Sabbath

[StormyOne]

Only in your mind...

Is that like "only in your mind" do you believe you are right, in spite of the direct rebuttals by Victor, BFA, and Senti among others? Seems then we would be in the same boat.... I'll scoot over...

 

[k4c]

Is that like "only in your mind" do you believe you are right, in spite of the direct rebuttals by Victor, BFA, and Senti among others? Seems then we would be in the same boat.... I'll scoot over...

You could name a hundred names and it still wouldn't make them right. Let me ask you the same question I asked them. Can a Christian live a life style of breaking any one of the Ten Commandments and still be right with God? In other words, can I go around killing, stealing and lying and still be right with God?

 

[StormyOne]

You could name a hundred names and it still wouldn't make them right. Let me ask you the same question I asked them. Can a Christian live a life style of breaking any one of the Ten Commandments and still be right with God? In other words, can I go around killing, stealing and lying and still be right with God?

That would be between you and God.... unlike you I am not trying to tell people how to live... IF they say they are christian, then their relationship with God will dictate how they will live.... You sir still have not grasped the basic idea that you cannot keep any commandment... Galatians makes that clear and it makes it clear why the law was given. You seem to be stuck there, but as my friend so often reminds me, "people are where they are suppose to be...."

 

[Avonia]

Can a Christian live a life style of breaking any one of the Ten Commandments and still be right with God?

A law that can be broken is not God's law by definition. Universal law is simply that which is. Petulance is no more a challenge to God's law than jumping off a ledge is a challenge to gravity.

 

[Avonia]

"people are where they are suppose to be...."

And that's the golden insight. And it doesn't mean that we wouldn't be better off if they were in a different place - it means that how they move from one place to another matters.

This is why a punctuated dissolution of the Sabbath belief could be harmful. We hold that belief for a reason. And, with openness, we evolve and our doctrines evolve. And sometimes evolution takes billions of years!

People cling to beliefs for a reason.

 

[VictorC]

You could name a hundred names and it still wouldn't make them right. Let me ask you the same question I asked them. Can a Christian live a life style of breaking any one of the Ten Commandments and still be right with God? In other words, can I go around killing, stealing and lying and still be right with God?

You already know that this argument is the same that Paul encountered and wrote about in Romans 3:

7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?
8 And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"? ----as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one...​

You're using a completely fallacious argument that only reveals your carnal tendency to merely accuse others and pound your own chest and declare yourself righteous. You cannot reconcile your pride with this summary showing that even God's redeemed are no better than those deserving condemnation. I might mention too that the manner in which Adventism divides the law into "moral" and "ceremonial" components artificially causes you to relegate Leviticus 19 to mere "ceremony" that was nailed to the cross. Using the same argument you do would postulate that it is okay to practice violations of the sabbath, cheating wages, stealing, gossip, fornication, prostitution, idolatry, and so forth because these things were merely "ceremonial". Notice that there is a lot of commonality between these ceremonial regulations and the ten commandments! Doing away with either causes the entire law to fall as one unit, and that was the way it was conveyed to the children of Israel.

The gymnastics you perform are inconsistent, irreconcilable with the law's tenor, and you do all of these things to give lipservice to the sabbath, all the while failing to comply with this ceremonial aspect of the law that was prophetic in nature, and doesn't convey an inherent moral mandate. You already know that there isn't anyone here advocating killing, stealing, and lying, and it would help promote rational discussion if you would stop accusing others of the same practices you are guilty of.

 

[VictorC]

And that's the golden insight. And it doesn't mean that we wouldn't be better off if they were in a different place - it means that how they move from one place to another matters.

This is why a punctuated dissolution of the Sabbath belief could be harmful. We hold that belief for a reason. And, with openness, we evolve and our doctrines evolve. And sometimes evolution takes billions of years!

People cling to beliefs for a reason.

That "reason" lies in the writings of Ellen White, and until reliance on her is dismissed, the "evolution" you hope would happen isn't going to. The prophet is dead, and her codified doctrines don't mutate from the grave. Just look at the general reception the 1957 QoD has failed to garner, which illustrates the tenacity of the prophet in the grave.

 

[AzA]

That "reason" lies in the writings of Ellen White.

Victor -- I know some Adventists who might hold their belief about the Sabbath because of what they have learned from Ellen White.
I know many more Adventists who have other reasons.
And a few nonAdventists who have non-Ellen reasons of their own for holding similar beliefs.

Sabbatarians are not the Borg.

 

[VictorC]

Victor -- I know some Adventists who might hold their belief about the Sabbath because of what they have learned from Ellen White.
I know many more Adventists who have other reasons.
And a few nonAdventists who have non-Ellen reasons of their own for holding similar beliefs.

Sabbatarians are not the Borg.

Resistance is not futile.
Did you forget that I was a sabbatarian?

 

[AzA]

Resistance is not futile.
Did you forget that I was a sabbatarian?

I agree that resistance is not futile -- because I'm not a Borg member.

 

[VictorC]

I agree that resistance is not futile -- because I'm not a Borg member.

I believe that you're introducing a red herring, and not perceiving my response to Avonia's premise that Adventist doctrines will "evolve" over the course of time. Within the confines of Adventism, those doctrines are codified in a body of literature that does not change, regardless of the time element. As long as that literary body is appealed to, I regard an expectation that Adventist doctrines will change to be without merit.

As far as the sabbath is concerned, you're in a unique position to learn the fullness of the sabbath and what it was, and the reality it was a shadow of. These are questions that most Christians who assemble on Sunday don't come to the position of addressing, and answers regarding the law never come for the reason that they're never asked in the first place. My own experience has been that dedicating myself to the sabbath according to the law has caused me a deep appreciation for God's redemption many don't formulate a rational basis for.

 

[sentipente]

A law that can be broken is not God's law by definition. Universal law is simply that which is.

Worth repeating.

 

[Joe67]

That one river in the garden of God is the universal truth of God, but it contains 4 definitive qualities, revealed through the symbol of the 4 streams that flowed from the one river. This truth is not an abstraction, though it is spiritual in its value, producing the fruit of the spirit out of the river of life flowing from God's justice/his throne and God's mercy/the Lamb.

Let the little children come to the Lamb, and forbid them not, even if they are 100 years of age.

Joe

 

[AzA]

I believe that you're introducing a red herring, and not perceiving my response to Avonia's premise that Adventist doctrines will "evolve" over the course of time. Within the confines of Adventism, those doctrines are codified in a body of literature that does not change, regardless of the time element. As long as that literary body is appealed to, I regard an expectation that Adventist doctrines will change to be without merit.

That's obviously your sense of things, yes.

Yet I find the likelihood of doctrinal evolution to be much higher than you'd wager because of how much doctrines within Adventism have fluctuated and adapted both to internal triggers and to external pressures over the last 150 years. Bull and Lockhart's Seeking a Sanctuary is a useful precis of these changes. Perhaps you have read it.

My experience is that Adventism is not a revolutionary's community. It moves incrementally, and also moves ahistorically, and that often fools observers, traditionalists, and antsy idealists like myself into the sense that it does not change at all.

It is a slow-rolling stone.

As far as the sabbath is concerned, you're in a unique position to learn the fullness of the sabbath and what it was, and the reality it was a shadow of. These are questions that most Christians who assemble on Sunday don't come to the position of addressing, and answers regarding the law never come for the reason that they're never asked in the first place. My own experience has been that dedicating myself to the sabbath according to the law has caused me a deep appreciation for God's redemption many don't formulate a rational basis for.

I'm glad this has been your experience.

You might also be interested to hear that more and more "postmodern"/"emergent"-era Christians are participating in similar learning processes, whatever their denominational backgrounds might have once been.

 

[VictorC]

That's obviously your sense of things, yes.

Yet I find the likelihood of doctrinal evolution to be much higher than you'd wager because of how much doctrines within Adventism have fluctuated and adapted both to internal triggers and to external pressures over the last 150 years. Bull and Lockhart's Seeking a Sanctuary is a useful precis of these changes. Perhaps you have read it.

No, I haven't - but before it would be of interest, it would need to be demonstrated that it has an effect on altering the Fundamental Beliefs that are derived from source documentation. I remain focused on the source material.

My experience is that Adventism is not a revolutionary's community. It moves incrementally, and also moves ahistorically, and that often fools observers, traditionalists, and antsy idealists like myself into the sense that it does not change at all.

I perceive that was the behind QoD, of which I have seen open disdain written by Adventist clergy to describe. Change is not embraced by those intent on being purposely distinctive, and several have opined on this forum that this is precisely the intent of those reigning in the GC of the SDA church.

It is a slow-rolling stone.

It hasn't moved in 160 years.

I'm glad this has been your experience.

You might also be interested to hear that more and more "postmodern"/"emergent"-era Christians are participating in similar learning processes, whatever their denominational backgrounds might have once been.

You never know how short one comes in light of the law that we have no means to comply with until one actually tries to comply for themselves. As I mentioned, it brings a new appreciation for God's redemption for the law that held its recipients in the past tense.

 

[AzA]

Yes, I think you'd really enjoy the read.

The chief weakness of QoD was that it was a peripheral and not central effort that occluded the diversity of opinion and conviction across the church. That which isn't large enough to contain the voices of the people cannot truly claim to speak for them. This is one of the church's long-term lessons.

 

[VictorC]

Yes, I think you'd really enjoy the read.

The chief weakness of QoD was that it was a peripheral and not central effort that occluded the diversity of opinion and conviction across the church. That which isn't large enough to contain the voices of the people cannot truly claim to speak for them. This is one of the church's long-term lessons.

QoD was regarded by its primary recipients (Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse) to be an official product of the GC meant to describe the official beliefs held by the SDA church. As an formal product written by the governing body, it doesn't regard deviation from what the GC codified as official doctrinal views. It can't. You should know that the opinions within Adventism are so varied that it would be impossible to codify anything that both reflected what Ellen White passed down and the findings of a portion of the membership who found it necessary to abandon what was passed down.

That it was later regarded as an effort to obfuscate official doctrinal views by both the recipients and those who were not polled regarding their views caused QoD to lose any impact those who wrote it may have hoped it would garner.

 

[AzA]

QoD was regarded by its primary recipients (Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse) to be an official product of the GC meant to describe the official beliefs held by the SDA church. As an formal product written by the governing body, it doesn't regard deviation from what the GC codified as official doctrinal views. It can't. You should know that the opinions within Adventism are so varied that it would be impossible to codify anything that both reflected what Ellen White passed down and the findings of a portion of the membership who found it necessary to abandon what was passed down.

That it was later regarded as an effort to obfuscate official doctrinal views by both the recipients and those who were not polled regarding their views caused QoD to lose any impact those who wrote it may have hoped it would garner.

There was diversity of opinion in the church on positions shared during the Martin-Barnhouse-Froom-Unruh et al. conversations. This is because there was vibrant discussion of these issues through the 40s and 50s, not just after the discussions were published as QoD, and not just by those who were not part of those limited discussions. QoD did speak for a segment of the church, but it did not speak for others, and this is part of the issue I raised in post 28.

Simply looking at the church structurally without regard to ideology, we have the laity of the church, all 14-15+ million members co-comprising the faith community. We have the educators, theologians, and administrators of the church across all divisions. We have the executives of the General Conference Corporation. And we also have the various publishing branches of the church, including publications from Signs of the Times to the Nichols era SDA Bible Commentary. The body is not all toes, and notwithstanding your focus on either the now-28 FBs or the Ellen White library as The Voice Of The Church, this is not a univocal community. Because it is a whole, it contains both its innovators and its reactionaries.

As a comparison point, Glenn Beck is no more or less American than is Cornel West. They both reflect on America. Neither of them speaks for America any more than they speak for each other. But if an alien came to Earth and asked for a sample of an American, either would suffice.

My comment about the ahistorical movement of the church over time derives from the fact that the movements it does make are often made without reference to or sense of prior or contemporary debate. The discussion and flux even among Adventist ministers and theologians that precedes Commentary entries, Bible study guide articles, or more extended treatments like Adams' work on the nature of Christ is often masked by a wish to appear externally unified. And ignoring this very lively discussion tells you little about the community.

The texts of the Bible have varied over the last 2,000 years, but not by that much. Analyzing those texts does tell you something about the politics of translators and compilers, but on its own it says much less than when paired with materials and accounts from the wider Church -- members, ministers, evangelists, and other participants in the life and development of the Church.

All of that said, I'm encouraging you to significantly broaden your "source material." I encourage my mother to do the same.

 

[VictorC]

There was diversity of opinion in the church on positions shared during the Martin-Barnhouse-Froom-Unruh et al. conversations. This is because there was vibrant discussion of these issues through the 40s and 50s, not just after the discussions were published as QoD, and not just by those who were not part of those limited discussions. QoD did speak for a segment of the church, but it did not speak for others, and this is part of the issue I raised in post 28.

Simply looking at the church structurally without regard to ideology, we have the laity of the church, all 14-15+ million members co-comprising the faith community. We have the educators, theologians, and administrators of the church across all divisions. We have the executives of the General Conference Corporation. And we also have the various publishing branches of the church, including publications from Signs of the Times to the Nichols era SDA Bible Commentary. The body is not all toes, and notwithstanding your focus on either the now-28 FBs or the Ellen White library as The Voice Of The Church, this is not a univocal community. Because it is a whole, it contains both its innovators and its reactionaries.

As a comparison point, Glenn Beck is no more or less American than is Cornel West. They both reflect on America. Neither of them speaks for America any more than they speak for each other. But if an alien came to Earth and asked for a sample of an American, either would suffice.

My comment about the ahistorical movement of the church over time derives from the fact that the movements it does make are often made without reference to or sense of prior or contemporary debate. The discussion and flux even among Adventist ministers and theologians that precedes Commentary entries, Bible study guide articles, or more extended treatments like Adams' work on the nature of Christ is often masked by a wish to appear externally unified. And ignoring this very lively discussion tells you little about the community.

The texts of the Bible have varied over the last 2,000 years, but not by that much. Analyzing those texts does tell you something about the politics of translators and compilers, but on its own it says much less than when paired with materials and accounts from the wider Church -- members, ministers, evangelists, and other participants in the life and development of the Church.

All of that said, I'm encouraging you to significantly broaden your "source material." I encourage my mother to do the same.

You haven't addressed the source material at all. Remember I had commented on that when you asked if I had read a book you like:

No, I haven't - but before it would be of interest, it would need to be demonstrated that it has an effect on altering the Fundamental Beliefs that are derived from source documentation. I remain focused on the source material.

Where I place my attention is the body of literature where doctrinal matters are derived. I do not look to opinions that are not garnered from the mandate to use the writings of Ellen White as a continuing authority, and those are the source documents that will never change. Because the author is not available to render an opinion that would nullify an earlier view she codified, the source of Adventist doctrine remains as immutable as the Scriptures we have, which have not changed one tiny bit since penned by the original authors. Glacier View will continue to serve as a reminder that those pointing out real deficiencies in SDA doctrinal matters will not be tolerated.

 

[Laodicean]

A law that can be broken is not God's law by definition. Universal law is simply that which is. Petulance is no more a challenge to God's law than jumping off a ledge is a challenge to gravity.

It's not about challenging God's law or challenging gravity.

I'm trying to follow your reasoning, Avonia. Are you saying that humans have not broken God's law because His law cannot be broken? If we are not lawbreakers, then we are lawkeepers. And if so, then we are all righteous, and the text is incorrect that says, "All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned, every one, to his own way."

The law of gravity never changes, but if we act contrary to it (and we have the freedom to do so), we will surely go splat if we jump off a cliff.

Same for God's moral law. It never changes, but if we act contrary to its principles (and we are free to do so), our lives become a mess.

So I don't know what exactly is the point you are making when you say that "petulance is no more a challenge to God's law than jumping off a ledge." It's not about challenging immutable laws, but rather, what happens when we choose to live outside of immutable principles