Sabbath and Matthew 24 (Split from "Sadly, some people have no respect . . .")

[RC_NewProtestants]

The Mystery of Iniquity:
How was it possible for sin to start in heaven?

Good thing you had to stop, because the mystery of iniquity as you stated above is not from the Bible but from Ellen White. Here is the Bible version and you will notice it has nothing to do with how it was possible for sin to start in heaven.

[SIZE=-0][SIZE=-0] 2 Thess 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: [/SIZE][/SIZE]

But you are right in that there is a difference in progressive vs. traditional and your use is very appropos of the difference, where Ellen White is used over what the Bible actually says is one of the foundations of the traditional method.

 

[TrustAndObey]

But you are right in that there is a difference in progressive vs. traditional and your use is very appropos of the difference, where Ellen White is used over what the Bible actually says is one of the foundations of the traditional method.

Maybe I'm a progressive too considering I haven't read a single EGW book? If I believe something it's because I read it in the bible.

I don't know a single person that puts EGW over the bible, but I'm not implying that you don't know someone. I think there are fanatics in every faith and it's unfortunate since it gives a bad name to the church as a whole.

On a side note:

When I read the bible the first time I tried really hard to clear my mind of anything I had ever been taught, and I thought I had accomplished that, but I really didn't.

I read the whole thing and for absolutely NO reason I thought that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute anyway. It's not in scripture anywhere but I had grown up (Baptist) being told she was, so when I read the bible I just made that advanced assumption.

It doesn't always matter what we try to "shake off" when we're personally searching for the answers, we're all tainted to some degree by what we've been told.

I really do think all of us owe it to ourselves to occasionally question what we believe and why we do. I have no problem with someone trying to get me to do that, as long as they're doing it out of love.

I'm not a conformist or I'd be Baptist to make my whole family happy (ha) but I think there's always room for growth, for anyone.

Fair warning though, lots of us have already done this, and believe what we do even more strongly because we did before.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I forgot to mention that I no longer believe what I did about Mary Magdalene because one person asked me WHY I believed that.

Sometimes when you search for the reason, you can't find it.

 

[elrem]

Thankyou Sophia for answering my question, I didn't want to assume that he (paul) was a Roman Citizen. Because once you make an assumsion you end up making a mistake. Wow isn't that intresting that he (Paul) was a Roman Ctizen and in the Jewish Organization.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I don't know a single person that puts EGW over the bible, but I'm not implying that you don't know someone. I think there are fanatics in every faith and it's unfortunate since it gives a bad name to the church as a whole.

That is interesting because it is very evident in a lot of Adventists. For instance this is from one of my articles where I quote Adventist leaders who admit to using Ellen White as a divine interpreter of the Bible. From http://newprotestants.com/traditio.htm

The works of Ellen G. White are often taken by the Traditional/Historic SDA's as equal authority with the Bible. Too often her works are used in place of the Bible, even though many Traditional/Historic SDA's would say that such should never be the case. Perhaps as troublesome as giving her works equality with the Bible is her use as an "inspired commentator" on the Bible. As Morris Vendon wrote in his book "The Pillars": "The gift of prophecy is not an authority over the Bible, but it is an authority on the Bible. Some people have trouble with the phrase, evidently coined by F.D. Nichol, 'inspired commentary.' But if you accept the inspiration of the gift of prophecy and realize the fact that it is also a commentary on the Bible, and then put the two together, you have an inspired commentary." (page 104). While this may sound innocuous enough it is not, such a system of thought gives Ellen White's interpretation over and above everything else. In a very real sense it is placing her interpretation above that expressed in the context of the Bible itself. If a person were to hold such a view then her incorrect use of a verse such as Acts 3:19: to assign the blotting out of sins to some distant time, has to be accepted, even though such an interpretation was based upon the King James translation. Hardly any other translation would lead to such an interpretation nor would the original Greek. To call her an "inspired commentator" is to place her above the book she is commenting on. Fortunately as Vendon noted there are those in the SDA church who have trouble with such a phrase, Progressive SDA's.

One thing you must remember about Ellen White is that she practically developed no new interpretations or insights most all of her material can be seen from previous Christians, of course in some cases it is simply fellow Adventists such as the investigative judgment. If I recall correctly Ellen White also thought that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute also. In many ways Ellen White is a compendium of 19th century religious thought. The difference is that her position as a prophet institutionalized her views in the SDA church.

 

[TrustAndObey]

That is interesting because it is very evident in a lot of Adventists. For instance this is from one of my articles where I quote Adventist leaders who admit to using Ellen White as a divine interpreter of the Bible. From http://newprotestants.com/traditio.htm

I believe you. I'll be honest with you, the main reason I personally haven't read any of Ellen White's books is time. I really would like to, but I just completely changed my belief system a couple of years ago, and some of that was pretty devastating to me. Reading the bible for the first time and realizing people had led me astray for so many years was nothing less than gut-wrenching at times. It's taken me all this time to cope with that.

It seems silly now, but I remember telling my husband that I wanted to sue the pastor of my little Baptist church for having the power to possibly compromise my eternal life! HA! Can you imagine what a landmark case that would be?!

I realized though that he believed every word he said or he never would've told me so many untruths. I mean BLATANT untruths too, something I can't imagine him believing if he had read the bible himself.

I know a lot of Adventists now and I seriously don't know ANYONE that puts EGW over the bible. Occasionally someone will quote her and it always seems like poetry to me.

For instance, someone told me that she stated that if we knew God's reasoning for every single victory/defeat/catastrophe, etc in our lives NOW (i.e. if we could see the big picture) that we wouldn't change one second of our lives.

There are times that I so completely disagree with that, but I'm sure she was right.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

For instance, someone told me that she stated that if we knew God's reasoning for every single victory/defeat/catastrophe, etc in our lives NOW (i.e. if we could see the big picture) that we wouldn't change one second of our lives.

There are times that I so completely disagree with that, but I'm sure she was right.

I know the quote you are referring to but can't recall precisely how it goes and it is pointless to debate our faulty memories of what someone said. But I completely agree with the idea that it is, at least the way you put it a very disagreeable. I remember just a couple months ago reading on another Adventist forum an account of a lady's son who committed suicide and in his note [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]wrote "My religion drove me crazy."
http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/160/11493.html#POST68234

I think it is a dangerous idea to think that everything that happens is part of God's great plan for us. Better I think to know that God can work to bring good out of even bad things.
[/FONT]

 

[Sophia7]

Thankyou Sophia for answering my question, I didn't want to assume that he (paul) was a Roman Citizen. Because once you make an assumsion you end up making a mistake. Wow isn't that intresting that he (Paul) was a Roman Ctizen and in the Jewish Organization.

Here is the Bible passage that talks about Paul's citizenship:

AC 22:23 As they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air, 24 the commander ordered Paul to be taken into the barracks. He directed that he be flogged and questioned in order to find out why the people were shouting at him like this. 25 As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, "Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn't even been found guilty?"

AC 22:26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander and reported it. "What are you going to do?" he asked. "This man is a Roman citizen."

AC 22:27 The commander went to Paul and asked, "Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?"
"Yes, I am," he answered.

AC 22:28 Then the commander said, "I had to pay a big price for my citizenship."
"But I was born a citizen," Paul replied.

AC 22:29 Those who were about to question him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains.
​

Paul was a Roman citizen and also a Jew:

PHP 3:3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh-- 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence.
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

PHP 3:7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
​

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hello once again RC_N.P.

Sorry I had to answer my page and leave my post unfinished. However from your response it might be best for me to apostrophize this discussion for the moment.

From my last post I said:

"The Mystery of Iniquity:
How was it possible for sin to start in heaven?"

Your response:

"Good thing you had to stop, because the mystery of iniquity as you stated above is not from the Bible but from Ellen White. Here is the Bible version and you will notice it has nothing to do with how it was possible for sin to start in heaven."


Quote:
[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]2 Thess 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0] [/SIZE][/SIZE]
"But you are right in that there is a difference in progressive vs. traditional and your use is very appropos of the difference, where Ellen White is used over what the Bible actually says is one of the foundations of the traditional method."

Now I must ask these questions. Why did you say?:

"Its a good thing you had to stop, because e mystery of iniquity as you stated...is not from the Bible but from Ellen White. Here is the Bible virsion and you will notice that it has nothing to do with how it was possible for sin to start in heaven."

Why was it "a good thing that I had to stop"? What bad thing would have happened if I had not stopped? Since you have absolutly no knowledge of what I was going to say next, or how I was going to use that phrase, your statment would seem a bit premature. Did you assume what my next thought would be? Or did you simply jump to a conclusion?

I will wait for your response before finishing my post.

Respecfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[elrem]

Sophia thank you for the bible texts that states that
Paul was a Roman Citizen. I was trying to find that in the bible but I couldn't find the bible texts. To the others, I don't put Mrs White over the bible. In some of her books she quotes the bible, but she always puts down where in the bible she read the passage. One thin about Mrs White she does have a good advice about health relationships with people.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I know the quote you are referring to but can't recall precisely how it goes and it is pointless to debate our faulty memories of what someone said. But I completely agree with the idea that it is, at least the way you put it a very disagreeable. I remember just a couple months ago reading on another Adventist forum an account of a lady's son who committed suicide and in his note [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]wrote "My religion drove me crazy."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]http://www.atomorrow.com/discus/messages/160/11493.html#POST68234[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]I think it is a dangerous idea to think that everything that happens is part of God's great plan for us. Better I think to know that God can work to bring good out of even bad things.[/FONT]

I entertained thoughts of suicide when I was in high school and I wasn't Adventist. My religion drove me crazy too because I saw a lot of hypocrisy. What made me stronger than the young man that actually did it? I don't know, but I can tell you that if he felt life was over, he had more problems than just his church, and apparently no one to talk to about them.

There are people in all faiths that have committed suicide. They either don't reach out at all or people missed their not-always-so-silent pleas for help. Regardless, it's a tragedy when a young person can't see life going any further than where they're at. Kids get so caught up in the moment.

And when you're in the thick of the moment, you don't always reach out for God; you try to blame Him.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Trustandobey wrote:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=33489394&postcount=36

The sabbath is referred to as a holy convocation. I'm sure you know what that means.

I wanted to get back to this because it takes the conversation full circle. You were no doubt suggesting that people meet on the Sabbath day because God had declared it to be a holy convocation (assemblies) . But that is also true for each of the others things mentioned in Paul's verse. [(Col 2:16 -17 NIV) Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.]

The Festivals and new moons. They were all convocations.

(Lev 23:2 -8 NIV) "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'These are my appointed feasts, the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you are to proclaim as sacred assemblies. "'There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a Sabbath to the LORD. "'These are the Lord's appointed feasts, the sacred assemblies you are to proclaim at their appointed times: The Lord's Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. On the fifteenth day of that month the Lord's Feast of Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread made without yeast. On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work. For seven days present an offering made to the LORD by fire. And on the seventh day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work.'"

Of course with time people spread out an such convocations could no longer happen, and later they created synagogues as an aid in keeping the people together both culturally and religiously. You can say that you are modeling you Sabbath gathering, or any get together on the idea of the old testament gathering but it is far different in reality from what their holy assembly was.

I think the people who claim we still need to keep the Old Testament festivals are being more consistant in their view then those who hold to just keeping the Sabbath. Though I think they also are wrong in saying that it is a requirement. Worldwide Church of God used to do that and Dr. Bacchiochi holds to keeping the festivals, though I don't know if he holds to the new moons also.

If people find benefit in this things that is great, the problem comes when people declare that this is what others must do. Then they are going against Paul's instructions in the verse above.

 

[TrustAndObey]

RC, do Progressive SDA not believe in keeping the Sabbath commandment?

 

[Sophia7]

I don't think all progressives can be lumped into one category because there is a wide spectrum of views on this (and many other subjects) even among Adventists, even among traditional Adventists. (Just look at how many different beliefs people have about appropriate Sabbath activities.) Many Adventists who don't agree with all 28 fundamentals do believe in keeping the seventh-day Sabbath. Many progressives view the Sabbath as beneficial to people's relationship with Christ (as long as the focus isn't on a legalistic list of dos and don'ts) but not necessarily as a requirement for everyone, and certainly not as the seal of God or the issue that will separate true Christians from nominal Christians at the end of time. One of the big differences between traditional/historic Adventists and progressive Adventists on this issue is probably the salvational implications that are attached to the Sabbath in the traditional view.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

RC, do Progressive SDA not believe in keeping the Sabbath commandment?

Depends on what you mean by "keeping". Probably most acknowledge the usefulness of resting, as Christ said the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. But most would reject the idea that the Sabbath is an end time test or that those who go to church on Sunday must change their day of worship before the end or they will be lost. Can you let others go by their conscience or do you demand they abide by your conscience.

Romans 14: 4-6 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I was just curious, I don't really know that much about Progressive Adventism.

Now I definitely see why there's been a split in here though. I'm sure other Adventists are tired of defending the Sabbath to other Christians, so it would get even more tiresome defending it to off-shoot Adventists.

I hope that didn't sound offensive, because I didn't mean it that way.

 

[djconklin]

But most would reject the idea that the Sabbath is an end time test or that those who go to church on Sunday must change their day of worship before the end or they will be lost.

In general, we haven't hit that time yet so why speak as if they can predict with certainty what the future will bring?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

In general, we haven't hit that time yet so why speak as if they can predict with certainty what the future will bring?

Exactly we have been so off in our predictions that we have no

business​

asserting such things as Sunday Law and mark of the Beast being related to the Sabbath.

 

[djconklin]

we have been so off in our predictions

"we"? "off"?