Comment on Christians and the Sabbath by Ken Christman.
Please forgive me for my increasingly confused state. First, we are told that Sabbath observance never saved ANYONE. Then, we’re told that those ignorant of the Sabbath command can be saved, but presumably the non-ignorant not be saved. Then, of the 4 men well-versed on the Sabbath issue (1. A Lutheran reformer–Luther himself. 2. A Millerite–William Miller himself 3. A Millerite follower–Miles Grant 4. Another Millerite follower–D. M. Canright) and two are declared “savable” (Luther and Miller), while there is deathly silence on the eternal destiny of the Millerite followers.
How does Luther obtain an “ignorance label” when he is fully aware of the Decalogue and the Sabbath commandment. He said, “For God will not give revelation to everyone; He will not promulgate a new Decalogue, but He had bound us to this commandment which resounded from heaven.” He further added, “This is the proper celebration of the Sabbath, to rest from our work and be full of God’s works.” In view of Luther’s extensive knowledge of Scripture and specifically the Decalogue and the Sabbath commandment, and in spite of his affirmation of it, he still did not observe it. Yet, he somehow merits the ignorance label so that he can become “savable”? How so? As for William Miller, he also knew about the Sabbath, as a certain segment of his followers observed the Sabbath. EGW lays the blame for that on his “friends”, who persuaded him otherwise. Thus, because his friends unfairly influenced him, he also gets the badge of “ignorant” and thus becomes “savable” as well?
If Luther and Miller, with their extensive knowledge of the Sabbath issue, are “savable” due to ignorance and the adverse influence of friends, why the silence on the destiny of Miller’s followers, Miles Grant and D. M. Canright? Why can’t they be “savable” as well? What differentiates Luther and Miller from Grant and Canright? As I have told you, I have already decided to follow God and His commandments regardless of the consequences or the cost. Eternal life is far too precious to pass up. One day we’re here, and the next day we’re gone. Whatever we accomplish here on this planet pales in comparison to the free gift of eternal life. However, I’m not getting any response as to what constitutes Sabbath observance that is acceptable to God. You’re not directing me to what constitutes fulfilling the requirements of the Sabbath command and what constitutes violation of the commandment. It is of critical importance to all of God’s followers to understand His requirements, and then to obediently follow them. don’t you think?
Are you not imparting this information to me so that I will remain in “ignorance” and be able to play the “ignorant card”? Do you yourself not know the answer to this question?
You certainly must be able to tell me what differentiates the ignorance of Luther and Miller versus the ignorance of Grant and Canright. PLEASE, PLEASE, can’t you tell me why two of them are “savable” and why the other two might not be?
I must confess to you that I am not comfortable with the “ignorance card”, as God does not seem to have functioned this way in the past. He told Adam and Eve to not come near a certain tree in the garden, and to NOT eat the fruit of it lest they die. They disobeyed. They were not kept in ignorance. Neither were the antediluvians kept in ignorance, as they heard the message of impending destruction of the world and had every opportunity to escape by entering the wide open doors of the Ark. The Israelites were given specific instructions regarding the 613 commandments and sacrifices and were not kept in ignorance. Christians today have the same opportunity of accepting or rejecting eternal life via belief and trust in Jesus as Savior. For the life of me, I don’t understand why everybody doesn’t accept that free gift.
A final reason why I question whether the “ignorance card” will work is found in I Kings chapter 13, where a man of God was given specific instructions, which he dutifully followed until he ran into a fellow claiming to be a prophet and having a different message. Sadly, the man of God listened to the prophet and his punishment was to be killed by a lion. I likewise question whether being misled by friends will work as an excuse with God, as this poor chap was actually misled by a prophet and his punishment was swift. That argument didn’t work with Adam, who blamed his disobedience on his own wife. It didn’t work there either. It would seem to me that if God went to great lengths to offer me eternal life, the least I can do is to do some serious investigation into His expectations of me, and to no longer be ignorant. That is precisely what I’m trying to do, and with all your knowledge of the Sabbath as exemplified by your outstanding effort in formulating this extensive material, I’m not getting answers.
I would greatly appreciate answers to the above questions, along with perhaps one more request. Abraham Heschel was Jewish rabbi who wrote a book entitled The Sabbath. He has been quoted various times in the pages of the Adventist Review and I once heard an SDA preacher lift an entire sermon from his book. Do you have any thoughts on his eternal destiny? In regard to Luther and Miller, you stated that “they were both God-fearing men and will be saved”. Why would that not also apply to Grant and Canright? And then, here is Heschel who does indeed advocate for Sabbath observance.
Respectfully,
Ken Christman
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.
