Kerry strikes yet again... the ex is back...

[True-believer]

Luke:

Thanks so much for this message. The N.T. tells us that Israel never realized the Sabbath rest that God had intended for them. Hebrews 4 tells us that the Gospel brings Christians the realization of that Sabbath rest that the Israelites under the Old Covenant never achieved. Adventists attempt to use Hebrews 4 to show that Sabbath observance is binding on Christians, but even a feeble attempt to really understand the passage indicates that it does not say that at all. The Sabbath, a concept that Jews understood to be a rest, was used as a symbol.

The Gospel is so powerful. Knowing that our salvation is secure in Christ not only increases our love for Him and kills our desire for sin, but it gives us a peace of mind that only can be found in that Gospel. You can face death, knowing that despite your brokenness, you will see Jesus' face very soon.

The Christian who understands the Gospel will experience that rest every minute of every day, thus experiencing the Sabbath "rest" that God had intended. And any day of the week, including the Jewish Sabbath, is a wonderful day to devote to meditation, prayer, and worship.

To change the subject, I am flabbergasted that the Adventist Forum posted my book and the book by D. M. Canright. Both articles have information that the Adventist Church has done its best to suppress for the last 100 years. If the General Conference ever finds out about it, and it will, the Adventist Forum may find itself unable to use the name Adventist any more. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I am not following the forum threads. When everyone has read the paper and they have a list of objections for me to respond to, the forum can contact me at this e-mail address. Perhaps at that time I can prepare a rebuttal that can be posted like the papers.

Already I have revised my manuscript to explain why the fact that a small number of Christians groups continued to keep the Sabbath for hundreds of additional years is not surprising or important in this issue. Discussing the three approaches Dr. Bacchiocchi used to try to evade the fact that Christians abandoned Sabbath-keeping as a result of studying the writings of Paul, here is my new addition to the book:

STRATEGY #3 – PROVE THAT A FEW CHRISTIAN GROUPS STILL KEPT THE SABBATH

Like almost all apologists for Sabbatarianism, Bacchiocchi documents the fact that a number of Christian groups continued to keep the Sabbath for many centuries beyond the 140 AD nearly universal abandonment of the practice. No anti-Sabbatarian writer, including myself, disputes this fact. However, does this fact really prove anything in favor of Sabbatarianism? Using a little logic, if the Pauline theory of Sabbath abandonment is correct, and it is, there is nothing wrong with Christians keeping the Sabbath. This is true when viewed from more than one angle. Paul teaches that no day is sacred in itself any longer. It doesn't matter what day Christians worship on in the slightest. Paul did not condemn the community of Christians at Rome for keeping the Sabbath. Christians keep Sunday, not because they think any kind of sacredness was transferred from Sabbath to Sunday, but because it just happened to turn out that way. They could not have their meetings on Sabbath if they were going to go to the synagogues to witness to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. They migrated to Sunday because this day held special significance-- not sacredness- to them because it was the day Jesus came forth from the grave. Problems the Sabbath only happen when Christian groups try to require its observance in plain defiance of what God said through Paul in Colossians 2:14-17, and try to make it a requirement for salvation.

It is for the above reasons that the burden of proof is on the Sabbatarians. They must prove that Sabbath-keeping remained the norm for Christians for a significantly extended period of time after the death of Paul. This is NOT what happened. There is abundant evidence that Sabbath abandonment was swift, that it became the norm for Christians within several decades of the death of Paul, and that some Christians groups never seemed to be be able to grasp the full Gospel and clung to Sabbath-keeping. It is not surprising to us anti-Sabbatarians that the ERROR of Sabbatarianism would be rediscovered from time to time. As Robert D. Brinsmead pointed out so very well in his essay, “Sabbatarianism Re-examined,” the Christian groups that kept the Sabbath tended to morph into serious heresy, like the Ebionites and the Gnostics.

For a summary of early Christian groups and church leaders to maintained small pockets of Sabbath observance, this web page is very useful and demonstrates good research practices:

http://www.remnantofgod.org/sabhist.htm

God bless!

Kerry

[SivartM]

To change the subject, I am flabbergasted that the Adventist Forum posted my book and the book by D. M. Canright. Both articles have information that the Adventist Church has done its best to suppress for the last 100 years. If the General Conference ever finds out about it, and it will, the Adventist Forum may find itself unable to use the name Adventist any more. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I... don't think you quite understand, as I'm pretty sure that

1. They were posted by a member of the forum and not officially by the forum owner, and

2. They were not posted in a positive light.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Luke Adam Goss

To change the subject, I am flabbergasted that the Adventist Forum posted my book and the book by D. M. Canright. Both articles have information that the Adventist Church has done its best to suppress for the last 100 years. If the General Conference ever finds out about it, and it will, the Adventist Forum may find itself unable to use the name Adventist any more. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I... don't think you quite understand, as I'm pretty sure that

1. They were posted by a member of the forum and not officially by the forum owner, and

2. They were not posted in a positive light.

I find it hard to believe that Kerry would be flabbergasted. My parents had Canright's book's in our home back in the 1960s and I read it when I was in high school. Kerry hasn't said anything in his "book" that hasn't been said before. There are many books already written which answer all of those objections.

There's absolutely nothing there that would make the SDA church or knowledgeable members feel threatened. Canright and his arguments are as old as the hills, so the fact that Kerry would continue to point to Canright as being of concern to anyone shows a lack of knowledge. As a matter fact, Canright wrote articles in favor of the Sabbath that are better than the things that he wrote opposing it.

[Bravus]

I have to admit I'm a little worried at the... ardor with which Kerry is pursuing Luke. I don't think anyone has anything to fear from these arguments, but kicking back and letting Luke make up his own mind rather than following up with multiple long emails a day would seem healthier as an approach...

[Bravus]

I was also wondering (Mr Stan) whether perhaps a new subforum might be needed for this whole discussion - it seems to be rather taking over Town Hall at the moment. Again, not that the arguments are anything to fear, but just on the basis of signal/noise ratio.

[John317]

I agree with both of your main points here, Bravus.

[Joe_in_RP]

Why isn't Kerry here himself? Is he a afraid of something?

[phkrause]

I would say that he is not a member but he could easily become one.

pk