The Sabbath Day

[OntheDL]

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

Hi, thanks for the vote.

If that's the case then it'd be a signal that I really don't belong here.

I spent too much time on here during the day anyway. My wage is not well earned. But most of my nights are booked.

I was an atheist myself just a few years ago. One of my friends the other day said to me 'who'd have thought you would one day work for the Lord?'

When a man from the homeless shelter tells me that he looks forward the whole week to our bible study, when a woman tells me that she sees the bible differently now because of our sanctuary study, when another man gives me $20 tithe to the church from the $116 he received for his monthly unemploymen benefit, there is no doubt, this is God's will and this is His remnant church.

But when I come here: SDA forum, I'm sick to my guts almost very time. So who's my brother and my sister?

 

[TrustAndObey]

Hi, thanks for the vote.

If that's the case then it'd be a signal that I really don't belong here.

I spent too much time on here during the day anyway. My wage is not well earned. But most of my nights are booked.

I was an atheist myself just a few years ago. One of my friends the other day said to me 'who'd have thought you would one day work for the Lord?'

When a man from the homeless shelter tells me that he looks forward the whole week to our bible study, when a woman tells me that she sees the bible differently now because of our sanctuary study, when another man gives me $20 tithe to the church from the $116 he received for his monthly unemploymen benefit, there is no doubt, this is God's will and this is His remnant church.

But when I come here: SDA forum, I'm sick to my guts almost very time. So who's my brother and my sister?

What I discovered when reading the Bible is that EVERYBODY is your brother and your sister, whether you like it or not.

I would like to say something real quick so that nobody thinks I just came here tonight looking to jump in the middle of something....

I've had a very rough year, and there are lots of times that I've come here in the last year just looking for a thread with real "meat" about Christ's love, etc. because I've felt very far from Him. I was looking for a subject I could jump into and get some kind of sign from God that I'm really NOT an idiot for believing in what the Bible says.

What I usually find is someone bashing our doctrine or people inside our own church system starting to question whether or not they believe it and then accusing those that DON'T question it of being well indoctrinated.

I don't think that we (myself included) realize that sometimes we do more harm than good with the words that we say or type. Some of the very people warning that "others view these pages and we shouldn't be fighting" are the same ones that refuse to "bend" or listen.

I would really like to see this forum become about fellowshipping again.

Sometimes the view is a lot better from the outside, and I guess we all forget that we have some of the same selfish/hardheaded/always-gotta-be-right qualities that we dislike about the people we talk with.

I hope I'm the only person that's come here in the last year that was seriously disappointed, but I'm almost positive that I'm not.

 

[OntheDL]

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.

Hi Sophia,

I respect your opinion and share comradery on the subjects like health and diet...

But in Tall73's case, if he's an ordained SDA minister who vowed to uphold our doctrines and is paid to do so by the faithful SDA members, but can not and will not. He then should leave his position as he can not fulfil his duty. That's integrity.

 

[Sophia7]

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).

I understand that. My husband didn't grow up in an Adventist home. His dad was a Catholic who had left his church, and his mom had left the Adventist Church before he was born. His grandparents did take him to church, but that was about it. He didn't have much Adventist influence in his everday life. He had to study everything on his own and became convinced that Adventist doctrines were true.

On the other hand, I was raised Adventist although my dad used to be Lutheran, so we would often attend his Lutheran church as well when I was young. My parents were really Adventists in behavior and intellectual knowledge only, though. They didn't give us much spiritual guidance. I wrote my testimony in the testimony sticky that we have. Basically, when I was sixteen I became a Christian by studying the Bible on my own and learning about Jesus. I also studied all of the Adventist doctrines and accepted them.

I guess I'm coming at this from the opposite of your perspective, T&O. I had never really had questions about any of our beliefs until the past few months, and now I'm restudying everything because I need to know what's true. So far there are two main things that I have serious doubts about, and if I can't reconcile them, I'm not really sure what to do. I have also studied the theologies of many other churches, and I haven't found any that I can agree with more, but I'm being told by some people that I shouldn't be an Adventist anymore. I've been told by my own sister that if I leave the Adventist Church, I'll lose my salvation. All I have to cling to right now is my faith in Christ and my hope that He will show me what's right.

I had never understood before what it was like for people who were considering becoming Adventist to be faced with the choice of staying where they are comfortable or leaving and losing friends and family. And now I understand how hard that decision is, from the other side of it. I'm still looking for the answers to my questions, and until I have them, I can't make a decision one way or the other.

 

[Sophia7]

Hi Sophia,

I respect your opinion and share comradery on the subjects like health and diet...

But in Tall73's case, if he's an ordained SDA minister who vowed to uphold our doctrines and is paid to do so by the faithful SDA members, but can not and will not. He then should leave his position as he can not fulfil his duty. That's integrity.

He does uphold our doctrines.

 

[Sophia7]

What I discovered when reading the Bible is that EVERYBODY is your brother and your sister, whether you like it or not.

I would like to say something real quick so that nobody thinks I just came here tonight looking to jump in the middle of something....

I've had a very rough year, and there are lots of times that I've come here in the last year just looking for a thread with real "meat" about Christ's love, etc. because I've felt very far from Him. I was looking for a subject I could jump into and get some kind of sign from God that I'm really NOT an idiot for believing in what the Bible says.

What I usually find is someone bashing our doctrine or people inside our own church system starting to question whether or not they believe it and then accusing those that DON'T question it of being well indoctrinated.

I don't think that we (myself included) realize that sometimes we do more harm than good with the words that we say or type. Some of the very people warning that "others view these pages and we shouldn't be fighting" are the same ones that refuse to "bend" or listen.

I would really like to see this forum become about fellowshipping again.

Sometimes the view is a lot better from the outside, and I guess we all forget that we have some of the same selfish/hardheaded/always-gotta-be-right qualities that we dislike about the people we talk with.

I hope I'm the only person that's come here in the last year that was seriously disappointed, but I'm almost positive that I'm not.

We have been trying to start some fellowship threads, and there are even some fellowship stickies. People don't use them much, for whatever reasons, but they are always welcome to.

The Internet does seem to attract people with strong viewpoints and people who like to argue. Sometimes that's good, and sometimes it's bad. I have always enjoyed discussing theology much more than making small talk, but that's just a personal preference.

For me, this is the only place where I can talk about certain things, other than to my husband. I can't discuss many of my issues with anyone in real life, including my family. It's a hard thing to feel so alone. However, I'm trying to take a break from talking about some of the weightier subjects right now so that I can spend more time studying.

 

[tall73]

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).

A. Point out the personal attacks I have made.

B. How is addressing documents that the whole world knows exist thinking outside the box?

C. I have barely posted for months here, ever since the sanctuary debate. So if you have been discouraged here it wasn't by me. I have been sticking mostly to GT and the staff forums, precisely because most of what is done here is debating the same issues over and over.

 

[tall73]

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

You can cut it anyway you like. If we don't contest the real claim that Sunday was original, we are missing the bigger issue.

Even if you are contemplating, you should step down from the position you claimed.

By this logic people such as Richard Davidson, and all the rest who had doubts when the Ford crisis broke should have left. But instead they studied it out and were again convinced, and this time even moreso.

If I am at last convinced that Adventism is false I will leave. I already pionted out more than once that some of the doubts I had I do not see the same now.

But that is not good enough. You want no doubts, ever. Sorry, real life is not that way. When I am presented with evidence I must look at it objectively. If our doctrines are true they will stand up. It is really that simple.

 

[tall73]

As to my wife being biased, she doesn't even look at reports made on me. That falls to the people above me in the staff chain on team theology since I am on staff.

So there is no potential for my wife to be biased in looking at reports made on me.

And the reports made on her do not go to her either. They go up the chain to her Admin. So there is no bias in that regard.

And I am sure if you like that Sophia could just step back from any moderation in the Adventist forum. She is a supervisor, and is only helping because they are short handed. But I don't think that would really help you any. She was not the moderator before and there were still complaints over moderation. All that would mean is you would have no one who even understands Adventist issues.

 

[tall73]

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.

Who was it that reprimended them?

Neither I nor my wife were on staff, as you note, we had no Adventist moderator. We had absolutely nothing to do with that. If they were reprimended it was not because of theological issues. The people on staff didn't even understand our theology all that well. If they were reprimended it was for breaking the rules, and being uncharitable in their speech.

What the moderators then refused to do was to mediate theological discussion by moderation. That is not their job. Their job is to make sure the rules are kept.

 

[tall73]

Now, back to the topic at hand.

Some questions for OntheDL since he feels I am off the mark. I would like him to explain these from his perspective:

A. When do you see Sunday observance starting? How do you go about proving to Catholics who know history that Sunday was not original to the time of the apostles?

B. Do you acknowledge that Ellen White and the White estate edited portions of the 1911 GC for historical accuracy?

 

[reddogs]

oops

 

[reddogs]

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

I quess I will be doing the "5 hour research"...I have to humbly say that in my opinion for the average Christian or Adventist the Bible assurance of Christ sacrifice is all they need.

Now, I am not saying these theological issues are not important for understanding, doctrine, or direction of the church and we are told to study to show ourselves approved of God, but for the individual Christian or Adventist there are some things that we will have to ask when we get to heaven, short and simple.

Thus, I fear that the intellectuals or theologians INDIVIDUALY are trying to prove who is the best reader of scripture, or interpretor of prophecy which is a mistake. When it comes to that which God shields from the evil one and his followers, we must come together with much prayer and study (much like the Millerites did, and we do here) for the edification and building of the body of Christ. As I said this is just my humble opinion, and if anyone can show me better understanding of how God reveals his meaning and sealed prophecies, I await edification.

Red

1 Peter 2: 1-17

1Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
11Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
12Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 17Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

 

[OntheDL]

You can cut it anyway you like. If we don't contest the real claim that Sunday was original, we are missing the bigger issue.

By this logic people such as Richard Davidson, and all the rest who had doubts when the Ford crisis broke should have left. But instead they studied it out and were again convinced, and this time even moreso.

If I am at last convinced that Adventism is false I will leave. I already pionted out more than once that some of the doubts I had I do not see the same now.

But that is not good enough. You want no doubts, ever. Sorry, real life is not that way. When I am presented with evidence I must look at it objectively. If our doctrines are true they will stand up. It is really that simple.

You have to the right to believe what your heart desires. But while you profess to be an SDA minister, it's not acceptable that these statements you have made contradict our foundamental believes and outright discredit the spirit of prophecy. You are presenting the same arguments that the anti-adventists use.

I have asked which churches you pastor, but have not received any answer. If you think your statements are within reason, then you should not be afraid that someone present them to your conference and see what they say.

 

[tall73]

Ie. you can't address the data and so want to have someone else settle the dispute. I am not giving any confidential data out here, and shoud not have to. For one thing it is against the forum rules. For another I don't see any reason to even entertain the notion that arguments which uphold the Sabbath are anti-Adventist.

Again you have not demonstrated how statements that deal with the early evidence, dispute that Sunday was original, and uphold the Sabbath, which is what I have presented in GT, and referenced here, are anti-Sabbath or anti-Adventist.

Nor will you even attempt to deal with historical data yourself.

 

[OntheDL]

The Internet does seem to attract people with strong viewpoints and people who like to argue. Sometimes that's good, and sometimes it's bad. I have always enjoyed discussing theology much more than making small talk, but that's just a personal preference.

Since you brought it up...

There are alot of members do not believe in our doctrines in my local congregations. But they will NEVER publicly contradict them much less calling EGW lying and deceiving. Because they know they would be disciplined.

But on the internet forums, they are 'keyboard wariors'. Because there is no accountability.

 

[tall73]

I am going to summarize my positions/arguments. Feel free to point out which ones are anti-Adventist.

1. I agree with the traditional identification of the anti-christ power.

2. I do not see sufficient clear evidence that would be acceptable to Catholics that Sylvester changed the day. Perhaps there are better sources out there but I can't find any information on the one you gave.

3. I acknowledge that the church at some point did change the day. However, the time of that change is disputed by the CC and therefore they do not accept the usual statements that we make to prove our case, because they see the change as being in the time of the apostles.

4. There are a number of early documents which show Sunday observance in the second century, long before the pope would have made it official. This requies us to address this early evidence to show that Sunday was not original.

5. I do not think that citing a text from Daniel is sufficient evidence of papal change of the Sabbath because the change is itself a criteria for demonstrating that the prophecy was fulfilled.

6. I believe we can demonstrate that Sunday observance came about in the early second century, in limited locations at first, and with varying rationales and suppport.

7. We later see a broadening of the claims and a repression of the Sabbath (though this is somewhat present by Barnabas' time).

8. It is historically demonstrated that EGW allowed editing of her work to reflect better historical facts. I think she would have no issue with Bacchiocchi addressing the early texts.

 

[tall73]

Now, a bit more on number 9.

Here again is the article dealing with the re-issuing of the Great Controversy in 1911, with its attendent minor corrections.

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


And here is a fascinating excerpt which deals with the point I was making about the rise of the papacy to power. Again we see Prescott making suggestions, at their request, and the White Estate and Mrs. White replying. Here he suggests that the papacy was established quite a while before the date of 583, which even you seem to admit, and their subsequent change in order to allow for that reading.

It notes the time of the papacies greatest power, rather than the time of its coming into existence:

Prescott:

52. Page 266: The 1260 years of papal supremacy are made to commence "with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538," and to terminate in 1798. It does not seem to be in harmony with history to say that the papacy was established at this time, and the whole question of the proper application of 1260 years needs reconsideration and a new interpretation made.


Response: Criticism considered and with no departure from the beginning and ending dates of the 1260 years, the phrase, "with the establishment of the papacy," was deleted.




1888 book read: "The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate in 1798."
1911 edition wording reads: "The 1260 years of papal supremacy began in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate in 1798." See Appendix note.


So here we see Ellen White and the White estate dealing with issues similar to what Bacchiocchi brought up, and in fact being willing to make changes as necessary to reflect the better understanding they now reached.

If you read the whole article you will see more than one instance of this. And they do not at all seem embarrassed by the fact, because revision to update facts made sure that their message was not criticized.

They realized that Ellen White chose sources to represent the overall picture. She did not believe that every point in her history was completely correct. You are holding Bacchiocchi over the coals in error.

 

[Jon0388g]

There are alot of members do not believe in our doctrines in my local congregations. But they will NEVER publicly contradict them much less calling EGW lying and deceiving. Because they know they would be disciplined.

But on the internet forums, they are 'keyboard wariors'. Because there is no accountability.

LOL i've got to use that one sometime.

Jon

 

[Jon0388g]

I've got a few questions for both Tall and DL, who I think are looking at the same tree from different angles:

Tall:

• The argument that Catholics use to say that the change originated from the time of the Apostles; do they have any proof for this? Why would it not be recorded in Scripture that they did so?
• Dan 7:25 begins with 'He...' - refering to the little horn power. This 'He' speaks out against the Most High, wears down the saints, will intend to make alterations in times and law... - this 'He' power, we refer to as the 'anti-Christ.' From what I see, you and OntheDL need to clarify what is agreed is the anti-Christ - the Pope's themselves, or the whole system of the papacy? From Dan 7:25, the 'He' seems to fit with the latter.
• Note Dan 7:25 says 'He' will 'intend' or 'think' to make changes to times and law; does this infer that the 'He' actually initiates the change? Does this infer that the 'He' attempts to make something official? The main point of contention here, is how we interpret the translation 'think to change' or 'intend to make alterations.' What do you think?
• Even if Catholics claim that Christ handed down authority to Peter, does this mean that Peter acting on his own human will had authority to change the eternal Law of God?

OntheDL:

• I do not think that Tall is presenting an anti-adventist argument. They would probably outright proclaim our discussion is futile since the Sabbath is Christ Himself, or that it has long since been abolished.
• The CC does claim the change was officiated by her, and I do agree with you on this. But, how do we address Catholics who make their argument (with historical sources) that Sunday observance originated way earlier than any Pope declared it official?
• What do you think of the 'intend'/'think' to change times and laws translation and how we interpret that?
• Even if Sunday observance was practiced by some early Christians, then would this even rule out the fact that the Papacy as described in Dan 7:25 would 'think' to change times and laws, seeing as the CC openly admits that it has?
• On a side note, YOU were an atheist?? Wow! Talk about much to learn and unlearn!

I think nobody is disagreeing here on the identity of the little horn, and the eternity of the Sabbath.

Jon
Jon