The Sabbath Day

[tall73]

The revisionists are the one who pretend that these documents about Sunday do not exist prior to Constantine, etc.

You acknowledge them. So why not try to answer the logical questions that they raise?

 

[tall73]

Over at CARM a critic (I'll let him be anonymous!) claimed that Dr. Bacchiocchi made so much money from his books that he could afford to buy a top of the line, turbo-charged, red Volvo (plus something else but I've forgotten). So, I sent Dr. Bacchiocchi an email and asked him about that. He said it was white and it was not turbo-charged. He also noted that he made more money as a real estate agent in Rome in 5 years than he has in the past 25 years as an SDA teacher and writer.

Lol, well I don't begrudge the man his money. There is nothing in the Scriptures against making money. I assume he is generous with it and if not the Lord can look after that.

I am sure he doesn't make a fortune at the books ,but it is not for lack of trying!

Having said that, I wrote to him personally when I saw his books online in pdf format. He graciously agreed that we could use them here and tell people about them, rather than attacking whoever put them up and trying to get them off the web.

I don't get the feel that he is just after the money.

 

[djconklin]

'I differ from Ellen White, for example, on the origin of Sunday. She teaches that in the first centuries all Christians observed the Sabbath and it was largely through the efforts of Constantine that Sundaykeeping was adopted by many Christians in the fourth century. My research shows otherwise. If you read my essay HOW DID SUNDAYKEEPING BEGIN? which summarizes my dissertation, you will notice that I place the origin of Sundaykeeping by the time of the Emperor Hadrian, in A.D. 135.' ---"Fee Catholic Mailing List", Bacchiochi, Feb 8, 1997.

argument boils down to the fact that he disagrees with EGW on interpretation of history.

All Dr. Bacchiocchi is doing is shoving the change of the Sabbath back further in time. He is not denying that Constantine had a role in making it more popular, etc..

I have been looking at the plagiarism claim. In doing that I looked at GC. Dr. McAdams has shown that EGW used literary sources (legitimately!) and was not shown in vision each and every single detail mentioned in GC.

 

[tall73]

I have been looking at the plagiarism claim. In doing that I looked at GC. Dr. McAdams has shown that EGW used literary sources (legitimately!) and was not shown in vision each and every single detail mentioned in GC.

Which explains why she changed sources when they were not the best.

We need to look at how she says the process occurred.

 

[djconklin]

Which explains why she changed sources when they were not the best.

I don't recall seeing that yet--can you show me what you found (over on the "orphaned" plagiarism thread)??

 

[tall73]

Yeah, let me see if I can dig up the stuff.

As to your statement, here is the intro to the GC where she mentions the use of historical sources for the sake of description:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The great events which have marked the progress of reform in past ages are matters of history, well known and universally acknowledged by the Protestant world; they are facts which none can gainsay. This history I have presented briefly, in accordance with the scope of the book, and the brevity which must necessarily be observed, the facts having been condensed into as little space as seemed consistent with [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] xii [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] a proper understanding of their application. In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted; but in some instances no specific credit has been given, since the quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject. In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has been made of their published works. [/FONT]


There would be less worries from everyone on plagarism if they had read what she said her method was from the start.

 

[Sophia7]

Yeah, let me see if I can dig up the stuff.

As to your statement, here is the intro to the GC where she mentions the use of historical sources for the sake of description:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The great events which have marked the progress of reform in past ages are matters of history, well known and universally acknowledged by the Protestant world; they are facts which none can gainsay. This history I have presented briefly, in accordance with the scope of the book, and the brevity which must necessarily be observed, the facts having been condensed into as little space as seemed consistent with [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] xii [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] a proper understanding of their application. In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted; but in some instances no specific credit has been given, since the quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject. In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has been made of their published works.[/FONT]

There would be less worries from everyone on plagarism if they had read what she said her method was from the start.

Yes, I agree. The plagiarism charge is not one of my issues with EGW.

 

[OntheDL]

Clouding the water with facts is not clouding.

And if you are elevating our "traditional" teachings, are you upholding Scripture and history, or our own closely held tradition?

Bacchiocchi has doubtless convinced many of the Sabbath truth. but he is trying to make sure we don't use foolish arguments. (And hey, let's be honest, he wants to sell a book or two!).

So your argument boils down to the fact that he disagrees with EGW on interpretation of history.

Has it occured to you that EGW herself edited the GC to reflect new insights and mistaken sources on history?

Would she think that we should take her word without investigating the facts?

Our belief on this is not based on EGW's writing. It only provides additional confirmation.


“We recognize that true religion is based on conscience and conviction. It is therefore to be our constant purpose that no selfish interest or temporal advantage shall draw any person to our communion and that no tie shall hold any member save the belief and conviction that in this way the true connection with Christ is found. If a change of conviction leads a member of our church to feel no longer in harmony with Seventh-day Adventist faith and practice, we recognize not only the right also the responsibility of that member to change, without opprobrium, religious affiliation in accord with belief." http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/other_documents/other_doc5.html

You claim to be a SDA pastor, however do not uphold the SDA doctrine you supposedly vowed to. By again singing the same tune of the anti-adventist on these issues, especially discrediting the Spirit of Prophecy, you have disqualified yourself of such claimed position. I'd like to know churches you attend to. Please IM them to me.

 

[tall73]

I don't recall seeing that yet--can you show me what you found (over on the "orphaned" plagiarism thread)??

Check out this article from the White Estate. It chronicles the suggestions of Prescott in the 1911 revision (for lack of a better term) of the Great Controversy. It shows his interactions with Mrs. White and the estate on various points.

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/gc-prescott.html

Here is an example that relates rather closely to what we are discussing. It is a small matter, of which there are a number of similar ones in the article:

Prescott:

8. Page 50: It is declared that "the pope has arrogated the very titles of Deity. He styles himself 'Lord God the Pope.' " The definite reference for this ought surely to be given, if such instance can be found: if no such instance can be found, it does not seem proper to make this assertion. In all my reading I have not found one such instance, although I have found instances where others have applied this term to the pope.​

Mrs. White and the Estate's response

Response: Criticism accepted. The suggestion led to a careful investigation by the staff at Elmshaven and an extended outreach. While there were published works making this assertion, no statement was found in authoritative Catholic sources. Wording changed for accuracy of expression: ​

Comparison of the two versions

1888 book read: "It is one of the leading doctrines of Romanism that the pope is the visible head of the universal church of Christ, invested with supreme authority over bishops and pastors in all parts of the world. More than this, the pope has arrogated the very titles of Deity. He styles himself 'Lord God the Pope,' assumes infallibility, and demands that all men pay him homage."
1911 book reads: "More than this, the pope has been given the very titles of Deity. He has been styled 'Lord God the Pope,' and and has been declared infallible. He demands the homage of all men." An Appendix note was added giving Roman Catholic sources on the title of the pope.

 

[tall73]

Our belief on this is not based on EGW's writing. It only provides additional confirmation.


“We recognize that true religion is based on conscience and conviction. It is therefore to be our constant purpose that no selfish interest or temporal advantage shall draw any person to our communion and that no tie shall hold any member save the belief and conviction that in this way the true connection with Christ is found. If a change of conviction leads a member of our church to feel no longer in harmony with Seventh-day Adventist faith and practice, we recognize not only the right also the responsibility of that member to change, without opprobrium, religious affiliation in accord with belief." http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/other_documents/other_doc5.html

You claim to be a SDA pastor, however do not uphold the SDA doctrine you supposedly vowed to. By again singing the same tune of the anti-adventist on these issues, especially discrediting the Spirit of Prophecy, you have disqualified yourself of such claimed position. I'd like to know churches you attend to. Please IM them to me.

Bacchiocchi is not an anti-adventist.

I am currently discussing now when Mrs. White approved revision of historical material.

Your charges are simply not based in fact. My wife has expressed her doubts regarding Mrs. White. I don't know as I have reached any conclusion on that yet. I see some things I have questions on. But I have made no rejection of her. Nor has Icedragon, etc.

You seem to want to silence any discussion on these issues for the sake of doctrinal purity. Will that sense of false purity stop droves from leaving the church every month due to these issues? I dont' think so.

And you have still given no response to the arguments raised by early documents that all sides admit exist.

I have made it as plain to you as possible that I am firmly convinced that the Sabbath was there throughout the early church. Nor have I said anything about rejecting our traditional view of the anti-christ. For that matter my wife still believes our traditional view of the anti-christ. But discussing specifics is not heresy, plain and simple.

What I objected to was your use of the text of the prophecy as EVIDENCE, when it is evidence that shows the truth of the prophecy.

There are also some misleading conclusions in stating that Bacchiocchi, or anyone else who makes reference to earlier works are anti-Adventist.

There is no evidence that the pope originated Sunday keeping or getting rid of the Sabbath. Note again

All Dr. Bacchiocchi is doing is shoving the change of the Sabbath back further in time. He is not denying that Constantine had a role in making it more popular, etc.

The way we have presented it in the past has been too simplistic and fails to convince those who know history. That is the point.

 

[reddogs]

May I gently (Yes, I know I am the bull in a china shop) ask what are the issues with Ellen White that you have...If she made mistakes who doesnt, look at Peter when the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crowed. If she is a fraud it would be self evident and all of her writings would be invalid, and I have read what she wrote and she is strong with the Holy Spirit when it comes to the truths which she builds up and presents, and she is very strong with the Spirit when it comes to her central points, God doesnt change or make mistakes as he knows the end and the begining and neither does His Holy Spirit err. So the weakest link is at the end of the communication chain and we know we are fallible, even if God unfolds understanding for our eyes to see.......

 

[tall73]

May I gently (Yes, I know I am the bull in a china shop) ask what are the issues with Ellen White that you have...If she made mistakes who doesnt, look at Peter when the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crowed. If she is a fraud it would be self evident and all of her writings would be invalid, and I have read what she wrote and she is strong with the Holy Spirit when it comes to the truths which she builds up and presents, and she is very strong with the Spirit when it comes to her central points, God doesnt change or make mistakes as he knows the end and the begining and neither does His Holy Spirit err. So the weakest link is at the end of the communication chain and we know we are fallible, even if God unfolds understanding for our eyes to see.......

Honestly I would say my issue is more with specific points of the sanctuary doctrine which I have discussed before. Since EGW obviously upheld the traditional sanctuary doctrine, that would be problematic if I could not accept it in that manner.

However, I have not made any ruling on that subject for myself, and am studying it out. Moreover, OntheDL is aware that I already posted that I was reconsidering some of my objections in light of other evidence.

So frankly, I am not sure what he thinks I am denying exactly.

If his problem is that I agree with Bacchiocchi that we have to address the early texts ( which Even Andrews, etc. did), then yes. We have to address them.

 

[reddogs]

Before I go and do a 5 hour study on the sanctuary doctrine, can someone give me the main points of contention, I feel like Rip Van Winkle, nobody ever asked the hard questions back in the day.

 

[tall73]

Here are the two main ones, in short. There are a bunch of other related issues, but I see these two as key:

1. Is the context of Daniel 8:14 really speaking of the day of atonement service, or the activities of the little horn?

2. In Hebrews 7-10 is Jesus pictured as going into the Most Holy Place, or fulfilling the Day of Atonement imagery at His ascension.

If you want the best Adventist answers along with your questions check out the Adventist Daniel and Revelation Committee Series books. That is what I am reading through for now.

You can find them on this page:

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/bookshop.htm

 

[OntheDL]

Bacchiocchi is not an anti-adventist.

I am currently discussing now when Mrs. White approved revision of historical material.

Your charges are simply not based in fact. My wife has expressed her doubts regarding Mrs. White. I don't know as I have reached any conclusion on that yet. I see some things I have questions on. But I have made no rejection of her. Nor has Icedragon, etc.

You seem to want to silence any discussion on these issues for the sake of doctrinal purity. Will that sense of false purity stop droves from leaving the church every month due to these issues? I dont' think so.

And you have still given no response to the arguments raised by early documents that all sides admit exist.

I have made it as plain to you as possible that I am firmly convinced that the Sabbath was there throughout the early church. Nor have I said anything about rejecting our traditional view of the anti-christ. For that matter my wife still believes our traditional view of the anti-christ. But discussing specifics is not heresy, plain and simple.

What I objected to was your use of the text of the prophecy as EVIDENCE, when it is evidence that shows the truth of the prophecy.

There are also some misleading conclusions in stating that Bacchiocchi, or anyone else who makes reference to earlier works are anti-Adventist.

There is no evidence that the pope originated Sunday keeping or getting rid of the Sabbath. Note again

The way we have presented it in the past has been too simplistic and fails to convince those who know history. That is the point.

I didn't say Bacchiocchi is anti-adventist. I'm saying you are presenting arguments used by anti-adventists.

Please have some integrity and responsibility as stated in the official adventist link I quoted for you. When your conviction changes, you should change your religious affilliation.

Even if you are contemplating, you should step down from the position you claimed. I'm asking what churches you attend to if you can not demonstrate such integrity. I'd like to hear what the conference has to say which employs you.

 

[TrustAndObey]

As an occasional observer in this forum, I do have to say something, and please forgive me but I always speak my mind. After the nightmare I witnessed in this forum a while back and the way it was handled (which I feel to this day was totally inappropriate)....I will watch this discussion very closely.

I feel that OntheDL has some very valid points.

It's no secret that Tall is married to one of our moderators.

That being said....I do humbly state that I don't think OntheDL should be reprimanded....far from it.

My humble opinion,
~Lainie

 

[Sophia7]

I didn't say Bacchiocchi is anti-adventist. I'm saying you are presenting arguments used by anti-adventists.

Please have some integrity and responsibility as stated in the official adventist link I quoted for you. When your conviction changes, you should change your religious affilliation.

Even if you are contemplating, you should step down from the position you claimed. I'm asking what churches you attend to if you can not demonstrate such integrity. I'd like to hear what the conference has to say which employs you.

My husband has not decided to reject any Adventist doctrines. On the other hand, I have some more serious concerns about a couple of them than he does. Still, even I have not decided to throw any of them out completely at this point.

Studying the issues is not a bad thing to do, nor should it disqualify him from the ministry if he has questions on certain things. If our doctrines are true, they will stand the test of investigation.

My question for you is the same as I have asked of other people. If you think that we should leave the Adventist Church, where would you recommend that we go? I have not found any other church that I can agree with more. I have been praying for God to lead us in the right direction (and if that means staying where we are, that's fine with me), and unless we have some clear indication that we should go somewhere else, there's no point in switching churches. If we decided that we didn't agree with a couple of Adventist beliefs, should we then join another church where we disagree with even more beliefs? Your condemnation really leaves us with no options, other than to be churchless, which is not in accordance with the Bible.

Please don't question my husband's integrity. He has done nothing wrong and, as he and I both have said, he hasn't changed his convictions.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Sophia, I like you as a person and I respect you as a moderator. However, this is a little too personal for you to be unbiased.

I personally agree with OntheDL on some of the points he's made.

I don't think he should feel threatened that now a moderator has stepped in, and I really do NOT believe this should be about taking sides since I really don't even know OntheDL.

I do, however, feel that you shouldn't be a moderator in this forum if it's earnestly "to be a place where differing opinions are welcomed" (I saw that in another thread), since obviously it's starting to look a little one-sided about WHOSE differing opinion is allowed.

God bless,
~Lainie

 

[Sophia7]

Sophia, I like you as a person and I respect you as a moderator. However, this is a little too personal for you to be unbiased.

I personally agree with OntheDL on some of the points he's made.

I don't think he should feel threatened that now a moderator has stepped in, and I really do NOT believe this should be about taking sides since I really don't even know OntheDL.

I do, however, feel that you shouldn't be a moderator in this forum if it's earnestly "to be a place where differing opinions are welcomed" (I saw that in another thread), since obviously it's starting to look a little one-sided about WHOSE differing opinion is allowed.

God bless,
~Lainie

I am speaking here not as a moderator, but as a wife whose husband's integrity has been questioned. I don't claim to be unbiased on that. I have a right to state my opinions as well.

No one has taken action or threatened to take action against OntheDL for what he said, so I'm not sure where you are coming from on that. Any reports that we get in which I may have a conflict of interest or be perceived as too personally involved are turned over to our other moderators to handle. Everyone's opinions are welcome here.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I am speaking here not as a moderator, but as a wife whose husband's integrity has been questioned. I don't claim to be unbiased on that. I have a right to state my opinions as well.

I totally understand, and I've always valued your opinion, you know that.

What I saw here a year ago, and coincidentally the reason I LEFT then, was that I saw the "differing" opinions of people overly encouraged. Yet when some of my very dear friends on here came back to dispute a statement, they were reprimanded.

I really don't want to see history repeat itself in this forum and I am VERY thankful we have an Adventist moderator finally.

I've known (well, cyberly) you and Tall quite a while and while I do believe that Tall's main interest is to try to get people to think "outside the box", I think he does tend to overlook the fact that some of us LIVED outside the box for many years, and it took us a while to see what's in the box.

I hope that made sense.

Basically my point is that I've studied other theologies for years. I, personally and undoubtedly, believe the Adventist doctrine to be Biblically accurate and concrete and that's why I joined the church. I fought it hard for a very long time (I've posted about that before), but scripture won out and humbled me.

So....not all of us were raised in the Adventist church or are unable to see beyond it. I LIVED beyond it for most of my life.

What I hate to see is two OBVIOUSLY intelligent men get to a point where they resort to personal attacks. I also hate to see our only Adventist moderator getting involved because one of the men is her husband.

That being said, make me a moderator. HAHAHA (Just kidding).