NCT and the Sabbath Question

elaine · 08-21-09 12:26 pm

Sirje,

Thank you for making the identical points I wished to emphasize. It is disengenuous to reject a few (Sunday worship) decisions made by the early church, while at the same time, accepting most of them. IOW, they have made the decisions and the Christian world, in large part, simply adopted them without question.

When will we realize that God wrote not one single word in the Bible: it is totally man's writing--and as he perceived God, which is why there is such an evolution in perceptions seen throughout the progression of the Bible from OT to NT.

Bill, to say that all the writers believed in the virgin birth, and other doctrines is completely in error. Please give one statement of Paul, the earliest NT writer, or Mark, the second, who ever referred to a virgin birth. Paul's central theme was the Resurrection; Mark's Gospel begins with Jesus' baptism. Only Matthew and Luke, written later, develop the virginal birth concept; a very common motif in many contemporary and earlier pagan religions. Claiming conception between a god and human was a very common one at that time. The Roman emperors were believed to be gods. That belief was hammered out over long and heated discussions and did not spring immediately. There is no indication that any of Jesus disciples or his contemporaries "knew" of a virgin birth: this is a later concept, developed to authenticate His divinity.

To say that Christ was active in the decisions, is to admit that, according to SDAs, erroneous doctrines were introduced, and became doctrines.
If Christ was in charge, did He allow or approve of some, or all of the decisions made--and how can it be definitively known.

Many of the NT writings disagree with others. How could that be if Christ was in charge--isn't it more easily understood that men wrote and perceived differently, just as they do today. Does the Holy Spirit give disparate instructions to some or is it just possible that humans write, read, and interpret by their own brains.

george · 08-21-09 12:32 pm

Reading the writings of Paul, the four gospels, and the other apostles it is not difficult to see ... It's not difficult to see because it's the interpretation of the early church that determines how we INTERPRET the NT; just like the EGW's interpretations determine how SDAs read the Bible, and then turn around and say, "see it's in the Bible". That's like asking the car salesman if the car he's selling is the best one on the market.

don · 08-21-09 2:18 pm

The NT canon was the result of decisions reached by a group of mortal men whose intentions are questionable at best. Just because it happened a long time ago does not give these decisions and proclamations legitimacy. How do we decide which of these decisions are to be accepted and which can be questioned?

The canon was a decision of the Bishops' council, but they did not write the works themselves. These works were accepted two hundred+ years prior to Nicaea.

it's the interpretation of the early church that determines how we INTERPRET the NT

This is incorrect. Every time we pick up the writings we have an opportunity to determine how we interpret them all over again. This is why a closed canon is so important. It provides an "objective" basis for determining spiritual truth. We even test those Nicaen Christians by it.

Regarding EGW:

Some Adventists, including this one, submit the writings of EGW to the Bible whenever they are read. (As well as to verifiable studies of science.)
.

don · 08-21-09 2:21 pm

When will we realize that God wrote not one single word in the Bible: it is totally man's writing--and as he perceived God, which is why there is such an evolution in perceptions seen throughout the progression of the Bible from OT to NT.

This seems a "faith" stand. It cannot be known empirically whether God was involved, or not. To say, one way, or the other, is a statement of belief, of faith. To say the writings were "totally man's writing" does not rule out the role of the Holy Spirit in inspiring these "men".

Only Matthew and Luke, written later, develop the virginal birth concept;

The exact date when the various NT books were written is an inexact science, to say the least. But, even the more liberal scholars recognize only a few decades difference. The time difference seems quite insignificant.

(Message edited by Don on August 21, 2009)

billdljr · 08-21-09 2:43 pm

Sirje says, "It's not difficult to see because it's the interpretation of the early church that determines how we INTERPRET the NT"

What "interpretation" are you specifically referring to? Which doctrines specifically? I listed most of the fundamental teachings of the Christian faith. Which of these doctrines are you claiming are not actually found to be taught in the New Testament canon and which of these are merely the product of the decisions of the council of Nicea? I would really like to know this so that I can search out the scriptual truth for myself?
Bill

elaine · 08-21-09 3:43 pm

Bill, We could suggest multiple books covering this subject; internet search, and more. It isn't something that can be wrapped up in a "pill" and taken which will instantly produce the complete knowledge of early church history. Some of us have literally spent years studying this subject and have barely scratched the surface.

Simply begin an independent study of all the various sources and refuse to accept previous beliefs that cannot be documented. Faith is not based on facts. As the saying is correct: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion; but no one is entitled to his own facts." Knowing the difference is imperative when discussing in a discussion,rather than simply giving opinions. There is a world of difference between Subjective and Objective reality.

Where in the NT do you find any of the apostles teaching the importance of a virgin birth or explicitly defining the humanity-divinity of Jesus that is consistent with all the writers. A good reading of the NT will demonstrate a wide disparity of beliefs even then, and it only exacerbated with additional time.

george · 08-21-09 4:03 pm

Bill,
Somewhere along the line I found that the references to the Holy Spirit as a PERSON was not found in the Bible. There is one reference that says there are three in heaven but a note is added that the original manuscripts don't have that reference and were added later. (By whom and why?)

The huge debate about whether Jesus is equal to God or God or subordinate to God was on-going at the time of the council of Nicea. Even today, little kids are told to "pray to Jesus" as if God the Father can't be accessed directly. The confusion, not only for kids, but adults as well is enormous. No sane person can get their head around three separate people being one. Never mind "one in purpose etc., but actually being one entity.

But, let me ask you as an SDA - here is a group who venerated idols (something else the Council reinstated for the church); calculated Easter so that it NOT coincide with the Jewish Passover because they hated the Jews so much (never mind that Jesus was killed during the Jewish Passover); and established Sunday worship, and yet, you are happy to accept the other decisions they made. With what rationale do you differentiate what to accept and what not to accept from this council?

george · 08-21-09 4:07 pm

Don,
You stated that you submit everything EGW wrote to the Bible for verification. Don't you think that after a lifetime of being an SDA your interpretations of what the Bible says might be just a little bit slanted toward what EGW thought it said?

don · 08-21-09 6:06 pm

Don't you think that after a lifetime of being an SDA your interpretations of what the Bible says might be just a little bit slanted toward what EGW thought it said?

That is all the more reason to be especially careful. I don't view EGW as a controller of my thoughts any more than my mother was, or my great aunt. :-)

(After my mother died, I became more aware of how she has influenced me so profoundly.)

Wesley has affected the Methodists; Luther, the Lutherans; Calvin, the Reformed churches; etc. Since EGW is considered "a continuing and authoritative source of truth" for SDAs, it is to be expected that she will have significant influence within the denomination, and rightfully so.

Also, I think that the corporate body of believers over the decades have influenced each other and developed thought patterns. This is true of any group, I suppose. Thus, when I open my Bible to study, I have learned to challenge my pre-learned views, my preconceived opinions. As an Adventist, I have have plenty of these.

With what rationale do you differentiate what to accept and what not to accept from this council?

Sirje, we await Bill's answer. Meanwhile, some thoughts:

The Adventist stance is that the Bible is accorded the final say. Even Easter and Christmas, though favorably regarded, are not considered "holy" festivals. Eg. It is considered perfectly proper to go out and "chop wood" on Christmas or Easter. I doubt that many do that, but these festivals, for Adventists, are not "holy" festivals like the Sabbath. Regarding the Trinity, this Adventist does not feel compelled to accept the Nicean formula. In the Maritimes, I visited weekly with a "Oneness Pentecostal" family to give Bible Studies. The United Pentecostals view Jesus as the sole embodiment of the Godhead. Certainly, there is some leeway in how we view the Scriptural precedent. My question for them was how they dealt with Matthew 28. Otherwise, they were quite Biblical in their views.

The early Adventists opposed the Trinity as it had become accepted by the mainstream denominations. Yet, James White compared the Seventh-day Baptist's trinitarian view and the SDA view as having only minor differences.

(Message edited by Don on August 21, 2009)

bob_2 · 08-21-09 7:22 pm

Bill Diehl, you need to get into some serious covenant study. The Ten Commandments are the hub of the Old Covenant. Jesus is the hub of the New Covenant. There is a disconnect, or dicontinuity at the cross. Covenant Theologians can't see it, Dispensationalists believe the Jews are and will be His chosen people still after rejecting him, two ways to salvation. New Covenant Theology, new as it is, takes care of the tensions that Covenant Theology never answers . Google it if nothing else, if the Bible doesn't show what is being discussed. Theology is your view of God and how He will save us. Miss the mark here and you will be exploring every rabbit hole that presents itself. You ignore covenant texts, and insist on continuity where Chist said it was finished.

george · 08-21-09 7:58 pm

Don,
I get what you're saying, and I think you should be commended for actually realizing that this might be a problem and are taking precautions. However, it's not as easy to neutralize yourself as you might think. Many years ago I decided to do the same thing and determined not to use any aids in my study of the 2300 days of Dan. 8 and that got me on to a brand new experience. I had to rely on my faith relationship in order to trust what I was finding.

Most people don't think they know enough to understand what the Bible is saying and they rely on all kinds of other sources. One friend of mine said to me that she just couldn't get much out of the Bible but that she was so thankful for Ellen White to tell her what was important. The church can deny it until the cows come home, but the truth is, most SDAs feel the same way as they sit there in church frantically searching out every text given from the pulpit as if the pastor would deliberately misquote it. The Bible has become an icon, revered and even worshiped for itself. Personally, I think we miss some very significant stuff by not reading it as it was written - by people to other people. There are so many levels for understanding the Bible but making every word holy as if it came out of God's mouth, is not using the Bible as it was meant to be used, and thereby missing the true lessons. Not to mention the proof texting that goes on in every Bible study and SS lesson. Just because all the books of the Bible are talking about God doesn't mean they are interchangeable in their intended subject and message.

Can you imagine taking a pile of books out of one section of a library and then randomly looking for a unified message by picking sentences and paragraph from the various books- never mind context. You could make the message anything you wanted it be; and the same goes for the Bible. Of course you know all that, but I'm just saying.... It's this kind of skipping around that lock denominations in to one certain interpretation and they can't see any other possibilities.

The nature of Christ is another problem for me. If He represents me then He is not part God - wholly God and wholly man doesn't compute. Forbid anyone think that He was simply a man (like Adam) but that is what Paul says. For that matter, we are all sons/daughters of God. Can we go with that? Where would this line of thinking take us? But it is biblical, if you put together certain texts.

Anyway, I've been rambling.

elaine · 08-22-09 1:04 pm

Sirje, there is so much dissonance in the Bible that people can prove anything using various texts. There is no "harmonius whole" that is so frequently claimed. One writer disagrees completely with another, so who you gonna believe in such circumstances.

If we stopped using the Bible as the "be-all and end-all" answer book for every possible life situation, we could eliminate it al together and rely on a far more ancient rule: The Golden one.

Trying to harmonize the Old with the New Testatment is ludicrous and totally impossible without twisting all logic and rationality. Example: the OT constantly refers to "Only one God" while the Christian doctrine of three is so complicated that no one can either explain or comprehend it: simply believe!

The NT writers struggled mightily to "prove" from OT prophecies that Jesus was the fulfillment from their predictions, and in so doing, they twisted the texts and genealogies, names, and locations, and each gospel writer has a different, impossible story that is impossible to cohere. Did Jesus' family go to Egypt after his birth, or return to Nazareth; who, possibly, could have known of a virginal conception--where were the witnesses; who could possibly have told of the temptation in the wilderness (not mentioned by all the writers).

It is considered heretical to mention that these writers were essentially making up stories to show the divinity of Jesus, and none of them were even eyewitnesses--having heard this from other people, who had various stories, none of which could be considered the "correct" one. Yet, preachers valiantly try to harmonize all four into one and conflate them, leaving the children, and adults, with a fictional story that can only be called "sacred fiction."

bob_2 · 08-22-09 1:14 pm

Sirje, if you go to that library and pick a book by an author who has related things throughout the book, and one chooses to ignore the relation, one will not get the whole message. That is what discernment is about. The message of Salvation is not scatter over secular others, where you can pick an choose as you wish. Your example is not a good one.

don · 08-22-09 1:51 pm

there is so much dissonance in the Bible that people can prove anything using various texts.

The most "famous" of which:

And Judas went out and hung himself

AND

Go and do thou like wise.

Even a musical score seems to be out of harmony until the whole is considered.

The Christian believes that the NT provides the principles of living and spirituality. One is the Golden Rule. But there are many others. Those who read for spiritual, devotional concepts find plenty of thoughts to bless their day.

Those who read respectfully, inquisitively, find plenty to develop their abilities of thinking and examining.

I have noticed tremendous truths supported throughout the OT and the NT. So much so, that I have one Bible where I seek out these "themes" and mark them for further study.

There are other passages which seem incredible. I believe that God knows about these as well. The key spiritual truths do not rest on all the incredible stories, just one, the resurrection. To accept the resurrection is to accept the reports given by the apostles. Once the resurrection is accepted, the great truths of salvation seem to line up well.

(Message edited by Don on August 22, 2009)

george · 08-22-09 2:37 pm

Bob,
Let me be more clear. Each book of the Bible was written by a different person at a different time, with a different purpose and message (some writers wrote more than one book of course). While they all may be about God and His dealings with His people, they are not interchangeable except in the minds of people who want to prove something. For example; the year/day principle the SDA church used to justify its elaborate date graphs actually comes from only two places in the Bible - Numbers 14, where it says:

According to the number of days which you spied on the land, forty days, for every day you shall bear your guilt a year, even forty years, and you will know my opposition.Nu.14:34; and: Ezekiel 4:4,5

-As for you, lie down on you left side and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel on it; you shall bear their iniquity for the number of days that you lied on it. For I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the years of their iniquity, three hundred and ninety days; thus you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. When you have completed these you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side and bear the iniquity of the house of Judah; I have assigned it to you for forty days, a day for each year.

Do you see anything in these two places that indicate that you must calculate one year for one day anywhere where days and years are mentioned in the entire Bible? This is the basis for the 2300 day (year) prophesy which gives us 1844 and the entire mess of 1970s.

Each book in the Bible is unique and you can't jump willy-nilly from one book to another, putting together some kind of cohesive storyline. The big picture may have some binding factor but only in retrospect.

My reference to the library books was meant to illustrate how ridiculous it would be to do this kind of jumping around with any other books- then why is it OK for the Bible?

elaine · 08-22-09 3:30 pm

Then there is the text that with the Lord 'a day' can mean a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day.

Anyone know of prophecies interpreted by this text. Maybe it was 23,000 days!

don · 08-22-09 3:43 pm

The big picture may have some binding factor but only in retrospect.

My reference to the library books was meant to illustrate how ridiculous it would be to do this kind of jumping around with any other books- then why is it OK for the Bible?

Sirje, as we await Bob's reply, here are a few thoughts:

The Bible is a collection of writings authored individually with agendas, etc. As we study the Bible we would be remiss not to consider the individuality of its authors.

But, the believer recognizes the One who inspired them all. Thus, we have individual authors with the One influence running throughout. For the beleiver, there is no other conclusion. "Holy men of God spake as they were moved..."

The year-day principle is an interpretive tool and should be acknowledged as such. One thing that becomes obvious to me as I read early Adventist authors is that we do well to be cautious, even tentative, in our prophetic assertions. The 2300 day interpretation taking us to 1844 is just that, an interpretation. It is not canonical in itself.

The canon allows Catholics, Pentecostals, Baptists, Adventists, etc common ground as they seek to share their faith among themselves. It gives the novice solid counsel on what living by faith means. It has stood immovable throughout the centuries; yet, faith has been progressive and insightful.

Adventists should not proclaim the scriptures as the answer to all life's quest. Scriptural principles hold up well. But, we still need to know how to meet a flu pandemic, etc.
.

george · 08-22-09 3:44 pm

Yes Elaine. 23,000 years starting at 457 takes us quite a way down the pike. Nothing for us to worry about.

elaine · 08-22-09 6:13 pm

The 2300 day interpretation taking us to 1844 is just that, an interpretation. It is not canonical in itself.

But for Adventists, it is one of the fundamental beliefs. So it's part of the SDA canon of doctrines.

george · 08-22-09 7:45 pm

The 2300 day interpretation taking us to 1844 is just that, an interpretation. It is not canonical in itself.

I don't know how many time I have heard someone say that if we dropped the 2300 day/1844 message we might as well disband the church. SDA theology would just as well drop everything else but 1844 has to remain, canonical or not.

Don, it's frustrating to talk to you about these things because you put your personal twist on it all; but the official stand of the church is what it is and that is my problem; not your personal opinion. We all have personal way of seeing these things but the big problem is the official church declaration through the 28 points of doctrine. Even these are sometimes worded so that they are ambiguous enough to pass muster but everyone knows what the (possibly) unstated position is.

This was demonstrated with the publishing of the "Questions On Doctrine" back in the fifties. This book was written to calm down Walter Martin et al but unofficially, the establishment never intended to abide with what was written there and they let the book go out of print until very recently. It's about what's stated vs. what's practiced.

don · 08-22-09 7:49 pm

So it's part of the SDA canon of doctrines.

You are mixing concepts. It is very true that the 2300 days interpretation is at, or near, the core of Adventist thinking. But, Adventists do not consider their beliefs to be canonical. Rather, they believe that the canon supports their beliefs. This may seem a technical point, but the difference is very important to most Adventists.

I have come to view two levels of doctrine. One is well-nigh inescapable for the believer. The doctrine of the resurrection is a good example of this.

The other, is based on considerable logic and piecing together. The Adventist interpretation of the 2300 days prophecy illustrates this second, interpretative type of doctrine.

The early Sabbatarian Adventists did not write a lot about the 2300 days. They seemed to have acknowledged its usefulness and then went on to stress the Sabbath. In fact, they were grateful for the 2300 days and the Sanctuary message for bringing the Sabbath into focus.

When James White discussed the differences between the Seventh day Baptists and the SDA, he did not mention the 2300 days at all.

But, the 1970's illustrate how a latent belief can, at the same time, be seen as an essential doctrine if it is challenged.

(In the 1960's, Brinsmead presented the Sanctuary message quite intensely. The Sanctuary message was almost taboo during that era.)

The task falls on all Adventists to clarify what is important and what is not. Ten million+ members cannot modify their corporate doctrines as easily as the handful in the 1840's and 50's.

IMO, it is essential for each person, each generation, to return to the Canon and ground their thinking in it. Also, all people who follow Jesus should always be seeking for ways to focus more and more on their relationship with their savior.
.

don · 08-22-09 8:06 pm

Don, it's frustrating to talk to you about these things because you put your personal twist on it all; but the official stand of the church is what it is and that is my problem; not your personal opinion. We all have personal way of seeing these things but the big problem is the official church declaration through the 28 points of doctrine. Even these are sometimes worded so that they are ambiguous enough to pass muster but everyone knows what the (possibly) unstated position is.

Your frustration is understandable and I think due, in part, to how I view my church. The Adventism I support is not an "official" Adventism. Rather, I see it as a grassroots movement still. I am pleased with the "ambiguous" nature of some parts of the 28. I am also aware that the 28 are kind of like the bottom line for what Adventists stand for doctrinally. To me, all Christian denominations are fellowships of like-minded believers, Adventism included. The "official" Adventism has no authority with me, doctrinally. Either I agree with the 28, or I don't. If I don't, where is my fellowship?

I believe that pastors and evangelists need to recognize the distinction between the 28 and the baptismal vow of 13 (I think). If a person wants to join a Sabbatarian Christian organization but does not accept certain specifics which have no bearing on one's moral life or view of God, the difference between the 28 and the 13 are important.

This was demonstrated with the publishing of the "Questions On Doctrine" back in the fifties. This book was written to calm down Walter Martin et al but unofficially, the establishment never intended to abide with what was written there and they let the book go out of print until very recently. It's about what's stated vs. what's practiced.

I have grown up admiring the QOD's accomplishment. The nature of Christ can be resolved, for me, by simply studying my Bible. I see very little else in QOD which is controversial. I don't understand what you are saying about the establishment's intentions. IMO, the differences are way overblown.

(Message edited by Don on August 22, 2009)

george · 08-22-09 9:32 pm

Don,
The difference is that when you make the Sabbath the central issue for the denomination you also make it salvific. Either we are saved by grace or we are saved by grace plus keeping the commandments which SDA theology zeros in on the Sabbath.

There is no Revelation Seminar or any other evangelistic series witch culminates with the grace of God. We then go on to emphasize the Sabbath as essential in order to pass muster at the judgment.

I believe the QOD emphasized "saved by grace" and the use of the Bible as our sole source of doctrine while we all know that isn't true. QOD was supposed to convince the rest of Christendom that the SDA church was not cult with extra-biblical authority; and we all know that isn't true either.

You may not personally accept that, but if you factor down how SDA theology sees salvation, it all ends with the Sabbath - not the death and resurrection of Christ as our means of salvation. what else is the IJ for, if not to scrutinize our lives to see if we measure up. This vindication of God thing came after Glacier View because it raised some questions as to why God needed 2300 years to figure out who was saved.

george · 08-22-09 9:47 pm

My mistake - SDA theology doesn't claim it's taking God 2300 years to do the IJ, but it has been well over 100 years since the IJ was supposed to have started.

elaine · 08-22-09 9:56 pm

Don, if every person decides what he will believe, why belong to a church when you cannot affirm their official beliefs. Simply, claim to be a Christian, unaffiliated. That would be more honest, it seems.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#76 08-21-09 12:26 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#77 08-21-09 12:32 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#78 08-21-09 2:18 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#79 08-21-09 2:21 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#80 08-21-09 2:43 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#81 08-21-09 3:43 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#82 08-21-09 4:03 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#83 08-21-09 4:07 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#84 08-21-09 6:06 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#85 08-21-09 7:22 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#86 08-21-09 7:58 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#87 08-22-09 1:04 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#88 08-22-09 1:14 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#89 08-22-09 1:51 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#90 08-22-09 2:37 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#91 08-22-09 3:30 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#92 08-22-09 3:43 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#93 08-22-09 3:44 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#94 08-22-09 6:13 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#95 08-22-09 7:45 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#96 08-22-09 7:49 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#97 08-22-09 8:06 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#98 08-22-09 9:32 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#99 08-22-09 9:47 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

#100 08-22-09 9:56 pm

Re: NCT and the Sabbath Question

Board footer