Have the demands of God's holy law been made void?

[John317]

Ben,

I have many study Bibles and every single one of them speak of the differences between the moral, ceremonial, and civil laws. The writings of both Catholic and Protestant leaders do the same. All the best known and respected Bible commentators and theological dictionaries also speak of these catagories. It is one of the few things that almost everyone in the various Christian denominations agree on. And for good reason: there is overwhelming Biblical evidence that it is true.

What, then, is the evidence that the seventh-day Sabbath is not part of the Old Testament ceremonies?

Well, for one thing, the weekly Sabbath was made by God in Eden, before Adam fell.

None of the ceremonies were made until after Adam sinned, because the ceremonies were made in order to point to the death of the Messiah for sin. God blessed and made holy the seventh day of the week before sin, and he rested on it, even though he obviously was not physically tired. Therefore it was clearly a spiritual rest. (See Genesis 2:1-3.)

Now Mark 2:27 says that the Sabbath was made for mankind's benefit, so it makes sense that God would not have kept it a secret for thousands of years until the time of Moses.

Clearly there is nothing ceremonial about commanding people not to steal or not to worship false gods, etc. In other words, there is nothing ceremonial about the Ten Commandments. The fourth commandment relates to a moral obligation human creatures have of giving their time to their Creator as He has commanded. (It is similar to the command that He gave to Adam and Eve not to eat of a single tree in the midst of the Garden of Eden.)

Exodus 16, which took place about a month before the giving of the Ten Commandments, shows that the people already knew of the Sabbath at that time. God made it clear that the Sabbath fell on what we call Saturday, the day before the first day of the week.

The followers of Jesus kept the Sabbath after Jesus' death. Luke 23:56. This shows that Jesus never told them anything about a change in the weekly Sabbath to take place after his death.

Acts 13 and many other chapters in Acts shows that Paul knew nothing about an abolition of the weekly Sabbath. Both gentiles and Jews kept the Sabbath together. Church historians tell us that most Christians were continuing to keep the Sabbath up to the 4th century AD, except in Alexandria and Rome.

Each of the Ten Commandments were known in principle before Sinai, and all of them are repeated either exactly or in principle in the New Testament, including the fourth commandment.

Matthew 24:20 certainly shows that Jesus expected his disciples to be concerned enouph about keeping the Sabbath that He instructed them to pray that they would not need to flee Jerusalem on the Sabbath day. This occurred about 40 years after Jesus' death when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman army in 70 AD.

On the other hand, the ceremonies which foreshadowed the death of Christ came to an end. 1 Corinthians 7:19 says that while circumcision is not important any longer, yet keeping God's commandments is everything. This shows clearly there is a distinction between the ceremonial laws related to circumcision and the commandments of God.

Isaiah 56 invites non-Jews to keep the Sabbath, and Isaiah 66: 23 says that on the new earth, all the saved will keep the Sabbath from week to week. Won't it be wonderful to keep the Sabbath with the Creator? Why not get into the habit of worshiping Him on His holy day every week now? Jim

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

The Law of MOses was made for Jews and nobody else. The Law of Moses was NOT given to the gentiles, nor meant for them!!

Ben

---

[:"red"] "...but a Jew [is] he who is [so] inwardly, and circumcision [is] of the heart, in spirit, not in letter, of which the praise is not of men, but of God. " [/] Romans 2:29 YLT

[:"red"] "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." [/] Galatians 3:29 KJV

In the land of free will, you have the right to deny these promises yoking the NC Christians with the OC promises, Ben,

but you would be doing it at the peril of your soul, for believing on the Lord Jesus Christ means believing what He inspired His servants to say.

[:"red"] "And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." [/] 1 Corinthians 10:2-5 KJV

Keep looking up!

[benherndon]

This is dragging up a quite old discussion again....and I don't have time to get deeply into this right now.

Let me say, John 317, that there are so many questionable conclusions in your post that it would take a while to comment on them all. For one, I don't believe there are divisions of the Law of Moses into moral, ceremonial, civil and health, etc, laws. Correct me listing the texts if you will, please....I am willing to learn. The Bible speaks of the law and never of its divisions that I can recall right now, at least...go ahead and remind me.

Show me some text where those who were not Jews were under the Mosaic Law.

Specifically, John317, please take the time to interpret

2Cor 3:6ff, Gal 3:24,25, Eph 2:14,15, Col 2:14, 1Tim 1:9, Rom 14:5. I will listen to what you have to say. And, I can judge from your responses to those texts alone where you are getting your conclusions.

It because you have allowed other sources to interpret for you that you have been partially leds astray.

How many times in the past 5 years have you read the Bible through cover to cover...page 1 through 1000? And how many times besides those times have you read the New Testament through cover to cover.. All those reads should be limited to just the Bible and there should be not other spiritual author study while you read the Bible. As you read the Bible consider every single point of spiritual teaching you have experienced and put it to the test of what you are reading.

Do not read Moses as if he was writing a daily journal. This was all written after it happened and retrospectively. True that about 3 weeks before going to Sinai they Israelites were shown the Sabbath and how to keep it. It does not show or give evidence that they had kept the Sabbath for years and thousands of years before they got to Mt Sinai. Read it again....don't make assumptions....just go by the words.

2Cor 3 says those who continue to read Moses after Christ has come have a veil over their minds hindering their comprehension of His Grace.....right? Go read it again. How is that vail removed?

Its 3:20 a.m......for other reasons than this I was unable to get to sleep. I got on the computer for another reason totally and was surprised, though, to find this old discussion had been resurrected.

Dispensational theology IS Biblical and it is correct, if I understand dispensational theology. When Christ was crucified and resurrected, that was the total and dramatic end of the entire Jewish system of religion!! The Mosaic Era had passed! WE have been in the Christian ERA ever since 33 A.D. Same God, but Christ was the 'new' representation in human form. God didn't change....but He changed the way He dealt with sin and sinners.

I don't wish to argue....but you're not really prepared to intelligently discuss the Bible's teachings until you have read the Bible through over and over again. If you were raised SDA and educated SDA it will take you longer than usual to correct some few aspects of your teaching and learn exactly what the Bible says.

The OT was not written while knowing what was eventually to happen in NT times. However, NT was written after OT times had happened and were well known. The OT peoples were not aware of Christ and what He would say and do. The NT peoples knew all about the OT peoples and their times and teachings.....but Christ and HIs chosen NT writers explained things and taught differently even though they had lived in the transition times. People need a trnsition time to go through when there is a change. People do not take sudden dramatic new world of thought instantly. It takes time to 'soak in' and the NT shows that time and some of its struggles.

Be sure to read the NT through cover to cover many times and while you do that don't read any other books on the subject. Otherwise you will not get the message of the NT.

Good night.....Ben (not spell checked or corrected...sorry!)

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "How many times in the past 5 years have you read the Bible through cover to cover...page 1 through 1000?"

I think that I see an implication there?

Well, I will respond. The last time that I read the Bible through, cover to cover, was. . . . let me think. Oh, yes, it was in the year 2005.

Granted, I am falling down on my Bible reading. There was a time when I read it through, cover to cover, three times a year. But, I have not done that for several years.

We shall have to see what I do this year, and which version I pick. I often pick a verson that I have not read yet.

In 2005, I read the NKJV.

[benherndon]

Yes, good on you, Gregory. I've known many, not a few, SDAs that have never read the Bible through. At a recent LLU Class reunion where each member gets up and tells their personal/family life stories since the last reunion, three of the men spoke so intently about their spiritual journey, working with their church evangelism, and contacts with others. After the meeting broke up many folks stand around and chat with others and in small groups for a while before leaving the building. After all, at our age, we may never see each other again.

Well.....those three men I mentioned were chatting with each other voicing their experiences to each other again. I sauntered over and listened for a while.....we have known each other well since beginning med school in 1943. After I listened for a while I asked if they'd read the Bible through recently? Two said they had never read it through cover to cover and the last one said he did it once while in college, but, he was thinking of doing it again. (Just imagine being SDA all your life and having never read the Bible through cover to cover!!) Well, I was, myself, in the group that had read it through only once.......until my wife was bringing home this 'heretical stuff' from her

Women's Bible Study Fellowship studies---in the mid- 1970's.

Then, I, remembering that EGW had told her contemporaries IF they had read their Bibles she wouldn't have written the Testimonies....I hit the Good Book full time almost. I've read 15 different versions, some several times, but finally had to settle on just one version in order to retain the ability to look up texts again and remember where they were located easier----so I settled on the NIV. I still read it through every couple of years but I always read the NT through a time or two every year in various versions. In my experience and interpretation they all say exactly the same thing with extremely rare unimportant exceptions. I only read those versions widely accepted within the broad frame of Christianity as being peer reviewed and accepted as authentic correct translations.

So, we are, today, living in the Christian Era.....we are not today living in the Mosaic Era!!

This is important to realize. Both were and are important....but, the NT, which speaks to the Christian Era (OT does not!),is the authority for Christianity. Old Covenant era was different in several important ways than this New Covenant era is. The main difference is that the New Covenant era is based on the actual words and actions of Christ, who was the exact same as God, His and our Father, and He spoke directly within ear shot of thousands of humans. No angel or other intermediary bore His message. He personally gave it to us. And....He chose those writers of the Christian New Testament to elaborate on what He had said and done!

Unfortunately, many of our publications do not reveal the difference between the OT and NT eras, in my HUMBLE opinion..( )..and there is a semicultic reason. Seeking to modify that along with a growing segment of active SDAs, and some split-off groups, I have chosen to stay with the parent group and seeking to be a small voice attempting to modify that old stance. I think those who concentrate on the Bible alone, as their source of spiritual guidance, will eventually see the cause of the problem.

But, let nobody change their beliefs based on what I say. Discover it for yourselves by limiting your spiritual reading for the most part to the Bible, and particularly the NT, alone!

In my opinion Christians do not need to seek to understand every detail of the future by spending a lot of time in Daniel and Revelation. The 'future' for each of us is right now!!! Knowing whether or not the symbolisms of Revelation, for example, are this or that is not very important to our current life and living of the Christian believer's Way of Salvation today...right now, while you live this short life doing good deeds, loving and caring for your family, friends and others you come in contact with.

Ben

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

It because you have allowed other sources to interpret for you that you have been partially leds astray.

---

Oh, no. Here we go again. You are going down the same road you have in the past. You have no idea about this man's study background, but because his post sounds like something you don't approve of, you attempt to minimalize his contribution. You tried that with me recently, but then excused yourself as being too busy!

Quote:

---

As you read the Bible consider every single point of spiritual teaching you have experienced and put it to the test of what you are reading.

---

And, as I posed this question to you before, I do so again: what if, after doing that, we reach conclusions with which you do not agree? Will you continue to attempt to dismiss them with the types of insinuations you have made above?

Quote:

---

Do not read Moses as if he was writing a daily journal. This was all written after it happened and retrospectively. True that about 3 weeks before going to Sinai they Israelites were shown the Sabbath and how to keep it. It does not show or give evidence that they had kept the Sabbath for years and thousands of years before they got to Mt Sinai. Read it again....don't make assumptions....just go by the words.

---

By the words? Well, it was written in Hebrew. How about the Hebrew words. Do you know what they are? Do you know what they mean?

By the way, you are in strong disagreement with Jonathan Edwards. Go online and check out his Sermon XIII (undated) On the Perpetuity and Change of the Sabbath. (two parts) He predated EGW and the Adventist church, BTW. So, I assume you won't try to suggest that HE was influenced by the SOP.

Quote:

---

2Cor 3 says those who continue to read Moses after Christ has come have a veil over their minds hindering their comprehension of His Grace.....right?

---

Balderdash. Paul does not suggest that continuing to read Moses means that someone has a veil over his face. Go back and reread the passage again, carefully.

Quote:

---

Dispensational theology IS Biblical and it is correct, if I understand dispensational theology. When Christ was crucified and resurrected, that was the total and dramatic end of the entire Jewish system of religion!! The Mosaic Era had passed! WE have been in the Christian ERA ever since 33 A.D. Same God, but Christ was the 'new' representation in human form. God didn't change....but He changed the way He dealt with sin and sinners.

---

Do you really understand dispensationalism? What is your familiarity with dispensationalism as taught at DTS and Moody?

Quote:

---

I don't wish to argue....but you're not really prepared to intelligently discuss the Bible's teachings until you have read the Bible through over and over again.

---

You continue to make demeaning assumptions about those who reach different conclusions than you do. That is dialectic, and a debate technique. However, it is quite inaccurate, and needs to be exposed as such.

BTW, last time we exchanged posts, I was looking forward to some serious discussions on several topics. However, you said that responsibilities to your wife required your time. I assume that now, you have more time? If so, then let's go for it.

Quote:

---

Be sure to read the NT through cover to cover many times and while you do that don't read any other books on the subject. Otherwise you will not get the message of the NT.

---

That is a very unhealthy piece of advice, and presupposes that a person has an infallible line of communication with Heaven. Unfortunately, we don't, and sometimes there is wisdom in counsel. And, by all means, DON'T try to gain an understanding of the NT by reading the NLB!!!!! That is horribly inaccurate, and doesn't even profess to be a serious translation. It is riddled with the theological views of the translators.

Looking forward to hearing back from you.

Cheers.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

**God didn't change....but He changed the way He dealt with sin and sinners.

but you're not really prepared to intelligently discuss the Bible's teachings until you have read the Bible through over and over again.

---

Too long a treatise in describing assumed weaknesses to refute each one individually. Thought this one might fit in principle.

[:"red"] "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending...... , durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." [/]

Jude 1:9 KJV

As to the first comment ** I would have to agree with this

but unsure how far to carry it, just as I believe our Father meets us where we each are individually, although His principles never change, no matter in what dispensation we believe ourselves.

It has been noticed that certain referenced Scriptures are used to refute or annul others. Since God always speaks truth, whether through Jesus or His servants, if we find ourselves having to drop off Scriptures in order to bring intelligent design from God's revealed will, it remains for us to continue seeking the knowledge and wisdom of God until such time as we see each Word spoken as strenghthening

the other in a revelation of the love of God for all of His creation.

[:"red"] "For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast." [/] Psalm 33:9 KJV

[:"red"] "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. " [/] John 4:22 NASB

[:"red"] "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." [/] Isaiah 55:11 KJV

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

*But, let nobody change their beliefs based on what I say.

**Knowing whether or not the symbolisms of Revelation, for example, are this or that is not very important to our current life and living of the Christian believer's Way of Salvation today

Ben

---

Re: * Advice worth listening to.

[:"red"] "...Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. " [/] Romans 14:5 NASB

Re: ** Perhaps you might like to reconsider your position, Ben.

[:"red"][THIS IS] the revelation of Jesus Christ [His unveiling of the divine mysteries]. God gave it to Him to disclose and make known to His bond servants certain things which must shortly and speedily come to pass in their entirety. And He sent and communicated it through His angel (messenger) to His bond servant John,

Who has testified to and vouched for all that he saw [in his visions], the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Blessed (happy, to be envied) is the man who reads aloud [in the assemblies] the word of this prophecy; and blessed (happy, to be envied) are those who hear [it read] and who keep themselves true to the things which are written in it [heeding them and laying them to heart], for the time [for them to be fulfilled] is near. " [/]

Bold mine LHC

[benherndon]

Arch, you're a good man, obviously, but you need a little course in PR to accompany your evangelism and dealing with others who know a little about the Bible too---specially since you claim to be Adventist.

In re: Hebrew and Greek....specially the latter. I've watched your interchange with others who have studied Greek too. There is seldom any agreement between the two of you, whoever you're discussing it with. That doesn't increase my trust of Seminary-student levels of Greek knowledge.

Yes, I am a caregiver to my wife who was more weak and sickly for several months recently---in and out of the hospital for tests and treatments. She's better now, thankfully...but not well enough for a long discussion with you. It takes me a long time to write posts.

I stand by what I said. If you wish to show me from the Bible what I've said is wrong I would welcome it....but with your fragile attitude and demeanor---and mine, I am a little hesitant as well as not having the time. I have frequently instructed those who read my posts to test what I say by the Bible and told them to not believe me if they themseleves can't find it confirmed in the Bible. Have you frequently said that to your other discussants?

The Ten Commandments say nothing about how to get along nicely with others on a daily basis except in the matters of despicable sins. Christ said to believe in God with all our hearts and to get along with others using the Golden Rule. In fact in one place it says getting along with others nicely is the fulfillment of the whole law!!!

I don't do it always right either...so it may not be good for the two of us to discuss matters until all our hormones have settled down a little more..... ...there's a good Spanish term for it. I don't know the anatomical word for it in Greek....do you? If so let me have it....I might have some fun with the info.

Ben

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

But lets face it most keep these laws out of fear - fear of a ticket or going to jail.

---

A presupposition usually arrived at by a person who believes everyone else is motivated the same as they themselves.

[:"red"] "Love.... is ever ready to believe the best of every person." [/] 1 Corinthians 13:7 AMP

[benherndon]

My posting is a my attempt to get people in our church to read the Bible for themselves and interpret it for themselves so they confidently know what the Bible itself teaches....not just what somebody who has read it tells them what it says.

Carry on.........

Ben

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

My posting is a my attempt to get people in our church to read the Bible for themselves

---

A worthy occupation, Ben. For what it's worth you have my admiration in that respect.

Quote:

---

and interpret it for themselves

---

In my estimation, other than taking another man's interpretation, that can be dangerous.

[:"red"] "...this first knowing, that no prophecy (declared will and purpose of God; another translation)of the Writing doth come of private exposition, " [/]

2 Pet 1:20 YLT

Quote:

---

so they confidently know what the Bible itself teaches....not just what somebody who has read it tells them what it says.

Carry on.........Ben

---

Positive influence.

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

Arch, you're a good man, obviously, but you need a little course in PR to accompany your evangelism and dealing with others who know a little about the Bible too---specially since you claim to be Adventist.

---

Of course, you would have no way of knowing how I conduct evangelism, and what response I get. This is a discussion forum, primarily, although some evangelistic opportunities have arisen.

In your case, quite honestly, I have observed several trends in your posts which cause a reaction in me: firstly, a type of arrogance, and of deprecating others who see things differently than you do; and, you convey the impression that you have superior knowledge, and that the rest of us need to study the Bible more, so that we will see the light which you claim to see. Secondly, very honestly, I see sloppy workmanship being palmed off as scholarship. That REALLY gets to me!!!!

I do welcome, and enjoy, serious Bible discussions with genuine seekers after truth, whatever their level of Bible knowledge. It is particularly enjoyable to discuss with those who are very knowledgeable about the Bible. I have found that typically, those who truly are knowledgeable, evince an attitude of humility and openess. It is always refreshing to see that.

Quote:

---

In re: Hebrew and Greek....specially the latter. I've watched your interchange with others who have studied Greek too. There is seldom any agreement between the two of you, whoever you're discussing it with. That doesn't increase my trust of Seminary-student levels of Greek knowledge.

---

Once again, the issue is one of sloppy scholarship--a serious concern of mine. And, making certain that someone who exegetes, provides footnotes.

Quote:

---

I don't do it always right either...so it may not be good for the two of us to discuss matters until all our hormones have settled down a little more.

---

Perhaps that is where you are at presently. I have a couple of suggestions for you. Firstly, stop attempting to characterize someone else's study, background and work. Assume the best about others who are studying the Bible. Simply ask them for Scriptural documentation. Secondly, be accurate in what you present as Bible truth. If you do those two things, you will have no quarrel from me.

Regards, Dave

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

"...this first knowing, that no prophecy (declared will and purpose of God; another translation)of the Writing doth come of private exposition, "

2 Pet 1:20 YLT

---

>>>I don't want to let this pass. This text is often used in our circles to neutralize or negate interpretations of the Bible that differ somewhat from traditionally accepted SDA intepretations based on 'the writings'. The reference in this text in 2 Peter 1:19,20 about 'private interpretation' is NOT referring to the attempt of anybody in read and understand scripture, either OT or NT, in the context of the rest of the scriptures. This text, commentators agree, pretty much refers to those who have false prophecies. See Jer 23. It does not refer to you or me reading the Bible and coming up with what it says and what it means--especially when we have checked with each other like it says to do in 1Cor 14. We do not need some organization telling us what the Bible says or not in order to foster their own beliefs and teachings unless they too agree with what scripture plainly says. Nobody should try to make scripture say what it doesn't--- even Dan and Revelation theories to the contrary notwithstanding---not that we have, necessarily, but we know that has happened.

Peter is speaking a lot about false prophets and false interpretation of prophecy AND about prophecies that come from the mind of the person rather than having been revealed by God to that person!!!...but it is no way indicates that any individual reading the Bible is prevented from accepting what he reads in the way he responsibly reads it, viz., in the light of the rest of the Bible. Just because I, for example, might take a different view that Sr. White did on a certain subject of scripture does not mean that she was right and I was wrong. I'm about as educated in the ability to read scripture as most others here (Is that being arrogant??)...and they as well as me!! So we can read and then discuss and compare. Arrogance is not the issue, Arch.

If EGW didn't think we as individuals could read scripture and determine the correct interpretation, why did she write the long article in the Signs of Times, 3/21/1906? Please read it, to see what I mean! Or, why would she write that we must not quote her, not ever quote her until we knew the Bible very very well, if she didn't expect us to understand it? She did that twice at the same meeting with the GC brethren in Battle Creek. Here is what she said: "Don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you to ever to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible. It is full of meat, full of fatness. Carry it out in your life, and you will know more Bible than you know now." Spalding/Magan Collection p 174 (She is telling me, yes me, that I can read the Bible and I don't have to have her books open beside me to be able to understand what the Bible is saying to me.)

But...remember to interpret scripture only in the context of the rest of scripture....it must agree with itself and does so(!) in the context of itself under the circumstances it describes in itself...(if you can figure out that sentence. )

Arch, accuses me of arrogance. I deny that with great humility-- ---no, seriously! Was I 'arrogant' when I attempted to diagnose my former patient's illnesses? Was I arrogant when I instructed them about what I thought should be done about their illnesses? I don't think so. Is everybody, who tries to tell one how to find the location in the town he is looking for---is he being arrogant. Yes, there are a great number of people who are SDAs that have not read the Bible very much!!! I was one of those until I was about 55 yrs old....even though I was educated well over 20 yrs in Adventism....even since birth!!! But, challenged by my own wife, I decided to follow our leader in this church, Sr. White!! So, I took down my bibles and read them through.... testing every believe I ever had as I went...over and over again.... and checking them against 'the writings' for verification of the writings and of EGW's own interpretation of the Bible.

I found it difficult to believe EVERYTHING she said/wrote was other than her own opinion as a person. Just because she had more insight than many others of her generation does not mean that she has more insight than anybody else who ever lived before or after. I don't think she meant that, either. I've read a lot, a whole lot of EGW, and had most of the books including the compilations of everything she wrote in the Review and the Signs. My wife and I were serious students as laypersons.

Was that being arrogant!!! No, I was seeking and in seeking and cross checking with Sr. White and with other authorities on Scripture, I was able for the first time in my life correlate most all of scripture with itself...and to be constantly on guard against this 'private interpretation' that one can be so loosely accused of. When I found some SDA authority or, very rarely, some other church's authority, I would question them to see how far off I might be getting. After many years I was able to confidently read the English versions of the Bible and come to pretty sound conclusions as to the applicability of most of the scriptures to my life and my desire/attempt at living of the Christian life. That does not mean that I practiced it at all times correctly...or certainly not perfectly. I was a 'studied' surgeon....and I was a studied believer in the Bible, too. No---not arrogant 'studied' but, just, 'studied'. And, I never thought I was the only 'studied' layperson, either....but I was one of the few when you consider that there were from 300 to 4000 members of the various churches I attended over my 83 yrs.

But, there are some two or three beliefs of Adventists that are very poorly supported by the scriptures....not only in my opinion but that of many other Biblically knowledgeable people of our own church and, of course, most of the other Christian churches.

It is from that standpoint, or point of view, that I speak/write on this Forum. Adventism is a good church and religion....but it is not the only 'good church and religion' like it is sometimes presented as being! IMO, all churches should always seek to present the Bible without their own peculiar 'private interpretations'which may be the idea of their founders but not based on the whole context of scripture upon repeated reexamination. Most denominations were founded by people who did have 'private interpretations!!' That's precisely why we have so many different denominations today!!!

Take the Sabbath. Traditionally SDAs who work on the Sabbath were not good SDAs and if not already SDAs could not be baptized in our church. Also, those who make any exception to what Sr. White writes or is said to write are considered not good SDAs. Both of those convictions are against Bible instruction on living the Christian life! I will say it again....both of those positions are poorly supported by scripture!

There is no reason the Tow Truck driver who must take 'call' and work some Sabbaths should not be baptised into Christ by our preachers in our church!! Am I, a physician, the only one given permission to 'work' on Sabbath? ... and the Tow truck driver or ambulance driver, or policeman/fireman, or a hundred others....are they not also given permission to do what is needed by mankind on Sabbath? You want your telephones to work on Sabbath in your church? You want the firemen standing by in case the church catches on fire on the Sabbath? Let's get wise, here. This is 2006 A.D. This is not 1500 B.C.(or whenever) around Mt Sinai some 3500 yrs ago! Look at the changes in this world and its society political and otherwise in the last 150 yrs!

Does Sr. White have the only authority or the only ability to interpret scripture? .... and cannot we read it for ourselves and come to a somewhat different conclusion on some points maybe? Is Sr. White the 'end' of Biblical understanding and conclusion?? I don't think so, Pardon Me!! I respect her but I don't believe she is the only correct exegeter of scripture!! I think she was sincere but was she ALWAYS right on in every detail---not having much of an education and, get this, living well over a hundred years ago before telephones, cars, modern toilets and airplanes capable of flying around the world in 2-3 days??!!

That's why I think she should be considered "Pastoral" and not "near-Canonical" in her statements.

And....once again, if youm,, Arch know more about Greek translating into English than the peer reviewed translators we have....please write me a letter in ancient Greek and let me have some other Greek authors check out your 'authority' such that you are able to critique those peer reviewed translators. Is not knowledge of Greek desirable to confirm or elaborate favorably upon the translations as they are given by those 'professionals'....rather than try to make them say something differently than their translations reflect? Seminary knowledge of Greek, I think, was probably taught to confirm and possibly elaborate upon why the translator translated as he did. Seminary Greek was probably not intended, I suspect, so that the student could 'correct' the professional translator who is peer reviewed and 'accepted' as essentially correct. I was never taught German or French in order to correct anybody else's German or French!!

There is a differnence in 'confidence' in reading the Scriptures versus being 'arrogant' about one's opinion of what they say! The Bible is a whole big book with a consistent message about the way to salvation through Christ...but it doesn't begin that way in the mind of those ancient peoples. I don't think Abraham had a mental view of Christ lying in a manger in the barn...or even saw Christ on the Cross. Do you? He believed God but he didn't "see" Christ as a member of the 'Trinity'.....he didn't see the 'transfiguration' experience, either. We can read about them. Abraham could not read about them.

Now....you can have the last words....because I'm not going to comment on this thread again no matter what is said by others. If anybody wants to contact me for negative or positive comments expecting me to answer.....send a PM, or, email me at []benjamen_herndon@sbcglobal.net[/]

God bless you all, and, have a good day!!................Ben

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

Was I 'arrogant' when I attempted to diagnose my former patient's illnesses? Was I arrogant when I instructed them about what I thought should be done about their illnesses? I don't think so.

---

That may be a source of the problem. I have observed that individuals in certain professions--notably physicians, R.N.'s, and some others--often tend to be quite prescriptive and ready to give instruction about quite a range of activities outside their professions--no doubt because they are accustomed to giving instructions. In reality, expertise in one area does not bestow expertise in other areas. But, the habit and mindset is ingrained.

Quote:

---

So, I took down my bibles and read them through.... testing every believe I ever had as I went...over and over again.... and checking them against 'the writings' for verification of the writings and of EGW's own interpretation of the Bible. I found it difficult to believe EVERYTHING she said/wrote was other than her own opinion as a person.

---

I have done that also. I have found that Sr. White's writings are in harmony with Scripture. I also recognized the voice of God speaking through her writings.

Quote:

---

But, there are some two or three beliefs of Adventists that are very poorly supported by the scriptures

---

That simply is not the case. The Fundamental Bible doctrines of the SDA church are solidly supported by Scripture, in fact are the direct teaching of Scripture. I know, because I have not only carefully studied them myself. Beyond that, they have been tested in the crucible of vigorous discussion with Christian ministers, scholars and laymen. I have personally participated in these discussions, so I know this from firsthand experience.

Quote:

---

Take the Sabbath. Traditionally SDAs who work on the Sabbath were not good SDAs and if not already SDAs could not be baptized in our church. Also, those who make any exception to what Sr. White writes or is said to write are considered not good SDAs. Both of those convictions are against Bible instruction on living the Christian life! I will say it again....both of those positions are poorly supported by scripture!

---

You are making rhetorical statements here, without Scriptural support. Actually, the Bible speaks very clearly about both items which you mention. The Bible says not to work on God's Sabbath, the seventh day. And, the Bible says to believe, and give heed to God's prophets.

Quote:

---

There is no reason the Tow Truck driver who must take 'call' and work some Sabbaths should not be baptised into Christ by our preachers in our church!! Am I, a physician, the only one given permission to 'work' on Sabbath? ... and the Tow truck driver or ambulance driver, or policeman/fireman, or a hundred others....are they not also given permission to do what is needed by mankind on Sabbath? You want your telephones to work on Sabbath in your church? You want the firemen standing by in case the church catches on fire on the Sabbath? Let's get wise, here. This is 2006 A.D. This is not 1500 B.C.(or whenever) around Mt Sinai some 3500 yrs ago! Look at the changes in this world and its society political and otherwise in the last 150 yrs!

---

That is a slippery slope to start sliding down. A case could be made for most any job to be needed seven days a week. However, in doing so, you would make of no effect the plain teaching of the Word of God: "In it thou shalt not do ANY work." The Bible speaks plainly. We need to follow the Bible as it reads.

Quote:

---

Does Sr. White have the only authority or the only ability to interpret scripture? .... and cannot we read it for ourselves and come to a somewhat different conclusion on some points maybe?

---

"Interpret Scripture?" That can make Scripture of private interpretion. The Bible is not difficult to understand. Its teachings are clearly stated. A person should test the work of a prophet by Scripture. EGW's writings and work for God, pass the test of Scripture and are in harmony with Scripture.

Quote:

---

Is not knowledge of Greek desirable to confirm or elaborate favorably upon the translations as they are given by those 'professionals'....rather than try to make them say something differently than their translations reflect? Seminary knowledge of Greek, I think, was probably taught to confirm and possibly elaborate upon why the translator translated as he did. Seminary Greek was probably not intended, I suspect, so that the student could 'correct' the professional translator who is peer reviewed and 'accepted' as essentially correct.

---

Greek was and is taught so that the student might be able to study it for himself. Many times, translators interpret according to their doctrinal beliefs, and thus commit errors. It is very important to double check their work.

Cordially, Dave

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

Quote:

---

"...this first knowing, that no prophecy (declared will and purpose of God; another translation)of the Writing doth come of private exposition, "

2 Pet 1:20 YLT

---

>>>I don't want to let this pass. This text is often used in our circles to neutralize or negate interpretations of the Bible that differ somewhat from traditionally accepted SDA intepretations based on 'the writings'. Ben

---

[:"red"] "For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it [to do so--it never came by human impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit" [/] 2 Peter 1:21 AMP

Doesn't seem hard to understand to me, even without a lot of explanation to make it say something other than what it's saying.

[:"red"] "

And Jesus answering said to them, `Take heed that no one may lead you astray, [/] Matthew 24:4 YLT

[:"red"] "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come." [/]

John 16:13 NASB

Cheers!

[Robert]

Ben,

Gerry and Dave are legalists plain and simple! I will continue to oppose the perverted gospel that they preach.

They remind me of U. Smith....Look what was said of him:

“The result of your course and your working on the same line since you left Minneapolis has made the carrying out of the work given me of God to do fifty fold harder than it need to have been. You have barred my way, but O, how little did you know the real result of your work. This has been opened before me. When you have stated that Sr. White was influenced by W. C. W., A. T. Jones, and E. J. Waggoner [the guys who introduced the message of justification by faith to the SDA church], you have planted in hearts infidelity that has been nourished and has borne fruit. You will not be pleased to reap the harvest….A lack of faith in the message [i.e., the message of 1888] God has given me to bear of the order represented is decided unbelief to all intents and purposes. There is not one bit of savor in such a faith, and the faith of Elder Butler is of the same order, valueless, having no savor, I count nothing upon you or him to harmonize with me in my work given me of God….So effectually does this delusion take possession of heart and mind that the sharp arrows of the Lord fail to penetrate the armor of self righteousness in which they are encased. The spell is so strong that they will listen to the truth, the most earnest and powerful, even to the very portraying of the delusions which are upon them without any thought of self-examination to see if it means them. This is the class our Saviour found most difficult to arouse. The most authoritative teachings were heard and listened to as if they heard not. Thus it is with many, many in this generation.” [The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials, 794]

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

Ben,

Gerry and Dave are legalists plain and simple!

{quote]

I beg your pardon? I certainly am not a legalist. I will not attempt to speak for Gerry, but from what I have read of his posts, he does not appear to be one either. What I have gotten out of Gerry's posts is his recognition that the gospel of Jesus Christ changes a person, and converts him from wickedness to holy living. That is good, and that is Scriptural. The reality is that the gospel, and its effects on a person, are an organic whole, which cannot be divided up into artificial components. My perception of the neo-1888 movement is that it has focused on one PART of the gospel, over-emphasizing that part, to the neglect of the rest of the gospel. That is the very thing which EGW warned Alonzo Jones about. Since you like to quote EGW, Robert, I suggest you take a look at a little booklet entitled, "Faith and Works." That presents an excellent balance.

Oh, and I do suggest that you stop the name-calling and accusations. It does not reflect well on you or your position.

Regards, Dave

[Robert]

Quote:

---

My perception of the neo-1888 movement is that it has focused on one PART of the gospel, over-emphasizing that part, to the neglect of the rest of the gospel.

---

The gospel is not holy living....That's perverting the gospel, what Paul calls another gospel! The gospel is what Christ did in His birth, life, death and resurrection and nothing else. When you ADD works to this equation you are making the gospel good advice instead of good news.

What we experience by receiving the gospel does not contribute one iota to our standing "in Christ"....For one that work is ongoing and never complete. In that respect we are always sinners falling short of God's selfless love.

Quote:

---

Oh, and I do suggest that you stop the name-calling and accusations. It does not reflect well on you or your position.

---

I am stating fact! You are a legalist...especially Gerry! You guys come a dime a dozen. The SDA church is full of your type....No peace, no joy...law, law, law! What a sad, pathetic life.....