Seventh-day Adventists affirm "sola scriptura testing" AND The 1Cor 12 gift of prophecy

[BobRyan]

Regardless of how it sounds to me, how would it generally sound to SDAs?

Playing football in the back yard does not sound like "a time dedicated to worship or meditation" to many of us. But each person has free will.

 

[BobRyan]

We also see how one Adventist tested his interpretation of Scripture, .

We saw how "one adventist" tested it when it came to introducing his "Holy Flesh" fanatacism if one is looking for one-off examples.

 

[tall73]

We saw how "one adventist" tested it when it came to introducing his "Holy Flesh" fanatacism if one is looking for one-off examples.

And we saw how one prophet said not to entertain ideas when they go against the special points of the Adventist faith.

 

[BobRyan]

And we saw how one prophet said not to entertain ideas when they go against the special points of the Adventist faith.

Not quite correct. What was saw is that the general case was said to be that we must always "give objections their full weight" rather than glossing over them and "bring answers from the Word of God".

But in the special case of an extreme fanatic among SDA leaders - pushing holy flesh doctrine and various other bad ideas - it was best to leave him to his own devices at that point. So circumstances determine the response when it comes to fanatics.

Maybe we need a thread titled "The best way to answer fanatical bible teachers/leaders in a given denomination". or something of that sort -- so we don't conflate the two very different contexts.

 

[BobRyan]

For example, SDAs see Leviticus 23:3 as binding on Christians today, meaning attend a holy assembly on the seventh day.

The "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" make similar claims for how the Sabbath was observed in the OT and for how they view the "Christian Sabbath" to be kept in the NT. The same is true of a great many Sunday groups and almost all the 7th day Sabbath keeping groups.

This part is not at all specific to just SDAs.

I believe we were talking about what I meant by "keeping the Sabbath according to SDA standards".

Yes, a lot of other groups talk about the Sabbath. And some of them believe certain activities should be done or not done on the seventh day.

No doubt - but there is general agreement on the Bible term "Sabbath" - and the fact that it was given as a day of "Holy Convocation" Lev 23:3 and a day given "to mankind" as we see in Eden - according to D.L. Moody and according to the "Baptist Confession of Faith" where all in that list agree that it was the 7th day of the week - every time we see that term in scripture for a holy day of worship on a weekly basis.

But most Christians, and most Christian groups with a significant population, don't require certain activities be done or not done on the 7th Day.

A lot of differing views among those groups when it comes to events beyond the first century writing of scripture. Noted.

 

[tall73]

Not quite correct. What was saw is that the general case was said to be that we must always "give objections their full weight" rather than glossing over them and "bring answers from the Word of God".

But in the special case of an extreme fanatic among SDA leaders - pushing holy flesh doctrine and various other bad ideas - it was best to leave him to his own devices at that point. So circumstances determine the response when it comes to fanatics.

Maybe we need a thread titled "The best way to answer fanatical bible teachers/leaders in a given denomination". or something of that sort -- so we don't conflate the two very different contexts.

So an exception to Bible testing is when fanatical people bring Bible objections to the central doctrine of a denomination that could undermine the whole thing?

 

[Leaf473]

The "Baptist Confession of Faith" and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" make similar claims for how the Sabbath was observed in the OT and for how they view the "Christian Sabbath" to be kept in the NT. The same is true of a great many Sunday groups and almost all the 7th day Sabbath keeping groups.

This part is not at all specific to just SDAs.



No doubt - but there is general agreement on the Bible term "Sabbath" - and the fact that it was given as a day of "Holy Convocation" Lev 23:3 and a day given "to mankind" as we see in Eden - according to D.L. Moody and according to the "Baptist Confession of Faith" where all in that list agree that it was the 7th day of the week - every time we see that term in scripture for a holy day of worship on a weekly basis.




A lot of differing views among those groups when it comes to events beyond the first century writing of scripture. Noted.

The difference would be that if they are talking about a Christian Sabbath that was different from the Sabbath described in the law.

The idea of a set of standards that we can associate with a group isn't that each standard is unique to just that group.

So, for example, when I mentioned farming according to Amish standards, one standard would be to use a horse instead of a tractor. But that doesn't mean Amish people are the only ones to use horses for farming. There are probably back-to-nature communes that do that as well.

The Amish farmer would probably also farm wearing handmade clothes. The commune farmer might not do that. But there might be non Amish farmers that also wear handmade clothes.

So we can probably come up with a set of standards that would describe Amish farming. But each standard might not be unique to Amish farming.

I think the same is true regarding SDAs and how they generally go about keeping the Sabbath.

 

[ChetSinger]

No doubt - but there is general agreement on the Bible term "Sabbath" - and the fact that it was given as a day of "Holy Convocation" Lev 23:3 and a day given "to mankind" as we see in Eden - according to D.L. Moody and according to the "Baptist Confession of Faith" where all in that list agree that it was the 7th day of the week - every time we see that term in scripture for a holy day of worship on a weekly basis.

I've read the relevant portions of the Baptist and Westminster confessions of faith. Both move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. For example:

From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ the appointed day was the last day of the week. After the resurrection of Christ it was changed to the first day of the week, which is called the Lord’s Day. This day is to be kept to the end of the age as the Christian Sabbath, since the observance of the last day of the week has been abolished.​

Chapter 22 - Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day​

That is, they practice the "Christian Sabbath" on Sunday. So I don't understand why you bring these confessions up. Am I missing something?

 

[BobRyan]

I've read the relevant portions of the Baptist and Westminster confessions of faith. Both move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

True. They both admit that the Sabbath was given to mankind and in the Bible it was the 7th day of the week - but they then suppose that it was somehow edited/re-pointed to week-day-1 at some point in time after the cross.

(Yet everyone knows that every reference to the term "Sabbath" as a day of weekly worship in the NT - is reference to the 7th day of the week - the same Sabbath as in the Gospels and in the OT)

But even so they maintain that it is for all mankind and always has been. And that in scripture it is the 7th day of the week - included in the Law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant.

So I don't understand why you bring these confessions up. Am I missing something?

I think what you are missing is the part where they do agree with what I have been saying - which are the very points some folks object to.

 

[BobRyan]

The difference would be that if they are talking about a Christian Sabbath that was different from the Sabbath described in the law.
.

You are responding as if you had not read what they state.

"From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ the appointed day was the last day of the week. After the resurrection of Christ it was changed to the first day of the week, which is called the Lord’s Day. This day is to be kept to the end of the age as the Christian Sabbath, since the observance of the last day of the week has been abolished."​

They agree that the Sabbath as given in scripture
1. Is for all mankind
2. Was given from the creation of mankind in Eden
3. Is included in the moral law of God that defines what sin is
4. Is the same weekly 7th day that I have been discussing.
5. Is a weekly day of worship - holy convocation.

I differ with their claim that it got edited to point to week-day-1 after the cross - since all NT references to "Sabbath" as a weekly day of worship is a reference "still" to the 7th day. But only one difference while you appear to differ with everything they said? or are you just not reading it since you claim not to care about their view as you said before?

 

[BobRyan]

So an exception to Bible testing is when fanatical people bring Bible objections

Jesus did not answer a number of his accusers - you appear to be trying to spin those incidentals as "an exception to Bible testing" and I think that suggestion you make is not very compelling.

But in general I would agree that in certain cases a fanatic (as opposed to every fanatic) could be in the same rut as those accusing Christ in the gospels - and may be left to their own devices until they come around to being open to truth written in scripture.

But as already noted about half a dozen times on this topic - our general rule is "let each objection have its full weight" and answer them "from the Word of God"

 

[ChetSinger]

True. They both admit that the Sabbath was given to mankind and in the Bible it was the 7th day of the week - but they then suppose that it was somehow edited/re-pointed to week-day-1 at some point in time after the cross.

(Yet everyone knows that every reference to the term "Sabbath" as a day of weekly worship in the NT - is reference to the 7th day of the week - the same Sabbath as in the Gospels and in the OT)

But even so they maintain that it is for all mankind and always has been. And that in scripture it is the 7th day of the week - included in the Law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant.

I think what you are missing is the part where they do agree with what I have been saying - which are the very points some folks object to.

If you mean resting and doing good works on the Sabbath I agree that those confessions specify that. But they both move the Sabbath to Sunday, saying "the observance of the last day of the week has been abolished".

If anything, I think those confessions could encourage Christians to enact Blue Laws.

 

[BobRyan]

If you mean resting and doing good works on the Sabbath I agree that those confessions specify that. But they both move the Sabbath to Sunday,

They believe in some sort of edit/change so they can still have the creation-based 7 day cycle but switch day 7 out and observe day-1 instead.


"From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ the appointed day was the last day of the week. After the resurrection of Christ it was changed to the first day of the week, which is called the Lord’s Day. "

If anything, I think those confessions could encourage Christians to enact Blue Laws.

They could indeed because they hijack the legal authority of scripture in its "Sabbath Commandment" of legal code in the moral law of God -- which they admit is binding on all mankind -- and then apply that to the "tradition" of editing it and pointing it to week-day-1.

So while I don't agree with their proposed "edit" I do agree with the basics which are that
1. Sabbath was given to mankind in Eden
2. Sabbath is part of the moral law of God written on the heart under the Ten Commandments
3. Sabbath is the 7th day - according to scripture
4. You would need an edit/change to get it to point to some other day of the week - (and then who would be the authority for that change if no actual text says it? tradition?)

 

[tall73]

Jesus did not answer a number of his accusers - you appear to be trying to spin those incidentals as "an exception to Bible testing" and I think that suggestion you make is not very compelling.

I think the readers can see that Jesus, and His apostles who He appointed, again and again pointed out Scripture evidence of who Jesus was. They answered the critics many times.

I think the reader can also see that Ellen White not only did not address Ballenger but stated to not entertain those who bring Scripture against the special points of the Adventist faith. She said people had been doing it for 50 years. And she appealed to experience.

 

[Leaf473]

You are responding as if you had not read what they state.

"From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ the appointed day was the last day of the week. After the resurrection of Christ it was changed to the first day of the week, which is called the Lord’s Day. This day is to be kept to the end of the age as the Christian Sabbath, since the observance of the last day of the week has been abolished."​

They agree that the Sabbath as given in scripture
1. Is for all mankind
2. Was given from the creation of mankind in Eden
3. Is included in the moral law of God that defines what sin is
4. Is the same weekly 7th day that I have been discussing.
5. Is a weekly day of worship - holy convocation.

I differ with their claim that it got edited to point to week-day-1 after the cross - since all NT references to "Sabbath" as a weekly day of worship is a reference "still" to the 7th day. But only one difference while you appear to differ with everything they said? or are you just not reading it since you claim not to care about their view as you said before?

The so-called Christian Sabbath is different from the Sabbath described in the law in that the Christian Sabbath is on the first day of the week, yes?

Myself, I'm not terribly concerned with what the Baptists or the "Westminsters" say, though it is interesting.

It sounds to me like the Baptists want to be able to say that we should keep all 10 of the 10 commandments, but then they have a problem in that they want to worship on Sunday. So they say that the commandments can be interpreted by the church (or "edited", if you prefer) to change the day to the first day of the week.

 

[Leaf473]

4. You would need an edit/change to get it to point to some other day of the week - (and then who would be the authority for that change if no actual text says it? tradition?)

Three things:
First, I understand you were talking to someone else, but I think it's basically the same point you and I are discussing.
Second, I'm not sure if this is the right section of CF to post this, since this is the denomination specific theology section. But I'll see if I can keep it relating mostly to SDAs.
Third, I'm not sure if this is on topic for the thread, so let me know if it's not

That having been said, here goes --
According to general SDA thinking, what are the limits of the authority of the church, especially the early church? Did it have any authority at all?

 

[BobRyan]

That having been said, here goes --
According to general SDA thinking, what are the limits of the authority of the church, especially the early church? Did it have any authority at all?

Acts 15 shows the church meeting through its representatives does have authority to decide doctrine and practice. Even so - each individual in the church must decide for themselves if they agree that the decision rendered is not in violation of scripture.

In Acts 15 there most certainly were Christian Jews who did not go along with the Acts 15 decision about circumcision and were determine that their own view of what the Bible allowed them to make up and apply to gentiles was in line with what they were doing in regards to circumcision. To against the church on that was not only to affirm their own man-made-tradition over the ruling of the church - it was also to claim that God was not leading the church in it's decision. I suppose they could have hoped to themselves - that the second part of that might be corrected by the church later going back on its Acts 15 decision, but since it did not - they would either have to reject the church as being led by God - or reconsider that possibly their own man-made tradition was indeed in error.

The SDA church does meet corporately once every 5 years to vote through its representatives on key issues of doctrine and practice.

 

[BobRyan]

The so-called Christian Sabbath is different from the Sabbath described in the law in that the Christian Sabbath is on the first day of the week, yes?

By stating that all TEN of the TEN commandments are part of the "moral law of God" (as they did)
and by saying that "A change was made" - they are applying the same 4th commandment moral authority to a 'different day' - and calling it "Christian Sabbath" to distinguish it from the unchanged form as given in scripture.

Myself, I'm not terribly concerned with what the Baptists or the "Westminsters" say, though it is interesting.

I myself to find it "instructive" to note that Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations on BOTH sides of that Sabbath topic do agree to the glaringly obvious Bible details so simple that they can all see it even though they have other strong differences on the topic.

It sounds to me like the Baptists want to be able to say that we should keep all 10 of the 10 commandments, but then they have a problem in that they want to worship on Sunday. So they say that the commandments can be interpreted by the church (or "edited", if you prefer) to change the day to the first day of the week.

Not just the Baptists, also D.L. Moody, and the Presbyterians, Church of England etc
http://www.goodnewspres.org/uploads/7/4/0
/6/74063459/study_guide_for_the_westminster_confession_of_faith.pdf

So then D.L. Moody, C.H. Spurgeon, R.C. Sproul and many others take that same position as does the Catholic church, and Orthodox church.

But if you go to the Sabbath-and-the-Law forum you will find that about 100% of the threads where people post against the Sabbath - are all opposing all those confession of faith and all those denominations on the very point where Bible scholars are in agreement.

 

[BobRyan]

I think the readers can see that Jesus, and His apostles who He appointed, again and again pointed out Scripture evidence of who Jesus was. They answered the critics many times.

And SDAs have bazillions of Bible study evangelism events (one on one and also as group meetings) where opposing questions are all taken seriously and objections given their full weight. Still when it comes to certain scholars/leaders who despite all evidence for the contrary - decide in favor of fanaticism - the decision is often as Christ did at His trial - to simply leave them to their own devices.

As you say - this is the easy part for all to see.

 

[BobRyan]

I think the reader can also see that Ellen White not only did not address Ballenger

She actually did send him and number of corrections - but as you note he is an example of one fanatic in leadership preaching holy-flesh fanaticism (which lead to other unbalanced conclusions for him) that was ultimately left to his own devices.

"Ballenger was called to clarify his views before the British Union Conference Committee sometime before the 1905 General Conference Session. After three hours of discussion with a special committee, his positions were rejected and the Conference relieved him of his post as president of the Irish Mission."​