Sabbath

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by Avonia

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

Worth repeating.

So if I steal, this is not considered to be breaking the law that says, "do not steal"?

I'm just not following this line of thinking. Maybe you can explain this concept in different words?

 

[k4c]

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...."

That was a beautiful dance around the question.

 

[StormyOne]

That was a beautiful dance around the question.

Not even... that is recognizing that adults have the ability to choose to do what they want to do in the context of religion, and that adults have no business trying to tell other adults how they should follow God.... hang in there you'll get it...

 

[k4c]

Not even... that is recognizing that adults have the ability to choose to do what they want to do in the context of religion, and that adults have no business trying to tell other adults how they should follow God.... hang in there you'll get it...

What do you call that dance, the two step?

Oh, by the way....

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your spiritual leaders and be willing to do what they say. For their work is to watch over your souls, and God will judge them on how well they do this. Give them reason to report joyfully about you to the Lord and not with sorrow, for then you will suffer for it too.

Now where was that list of your people you say prove me wrong? I say, your people, because you are of the same mindset they are and we can see by your two step dance moves you do not stand for God's truth.

 

[AzA]

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:

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.

Victor -- your choice to read broadly, or not.

Doctrine is developed, reinterpreted, and finessed by the thinkers and theologians of the church, voted by its administrators, preached by its pastors, and published by its writers and editors.

If you take just ONE issue -- the ontology of Christ -- there are several threads of thought running through not only early Adventists including James and Ellen White but also through the end of the 19th Century, the early and mid 20th, and the present time. Guess who everybody quotes? Ellen. But to vastly different and conflicting ends. This repeats across every significant point in our history post 1915.

It is incredibly convenient for people to overlook that, but it remains their and your choice to do so.

 

[VictorC]

Victor -- your choice to read broadly, or not.

Doctrine is developed, reinterpreted, and finessed by the thinkers and theologians of the church, voted by its administrators, preached by its pastors, and published by its writers and editors.

If you take just ONE issue -- the ontology of Christ -- there are several threads of thought running through not only early Adventists including James and Ellen White but also through the end of the 19th Century, the early and mid 20th, and the present time. Guess who everybody quotes? Ellen. But to vastly different and conflicting ends. This repeats across every significant point in our history post 1915.

It is incredibly convenient for people to overlook that, but it remains their and your choice to do so.

I think it is more than merely convenient to rely on the mutual concession that Ellen remains the source relied on - it is inescapable. This is the reason that the SDA church still has the sanctuary doctrine and all the lingo revolving around 1844 remaining in its official published beliefs, and as an example I would estimate that perhaps half the Adventists I know of dismiss the doctrine as irreconcilable with the Biblical narratives describing a finished atonement. The opinions of the laity are not polled to publish the beliefs or formulate the syllabus used in the seminary, and the theologians, librarians, and editors (Dr Raymond Cottrell's written experiences are priceless) either walk a fine line or face expulsion.

 

[AzA]

I think it is more than merely convenient to rely on the mutual concession that Ellen remains the source relied on - it is inescapable. This is the reason that the SDA church still has the sanctuary doctrine and all the lingo revolving around 1844 remaining in its official published beliefs, and as an example I would estimate that perhaps half the Adventists I know of dismiss the doctrine as irreconcilable with the Biblical narratives describing a finished atonement. The opinions of the laity are not polled to publish the beliefs or formulate the syllabus used in the seminary, and the theologians, librarians, and editors (Dr Raymond Cottrell's written experiences are priceless) either walk a fine line or face expulsion.

And yet, as you cannot possibly have missed your study, the standard explanations and rationalizations regarding said doctrine have changed at least 5 times over the last century, ALL citing EGW as justification. They all cited the same sources -- Daniel, Hebrews, Revelation, Uriah Smith, and EGW -- and all cited these sources for different outcomes.

The pattern is the same for changing explanations of atonement based on the New Testament epistles over the last two millennia in the Western Christian church.

Carry on.

 

[VictorC]

And yet, as you cannot possibly have missed your study, the standard explanations and rationalizations regarding said doctrine have changed at least 5 times over the last century, ALL citing EGW as justification. They all cited the same sources -- Daniel, Hebrews, Revelation, Uriah Smith, and EGW -- and all cited these sources for different outcomes.

The doctrine itself has mutated over the history of the SDA church, primarily from the second advent to the Shut Door and then to the Investigative Judgment, at times overturning claims of divine inspiration marked by "I saw". Yet the mutations all showed an unrelenting dedication to apologize for a date in 1844 that remains codified as an important doctrine of the SDA church. Even when conclusions showing that there is no linguistic support for deriving this date from Daniel 8:14 are made, the dedication to the date nullify scholarship and continue to promote it.

The pattern is the same for changing explanations of atonement based on the New Testament epistles over the last two millennia in the Western Christian church.

Varying emphasis on imparted versus imputed righteousness, and atonement addressing sin (Hebrews 9:26) versus transgressions under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:15) or a sum of both have happened over Christianity's history. But in all of these variations, accepting atonement as a completed act there is no addition to is maintained by all disciplines.

The discourses you describe may have a positive effect at the individual level, but there is no consideration at the GC level to remove or modify the core doctrines that define Adventism. The individual efforts have no effect on the Borg Collective. Christianity continues to be regarded as a harlot's daughter because we took one look at the Midnight Cry and the salvific sabbath and dismissed them as wrong. You would like to argue over the degree of wrongness, but the degree doesn't change the wrongness itself.

 

[VictorC]

What do you call that dance, the two step?

Now where was that list of your people you say prove me wrong? I say, your people, because you are of the same mindset they are and we can see by your two step dance moves you do not stand for God's truth.

If anyone wonders why Adventism has such a poor reputation among God's redeemed, consider the inspiration behind the accuser of the brethen.

 

[k4c]

If anyone wonders why Adventism has such a poor reputation among God's redeemed, consider the inspiration behind the accuser of the brethen.

Is this your next level for refuting truth?

 

[VictorC]

Is this your next level for refuting truth?

You're already on record proclaiming yourself a false prophet who doesn't have the truth. Other than that one instance, I don't recall you showing an interest in the truth. Most of your efforts are focused on accusing God's adopted children of satanic deception or whatever cute nonsense comes to your mind.

 

[AzA]

You would like to argue over the degree of wrongness...

Curious.

 

[k4c]

You're already on record proclaiming yourself a false prophet who doesn't have the truth. Other than that one instance, I don't recall you showing an interest in the truth. Most of your efforts are focused on accusing God's adopted children of satanic deception or whatever cute nonsense comes to your mind.

Do you hear yourself?

 

[Avonia]

Are you saying that humans have not broken God's law because His law cannot be broken?

Yes.

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.

Exactly. That's why we have have laws specifying maximum speeds on the road.

It's not about challenging immutable laws, but rather, what happens when we choose to live outside of immutable principles

That's pretty well said. And why we create laws for others. Like not running into the street or touching hot stoves. As children come into relationship with the principle the law points to, a discipline that involves feedback from other people hopefully isn't necessary. If you touch a hot stove later today, it's unlikely an adult is going to walk thought the door and discipline you.

If somebody did a "cut-and-replace" and the list of ten commandments changed, it would make no difference in how I make decisions about what's right and what's wrong. Removing "do not kill" from the list doesn't suggest to me that killing somebody is a decent idea. The there's nothing more important to me than coming into better relationship with God's law.

Expanding the relationship people had with "the law" was quite a task for Jesus. And he had to do it in a way that didn't shift the meme too quickly. Otherwise it wouldn't have been helpful. But it was a massive expansion when he re-framed the commandments and suggested we simply love each other.

As long as the "keeping of the ten commandments" doesn't get in the way of honoring the two greatest commandments, I tend to not say much about the matter. But sometimes it does get in the way. Like condemning people for not keeping the Sabbath or firing them because they are gay. Or blowing up airplanes. Or . . . . .

 

[sentipente]

Originally Posted by Avonia

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

So if I steal, this is not considered to be breaking the law that says, "do not steal"?

I'm just not following this line of thinking. Maybe you can explain this concept in different words?

If I enter your house and take from it something that belongs to you, you would consider that to be stealing. If you do the same thing in my house how would you describe that situation?

You need to note, even though we have made every effort to ignore it, that "Thou shalt not steal" is not a command given when man was created. Stealing was not an issue for Adam because no one owned anything. Only when men began to claim that what belonged to all only belonged to a few that the need for such a command became necessary. But there are still tribes in the world where such a command would mean nothing.

 

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by Laodicean

Are you saying that humans have not broken God's law because His law cannot be broken?
​

Yes.

hmmm, I feel a bit like Alice in Wonderland. Maybe it is because we are using words differently.

What word would you use then for when someone steals, for instance? Apparently, "lawbreaker" must not be the correct word, at least not for purposes of this conversation.


Originally Posted by Laodicean

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.
​

Exactly. That's why we have have laws specifying maximum speeds on the road.

So if you are equating the law of gravity to the speed limit law, and we can "break" the speed limit law, then we can also be considered to "break" the gravity law? Or do you prefer another word other than "break"?


Originally Posted by Laodicean

It's not about challenging immutable laws, but rather, what happens when we choose to live outside of immutable principles
​

That's pretty well said. And why we create laws for others. Like not running into the street or touching hot stoves. As children come into relationship with the principle the law points to, a discipline that involves feedback from other people hopefully isn't necessary. If you touch a hot stove later today, it's unlikely an adult is going to walk thought the door and discipline you.

Would you accept, instead of the phrase "break God's law" the phrase "act outside of the immutable principles of God's law"?

If somebody did a "cut-and-replace" and the list of ten commandments changed, it would make no difference in how I make decisions about what's right and what's wrong. Removing "do not kill" from the list doesn't suggest to me that killing somebody is a decent idea. The there's nothing more important to me than coming into better relationship with God's law.

okay, another way to phrase "break God's law" would be "having a poor or no relationship with God's law"? Would this phrasing be acceptable to you?

Also, you make a good argument that removing the words "do not kill" from the list does not really remove the principle of "do not kill" from the universe, right? In other words, the law remains intact, eternally existent, regardless of if it is spoken, written, or deleted from a list of laws?

Expanding the relationship people had with "the law" was quite a task for Jesus. And he had to do it in a way that didn't shift the meme too quickly. Otherwise it wouldn't have been helpful. But it was a massive expansion when he re-framed the commandments and suggested we simply love each other.

How do you know what love is? I think I'd like to see a thread on this subject. maybe I'll start one.

As long as the "keeping of the ten commandments" doesn't get in the way of honoring the two greatest commandments, I tend to not say much about the matter. But sometimes it does get in the way. Like condemning people for not keeping the Sabbath or firing them because they are gay. Or blowing up airplanes. Or . . . . .

I agree with you that the legalistic "keeping of the ten commandments" (letter of the law) will most certainly get in the way of a heartfelt "keeping of the ten commandments" (that same law written on the heart). It is not the ten commandments that are at fault then, but, rather, it is the motive and intent behind the performance of the 10 that makes them either legalistic or heartfelt.

 

[Laodicean]

If I enter your house and take from it something that belongs to you, you would consider that to be stealing. If you do the same thing in my house how would you describe that situation?

I would describe it the same way, as stealing. Should I describe it differently?

You need to note, even though we have made every effort to ignore it, that "Thou shalt not steal" is not a command given when man was created. Stealing was not an issue for Adam because no one owned anything. Only when men began to claim that what belonged to all only belonged to a few that the need for such a command became necessary. But there are still tribes in the world where such a command would mean nothing.

Before sin, the principles of the law were eternally in place. So even though no one had yet stolen, the principle of not stealing was eternally in place. It was just that no one had "broken" that law yet. But when freewill took certain created beings in the direction of living outside of that law, and they stole, then the law was revealed and sprang into action with its consequences.

 

[sentipente]

I love the anthropomorphization. First freewill takes people in a direction then the law springs into action. It is difficult to converse with someone who is willing to mold the evidence to fit his prior conclusions.

 

[Laodicean]

I love the anthropomorphization. First freewill takes people in a direction then the law springs into action. It is difficult to converse with someone who is willing to mold the evidence to fit his prior conclusions.

I'm glad you appreciate the antropomorphization, Senti. Hopefully it has not distracted you from my point.

Would you explain why you think my conclusion (that the principle of not stealing is eternal) is an incorrect a-priori conclusion?

And in what way have I molded evidence to fit that conclusion? I'm willing to change if your reasons are persuasive.

 

[sentipente]

Lao, the law is eternal. The Ten Commandments are not. The law is love. The Ten Commandments are not principles; they are based on principles. You are molding the facts to fit your conclusion when you speak of the principle of not stealing. There is no principle of not stealing. Stealing is an indication that a principle has been violated.