Comment on Christians and the Sabbath by Ken Christman.
I dislike admitting that my confusion is expanding exponentially. You initially claimed that Sabbath observance never saved anyone, but now are saying that ignorant violators will not lose eternal life, thus implying that non-ignorant violators of the Sabbath will lose eternal life. What is an ignorant violator of the Sabbath? What is a non-ignorant violator of the Sabbath? You say that “Only those who deliberately and persistently reject a known command of God are not savable….since they are in open rebellion against something that they know is the truth.” So, the vast majority of Christians today have heard of Seventh-day Adventists and thus know about the Sabbath, yet refuse to join SDA’s in Sabbath observance, or rather pretense thereof. Does this mean they are no longer ignorant? Does it mean they are in open rebellion against God and against something they “know is truth”?
How do you define a “violator of the Sabbath”? How do you define an “ignorant violator of the Sabbath”? Is a “violator of the Sabbath” 1. One who breaks any one of the Sinaitic commands regarding Sabbath observance? 2. Is it one who fails to attend church services on Sabbath? 3. Does it include one who pretends to keep the Sabbath in one way or another but is not truly following the Sinaitic laws? Is an “ignorant violator of the Sabbath” one who perhaps chooses to remain ignorant? Are these then going to be acceptable to God? Is willful ignorance going to give some a “free pass”?
God’s Sinaitic Sabbath commandment was extensive and specific. There were rules about what could be done and what could NOT be done on this sacred day. Failure to follow these rules resulted in the death penalty, as is recorded in Numbers 15:32-36, where a man was caught merely gathering sticks on the Sabbath. He was brought to Moses, and Moses consulted with God, the author of the commandment. God’s response was to take him outside the camp and be stoned to death. He died. This is why the Jews were so angry with Jesus for breaking the Sabbath. He made Himself equal to God, because only God could alter His own commandment. Thus, if those commandments have NOT been altered, as EGW clearly states, and if no SDA today observes those commandments as they were originally given, it would seem as if every single SDA is in violation of the Sabbath. Are they in “ignorance”? They certainly ALL do much more than gathering sticks on the Sabbath. I have seen Conference officials traveling needlessly on Sabbath for their own purposes, and in far greater distances than a “Sabbath days journey”. You have doubtlessly seen church leaders who do not give any thought to Sabbath violations. Furthermore, Sabbath observance differs greatly amongst supposed “Sabbath keepers”. I know a family who swims regularly on Sabbath in their pool but yet refuses to engage in musical performances for secular reasons. Furthermore, Sabbath observance varies greatly amongst SDA’s in different parts of the world. Are SDA’s creating their own “standards” for Sabbath observance? Are these different from those originally laid down by the Creator God on Mount Sinai? These are not superfluous questions, because if God mandates something, the ONLY proper response is to follow the command to the letter of the law. Full obedience should be the only response, and NOTHING short of it. After all, if, as you seem to be now suggesting, eternal life might be at stake for some groups, this is a huge question.
Permit me to look at certain individuals who knew about the Sabbath but yet rejected the need for observing it today. Martin Luther was such a person. Would you call him ignorant? Would you consider him to be in open rebellion against God? What is his eternal destiny for failing to follow a command he was not ignorant of?
What about William Miller? He was most definitely aware of the Sabbath question, yet refused to observe the Sabbath or make any pretense thereof. As a matter of fact, it is my understanding that he did not highly regard his Sabbatarian followers. Was he ignorant? Was he in open rebellion against God? Will he lose eternal life because of failure to observe the Sabbath, or make any pretense thereof? Well, he certainly was in rebellion against God in his early life, as he himself clearly stated. He became a Deist, Freemason, and a mystic.
What about Miles Grant, a prominent Millerite who rejected both the Sabbath and EGW, even though he was well aware of both. He ardently maintained that Sabbath observance is not now required. As a matter of fact, he debated Dudley Marvin Canright on the Sabbath question in the 1800’s in Napa, California. Ellen White was there, and declared Canright the victor in that debate. Canright had been a keen promoter of Sabbath observance, had written books on the subject, and had persuaded many to adopt it. I suspect that during this debate, Canright heard arguments that carried weight, and that after serious study, compelled him to abandon Sabbath observance, leave the Adventist church, and subsequently pastor a Baptist church in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
So, what will be the eternal destiny of Miles Grant and D. M. Canright? They certainly knew about the Sabbath commandment. Canright had taught it extensively, but then changed his mind. He quite obviously remained devoted to God and pastored a Baptist church. Do you consider him to be ignorant? Do you consider him to be in open rebellion against God?
If I had lived at anytime between Mt. Sinai and the crucifixion, I would have kept the Sabbath meticulously. This was God’s command, and the only appropriate response could be full obedience. However, what happened at the cross? Did God somehow modify His commandment and relax it, as no SDA today is following the original commandment? Did He nullify the law? Did He nullify all 613 Sinaitic commandments? Was this a contract between God and humanity, or was it a contract with only the Israelites?
If this is a salvation issue, as you are now implying, these are essential questions to be considered, and not trivial at all, yet I am obtaining such few responses to my questions that it is almost presumptive of me to ask more. And, I do have many, many more questions about this important subject to which you have obviously devoted a lot of time and effort. You should be respected for that effort.
Ken Christman Also Commented
Christians and the Sabbath
Thank you for your admission that you indeed did alter the record. But, as we both know, these were not mere typos, but rather, clear changes in content. The usual method of altering content is to issue an erratum or addendum, as you must certainly be aware. This is accomplished by simply creating another post! Intellectual integrity is important. Please continue to focus your energy on Creationism, but let us all resolve to keep Creationism above reproach.
Christians and the Sabbath
For some inexplicable reason, you seem to be intent on continuing this Sabbath discussion. For me, however, I conclude that I have labored for you in vain, and not only is this discussion nonproductive, but there is no indication that it ever will be in the future. There seems to be absolutely no desire to accurately interpret Scripture on the basis of common dictionaries, which, I must admit can be restrictive to over-active imaginations. You have severely misquoted even my own posts. You have even altered your own posts! I know because I copied your last post last night, and then, when I read it again on your website, there were additions! Whether or not you have altered my previous posts, I do not know. At this point, I must conclude that this type of intellectual integrity does not lend itself to a rational discussion of things of eternal value. Your sole purpose seems to be winning an argument, while my sole purpose is to understand God’s will for my life.
Your constantly shifting positions on the Sabbath and salvation are sufficient for me to understand that there is great confusion. I am saddened that your definition of Sabbath keeping differs from God’s definition. If, as you maintain, the Roman Catholic Church altered the time definition of Sabbath keeping and you yourself obviously altered God’s definition of the manner of Sabbath keeping, are you any different? You invalidate your arguments by being selective in following the clear commands of both God and Ellen White. These arguments are even more problematic because you claim that those who know the truth about Sabbath observance but reject them are in “open rebellion against God”? Perhaps it is because you forget your own words that you find it necessary to go back and “doctor” your previous posts.
At any rate, I wish you the best, and must leave you to your own devices. While I applaud your efforts in teaching and preaching God’s Creationism in 6 literal days, I hope your style is not a distraction, especially when you claim that something can be both “lawful” and “unlawful” simultaneously.
May God bless you.
Christians and the Sabbath
Your continued insistence that a commandment (law) “can be lawfully broken” is indeed extraordinary. If you are unable to grasp how you cannot be lawful and unlawful simultaneously, I’m not sure I can be of much more help to you. The statement that “Jesus only ‘broke the Sabbath’ in order to relieve suffering is absolutely false. In Mark 2, his disciples were gathering corn on the Sabbath and there was no suffering. This was contrary to the commandment which prohibited gathering food on Sabbath. In John 5, Jesus healed a paralytic on Sabbath then told him to take up his bed and walk–on the Sabbath, and this was completely contrary to carrying a burden o Sabbath. While he did indeed heal, the Jews were indignant about the carrying the bed on Sabbath.
You fabricate a statement that I supposedly made, “You cite a single Saturday night prayer meeting as evidence that they didn’t continue to observe the Sabbath. . . ” when I ABSOLUTELY MADE NO SUCH STATEMENT. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, AS MOST OF US UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT HAPPENS ON SATURDAY NIGHT AFTER SUNDOWN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SABBATH OBSERVANCE. I DO NOT KNOW WHY YOU FABRICATE AND TWIST MY STATEMENTS. ARE YOU SURE YOU EVEN READ WHAT I WRITE?
You continue to focus on the shadow of Colossians 2. Hebrews 10:1 also refers to a shadow–“For the law having a shadow of good things to come. . . ” which simply means that the law was a shadow, and the real substance is Christ which replaces the law.
For some inexplicable reason, you continue to maintain that the Sabbath is for all mankind, and claim this is what “anthropos” means. Seriously, we MUST get back to the dictionaries again, as you are violating the Greek dictionary now. Get yourself a good Greek dictionary and look it up. You will find that “anthropos” does NOT mean mankind, and certainly does NOT mean ALL MANKIND. The definition is: THE COUNTENANCE, MAN-FACED, i.e. A HUMAN BEING. This is singular, and not plural. Wikipedia says it is Greek for HUMAN. Matthew 19:5, Matthew 19:10 and I Corinthians 7:1 all use the word “anthropos”, and in each case it is singular.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE respect the dictionaries, whether they be English, Greek, or any other. You do great violence to my the Bible, the words of Jesus, the English and Greek dictionaries, and even what I write.
Your reference to the lake drowning and saying to the rescuer to “get lost” is completely apocryphal. Please restrain yourself from misquoting me.
I explained to you that the Sabbath carried a capital punishment ant that at least one man in the Old Testament was stoned to death for violating the Sabbath commandment. It therefore follows that those who obeyed and did NOT violate the commandment during that time period avoided death and lived. This is a simple concept, yet you disagreed and said “No, that’s not right”. I’m not sure I can be of much more help to you if you cannot grasp simple inverse relationships. Perhaps I’ll make one final attempt. If Adam and Even had NOT eaten the forbidden fruit, would they have died? They ate it, then died as God told them. On the contrary, if they had not eaten, are you claiming that they would not have lived? If you truly are not able to follow this very simple logic, continue violating Scripture, dictionaries, etc., I suppose I’ll have to leave you where you are, hoping that you will someday appreciate Biblical truths for what God is actually trying to tell us.
This has been an interesting excursion, and I’ve been dragged all over the landscape. First, you claimed that Sabbath observance never saved anyone. Then, you claimed that it saved some, but not others. Some “ignorant” souls could be saved while other “ignorant” souls presumably not saved. Then, you maintained that those who knew the “Sabbath truth” but ignored you were in open rebellion against God and could not be saved. Now, you seem to have made a full circle, and your last post said “Keeping the commandments of God aren’t what saves a person.”
Jesus spelled out the process of salvation in John 3. Please read His words closely. He is my Mediator, and He should know.
Recent Comments by Ken Christman
Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
Decay is perfectly natural in a sinful world. There was NO decay prior to the Fall. Non-decay does not require active maintenance on the part of God. His creation was perfect and did not require maintenance like human creations require. Model T’s require active maintenance as they are human creations. The human body God created would have lasted an eternity if sin (disobedience) had not interrupted such perfection. That is when decay started. That is when the genomic code started to deteriorate. It ultimately led to disease and death. God cannot be compared to a mechanic in heaven, as His perfect creation does not require repairs. While the price of sin (disobedience) has been fully paid for, the restoration to perfection has not happened yet. Once it occurs (which I believe will be soon), there will be a complete restoration that will not require a “mechanic” for active maintenance, as decay, degeneration, decay, death (all those ugly D’s) will no longer exist.
As for assuming that genetic mutations have occurred at a constant rate since the fall of Adam and Eve, we should consider the fallacies of assuming constant degradation of Carbon-14 and the problems such assumptions have created. As Creationists, we should exercise caution in making assertions we cannot prove.
As for God being bound by His own laws, let us consider Jesus bringing perfect peace and tranquility just by commanding the elements to be still during a raging storm. We cannot understand such divine power over EVERYTHING, including the power to breath life into a lump of clay which was instantly transformed into a perfectly fine human body with over 5 billion base pairs (the human genome) and able to perfectly replicate without decay or deterioration of the system. Satan also has supernatural power, but God’s power is infinitely greater. Whenever there is supernatural activity, it can come from only of two sources. We do know for a fact that postdiluvian human life spans rapidly contracted from ca. 900 years to circa 70 years in just a few generations. I’m sure most Creationists would agree that God had a hand in this, and that this was not “natural”. Whether He did this by altering the mutation rate, we have no way of knowing, as mutation rates were not measured at that time and there is no way for us to reconstruct those past mutation rates.
As for Einstein, Newton, and others, I would exercise restraint in following any of their religious or theological assumptions.
Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
We may have observed mutation rates in the recent past, but how do we know what mutation rates were 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, or 6,000 years ago? Prior to roughly 6,000 years ago, we can safely say mutation rates were ZERO, as God’s creation was perfect, and there was no sin, death, or deterioration in the genomic code!
Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
While data suggesting the hand of the Creator God in the creation of all living things is always welcome, one should exercise great caution in assuming the constancy of mutation rates. After all, God shortened human lifespans from ca. 900 years to ca. 70 years in only a few generations. Do you suppose He might have done that by altering mutation rates? Do you suppose that a powerful God who breathed life into a lump of clay could easily tinker with mutation rates? Furthermore, mutation rates would have highly variable effects on life forms in different species based upon average lifespans. Let us hope and pray that more scientists will be troubled by uncovering data that will lead them to trust the Genesis creation account as the only scientifically logical explanation of how we got here.
The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
Your concern about mysticism within Adventism is well founded. Pastor Bill Loveless identified Ellen White in the pages of the Adventist Review as a “true mystic.” “Mysticism” is defined in the dictionary as a euphemism for the occult. Look it up.
The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
You are right. I am totally confused as to what distinguishes “Historical Old Covenant” from “Old Covenant Thinking”. You and Chris White maintain that Sabbath observance is not necessary for salvation. Ellen White clearly states that it is necessary. Chris and Ellen CANNOT both be correct.
