Compared to other denominations, SDA know their Bible

[Robert]

Now, on the Sabbath as connected to redemption, this is the general view of Hebrews 4:9,10 by most non-SDA with some variations:

Quote

"Every true believer hath ceased from his own works of righteousness, and from the burdensome works of the law, as God and Christ have ceased from their works of creation and redemption."  [Matthew Henry's Commentary]

This is true of Hebrews 4:9, but not verse 10.

The believer who has entered "His rest" has accepted the gospel and here Matthew Henry's above commentary is spot on, but verse 10 links "His rest" to the 7th-day Sabbath.  

I'll explain a later....

[Robert]

2 hours ago, Robert said:

Now, on the Sabbath as connected to redemption, this is the general view of Hebrews 4:9,10 by most non-SDA with some variations:

This is true of Hebrews 4:9, but not verse 10.

The believer who has entered "His rest" has accepted the gospel and here Matthew Henry's above commentary is spot on, but verse 10 links "His rest" to the 7th-day Sabbath.  

I'll explain a later....

Scrap the above....I was a bit sidetracked with my grandson and there are some errors.

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel:

I hope that your previous post is not a prelude to leaving us.  You contribute.  Stick around.

Different SDA churches have different levels of tolerance for the range of acceptable belief and life style, to include age, such as children vs. adults.  In the Boulder congregation I attended a SS class where we had a great level of tolerance.  We, on occasion had people form other religions [NOTE  I did not say denominations.]  teach a SS class about their beliefs.  For an extended period of time a devout Hindu woman attended that class in an attempt to convert us.

But, we as a congregation had to establish limits.  We did not formulate any specific rules.  But, in individual cases we informed people that their conduct was not acceptable and a change was needed for them to continue to be welcome.  One time this involved an individual who attempted to solicit personal funding.  Another involved an individual who wanted to cast the devils out of our members.  A third was a person came from a Christian/Jewish background.  He wanted to establish worship services outside of the church.  In his case we informed him that he could do so only if he worked with the congregational leadership in scheduling, promoting and providing the services.   He refused and clearly told our senior pastor that he would not coordinate with him. 

Rachel, I personally believe that this congregation would welcome you, if you were living in that area and wanted to become a member.  However, in frankness and openness, I must  say that based upon your previous post we would set some boundaries upon you.  To teach a SS Class that taught in that class opposition to  the Trinity would likely be unacceptable and outside of our boundaries.

Rachel,I hope you consider me to be your friend.  I de welcome you here.  But, as you know, I do deal with you in an attitude of frankness as to where I and the SDA Church are.  In that spirit I can believe that you comment in regard to teaching a SS Class that opposed the Trinity doctrine represented a stand that was appropriate for that congregation to take.  Perhaps they were not perfect in every way that they related to you?   I do not know.

In any case, I do hope  that you stick around here.  You do get it right sometimes.  

 

 

 

 

[Aliensanctuary]

I very much appreciate Rachel's careful study of Scriptures, and especially her alternative ideas. We should always keep our minds open when studying the Scriptures rather than locking ourselves up into a particular mindset. Recall that Jesus had to keep explaining the scriptures to his disciples, and it wasn't until after he died that they began to understand. Their thinking had been corrupted by the Keepers of Religion of the day, and so we, too, must be wary of denominational doctrines and dogma.

[8thdaypriest]

16 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rachel:

I hope that your previous post is not a prelude to leaving us.  You contribute.  Stick around.

Different SDA churches have different levels of tolerance for the range of acceptable belief and life style, to include age, such as children vs. adults.  In the Boulder congregation I attended a SS class where we had a great level of tolerance.  We, on occasion had people form other religions [NOTE  I did not say denominations.]  teach a SS class about their beliefs.  For an extended period of time a devout Hindu woman attended that class in an attempt to convert us.

But, we as a congregation had to establish limits.  We did not formulate any specific rules.  But, in individual cases we informed people that their conduct was not acceptable and a change was needed for them to continue to be welcome.  One time this involved an individual who attempted to solicit personal funding.  Another involved an individual who wanted to cast the devils out of our members.  A third was a person came from a Christian/Jewish background.  He wanted to establish worship services outside of the church.  In his case we informed him that he could do so only if he worked with the congregational leadership in scheduling, promoting and providing the services.   He refused and clearly told our senior pastor that he would not coordinate with him. 

Rachel, I personally believe that this congregation would welcome you, if you were living in that area and wanted to become a member.  However, in frankness and openness, I must  say that based upon your previous post we would set some boundaries upon you.  To teach a SS Class that taught in that class opposition to  the Trinity would likely be unacceptable and outside of our boundaries.

Rachel,I hope you consider me to be your friend.  I de welcome you here.  But, as you know, I do deal with you in an attitude of frankness as to where I and the SDA Church are.  In that spirit I can believe that you comment in regard to teaching a SS Class that opposed the Trinity doctrine represented a stand that was appropriate for that congregation to take.  Perhaps they were not perfect in every way that they related to you?   I do not know.

In any case, I do hope  that you stick around here.  You do get it right sometimes.  

 

 

 

 

Thanks Gregory.  I wasn't planning to leave Club Adventist.  I was talking about people who really study their Bibles - or not - and why not. 

I was an AVID believer in the Trinity doctrine, just 'cause Mrs White wrote statements supporting it.  I didn't know those were written after 50 years of writing statements that did not support the doctrine.  I didn't know that 1 John 5:7 was added to the text.  I didn't know that Matthew 28:19 had also been changed. 

I was an AVID SDA.  It was only after a fellow SDA challanged me on the Trinity doctrine that I really began to study it.  I was determined to prove my friend wrong.  Finally - after almost 4 years of study and searching, I came to believe that the Bible does not support a Trinity.  During those years, I continued as a faithful, tithe-paying SDA.  But I would bring up questions concerning what the Bible said, because I myself was searching.  I talked with the pastor too, who only quoted EGW, or recommended books like the "Fundamental Doctrines".  He really was no help.  I didn't start out to "make trouble".  It all just gradually happened as I studied and searched.  

After I "left", I began to question everything.  I felt like I was swimming in an ocean without a rock to crawl up on.  Over many years, I confirmed or rejected other things.  I rejected the 1844 doctrine.  I rejected the teaching that any jewelry is immoral.  And I rejected the teaching that "the rest of the dead" will be the lost, from 6000 years of earth history.  I believe "the rest" will be those who never had the chance to accept or reject Christ during their lives, because they lived and died in ignorance (for whatever reason).  I believe that one must CHOOSE, before one can receive eternal  life. 

Gregory, you live in a big city where there are many "flavors" of SDA congregations, some more "traditional", some less so.  I live in a SMALL TOWN.  There is only one - VERY traditional SDA church here.  I would NOT be welcome there.  The first time I attended there, an elder did a whole sermon on why we should believe in Ellen White.   THAT was a clue.

 

[Kevin H]

A big issue with both Seventh-day Adventists and non-Adventists are traditions, especially those who have grown from the view of Fundamentalism, and taking portions of the truth and using them against the rest of the truth, and building speculations on those portions of the truth that then replace the truth.

Some of these include:  that God did away with the whole law then replaced 9 of the 10 commandments. Wouldn't it have been easier for God to just clearly do away with the one and making that clear instead of throwing out all 10 and then replace 9.

Also, there is the tradition that Mrs. White is not infallible, it's just that she never made a mistake. Or on the other hand seeing every place where Mrs. White disagrees with my views that she is wrong.  (Mrs. White has the framework of the 3 aspects of God, the 3 deceptions of Satan, and how they are answered in the 3 angel's messages.) Also, she did not want to be seen as an exegetist, but making applications for our day. Exegeses is our job not hers. But our traditions see  her as an inspired commentary on the Bible (a view developed in the 1920s). She wrote a lot about things like the reform dress, Testimony #11, and letters to people like Stephen Haskell and to Elder Washburn (and maybe Elder Wilkinson, but if not then Willie wrote very similar letters to Elder Wilkinson-- It is very hard to tell the difference between the letters to these and a few other gentlemen who held similar views) introduction to Great Controversy and in Selected Messages about what visions do and do not do for her.

Among the liberals there is the tradition that Mrs. White kept her copying a secret... they have their quotes to prove it. However they over look the fact that those quotes were given to those who knew about her copying, who were helping her with her copying, who towards the end of her life were trying to find as many footnotes as they could, and their question was not whether or not she copied but did she get her messages from what she was reading and copying or was she getting them from God.

In looking at the book QOD, it appears that Elders Froom, Read, Anderson, Barnhouse, Martin, and even Andresen held to the same view as to the nature of Jesus. Froom, Read and Anderson gave a partial answer wanting to avoid the questioning of the divinity of Jesus that many (not all) of our pioneers held. Elder Andresen pointed out that they gave only a partial answer and was upset about the part left out. Sadly the legacy has been among us to start a tradition of "If QOD said it then I don't believe it and that settles it for me." We take the missing part as the WHOLE truth instead of as Andresen saw it, the missing part, then we add to this tradition to give Jesus the sinful nature. (Jesus had his own unique nature, unlike Adam's, including that he did not have in himself the disposition to think we were for ourselves by making less of the outside world. This is what makes us sinners. Jesus is both our example and our substitute and while the conservatives tend to agree with this they tend to focus more on the example due to the over emphases on the substitute by the liberals.)  One of my professors use to say "Today you cannot say the truth in the Adventist church without making both the liberals and conservatives mad at you.

These are a few of the traditions that we need to work with and which hold us back in study and growth.

[Gregory Matthews]

I understand.

Gregory, you live in a big city where there are many "flavors" of SDA congregations, some more "traditional", some less so. I live in a SMALL TOWN. There is only one - VERY traditional SDA church here. I would NOT be welcome there. The first time I attended there, an elder did a whole sermon on why we should believe in Ellen White. THAT was a clue.

[Gregory Matthews]

By the way: We should believe in Ellen White. It is just that we should not believe in her in the manner that some present her. The two extreams have it wrong about her.

[Kevin H]

That was just what I was thinking Gregory!!!!

[TrevorL]

Greetings Robert,

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 0:12 PM, Robert said:

Now, on the Sabbath as connected to redemption, this is the general view of Hebrews 4:9,10 by most non-SDA with some variations:

This is true of Hebrews 4:9, but not verse 10.

The believer who has entered "His rest" has accepted the gospel and here Matthew Henry's above commentary is spot on, but verse 10 links "His rest" to the 7th-day Sabbath.  

I'll explain a later....

I was interested in your statements concerning SDAs understanding the Bible, as I disagree with the SDAs on a number of teachings. I was also interested in your suggestion that Hebrews 4 supports Sabbath-keeping. For my part I have some familiarity with the Bible, and I have up until now accepted that Hebrews 3 and 4 teaches that Christ has in effect superseded or fulfilled the Sabbath. I would be interested to hear your explanation. If this is satisfying then I will have no need to explain my present view of this. I hope if I partly disagree that I can offer some constructive help.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[Robert]

7 minutes ago, Seventh Day said:

Please explain how you reached this conclusion? Please describe (for me, for instance) HOW, God reached <~His finished work of redemption "in Christ"~>?

 Okay, but it will be tomorrow.

[Robert]

1 hour ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings Robert,

I was also interested in your suggestion that Hebrews 4 supports Sabbath-keeping.

Kind regards

Trevor

Okay, again tomorrow....Got to go....

[Robert]

Let's go straight to the heart of Hebrews chapter 4, verses 9,10. 

9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.

First let's tackle the phrase, "There remains a Sabbath rest".

Whatever this Sabbath rest is the writer of Hebrews (probably Paul) states that it remains.  What then is this "Sabbath rest"?

According to Strong's Greek Concordance # 4520 we have the following:

sabbatismos = a sabbath rest

Definition of sabbatismos: "a keeping of the Sabbath"

Okay, then let's translate what it actually states:

verse 9 "So there remains [a keeping of the Sabbath] for the people of God."

That's what it states.

Now, the question is, why does there remain "a keeping of the Sabbath"?

Verse 10 answers this question:

First, let's either agree or disagree here because if we can't agree here verse 10 will be meaningless.

Robert

[Robert]

26 minutes ago, Seventh Day said:

<~why does there remain "a keeping of the Sabbath"?~>

I have attempted to answer the above

Do you agree with me thus far concerning what I have written:

Quote

 

verse 9 "So there remains [a keeping of the Sabbath] for the people of God."

That's what it states.

Now, the question is, why does there remain "a keeping of the Sabbath"?

Verse 10 answers this question:

First, let's either agree or disagree here because if we can't agree here verse 10 will be meaningless.

 

 

[JoeMo]

It has taken me 40 years to become comfortable in my skin as an SDA.  I am an SDA NOT because of my steadfast belief in everything that EGW or the prevailing culture demands, but because I accept the tenets found in the name "Seventh-Day Adventist".  I fully embrace the 7th-Day sabbath,and I firmly believe that Jesus will return sooner rather than later.  I also appreciate the diversity and freedom of opinion that many SDA's (at least here in the "big city") accept.

I was once a member of the same church Rachel belonged to before she moved to Texas.  I will attest to their conservatism and historic Adventism.  IMO EGW was preached FAR more than scripture.  The "two sides" there were very polarized.  At that time, Rachel was one of the "Taliban" Adventists (as was I).  We lost touch for about 20 years until I recognized her on her website, which I accessed from CA.  It blew my mind how we reached many of the same theological conclusions independently of one another.  We were on the same page 20 years ago, and we remain on the same page now although we have both revised our theology independently.  To me, that tends to confirm some spiritual guidance from the same Spirit.

Although I can't say that I agree with her (or anyone else, for that matter) 100% of the time, IMO Rachel presents some of the richest, most informative, and creative spiritual thought on this forum.

Sorry Rachel if I told any stories about you out of turn in the above.

[Robert]

8 hours ago, Robert said:

I have attempted to answer the above

Do you agree with me thus far concerning what I have written:

 

I think I'll start another thread on this issue of the Sabbath in the light of gospel.

http://clubadventist.com/forums/topic/64280-the-sabbath-in-the-light-of-the-gospel/

[Wingnut]

15 hours ago, Seventh Day said:

Re:

<~why does there remain "a keeping of the Sabbath"?~>

"For if Jesus gave them (the People of God) Rest ("the Rest-of-God"--Jesus Himself "the LORD our Righteousness" and Salvation) God never shall again speak of another day (of Salvation) and indeed therefore ('ara') a keeping of the Sabbath Day remains valid for the People of God : HE (JESUS) having entered into his own rest as GOD in his own." Hebrews 4:8-10.

The real ~question~ therefore remaining, is, HOW or WHAT IS "his -- Jesus' -- own rest"?

Jesus' own rest is "the Rest-of-God" which God entered into and upon "the Seventh Day God thus concerning did speak ... in times past by the prophets ... in these last days BY THE SON ... And God the day The Seventh Day from ALL, HIS, WORKS, RESTED" ---obviously IN CHRIST, BY CHRIST, THROUGH CHRIST : "JESUS" WHO : "gave them rest".

The real ~question~ therefore remaining, is, HOW or WHAT IS "his -- Jesus' -- own rest" He "gave the People of God"?

And the answer unequivocally is, Jesus having RESURRECTED from the dead, from death and from the grave : Hebrews 13:20, “Now the God-of-Peace (and Salvation Rest) that BROUGHT AGAIN FROM THE DEAD OUR LORD JESUS, that Great Shepherd of the sheep (the People of God) by the blood of the Everlasting Covenant … WHEREFORE there for the People of God remains valid their keeping / resting / observing of the Sabbath Day’s rest.”

Thus there remains no further questions that “the Rest of God” is God’s Work of Saving Grace “in / with / by the blood” of “JESUS’” Gospel “SO THAT (‘ara’) “a keeping of the Sabbath remains for the People of God” as THEIR answer in response to their Redemption and Eternal Salvation in Christ through Christ by Christ.

I hope you realise that the "Jesus" in vs 8 should have been translated "Joshua".

Heb 4

5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.

6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

8 For if Jesus Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

 

This is saying that Joshua never gave the people of God or Israelites rest, because of their unbelief (vs 6) but there will come a time when all Israel will be saved and achieve rest.

[8thdaypriest]

17 hours ago, JoeMo said:

It has taken me 40 years to become comfortable in my skin as an SDA.  I am an SDA NOT because of my steadfast belief in everything that EGW or the prevailing culture demands, but because I accept the tenets found in the name "Seventh-Day Adventist".  I fully embrace the 7th-Day sabbath,and I firmly believe that Jesus will return sooner rather than later.  I also appreciate the diversity and freedom of opinion that many SDA's (at least here in the "big city") accept.

I was once a member of the same church Rachel belonged to before she moved to Texas.  I will attest to their conservatism and historic Adventism.  IMO EGW was preached FAR more than scripture.  The "two sides" there were very polarized.  At that time, Rachel was one of the "Taliban" Adventists (as was I).  We lost touch for about 20 years until I recognized her on her website, which I accessed from CA.  It blew my mind how we reached many of the same theological conclusions independently of one another.  We were on the same page 20 years ago, and we remain on the same page now although we have both revised our theology independently.  To me, that tends to confirm some spiritual guidance from the same Spirit.

Although I can't say that I agree with her (or anyone else, for that matter) 100% of the time, IMO Rachel presents some of the richest, most informative, and creative spiritual thought on this forum.

Sorry Rachel if I told any stories about you out of turn in the above.

Thanks Joe. 

No problem.  I think I've been pretty open with my personal info, on CA.    My website is receiving 7000 visitors (more or less) per month, from all over the world - probably more, 'cause a lot of people surf anonymously.  We get hundreds from Slovenia, which delights me.  Who knew, yours truly would be teaching in Slovenia? 

Twenty years ago, my husband said he would construct a website for me, if I would write up my Bible studies.  (He's my biggest fan.)  We started with the name aggelia.com, but changed it to prophecyviewpoint.com, about 12 years ago.  We thought putting the word "prophecy" in the name, would attract more visitors, especially as we get closer to Christ's return.  I just keep editing and polishing the studies, trying to improve them.  

I have two friends who tell me they just can't "get it" from reading alone.  When I teach one-on-one, I'm always drawing diagrams, and they say this is most helpful.  So -   I recently bought a graphics program, so I can draw diagrams while lecturing.  I need a LOT more practice with the  program.   I'm NOT an artist. 

Blessings,   Rachel