"Why I still choose the SDA Church instead of other sabbatarian churches"

[Your Neighbor]

The title appears ...on a day of the week.

Victor

Thanks Victor. You don't seem to have been a SDA who has come to the conclusion that the SDA Church has false beliefs but you want to remain in it with the hope of changing it rather than you changing as a result of your new beliefs.

 

[Sophia7]

The title appears as a statement rather than a question, so naturally it piqued my interest (and I'm not allowed to say anything on the Trad SDA forum).

You can choose whatever church fellowship you want to.
We have lots of texts that I would have no trouble dragging out to show that we don't have the right to judge another servant of the Lord.

So the criteria should be one of selecting a church fellowship based on doctrinal views rather than the label affixed to the door. I personally have a preference toward churches that assemble on Saturday rather than Sunday, because of the historic tradition that the early church has in common with our Judaic roots. Because of this I have been within a couple of Messianic Judaic congregations, and have learned a great deal there. However, since each congregation operates as an autonomous entity, I wouldn't recommend this path for everyone. There is a great deal of variance within MJ congregations regarding legal requirements versus grace.

I would raise the question "why a sabbatarian fellowship?". One of the reasons it is so hard to find a comfortable home in any sabbatarian fellowship is because of the roots of the rationale that caused them to be sabbatarian in the first place. Most sabbatarians are so because of the belief that there is still a binding sabbath ordinance from a covenant long ago retired and replaced with a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6) mediated by Christ. In simple terms, sabbatarians are usually driven by the incorrect assertion that the ten commandments still have jurisdiction over their recipients (and Gentiles, as well).

Saturday meeting churches are rare and few. Fortunately, the day we meet isn't grounds for judgment, and having openess to experience many different fallowships enables one to receive the emphasis that various groups have (keep the good, toss the bad, and definately prove all things). We have liberty, not a bondage to a day of assembly.

Bottom line is that I am non-denominational, and I don't place import on a day of the week.

Victor

Even many MJs and other Sabbatarians don't believe that they are limited to attending church services on Saturday.

 

[Your Neighbor]

Who here does?

There had better be. Otherwise, this whole mess that has happened needn't have had. And there would be no need to have "Adventists" in the title of the section.

 

[VictorC]

Thanks Victor.

You're more than welcome

You don't seem to have been a SDA who has come to the conclusion that the SDA Church has false beliefs but you want to remain in it with the hope of changing it rather than you changing as a result of your new beliefs.

Actually, I'm not SDA, and never have been. I run into them a lot, and so their theology is of great interest to me. My understanding is that this forum is open to discussion from anyone regardless of affiliation, quite unlike the traditional Adventist forum.
As a matter of introduction of myself, I participate on CARM much more than I do here (my posting name there is Victor). From your comments above, I should point out an area where we are likely to disagree, from my previous post:

Most sabbatarians are so because of the belief that there is still a binding sabbath ordinance from a covenant long ago retired and replaced with a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6) mediated by Christ. In simple terms, sabbatarians are usually driven by the incorrect assertion that the ten commandments still have jurisdiction over their recipients (and Gentiles, as well).

There are serious problems within Adventism that I have perceived. The view of a continuing binding authority of the covenant mediated by Moses is one of these doctrinal areas I believe they are in grave error. The root of the SDA determination to meet on Saturday is the problem, and endorsement by the authority attributed to Ellen White only makes it harder to break from that mold.

Thanks for the welcome!
Victor

 

[VictorC]

Even many MJs and other Sabbatarians don't believe that they are limited to attending church services on Saturday.

That is true in my experience as well, even with the congregations that lean toward requiring circumcision (they're the fringe, but they're out there!).

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

You can choose whatever church fellowship you want to.
We have lots of texts that I would have no trouble dragging out to show that we don't have the right to judge another servant of the Lord.

I would raise the question "why a sabbatarian fellowship?". One of the reasons it is so hard to find a comfortable home in any sabbatarian fellowship is because of the roots of the rationale that caused them to be sabbatarian in the first place. Most sabbatarians are so because of the belief that there is still a binding sabbath ordinance from a covenant long ago retired and replaced with a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6) mediated by Christ. In simple terms, sabbatarians are usually driven by the incorrect assertion that the ten commandments still have jurisdiction over their recipients (and Gentiles, as well).
... We have liberty, not a bondage to a day of assembly.

Bottom line is that I am non-denominational, and I don't place import on a day of the week.

Victor

It enjoys reading your posts Victor. Glad to have you here with us.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Thanks Victor. You don't seem to have been a SDA who has come to the conclusion that the SDA Church has false beliefs but you want to remain in it with the hope of changing it rather than you changing as a result of your new beliefs.

Curious -- bes you proposing a catch-22?
Namely, those that leave the (trad) SDA church bes condemned for doing so since (in your view) the (trad) SDA has the only truth.
BUT
those who remain in the (trad) SDA church bes condemned as well for staying around as some kind of "alien invaders" taking over.
WHOM then -- OUTSIDE of trad SDAs -- would you be willing NOT to condemn for their choice in this regard?

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

There are serious problems within Adventism that I have perceived. The view of a continuing binding authority of the covenant mediated by Moses is one of these doctrinal areas I believe they are in grave error.

They, of course, have all kinds of very clever ways of explaining that away. One of the trickiest being their whole shpiel about how the old covenant and the new covenant bes just one and the same "everlasting" covenant ... you seem pretty sharp Victor. Moriah would love to see you thoroughly debunk that particular chestnut. That and the whole nonsense about sanctification being an endless behavioral modification program for the flesh (they don't use those words but that bes the essence of the teaching).

 

[moicherie]

"Why I still choose the SDA Church instead of other sabbatarian churches"
Tell the world. Why?

Excuse me you are guest here - remember your manners. We dont have to tell you or the world anything

 

[VictorC]

They, of course, have all kinds of very clever ways of explaining that away. One of the trickiest being their whole shpiel about how the old covenant and the new covenant bes just one and the same "everlasting" covenant ... you seem pretty sharp Victor. Moriah would love to see you thoroughly debunk that particular chestnut. That and the whole nonsense about sanctification being an endless behavioral modification program for the flesh (they don't use those words but that bes the essence of the teaching).

Sounds like you've been through the mill with these folks yourself. Yes, I'm sure that you've also see the means of taking the ministration of death (as 2 Corinthians 3:7 calls it) and then placing it in a pretty box with fancy wrapping paper, and passing it off as "new". Uh, the contents are the same, and calling it "new" doesn't make the first covenant "new". It still carries a death penalty, just as Romans 3:19 would like to remind everyone.

A careful reading of Jeremiah 31:32 or Hebrews 8:9 will show that the new covenant isn't according to the one made at Sinai, and the following verses show that it causes the recipients to know God with no further need for instruction. There isn't any law that can accomplish that, and so I believe this is an allusion of His indwelling Spirit of adoption.

Frankly, the texts aren't specific about the law that is written into our hearts and minds.
However, they are specific about what the law written into us isn't, and it isn't the first covenant mediated by Moses, the ten commandments (Deuteronomy 4:13).

It doesn't take smarts to figure this out, and I'm not sharper than anyone else.
What I am is patient, and I desire to submit myself to what the Bible actually teaches, rather than force it to line up with "distinctives".

I enjoyed reading your comments - thanks for the warm welcome. I only have a few minutes that I was able to pop in, but wanted to add some thoughts while I had the chance.

Victor

 

[StormyOne]

welcome Victor, I think I remember seeing some of your stuff at CARM, hope you enjoy the dialog here....

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

One of the reasons it is so hard to find a comfortable home in any sabbatarian fellowship is because of the roots of the rationale that caused them to be sabbatarian in the first place. Most sabbatarians are so because of the belief that there is still a binding sabbath ordinance

Isn't that the very definition of a Sabbatarian?

 

[VictorC]

Isn't that the very definition of a Sabbatarian?

It is if you're looking for the ten commandments being the reason for sabbath-day assembly. I didn't define it as such, because there are a handful of people who have an appreciation for our Judaic roots and the tradition of meeting on the sabbath day.
We just don't have an ordinance that drives any particular day, which is the reason Colossians 2:16 reads:
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath.

You are astute in your observation that believing the Mosaic covenant is still binding is the reason nearly all sabbatarian sects are that way. Observing the fruit of a legally binding sabbath is indicative of much more serious problems at the theological level.

Victor

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

...congregations that lean toward requiring circumcision (they're the fringe, but they're out there!).

scary! do they do spot checks???

 

[VictorC]

welcome Victor, I think I remember seeing some of your stuff at CARM, hope you enjoy the dialog here....

Now that you mention it, I believe I have seen your posting name - but I don't remember if we crossed paths or not....
Thanks for your warm welcome!
I had given up on CF after the rule changes - I haven't determined how much effort this forum justifies, if the "traditional" brethren are hiding in their own location.

 

[VictorC]

scary! do they do spot checks???

They just look for the uncut hair at the front, like the Hasidic Jews you see in photos of the Wailing Wall...

 

[StormyOne]

Now that you mention it, I believe I have seen your posting name - but I don't remember if we crossed paths or not....
Thanks for your warm welcome!
I had given up on CF after the rule changes - I haven't determined how much effort this forum justifies, if the "traditional" brethren are hiding in their own location.

well we aren't hiding, nor will we discourage dialog.... looking forward to discussing more with you....

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Sounds like you've been through the mill with these folks yourself.

Oh wow havesy ever! :o Hey if you ever have like a spare 6 or 7 hours you bes not using and would like to hear the whole thing? ..... !!!!

... taking the ministration of death (as 2 Corinthians 3:7 calls it) and then placing it in a pretty box with fancy wrapping paper, and passing it off as "new". Uh, the contents are the same, and calling it "new" doesn't make the first covenant "new". It still carries a death penalty, just as Romans 3:19 would like to remind everyone.

A careful reading of Jeremiah 31:32 or Hebrews 8:9 will show that the new covenant isn't according to the one made at Sinai, and the following verses show that it causes the recipients to know God with no further need for instruction. There isn't any law that can accomplish that, and so I believe this is an allusion of His indwelling Spirit of adoption.

Wow we bes completely on the SAME page here indeed!!!
It bes so very refreshing to hear GOOD news being proclaimed.

It doesn't take smarts to figure this out, and I'm not sharper than anyone else.
What I am is patient, and I desire to submit myself to what the Bible actually teaches, rather than force it to line up with "distinctives".

Well and what else you bes: one whats not been programmed through slowly and gradually being indoctrinated into toxic soteriology that robs you of assurance, puts you back under the law measuring yourself all the time and getting more and more discouraged because you cannot see God "changing" you, forgetting of course how you BES changed ALREADY -- and then that whole vicious razor wire bear trap of the notion of "repentance not to be repented of" being the only real/sincere repentance (translate: it bes not enough to SEE sin for what it bes and feel contrite and sorry you did it -- you MUST in that moment somehow be able to magickally guarantee you shall never ever ever again make that specific error, sin, bad choice, whatever, never stumble or err on that point again, or you bes not "sincere") ... and from there it becomes like a rabid dog what chasies its tail going nowhere really fast and getsy dizzy till it makesy sick. Because from there you start to tear yourself to shreds trying to find that "hidden" sin you bes sure MUST be there causing all this, what big horrible secret about yourself you refuse to face, you try to dredge up the most hideous, denigrating, self-destroying way to view yourself you can imagine or muster, or thing of which to accuse yourself to make yourself seem a monster, a villian, because maybe if you face that you will be freed from this horrible torture of being trapped in this supposed "insincerity" of NOT being able to CAUSE YOURSELF TO STOP SINNING BY AN ACT OF WILL. and it does no good asksy God to make you sincere because if you supposedly bes not sincere and supposedly your lack of sincerity bes what stops Him from hearing you, then to ASK to be made sincere bes an insincere request from an insincere person what He will not hear anyway!!!

I enjoyed reading your comments - thanks for the warm welcome. I only have a few minutes that I was able to pop in, but wanted to add some thoughts while I had the chance.
Victor

It bes glad you bes here. It hears scary things about that CARM place so it bes not going there ever, but you don't seem vicious at all. You seem to be about GOOD news. That bes what ppls needs no matter where they dwell, on earth, under the earth, in the abyss, in a monastery. GOOD news. Liberty for the captives. Recovery of sight for the blind. Yes.

 

[VictorC]

well we aren't hiding, nor will we discourage dialog.... looking forward to discussing more with you....

My opinion is that the split into two groups was totally unnecessary and counter productive. CF doesn't have the emphasis on apologetics as CARM does, and the mentality behind the split harbors a departure from a singular view of the one body of Christ most Christians aspire to. That's what the "remnant" distinctives are reponsible for.

I actually got posts deleted and warnings because I violated rules regarding "outsiders", from posts written before those rules went into effect. But anyway I hope you're right, and that we can have meaningful dialog (dialogue for T&O) in this location.

Victor

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

They just look for the uncut hair at the front, like the Hasidic Jews you see in photos of the Wailing Wall...

oh NO what a vision you bes burnsy into its poor shattered brain!