How does one correctly keep the Sabbath according to SDA doctrine?

[mmksparbud]

You appear to be trying to prove that the sname Seventh-day Adventist was attached to the SDA church in the 1860's and also that in 1858 Ellen White said this should be the name.

AS IF that somehow sustains your wild claim that William Miller in 1845 called himself a Seventh-day Adventist or even had the distinctive beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists.

Is that your goal?? If so I find your logic "illusive"

His goal is to take the eyes off of the subject----the 7th day Sabbath. so far--he has done so. Since we have shown him to be wrong about everything he claimed--he has no other recourse.

 

[mmksparbud]

You said that history matters. I thought you rejected history?

You reject the history of the christian church!

We just want all the history to be seen---not just what a few decide is history while ignoring all the history that proves there has always been a remnant that kept the true Sabbath.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You said that history matters. I thought you rejected history?

You reject the history of the christian church!

Sorry for you, no he doesn't. He very clearly has posted it often.

Both the history of the true Ekklesia and true teachings FROM SCRIPTURE,
and exposing of the false church(es) and false teachings.

 

[klutedavid]

Sorry for you, no he doesn't. He very clearly has posted it often.

Both the history of the true Ekklesia and true teachings FROM SCRIPTURE,
and exposing of the false church(es) and false teachings.

Well in that case your talking about select church history. The general term, 'church history', refers to the entire history of the christian church.

If you write, 'select church history', rather than church history, then there will be no issue.

You are subscribed to Christian Forums after all, so the general meaning of the term, 'church history', applies on all occasions. Your replies must be civil and respectful also.

 

[klutedavid]

We just want all the history to be seen---not just what a few decide is history while ignoring all the history that proves there has always been a remnant that kept the true Sabbath.

Church history is beyond question opposed to the idea that the church must honor the Sabbath. No one is ignoring any church history on this point.

Of course there were some early churches that held to both the Sabbath rest and the Lord's day (Sunday). Church history testifies that these churches existed. It is not up to a few men to decide whether or not the Sabbath rest is a valid practice.

It comes down to what church history has recorded as to whether the legal rest of the Sabbath, is a Christian practice.

Churches that held only to honoring the Sabbath rest were almost non-existent. That is why the mention of Sabbath only churches, within church history is so minute.

Church history is what has been recorded and especially in the first four centuries. We owe so much to these first four centuries of Christian history. The New Testament is assembled and testified to as early as 367 AD. Throw the first four centuries of Christian history in the bin, and you forfeit the New Testament.

 

[BobRyan]

The Seventh-day Adventist Church had its roots in the Millerite movement of the 1830s and 1840s, during the period of the Second Great Awakening.

After the Disappointment of October 22, 1844, when there was a scattering of believers and a confusion of beliefs, Joshua V. Himes, with Miller, Josiah Litch, Sylvester Bliss, and some other leaders, sought to hold all Adventist factions together; and for this purpose called a meeting at Albany, New York, on April 29, 1845.

The Albany Conference was only partially successful in its purpose, though Himes, and Miller for the four years he yet lived, were generally acknowledged as the leaders of the Adventists.

But never as "Seventh-day Adventists".

The Seventh-day Adventist church along with its doctrinal statements was not founded until 1861.

History matters.

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

IF instead you are looking to pick a fight with those sunday-keeping pork-eating immortal-soul-believing, Ellen White disbelieving Millerites that were following Miller in 1845 ... none of them are here. You will have a difficult time finding one of those 50,000 still alive or still a Millerite.

You said that history matters. I thought you rejected history?

Yes I did - thanks for pointing that out.

You reject the history of the christian church!

Is your false accusation supposed to be -- "true because you say it"?

Were you "almost going to start a thread" on that topic??

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Church history is beyond question opposed to the idea that the church must honor the Sabbath. No one is ignoring any church history on this point.

You remember what section you are in , right ?

Naturally, or un-naturally, non sabbath churches history oppose the keeping of the commandment to honor Yahweh's Sabbath.

 

[klutedavid]

Sorry for you, no he doesn't. He very clearly has posted it often.

Both the history of the true Ekklesia and true teachings FROM SCRIPTURE,
and exposing of the false church(es) and false teachings.

Again, you cannot say 'true teachings FROM SCRIPTURE', you are following a specific methodology of interpretation. You are following the tradition of interpretation called the historical-grammatical interpretation. This way of reading the scripture was pioneered by the early Reformers, in particular Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

Yet, you would strongly disagree with them over the distinction of law and grace. This Law/Gospel distinction is no Lutheran invention, For since the beginning of the world these two proclamations have continually been set forth side by side in the church of God with proper distinction. The patriarchs knew this distinction as did David.

You hold to one tradition of men and then reject that same tradition. You need to establish what specific tradition you follow when you read the scripture.

 

[klutedavid]

But never as "Seventh-day Adventists".

The Seventh-day Adventist church along with its doctrinal statements was not founded until 1861.

History matters.

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

IF instead you are looking to pick a fight with those sunday-keeping pork-eating immortal-soul-believing, Ellen White disbelieving Millerites that were following Miller in 1845 ... none of them are here. You will have a difficult time finding one of those 50,000 still alive or still a Millerite.



Yes I did - thanks for pointing that out.




Is your false accusation supposed to be -- "true because you say it"?

Were you "almost going to start a thread" on that topic??

You said the Millerites don't exist anymore.

These churches below are all Millerite Advent derived.

Advent Christian Church
Seventh-day Adventist Church
Church of God (Seventh-Day)
Church of God General Conference
Church of the Blessed Hope
Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement
Davidian SDA (Shepherd's Rod)
United Seventh-Day Brethren
Branch Davidians
Primitive Advent Christian Church
Sabbath Rest Advent Church

 

[BobRyan]

IF instead you are looking to pick a fight with those sunday-keeping pork-eating immortal-soul-believing, Ellen White disbelieving Millerites that were following Miller in 1845 ... none of them are here. You will have a difficult time finding one of those 50,000 still alive or still a Millerite.

You said the Millerites don't exist anymore.

Far be it from me to say that there are not any sunday-keeping pork-eating immortal-soul-believing, Ellen White disbelieving, pre-millennial, post-trib, literal second coming denominations out there today. (I.E groups whose beliefs line up with William Miller's) but it is foolish to argue that they are all claiming to be Millerites.

These churches below are all Millerite Advent derived.

Advent Christian Church
Seventh-day Adventist Church

That is like saying all protestant churches are Roman Catholic and then trying to blame protestants for everything that the Popes before them did. You knew that right? You cannot argue that the Popes that came before the Protestants were teaching Protestant doctrine and you can't argue that the Protestants were all teaching whatever the Popes taught. That is the nature of "Change". Ignoring it does not prove anything at all.

 

[BobRyan]

Church history is beyond question opposed to the idea that the church must honor the Sabbath.n

Only if you delete the NT church "from church history" -- you knew that right?

 

[klutedavid]

Only if you delete the NT church "from church history" -- you knew that right?

Do you believe that a Sunday law must be introduced before Jesus will return?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Do you believe that a Sunday law must be introduced before Jesus will return?

Sunday laws were in place and sometimes enforced in the Untied States over 100 years ago. (I think). And in other countries also, Many Places since the early centuries.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you believe that a Sunday law must be introduced before Jesus will return?

There is a prediction in Rev 13 about a law related to worship that will come before the 2nd coming. Is that a new topic you wish to start on a new thread?

 

[klutedavid]

There is a prediction in Rev 13 about a law related to worship that will come before the 2nd coming. Is that a new topic you wish to start on a new thread?

Thinking about it, thought I would get the SDA position first.

 

[mmksparbud]

Church history is beyond question opposed to the idea that the church must honor the Sabbath. No one is ignoring any church history on this point.

Of course there were some early churches that held to both the Sabbath rest and the Lord's day (Sunday). Church history testifies that these churches existed. It is not up to a few men to decide whether or not the Sabbath rest is a valid practice.

It comes down to what church history has recorded as to whether the legal rest of the Sabbath, is a Christian practice.

Churches that held only to honoring the Sabbath rest were almost non-existent. That is why the mention of Sabbath only churches, within church history is so minute.

Church history is what has been recorded and especially in the first four centuries. We owe so much to these first four centuries of Christian history. The New Testament is assembled and testified to as early as 367 AD. Throw the first four centuries of Christian history in the bin, and you forfeit the New Testament.

Select church history is what is done on this forum--church history to you means the history that uphold Sunday and excludes the history of those that continued to keep the true 7th day Sabbath. "It comes down to what church history has recorded as to whether the legal rest of the Sabbath, is a Christian practice."
That statement is false. There is no tradition that replaces the word of God. A selective church history means nothing in the eyes of God. His truth is what matters, not the tradition of man. The NT itself, upholds the 7th day Sabbath and needs no selective church history that comes straight from Catholicism instead of the plain word of God. Even the survivors of the Mutiny on the bounty--the Pitcairn islanders, when discovered, had with them only the bible---no one to dictate to them what to believe, were discovered to be keeping the 7th day Sabbath--and also, BTW--not eating pork. Unless someone tells you about Sunday--you can not get it from reading the word of God.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Likewise, "little children" have read the Bible or listened to the Bible being read , and asked the (blank) adults reading the Bible to them
why they don't believe nor go along with what they are reading !!!

Those "little children", faithful ones with a pure innocent heart after God, seeking Truth, seeking God's Kingdom by faith in Jesus,
are then , later , kicked out of the church they are in ! (for those questions they ask that are embarrassing )

This happens also on so-called "Christian" chat rooms also -
a young child signs in, asks a few questions and embarrasses the (so-called) adults , "educated ones", so much by simple questions about the Bible and "WHY DON't you believe it? and the faithful little child gets banned from the chat room !

QUOTE=
"mmksparbud, post: 73571606, member: 297518"]Select church history is what is done on this forum--church history to you means the history that uohold Sunday and excludes the history of those thst continued to keep the true 7th day Sabbath. "It comes down to what church history has recorded as to whether the legal rest of the Sabbath, is a Christian practice."
That statement is false. There is no tradition that replaces the word of God. A selective church history means nothing in the eyes of God. His truth is what matters, not the tradition of man. The NT testament its, upholds the 7th day Sabbath and needs no selective church history that comes straight from Catholicism instead of the plain word of God. Even the survivors of the Mutiny on the bounty--the Pitcairn islanders, when discovered, had with them only the bible---no one to dictate to them what to believe, were discovered to be keeping the 7th day Sabbath--and also, BTW--not eating pork. Unless someone tells you about Sunday--you can not get it from reading the word of God.
[/QUOTE
=================================

 

[BobRyan]

Do you believe that a Sunday law must be introduced before Jesus will return?

There is a prediction in Rev 13 about a law related to worship that will come before the 2nd coming. Is that a new topic you wish to start on a new thread?

Thinking about it, thought I would get the SDA position first.

Fine -

The SDA position predicts that - in the future new civil laws regarding religion will make it illegal to keep/honor the Bible Sabbath as given by God to mankind. They will be "positioned" as if they are for the general well-being and stability of society.

 

[Major1]

But never as "Seventh-day Adventists".

The Seventh-day Adventist church along with its doctrinal statements was not founded until 1861.

History matters.

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

IF instead you are looking to pick a fight with those sunday-keeping pork-eating immortal-soul-believing, Ellen White disbelieving Millerites that were following Miller in 1845 ... none of them are here. You will have a difficult time finding one of those 50,000 still alive or still a Millerite.



Yes I did - thanks for pointing that out.




Is your false accusation supposed to be -- "true because you say it"?

Were you "almost going to start a thread" on that topic??

You are correct in that the WORDS "Seventh Day Adventist" did not apply officially
until 1862.

BUT that is nothing but semantics and a half truth. IF you are comfortable in believing that then Praise the Lord.

However, everyone else knows The Millerites were the original nucleus of today's Seventh-Day Adventist and Adventist Christian Churches, historical collections of perodicals, and phamlets proves the necessary materials for a thorough study of the Millerittes philosophy, that the "Seventh Day Adantist" was a growth out of the William Miller movement.

 

[Major1]

There is a prediction in Rev 13 about a law related to worship that will come before the 2nd coming. Is that a new topic you wish to start on a new thread?



Fine -

The SDA position predicts that - in the future new civil laws regarding religion will make it illegal to keep/honor the Bible Sabbath as given by God to mankind. They will be "positioned" as if they are for the general well-being and stability of society.

I am thinking that you are referring to...
Rev. 13:4...……
"People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?"

IF you are then your comment is once again only half of a truth.

This refers to the worship of an individual, not an empire and has absolutely NOTHING to do with what day of the week worship is done. The people in verse 4 are those who are sold out to the A/C and will or have already taken his mark.

There are Scriptures in Rev. 13 that tell us the A/C and the False Prophet will make people alive then take the Mark of The Beast on the hand or forehead.

Yes that is before the 2nd Coming of Christ and it is during the 7 Year Tribulation which is yet future to us today.