Resources on Seventh-Day Adventism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maria1212
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maria1212 said:
I wanted to bookmark this since it is relevant to many discussions with Adventists.

newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
Click to expand...
That is a good source, thank you Maria.

I have a question. I think I have a fairly good understanding of the change from Sabbath to Sunday, but I can’t seem to articulate it to my family, without them shutting me out. One of the objections is that the New Testament doesn’t have any command for Christians to keep the Sabbath because it was not an issue. They made a changes, known, such as circumscion, but said nothing about the Sabbath Day because it wasn’t an issue, there was no change, therefore they didn’t need to address it.

Yes, I realize this is off topic. If I need to start a new thread, just let me know or you can PM me. Thanks.😊

Maybe there is no answer, but it seems that I am missing something. I’m not sure what the typical Adventist stance is on the Church Fathers so I’m not sure what sources to use.

Any thoughts would be apprieciated.
 
6YRSHOME said:
I think I have a fairly good understanding of the change from Sabbath to Sunday, but I can’t seem to articulate it to my family, without them shutting me out.
Click to expand...
There are a couple of things that make sense to me regarding the “change of the Sabbath”
  1. The most specific date of the change is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is when Christians started to gather on “The Lord’s Day” This is well documented in Revelations as well as clearly defined as Sunday in the early Church Fathers. Gentiles never did observe the Jewish Sabbath. Ellen White tries to identify Christians that observed the Sabbath such as the Waldenes - however her history is totally distorted and inaccurate. Adventists themselves cannot agree on a date of the “change” made by the Catholic Church.
  2. The international date line makes it impossible to determine an exact date of the Sabbath. Doesn’t make sense to insist the Sabbath is a particular day and then to be unable to define it specifically in some parts of the world or to arbitrarily assign it as is actually done.
  3. Leviticus also defines many other laws as “permanent” between God and the Jews. Adventist pick out just some of the more convenient laws with no biblical basis of distinguishing why.
  4. It would make no sense that for 1800+ years all Christians should be condemned because they do not keep the correct Sabbath and then suddenly there is a new revelation and Adventists now have a message
  5. The idea of being a remnant and that there were Christians that always kept the Sabbath is blatantly false and not historical.
 
6YRSHOME said:
One of the objections is that the New Testament doesn’t have any command for Christians to keep the Sabbath because it was not an issue. They made a changes, known, such as circumscion, but said nothing about the Sabbath Day because it wasn’t an issue, there was no change, therefore they didn’t need to address it.
Click to expand...
First, this is an argument from silence (logically fallacious).

Secondly, most Christians believe that a polemic against the sabbath obligation exists in Col 2:17 and Rom 14:5, for instance. Now, Adventists expend considerable apologetic effort denying that seventh-day sabbath observance is intended in either passage. So consider this: every passage that reflects a polemic on the Sabbath, Adventists attempt to reinterpret along other lines. Then they proudly claim that the lack of a Sabbath polemic in the New Testament proves that the Sabbath was widely accepted among Christians. It’s a bit too convenient an arrangement if you ask me.
 
6YRSHOME said:
One of the objections is that the New Testament doesn’t have any command for Christians to keep the Sabbath because it was not an issue. They made a changes, known, such as circumscion, but said nothing about the Sabbath Day because it wasn’t an issue, there was no change, therefore they didn’t need to address it.
Click to expand...
First, this is an argument from silence (logically fallacious). (Not surprisingly, most arguments following the assumption of sola scriptura amount to arguments from [biblical] silence.)

Secondly, most Christians believe that a polemic against the sabbath obligation exists in Col 2:17 and Rom 14:5, for instance. Now, Adventists expend considerable apologetic effort denying that seventh-day sabbath observance is intended in either passage. So consider this: every passage that reflects a polemic on the Sabbath, Adventists attempt to reinterpret along other lines. Then they proudly claim that the lack of a Sabbath polemic in the New Testament proves that the Sabbath was widely accepted among Christians. It’s a bit too convenient an arrangement if you ask me.

Third, assuming that no sabbath polemic exits in the New Testament, the Sabbath might not have been an issue for the early Church for reasons other than “there was no change.” For instance, rabinnical texts claim that the uncircumcised had no obligation (or even right) to observe the seventh-day sabbath. Now, a considerable circumcision polemic exists in the New Testament. Is it not equally reasonable to conclude that, within that theological climate, the apostolic disapproval of gentile circumcision would have been interpreted as an implicit disapproval of gentile sabbath-observance? In this case, the sabbath would not have been an issue because everyone would have assumed that once circumcision fell, the sabbath feel with it.

These three points expose the weaknesses in the argument you’ve come across. Are they sufficient?
 
I am sorry. I seemed to have hijacked this thread. 😊 I have recieved some great answers and I thank you all.

I am hoping and praying that if I arm myself with as much information as I can, I will be able to enlighten my family. I feel that they are more open now than they have been in the past. So again, I thank you.

Now back to our reglarly scheduled programming…:whistle:
 
6YRSHOME said:
I am hoping and praying that if I arm myself with as much information as I can, I will be able to enlighten my family. I feel that they are more open now than they have been in the past. So again, I thank you.

Now back to our reglarly scheduled programming…:whistle:
Click to expand...
Please don`t feel bad! The purpose of this thread was just as you stated above, and is meant to be a thread where we can get as much information as we can to enlighten our friends and family.🙂

Definitely keep us posted, and please feel free to post links, articles, and other useful information on this thread. It is nice to have some of it all in one place!

Sincerely,
Maria
 
I have a few questions.

I would like to know, if it is really difficult to remove your membership from the SDA church and why?

I have heard people who had a difficult time trying to have their membership removed from the SDA church and there are other people who didn’t have trouble at all.

Is the church’s disciplinary acts really based on the Ellen G white?

What kind of disciplinary acts is there?

and one more, why do modern SDA not acknowldge EGW’s false prophecies. most SDA confirm that they believe she really is a prophet and just quotes from the books of revelations of what is going to happen in the end times, but they never seem to talk about her prophecies that failed
 
adventistnomore said:
First, this is an argument from silence (logically fallacious). (Not surprisingly, most arguments following the assumption of sola scriptura amount to arguments from [biblical] silence.)

Secondly, most Christians believe that a polemic against the sabbath obligation exists in Col 2:17 and Rom 14:5, for instance. Now, Adventists expend considerable apologetic effort denying that seventh-day sabbath observance is intended in either passage. So consider this: every passage that reflects a polemic on the Sabbath, Adventists attempt to reinterpret along other lines. Then they proudly claim that the lack of a Sabbath polemic in the New Testament proves that the Sabbath was widely accepted among Christians. It’s a bit too convenient an arrangement if you ask me.

Third, assuming that no sabbath polemic exits in the New Testament, the Sabbath might not have been an issue for the early Church for reasons other than “there was no change.” For instance, rabinnical texts claim that the uncircumcised had no obligation (or even right) to observe the seventh-day sabbath. Now, a considerable circumcision polemic exists in the New Testament. Is it not equally reasonable to conclude that, within that theological climate, the apostolic disapproval of gentile circumcision would have been interpreted as an implicit disapproval of gentile sabbath-observance? In this case, the sabbath would not have been an issue because everyone would have assumed that once circumcision fell, the sabbath feel with it.

These three points expose the weaknesses in the argument you’ve come across. Are they sufficient?
Click to expand...
You seriously need to explain how Col. 2:17 justifies the change of Sabbath to Sunday? Why was Sabbath a shaddow of things to come when Shabbat was created in a sinless, perfect world with no need for any shaddows (Christ) to come?
 
Seventh Day Adventist beleive in Soul Sleep and annihilationism which that the Soul Sleeps in the ground with the body till the second coming and that those that would go to hell according to our thought process are simply distroyed. I am reading a great book that I think you might want to take a look at. Morley Death and the Afterlife which goes over it from a scriptural point of view. So far I think that it is a very great book.
 
pedja said:
You seriously need to explain how Col. 2:17 justifies the change of Sabbath to Sunday? Why was Sabbath a shaddow of things to come when Shabbat was created in a sinless, perfect world with no need for any shaddows (Christ) to come?
Click to expand...
Hebrews is about shadows, and lists several, along with their replacements. Lamb - Christ. Levitical priesthood - Christ. Sabbath rest - our rest in Christ. It would be highly inconsistent for Hebrews to list the Sabbath along with the rest, but then expect it to continue, unlike the rest.

I don’t think anyone claims that Col 2:16 justifies a change of Sabbath to Sunday, or that it justifies Sunday observance. It justifies the belief that the Sabbath is a shadow simply by listing it as such.

Holy day … new moon … sabbaths. To say that the sabbaths and the holy days being discussed refer to the same set of festivals just doesn’t work - Paul mentioned three distinct observances. I doubt he forgot himself half way through the sentence and mentioned them again.

The Sabbath of the old creation that turned to sin was a shadow of the rest in Christ in the new creation, which was not only freed from sin, but brought to even greater glory.
 
pedja said:
Why was Sabbath a shaddow of things to come when Shabbat was created in a sinless, perfect world with no need for any shaddows (Christ) to come?
Click to expand...
If Col 2:16 calls the sabbath a shadow, and you disagree with that assessment, I suggest you take it up with Paul–not me. (Catholics believe the Bible; perhaps you do not.) Additionally, Heb 4 implies that the weekly sabbath rest was a shadow giving man access to the eternal rest of God. This paper will help you synthesize the information in that chapter:

diesdomini.com/Papers/Q_Sabbath_Heb4.pdf

Enjoy!
 
P.S. I said “Catholics believe the Bible; perhaps you do not” as a tease, not a spite. 😛 I keep a light attitude online, but I know things get mixed up frequently.
 
pedja said:
My criticism on your church has got nothing to do with the SDA. I criticize your popes some of which did nothing to stop mass murder and genocide, my criticism is on your holy bishops and priests who were blessing weapons which were then used to kill and exterminate!
Click to expand...
Like that tower of virtue and temperence Luther and Knox!

Thanks for pointing out what we already know, the clergy are human
 
Thanks for everyones replies. Lets move debates on SDA beliefs to a separate thread and keep this thread for posts on resources on Adventism from a Catholic perspective.

Thank you!!

Sincerely,

Maria1212
 
adventistnomore said:
If Col 2:16 calls the sabbath a shadow, and you disagree with that assessment, I suggest you take it up with Paul–not me. (Catholics believe the Bible; perhaps you do not.) Additionally, Heb 4 implies that the weekly sabbath rest was a shadow giving man access to the eternal rest of God. This paper will help you synthesize the information in that chapter:

diesdomini.com/Papers/Q_Sabbath_Heb4.pdf

Enjoy!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the great article!!!

Sincerely,

Maria
 
adventistnomore said:
If Col 2:16 calls the sabbath a shadow, and you disagree with that assessment, I suggest you take it up with Paul–not me. (Catholics believe the Bible; perhaps you do not.) Additionally, Heb 4 implies that the weekly sabbath rest was a shadow giving man access to the eternal rest of God. This paper will help you synthesize the information in that chapter:

diesdomini.com/Papers/Q_Sabbath_Heb4.pdf

Enjoy!
Click to expand...
:dancing: you are so funny.

i`ll read the paper now and see what it says.

you`re very wrong on the collosians though…
 
pedja said:
you`re very wrong on the collosians though…
Click to expand...
So how do you interpret Col 2? At first glance, it looks pretty straight forward: “let no one judge you with regards to… sabbath… a shadow of things to come.”
 
adventistnomore said:
So how do you interpret Col 2? At first glance, it looks pretty straight forward: “let no one judge you with regards to… sabbath… a shadow of things to come.”
Click to expand...
“Therefore do not let (talking to the Collosians) anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.”
  1. It`s quite clear that the Colossians were keeping the Sabbath
  2. Obviously some people judged/criticized/disagreed on the way how they kept it.
  3. Paul is telling the Colossians “let **those **people not judge **you **on how you will keep the Sabbath”.
Paul is warning the Colossians **not against the observance **of those practices as such but **against anyone who passes judgement **on how to eat, drink and observe sacred times.

How would you now come to the conclusion that Paul abolished Sabbathkeeping?
 
pedja said:
Paul is warning the Colossians **not against the observance **of those practices as such but **against anyone who passes judgement **on how to eat, drink and observe sacred times.
Click to expand...
How then, do Adventists justify judging against persons who observae a different sacred time than themselves?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top