There is NO risk to me if I am wrong about "certain" doctrinal positions.

[DamianWarS]

In my Romans 14 point - I am not talking about "how to follow the Sabbath" I am pointing out that because of the way Sabbath-opposing options use Rom 14 - it leaves the Sabbath keeping Christian without risk - as compared to the reverse scenario where all Ten commandments do matter.

If "Sabbath-opposing" options are flawed in their use of Rom 14 then the shadow it casts is also flawed. If they are not flawed then they inherit this risk-free goal your targetting so there is no issue.

 

[DamianWarS]

I have seen a lot of "discussions with atheists" using similar logic as can be seen in my OP #1 option and we even have one former one on a thread similar to this - talking about the success of that model. Do you have one where an atheist says "I was an atheist until I started to think that being an atheist probably does not give God as much glory as He deserves"?

God reveals God not me. Those who come to God are drawn to him by the HS not by whatever bumbling words I manage to spit out. This safety approach I'm sure can capture some people's attention but many will quickly mock it. I personally would rather speak of God's glory then reduce him to fire insurance. I actually find those who do not accept there is a God are not concerned about safe options but YMMV. Isn't this however a bit off topic? Are we talking about evangelical strategies or doctrinal motivations?

 

[klutedavid]

(a number of people have asked that this topic be posted in a more open area of CF - so here it is)

Realizing first of all - that there are saved saints in all Christian denominations:

As a Seventh-day Adventist -- if I am wrong about my beliefs – there is still no risk to me.

1. IF I am wrong to be a Christian and instead Atheists have the right belief – there is no risk to me. I get the exact same “glorious ending” as the atheist true believer – the hole in ground ending

2. IF I am wrong about rejecting the secret rapture and millennial kingdom on Earth (when I say that in the future the saints are raptured at Christ's Rev 19 appearing according to Matt 24 - and the saints spend the millennium with Christ in heaven, while earth is desolate for that period of time) – there is no risk to me. I get raptured anyway and learn about the details in heaven.

3. IF I am wrong about rejecting OSAS (once saved always saved) and the OSAS groups are right – there is no risk to me. I am saved by accepting Jesus as my savior either way.

4. IF I am wrong about the Dan 7 pre-advent judgment being the 2 Cor 5:10 judgment also in Rom 2:6-16, and so then those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me.

5. IF I am wrong about the 7th day Sabbath of Ex 20, and those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me – let each one observe the day as he is persuaded Rom 14.

6. IF I am wrong about God’s health message and those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me. The Adventist church has one of the 5 “blue zones” in the world, and live 5-7 years longer on average.

7. If I am wrong about Rev 14 (three Angel's messages) being the final warning to mankind before the tribulation-plagues of Rev 16 and the Rev 19 appearing of Christ, and those who ignore it are right, then still there is no risk to me for reading the warning as it is scripture and so is not a problem to share it "anyway".

8. IF I am wrong about rejecting "communion with the dead" (958) and those who choose to commune with the dead are right - there is no risk to me.

958 Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and 'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them."500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective. "
​

In each one of these example there is an argument that could be made to show that “if I am right” on a given point above and someone rejects that point entirely, then “some risk” might exist for them.

===========================

The are other Christian groups that share some of my same beliefs above and so I think they too would also have "no risk" even if they are wrong on the position above that they share with me.

========================== Two real life examples

1. Noah - if he is wrong then he has a "boat" in his yard for a long time but nobody dies. If he is right -- then it is a huge risk to those who ignored the warning message

2. John the baptizer - and his "repent for the time is fulfilled" message about the Christ - before Jesus meets John. If John is wrong then just a lot more "repent and be baptized" sermons until he dies. But if those who ignored John's message are wrong - the nation itself is at risk of rejecting the Messiah.

Hello Bob.

Honoring the Sabbath day is a work of the law.

Galatians 3:10
For all who are of works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all the things written in the book of the Law, to do them."

According to the letter to the Galatians, you are under a curse.

You most strongly proclaim the law and the works of the law.

 

[klutedavid]

Me keeping the Sabbath holy has nothing to do with the SDA church and has everything to do with loving God with all my heart and wanting to obey Him becuase He asked. My post that you responded to has nothing to do with me and has everything to do with scripture that was posted and following the Word of God. God did not just give the SDA church the 4th commandment. Hopefully something to consider.

You don't mind if I edit your post.

This is what you really said.

Me keeping the LAW has nothing to do with the SDA church and has everything to do with loving God with all my heart and wanting to obey Him becuase He asked. My post that you responded to has nothing to do with me and has everything to do with scripture that was posted and following the Word of God. God did not just give the law to the church. Hopefully something to consider.

To consider putting myself under the law would be an affront to Jesus Christ.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Then you must keep All 10 commandments "perfectly"..Not just one command in order to fulfill the law...otherwise you are hypocrite claiming to keep one command ie 7th day Sabbath and yet fail to keep the other commandments..

So do you keep the other commandments ie, lying, coveting, stealing, adultery etc ?? Not just the 7th day Sabbath command..

If your response is "yes" then you're perfect and has fulfill the law...ie like Jesus!

If your response is "No" then you fail to keep all commandments including 7th day Sabbath and hasn't fulfill the law...

Keep a clear conscience and be truthful to yourself..

By your response, you must not have understood my post. This thread is not about me. We all must keep God’s law and we all stand individually in the righteous judgement of Jesus 2 Corinthians 5:10.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You don't mind if I edit your post.

This is what you really said.

Me keeping the LAW has nothing to do with the SDA church and has everything to do with loving God with all my heart and wanting to obey Him becuase He asked. My post that you responded to has nothing to do with me and has everything to do with scripture that was posted and following the Word of God. God did not just give the law to the church. Hopefully something to consider.

To consider putting myself under the law would be an affront to Jesus Christ.

I do mind you editing my post, so please do not do this

Jesus said IF you love Me, keep My commandments, this should not be so difficult. It’s one thing to say you love Jesus, but its another to prove it by our actions. That’s why we are told to be doers of the Word, not just hearers.James 1:22

Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. Revelation 22:14

Blessed is the opposite of cursed. This scripture is right before the second coming of Jesus! Perhaps something to pray about.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Safety is the position of the OP, it's not something I've added. But I've just asked the questions, I'm not throwing stones.

Sorry if I misunderstood where you were coming from.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

I'll comment on the rich man and Lazarus. They were aware of each others circumstances so while you yourself might not be at risk, you will be aware of all your family and friends who were not saved being in torment. So while you may rejoice in your not being at risk, this does not mean you should leave others to suffer.

 

[Leaf473]

(a number of people have asked that this topic be posted in a more open area of CF - so here it is)

Realizing first of all - that there are saved saints in all Christian denominations:

As a Seventh-day Adventist -- if I am wrong about my beliefs – there is still no risk to me.

1. IF I am wrong to be a Christian and instead Atheists have the right belief – there is no risk to me. I get the exact same “glorious ending” as the atheist true believer – the hole in ground ending

2. IF I am wrong about rejecting the secret rapture and millennial kingdom on Earth (when I say that in the future the saints are raptured at Christ's Rev 19 appearing according to Matt 24 - and the saints spend the millennium with Christ in heaven, while earth is desolate for that period of time) – there is no risk to me. I get raptured anyway and learn about the details in heaven.

3. IF I am wrong about rejecting OSAS (once saved always saved) and the OSAS groups are right – there is no risk to me. I am saved by accepting Jesus as my savior either way.

4. IF I am wrong about the Dan 7 pre-advent judgment being the 2 Cor 5:10 judgment also in Rom 2:6-16, and so then those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me.

5. IF I am wrong about the 7th day Sabbath of Ex 20, and those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me – let each one observe the day as he is persuaded Rom 14.

6. IF I am wrong about God’s health message and those who ignore it are right – there is no risk to me. The Adventist church has one of the 5 “blue zones” in the world, and live 5-7 years longer on average.

7. If I am wrong about Rev 14 (three Angel's messages) being the final warning to mankind before the tribulation-plagues of Rev 16 and the Rev 19 appearing of Christ, and those who ignore it are right, then still there is no risk to me for reading the warning as it is scripture and so is not a problem to share it "anyway".

8. IF I am wrong about rejecting "communion with the dead" (958) and those who choose to commune with the dead are right - there is no risk to me.

958 Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and 'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them."500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective. "
​

In each one of these example there is an argument that could be made to show that “if I am right” on a given point above and someone rejects that point entirely, then “some risk” might exist for them.

===========================

The are other Christian groups that share some of my same beliefs above and so I think they too would also have "no risk" even if they are wrong on the position above that they share with me.

========================== Two real life examples

1. Noah - if he is wrong then he has a "boat" in his yard for a long time but nobody dies. If he is right -- then it is a huge risk to those who ignored the warning message

2. John the baptizer - and his "repent for the time is fulfilled" message about the Christ - before Jesus meets John. If John is wrong then just a lot more "repent and be baptized" sermons until he dies. But if those who ignored John's message are wrong - the nation itself is at risk of rejecting the Messiah.

(I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so this may have already been covered.)

1. IF I am wrong to be a Christian and instead Atheists have the right belief – there is no risk to me. I get the exact same “glorious ending” as the atheist true believer – the hole in ground ending

Something I notice about the above from the OP is that there are other possibilities.

Suppose neither Christianity nor atheism is right, but Islam is. Then the risk would be in not following God's true messenger, again *if* Islam is right.

 

[BobRyan]

Suppose neither Christianity nor atheism is right, but Islam is. Then the risk would be in not following God's true messenger, again *if* Islam is right.

That has been mentioned - and here is my response.

1. The OP scenarios were carefully chosen such that one option has no risk and the counter options all have risk. So then "yeah" another scenario can be found where both options have risk. As you point out (the real God - vs - a false God) of some sort where the false god wants to destroy all followers who claim the real God - puts someone at risk no matter which side they choose.

2. However what you don't have is "the right view" being opposed by a wrong view - where the wrong view "never has a risk" if it is wrong. It is hard to find "the wrong view has no risk when it is found to be wrong"

 

[BobRyan]

I'll comment on the rich man and Lazarus. They were aware of each others circumstances so while you yourself might not be at risk, you will be aware of all your family and friends who were not saved being in torment. So while you may rejoice in your not being at risk, this does not mean you should leave others to suffer.

True - but knowing in each of the examples in the OP that there is such a thing as a string of selections there where there is "no risk" (so then risk is only on one side) .. helps give "clarity" for the Christian just as we might expect the atheist to discover some degree of "clarity" when he/she thinks objectively about scenario #1 in the OP.

 

[BobRyan]

Hello Bob.

Honoring the Sabbath day is a work of the law.

Your speculation is noted.

Some would join you and also argue that "not taking God's name in vain Ex 20:7 is a work of the Law" and "Loving God with all your heart" Deut 6:5 is a work of the Law of Moses.

But that would be to "take a phrase from Paul and use it out of context" - something I choose not to do. But you have free will of course and can choose anything you wish.

1 John 2 says to keep Christ's commandments and "walk as He walked".
1 Cor 7:19 says "what matters is keeping the commandments of God".

So while some may join you in that speculation you offer - Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations do not join you in that idea about downsizing the Law of God. In any case you may do as you wish.

However even "you" have made the point in the past that Romans 14 in your own view allows us to keep the Bible Sabbath if we so choose. hence... "no risk".

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not sure if what your point is here, but my motivation to obey God is not what is safe for me but what gives glory to God. I would love the atheist to approach it the same way.

So your proposal to the atheist is "hey I know you don't believe that God exists - but don't you think it makes the most sense for you to have as your number one motivation -- doing what gives God glory?"

Is that the kind of discussion you have with atheists in real life - and if so - how did that work for you?

I have seen a lot of "discussions with atheists" using similar logic as can be seen in my OP #1 option and we even have one former one on a thread similar to this - talking about the success of that model. Do you have one where an atheist says "I was an atheist until I started to think that being an atheist probably does not give God as much glory as He deserves"?

God reveals God not me. Those who come to God are drawn to him by the HS not by whatever bumbling words I manage to spit out.

Not true.

A very poor argument such as the one I point out above - is well known to "not work".

Christ gives a great example of making a strong logical argument with his hostile-audicence enemies in Matt 22 for the future resurrection and also in Mark 7:6-13 with his opposers regarding their bogus traditions that are in opposition to the Word of God. In Matt 22 Christ's stellar logic "silenced the Sadducees" as the Pharisees themselves admitted.

Your claim that we could be equally as successful making statements that don't make sense -- is one of the things you find on the internet where Atheists hold those things up for ridicule and use them as effective proof on their side that to be a Christian is to abandon reason. They gain many converts with the help of Christians.

A great many atheists have become Christian - including one reading this thread - and they did so because of issues like #1 in the OP. But I have yet to find even one that claimed they came to be a Christian while Atheist because of the force of the statement "I don't think my atheism is giving God glory".

===================

Peter says not to give lame arguments.

1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect

Paul agrees.

Titus 1:7 For the overseer must be beyond reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not overindulging in wine, not a bully, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, self-controlled, righteous, holy, disciplined, 9 holding firmly the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it.

It does not say "able to contradict those who contradict" but rather "able to refute those who contradict". In some circles merely name-calling and contradicting is "enough" -- and is all that should be asked of them in their own POV. Scripture does not agree.

 

[BobRyan]

If I observed the Saturday sabbath just because others thought that I should, it would make me a hypocrite

The atheist in scenario 1 could say that as well. you take an extreme that does not work at all "as if that is the only option".

The point in the OP is that these facts are "wake up calls" - and good logical reason to be open minded and study the point realizing that one side of it - has no risk at all.

 

[BobRyan]

Second - the references to the hole in the ground don't really wash, given that Jesus spoke of eternal consequences for the unbelieving and disobedient. .

you are not following the logic of the argument in the OP. you can't inject your own POV into the "other side" when weighing two options. Each side has to be consistent with its own view.

If the Christian is correct in option 1 - then your outcome is part of that "being correct". But the "other option" is that the atheist is correct in option 1. You can't weigh two options without first being willing to even admit what the second option is. That is not logical and does not work in discussions with Atheists. They see right through that.

 

[BobRyan]

We just need to know what God requires of us. And He's certainly told us.

"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8

"What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’"

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus said. “Do this and you will live.” Luke 10

That's what faith is meant to accomplish, through the union with God that it fosters, that it means .

God says Jesus is "the Way the Truth and the Life" in John 14.

God says "they perish who did not receive a Love of the Truth" in 2 Thess 2.

So in the case of the Jews - they accepted that God created the World and that the Bible was the Word of God. But could they simply stop there and still be ok when Jesus showed up?

Can Christians afford to not look at the choices they make? Can they afford to turn a blind eye to a possible risk and argue "only the atheist should have to worry about having possibly made a wrong choice"?

 

[BobRyan]

If "Sabbath-opposing" options are flawed in their use of Rom 14 then the shadow it casts is also flawed. If they are not flawed then they inherit this risk-free goal your targetting so there is no issue.

If Sabbath opposing views in the OP allow Rom 14 to say that we get to choose which day we keep without any risk - then they allow the opposing view held by those who think the Commandments still matter -- to be risk-free. I don't see that you have gotten around it. And so far in real life - that is exactly what we see happening.

 

[fhansen]

God says Jesus is "the Way the Truth and the Life" in John 14.

God says "they perish who did not receive a Love of the Truth" in 2 Thess 2.

So in the case of the Jews - they accepted that God created the World and that the Bible was the Word of God. But could they simply stop there and still be ok when Jesus showed up?

Can Christians afford to not look at the choices they make? Can they afford to turn a blind eye to a possible risk and argue "only the atheist should have to worry about having possibly made a wrong choice"?

I don’t think we should ever stop looking to see how our choices and actions align with love, whether or not they oppose or embrace it. And the gospel sets forth that very challenge. We should always continue to seek, study, and grow in knowledge of the truth and God's will. Included in this may be the reading of those we might otherwise consider to be in error or involved in false prophecy. I've done that with the JWs, for example, which have a common root with SDAs, and while there's more to applaud in SDA theology, some of what I have read of theirs has amounted to false prophecy-as with the JWs-and erroneous theology IMO. Either way we have to do the best we can with whatever knowledge we have at any point in time-while continuing to being open to truth wherever we may find it. As Augustine once put it, "All truth is God's truth."

 

[Leaf473]

That has been mentioned - and here is my response.

1. The OP scenarios were carefully chosen such that one option has no risk and the counter options all have risk. So then "yeah" another scenario can be found where both options have risk. As you point out (the real God - vs - a false God) of some sort where the false god wants to destroy all followers who claim the real God - puts someone at risk no matter which side they choose.

2. However what you don't have is "the right view" being opposed by a wrong view - where the wrong view "never has a risk" if it is wrong. It is hard to find "the wrong view has no risk when it is found to be wrong"

In real life there are more than two religious options.

Are you proposing a kind of thought experiment, as in:
Suppose there were only two options, Christianity and atheism.

 

[ozso]

Sooo... am I hearing an appeal to keep the Sabbath because otherwise you run the risk of not being saved?

That's the usual message I get.