Why do SDA preach

BobRyan · Jul 30, 2021

tall73 said:
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?

I only post it to you because you were responding to the "two major groups" detail that applies to what I am calling "an objective indicator" for what topics may qualify in the "easy list" of things to look into. You said you had a few sources for a 3rd option - and I was just showing that by comparison we have a large list on the Bible-Sabbath denominations/groups/scholars list and a rather large one on the "all-TEN-but-Sabbath-changed" list so having a small handful in some 3rd bucket should not make it too confusing for the one looking for "an objective metric" as to what topics might be easiest to start out with in Bible study.

tall73 · Jul 30, 2021

BobRyan said:
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)

Wasn't that responding to him after many exchanges? And no, I don't perceive that he was new to the issues, though I have no idea of his level of participation on CF in such threads.

tall73 · Jul 30, 2021

BobRyan said:
I only post it to you because you were responding to the "two major groups" detail that applies to what I am calling "an objective indicator" for what topics may qualify in the "easy list" of things to look into. You said you had a few sources for a 3rd option - and I was just showing that by comparison we have a large list on the Bible-Sabbath denominations/groups/scholars list and a rather large one on the "all-TEN-but-Sabbath-changed" list so having a small handful in some 3rd bucket should not make it too confusing for the one looking for "an objective metric" as to what topics might be easiest to start out with in Bible study.

I am talking about when you repeatedly posted it at me in prior threads, after I made very clear I did not agree with either camp. And you went on "well this is the EASY part..." and grandstanding.

Do you think that helps your case?

BobRyan · Jul 30, 2021

tall73 said:
I am talking about when you repeatedly posted it at me in prior threads, after I made very clear I did not agree with either camp. And you went on "well this is the EASY part..." and grandstanding.

Do you think that helps your case?

I need to see the post - sometimes I do that because I am actually fine with whatever difference is there but I want some context for it.

In a "I am questioning SDA doctrines" thread the person I am responding to clearly does not agree with some SDA doctrine and if I have a good response to that I will state it. And they will sometimes either quote a non-Bible source or just make a statement that is somewhat speculative - and in those cases I tend to mention how outside scholarship views that specific point for the sake of the readers.

I try to never address a Bible point with just "there exists scholars that do not agree"

tall73 · Jul 30, 2021

And in this case with someone who was new to the issue, and clearly stated so, but also specifically said in his first post:

Please, don't use articles and texts that are not from the Bible to make an argument.

You immediately, in your first post, went right for your list of scholars.

About Sabbath

Why?

Edited to add the link.

BobRyan · Jul 30, 2021

tall73 said:
Wasn't that responding to him after many exchanges? And no, I don't perceive that he was new to the issues, though I have no idea of his level of participation on CF in such threads.

Well I think he is around a lot on these topics so I would not call him new to the Sabbath topics if that is your point.

BobRyan · Jul 30, 2021

tall73 said:
And in this case with someone who was new to the issue, and clearly stated so, but also specifically said in his first post:

Please, don't use articles and texts that are not from the Bible to make an argument.

You immediately, in your first post, went right for your list of scholars.

Why?

A "just SDAs" or a "Just Bob says this" post is asking for balancing fact of some sort.

Thanks for posting the link.

My response had 14 Bible texts in it addressing very specific questions - I was not just giving them "scholars agree so don't read your Bible" answer.

BobRyan said:
The "Sabbath" doctrine has two simple components.

1. All TEN of the TEN Commandments are included in the moral Law of God that defines what sin IS AND is applicable to all mankind even in the NT.
2. The Sabbath commandment cannot be "edited" by Tradition.

almost ALL of the back-and-forth arguments you will see on this thread are on the easy-simple-part 1 where Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic, in almost all major denomination - AGREE. (and yet people opposing the Sabbath here - do not even agree with the majority of the Bible Scholarship on their own side of Sunday-keeping vs Sabbath topic !!)

I have a really easy solution for you - take a look at where BOTH sides agree.

Baptist Confession of Faith - sectn 19.
Westminster Confession of Faith - sectn 19
D.L. Moody on the 4th commandment.
Dies Domini (Pope John Paul II)
R.C Sproul
C.H. Spurgeon
Eastern Orhtodox
Catholic Church
Martin Luther
etc.

ALL of them agree with the SDA church and other Sabbath keeping groups -- on these key points.

1. All TEN of the TEN commandments were given as the moral law of God in Eden - to mankind
2. All TEN of the TEN Commandments are included in the Law of God that is written on the heart under the new Covenant.
3. The Sabbath commandment as given by God in scripture - points to Saturday - not Sunday.
4. The TEN Commandments are not in opposition to grace or the Gospel
5. all of mankind are still to this very day held to accountability by the TEN
6. The TEN are not - "just for Jews".

And because people love to see examples that illustrate the point - I am adding them here -- on page 1.

So here is are examples of Bible details about "the TEN" remaining - so obvious that Bible scholars on both sides agree

And here we can see it from the "Baptist Confession of Faith" section 19

Notice that even the Orthodox church confesses "the TEN" -- not merely "NINE" and affirms that they are not "just for Jews" in it's explicit statement
Friday at 5:36 PM #23

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

When scholarship on BOTH sides look at the Bible and AGREE on these key details then it is a pretty good option .. take this as the starting point and then work through the differences that remain.

Essentially given all that common ground - the Sabbath keeping POV is "God's Word cannot be edited ... not even by tradition"... and that is the crux of where all the differences reside when it comes to Sabbath keeping vs the position taken by those groups I listed.

Someone comments later on in this thread as follows

Which highlights the point I just made above.

So getting to the "easy part" of these Bible details -- where BOTH sides agree - is starting at "square 1".

When you find someone arguing for a solution that does not even make it to "square 1" -- the chances of success are less than optimal.

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

Having said that - some more easy things to look at are:

1. Romans 14 does not mention the 7th Sabbath at all in the entire chapter.
"one man observes one day above another while another man observes them all... he who observes the day observes it or the Lord"

2. A careful reading of Col 2 - shows that it also does not mention the 7th day Sabbath - it only refers to the "Shadow" Sabbaths of Lev 23 - the annual feast days. Holy days in the Bible.

3. Gal 4:9-11 only references pagan holy days that the former-pagan gentiles in Gal 4 "were returning to" after becoming Christians. The observance of even one of them was condemned by Paul in Gal 4 --- as contrasted to the defense of all the Bible holy days defended by Paul in Rom 14.

4. Gal 5:1-5 is not condemning the Bible. So then it is still a sin to "take God's name in vain" for example. Gal 5 is condemning the "made up tradition" of gentiles required to be circumcised to be saved... and the idea that a lost person could "earn salvation" by not taking God's name in vain - without accepting the Gospel and being born again.

And as for the bonus text making it all very very easy

Is 66:23 - for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth: "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship"

Mark 2:27 "Sabbath made for mankind"
Is 56:6 - Gentiles singled out for Sabbath keeping.
Acts 18:4 gospel preaching for both gentiles and Jews "every Sabbath"

(There is only "one Gospel" -- Gal 1:6-9 and that Gospel "was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8 which is why in your OP that Matt 17 text shows both Moses and Elijah standing with Christ in glory - before the cross... because there is only one Gospel and it was in the OT as well as NT. Same is true for New Covenant in Jer 31:31-34 as well as Heb 8:6-12)

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

And my post was #11 where a number of other SDA posts had already given 50 or more Bible texts. (or was it 100?)

If your point is that the person was only going to read my 14 Bible references and pay no attention to what bible scholars thought of those issue - well you may be right about that.

tall73 · Jul 30, 2021

BobRyan said:
A "just SDAs" or a "Just Bob says this" post is asking for balancing fact of some sort.

The op didn't say that at all in that thread.

And you said you were doing it to make it simple.

BobRyan · Jul 30, 2021

tall73 said:
And you said you were doing it to make it simple.

That's is true - in that post I say this --

================================================
The "Sabbath" doctrine has two simple components.

1. All TEN of the TEN Commandments are included in the moral Law of God that defines what sin IS AND is applicable to all mankind even in the NT.
2. The Sabbath commandment cannot be "edited" by Tradition.

almost ALL of the back-and-forth arguments you will see on this thread are on the easy-simple-part 1 where Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic, in almost all major denomination - AGREE.

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

So that was a summary statement on my part where I then give examples "not links to denomination boards" - but an overview example of what I was talking about

Albion · Jul 30, 2021

BobRyan said:
That's is true - in that post I say this --
================================================
The "Sabbath" doctrine has two simple components.

1. All TEN of the TEN Commandments are included in the moral Law of God that defines what sin IS AND is applicable to all mankind even in the NT.
2. The Sabbath commandment cannot be "edited" by Tradition.

almost ALL of the back-and-forth arguments you will see on this thread are on the easy-simple-part 1 where Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic, in almost all major denomination - AGREE.

This ^ is so lame. If it were as you say, 90+% of the Bible scholars in the various Christian churches would be on your side in this matter rather than the other side where they've been for many centuries. The total membership of the SDA amounts to less than 1% of the total of the world's Christians. There are a few other Sabbath-keeping church bodies, but they are much smaller by far than the SDA, so there is no way that the mindset of Christianity overall is anywhere near what is being suggested in this debate.

tall73 · Jul 30, 2021

BobRyan said:
I need to see the post - sometimes I do that because I am actually fine with whatever difference is there but I want some context for it.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...rship-came-about.8208744/reply?quote=75960950

Tall73 said: No, the easy part is realizing there are more than two views,
Possibly a million "one offs" no doubt.

BobRyan Said:
But as it turns out -- when it comes to Bible scholars in almost ALL major Christian denominations all agreeing on a few really obvious Bible details about the Sabbath subject... well that is pretty hard for even the most opposing enthusiast to ignore.

Finding examples where groups on different sides of the Sabbath topic DIFFER is a very trivial task.

Noticing that on certain obvious Bible details - there is this huge level of agreement across both sides is ALSO pretty easy -- as it turns out.

Concluding that this is a glaringly obvious indicator that the Bible details where both agree are the easiest ones to recognize is not as difficult as you seem to suggest. But you are free to chart your own course there as you wish.

tall73 · Jul 30, 2021

BobRyan said:
That's is true - in that post I say this --

================================================
The "Sabbath" doctrine has two simple components.

1. All TEN of the TEN Commandments are included in the moral Law of God that defines what sin IS AND is applicable to all mankind even in the NT.
2. The Sabbath commandment cannot be "edited" by Tradition.

almost ALL of the back-and-forth arguments you will see on this thread are on the easy-simple-part 1 where Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic, in almost all major denomination - AGREE.

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

So that was a summary statement on my part where I then give examples "not links to denomination boards" - but an overview example of what I was talking about

Even though he asked people not to use non-Scriptural sources for arguments you put this.

I have a really easy solution for you - take a look at where BOTH sides agree.

Baptist Confession of Faith - sectn 19.
Westminster Confession of Faith - sectn 19
D.L. Moody on the 4th commandment.
Dies Domini (Pope John Paul II)
R.C Sproul
C.H. Spurgeon
Eastern Orhtodox
Catholic Church
Martin Luther
etc.

ALL of them agree with the SDA church and other Sabbath keeping groups -- on these key points.

BobRyan · Jul 30, 2021

tall73 said:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...rship-came-about.8208744/reply?quote=75960950

Tall73 said: No, the easy part is realizing there are more than two views,
Possibly a million "one offs" no doubt.

Do you really think that helps clarify the issue - rather than pointing to the degree of agreement between the two mega groups on the topic - the "elephants in the living room"??

When simplifying things and pointing to Bible details so obvious that both major sides of the debate agree to them - you are giving the newby a "hint" that they might want to look at that subject first and see if the Bible support it rather than a "swallow the elephant here" sign.

Also in that text I am not arguing that someone must never chart their own course and pick whatever idea comes up at the moment - but they should not get eyes-glazed-over-foggy on it thinking that the massive area of agreement that is there - does not exist.

we call that "data blindness" when one is just tossing out many off the wall ideas -- as if "earth is flat" and "earth is not real" and a zillion other options are just the many alternatives to "Earth is round"

tall73 · Jul 30, 2021

Albion said:
This ^ is so lame. If it were as you say, 90+% of the Bible scholars in the various Christian churches would be on your side in this matter rather than the other side where they've been for many centuries.

He is speaking of a limited scope point that most denominations still see the 10 commandments as valid, etc.

However, the irony of Adventists appealing to scholarly consensus to score points is glaring.

And yes, the details from there certainly don't match up.

tall73 · Jul 30, 2021

BobRyan said:
Do you really think that helps clarify the issue - rather than pointing to the degree of agreement between the two mega groups on the topic - the "elephants in the living room"??

When simplifying things and pointing to Bible details so obvious that both major sides of the debate agree to them - you are giving the newby a "hint" that they might want to look at that subject first and see if the Bible support it rather than a "swallow the elephant here" sign.

Also in that text I am not arguing that someone must never chart their own course and pick whatever idea comes up at the moment - but they should not get eyes-glazed-over-foggy on it thinking that the massive area of agreement that is there - does not exist.

we call that "data blindness" when one is just tossing out many off the wall ideas -- as if "earth is flat" and "earth is not real" and a zillion other options are just the many alternatives to "Earth is round"

I think it is you grand standing on a point you found agreement on because it so rarely happens in your discussion of Adventist positions. And yet you don't care for it when people respond to you that way on...you know most Adventist positions.

BobRyan · Jul 30, 2021

tall73 said:
Even though he asked people not to use non-Scriptural sources for arguments you put this.

I have a really easy solution for you - take a look at where BOTH sides agree.

Baptist Confession of Faith - sectn 19.
Westminster Confession of Faith - sectn 19
D.L. Moody on the 4th commandment.
Dies Domini (Pope John Paul II)
R.C Sproul
C.H. Spurgeon
Eastern Orhtodox
Catholic Church
Martin Luther
etc.

ALL of them agree with the SDA church and other Sabbath keeping groups -- on these key points.

Here again it is "take a look" at the Bible details - look in your Bible at those specific Bible details as a good starting point because the objective metric of Bible scholarship in almost all Christian denomination on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic admitting to those Bible details - is an objective metric that does not exist for other minor options. It is a good place "to start" and the metric is objective.

BobRyan · Jul 30, 2021

tall73 said:
I think it is you grand standing on a point you found agreement on because it so rarely happens in your discussion of Adventist positions.

That "might fly" if I were only talking to fellow SDAs. But as it is I am making the point in a wide open market of ideas - where "objective metrics" are RARE indeed.

any five people can show up with five different ideas. Where is the challenge there and where is the detail to be "informed" about in such a random any-and-everything starting point?

What is helpful is a bit of analysis - some "results". If the topic has been kicked around for centuries (which it has) then surely SOME objective metric could be found.

tall73 · Jul 30, 2021

BobRyan said:
Also in that text I am not arguing that someone must never chart their own course and pick whatever idea comes up at the moment - but they should not get eyes-glazed-over-foggy on it thinking that the massive area of agreement that is there - does not exist.

we call that "data blindness" when one is just tossing out many off the wall ideas -- as if "earth is flat" and "earth is not real" and a zillion other options are just the many alternatives to "Earth is round"

Yeah, tell me how that informs your view of the Adventist sanctuary doctrine.

Albion · Jul 30, 2021

tall73 said:
He is speaking of a limited scope point that most denominations still see the 10 commandments as valid, etc.

Well, I appreciate the response. It's true that I've ceased to follow this discussion very closely now that it has passed 900 entries with 800 of them being something that was said in almost identical form earlier in the same thread.

It is necessary to watch carefully for all the nuances that make any statement appear to be correct even if it isn't. My reply was prompted by the claim that all of the Ten Commandments are "applicable to all mankind even in the NT."
That part of the claim is certainly not accurate.

However, the irony of Adventists appealing to scholarly consensus to score points is glaring.

And yes, the details from there certainly don't match up.

tall73 · Jul 30, 2021

BobRyan said:
That "might fly" if I were only talking to fellow SDAs. But as it is I am making the point in a wide open market of ideas - where "objective metrics" are RARE indeed.

Oh they are not rare when talking on SDA topics. People often say little more, and need say little more, than to point out most of the Christian world disagrees with SDA theology.

But you don't seem to think that is a great thing there, or something to be brought up. Then you insist on looking at Scripture.

And then even though I am trying to do that, and even when I point out quite early historical sources agreeing with a view I took in addition to Scripture, you compare it to flat earth.

You better get back to Scripture only.

Why do SDA preach

Junior Member

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Junior Member

Sophia7's husband

Junior Member

Junior Member

Sophia7's husband

Junior Member

Facilitator

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Junior Member

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Junior Member

Junior Member

Sophia7's husband

Facilitator

Sophia7's husband

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency