James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) (06/05/91)
Here is an amalgamation of postings I want to reply to (before my exams !) From Dave Buxton: > Q: What must I do to be saved? > A: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. >The other side: > Q: Now that I know Him and love Him, what would He have me to do. > A: "If you love Me keep My Commandments. Haven't I already treated this out-of-context verse ? John 14:15 (I think - or is it John 15:14 ?? :-) Is the verse quoted - But Jesus then says (as I have already posted) exactly what is commanded. (and it is NOT "keep the commandments" ! nor does it MEAN "keep the commandments" !) > There are plenty of texts to support both sides and both have their place. I've seen the ones that claim to support "keep the commandments" - I've treated them before, they don't hold water ! > Let me address myself to the question of the Lord's Day. My > study has shown that the earliest authentic statement associating the > Lord's Day to Sunday comes in 200 AD. Your assertions that "any other reference to first day worship are not authentic" doesn't convince me. Are any of my references fraudulent ? You don't mention them. Everyone else (that is, non SDAs or Saturday-pushers) accepts the validity of the references - I can understand why SDA doctrine says that they are fraudulent, but it doesn't convince me. > If early church history is to be taken as proof then annul the Protestant > Reformation. You started the appeal to "early church history" to show that the sabbath was not changed until a (as yet unidentified) Pope changed it ! As for the "Lord's Day" not referring to Sunday, didn't I cover this in the original post ? Everyone else (except SDAs, etc.) accepts the reference is to Sunday, because study of the documents shows it to be so ! > I'll just focus on the Waldenses. Is this relevant ? I don't think that it proves anything (other than Saturday was kept as the 'true' sabbath by some people in history.) What if I quote everyone who kept other days, as proof that these days are the 'true sabbath' ? Your Bible quotes don't mention the sabbath, at all. (I'm aware of SDA interpretation of them, but it is based on Joseph Bates, not scripture !) > so that all can see that God is doing the right thing when He chooses those > for salvation and leaves the majority behind. When God judges, He will be > judged - it is a two way judgement, and God's credibility and honor are at > stake. Makes (extra-scriptural) sense if we were talking about the public, final Judgement, but the Investigative judgement is closed, and we don't get a look-in ! But the whole doctrine is not based on scripture - rather on a vision (as we all know - after the "great disappointment") The verses you quote don't at all indicate anything like the investigative judgement (or that God has something to prove). > The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan has not yet run its course. > In contrast to all that Satan claims in the way of freedom from God and > His laws, how can God's actions be vindicated unless God's people > demonstrate the validity of the ways of God and the laws of God? God's > people can, by doing the will of the Father, demonstrate a stark contrast > between God's ways and the ways of Satan. And so the head of Satan will be > crushed under foot. Nice paraphrasing of Ellen White's "The Great Controversy" - unfortunately, it's not scripturally based. If "freedom from God's laws" (paraphrasing your above sentence) is from satan, then you'd better dispense with Paul, and the rest of the Apostles who said they weren't bound by any laws ! ----- From Rey Paulo: > And then? Does this override GOD's 4th commandment? [repeated once, for every quote about early first-day observance - 7 times !] The quotes were in response to an assertion that early church history does not indicate first day worship - it does ! The Bible indicates what GOD has done with GOD'S commandments ! > Why don't you say instead that Paul went to the Jewish synagogue to observe > the Sabbath which is more likely considering that Paul was a Jew himself > rather than postulating that Paul went there so that he could meet fellow > Jews? Such a postulate doesn't quite make sense. Does it? It does make sense when one ACTUALLY reads the Bible ! The verses where Paul is said to go to the Synagogue "as was his custom" should be put in context with the next verse after - which say that he witnessed Jesus to the Jews he found there ! That makes MUCH more sense than your assertion :-) > The truth of the matter is that there is no one on earth (not even one of the > apostles or saints or what have you) whatever authority he may have > religious or otherwise is authorized to make void any of GOD's commandments? > This is plain and simple. If you believe otherwise, that's another story. God has the authority to make "void" any commandments - and he has: The NT says we aren't bound by laws (any). > The problem is when Sunday assembly is made substitute for the real Sabbath > as is often the case with most christians. Sunday-keeping is perfectly > alright. However, Sunday-keeping-as-replacement-of-the-Sabbath is the > problem. The "real" sabbath as you call it (hence making others false) is condemned in the Letters - Col 2:16, etc. as I have posted before ! ----- From Steven Timm: > He quotes Justin Martyr as one of the more prominent sources in the mid > 100's AD pointing out that Sunday observance had already commenced by that > time. Scholarly SDA sources such as Bacchiochi _From Sabbath To Sunday_ > also detail the sources (though Bacchiocchi's claim is that this is indeed > when the change began to occur). The two days, as I understand it, > were kept in parallel for some time, and by early 300's AD most people > had moved to Sunday. Dual day-keeping was not mentioned in the references (it would be, if it existed), and I have always found "Scholarly SDA sources" to be rather unreliable when the facts are viewed - SDA sources stand alone on many issues because they (in my experience) try to make the evidence conform to their own doctrines. > Adventists do claim that "the Lord's Day" is Saturday... Heard it before, I thought I treated it in my post - must have missed that part out. SDAs stand alone on this interpretation, because the texts are quite explicit that it was not the sabbath that was being referred to. > If people wish to learn about SDA belief, they are welcome to ask questions > on SDAnet, and I will be glad to send the Fundamental Beliefs to anyone > who asks. If anyone wishes to bash SDA belief, it would seem appropriate > to consult more recent sources and not push dated private interpretations > as official and exclusive SDA theology. Since SDA's have not discarded "Questions on Doctrines", or Ellen G Whites writings, I find them "fair game". I have the most up-to-date teaching books (including "Seventh Day Adventists Believe" [which is just 'Questions on Doctrine' with the E.G.White quotes taken out - it's the poorer for it, in my opinion !] and the "Adult Sabbath School Lessons" for '88 '89 and the beginning of '90, etc. etc. etc.) You don't seem to take issue with the accuracy of the quotes (I took them from the original texts, where possible). The "fundamental beliefs" don't contain a full representation to SDA doctrine, rather is just a summary, so that the 'truth' can be revealed slower, later (in my experience). I 'bash' false doctrine wherever I see it, and it just so happens that the sabbath issue was the one most prominent on the BB at the time I looked. I learned about SDA belief from my local SDA church - I almost believed it, and almost substituted my faith in Jesus for faith in Ellen White, SDAism, and sabbath-keeping. Or even just giving up my faith in Jesus full stop. I had no Bible references to counter SDA claims, no way of following up their inaccurate claims (no sabbath change in early history, the Papacy (Pope unidentified) changed the sabbath, food laws, Ellen White authoritative, etc., etc., etc.) - in this, finding Non-SDA analyses of the Bible, and SDA doctrine helped me to keep my faith in Jesus. That's all. As for "out of date" in what way are my references "out of date" - I doubt you've actually read them ! ----- From John Clark: > This is also involved with deliniating those who have the 'mark of > the beast' and practice sunday worship, since the 'beast' changed > 'sabbath keeping to sunday keeping. And we all know who did that, > why the Catholics. As pointed out a few posts ago the practice of > sunday observance was well before anything that vaguely resembled > the Catholic(Roman in particular) church was formed (I have heard > some say that it wasn't until the Council of Trent that an actual > 'Catholic' church was formed). If Sunday observance came before the Papacy & catholics, then how can they have changed the sabbath ? - they can't have, and that's what the facts point to ! So, then, if the Papacy didn't change the sabbath, how can any special significance (the mark of the beast) by placed on the sabbath ? This is all irrelevant, anyway, because "the mark of the beast" being "Sunday observance" has no scriptural basis ! (It does have a basis in Ellen White's "The Great Controversy" - look it up in the index !) > Why chastize the SDA's for their 'reveled' desires of the > Diety and leave other practices un-criticized. Because: 1) SDA doctrine was being pushed as the truth (I've found it isn't). 2) The revealed "desires" are not consistent with scripture. > As for the 'derived from so-and-so's writings....' argument, I would > like to see an experiement where a person who has no other 'aid' > than the Bible, not even a preacher or missionary, is given the book > and comes to the same conclusion most Christians seem to think is > obvious, i.e. that the Bible is the word of the Diety. The issue is that Ellen White is placed at the level of the Bible in authority, and is used ABOVE the Bible in the SDA church. (I can tell this looking from the outside in, it may be harder vice-versa !) > Or you have all come to your knowledge of the book via some person > or some person's writings. I don't take anyone to be a prophet with whom I can not disagree without disagreeing with God. The position of EGW in the SDA church is exactly this. (SDA doctrine and usage shows this clearly) ----- Now, I've my exams on the 24th June, so I shan't be reading NEWS till a week after then. So don't expect any speedy replies ! It also means that I won't see any replies to this post. (sad, but true !) Jim.
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/07/91)
In article <Jun.5.00.04.32.1991.16165@athos.rutgers.edu> James.Quilty@comp.vuw.ac.nz (James William Quilty) writes:
+ It does make sense when one ACTUALLY reads the Bible ! The verses where Paul
+is said to go to the Synagogue "as was his custom" should be put in context
+with the next verse after - which say that he witnessed Jesus to the Jews he
+found there ! That makes MUCH more sense than your assertion :-)
Paul appearently was a 'opportunist' in these matters, he used the
'unknown god' to introduce his preaching to some group. Should
Christians refer to their Diety as the "Unknown God" forever. Or
should they realize that it was an opportune moment.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu