadows - including the sabbath, as it is called in Colossians 2:16-17 - were all ordained as a result of sin existing before the shadows were ordained. Can't you see that your point is not only made in deference to Scripture's testimony, but it is inherently self-contradictory?The shadows came as a result of sin, the Sabbath was created before sin.
The likely reason you don't offer a response for the points I made is because they are Biblical, and your assertions to the contrary are not. I have also mentioned in the past that Adventism as a theological system has replaced the commandments of God with the first covenant He delivered us from (Romans 7:6-7 specifies the ten commandments). Adventism doesn't acknowledge the commandments of God in the new covenant, and your posts have been consistent with Ellen White's theological model.My interpretation of Scripture is found clearly in the word of God and supported by God's will for mankind to have a people who love love Him and keep His commandments.
I want nothing more than for all of us to share in the blessings of the Living God, and I extend that invitation to you as well. Several times I have mentioned my driving motivation to be attaining the unity of the faith mentioned in Ephesians 4:11-16, and that unity in the one faith will leads us as a group to "the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love".I guess we can end our discussions on this note, blessed God in all that we do.
Please, your contributions would be most helpful. This isn't meant to be Sophia7's and my burden alone.
BFA,Joe,
This is an excellent passage. Thanks for posting it.
BFA
I am one of the disappointed, disillusioned, annoyed ex-adventists, and I actually had a similar experience here. I got into a debate about how Christians should address homosexuality thinking the people here believed the Bible was true. After countless posts I came to find out I was talking to people who believe the Bible is distorted and corrupt and cannot be trusted.
I felt like, hey I could go anywhere else on the internet if I wanted to talk to people who don't believe in the Bible! So yea, I get what you're saying. It might even be good to label this forum differently. There are still some good discussions here but most revolve around piling on k4c until he dusts his sandals off. He keeps coming back for more though
Not everyone here is a former or disillusioned Adventist. I am no longer a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but Adventism will always be a part of my identity that I couldn't discard even if I wanted to. I feel that I have some things in common with people here due to our backgrounds--things that people of other backgrounds might not understand. I disagree with some Adventist teachings, but I post here for fellowship, and I think this is a good place for that even though people disagree with each other sometimes. I think you'll also find that "fellowship" is viewed more broadly in this forum than in some of the other forums at CF, so disagreement may be a part of that, but disagreement doesn't have to be disagreeable.
Some people who post in this forum are quite happy to be Adventists; they're just not traditional Adventists. "Progressive Adventist" is a label that carries certain meanings, but not everyone has been exposed to Progressive Adventism, so I'm sure that it would be a shock to expect one thing and get another. I personally don't like labels and never wanted to be categorized as any particular type of Adventist when I was still a member of the SDA Church. I much prefer talking to people as individuals and learning about their beliefs rather than assuming things about them based on their labels.
I hope you'll stick around because I'm sure that there is much you could contribute to the discussions even if it's in a different context than you were expecting.
that might have been an interesting debate on homosexuality. How far back is that thread, and what is its title, Kira Light?
I'm sorry you got the wrong impression... but please don't go away. Keep sharing. This is a discussion forum where I wouldn't expect everyone to agree all the time. Your perspective can add to it.
... stick around, and don't change your style to something you think suits us better.
The Lord will deliver us from this quarreling spirit in his own time and way, be it ever so painful and humiliating. Then the body will be gathered unto him in one spirit. Then his prayer for us, his body, as recorded in John 17 will be fulfilled.
Joe
Deepening a relationship with "family" does not require sharing the same beliefs. This is one of the first conversations you had - about your son.
There are many SDAs on this sub-forum who are active in the church - and some who are leaders in the church. And care deeply about the community. However, this forum is not about purifying voices to make traditionals more comfortable. It's about sharing so everyone may learn from everyone. There is a Traditional SDA forum on CF, and the conversations are more controlled.
Having said all of that, you've contributed nicely to many conversations, and in a kind spirit. And yes, there are several people currently on this forum who are not challenging SDA doctrine with a very sage or respectful approach - but this is more a matter of maturity than bad intention.
Laodicean, you should hang out where you are called, but know you are welcome here.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7434404/
It actually goes all over the place and then goes horribly wrong. Gets ugly. I got reported and had some posts taken down. Talked to a bunch of mods and they restored them. It is a pretty cool thread.
Nicely said.I agree. My son and I are at opposite ends of the belief spectrum, but we play ping-pong practically every chance we get, and there is a lot more to talk about besides the evolution/creation debate. He knows I care, and that counts for more than winning any debate.
Lao, I appreciate the transparency. That can be hard to find in an online forum.
I see no reason for you to be embarassed; you've conducted yourself well in this forum.
I did not leave SDAism because I was hurt. On the contrary, I was employed by the denomination and enjoyed wide esteem. I grew up in its schools and provided leadership in its churches. The hurt that I experienced took place after I left. That hurt has largely healed. I continue to have a connection to SDAism and I love its people.
You seem to be equating "former SDAs" with "the world." Can you explain?
I noticed that you don't regard those in the various stages of transition from Adventism as having found something you haven't.
2 Corinthians 3
16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Laodicean.... are we not all brothers and sisters? Even those that some categorize as being "in the world" belong to the Creator... Sorry though that you didn't realize how progressive some progressive sda's could be.... hope though that you stick around, you add flavor to the discussion...
thanks, Brother StormyOneWith so many kind responses, erasing my embarrassment, I am happy to stick around.
My background doesn't include a transition from Adventism, as I was never personally involved in the SDA church other than 3 days attendance in a Revelation seminar about a month after I was saved in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as an adult. I have encountered SDA of the "traditional" persuasion repeatedly in real life, who challenged me to join in their "remnant" church and follow their prophet Ellen White. No doubt you have read enough of my posts in this thread alone to discern that my application of testing Ellen White's claim of inspiration to be lacking.I would love to learn about what you have found in your transition from Adventism, Victor.
You have a penchant for simplifying your perspective, and so I think the simple answers would provide the clearest answers for you.Is the liberty that you have found, freedom from lawkeeping?
God's redemption amounts to life itself, and a promise to share in eternal life that those unredeemed from the law will not share in, as Galatians 4:30 states "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman", and that bondwoman was defined in Galatians 4:26 as the covenant from Sinai, the ten commandments.If so, I would be very interested to know how such liberty applies to everyday living. I do believe, with you, that in Jesus we find liberty -- "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free." And Jesus is the Truth. So I would love for you to share with me what you have found such freedom to be. What does it look like? How does it behave?
Condemnation.And freedom from what exactly?
My background doesn't include a transition from Adventism, as I was never personally involved in the SDA church other than 3 days attendance in a Revelation seminar about a month after I was saved in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as an adult. I have encountered SDA of the "traditional" persuasion repeatedly in real life, who challenged me to join in their "remnant" church and follow their prophet Ellen White. No doubt you have read enough of my posts in this thread alone to discern that my application of testing Ellen White's claim of inspiration to be lacking.
You have a penchant for simplifying your perspective, and so I think the simple answers would provide the clearest answers for you.
Yes, the Gospel affirms freedom from lawkeeping.
As Galatians 2:21 says, "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain". The Gentiles never received the law, and they were estranged apart from God during the tenure of the law, of whom Ephesians 2:12 describes them this way: "at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world". Galatians 3:10-14 shows how redemption from the law opened the way for the Gentiles to share in the promise to Abraham that was given 430 years before the law existed.
Simplified answer: As a Gentile, I could not be saved if God didn't end the first covenant of the law and provide a new covenant based on His promises.
God's redemption amounts to life itself, and a promise to share in eternal life that those unredeemed from the law will not share in, as Galatians 4:30 states "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman", and that bondwoman was defined in Galatians 4:26 as the covenant from Sinai, the ten commandments.
Life in God's adoption is one filled with unspeakable gratitude. The law reveals with clarity that I am not capable of offering any works acceptable to a Holy God Who has concluded those works unacceptable: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all" (Romans 11:32).
Condemnation.
After all, God has concluded that there isn't anyone engaged in lawkeeping, and those making a claim that they are aren't fooling God. His unmerited grace is the only solution to certain condemnation, and acceptance of His righteousness in lieu of my failed attempts of righteousness with thanksgiving is the only sane response to His gift.
Don't kid yourself. There are no lawkeepers. There is God's adoption as His sons and daughters, and there are those He doesn't know.
Matthew 17:24-26
24 When they had come to Capernaum, those who received the temple tax came to Peter and said, Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?
25 He said, Yes.
And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?
26 Peter said to Him, From strangers.
Jesus said to him, Then the sons are free".
This lesson Jesus taught to Peter isn't about taxes. It is about who the law has jurisdiction over, and the Lawgiver Who created the law is always superior to the law He created, and hence enjoys a natural sovereignty over His law.
Does that law apply to the servants, or to the King's adopted children?
Galatians 4:31 answers that question simply:
So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.
Remember that the bondwoman refers to the covenant from Sinai, the ten commandments.
That is what we have freedom from.
k4c,The freedom he is referring to is the freedom from the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant involved the terms not the content. The terms of the Old Covenant, also known as, the Law, was obey or die. It was motived by fear, condemnation and guilt. It brought the curse because who can stand before the perfect Law of God.
The New Covenant involves grace, mercy and love. Jesus takes away the curse of the Old Covenant in that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ, He doesn't take away the content.
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Galatians 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree''),
The curse of the Law is seen in the terms of the Old Covenant, not the content.
When we understand that there is no condemnation for our sin we are free to approach God and love and serve Him.
1 John 4:17-18 Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.
Under the grace of God we have no condemnation or guilt before God but this does not do way with the content which are the Ten Commandments.
Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!
The Ten Commandments will always point out sin and define godly love. The difference is that without the terms of the Old Covenant (bond woman), which Jesus did away with at the cross as He took away the power of death through the guilt and condemnation sin brings through the terms of the Old Covenant, not the Ten Commandments.
Hebrews 2:14-15 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Remember, the Ten Commandments were suppose to bring life but instead they brought death because of sin through the terms of the Old Covenant.
Romans 7:7-13 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet.'' But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.
It's not the Law that brings the death, it's the sin under the terms of the Old Covenant. But through the blood of Jesus we can have boldness in the day of judgement not because the Ten Commandments are gone, but rather, because the curse for breaking them is gone.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?