Yes, We Must Circumcise Creation
by Stephen Foster
This blog has evolved from a simple comment that I started to write in response to a statement by Stephen Ferguson on Jack Hoehn’s blog, “Must We Circumscribe Creation?” (So, am I now an evolutionist? See if you can determine where my intended comment ended and this blog begins.)
Stephen Ferguson:
What would be good is the Church to even explore the theological implications what IF evolution were true, leaving the actual science of origins to the scientists. Simply making it a taboo subject, which in effect is the status within the SDA Church now, is hardly helpful.
It is hardly helpful to whom Stephen? Why can’t you or I “explore the theological implications what IF evolution was true”? Why should the church explore this topic?
As I may have mentioned previously, it has now become apparent to me that Adventists who, for whatever reason(s), do not believe the Seventh-day part of Adventist theology—as relates to creation week—to be (literally) correct; likewise tend not to believe the Adventist part of Adventist theology—as relates to eschatological prophecy regarding Jesus Christ’s second advent—to be (literally) correct either.
Logically, one disbelief sequentially precedes the other. When you do not ‘buy’ the premise at the beginning of practically any book, you are unlikely to ‘buy’ the conclusion. The same is clearly true with Scripture.
This is also where Jack Hoehn’s reasonable and well written blog/premise breaks down theologically.
Here is dialogue that demonstrates how:
Stephen Ferguson:
I guess the important theological question is whether the [Seventh-day] Sabbath is merely a Jewish ceremony, like circumcision, and thus abrogated at the Cross, or a necessary part of true worship of Yahweh, like not having graven images or not worshipping other gods other than Yahweh Himself, in accordance with the historic creeds of Christianity? I would submit that Pauline Christianity, whilst abrogating circumcision, no more abrogates [the] Sabbath than it does the worship of other gods or creation of graven images. —–[Ed. Note: This appears to mean that Paul didn’t abrogate idol worship or graven images. We assume that what Stephen Ferguson meant was that Paul's abrogation of circumcision had nothing to do with the Sabbath, just as that abrogation (of circumcision) has nothing to do with the worship of other gods or creation of graven images (both of which, like the Sabbath, are referenced in the Ten Commandments).]
Jack Hoehn:
Stephen,
Paul who vigorously opposed the imposition of the external circumcision on Gentile Christians continues to meet on Sabbaths with Gentiles even when expelled from the Synagogues. He finds and worships with Gentile Lydia on a Sabbath at a riverside place of prayer in Thessalonika. He has nothing to say about Sunday worship.
Jesus who has nothing to say about His circumcision has plenty to say about proper and improper [Seventh-day] Sabbath keeping. Sabbath reform, not Sabbath abrogation is a large part of His ministry.
Circumcision is not part of the 10 commandment moral law.
It seems to me that you only equate circumcision with [Seventh-day] Sabbath keeping when you are anti-Sabbatarian?
Here Dr. Hoehn is, of course, correct. The thing is, the seventh-day Sabbath is—among other things—first and foremost a memorial of creation and of creation week. It is a weekly reminder—literally—of how, and by whose hands, we are.
This is why, somewhat further down on the thread of Dr. Hoehn’s blog, I wrote the following:
Circumcision was ordained by God for apparently a spiritual identification purpose; but it had/has hygienic benefits that are universally applicable because God understands what He he did and knows what He’s doing.
Something similar can also be said of the Sabbath’s purpose in the creation narrative. It was ordained for spiritual identification purposes (it essentially identifies the Personhood of God) but had/has memorial benefits that are universally applicable because God understands what He did in six days and knows that forgetting (not remembering) the Sabbath may result in unbelief in what He did—and how.
The reason for the Sabbath is to remind/remember what God claims to have done.
Is there any other reason for it?
Once we no longer believe what God claims to have done, and/or how He claims to have done it, then the Sabbath becomes, at best, an anachronistic irrelevance.
My admittedly limited observation has revealed that Adventists who don’t agree with the first Biblically provided reason for the Sabbath also do not agree with the prophetic eschatological implications of the Sabbath (and its observance) from an historical Protestant Seventh-day Adventist perspective. (These same individuals “agree” with Seventh-day Adventist culture but disagree with Seventh-day Adventist theology.)
If we can’t believe what God claims to have done in the beginning—or even that God claims to have done it—and this leads to disbelief in what God claims will happen in the future; why then should we believe what He has done for us in between?
This is why, in my view, it is certainly now necessary to identify creation; because if we don’t we may not believe whose we are, why we are His, or what He plans for us.
And when we do appropriately identify creation, the subsequent effects of belief are serendipitously beneficial; just as medical science has apparently demonstrated is the case with anatomical circumcision.
Well articulated!!!!
Thank you very much, Tapiwa; much appreciated!
Stephen, I am somewhat bemused but honoured you have written a whole blog in response to a few statements from me.
"When you do not ‘buy’ the premise at the beginning of practically any book, you are unlikely to ‘buy’ the conclusion."
Aren't many books, dramas, shows and movies, including perhaps the whole genre of criminal fiction, premised on people having a misconception about the meaning of the beginning, with the 'ah-ha' or 'Perrry Mason' moment coming at the end? It isn't that the reader doesn't 'buy' the premise at the beginning; rather, there is often deliberate ambiguity at the preamble or opening chapters, which only becoming clearer near or at the end?
"It is hardly helpful to whom Stephen? Why can’t you or I “explore the theological implications what IF evolution was true”? Why should the church explore this topic?"
Stephen I have repeatedly noted that I am personally an agnostic on the creation vs evolution issue. But the simple fact is, and what really worries me, is that 97% plus percent of scientists do not accept 6 x 24 hour creationism. I believe persons at the GC's own pet GRI have admitted that there is as yet no scientific model sufficiently able to support YEC.
These facts are something the Church cannot continue to ignore. I never suggested the Church no longer support YEC. However, to simply ignore the mounting evidence, that has not been disproved at all after 150 years or so, seems to be foolhardy and setting one's faith on sand, ready to be washed away with the next scientific discovery.
To my mind, it would be good if the Church could adopt a more open attitude to these issues, to even discuss the what IFs, without the issue simply being censored by official and unofficial taboos.
"Once we no longer believe what God claims to have done, and/or how He claims to have done it, then the Sabbath becomes, at best, an anachronistic irrelevance."
Stephen, I think you are perhaps creating straw men, which you easily destroy. To refer to someone like famous Mathematician Lennox, no one is disputing the biblical account when it says God created the world in 6 days. The dispute is what 'days' the Bible is talking about. You are jumping to the conclusion that Bible must mean 24 hour-days in Genesis; whereas, that is just the traditional one, and there are a number of other possible interpretations that are just as 'literal'.
To accept that God created the world in 6 'God-days' (however long that is, but longer than 24-hour 'man days') and rested on the 7th 'God-day' (as God continues to do and has since creation, as Augustine much talked about), does not dimish the importance for mankind to worship God every 7th 'man-day'.
The Jews note this best that when they light the candles each Sabbath, they are partaking in the creation event. They don't literally re-create the world, as God already did that before Eden. However, their re-enactment drama of the Sabbath is vital to the true and continued worship of God.
As you noted in your article, if it turned out God created the world in 6 'God-days' and not 'man-days', and 'created' in a more indirect way (it does after all say God directed the land, waters and sky to bring forth the animals and plants, as He did not create them directly), this does not suddenly dimish the other commands to worship only the 1 God and to refrain from making graven images. God is still 1 God and is Creator, even if we didn't previously fully understand the science of His methods. Likewise, the Sabbath remains an integral part of acknowledge God as Creator, regardless of whether creation occured in 6 God-days or 6 man-days, or directly or more indirectly.
My major concern is most Adventists are establishing a faith system that can be killed by science, because they read ambiguities in scripture through only 1 interpretation. I have tried to build my faith on rock, Jesus Christ, that cannot be destroyed by science, and sees ambiguities as ambiguities.
There’s something that you should factor into your concern about the Adventist church’s position with regard to six literal days; and that is that we are not the only Christians who tend to doctrinally subscribe to it—and that should comfort you.
It could be that this six day belief thing is a largely American and Third World Christian phenomenon at this point.
The larger point however is that we (Adventists) are not alone in this belief. I say that this should comfort you because you are so clearly concerned about what others (particularly a large majority of scientists) happen to think; which baffles me.
As I’ve stated previously, the vast majority of scientists do not believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that He resurrected Lazarus, or is Himself resurrected. This clearly has no bearing on what you believe about these things, do they?
Your faith is appropriately in Jesus; but the Jesus in whose name God answers prayers cannot possibly be ‘alive’ scientifically—nor can He possibly return in the future.
I realize that you theorize that those "six days" were not the 24-hour days that we spend, but instead were…something else; but the Bible does not indicate that.
“Jesus in whose name God answers prayers cannot possibly be ‘alive’ scientifically—nor can He possibly return in the future.”
Stephen I have admitted elsewhere that a big difference between science and theology/philosophy is that science is a description about what is observed using the scientific method, not what deeper theological/philosophical ‘is’ truth.
For example, if scientists could go back in time and observe 1-day old Adam (assuming Adam was literally created in one 24-hour period), scientists would actually observed him as 30-years old. Thus, scientists would be correct in ascribing Adam as 30-years old and theologians correct in ascribing him only 1-day old.
Along this train of thought, I have far less problem with theologians, including some notable ones at the GC’s BRI, who say they believe in 6 x 24-hour creation by faith, even though they admit there is no scientific model to support their views. You seem to be suggesting a similar argument in likewise pointing out that Jesus’ resurrection, or an afterlife in general, is not something than can be proved or disproved using the scientific method.
I think that a far better and far more honest approach than suggesting, as many YEC do, that science supports a 6,000-year old earth. Clearly it doesn’t, at least based on proper science.
YEC can’t have it both ways. They can’t argue that ‘proper science’ supports the view of a 6,000-year old earth, and then at the same time argue that science can’t be trusted or used as a basis for faith.
What you seem to be suggesting is that it would be quite open for an SDA science teacher to tell the class that as a matter of science (i.e. observation using the scientific method), that the world appears far, far older than 6,000 years-old – in the same way that at our medical schools we train doctors that there is no point performing on a rotting corpse because they don’t come back to life from that state of decay.
Stephen Foster, thanks for continuing the conversation.
Creationists (of all chronologies) agree that God created. We agree that He inspired Moses to reveal that to us.
We agree that it happened in 6 "yom", which can mean several things that in English we might call daylights of 12 hours, solar days of 24 hours, way back then "in the day", eras (there is no Hebrew word for age or era beyond yom), 1000 years as Peter says, or year for a day in prophecy….
We also agree that this inspired story might be a chronology or might be an organization of what He did, but perhaps not when. This would suggest the yom or creation days are creation steps, creation achievements, creation battles between darkness and light that God wins after each darkness followed by His creating light.
We also recognize that the Sabbath is the crown of creation, and the creation events are told in a 6 day series, in order to inagurate the Sabbath for man in a weekly cycle.
We just don't agree that you have to accept it all happened in 144 hours to believe all the rest. We don't have a problem with you believing it happened in 144 hours, we do have a problem in requiring all fellow believer Creationists to believe that and saying it can't be studied or explored.
We are not trying to convince you, we are trying to ask you to not demand we accept your view as the only proper one.
Thanks for starting the conversation, Dr. Hoehn.
We don’t agree on what “we agree…”
There is no scriptural indication, to my knowledge, that either Peter’s simile or the prophetic day-for-a-year formula has anything to do with the 6 “yom” of creation week.
That evening and morning thing seems problematic for both sides from an explanation perspective.
I feel that this discussion misses the deeper symbolism of the Sabbath.The Sabbath is a memorial of creation. And it is also a memorial of liberation. It reveals a God who created the natural order, but is beyond the natural order; a God who is not limited by the natural cycles of the sun, moon or stars which He created.
Just as the fourth day of creation recounts God bringing into existence the celestial order by which the days, months, seasons, and years of our lives are measured and controlled, so, in the highly symbolic placement of the Fourth Commandment, He liberates us from those natural cycles to find holy time, where our lives are shaped and guided by a reality which transcends the natural order in which we find ourselves. As slaves in Egypt, deprived of any Sabbath rest, deprived of any opportunity for an existence other than that dictated by the forces of nature and a human political order, how profoundly liberating was the Sabbath gift as a reminder that a liberator God wanted to change the trajectory and destination of their lives! The fact that God offers different reasons, in different times and circumstances, for obeying Him, does not diminish the importance of His commands.
This is to me a profound prism of truth. Well-intentioned fundamentalist SDAs trivialize both the Sabbath and creation by trying to make God fit within the confines of their rational boxes, in the same way that well-intentioned liberals nullify the Sabbath and creation by hawsering God to the world of human perception and logic: "If the earth wasn't created in seven literal days, the seventh day Sabbath makes no sense." True…and if Santa Claus isn't real, flying reindeer make no sense either. If brain-penetrating electromagnetic fields and mind control aren't real, how do you explain the wearing of tin foil hats? You can't construct an airtight logical box from a non-rational faith container.
ISN'T IT IRONIC THAT SO MANY ADVENTISTS WANT TO ANCHOR THE SABBATH IN A RATIONALISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURAL ORDER FROM WHICH THE SABBATH WAS INTENDED TO FREE US? Is it just possible that God gave us the seventh day Sabbath as a gift – a reminder that He is both creator and liberator – and commands us, as stewards of that gift, to validate it by existentially discovering and revealing its cornucopia of blessings? The Bible I read seems to suggest that it is more important to obey God because we trust Him than to obey Him because we can reason our way to the logic of His commands. And in obeying Him, we experientially discover the reasons for the gift, and deepen our trust in the Giver.
“ISN'T IT IRONIC THAT SO MANY ADVENTISTS WANT TO ANCHOR THE SABBATH IN A RATIONALISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURAL ORDER FROM WHICH THE SABBATH WAS INTENDED TO FREE US?”
Indeed. To be honest, I think YECs are often inconsistent and confused in their approach. Stephen Foster suggested we can’t base our belief in the resurrection on rationalistic understanding of the natural order, because that natural order suggests there is no life after death and thus Christ hasn’t risen from the dead.
I tend to agree with him there. Christian doctors know and are taught that someone who has stopped breathing can still be resuscitated (despite Bible texts perhaps suggests the breath returns to God), and yet know there is no point attempting resuscitation in a corpse days dead like Lazarus. Yet, this scientific knowledge of the natural order does not preclude Christian doctors from believing in the resurrection, even though there is no scientific evidence to support it.
Yet when SDA science teachers adopt the same approach they are declared heretics!
YECs want to anchor the Sabbath in a rationalistic understanding of the natural order. On the one hand, they hang their faith on ‘creationist science’, which is rejected by the vast, vast majority of the scientific consensus. They then want to say that science can’t be used as the basis of faith, as in the example of the lack of scientific evidence for the resurrection.
So which is it – is a rationalistic understanding of the natural order through science the basis for our views on origins – yes or no? YECs are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Is it possible that the sabbath was given to the Jews only? Is it possible that the sabbath was never given to Christians but only to the Jews? This agrees with the Bible account; Christians were never given a rest or worship day.
In answer to your questions – no, no, no. We have been on that roundabout before. I guess your own ‘extreme liberal views’ in some ways support ‘extreme conservative views’ – much like Richard Dawkins and Christian fundamentalists often adopt a very similar approach of ‘either/or’.
It is the either/or approach that concerns me the most, and something ‘moderates’ struggle to defend against extremes. That is something that agrees with the Bible account, especially in the NT, where the Jesus Movement had to combat both Pharisaic Judaism (which upheld the Oral Law, which went beyond biblical requirements) on the one hand and Gnosticism on the other (which tried to do away with biblical requirements).
The Sabbath is a classic issue caught in the cross-fire between both extreme views.
We should always remember that no matter what or how we believe, it is always subject to God's meaning. We all interpret the Bible as we read it and not just the Bible alone to discover the context and possible alternate interpretations. We should not be so certain that our interpretation is the correct and only one.
When questions are asked or possible alternative interpretations are offered on Bible records, it is easy to reject anything that we were not taught to believe. But that does not determine the truthfulness or accuracy of a particular text.
The Bible and its writers did not live in a vacuum; there were many influences contributing to their stories. Christianity did not spring overnight into a full-fledged church with all doctrines settled. That is why we cannot limit our knowledge of the early church only to what is recorded in the NT canon which ended at the end of the first century. Many, if not most of the Christian doctrines accepted today were studied, argued, and discussed for several centuries before being written into a creed. Christianity was NOT and extension of Judaism; nor simply another of many Jewish sects, but an entirely new religion with quite different beliefs.
Refusing to consider anything in the early church that was discussed, or practices changed, that are part of the first three-four centuries of Christian history, and since they have largely been adopted by the Adventist church it is essential that members understand how they gradually became part of their doctrinal beliefs.
Elaine, I agree with many of these sentiments but these sentiments go both ways. Christianity has traditionally, at least since about the 4th century, just assumed the NT supports the abrogation of the Sabbath. There were numerous minorities groups within Christianity that came to a different conclusion from time-to-time, but they were usually ignored. The SDA Church certainly wasn’t the first group in modern times to re-examine the Sabbath question, but I would suggest most Christian groups take the Sabbath question for granted.
As to whether or not Christianity is or is not an extension of Judaism, I think you grossly oversimplify the issue. In fact, I think you adopt a very proto-Gnostic attitude, perhaps mirroring Marcion, who did everything he could to cut Christianity off from its Hebrew roots. It was Marcion, in his effort to cut out the OT and much of the NT, who led to the formation of the NT cannon we have today.
I doubt the Apostles and even Paul would have seen it is such black and white terms. I suspect they did indeed see Christianity as an extension of Judaism. In fact, Christianity was merely just another sect within the Judean community, battling to win the hearts and minds of Israel.
Furthermore, there was no such thing as ‘Judaism’ upon which Christianity was or was not an extension of. Judaism as we have today was just the Pharasaic faction of Judean religion, which proved to prevail after the destruction of the Temple.
To use a biological analogy, you Christianity is no more a descendant of Judaism than Homo Sapiens descendants of Neathandals. They are separate branches of a common ancestor – both from Homo Erectus. The ancestor religion of Christianity is not Judaism by the Judean-Hebrew-Israelite cult cantered around the Jerusalem Temple. Christianity is as much a continuation of the Hebrew-Temple religion, and we have as much right to call ourselves ‘Children of Israel’, as the apostles did, as those who call themselves ‘Jews’ today.
The historic creeds certainly see Christianity as a continuation of ancient Hebrew religion. There was no sharp split as you claim. The compromise in Acts 15 and Gal 2 did not create a brand new religion per se, and Christianity remained a very Hebrew religion for some time.
Stephen,
While I often find myself agreeing with you, on this statement I could not disagree more:
" Christianity was merely just another sect within the Judean community, battling to win the hearts and minds of Israel."
And yet, it immediately began to spread to the Gentiles until even before the end of the first century, there were no Jewish Christians that have been recorded. In fact, had it merely been another Jewish sect, which it surely would have been had not circumcision been eliminated for all other Christians, it would have merely joined the many numerous Jewish sects that were already in that area. In addition from the inception of the Hebrews, it was exclusive to the Hebrews ethnicity–no proselytes unless they had first been circumcised–a most effective barrier. Judaism has always, from the beginning, been both a religious and ethnic description, something found in no other religions.
It was only, and solely because circumcision and the accompanying Jewish practices were eliminated and open to all ethnic groups, did Christianity rapidly grow until by the end of the second century, Rodny Stark, Christian sociologist-historian, writes that given the starting number of 120 several months after the Crucifixion (Act. 1:14-15); later a total of 5,000 believers (Acts. 4:14)' and given the starting number of 60 million at the time of Constantine (a consensus estimate by a number of historians), Christianity grew to 40 percent per decade per year. No significant numbers of Jews are included in these figures as there has been no records of Jewish converts in Christianity after the first century, and even before.
Yes, Judaism today is very different than in Jesus' time but if we are referring to the early centuries, Judaism still practices the early traditions of circumcision, sabbath, and dietary laws. Those have not changed.
What is your basis for:
"Christianity remained a very Hebrew religion for some time"?
With Paul going to the Gentiles, he established a non-Hebrew belief. The Gentiles did not adopt the Jewish practices: circumcision, sabbath, dietary laws, so what part of the Hebrew religion are you referring to when its growth was in the former Gentiles? They never are recorded as adopting any of these Hebrew practices from the get-go. That is why Paul's letter to the Galatians, Romans, and Ephesians, to name a few, spent so much time explaining the difference that Christ had made in the former Jewish beliefs.
"The historic creeds certainly see Christianity as a continuation of ancient Hebrew religion."
The Nicene creed is the oldest and it declares the Trinity; declares the divinity of Christ; that he came down to save man and suffered and rose again on the third day and will return to judge the living and the dead.
Not one of these is doctrinal belief in the Hebrew religion; in fact they are contrary in every way. The claim that Christianity is a continuation of ancient Hebrew religion has no evidence whatsoever, unless you are prepared to present it. Where is the evidence that Christianity remained a very Hebrew religion for some time? How long? Please present your evidence.
Elaine we may simply be arguing nuances here. It is almost an evolutionary question of when did two species of birds become two separate species, derrived from the common ancestor.
"And yet, it immediately began to spread to the Gentiles until even before the end of the first century, there were no Jewish Christians that have been recorded."
The conservative Judaizing faction of Chrisitianity, centred in Jerusalem, was wiped out with the destruction of that city by the Romans. It is an interesting historical question how Christianity could have been different but for that event. The Pauline Christian Gentile faction of Christianity and the Pharasaic faction were the ones who benefited – the Judaizing Christians, the Zealots, the Essenes and the Sadducees didn't.
After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, when within Christianity the Judaizers were eleminted, there were two major factions of Christianity left – Pauline proto-orthodox and the Marcion proto-Gnostics. The proto-Gnostics were already on the rise in the NT, and Paul and John have much to say against them. The proto-orthodox one, and the Gnostics were destroyed.
Thus, what were in effect were different religious and political philosophies at the NT period were much in flux, evolving and had sub-groups of groups.
"Where is the evidence that Christianity remained a very Hebrew religion for some time? How long? Please present your evidence."
It still is and always has been, in the sense that we worship a Hebrew God, worship a Jew from Nazareth who claimed to be the King of the Jews, we follow a religion established by Hebrew apostles who relied on and quoted continually Hebrew scriptures.
But as to when the big split happened, again, there probably is not exact date. There was obviously a series of evolutionary events. The Apostolic Council in Acts 15, as you note, is certainly one such event. The destruction of the Temple in 70 CE another. Probably the biggest event was Constantine's conversion and the rise of an institutionalised State Christianity, that eventually became the Papacy as we know it.
But I doubt there was a single event when one could say Judaism and Christianity definately split. For example, look at the evolution and debate over issues such as the celebration of Easter. The NT says nothing about it. Many in the early Church, especially in the East, argued it should aline with the Jewish Passover, even if it falls on a weekday, whilst others suggested it should be the first Sunday after Passover. The evolution of Sunday observance is another example.
And Elaine, we appear to be perhaps going off topic and into your favourite tangent re whether the Sabbath was merely a ceremonial rite for Jews or is part of the Moral Law binding on Christians as an act of true worship of God.
The Sabbath is both a memorial of Creation, and the fact that the Lord created the world we know in six days; as well as a memorial of His liberating His people from Egyptian bondage.
It is a memorial of what God claims to have done in supernatural fashion.
As such the Sabbath is a weekly reminder that He Is; and is omnipotent.
What you are reminded of, you remember. What you remember, you tend to believe.
The abandonment of or failure to remember the Sabbath has led to an abandoning of the belief in an omnipotent God. (The meaning/definition of omnipotence has been forgotten.)
To the extent that the Sabbath will become a sign/test of loyalty to God, and remembering or acknowledging it will serve as a bulwark against the receipt of the mark of the beast, its remembrance has protective properties that can’t be ignored.
(This is not to say that the Sabbath is such a test now; but that SDA eschatology anticipates it to be.)
As for creation (S. Ferguson), YEC scientists may appear to be trying to have it both ways, because they are (understandably) trying to provide evidence for their faith.
Although I, personally, see little/nothing to be gained by such efforts; just as I see nothing to be gained by considering the SDA Church considering Mr. Ferguson’s ‘What if evolution was true’ question, who am I to fault them for their efforts?
Correction: “…just as I see nothing to gained by the SDA Church considering Mr…”
Is a memorial the same as the original? Is it possible to have a weekly memorial of a much greater event? Do the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper really become the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, as the Catholics teach, or are they are regular (quarterly in our Church) memorial, but just a lesser symbol nonetheless, of a great and terrible day at Golgotha? Does the Lord’s Supper suddenly lose its meaning and stop being a valid rite when we realise, as Protestants did all those centuries ago, that the bread and wine didn’t literally become Christ but were just a regular symbolic ritual?
True worship of God comes through imitation – and all four of the first commandments about God are about mankind imitating God. An image is just that – a copy – it isn’t the ‘real’ thing. God commands we worship no other gods, yet in Gen 1:26,28 God effectively makes mankind god of this world. God commands we not make any graven images, yet in Gen 1:27 God makes mankind as His divine image on earth. God commands we not use His name in vain, as to name something is to rule over it, yet in Gen 2:20 God gets Adam to name all the animals.
In all these things, mankind and his actions are living memorials to God – yet a memorial is inferior to God and His actions. Yet when we get to the Sabbath, we assume God’s rest must be in kind to man’s weekly Sabbath memorial!
Why do we assume that the man-Sabbath days must be the same as God-Sabbath day? The Sabbath command isn’t merely to rest every seventh-day – it is to work six days. On six days every week, mankind is a living memorial of God, in that we partake in the ‘creation event’ by shaping the space around us. Yet no one would think that mankind’s work was equal’s to God creative work would they?
No would thinks that the first part of the Sabbath commandment, where in Ex 20:9 it talks about mankind working, is intended to mean mankind’s work is equivalent to God’s work. Yet when we get to the latter part of the passage in Ex 20:11, we suddenly assume the notion of man’s weekly rest must somehow match God’s rest. If the work doesn’t match, why do we assume the rest must match?
“Although I, personally, see little/nothing to be gained by such efforts; just as I see nothing to be gained by considering the SDA Church considering Mr. Ferguson’s ‘What if evolution was true’ question, who am I to fault them for their efforts?”
You should perhaps fault them by: i) confusing people with their inconsistent approach, as to whether science is or is not relevant to questions of faith, as is whether science isn’t relevant to the question of the resurrection; ii) perhaps being just a little hypocritical by trying to have it both ways; and iii) expecting evolution to be a taboo topic when they are expect to be able to run multiple but contradictory arguments at the same time.
“To the extent that the Sabbath will become a sign/test of loyalty to God, and remembering or acknowledging it will serve as a bulwark against the receipt of the mark of the beast, its remembrance has protective properties that can’t be ignored.”
The Sabbath, and the SDA view re the Sabbath in eschatology, need not be considered abrogated if one rejects YEC – I believe Jack ran several articles on that very point. The fact that many Adventists who reject YEC then go on to reject the role of the Sabbath in SDA eschatology is circumstantial proof at that, and about as conclusive as saying a new Bear Tax to buy rocks will keep bears away (to use a Simpson example).
Perhaps the reason why many ‘liberal’ Adventists who reject YEC then go on to reject SDA eschatology is because people like Goldstein make statements that says if you reject YEC you can’t belong in the SDA Church.
A similar analogy is most people with a homosexual orientation leave the SDA Church. Whilst not advocating homosexual actions, you can’t tell me that people born with a homosexual orientation are naturally less spiritual than hetrosexual young people growing up in the Church? So does having a homosexual orientation do something to one’s mind to make them suddenly reject SDA eschatology, or is it more because a Church who doesn’t make such young people feel welcome more likely to chuck in the whole belief system?
"As such the Sabbath is a weekly reminder that He Is; and is omnipotent.”
If one accepts evolution, then God’s role as Creator and that creation is ‘good’ is all the less clear. Thus, the seventh-day Sabbath is arguably more important, not less important, for Christians who reject YEC. By analogy, for the Abrahamic religions that reject the worship of physical idols one can see and are continually reminded of, the Sabbath again is more important, not less important, for the worship of an invisible God.
There are millions of Christians are even no religion who see the evidence of a wonderful creator every time they leave the city and go to the mountains, lake, or seashore and "rest" in the beauty that mankind has been given without any function other than to have a feast for the eyes.
No day, and no specific day of the week is needed for this sort of contemplation.
Read Abraham Herschel on the Sabbath. You don't need the Sabbath to worship God; however, Sabbath observance is part of true worship of God, as found in His Decalogue. You can have a relationship with someone over the phone or internet but it isn't quite the same as face-to-face.
“…apparently exclude that reader from SDA church…”
We could not understand each other less.
"The abandonment of or failure to remember the Sabbath has led to an abandoning of the belief in an omnipotent God."
Much as I treasure the seventh day Sabbath – and I assume that's what you are talking about here, Stephen – I don't understand how you can support that conclusion. Sunday Sabbath was observed for nearly 1,500 years by people who fasted, prayed, sacrificed, and served for the cause of an omnipotent God with an intensity that trivializes the piety of today's most observant Sevnth-Day Adventists. The martyrs that Ellen White canonizes were not convicted of the centrality of seventh day Sabbath observance, though most of them were veritable Pharisees about Sunday observance, and certainly believed in a literal 6 day creation.
It seems so obvious to me that it was the combination of the Enlightenment and the Protestant Reformation, which led to "abandoning of the belief in an omnipotent God," that I can scarcely imagine any persuasive counter-argument. Higher criticism in general can be blamed/credited for both abandonment of faith and deepening of faith and understanding. But surely you are not arguing, Stephen, that seventh day Sabbath keepers believe more firmly in an omnipotent God than first day Sabbath keepers, are you?
Let me hasten to add that, while I do not think God impressed early Christians with the centrality of the seventh day Sabbath, I do think he impressed early Adventists with its centrality. And I believe that, through that gift, we have much to share with Christians and non-Christians alike about an omnipotent God who both reveals Himself through, and transcends, the natural order.
Nathan: miraculous: I find myself agreeing with you 😉
" Sunday Sabbath was observed for nearly 1,500 years by people who fasted, prayed, sacrificed, and served for the cause of an omnipotent God with an intensity that trivializes the piety of today's most observant Sevnth-Day Adventists."
Christians are called to worship God. The impression is often left that with Adventism, Sabbath is God–revered above all else; telling Christians that regardless of their present religious beliefs, unless they observe sabbath, they cannot escape that feared mark of the beast in the future. Sabbath has replaced every other doctrine to become the only one that, not obeyed, makes all the others meaningless.
The early Christians did NOT replace the Sabbath by Sunday, but began meeting and celebrating the Resurrection day, a very honorable symbol for Christians, for without it there would be no Christians. While Sabbath began with Judaism and will always remain the seventh day. Sunday was never observed as a substitute or replacement for sabbath, nor has it ever been changed.
I do agree with your Elaine re the danger of making Sabbath itself an idol. Catholics probably do the same with the Eucharist, Pentecostals with speaking in Tongues, and it is probably easy to do it with any rite. A liturgical rite serves a purpose, usually to worship God, but is not otherwise an end in of itself. When it becomes an end in of itself, it becomes an idol.
I might add, Stephen, that Jews have not abandoned the seventh day Sabbath. But belief in an omnipotent God who created the world in 6 literal days is much less prevalent among even observant Jews – at least in North America – than it is among evangelical Sunday keepers.
Very good point.
Anecdotal (or stereotypical) information about what Jews/anyone believe/believes does not a good point make.
Actually Stephen, when you claim that there is a causal relationship between belief in a literal 6 day creation in recent history and seventh day Sabbath keeping, evidence that large groups of seventh-day Sabbath keepers don't believe in a literal 6 day creation, and large groups of Sunday observers do believe in a literal 6 day creation, not only makes a good point, but would seem to conclusively refute your claim.
In your world of logic, it seems that evidence with which you disagree is merely anecdotal – of no persuasive value – but theories in which you believe are irrefutable, regardless of reality, because they were offered by canonical authority.
Why don't you just admit that your hypothesis doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and retreat to the redoubt of the future in which all things are possible and no assertion can be falsified.
I have attempted to choose my words carefully, but it is extremely difficult to have them taken and discussed as written.
While it is true that the abandonment of the Sabbath has led, and can/does lead, to disbelief in an omnipotent God; it has not invariably led, or necessarily inevitably results in such a consequent disbelief.
Permit this crude analogy for illustration purposes. It is practically the gateway drug to disbelief; somewhat like wine or marijuana. It is in this sense that abandonment or disregard for the Sabbath is to disbelief as wine or marijuana is to addiction.
There are Christians who ignorantly observe the wrong Sabbath who will not become unbelievers. All wine drinkers or pot smokers will not necessarily become heroin addicts or crackheads.
Just as practically all heroin addicts and crackheads initially drank beer or wine and/or smoked pot, so every unbeliever must ignore, disregard, abandon, or not “remember” the Sabbath.
Remembering and acknowledging the Sabbath “for in six days the Lord made…” and because “through a mighty hand…” he delivers us, is a bulwark against disbelief—as abstinence from even mild intoxicants is against addiction.
Without drilling down into the weeds or the historicity of the thing, you're not explicitly wrong. Weekly observance of the Sabbath serves as a continual reinforcement of Adventist indoctrination; if that reinforcer is removed, basic psychology would tell you (and has demonstrated) that the strength of the indoctrination diminishes over time. Ergo, competing ideas — competing "truths" — are more able to influence such a person and chip away at the world view instilled by Adventism. Recurring rituals and ceremonies are woven in to nearly every world religion and they all drive this same psychological mechanism, so this is true across the board — a caveat I'm including lest somebody think I'm sniping at Adventism specifically.
As a quick addendum, this concept is really no different than the insular behavior of many cults — in order to maintain the indoctrination, cult leaders encourage (or even demand) that followers sever ties with "non-believers" — friends, family, etc — in order to avoid being "swayed by those who would mislead" them from the truth, where truth in this case is whatever the cult leaders say it is.
If cult leaders didn't assert this continual control over their followers, they'd soon find themselves without any followers.
" It is practically the gateway drug to disbelief; somewhat like wine or marijuana. It is in this sense that abandonment or disregard for the Sabbath is to disbelief as wine or marijuana is to addiction."
It's best when one is in a hole, not to keep digging. Such statements as this one and the earlier one:
"The abandonment of or failure to remember the Sabbath has led to an abandoning of the belief in an omnipotent God. (The meaning/definition of omnipotence has been forgotten.)"
Writing it twice as though repetition changes anything. and disparages 2,000 years of Christian history where sincere Christians observed the day of Resurrection, not the Jewish Sabbath.
This may be your belief, but it does not agree with history. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. So, please, if you wish to be factual can you furnish the basis for such statements?
Elaine,
You just may have, and apparently did, inconveniently miss the immediately following statements:
“There are Christians who ignorantly observe the wrong Sabbath who will not become unbelievers. All wine drinkers or pot smokers will not necessarily become heroin addicts or crackheads.
Just as practically all heroin addicts and crackheads initially drank beer or wine and/or smoked pot, so every unbeliever must ignore, disregard, abandon, or not “remember” the Sabbath.”
You are correct, this is my opinion. History has certainly not proven me wrong. Sooner or later all unbelievers must—and do—eventually ignore, or disregard, the Sabbath. (Do I need to repeat again that there are Christians who ignorantly observe the wrong day who will not become unbelievers?)
A person's assumptions however strongly perceived may be in error and not factual. The crowning and recognition of God's creative power of Earth and its life forms is very dear to all believing Christians. God's knowing that his worship had become burdensome and corrupted by the Jews, assumed human flesh in order to demonstrate his perfect love for His creation; and being a perfect uncorruptable role model paid the ransom for every sinner by assuming their guilt in his own flesh. Only Christ was able to save His creatures. He was the "new covenant" for the gentiles and all accepting mankind. The circumcission of the past first convenant and its condemnation was excised by Christ.
" It is practically the gateway drug to disbelief; somewhat like wine or marijuana. It is in this sense that abandonment or disregard for the Sabbath is to disbelief as wine or marijuana is to addiction."
I think I get the analogy. However, sure the conservative Judaizers in Acts 15 used this analogy about dispensing with the rite of circumcission. Abandoning circumcission did not in fact result in Christians turning away from monotheism, as many Judaizers might have thought. Which returns us to Jack's original point in his original article – dispensing with a belief in 6 x 'man-day' creation by God for a different belief in a 6 x 'God-day' creation will not necessarily result in turning away from belief in the Sabbath or any other core fundamental belief of Adventism.
The Gentile Christians never accepted Sabbath as a special holy day, as the Jews. Are you calling them "unbelievers"? Or, just unbelieving of the sacredness of the seventh day?
Again, it seems that for some, the sacredness and perpetuity of the seventh day is THE mark of "believers." There are many reasons for becoming an unbeliever in what one was TAUGHT. If one studies for himself and learns that the seventh day was never given to, nor promoted to the early Christians, and that it was a Jewish ceremonial day of great significance to them, but NOT for Christians, he may very well see that what he was taught does not stand up to rigid Bible inspection.
"The Gentile Christians never accepted Sabbath as a special holy day, as the Jews."
Says who – you? This statement doesn't appear supported in either the NT or in history.
Elaine, I guess on this topic you and Stephen Foster probably are debating allies?
Stephen,
The Bible only covers (Revelation) to the end of the first century. There are nearly 2,000 years of Christian history since then so to limit "early" Christian history to the period covered by the Bible is to negate all the 1900 years following.
You have failed to give supporting texts affirming that Gentile Christians accepted and adopted the seventh day. Yes, they went to the synagogue because that is where they could learn about Christ. Doesn't that sound strange that a Jewish synagogue would have Christ being taught there? It's because a synagogue was not merely a worship site but a place where people gathered to listen to someone speak. Attending on Saturday did not mean that the Gentiles had become Sabbath observers at all. As God-fearers they were not allowed to enter the temple unless they were circumcised.
"The rite of circumcision was the requirment for observance of Jewish practices. "A non-Jew who observes the Sabbath whilst he is uncircumcised incurs liability for the punishment of death. Why? Because non-Jews were not commanded concerning it….The Sabbath is a reunion between Israel and God, as it is said, 'It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel (Ex. 31:17; therefore any non-Jew who, being uncircumcised, thrusts himself between them incurs the penalty of death….The Gentiles have not been commanded to observe the Sabbath" (Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:21 (as quote in Maxwell and Damsteegt in their book Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday SDA Theological Seminary.
This must be understood to recognize why circumcision was such an important part of Judaism and why the Jews were adamant that if the Gentiles were to become part of this new system, this must be performed first.
Sabbath was NEVER ABROGATED and this I never claimed. Sunday became the common day for meeting as early as 130 A.D.
"Many Christians were already honoring Sunday near the beginning of the second century….Evidence is very strong….that many if not most Christians had given up the Sabbath as early as A.D. 130….Just as Sunday observance came into practice by early in the second century, so among Gentile Christians Sabbath observance went out of practice by early in the second century" (Justin Martyr, as quoted by C. Mervyn Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt, Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday).
There a great many more such documented evidence that Sunday was being celebrated from the early second century for anyone who wishes to be informed of the history of the Christian church after the canon closed. For several sources:
http://www.wcg.org./lit/law/sct/sct/16.htm
Sabbath and Sunday in early Christianity by Michael Morrison, on the internet.
“Sabbath was NEVER ABROGATED and this I never claimed. Sunday became the common day for meeting as early as 130 A.D.”
Ok, assuming you’re correct, what does that prove then – nothing. Many Churches have meetings on Wednesdays, but it doesn’t make them Sabbaths.
My understanding is that many within the Eastern Orthodox tradition still keep the Sabbath, often as a day of fasting, even though they have Sunday as a day of meeting. Other small sects, including the Exclusive Brethren, refrain from secular work on Saturdays because they recognise it as the Sabbath, even though they have Church meetings on Sunday.
If the Sabbath has never been abrogated, then it is still binding and relevant as a true act of worship as part of the Moral Law. I am not saying Christians need to have Church services on that day per se, or advocating any form of liturgical observance for that matter, as the commandment doesn’t explicitly require that. What the commandment requires is the cessation of ordinary secular work on that day.
So in short, what are you saying exactly about Sabbath observance? Are you saying it would be more common to meet on Sundays for Church meetings, but the Sabbath was never abrogated as a day to cease work?
“You have failed to give supporting texts affirming that Gentile Christians accepted and adopted the seventh day.”
Elaine, the onus rests with you to prove from the Bible the Sabbath was at the Cross, not the other way around. A test of a prophet, according to Deut, is whether the new prophet asks the people to go worshipping other Gods. Thus, the Bible establishes a doctrine of precedents, not unlike the common law found in many of our legal systems (which actually derive from religious laws).
Moreover, my texts clearly showed that Gentile God-fearers were already attending Synagogues on the Sabbath. Apart from these observations that they were practicing Sabbath worship, I am not sure what other ‘proof’ I can show you.
I doubt you could show me that these Gentile Christians believed in the Trinity either, but today we Christians take it that that doctrine was correct. Absence of proof is not evidence of an abrogation of truth. Christ had ample opportunity to say the Sabbath command no longer applies, as did the Apostles in Acts 15 – yet they didn’t.
“Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:21 (as quote in Maxwell and Damsteegt in their book Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday SDA Theological Seminary.”
As you clearly have no Bible texts either, you have resorted to the Oral Law. This is faulty logic for a number of reasons:
“Just as Sunday observance came into practice by early in the second century, so among Gentile Christians Sabbath observance went out of practice by early in the second century… Justin Martyr, as quoted by C. Mervyn Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt, Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday”
But you will note it doesn’t say Sabbath observance went out of practice during the time of the Apostles, or even in the first century. It suggests Gentile Christians started to play down their links and heritage to the Jewish faith, especially after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE and later persecutions.
Even if the Sabbath observance started to fall away in the 2nd century, it didn’t suddenly cease then either. In fact, it took quite a while for it to fall completely out of practice – another two centuries or so. As the 4th century Christian writer Socrates Scholasticus admitted, it was in Rome and Alexandria that the Sabbath was first beginning to be abandoned:
“For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.”
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity
In fact, Sabbath-keeping never completely was destroyed. It remained prevalent in the Celtic Church, beyond it was subsumed by the proto-Orthodox Catholic faith. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which were isolated by sheer geography, have never stopped keeping the Sabbath, and it was quite a surprise for the Jesuits of the Italian colonists in the 19th and 20th centuries.
“There a great many more such documented evidence that Sunday was being celebrated from the early second century”
But not from NT times – not by Jesus nor any of the other Apostles?
“There are nearly 2,000 years of Christian history since then so to limit "early" Christian history to the period covered by the Bible is to negate all the 1900 years following.”
So you are advocating Sacred Tradition as a basis for doctrinal belief then? The Catholics were quite late to doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary – should we follow that as well – even if it contradicts the Bible? Tradition is fine, so is philosophy and progressive revelation, and Adventists can hardly fault such formative factors when they use those methods themselves.
However, these other formative factors can only be used as aides to scriptural interpretation – they can’t simply contradict scripture – as the Roman Catholics might claim. For example, the word ‘Trinity’ is not found in the NT, and the NT is a little ambiguous about the whole concept. Philosophy and tradition were important in the evolution of the full doctrine of the Trinity, which almost all Christians now accept. But these other formative factors didn’t invent anything new per se, and the evidence for the Trinity was already there in both the OT and NT.
Thus, if you want to use other formative factors to try and downplay Sabbath observance fine (I am still not sure what you believe given you deny the abrogation of Sabbath). But these formative factors must support and illuminate scripture – they can’t simply override scripture. Whilst you might claim scriptural support for the Sunday keeping or the abrogation of Sabbath, at least the Roman Catholics are more honest about it when they say in their catechisms:
Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her. She could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.
Of course, it makes no difference whatsoever what any group, Gentile or otherwise, began doing with Sunday; nor when they began.
Jesus said that the Sabbath was His; and that it was made for man. Jesus anticipated the Sabbath to be relevant and observed after He would be gone.
Followers of Jesus recognize that what Jesus claimed and said is all that matters. All of this should go without saying.
"Sooner or later all unbelievers must – and do – eventually ignore, or disregard, the Sabbath."
Now there's a great example of a tautology, Stephen. It chases its tail, even when you repeat it and enshrine it with bold highlighting. The point you ignore is that probably those who observe Sunday as the Sabbath are, on a per capita basis, no more likely to become unbelievers than those who observe Saturday as the Sabbath…unless of course your penchant for tautologies leads you to conclude that only Saturday keepers are believers.
How is it that you or Ellen White can speak of abandoning a day of worship that has not been on the radar screen of Christians for at least 90% of the Christian church's history? Ellen White speaks as if Sabbath keeping was a widespread practice that was being abandoned in her day; and that with that abandonment, there would come a disbelief in the God of creation. How can an individual or group abandon a practice that they have never followed?
You could far more persuasively make the case that it was the abandonment of Sunday keeping by Christians – not Saturday keeping – that led to abandonment of belief in the omnipotent God of a literal 6-day creation. Christians who observe Sunday as a holy day are far more likely to believe in creation literalism and an omnipotent God than those who do not observe Sunday. And one can certainly look at the last 150 years of history and see how a drop off in Sunday religious observance by Christians in general has paralleled a rise in atheism and agnosticism.
Or do you simply regard this, Stephen, as more anecdotal evidence that really doesn't make a point?
The beauty of what you call tautology is that it doesn’t become less true.
(By the way, anecdotal evidence doesn’t become increasingly true the more it is used.)
“Christians who observe Sunday as a holy day are far more likely to believe in creation literalism and an omnipotent God than those who do not observe Sunday.”
You may then agree with me that Christians who observe Saturday as the Sabbath day are yet/still far more likely to believe in creation literalism and an omnipotent God than are those who observe Sunday? (Or is that too anecdotal for you?)
“And one can certainly look at the last 150 years of history and see how a drop off in Sunday religious observance by Christians in general has paralleled a rise in atheism and agnosticism.”
Interestingly, in GC, societal moral declension is identified as a rationale for Sunday observance legislation.
I think it is fair to say, Stephen, that those who observe Saturday as holy are more likely to believe in a literal six day creation – not necessarily an omnipotent God – than those who observe Sunday as the day of rest. But it is a logical fallacy to conclude that there is some sort of causal realtionship there. I suspect there are millions of Sunday keepers who have a very fundamentalistic view of the Bible. And among that subset of Sunday keepers, I doubt that you'll find very many who accept evolutionary theory. I doubt that fundamentalist Saturday keepers are significantly more likely to believe in a literal 6 day creation than fundamentalist Sunday keepers. Sunday keepers worship on Sunday in honor of the resurrection – not because they have abandoned belief in a literal reading of Genesis 1.
Having said that, let me re-emphasize that I wouldn't be an SDA if I didn't believe that God sanctified that day, and that it is a special sign of fidelity and obedience to a transcendent God whose commands cannot be judged on the basis of whether they can be rationally or morally deduced.
You just haven't produced any evidence to demonstrate that Sunday keeping per se makes moral decline or Sunday observance legislation more likely. Sunday laws have all but disappeared since Ellen White wrote her warnings. Has moral decline abated?? I don't think so. Given the deplorable morality in society, the G.C. hypothesis – that moral decline will give rise to Sunday legislation – we should expect to see lots of Sunday legislation, shouldn't we?
The reality, as you well know, is that Sunday keepers generally maintain just as high moral standards as Saturday keepers, and certainly higher moral standards than those who are not religiously observant. And they continue to have deep faith in an omnipotent creator God.
When you are surrounded with evidence that Sunday keeping has precisely the opposite effect of what Ellen White suggested it would, and you still still impose an anachronistic view of the world on the 21st Century, you put yourself in the foolish position of trying to propositionally defend a belief that can't be falsified. We point out reality, and you say, "Thus saith Ellen White." That's okay. But it's not an argument. It's a faith assertion that is impervious to evidence or reason.
"How is it that you or Ellen White can speak of abandoning a day of worship that has not been on the radar screen of Christians for at least 90% of the Christian church's history?"
Is that an argument from Sacred Tradition? Those opposed to WO would probably love this line of reasoning, given there has never been a tradition of WO, and even the office of deaconess has been abolished for over 90% of Christian church's history since the council of Trent.
Just become something has been kept or not kept for a majority of the Christian period doesn't prove anything.
Besides, what 'radar screens' are you talking about? Sabbath-keeping may not have been on the radar screens of groups such as the Roman Catholic Church and other 'mainstream' Christian groups, but it has always been on the radar screens within minority groups of Christianity. The Eithiopian Orthodox Church, for example, have always had it on their radar.
"Just because something has been kept or not kept for a majority of the Christian period doesn't prove anything."
Of course it does. It demonstrates that Christian Sunday keepers were not "abandoning" the Seventh day Sabbath in Ellen White's day, and have not "abandoned" it since. It's like arguing that someone who has been heterosexual their entire life has abandoned homosexuality. I'm not arguing for Sunday observance. And I'm certainly not arguing that Sunday observance has Biblical support. I am offering evidence to demonstrate that Sunday worshippers in Ellen White's time were not "abandoning" the 7th day Sabbath.
Thus, Ellen White's attempts to create a nexus between Sunday keeping and the evils she saw in society make no sense. It was those evil Sunday keeping Christians who for centuries kept the Gospel flame burning and lighting the world. This is not an argument against Sabbath sacredness. It's simply a refutation of Adventists' self-referential attempts to enshrine a literal 7th day Sabbath as the be all/end all of the Gospel, and the concommitant attempts to demonize Sunday worship as the path to evil and moral degradation.
Nathan, this is going to sound… well, terrible and strange, but… I think… we might actually agree on something.
*awkward moment*
Wait a minute Nathan…you can’t make an argument that I have not made, and then attribute it me; much less then further proceed to argue against it too!
I never said or implied that “Sunday keeping per se makes moral decline…more likely.” (It does, obviously, make Sunday observance legislation more likely). Furthermore, “the GC hypothesis – that moral decline will give rise to Sunday legislation” is a prediction about the future. Just because it hasn’t happened yet is not evidence that it will not happen. To the contrary, when we reside in a society wherein there’s been a history of reactionary liberty-reducing legislation (resulting) as a backlash to perceived dangers, including moral decline; reason for anticipating such future legislation is clearly in existence.
So, you having erroneously declared that I have been “surrounded with evidence that Sunday keeping has precisely the opposite effect of what Ellen White suggested it would” is not an example of you “[pointing] out reality;” that’s for sure.
I understand—fully—that you do not consider EGW to be credible or relevant insofar as 21st century events are concerned. I do not anticipate persuading you otherwise. As such we should not anticipate agreement.
There are fundamentalists who literally believe Creationism. Where our communication is breaking down on this thread is in the fact that you are conflating Sunday-keepers with institutional Sunday-keeping.
It has been through the institution of Sunday-keeping that the Sabbath—and the reasons for the Sabbath—have been abandoned generally.
Certainly no one is arguing that Christians who ignorantly observe Sunday as the Sabbath are somehow morally deficient in any way. However they are generally ignorant of something.
We differ on how important this is and on how important this will be.
Sabbath has become the sina qua non of Adventism and elevated above God, the Cross, the Resurrection and all the other doctrines. If Sabbath goes, so goes Adventism.
In Christianity, if Sunday goes, it holds none of the same significance and importance.
Refusing to accept that the Law was forever changed at the cross has led SDAs
to continue to keep a day that was never given to ANYONE but the Israelites (later called Jews). Jesus never spoke to or instructed Gentiles. If one ignores all the early NT that was written long before the Gospels, it will be clear that
sabbath was barely mentioned and only in reference to not judging others about that day or the annual and month feasts and ceremonies of Judaism.
Judaism and sabbath are connected from their birth. Sabbath never existed before Sinai: there is no record of it being observed until that time; it as a uniquely Jewish sign just as is circumcision, which is why they are essentially identification of the Jews and still observed today.
You say I have no Bible texts: Gal.3 explains the change in the Law after Christ came; Gal. 4 explains the two covenants of which Christians are now under the second; Col. 2:16 "Never let anyone elsew decide what you should eat or drink, or whether you are to observe annual festivals, New Moons or sabbaths" (note: they are in sequential order, so sabbath cannot be referring to annual sabbaths as annual has already been stated).
Ex. 31:13-14: "Speak to the sons of Israel and say, 'You must keep my sabbaths carefuly, because the sabbath is a sign between myself and you from generation to generation." Note: this was given only to Israel, none of of the surrounding peoples.
While Jesus' life, death and Resurrection were the factors giving birth to Christians, He did not establish the doctrines that were later adopted and accepted by His followers that eventually became as new religion. It was Paul and his writings that essentially explained and initially organized the Gentile Christian church while the Jerusalem church remained to continue their Jewish observances. IOW: there were two branches from the first, and the Gentiles eventually became the one that continued while the Jewish branch of Christianity disappears from history, and with them, the rites of Judaism.
Several quotations from the SDA theologians' book previously mentioned:
"The children of Noah were given seven laws only, the observance of the Sabbath not being among them."
"Gentiles could be considered righteous if they observed these laws, which did not include the Sabbath Nor did they include restrictions about pork."
"The rabbis did not think that the Sabbath had been given to Gentiles: 'Why does it say, 'The Lord hath given YOU (Ex. 16:29)? To you hath he given the sabbath but not to the heathen."
"A non-Jew who observes the Sabbth whilst he is uncircumcised incurs liability for the punishment of death. Why? because non-Jews were not commanded concering it. The Sabbath is a reunion between Israel and God, as it is said, 'It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel' (Ex. 31:17); therefore any non-Jew who, being uncircumcised, thrusts himself between them incurs the penalty of death. The Gentiles have not been commanded to observe the Sabbath."
From Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday Berrien Springs, Mich: Seventh-day Adventis Theological Seminary, 1992
Forgive me Elaine, but you are literally all over the map with your views.
I know this to be the case from having discussed this issue with you.
You have indicated that you do not believe that Jesus was anything other than another human being; albeit an influential one with a beneficial message of social relations to which you happen to personally subscribe.
Therefore the Resurrection doctrine can’t be credible. However, you have stumbled into a truth. Indeed, “in Christianity, if Sunday goes, it holds none of the same significance and importance” as if the Sabbath doctrine was removed from the Seventh-day Adventist Christian doctrine.
The fact that nothing in Christianity changes when Sunday is abandoned is exactly what SDA evangelists have been telling Sunday observers for many, many decades; as you know.
Re: Ellen White: i have a great respect and admiration for this wonderful dedicated Christian woman.
i would not be communicating here were it not for her "Steps to Christ" book, read at a very trying
time in my life. It led me to accept Christ, as my Lord and Saviour.
Obviously Mrs White was very jealous of her founded 7th day Sabbath experience, and knew that if
an SDA member forsook the Sabbath, they maybe were forsaking Christ. She wanted all to personally
know and trust the Saviour. In my 43 years as an SDA, i know of no one leaving the church because of the 7th day Sabbath. There certainly are some because of the work problem. i know of some new members who left because they felt unwelcome because they were not wecomed by the various cliques that our large church had (conference, union, industries, K thru Jr college personnel, ect, and were generally ignored). Some who couldn't be baptised because they had trouble w/ smoking. A lot of young people because the College group didn't include them because they were community kids. A lot of college kids because they were constantly checked on attendence at all activities, 24/7, and knew the school didn't trust them, and they felt strait jacketed, and also they observed the hypocrisy of some adult members at all levels. The taboos were more than they were willing to accept as they were bombarded by the TV media broadcasting the " beautiful people" having fun". Would think that worldliness is the great motivator that causes people to leave, not the 7th Day Sabbath.
'
Adventism has created a fiction around Sunday obervance. The claims that Roman Catholics changed Sabbath to Sunday has absolutely no record in history of the early church. After all, there was only one Christian church for more than 1500 years, and it was called the catholic (meaning universal) church, which is what its place was in history.
Adventist history is usually limited to EGW and her writings, especially in the Great Controversy where she claims that Sabbath was changed to Sunday, fulfilling Revelation's prediction of "changing times and laws."
Unfortunately, the church, nor no one has changed the Sabbath to Sunday. But try to convince Adventists of what they have learned from childhood.
Elaine, well said, and if I can offer just a quick addendum, tangential though it may be: I'd assert that most Adventists are not aware (as I was unaware the first 25-ish years of my life as an Adventist) that William Miller actually predicted the return of Christ three different times — the "Great Disappointment" was not a singular event.
Miller first specified that Jesus would return between "March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844." When this did not occur, he again announced that Jesus would return on April 18, 1844. This, too, obviously did not pan out. He again, as we all DO know, announced that Jesus would instead return on October 22, 1844. This, too, did not pan out.
I won't waste my time going into detail, but.. the counterintuitive fact that people doubled down on their faith after these three failures is -precisely- consistent with cult psychology — in fact, it's demonstrable in a very fascinating study that took place not too long ago (within the last 20 years). I'm happy to provide the link to that study should anybody want to read it. 🙂
Cheers.
Sunday – fulfillment of the sabbath
2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107
Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.108
2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.
The preceding has been copied and pasted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Second Edition), Part Three.
Now, Elaine, you undoubtedly concur with this; so you can’t say that RCs have not attempted to change the Lord’s Day.
As I’ve said previously, it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference as to who did what to Sunday, or when. It (Sunday) cannot be made to replace the day that the Lord claimed as His, which was made for mankind, and was set apart before there was a Jew, and anticipated by the Lord to be observed and relevant by His followers well after His death, burial, and resurrection.
The thought occurs to me that a disdain for the Sabbath from a doctrinal perspective may have in fact led to a disbelief of Jesus as God’s Son.
And good -Lord-, no pun intended, do I wish there were an edit function on this message board. 😛
Well said Elaine and Tim. Those of us who have come to believe that it is not about the day but the Christ and our relationship with Him, feel we have gained rather than lost worship. We can go to church on Saturday, Sunday, any day of the week, or escape into nature.
It was the book by Dr. Samuel Bacchiocchi "From Sabbath to Sunday" that convinced the World Church of God to change their day of worship to Sunday in 1995. Elder Canfield, during EGW's lifetime extensively researched the Sabbath issue and was disfellowshipped because his findings did not coincide with EGW. We are all aware of the plagarism issue with EGW but quote her instead of the Bible or try to interpret the Bible through her writings. The result is that it gives a different interpretation. How can it be that we blatently believe things even though research indicates otherwise?
The plagarism issue is getting old redundant and tired. Bea it was refuted years ago
If you mean that she was legally guilty of pagiarism, yes, that charge won't stick. But if you mean the charge of borrowing (with or without acknowledgement), that charge is pretty much conceded. I don't know that we have even yet come to terms with that.
Do you mean like most of the biblical writers – OT and NT?
Tim, I would like to receive the link you mentioned earlier. What is really concerning to me is how the hierarcy of the church deals with a person if he/she researches something and the outcome is totally opposite to their expectations (i.e. Walter Rea, Desmond Ford, Canfield). Elder Cottrell and others have chosen disclosure at retirement for safety reasons (fear of losing job, reirement benefits, etc.). Dare I suggest we all look at the word cult in the Nelson's Bible Dictionary. Also, James Moyers, PhD "Psychological issues with past members of fundamental former members".
I'm not sure why we need to go down the road of deciding whether we are OBLIGATED by the law to observe Sabbath. I would like to believe that it is not, as Elaine suggests, a refusal to believe that the law was forever changed at the cross (I don't think I agree with that statement), which led to a renaissance of Sabbath keeping, but a realization that God was calling early Adventists to a special kind of covenant relationship.
The likelihood that behaviors and beliefs to which we are called, in covenant relationships, cannot be universalized or derived from Holy writ as legally binding, does not make them less important. Those who believe in the transcendent, personal God of scripture will embrace the notion that laws written on hearts and minds as gifts, in the context of covenant relationship, are far superior to laws written on tablets of stone. And they will recognize that God works in and through the particularities of culture and history. The reality that the seventh day Sabbath fell into benign desuetude for centuries should not be used to attenuate God's revelation to early Adventists, even if the rationale and legalistic trappings that humans erected to preserve that revelation might be suspect. But neither should the call to Adventists be used to rewrite scripture or deny the reality that God does not call everyone into the Adventist fold..
Sadly, many Adventists, like Stephen Foster, prefer to focus on the legalistic trappings, and justify doctrinal sophistry. They are easy prey for folks like Elaine, who often seem to believe that, by dismantling the logic of legalistic Adventism, they can trump reason with reason, moving faith and the God of scripture to the realm of magic and superstition.
Just as the legalism and theology used to justify aspects of the SDA health message have not always been well-reasoned (teetotalism, e.g.), so our theology of the Sabbath has often been misguided. But that reality should not be used to invalidate covenants and behaviors which have brought countless blessings to church members for generations. The fact that a compelling case for "abstinence" cannot be constructed from scripture, despite the attempts of Ellen White and other Christians of her day, does not make the doctrine less important for Adventists who have chosen to enter into covenant relationship with God and with one another.
Naturally, predictably, as usual, Nathan (must) spin the position of others with his words. I have not put the Sabbath in the context of obligation or requirement or legalism; but then what else is new?
The Sabbath was made for mankind as a reminder of Who is Creator and who is creature (and how and why this is true)—and that we find rest in Him. It will be a test of loyalty and of true worship.
That is its entire meaning for Christians.
And naturally – predictably as usual – Stephen believes that he can protect his arguments with "King's X". Once he says something, no one is entitled to interpret or discuss the reasonable implications of his words.
It doesn't work that way Stephen. If you want to have a discussion about ideas and beliefs, you have to be prepared for the reality that people will interpret and label what you say in ways that you might not like. To me – and I suspect to several other commenters – the statement that abandonment of belief in the seventh day Sabbath leads to abandonment of belief in an omnipotent God sounds awfully legalistic.
You may differ of course. But don't whine that someone is spinning what you have to say.
I happen to think that by trying to hawser Sabbath to creation literalism and belief in an omnipotent God, you have succumbed to legalism and doctrinal sophistry. Others who have read what you have written obviously agree. The very title – "Yes, we must circumcise Creation" – infers a legalistic approach. So why not just carry on the discussion with actual arguments instead of trying to referee comments?
The Sabbath—set apart prior to Jews—is and was a reminder of God and His creative activities; without mentioning law.
Law and obligation are harbingers of legalism. Legalism is an associative pejorative to Christians. Of course the very mention of the Sabbath is synonymous—via association—with legalism. This is sophistry if anything is.
Sophistry occurs whenever the Sabbath is subtly associated with legalism—and anything/everything else with liberty.
Stephen it would be much more convincing if your statement:
"The Sabbath—set apart prior to Jews—is and was a reminder of God and His creative activities; without mentioning law." was based on Bible texts that support that statement. What people were given sabbath before the Jews and the Law?
Here’s where your position logically breaks down, and why Genesis 2:3 is meaningless to you and meaningful to me (for this): what you are saying is that God blessed and sanctified the (initial) seventh day—but kept that fact secret from Adam/Eve.
Of course there is no reason to think that Adam/Eve were not told about this since “sanctified” has a definition and Jesus declared that (this blessing and sanctification of) the seventh day was for man; and if we know nothing else, we know that Adam/Eve were mankind (Genesis 1:27).
It’s this simple, the law/codification of the seventh day isn’t what makes/made the Sabbath; it was its immediate/initial blessing and sanctification.
Should logic and reasoning be abandoned when discussing religious beliefs? Yes, if judging by many comments here.
Several fallacies have been used in comments here:
1. Argument from ignorance: Assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (or true).
2. Argument from silence: Where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
3. Shifting the burden of proof: I need not prove my claim, but you must prove it is false.
4. Retrospective determinism: The argument that because some event has occurred, its occurence must have been inevitable beforehand.
5. Appeal to tradition: A conclusion supported solely because it has long been held to be true.
Where I suspect we very much agree, Stephen, is on the point that an either or approach to the Sabbath is a false dichotomy. Saying that the Sabbath – particularly the seventh day Sabbath – is either legally binding, or it doesn't matter, completely misses the point of the Sabbath and distorts God's character and love.
'Love' is something beyond the mere notion of 'legally binding'. Loving God involves having love for no other (1st), not misrepresenting and trying to control Him (2nd), not showing disrespect (3rd) and probably more than anything else, spending time with Him (4th).
The best book I ever read about the Sabbath is by Jewish theologian 'The Sabbath.' He points out that the Sabbath is the pinnacle of true worship to God. Everything else in life is about dominating space – and the 6 working days are about that. But God alone is sovereign of time. The richest man in the world can dominate the space around him, but a person can't add extra time to their lives.
Other religions build temples, mosques and cathedrals – the Jews instead have a cathedral in time. This is not just what God is like, it is the realisation of who God is – the great I AM.
"the Jews instead have a cathedral in time."
But God is not limited to time; we are not limited to any time to worship Him; He is timeless, eternal.
The woman from Samaria asked which mountain on which God should be worshiped, and Jesus answered "neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem….But the hour will come when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth."
God is freed from time and space and we cannot limit our time of worship to the Almighty by an earth day. God does not function merely on earth time. If He did, which zone would it be? If "spending time" with God is limited to one day of seven, it cannot be a day chosen by a time zone calendar, or the International Date Line.
'Love' is something beyond the mere notion of 'legally binding'. Loving God involves having love for no other (1st), not misrepresenting and trying to control Him (2nd), not showing disrespect (3rd) and probably more than anything else, spending time with Him (4th).
The best book I ever read about the Sabbath is by Jewish theologian 'The Sabbath.' He points out that the Sabbath is the pinnacle of true worship to God. Everything else in life is about dominating space – and the 6 working days are about that. But God alone is sovereign of time. The richest man in the world can dominate the space around him, but a person can't add extra time to their lives.
Other religions build temples, mosques and cathedrals – the Jews instead have a cathedral in time. This is not just what God is like, it is the realisation of who God is – the great I AM.
When Adventists are comfortable quoting the Roman Catholic church for their support on Sabbath it reflects the inability to find support in the NT writings to the Christian church. Where is "the Bible and the Bible only"?
Christians began worshiping on the first day of the week centuries before there was a Roman Catholic church; the church claim flies in the face of historical evidence that the first day was so well accepted and recognized by the early fourth century that when Constantine commanded all of his subjects to rest on that day it had been the custom for many years, and there was no sudden change from Saturday to Sunday at that time, and even then, it was never declared a holy or worship day, only a day to rest and not work.
Get out of the Catholic's pronouncements and study early church history by secular, objective writers (not EGW and SDA) and discover the evidence. Only then can there be studied, competent assessment of the evolving of the church, not EGW's claims that people were quietly celebrating Sabbath in such isolated places that only within the past 200 years have these people come to light. There have always been a few people who persisted in the "old ways" which is not surprising. There are Muslims who wish to return to extreme fundamentalism just as do some Adventists.
How many who are defending Sabbath observance today have read the SDA Source Book quoted above? It was not meant for the pews but theology students, and I doubt many have read it.
Once again tautology is necessary; to wit:
It makes absolutely no difference at all who did what to Sunday, or when; because Jesus Christ Himself claimed the Sabbath as His, sanctified the seventh day before there was a Jew, declared that it was made for mankind, and anticipated that His followers would observe it and continue to find it relevant after His ascension.
This information we get from the Bible; most of it from the New Testament.
"Jesus Christ Himself claimed the Sabbath as His, sanctified the seventh day before there was a Jew, declared that it was made for mankind and anticipated that His followers would observe it and continue to fid it relevant after His ascension."
Jesus existed before the Jews?? He was born to a Jewish family and his pre-existence was a doctrine formulated long after His Resurrection. Revisionist biblical history!
Jesus was never mentioned at creation nor was it given to mankind before there was a Jew–when Israelites became Jews at Sinai.
The Bible is being rewritten by those who are convinced that much was excluded that they are certain should have been there. Such ASSUMPTIONS
create much of the doctrine of the sacredness of the seventh day.
'Where is "the Bible and the Bible only"'
Yes, like your earlier reliance on the Talmud and the Church Fathers.
There is biblical history, and Jewish and Christian history which are other sources of early Christian history. The Bible is only One of many sources, and these do not contradict the Bible account, only offer additional information not given in the Bible.
Gridlock…what to do? Agree to disagree? The call to tolerance? I struggle with the following:
Does the SDA church follow abberant doctrines based on false interpretation of scripture? Do we follow a false teacher or prophet? Do we claim we are the only ones who have the truth? Are we legalistic, works oriented, authoritarian? If we do not follow (believe) certain doctrines, are we condemned (disfellowshipped/lose job/lose retirement)?
There is gridlock because there should be. We are not supposed to agree if we don’t believe the same things, Bea.
Why struggle? If you have an inkling that “the SDA church [follows] aberrant doctrines based on false interpretations of scripture…or [follows] a false teacher or prophet,” then your choice is clear; and it is solitary.
Jesus is The Truth, so we are not the only people with The Truth.
Sometimes we are “legalistic, works oriented, authoritarian.” To the extent that we are, then it’s up to you/us to model love. (Not to mention that nobody is perfect.)
As we are without the excuse of never having heard the gospel, “If we do not follow (believe)” that, in Jesus, we have eternal life via His sacrifice; we are condemned, according to John 3:18.
Other than that, we (the church) cannot condemn you, because we are not God. On the other hand, why would I want to be associated with a church with which I am in fundamental disagreement?
There can be no discussions when assumptions are equated with facts.
There can be no meaningful discussion without assumptions. For example, a meaningful discussion on the Sabbath probably assumes belief in the authority of the Bible as God's Word, and of God as something more than a construct of the human mind. A meaningful discussion about Star Trek probably assumed suspension in that world, where reference to Star Wars would render said discussion meaningless. Ever discussion in life relies on the most basic assumption of all – that we agree on what English words and phrases mean.
If it is assumed that the Bible is the Adventist authority, it must be remembered that the canon closed 1800 years ago. There would be no doctrines of
The importance of the date of 1844 and the IJ.
Daniel and Revelation
EGW as the Spirit of Prophecy
The Great Controversy theory
All these were "discovered" long after the canon closed, inferring that all the previous Christians in the years before Adventism, were ignorant of these truths and it was not until Adventism that all these essential Christian doctrines were neglected. Wasn't it EGW who wrote that God "hid these truths? waiting until Adventists could discover them?
And many more which were not Christian beliefs prior to the beginning of Adventism; which assumes that all Christians previously were ignorant of these "truths," , or SDA assumptions.
Stephen,
You’ve absolutely have nailed it IMO. The Sabbath is a realization, acknowledgement, recognition, and (weekly) reminder of Who God Is.
Hence, it would follow that (institutional) ignoring and/or abandoning of it would naturally lead to forgetting and/or denying Who God Is.
Elaine,
I love you but, like many politicians, you are moving target. You ask for the Bible when it is convenient and then question or deny its assumptions.
For example, Jesus is assumed to be the God who blessed and sanctified the Sabbath (and therefore claimed it as His) because John 1:3 says it was Him.
Meanwhile you illogically assume that He blessed and sanctified the seventh day, but kept it a secret from Adam and Eve.
Now you are back to Ellen White.
"The Sabbath is a realization, acknowledgement, recognition, and (weekly) reminder of Who God Is.
Hence, it would follow that (institutional) ignoring and/or abandoning of it would naturally lead to forgetting and/or denying Who God Is."
A wildely unsubstantiated claim that flies in the face of more than a billion Christians throughout the world! By what imaginative theory could anyone arrive at such a fallacious statement!
It is such untruthful claims while dismissing all other Christians in this way give Adventists and the church a bad name and reputation:
"Adventists are claiming that those who do ignore or abandon the sabbath will forget and deny God."
Either retract your statement or tell us why you are not despising all Christians, except those who recognize the seventh day as the sabbath.
Why would I retract an accurate statement?
Institutional abandonment of the Sabbath has led many Christians, perhaps most Christians, to no longer believe that God did that for which the Sabbath is designed to memorialize.
(Besides, many, perhaps most who ignore the Sabbath don’t know they are doing so.)
I will repeat, not every pot smoker or wine drinker will become a crackhead.
Stephen,
The early Christians before the end of the first century abandoned the Sabbath. Are you claiming that they now, from then, no longer believe that God did that for which the Sabbath is designed to memoralize.
They were never taught to observe sabbath, so how could they be responsible for abandoning it? The Jews were given the sabbath for several reasons, according to the various accounts of the Decalogue: to remind them of the freedom God had given them from the Egyptians; because God created the sabbath in seven days and rested and made it sacred; the third account was a sign between God and your generations.
Had it been given to ANYONE ELSE, this wording would not have been recorded. Give a text showing the commandments were given to ANYONE but the Israelites. It was part of the Old Covenant made with them. The New Covenant is made with all: Jews, Gentiles, Free, Slave, male and female, and the requirements were very simple and recorded in several places in the NT and none mention a day to be observed as sacred. Should Christians look to the Hebrew Bible for their doctrines or the NT which is the one addressed to Christians.
"The early Christians before the end of the first century abandoned the Sabbath."
So how – where is the evidence? Your previous evidence from the Talmud and the Church Fathers appears to be from well after the 1st Century.
There were still a large number of Christians, especially outside of Rome and Alexandria, who kept the Sabbath well into the 4th Century and more.
Elaine,
This is a circular argument in which you are not practicing what you preach.
You are making assumptions from silence; and you are, of necessity, ignoring Genesis 2:2, 3, John 1:3, Matt. 12:8, Mark 2:27, 28, Luke 6:5, and Matt. 24:20.
None of these texts—not one of them—have to do with The Ten Commandments; and all of them have to do with something Jesus did or said.
Would you please tell us on what basis do you assume that Adam and Eve did not—ever—find out that God blessed and sanctified the seventh day (which comprises the basis for your argument)?
Both John's Revelation and the Didache are ca. 90 A.D.
John says he was in vision on the "Lord's Day" (kuriake hemera) a term never used for Sabbath; and is the same term used in the Didache of the same date, and Barnabas (l00 A.D.) "We keep the eighth day Sunday…the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead." And again he writes: "The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me but the Sabbath which I have made when I have rested (Heb.4)….wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which Jesus also arose from the dead."
Three SDA theologians in their book Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday wrote:
"The term Lord's Day was so well known that the word for day became unnecessary–if a Christian wrote about the kuriake hemera (which John used), readers would understandthat Sunday was meant. This term thereofre gives additional evidence that Sunday was the Christian day of worship in the second century."
Stephen,
One must necessarily assume that God told Adam and Eve that they were to observe the seventh day, as there is nothing in the creation story instructing them to observe their first day of life; only that God Himself had finished His work and so he rested If you believe that, where is the Bible verification?
Nor am I overlooking the record of Jesus' life and sayings that were written well over two generations later. The writers never record that Jesus abrogated circumcision–yet the apostles did; the writers never recorded Jesus speaking to the Gentiles. Either Paul and the apostles were annointed by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel plus none of the many laws and rules of Judaism, or they made it all up. The cirumcision and dietary laws were no longer to be obeyed.
Who gave them that authority to abrogate what Jesus obeyed? The Gospels record the life on Jesus who came to "the house of Israel" and was never involved with the pagans, nor were they accepted by the Jews until the Holy Spirit came equally to them, demonstrating that no longer was ethnicity and its exclusive rules applied to new Christians.
How you can possibly say that “the Lord’s day” (not Day) is a term never used for Sabbath, when it was identified by God as “the sabbath [interestingly, not Sabbath] of the Lord thy God,” is rather amazing from my perspective.
We have no Scriptural evidence that the Lord ever authorized or claimed or designated or recognized any of the other six days of the week as His; do we?
As for Adam and Eve, you persistently and consistently confuse the blessing and sanctification of the seventh day with the commandment; when the reality is that the blessing and sanctification (which has a definition) did not prescribe any particular ritual of observance.
God unquestionably blessed and sanctified the (initial) seventh day of the very first week. The blessing and the sanctification of the day has always comprised/defined it as holy.
For Sunday to ever have been considered holy by God we must have some Scriptural authorization/claim/designation/recognition to that effect by/from God.
Needless to say, we obviously do not.
As for assumptions, we are both assuming. I assume that God informed Adam/Eve that He blessed and sanctified the seventh day. (Largely a deduction based on Mark 2:27.) You clearly assume that He did not.
One assumption is logical; one is not. I think we can agree on that!
The Bible is inspired for a reason. The abrogation of circumcision has a detailed Scriptural theological history, as you well know.
The weekly Sabbath has no such history—simply because it had no similar controversy.
Tell us, has God ever taken away the (Genesis 2:2, 3) blessing and sanctification (the setting apart) from the seventh day?
The proof is for the person making the negative: IOW, there are no NT directives for either day to be considered sacred. For proof that the NT Christians were given the Jewish Sabbath as their holy day requires more than lack of evidence.
You have provided no evidence that the NT Gentile Christians were expected to obey the Sabbath given to the Jews; the Christians were not given the same rules as the Jews were given at their birth more than a thousand years earlier.
What was Paul referrring to when he said "Let no one judge you about annual festivals, New Moons, and the Sabbath"? Why should another Christian question someone today? That Jesus kept the Sabbath and circumcision and the sacrifices is not proof that Christians should do so today, particularly when Paul said all those were shadows, but the reality is Christ.
Please interpret your understanding of the many statements by Paul regarding the Law and Sabbath. I am not contesting or disputing what is written in the OT or the Gospels. What is the message to Christians is found in the NT written BEFORE the Gospels as the Gospels are essentially an account of Jesus' life before there were Christians and not accounting for the acceptance of the Gentiles.
I know it’s difficult, but try for a minute to think outside of the traditional SDA rubric with which you may well have been traumatized at some point.
Forget about the Law and think about the origination of the recurring weekly cycle. The seventh day was blessed and sanctified by God (for a purpose and) for the benefit of the entirety of mankind.
The blessing and sanctification of it preceded the Jews because this blessing and sanctification occurred before there ever was a Jew.
For some reason, this is a fact with which you’re having considerable trouble dealing; because your rubric has this day associated with Jews and the Law, when its origin has nothing to do with either.
Paul, as you should know, is by context referencing the ceremonial and/or sacrificial meat and drink, and holy days, new moons, and the annual ceremonial sabbath feast days. This is clear from the context and illuminated by the next verse, “Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” (Col. 2:17) The weekly Sabbath does not foreshadow anything. It is a memorial of past activities. (Besides, we are not to judge anyone/anyway.)
Now, has God ever removed the blessing and the sanctification from the seventh day?
I note that you have quoted someone else’s erroneous statement that "Adventists are claiming that those who do ignore or abandon the sabbath will forget and deny God."
This is certainly a mischaracterization and misrepresentation of Adventists generally—and of my position.
Ignorance and abandonment of the Sabbath generally has paved the way for disbelief, generally. (This is not to say that all who ignorantly abandon the Sabbath will disbelieve.) I somehow suspect that you get the point, but are inconvenienced by its veracity.
Many fail to recognise that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath [Matt 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5]. It is He who has created, instituted and set the parameters of the Sabbath. As Sovereign Lord of all Creation, it is His prerogative to stipulate and prescribe His will in matters regarding the Sabbath, its observance and its role in the sealing of His people before His Second Coming. Here are a few groups out there who have issues with the Sabbath as I see it:
Some are "making a list and checking it twice for all those who've been naughty or nice."
Surely, there must be other concepts that Christians can use to judge others.
Elaine,
I know Santa Claus. I worked with Santa. Santa is a friend of mine.
And Catch 22 is no Santa Claus…
B-)
"Surely, there must be other concepts that Christians can use to judge others."
Sorry I don't understand. How do Mr October's comments relate to the issue of judging others?
Re the Sabbath (to Elaine and Stephen mainly), forget the Bible for a moment. Why do we keep a seven-day week. Elaine will say it is because it has something to do with the lunar cycle. But based on my very scholarly research on Wikipedia, there are a number of problems with this reasoning:
"The seven-day week is approximately a quarter of a lunation, so it has been proposed that this is the implicit, astronomical origin of the seven-day week. However, there are a number of problems with the proposal. The seven-day week is actually only 23.7% of a lunation, which means that a continuous cycle of seven-day weeks rapidly losessynchronisation with the lunation. The problem is compounded by the fact that a lunation is only the mean time for the lunar phase cycle, with each individual lunar phase varying in length. Also, the duodecimal (base-12) and sexagesimal (base-60) numeral systems have historically been the primary systems used to divide other chronological and calendar units. Therefore, it is not immediately apparent why the seven-day week was selected by ancient cultures, rather than a week that included a number of days that was a factor of these numeral systems, such as a six-day or a twelve-day week, or a week that divided the lunation more accurately using a factor of these number systems, such as a five-day or ten-day week.[original research?] There are no historical Jewish or Babylonian records that confirm that these cultures explicitly defined the seven-day week as a quarter of a lunation."
I have never quite understood why humans implictly keep a 7-day week. Sure, different societies in different cultures have moved to different week-structures at different times; however, they all seem to eventually abandon those other structures for the 7-day week.
Regardless of arguments whether the 7-day week and Sabbath are Jewish cultural traits, it seems highly uncanny that humans everywhere appeared to eventually adopt a similar structure.
You made an interesting observation a couple of days ago, Stephen, about the fact that the Sabbath, as given at creation, and commanded at Sinai, prescribes no particular ritual, such as worship. I have not researched the issue, but it would be interesting to know how "worship" and "church" became so integrally connected to Sabbath observance. Certainly the synagogues in Christ's day were not houses of worship. I wonder if it would perhaps be far more difficult to sustain the Adventist eschatological metanarrative if we did not load up the Fourth Commandment with "churchiness". What if we simply focused on the Sabbath as blessed, sanctified, holy time? Who could take that away from us?
I think a correct, Biblical understanding of the Sabbath makes it much more difficult to sustain sectarian SDA notions of what Sabbath keeping means as central to the essence of the gift. Mind you, I highly value the ability to come together with a community of faith to worship on Sabbath. I just don't see that as an essential ingredient of the Sabbath gift or command.
And Elaine, yes, God is timeless, but we are not. What He gives to us as necessary and enriching to life is intended for mere mortals. We can choose to reject the gift, but we cannot choose the adverse consequences which may follow.
Embracing the New Covenant we don't have to "choose to reject the Gift" of the Sabbath – Jesus is our Sabbath Day of Rest – it's not about the day. We have the wonderful opportunity of choice as to what moment or day we choose to worship in a formal way or to take our family into God's paradise (we have access to Jesus 24/7. We don't want to reject the gift – that wonderful gift of Jesus – our Sabbath day of rest.
That's fine, Bea. Suit yourself. Just try to accept and respect the possibility that others of us may experience the same 24/7 access that you enjoy, and still believe that the Sabbath wasn't given to us so much for access as for a sanctified 24 hour period of "rest" and holy time. The realities and pressures of human existence – at least for those of us who are not retired – are such that, when every day is regarded as Sabbath, no day can be experienced as The Sabbath.
I am not aware of any Biblical precedent (except possibly in the New Earth) for the notion that a particular holy day is simply a legalistic substitute for those who can't or won't experience Jesus in 24/7 personal relationship. If the Sabbath was done away with at the cross, then why would those who purport to live under the New Sabbathless Covenant speak as if they still believe in Sabbath -even in a metaphorical sense?
"Sabbath" means rest." Hebrews explains how we are to enter God's rest as a "place of rest." "Come unto me and rest." A metaphor can refer to a well known and common word.
Surely, there is no need for a day of rest in the New Earth. There will be no night as God Himself is the light.
"Surely there is no need for a day of rest in the New Earth."
It is of course humanly impossible to conceive of holy, sanctified time in a timeless realm, just as it is impossible to literally speak in terms like "From new moon to new moon…" in a timeless universe. But it sadly diminishes the Sabbath to see it cast in utilitarian terms like need. Surely, the fact that Sabbath will not be necessary in the New Earth in no way diminishes the likelihood that we will celebrate it. Few of the most important things we do in life are necessary in and of themselves. But over time, if we ignore them, both we and our relationships suffer.
Nathan,
My comment came straight from Revelation:
"There is no temple since the Lord is the temple, and the city did not need the sun or the moon for light, since it was lit by the radiant glory of God….and there will be no night there."
As the days, including the seventh, were marked by the sun, and the moon was the original method to calculate sabbaths, how can a sabbath be celebrated there?
Utilitarian terms must be used for earth, but we cannot be sure that even our bodies as we now have will be the same there. Which is why it's not possible to postulate all that we will be there.
Nathan, I wish I had responded earlier.
How can I say that you are mistaken? Let me count the ways, LOL.
First of all, the synagogues were ideally houses of prayer and worship; as churches are ideally designed, or designated, even today.
That they were occasionally misused in Christ’s day is of no consequence or relevance.
I am not certain exactly what you mean by “I wonder if it would perhaps be far more difficult to sustain the Adventist eschatological metanarrative if we did not load up the Fourth Commandment with "churchiness". What if we simply focused on the Sabbath as blessed, sanctified, holy time? Who could take that away from us?”
So what if we “load up the Fourth Commandment with ‘churchiness’” Nathan; even if doing so is theologically questionable, so what? It certainly doesn’t/wouldn’t legitimize any civil attempt to ever “take that away from us.” (Hopefully I have not misunderstood your point.)
Be careful what you ask for about a “correct, Biblical understanding of the Sabbath.” This would include an understanding that God claimed to have created the earth in six days; and wants that fact remembered.
The fact is that prayer and worship in an assemblage of believers actually helps us to remember and observe the Sabbath. It isn’t absolutely necessary, but we are admonished to “forsake not the assembling” for a good reason, it seems to me. It certainly was His custom, wasn’t it?
Bea’s sentiments sound soothing; but though we may rest in Jesus, Jesus is the Lord of the sabbath—not the sabbath.
I agree with you, Stephen, that the roots of a religious liberty claim do not need to be found in scripture. So even if we loaded up the Sabbath with a non-Biblically-based "churchiness", we should still be entitled to include worship and church within the ambit of Constitutionally protected religious liberty. However, if we associated the Sabbath more with rest and holy time, it would, I think, make it more difficult to credibly argue that Sunday closing laws, however unconstitutional they may be, are a threat to Sabbath keeping as a day of rest, no work, and doing good, which seems to be its Biblical essence.
Of course I wholeheartedly agree with the importance of assemblage. And what could be better than spending the Sabbath celebrating holy time and resting with other believers?
I accept, as a matter of faith, the creation story of the Bible. And I believe that God created Sabbath as a memorial of creation. God speaks to us, not so much to scientifically inform us as to evoke a response of faith. I would never be so presumptuous as to think that because scientific knowledge does not comport with the story of creation, the creation story must therefore be unTrue. I'll take the fruit from the Tree of Life over the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil any day. As a finite human being, I do not believe that the battle between good and evil is one of truth versus falsehood. Rather it is a battle between truth and truth – truths that lead us away from God, and truths that lead us towards Him. The creation myth is a story that deepens my faith and trust in God. The myths of evolutionary theory do precisely the opposite.
As I’ve said before, I have been trained not to talk past the sale and to take yes for answer; but I can’t help but notice that you seem to be subtly positioning to minimize the (prophetic) import/implications of Sunday closing laws.
That, my friend, can never be accomplished.
Although I am not clear about the difference between truths; I am familiar with the concept of truth mixed with error.
Excellent points, Timo. My wife is very involved with outreach programs in our local church, and she personally runs, on a virtually volunteer basis, a home for girls who have aged out of the foster care system, but are not equipped with skills or maturity to make it on their own. Our church members heavily support that mission, though it is not church-owned. The girls are open to spiritual nurture, and even seem to enjoy occasionally coming to a very large up-tempo young adult Sabbath School. But they also feel very out-of-place among Anthropologie shoppers, who have come from upwardly mobile, stable homes, where college, post-graduate educations, and launching a career with $200,000 of debt, are givens. Kids are nice to the girls, but nice doesn't cut it after the first visit or so.
The reality is that the Adventist church of middle class values in which most of us have been incubated and evolved is totally alien to the experience and world view of those most in need of Christ's love, hands, and feet. The gulf is nearly as wide as that between The Rich Man and Lazarus, and is steadily growing wider. Rather than spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring people into wierd-feeling pews, and to keep them in those pews, is it possible that we will have to figure out ways to grow the church outward into the communites we would reach, morphing into the subcultures of those communities, without partaking of their self-destructive lifestyles? Can we find other methods than surrendering our lives of comfort and privilege, and taking up our habitation with them; becoming one of them; and worshiping on their turf? I sure hope so, because relocating sounds awfully scary.
Nathan. Being from the 1920's-1930's era, i witnessed many help programs and evangelizing efforts (Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas) in the downtrodden, ghetto, areas by most of the mainline protestants, including JW, Salvation Army, Nazarene, Penecostals, and various groups, Kiwanis, YMCA, Boy's Clubs. Also individual wealthy ladies who built non-denominational missions and organized their 7 day a week programs with volunteers. Interesting i never heard of SDA until 1948 in California.
Most of the urban areas in the large US cities today are battle grounds, gang turf, narcotic dealing, crime ruled disaster zones where even the police are fearful to go, and often ignore 911 calls there.
i'm opposed to sending our people into those areas, also into some overseas areas where human life
is held so cheaply. Where, even just looking at a person, you could be attacked and knifed, because
the assailants misintrepreted your "look" as being disrespectful. Let God work those areas. i believe
the "WORD" is available in all the world, the HEAVENS declare the glory of God. Don't believe God
expects His children to visit these narcotic dens, God forsaken hell holes, drive by shooting areas.
Times and conditions have radically changed in the past eighty years of coddling and enabling goof offs to live off their concerned neighbors, without even a thankyou, but say you owe it to them. Why?
We are now three times the population of the 1920'S. The difference in neighborhoods is such that the
earlier inhabitants wouldn't recognize todays disaster zones. The role models of todays youth are the
so-called beautiful people, celebrities, movie icons, TV programs oozing with overt sex, nudity,filthy
language, drug using, shoot em up, bust them up. Can't carry on a conversation unless you are using a cell phone or the internet. Precious single minutes to really comunicate in a relaxed peaceful moment without interruption. "As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be".
Fine points, Earl. Maybe there are some areas, like Nazareth, that we need to just write off and "let God work those areas." There are many people who have become completely inured to the possibility and reality of a life of dependency and entitlement – people who nurse grievance and resentment against those on whom they are dependent. Having been programmed to believe that there is no shame in underperformance, underachievement, and dependency – only opportunities for defiant pride and blame – it is nearly impossible to persuade them to adopt the disciplines and lifestyle that breed success, particularly when successful self-reliance is deconstructed by society as the product of corruption and exploitation.
I have more questions than answers. But I know, in watching my wife's work, and that of others like her, that there are lives which can be touched in positive ways when Christians are willing to encounter Christ and let Him light the world beyond the Church, outside the walls of an evangelistic hall, and beyond the boundaries of our middle to upper-middle class communities.
Nathan,
Is your wife wasting her time with dependent, entitlement people who have no shame in underperformance? Apparently, she is not convinced that she is wasting her time with people who "take" but "take no responsibility for their lives."
That attitutude is not fooling those folks; they already know they are seen as contemptible and lazy, and for those who have that attitude they should not, nor would not be involved, as is your wife's devotion to them. Sadly, that attitude is represented largely by those who were either raised in such affluence that they had little or no contact with those who were not so advantaged; or they "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" and believe they, alone, are responsible for their success and everyone else, if they worked hard enough, could receive them same success.
Elaine, as usual, you choose to twist and distort with no knowledge or understanding of reality. I did not say that the girls my wife works with fit that description. In fact, they wouldn't be in her program if they weren't willing to work part time, go to school full time, and contribute to living expenses, and follow certain rules. Sadly, girls sometimes have had to leave her program because they don't want to put in the effort that it takes to change the trajectory of their lives.
The description which you mindlessly and maliciously chose to believe I was using to describe all underprivileged people was simply an acknowledgement of the validity of Earl's point. I believe he paints an extreme, and my conclusion was intended to convey a belief that there is plenty of unmet need between our churches and gang-infested urban war zones.
You have no knowledge of my attitudes or involvement with my wife's work. So I angrily reject the bigoted stereotypes of narrow-minded, judgmental liberalism that you so desperately want to project on me. I was raised in what would be considered poverty by today's standards, by a single mother who worked as a night nurse so that we would not be dependents of the state. I suspect that, as a physician's wife, you had it a bit easier than my mother. Perhaps, had I grown up in your home, I could enjoy the guilty luxury of believing that success is not earned. But I wasn't raised in relative affluence and comfort, as your children perhaps were. So I had to believe the "foolish myth" that success and prosperity were the product of good choices and values rather than wealth transfers.
I have worked continuously since I began shoveling neighbors' sidewalks for 50 cents an hour when I was 11 years old. My first real job, for a paycheck, was washing pots and pans at 75 cents an hour when I was 13. So don't presume that I was a child of privilege. And don't presume, simply because it feeds your sick, twisted politicized world view, that I am not grateful for those who have stood by me and supported me.
The girls my wife is working with would not be in her program if they did not want to better themselves and become healthy, self-reliant adults. What do you know about them??? "They already know they are seen as contemptible and lazy."??? Shame on you!!! No, you simply think you know that, because as a Kool-Aid drinking liberal, you need to validate your morality by demonizing those whose morality is based on sources of authority that your repressive tolerance repudiates.
Here is someone who speaks, supports and acts on behalf of those who are on skid row. These so-called dropouts of society have all the odds stacked against them, together with the usual shortcomings – they have lost hope. Giving them a second, third or fourth chance to make something of their lives is honourable and admirable to say the least. In fact most often they get insulted and put down for been poor or for not able to get back on their feet. They are accused of – being lazy, incompetent, wasting state coffers, being good for nothing, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. All they can really do when treated or dissed this way is to shut up and bow their heads in shame. The 'least of these' need someone to speak for them and to stand by them and lift them up so they can face life's rough journey, live another day and have hope for tomorrow. Most of those who come down hard on them are just the talkers who do nothing else but talk. Thank God for the walkers!
Nathan,
You misunderstood me. I was implying that your wife is doing the work she does because she sees and projects the best in everyone which is the hope they need from someone to achieve. It was not your wife's attitude, but the attittitude of many who have written off such people as being too lazy or careless to be worthy of help. If she had felt they were unworthy she would not be involved with them and helping them to succeed.
Just the opposite: I believe they can be helped but it is those who have called them takers" and dependent and are taking no responsibility for their lives was a very prominent part of a private speech by one of the presidential nominees in a talk to his wealthy peers, not scripted for his campaign audiences. This portrayed quite vividly the attitude of those "who got theirs" and any one can do the same
.
I stand on the side of the oppressed, those who have been forgotten in the "me-too" society who are only out to gain both money and fame. Is that clear? Can I be more transparent?
Now, what earl canahan has written in commentary and response is one perspective; partially augmented and partially disputed by Nathan Schilt.
This is off topic, but important nonetheless.
I have a perspective, of course; but will appropriately reserve it for another blog.
As I type this, I am watching a PBS documentary (read ‘liberal,’ to conservatives), entitled Race 2012; which I (reluctantly) recommend.
This documentary is a contemporary examination of race, class, and political power in America.
This is a conversation worth having; one which this forum has demonstrated that it cannot handle and will not fully tolerate.
I know this to be true—without doubt—because the Trayvon Martin conversation was totally terminated/erased as though it never occurred; without an explanation of any kind whatsoever.