What is Salivific and what is not?

bob_2 · 01-01-09 2:14 am

I had to deal with this question recently when I joined the PCA church (Legal or not I aleso kept my SDA credentials) The salvific issues boil down to the answer to the jailer's queston, "What must I do be saved." The response Acts 16:31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family. Could it be that simple or what did Paul read outof the scriptures to this family that night? "Belief ont eh Lord jesus Christ" can be empowering if on is serious in changing from an evil or sinful life. This is where the rub comes, the rules. This is what causes the disputes between Chritians. Bill Sorenson isn't willing ot let the Spirit lead, and not sure Hubb is either. But belief and trust in God has to be just that. Can a smoker go to heaven who is racked with an addition of 3 packs a day at 63 from the age of 17. Does the day he worships on make a difference in his salvation. Does what he believes in the afterlife and heaven and hell make a difference in his salvation? How about meat eating vs veaganism ??? Can we boil down the salvific issue. Within SDAism the Sabbath is a stumbling block? Why? One last question, how old was the Jailer's family, were some baptized as "covenant children" as the PCA do, then to have then profess their belief when they come of age. The SDAs wadnt he empowerment and change first, is that the Gospel???

don · 01-01-09 7:00 pm

If God says to do something and I refuse to do it, does the issue become a salvific issue? <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/salvific" target="_blank">Salvific is defined</a>:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Having the intention or power to bring about salvation or redemption.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Is the Law of God a salvific issue? By Law of God, I mean the will of God regarding how I am to think and behave. The Law of God certainly is an important factor in the plan of salvation. But it has no "intention or power to bring about salvation." The Law of God is not capable of saving, only expecting. So, we need another means of bringing about our salvation. Jesus provides that, apart from Law. This is Grace. By faith, I submit to God through Jesus. His Spirit empowers me to live the way God wants me to live; to conform to the Law of God. The question re: salvific issues should address what is God's will for us. Adventists recognize a Law bigger than the stated ten commands, but also accepts them, including the fourth. The two great commandments of love to God and to humanity reach into all areas of universal concern. .

bob_2 · 01-01-09 8:36 pm

Don, you make it sound easy to determine salvifice: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Romans 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> That sounds subjective, and therefore, non-salvific, eh???

don · 01-02-09 8:50 pm

That sounds subjective, and therefore, non-salvific, eh??? Remember, salvific is what can bring about one's salvation. The Law of God, however you define it, cannot bring about our salvation. At best, it can describe the life I am to live once I am converted; saved. Regarding Romans 14:5 Dr Charles Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary in the 1800's, said:— <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:"An objection is drawn from the absence of any express command. No such command was needed. The New Testament has no decalogue. That code having been once announced, and never repealed, remains in force. Its injunctions are not so much categorically repeated, as assumed as still obligatory. We find no such words as 'Thou shalt have no other gods before Me,' or 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.' Paul says, 'I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.' Rom. 7:7. The law which said 'Thou shalt not covet,' is in the decalogue. Paul does not re-enact the command, he simply takes for granted that the decalogue is now as ever the law of God. "It is urged not only that there is no positive command on the subject, but also that there is a total silence in the New Testament respecting any obligation to keep holy one day in seven. Our Lord in His sermon on the mount, it is said, while correcting the false interpretations of the Mosaic law given by the Pharisees, and expounding its precepts in their true sense, says nothing of the fourth commandment. The same is true of the council in Jerusalem. That council says nothing about the necessity of the heathen converts observing a Sabbath. But all this may be said of other precepts, the obligation of which no man questions. Neither our Lord nor the council say anything about the worshipping of graven images. Besides, our Lord elsewhere does do, with regard to the fourth commandment, precisely what He did in the sermon on the mount with regard to other precepts of the decalogue. He reproved the Pharisees for their false interpretation of that commandment, without the slightest intimation that the law itself was not to remain in force. "Appeal is made to such passages as Col. 2 : 16 : 'Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days;' and Rom. 14 : 5, 'One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.' Every one knows, however, that the apostolic churches were greatly troubled by Judaisers, who insisted that the Mosaic law continued in force, and that Christians were bound to conform to its prescriptions with regard to the distinction between clean and unclean meats, and its numerous feast days, on which all labour was to be intermitted. These were the false teachers, and this was the false doctrine against which so much of St. Paul's epistles was directed. It is in obvious reference to these men and their doctrines that such passages as those cited above were written. They have no reference to the weekly Sabbath, which had been observed from the creation, and which the apostles themselves introduced and perpetuated in the Christian church."—Systematic Theology, vol. 3, pp. 331-332. <a href="http://www.archive.org/stream/systematictheolo03hodguoft/systematictheolo03hodguoft_djvu.txt" target=_top>http://www.archive.org/stream/systematictheolo03ho dguoft/systematictheolo03hodguoft_djvu.txt</a> <a href="http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/ethics/sabbath/sabbath_Hodge_article.html" target=_top>http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainfram e=/ethics/sabbath/sabbath_Hodge_article.html</a> <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

bob_2 · 01-02-09 10:27 pm

Don, thanks for the quote but.... 1. Col 2:16,17 says the Sabbath was a shadow, the truth found in Jesus. 2. Where do the apostles <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:They have no reference to the weekly Sabbath, which had been observed from the creation, and which the apostles themselves introduced and perpetuated in the Christian church.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> 3. <a href="http://cranfordville.com/NTViceLists.html" target=_top>http://cranfordville.com/NTViceLists.html</a> <a href="http://cranfordville.com/NTVirtureLists.html" target=_top>http://cranfordville.com/NTVirtureLists.html</a> Here is a list of do's and don'ts that apply to the NT Christian in some detail. 4. Dr. Hodge would be hard pressed to prove the Sabbath was kept from Adam to the giving of the manna. As would you.

bob_2 · 01-02-09 10:31 pm

Don, also, Dr. Hodge is not talking of the same Sabbath as you, but Sunday, that most Evangelicals consider the "Christian" Sabbath. It is disingenous of you to suggest he is by quoting this passage. Does he get into a study of the covenants anywhere and Heb 8:13???

pilgrim99 · 01-03-09 4:18 am

Bob, I really doubt that most Evangelicals consider Sunday to be the Christian Sabbath. I have heard that there is an Evangelical subculture that would be considered to be Sunday Sabbatarians. Personally, I have never met any of them.

bob_2 · 01-03-09 11:46 am

Then you haven't read the Westminister Confession, the basis of the Presbyterican Church of America: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:VII. As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath. VIII. This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations; but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><a href="http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html" target=_top>http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainf rame=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster _conf_of_faith.html</a>

elaine · 01-03-09 5:20 pm

"They have no reference to the weekly Sabbath, which had been observed from the creation, and which the apostles themselves introduced and perpetuated in the Christian church."—Systematic Theology, vol. 3, pp. 331-332." Now, if you can confirm from Scripture a single text showing that any human observed the seventh day as Sabbath before Sinai, please desist from using that old, tired unscriptural reasoning. Also, where is there any NT text showing that the apostles introduced and perpetuated the weekly Sabbth in the new Christian church? It becomes disingenuous to contine to use such examples without texts showing the validity.

don · 01-03-09 7:01 pm

a single text that any human observed the seventh day as Sabbath before Sinai Exodus 16 describes pre-covenantal and "before Sinai" observance of the Sabbath. The author of Genesis states that the Sabbath was established at Creation. You have decided to get literal and say that there is no evidence that anyone kept the Sabbath before Sinai. I have decided that the establishment of the Sabbath at Creation certainly was not done in a vacuum. Call it circumstantial evidence. If God made the Sabbath for man at the time of Creation then I conclude that man knew about the Sabbath then. You will disagree. But will you admit that your stand reflects your bias, just as my stand reflects mine. I assume that we can agree that the Sabbath is first mentioned in Genesis 2 and that it was reported as being (re)established between the Exodus and Sinai for the Israelites. The formal covenant between Israel and God took place at Mt. Sinai. The Sabbath predates the Ten Commandments, and the Sinai Covenant, by several weeks. .

pilgrim99 · 01-03-09 11:55 pm

Bob, Is the PCA a Sunday Sabbatarian organization? If so, I was not aware of it, but it wouldn't surprise me. I have tended to stay away from Denominational Christianity. In my limited interactions, they seem to act like religion museums. My experience has been limited to infrequent interaction with non Missouri Synod Lutherans, United Methodists and Anglicans. From my understanding, there are many more non-denominational Evangelicals than in the mainline Protestant Churches.

bob_2 · 01-04-09 1:42 am

The majority of them are Covenant Theologians and do not believe there was any break from the Decalogue at Christ's death, even though He came to Fulfill it.

elaine · 01-04-09 10:06 pm

Don, for those who are claiming that the Bible confirms their beliefs, it should be of concern that both the Creation story and the Exodus were written centuries afterward; in fact we do not know for certain when the Creation story was written, but there is no evidence that it was earlier than 1000 B.C. The mention of Sabbath in Ex. 16 was after the Exodus from Egypt and recorded only the slaves led out by Moses; but there is much retrospective reporting, as stories are repeated and told differently, and even the story of clean and unclean animals in the ark was not written until after the designated "clean and unclean" given at Sinai, indicating that no such classification was given prior to the flood. There are numerous other anachronisms that were clearly written much later. To read the Bible as a chronologically organized book is to be mistaken.

don · 01-04-09 10:42 pm

There are numerous other anachronisms that were clearly written much later. This is a matter of opinion. Adventists are by no means alone in asserting a historical reliability of the Hebrew Bible. It is difficult to assert any truth from the Hebrew Bible if it is not believed to be historically reliable. For example, you seem to doubt that God established the Sabbath at Creation; or that the flood account of clean and unclean animals did not really happen. Once you dismantle the Bible then it cannot be a book of definite truths. Adventism was not built on such discounting of Scripture. On the contrary, the early Adventists lived by every word proceeding from the Bible. They related to the Bible as though it were written by a most valuable and trusted Friend. .

bob_2 · 01-05-09 1:53 am

Don, to say the Sabbath was established at Creation is adding to the Word of God. The word Sabbath is never given in Genesis. I have never heard anyone suggest that the clean and unclean distinction of the Flood was a Prolepsis as Elaine suggests. Note this entry in the Jewish Enchyclopedia that gives a different perspective than Elaine's Proleptic one: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Biblical Data: The distinction between clean and unclean animals appears first in Gen. vii. 2-3, 8, where it is said that Noah took into the ark seven and seven, male and female, of all kinds of clean beasts and fowls, and two and two, male and female, of all kinds of beasts and fowls that are not clean. Again, Gen. viii. 20 says that after the flood Noah "took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar that he had built to the Lord." It seems that in the mind of this writer the distinction between clean and unclean animals was intended for sacrifices only; for in the following chapter he makes God say: "Everything that moveth shall be food for you" (Gen. ix. 3). In Leviticus (xi. 1-47) and Deuteronomy (xiv. 1-20), however, the distinction between "clean" and "unclean" is made the foundation of a food-law: "This is the law . . . to make a difference between the clean and the unclean, and between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten" (Lev. xi. 46-47). The permitted food is called "clean," "pure" (, ṭahor): the forbidden food is not simply not clean, but is positively unclean, polluted, impure (, ṭame), "an abominanation" (, sheḳeẓ). The terminology "clean and unclean" in the food-law has to a certain extent a different implication from that borne by the same terms as used in the sacrificial law (see Sacrifice). <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><a href="http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=531&letter=C" target=_top>http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=5 31&letter=C</a> Genesis 9:3 (New International Version) 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. It is suggested that the clean unclean distinction at Noah's time was sacrificial guidelines, since Gen 9:3 seems to give all creatures to man to eat, until the Jews in the desert, again, similar to the Sabbath. They needed hygiene, and they needed rest. (Message edited by Bob_2 on January 05, 2009) (Message edited by Bob_2 on January 05, 2009)

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 01-01-09 2:14 am

What is Salivific and what is not?

#2 01-01-09 7:00 pm

Re: What is Salivific and what is not?

#3 01-01-09 8:36 pm

Re: What is Salivific and what is not?

#4 01-02-09 8:50 pm

Re: What is Salivific and what is not?

#5 01-02-09 10:27 pm

Re: What is Salivific and what is not?

#6 01-02-09 10:31 pm

Re: What is Salivific and what is not?

#7 01-03-09 4:18 am

Re: What is Salivific and what is not?

#8 01-03-09 11:46 am

Re: What is Salivific and what is not?

#9 01-03-09 5:20 pm

Re: What is Salivific and what is not?

#10 01-03-09 7:01 pm

Re: What is Salivific and what is not?

#11 01-03-09 11:55 pm

Re: What is Salivific and what is not?

#12 01-04-09 1:42 am

Re: What is Salivific and what is not?

#13 01-04-09 10:06 pm

Re: What is Salivific and what is not?

#14 01-04-09 10:42 pm

Re: What is Salivific and what is not?

#15 01-05-09 1:53 am

Re: What is Salivific and what is not?

Board footer