Comment on Christians and the Sabbath by Ken Christman.
Wow! What a monumental work! What incredible effort must have been expended to compile all this information. You are to be commended for your effort. However, permit me to pose a few questions.
1. You state that “Sabbath observance never saved anyone.” Doesn’t this put you at variance with EGW?, who, in Testimonies vol. I, p. 533, she states that “to knowingly transgress the holy commandment forbidding labor upon the seventh day is a crime in the sight of heaven which was of such magnitude under the Mosaic law as to require the death of the offender. But this was not all that the offender was to suffer, for God would not take a transgressor of His law to heaven. He must suffer the second death, which is the full and final penalty for the transgressor of the law of God.” She further states that “I saw that many professed Sabbathkeepers will come short of everlasting life.”
In Spiritual Gifts vol III, p. 253, EGW clearly outlines how the Sabbath is to be kept: “The Lord iw no less particular now in regard to his Sabbath than when he gave the foregoing special directions to the children of Israel. He required them to bake that which they would bake, and seethe (that is, boil,) that while they would seethe on the sixth day, preparatory to the rest of the Sabbath. Those who neglect to prepare for the Sabbath on the sixth day, and who cook food upon the Sabbath, violate the fourth commandment, and are transgressors of God’s law. All who are really anxious to observe the Sabbath according to the commandment, will not cook any food upon the Sabbath. They will, in the fear of the God who gave his law from Sinai, deny themselves, and eat food prepared upon the sixth day, even if it is not as palatable. God forbade the children of Israel baking and boiling upon the Sabbath. That prohibition should be regarded by every Sabbath-keeper, as a solemn injunction from Jehovah to them. The Lord would guard his people from indulging in gluttony upon the Sabbath, which he has set apart for the sacred meditation and worship”
I once read the above EGW quotation to a minister who had been on officer of the General Conference, and asked if he ever knew even one Adventist anywhere in the world who followed her admonition. His answer was, “Not a one. Not a one.” In that event, if EGW sets forth God’s requirements for Sabbathkeeping and nobody is following them, and she further claims that violators of this commandment will come short of everlasting life and will NOT go to heaven, would it seem that no Adventist will be in heaven? Do Adventists claim that she is a true prophetess but yet neglect to read her writings and refuse to follow her admonitions? Furthermore, does EGW not claim that the mark of the beast will revolve around a national Sunday law and around Sabbath/Sunday observance? Does not the book of Revelation teach that acceptance of the mark of the beast will forfeit one’s eternal life?
2. Do you consider “keeping the Sabbath” to be the same as church attendance on Sabbath? Do you consider “Sunday keeping”‘ churches to be the same as churches which hold worship services on Sunday? A few days ago, I asked an SDA if he kept the Sabbath, and his response was that he attended church on Sabbath. This response indicated to me that he considered them the same. Your caption that “Jesus kept Sabbath” is followed by his custom of attending the local synagogue on the Sabbath day. Jesus, of course, was sent to the people of Israel, as was foretold by Old Testament prophets, including Daniel. His purpose in attending the synagogue was to teach them about their God and about who He was–the Messiah. The synagogue was where these people were to be found on the Sabbath day! However, did Jesus actually “keep the Sabbath” according to the commandment? John 5:18 actually states otherwise: “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal to God.”
Likewise, if Paul went to the river to find women meeting for prayer, did he not go to teach them the gospel, as was his custom? He taught the Jews first, then went to the gentiles. Would an excursion to a riverside place of prayer signify his “keeping the Sabbath” or would it simply be an opportunity to share the good news of the gospel?
3. Do you believe that the mark of the beast will revolve around a national Sunday law which mandates Sunday worship and prohibits Sabbath worship?
4. If, as you say, Sabbath observance is not necessary for salvation, it would appear that you are in complete concordance with the words of Jesus, who, as He was explaining to Nicodemus in John 3:18, said, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Then, in order to further emphasize His point, in verse 36, He stated, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
In other words, Jesus told Nicodemus in no uncertain terms that there would be two classes of people–those who believed in Him and would have eternal life, and those who will not believe in Him, who will not have eternal life. Jesus said nothing about the Sabbath as a necessity for salvation to Nicodemus. To my knowledge, He did not specify Sabbath observance as a necessary ingredient to eternal life on any other occasion either.
So then, if according to Jesus and according to you, Sabbath observance is entirely optional, why are we to make such a big issue of this?
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.
