Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nicene Nerd

The Problem with Seventh Day Adventism

Recommended Posts

I'll just start with this:

Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own LORD that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the LORD is able to make them stand. Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the LORD. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the LORD, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the LORD and give thanks to God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First before we use the Bible, we must prove the Bible :D.

 

1). The whole food matter involves abstinence from food on certain days. Jesus said we should fast before God, Matthew 6:16. But Jews and Gentiles practiced semi-fasts on particular days of the month. And they had disputes over food.

 

2). John 15:10. /Keeping the Saturday Sabbath holy does not save you though. Jesus does.

 

3). That being said, there is more theology I could get into.

 

How well-versed are you on Seventh Day Adventism? If you could use a brushing up or want more info, I would start with this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_theology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1). The whole food matter involves abstinence from food on certain days. Jesus said we should fast before God, Matthew 6:16. But Jews and Gentiles practiced semi-fasts on particular days of the month. And they had disputes over food.

To what precisely are you referring with "the whole food matter?"

 

2). John 15:10. /Keeping the Saturday Sabbath holy does not save you though. Jesus does.

What does John 15:10 have to do with anything?

 

How well-versed are you on Seventh Day Adventism? If you could use a brushing up or want more info, I would start with this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_theology

It's not my top study, but that's mainly because I don't give it much credit to begin with. I've not given it much more serious thought that I have flat earth theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What says something must be proven for it to be used first?

 

I feel that, in the context of debate, proving any Bible verses you present as evidence is important.

 

The same doesn't apply universally though. There are times when we shouldn't debate or question the verses being told. Like during a sermon where everyone is asked to be quiet.

 

But in debates, it's okay to have rules and very high standards of proof. So long as those rules aren't just plain silly, which I don't believe my statement was.

 

Caleb is simply taking verses out of context, and using them to say "SDA is bad." I could be wrong though, since I don't understand his view in this thread. Just his view in two other threads he posted in.

 

That's really all I have to say regarding your question.

 

To what precisely are you referring with "the whole food matter?"

 

What does John 15:10 have to do with anything?

 

It's not my top study, but that's mainly because I don't give it much credit to begin with. I've not given it much more serious thought that I have flat earth theory.

 

Paragraph 1: With the verses you selected, either you are refuting the SDA food laws, or the SDA sabbath. You might be best to tell me just what you're refuting.

 

Paragraph 2: You seem to be refuting the Saturday Sabbath, are you not? I was saying to keep the Sabbath whaetever day you think it is, but then go on to say, remember that our salvation is in Jesus.

 

Paragraph 3: I personally, find this comparison a bit disrespectful ;) . Hopefully I can change your mind.

Edited by Mu_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm getting is that you're asking Caleb to adhere to a standard you yourself cannot validate within yourself.

 

1. Before you use the Bible, you must prove the Bible

2. Before you use logic, you must prove logic

3. Before you request the use of logic, you must prove the requirement for the use of logic

4. Before you use science, you must first prove science

5. Before you prove science, you must prove the means by which you prove science

This will become an infinite regress of impossible to quantify statements that hold no objective ground in reality.

 

There is no objective criteria stating science is right because science is right. Both the belief in the Bible and in Science are non-fundamental and begin with a personal leap of faith, essentially. Because there is no objective criteria for trusting the scientific method.

 

That said, I don't know what it means to "prove a Bible verse" any more than what it means to "Prove a line from a peer-reviewed scientific journal." You are in both instances using a strand of text from an outside source, neither of which can be given supreme authority in rational terms.

 

What you're stumbling around is the notion that nothing is ultimately verifiable to a 100th percent, which is true. It is paradoxically true that the previous statement is held to the same standard and cannot also be proven true ad infinitum.

 

What Caleb can do, is take a slew of verses, make common sense understanding of them within his psychosocial framework he has been brought up in and interpret the text according to today's standards he has been subconsciously taught and will thus interpret accordingly. Using this same logic, he constructs a rational inductive or deductive argument pertaining to a sect of Christianity and their weird practices.

 

What you are asking for is in every way physically impossible to objectively prove and for the sake of all debates and progress of humanity, must be understood as axiomatically true and/or plausible as a source.

 

Wittgenstein eloquently puts that we do not know what the true nature or meaning of language is. Language is a game we all play with each other and it is constantly changing. It is true that what I write today I may not understand 100% the same in five minutes because perhaps my understanding of the words I used are different in five minutes and it might be impossible for me to remember what they meant to me five minutes ago. Now imagine this on a scale of 2,000 years. Language is ever evolving along with ourselves. There is no more objective guarantee we can understand someone else's writings 100% as we can our own.

 

Grace is a necessary component for debating as is the benefit of the doubt within reason. Your initial statement begs the question it asks and is an unreasonable expectation for the information provided.

 

1). You win. You make a lot of sense. I will no longer say "prove the Bible". However....

 

2). Caleb simply makes it easy for me. All I have to do is look up, "Seventh Day Adventist refute for verse x" basically, and be ready for a real debate. Would this "weird" church and following truly exist if all things weren't explained in the Bible using their definition?

 

3). I suppose there is nothing stopping Caleb and I from continuing indefinitely. But, I think we'll create better arguments if he reads over that Wikipedia link, picks a subject, writes his thoughts or arguments on it, and then we go at it. Perhaps I'm asking for something too soon, and I will have to yet again lazily Google the 100,000 resources on Seventh Day Adventism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible is infallible, but the SDA Church is predestined to be the remnant and have the correct interpretation. Here is the basic view:

 

The Roman Catholic church erred.

 

People broke away. However, not knowing the truth, some remnants of the Catholic church existed with them.

 

Certain people and a Church spring up finally having the true interpretation of Scriptures. Having found little evil or corruption in them.

 

Through interpretation of the King James Bible, it is eventually found that they are indeed the true Church, and an alarming amount is uncovered in Daniel and Revelation concerning eventual end-time prophecies and the _____ of Babylon.

Edited by Mu_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible is infallible, but the SDA Church is predestined to be the remnant and have the correct interpretation. Here is the basic view:

The Roman Catholic church erred.

People broke away. However, not knowing the truth, some remnants of the Catholic church existed with them.

Certain people and a Church spring up finally having the true interpretation of Scriptures. Having found little evil or corruption in them.

Through interpretation of the King James Bible, it is eventually found that they are indeed the true Church, and an alarming amount is uncovered in Daniel and Revelation concerning eventual end-time prophecies and the _____ of Babylon.

Okay, I'm sorry but my history buff is getting tarnished by me not saying something. Historically speaking, all of Protestantism broke away from the Catholic Church. Not the other way around. I'm on mobile, so getting sources is difficult but pretty much any history book will concur with me.

Also, you guys derailed this thread in record timing. You may continue on the current path as it seems you will head back on track but please don't derail it further. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm sorry but my history buff is getting tarnished by me not saying something. Historically speaking, all of Protestantism broke away from the Catholic Church. Not the other way around. I'm on mobile, so getting sources is difficult but pretty much any history book will concur with me.

 

When I said [People broke away] I meant the Protestants. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paragraph 1: With the verses you selected, either you are refuting the SDA food laws, or the SDA sabbath. You might be best to tell me just what you're refuting.

My focus is the Sabbath, though the food laws also are problematic.

 

Paragraph 2: You seem to be refuting the Saturday Sabbath, are you not? I was saying to keep the Sabbath whaetever day you think it is, but then go on to say, remember that our salvation is in Jesus.

And my point is that SDA is not only wrong in holding that we are bound to a Saturday Sabbath, but especially wrong in thinking that all who disagree are heretical.

 

Paragraph 3: I personally, find this comparison a bit disrespectful ;) . Hopefully I can change your mind.

 

No disrespect intended. They just seem about equally plausible to me.

 

Some interesting reading material on your verses: http://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_study/RP208-4Romans14-5.htm

Websites which look like that are (primarily black background with multi-colored text and otherwise awkward navigation), as a general rule, roughly as reliable as the information you get from kindergarteners on the playground. There's no reason they have to be; just an observation that there is a strong correlation.

But let's look at the actual points. I was going to respond to the actual points, but they are so terrible and fallacious that I lost my will. I'll simply submit that virtually no commentators in Christian history would agree with this kind of interpretation, and that neither would a prima facie reading of the text, nor any obvious points from overall context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument is going to be "This has nothing to do with the verses". But it does. If the SDA church is indeed the true church, nothing you say against it is really going to matter, because they have the correct interpretations in their teachings, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may like this better: http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/73/t/the-search-for-the-true-church

I think I've got a few more of these religious studies as well.

 

There are so many radical problems with this thing, I don't even know where to start. The connection of Sabbath-keeping to the angel's message about God making the world is laughable, for one.

 

The argument is going to be "This has nothing to do with the verses". But it does. If the SDA church is indeed the true church, nothing you say against it is really going to matter, because they have the correct interpretations in their teachings, anyway.

 

One of the major reasons I reject any and all claims to one institution being the true church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just disappointed. I've seen some really great arguments from Nicene_Nerd, that would totally blow the lid off things. And here, he is just posting Bible verses without addressing to whom the writings were written. This might be enough for Jakob, but I want to bring out the very best Nicene_Nerd knows how to be. On a good day, the fact is, there is no questioning Caleb's outright brilliance. Maybe I should just pick a religious subject from that Wikipedia link, create a new thread, and hope that we debate theology rather than just post Bible verses and argue it back and forth.*

*No offense.

I think I'm pretty much done with this subject, unless Caleb brings some new information, and not just the "same old, same old", to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just disappointed. I've seen some really great arguments from Nicene_Nerd, that would totally blow the lid off things. And here, he is just posting Bible verses without addressing to whom the writings were written. This might be enough for Jakob, but I want to bring out the very best Nicene_Nerd knows how to be. On a good day, the fact is, there is no questioning Caleb's outright brilliance. Maybe I should just pick a religious subject from that Wikipedia link, create a new thread, and hope that we debate theology rather than just post Bible verses and argue it back and forth.*

*No offense.

I think I'm pretty much done with this subject, unless Caleb brings some new information, and not just the "same old, same old", to the table.

 

My biggest problem here is I have no idea where to even start with SDA. It relies on so many nonsensical claims that it's very difficult to find a foothold for a reasonable approach.

 

So let's try switching this around. What ever led you to think there was any chance SDA is on the right track?

 

(By the way, none of the contexts of the verses I've mentioned in any way exonerate SDA from contradicting them.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest problem here is I have no idea where to even start with SDA. It relies on so many nonsensical claims that it's very difficult to find a foothold for a reasonable approach.

So let's try switching this around. What ever led you to think there was any chance SDA is on the right track?

1). My brother in law suggested it. In the past, he had explained some things to me.

2). I read the Wikipedia page I linked to, and it made perfect sense:

a). Many beliefs shun Revelation as not being understandable. I'd argue that SDAs have the most cohesive understanding of them all.

b ). They (SDAs) believe free-will, and I believe predestination makes God out to be a tyrant. Because I did believe predestination for awhile.

c). Typically I find, only two churches assert themselves as the True Church. Catholicism and SDA. The thing is though, there is actually less evidence that Catholicism is free of SDA's charges against it, than there is that they are rightful charges.

3). Seventh Day Adventism is all about being pure. They tend to shun gray areas and embrace that which is fruitful.

4). I believe my soul is in a better state now that I believe the beliefs on the SDAs. I have given up eating pork already. And a few other things have changed.

Edited by Mu_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2). I read the Wikipedia page I linked to, and it made perfect sense:

a). Many beliefs shun Revelation as not being understandable. I'd argue that SDAs have the most cohesive understanding of them all.

The SDA take on Revelation is incredibly idiosyncratic and ignores completely matters of original context and meaning. It takes in no consideration at all what John might have actually meant.

b ). They (SDAs) believe free-will, and I believe predestination makes God out to be a tyrant. Because I did believe predestination for awhile.

Lots of people believe in free will.

 

c). Typically I find, only two churches assert themselves as the True Church. Catholicism and SDA. The thing is though, there is actually less evidence that Catholicism is free of SDA's charges against it, than there is that they are rightful charges.

The Orthodox consider themselves the true church in a similar way to Catholicism, and Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons consider themselves each the true church as well. Yet I don't see any reason to believe any such claims.

 

3). Seventh Day Adventism is all about being pure. They tend to shun gray areas and embrace that which is fruitful.

That just sounds like a pious way of saying, "They have lots of rules," which goes against the grain of the Gospel.

 

4). I believe my soul is in a better state now that I believe the beliefs on the SDAs. I have given up eating pork already. And a few other things have changed.

Giving up pork is a sign of heresy. Nothing in the verses' original contexts can let SDA escape the condemnation of 1 Timothy 4:1-3 (the food part, not marriage).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Growing up an Adventist, I felt and continue to feel that many people misrepresent their theology, and that goes on both isles. But I feel ultimately there are great people within the Adventist church, who are devoted to knowing God and leading others to God. I certainly feel like people use theological knowledge erroneously at times and cause needless division and distractions. The Early Apostles spoke a lot about this, and continually called all to preach Christ crusified and remain in communion with one another.

To this day I remain a vegetarian. I don't even consider it a matter at all one way or another. I don't observe the Sabbath, nor do I hold to the theology of the three angels message they promote. But they are my brothers and sisters, and they lift Christ up as all are asked to. I don't put them down, single them out, or ridicule their beliefs. I respect them and their beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×