Why do SDA preach

[tall73]

Gregg would likely make many of the same Sabbath opposing views that you find on "Sabbath and the LAW" forum even if Bible scholars typically would not take that position.

The sunday-group list is much longer I am just keeping it simple with three for the Sabbath in Eden written on the heart under the New Covenant vs all the Sabbath groups.

Trying not to overwhelm those who need to check stuff out first.

But I also admit that "popular views" that you see in "Sabbath and the Law" don't fit into any of those groups of Bible scholars I mentioned.

Any distinctive a group has - is by definition "distinctive" in most cases (or at least mostly distinctive) - so if it turns out that everybody all up and down the street agrees on those "distinctives" then they were not very "distinctive" - and I think you and I would agree on that as would most everyone here.

And you are right - those "distinctives" are not likely to be something that all those other groups in my list sign up for.

But if you try to use my argument on the "easy part" in that scenario "who are the two opposing sides"?

In My example the "two sides" are all the Bible-Sabbath-not-edited-still-binding groups , vs all the "others" whose scholarship teaches week-day-1 as the Christian Sabbath

So not just one person or one denomination on one side vs one-person or one-denomination on the other.

No they are not just one denomination on either side. But if you know there are more than two sides, but only talk about two, that is not just keeping it simple, that is omitting important information.

And of course, there are scholars who have held the view that there is no longer an obligation to the fourth commandment. And not all of them are in the Sabbath and Law section here.

For instance, Alford's Greek Testament is undoubtedly a scholarly work, was written around the same time Adventists were coming to prominence (but not of course before 7th day Baptists, etc. held their views), and takes this view.

I have no idea how many scholars hold it in total, or their denominational affiliations. But nose counting is not how you do theology.

There are also early writers who do not think that the Sabbath pre-dated Israel, as I shared in the other thread.

 

[BobRyan]

nose counting is not how you do theology.

As stated a few times before -- that is not what I am doing. I am looking for an objective indicator for the "easy part" of the discussion--- rather than an indicator "for no Bible study needed - matter settled" that you seem to reference.

 

[BobRyan]

And of course, there are scholars who have held the view that there is no longer an obligation to the fourth commandment. And not all of them are in the Sabbath and Law section here.

Might be a Bible scholar out there somewhere in Steve Gregg's camp as you note.

And a few more on the "all TEN" still valid but Sabbath "edited" list


"Baptist Confession of Faith"
"Westminster Confession of Faith"
C.H. Spurgeon
Matthew Henry
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism
R.C Sproul
"D.L. Moody"
"Dies Domini"

My short list for an objective indicator for the "easy part" of the discussion--- rather than an indicator for "no Bible study needed - matter settled"

Someone brand-new to the Bible might take that as a "Sign" that when they start sorting through all the issues regarding the TEN - and the Sabbath - this might be a good place to dig in first - going through the Bible to see if it adds up.. .because it may well be the easiest part of the topic.

Rather than the less structured - "it is all complicated start wherever you can find a foothold" - where one might take the long road or the shorter one depending on the case.

 

[tall73]

Might be a Bible scholar out there somewhere in Steve Gregg's camp as you note.

And a few more on the "all TEN" still valid but Sabbath "edited" list


"Baptist Confession of Faith"
"Westminster Confession of Faith"
C.H. Spurgeon
Matthew Henry
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism
R.C Sproul
"D.L. Moody"
"Dies Domini"

My short list for an objective indicator for the "easy part" of the discussion--- rather than an indicator for "no Bible study needed - matter settled"

Someone brand-new to the Bible might take that as a "Sign" that when they start sorting through all the issues regarding the TEN - and the Sabbath - this might be a good place to dig in first - going through the Bible to see if it adds up.. .because it may well be the easiest part of the topic.

Rather than the less structured - "it is all complicated start wherever you can find a foothold" - where one might take the long road or the shorter one depending on the case.

Then you shouldn't take offense when someone inquiring about Adventist doctrines is told that most Christian scholars think they are wrong, so move along, because it is simpler.

 

[tall73]

My short list for an objective indicator for the "easy part" of the discussion--- rather than an indicator for "no Bible study needed - matter settled"

You know what is even easier? Just ask, "do you think the ten commandments are still valid?"

Then you are right into a biblical discussion with no Moody needed. So if you are trying to keep it simple, to tailor to their understanding, with no nose counting, you don't need your approach.

And your approach can seriously backfire with those who see the irony of an Adventist appealing to consensus of Christian scholars.

 

[mmksparbud]

Great, then you shouldn't take offense when someone inquiring about Adventist doctrines is told that most Christian scholars think they are wrong, so move along, because it is simpler.

I am so very glad that I do not take my doctrines from "most Christian scholars." When facing God no one will be saying--"Most Christian scholars think this." It will be what does God say, what does the bible say. God will not confer with most Christian scholars to derive His ideas from. He has given us His instructions, His commandments. They are commandments---and all are required to be kept for entry into His kingdom ---they do not save us--Christ does. But not keeping them will destroy us. That is all that is needed to know and I do not care who agrees with me or not.

This website is for Christians to give their opinions. When they are given and some decide to not read them --- then don't ask! There is nothing vague about this and Gold is not going top ask any scholar what they thnk about these---they are plain enough for anyopne.

Mat_5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat_15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mat_19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat_22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Mar_7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Luk_1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
Joh_14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Joh_14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Joh_15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
1Co_7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
1Co_14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Col_2:22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?
1Th_4:2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
Tit_1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
1Jn_2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jn_2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jn_3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn_3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
1Jn_5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jn_5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
2Jn_1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
Rev_12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev_14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Rev_22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

 

[tall73]

I am so very glad that I do not take my doctrines from "most Christian scholars." When facing God no one will be saying--"Most Christian scholars think this."

Good, you might share that with Bob. I was arguing he should drop his discussion on Moody, the Westminster confessions etc. and stick to the Bible.

 

[mmksparbud]

Good, you might share that with Bob. I was arguing he should drop his discussion on Moody, the Westminster confessions etc. and stick to the Bible.

From everything he has written---he already does. He just keeps answering questions from those who think otherwise.

 

[BobRyan]

You know what is even easier? Just ask, "do you think the ten commandments are still valid?"

Yes I do have a lot of those discussions.

Here is a great "today' post - this just in" example of just how fast a "Bob addresses just the Bible" opening gets redirected by those opposing the Sabbath to "just you and one denomination"

#12

 

[BobRyan]

I just gave you "My short list for an objective indicator for the "easy part" of the discussion--- rather than an indicator for "no Bible study needed - matter settled"

My short list for an objective indicator for the "easy part" of the discussion--- rather than an indicator for "no Bible study needed - matter settled"
.

Then we see this post --

Then you shouldn't take offense when someone inquiring about Adventist doctrines is told that most Christian scholars think they are wrong, so move along, because it is simpler.

And you responded with "yes but what happens when someone give you a "no Bible study needed - matter settled" suggestion?

how is that logical? I am not following you on that one.

I even added more detail to it

Someone brand-new to the Bible might take that as a "Sign" that when they start sorting through all the issues regarding the TEN - and the Sabbath - this might be a good place to dig in first - going through the Bible to see if it adds up.. .because it may well be the easiest part of the topic.

Rather than the less structured - "it is all complicated start wherever you can find a foothold" - where one might take the long road or the shorter one depending on the case.

How does that get turned into "trust someone else - don't look" in your posts?

Because I do agree with ignoring "trust someone else - don't look" just as you say we should. I just don't know how you are getting that from my statements above.

 

[tall73]

Yes I do have a lot of those discussions.

Here is a great "today' post - this just in" example of just how fast a "Bob addresses just the Bible" opening gets redirected by those opposing the Sabbath to "just you and one denomination"

#12

For real? BobS has been debating in this section for ages. You can hardly compare a statement to him and your approach to a new participant.

 

[tall73]

I just gave you "My short list for an objective indicator for the "easy part" of the discussion--- rather than an indicator for "no Bible study needed - matter settled"



Then we see this post --




And you responded with "yes but what happens when someone give you a "no Bible study needed - matter settled" suggestion?

how is that logical? I am not following you on that one.

I even added more detail to it



How does that get turned into "trust someone else - don't look" in your posts?

Bob, all the guy got out of it in this discussion was that you were quoting some theological works and he didn't grasp your point.

You may be overestimating this.

But more to the point, the "idea" they are to get from it is what? Most scholars think this.

Well, that is in fact the same, no matter how much nuance you want to add to your "easy" list.

 

[BobRyan]

For real? BobS has been debating in this section for ages. You can hardly compare a statement to him and your approach to a new participant.

He just happened to jump into it "today" - there are plenty of others not on my "today" list.

 

[tall73]

He just happened to jump into it "today" - there are plenty of others not on my "today" list.

So is it your view that he will see this list that you presented and immediately reconsider?

My guess is he has seen it from you many times.

 

[BobRyan]

When someone says "Bob thinks the Sabbath started in Eden some ideas just get stuck"

And I show them "Most scholars think this instead of just-Bob or just-SDAs"

But more to the point, the "idea" they are to get from it is what? Most scholars think this.

Well, that is in fact the same, no matter how much nuance you want to add to your "easy" list.

So if that is what they are getting is that a simple hand waive of "just Bob" or "Just SDAs" is not going to work - because "Most scholars think this". Then this is the message I am sending in respond to that one dismissive statement they are making.

If on the other hand they make statement "the Bible says x or y or z" I am usually pretty good with "here is what the Bible also says" posts.

 

[tall73]

From everything he has written---he already does. He just keeps answering questions from those who think otherwise.

So because he doesn't go by scholars, or consensus he keeps presenting a list of scholars to people, and noting consensus.

Sounds a little counter-intuitive.

 

[BobRyan]

My dear friend. I have shown YOU how the SDA teaching on keeping the Law is not Biblical. I am not arguing or debating.

If you choose to follow their no-Biblical teachings after being shown, then the rest is on you.

Just to prove that , you just said ........
"Why would Jesus say keep the Sabbath when Gods' people were already keeping the Sabbath for over 4000 years and were already keeping the Sabbath commandment as well as all that other 10 commandments?"

Now we booth know that is not a true comment!!!

We both know that the word Sabbath does not appear in Scripture until Ex. 16.
Now that is a FACT!

hmmm. Bible facts.

1.Ex 20:11 refers directly to Gen 2:1-3 for when the Sabbath was set apart and made holy for mankind
2. Mark 2:27 speaks directly of the "making of the Sabbath" and the "making of Mankind" that we see in Gen 1:3-2:3 - and reminds us "Sabbath was made FOR mankind"
3. "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 is not mentioned before Ex 20 and yet all Christians know that was a sin from day 1.

And instead of "you know how the SDAs teach about God's Law" -- this particular Bible detail is so easy we find both sides of the Sabbath discussion agreeing to it.

"Baptist Confession of Faith"
"Westminster Confession of Faith"
C.H. Spurgeon
Matthew Henry
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism
R.C Sproul
"D.L. Moody"
"Dies Domini"

 

[BobRyan]

He just happened to jump into it "today" - there are plenty of others not on my "today" list.

I'll add this one ...
1 minute ago #897

 

[BobRyan]

So because he doesn't go by scholars, or consensus he keeps presenting a list of scholars to people, and noting consensus.

Sounds a little counter-intuitive.

Take a look at that new response to "just SDAs" dismissive and see how this works --
1 minute ago #897

Tell me if it looks intuitive

(assuming Major1 is considered by you to be at least some difference from BobS)

 

[tall73]

When someone says "Bob thinks the Sabbath started in Eden some ideas just get stuck"

And I show them "Most scholars think this instead of just-Bob or just-SDAs"



So if that is what they are getting is that a simple hand waive of "just Bob" or "Just SDAs" is not going to work - because "Most scholars think this". Then this is the message I am sending in respond to that one dismissive statement they are making.

If on the other hand they make statement "the Bible says x or y or z" I am usually pretty good with "here is what the Bible also says" posts.

And I stated if someone claims that then it makes sense to do so.

But we were talking about your approach to someone new to the discussion. That is not BobS. And so that is hardly an example of what we were talking about.

And I mentioned you continuing to post it to me, even though I acknowledged quite readily quite some time ago that many scholars do see it the way you state, but that I hold a different position.

Now what was your purpose in that?