guibox said:

What I disagree with are those that that say that by saying that the scapegoat is Satan that SDAs are giving Satan a co-existing role in our salvation or trying to mak Christ Satan. You’d think we were a satanic cult the way some formers attribute ‘shady dealings’ to some of our doctrines.

At the very least we have a different perspective looking at a different aspect of eschaetological fulfillment and finality of the salvation process and not the atonement at the cross.

I agree there are some uncomely statements out there.  The lovely folks at the Former Adventist Forum wouldn’t let me join because I told them I was still a member of the SDA church and didn’t agree with their designation of the SDA church as a cult.  It is sad that they have locked themselves into such a rigid position because they have a very professional looking magazine and much of their information is very good.  Ultimately, I think their impact on the SDA church for good will probably be limited because of their rigidity.

On the other hand, I think the SDA church has brought these attackes on itself by it’s attitude towards people who disagree with them.  Calling all Protestants and Catholics “Babylon” is not exactly high brow discussion.  Also the abominable way the church treats members who question some of it’s dogma, (I use the word “dogma” in the worst sense), is abominable.  By bragging about how they are uniquely dedication to truth above all other Christians, while simultaneously trying to hide Mrs. White’s flaws, the church has set people up not only to leave the SDA church but to doubt the Bible also.  When people have deeply believed in something and then discover that to a great degree it is a fraud, they naturally doubt everything they have learned.  One could even say the SDA church has become an “atheist factory.”

I realize the SDA church has tried to separate itself from the obvious conclusion, derived from their theory that the scapegoat is Satan, that he is the co-redeemer along with Jesus.  However, at Glacier View and beyond the church has in actual practice elevated Mrs. White to the final test for doctrinal orthodoxy in the SDA church, so they can never escape this heresy.  Here is a doozy of a statement in a letter from Mrs. White to Mrs. Hastings:

Much love to your dear father and to your sisters and brother. Tell them to be faithful to serve God. I have often prayed for them. Tell them to pray much that their sins may be confessed upon the head of the scapegoat and borne away into the land of forgetfulness. A little longer and Jesus’ work will be finished in the sanctuary. {19MR 131.3}
Kiss the babe for me. Tell Charles to be a good little boy that he may meet his mother at the appearing of Jesus. My little one is with me; he knew me when I got home. I had been gone from him two months. He first looked at me, then flung his little arms around my neck. He is now very feeble, but we have prayed for him. He will be healed, I believe.--Letter 8, 1850.
Ellen G. White Estate Washington, D. C. May 12, 1988. Entire Letter. {19MR 132.1}

Manuscript Releases, Volume 19 [Nos. 1360-1419, 1988]. 1993; 2002 . Ellen G. White Estate

Most Adventists have probably not studied this topic through, so it would be unfair to accuse them of being a “Satanic cult.” However, those who do embrace Satan as their final sin bearer are on much shakier ground.  It would not surprise me at all if in the end times, some of these SDAs will be found fighting on the side of the enemy.  Already some in the SDA church have begun to champion the cause of Islam.

glennspring said:

My understanding of a continued atonement relates to Hebrews 7:25 which asserts that Jesus ever lives to make intercession for us. That is, Jesus is in heaven as our intercessor, accepting our requests for forgiveness and cleansing from sin (1 John 1:9). Whether that should be characterized as performing the same religious duty over and over again, I don’t know. But I don’t read Paul’s statement in Hebrews about Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father as being opposed to Jesus continuing to have a ministry on our behalf. Hebrews 7:25 indicates He does, as do many other passages related to our praying and confessing our sins, which imply that Jesus is still active on our behalf.

The SDA view is that this intercession will end when, or just before, Christ returns at the second coming.

How do you understand Hebrews 7:25 and related passages, like 1 John 1:9, that deal with Christ’s continued role in the forgiveness of sins? And if Christ is interceding for us before the Father, does this intercession continue throughout eternity or does it end at some point?

You have made some excellent points.

I take the statement in Hebrews 7:25 very seriously, that Jesus intercessory ministry is eternal. This passage is extremely helpful to understand just how dependable Jesus’ ministry really is.

Heb 6:16-20
16 Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. 17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
NIV

I don’t know how a Bible passage could be any stronger in it’s assurance that Jesus’ intercessory ministry is completely dependable.  This passage leaves no room for the theory that some time before the second coming the saints will “live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor.” By downgrading grace to a tempory phenomena and upgrading the law to an eternal and immutable force, the church has managed to destroy the assurance of salvation for many church members.

Your other point is also interesting.
On the one hand, we have this assurance in Hebrews that Jesus is always available to intercede and to forgive us our sins:

1 John 1:8-10
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
NIV

and on the other hand, we have the passage which states that Jesus is not standing and performing the “same religious duties again and again.”

Heb 10:11-14
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
NIV

My understanding of these texts, is that the atonement was completed at the cross and that Jesus has completed the task of destroying sin.  Therefore, when He forgives us our sins he also “cleanses us from all unrighteousness.” The key point in Hebrews 10 is that the priest who was standing and performing the same sacrifices again and again “could never take away sins.” This is an exact parallel to the SDA doctrine, that when we confess our sins they are not really cancelled, that a record of our sins is kept in heaven which we will have to meet again in the future, that we remain under condemnation until we pass the “Investigative Judgment,” and that only after we pass the “Investigative Judgment” will our sins be blotted out of our record and placed on Satan who must bear the final punishment for our sins.  In other words, according to Adventist theology Jesus, just as the earthly priests, is up in heaven doing the same thing again and again but our sins just keep hanging around and hanging around, and our guilt remains.  This contrasts very markedly from the statement in Hebrews that “by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.”

Incidentally, it is my understanding that the version of the SDA scapegoat theology which Walter Martin considered erroneous but not heresy was the one which guibox holds since it avoids embracing Satan as the final sinbearer or a co-atonement. 

Moving beyond the narrow discussion of the errors in Adventist theology to a broader understanding of the issue, I believe the New Covenant has completely changed the paradigm of what it means to serve God.  Under the Old Covenant, people had a set group of rules which they were required to keep, with a series of rewards and punishments which were distributed out depending upon how he individual performed.  In this type of morality, sins could be defined in units with each infraction of a rule defined as one sin.  Although one of the rules was to love God, obedience was strictly a matter of self interest to either achieve a reward or to avoid punishment.

In the New Covenant, the only type of service which counts as righteousness is service rendered from disinterested love.  Any service which is motivated by self interest is faulty.  Therefore, for the Christian to give acceptable service to God, the Christian must be completely freed from the entire system of rewards and punishments, which appeal only to self interest, in order to serve God voluntarily based only on our love for Him.  This is why the New Covenant offers unconditional love and unlimited forgiveness.  Because God takes responsibility for our obedience upon Himself and simultaneously gives us complete forgiveness this frees us to serve Him from love not from obligation.  As I understand the issue, when we sin, God has already taken responsibility for that sin upon Himself and has already forgiven us even before we ask.  Our asking is simply an acknowledgement that we understand our error and acknowledge that He has forgiven us.

Jer 31:33-34
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
NIV

Bobj said”

Yesterday I did a google search on “satan scapegoat.” I am a former Adventist, but grew up assuming that the scapegoat was satan.

Briefly, the papers available on google raised a couple interesting points. Apparently ancient Jewish writers referred to a-z-z-l as one who spread sin through the earth--the Book of Enoch is mentioned. One writer, uncomfortable with the concept of satan having a role in the atonement, wrote that he thought perhaps the scapegoat was simply a messenger to the dark side (my paraphrase of his point). I have some questions about this, and need to do further study. 1 Peter 3:19 mentions Christ preaching to the spirits in prison. Could this be what this writer was referring to?

Welcome to the forum.

My understanding is that the Azazel could refer to a fallen angel, Satan, like I Enoch says although there are other theories of where the word comes from which also have merit.  Even if we accept the definition of “Azazel” as Satan, that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that the scapegoat was Satan, only that it was selected “for azazel” meaning it was to serve a different purpose than the goat which was chosen “for the Lord.” I Enoch describes how Azazel sinned and was buried under the mountains in the wilderness.  If I Enoch is a correct representation of the cultural understanding when the Pentatuch was written, then when the scapegoat was sent into the wilderness is was going to Azazel carrying the people’s sins.  This is a beautiful illustration of Jesus who left Heaven and went to the land of Azazel, this earth, to bear His people’s sins and to eventually die in Azazel’s land separated from His angels and from His Father.

New Mexico,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  You made many excellent points.  I agree with what you said about the rigidity of FAF and also about the Adventist church being an effective “atheist factory”.  Many of my friends from my Adventist upbringing no longer consider themselves Christian, in no small part to the teaching that Adventists are the only “true” Christians.  Having left Adventism, the furthest thing from their minds is to join one of the other “apostate” churches.

Incidentally, your remarks about not being allowed to participate on FAF confirm my hypothesis about selection bias.  If the only people who are granted entrance into the forum are those who are prone to agree with the prevailing teachings of the group, the table is set for a “cult-like” atmosphere where the majority rallies around the pronouncements of the leaders.  That some of us were kicked off for openly disagreeing with these pronouncements gives even more unsettling evidence of this.  The leadership acts like it has something to hide and protect, to the detriment of their credibility.

Buried in your comments was this: “Because God takes responsibility for our obedience upon Himself and simultaneously gives us complete forgiveness this frees us to serve Him from love not from obligation.”

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.  Within the context of the New Covenant, it has become fashionable in former Adventist circles to bristle at the notion of obedience to God or the law, since the law was fulfilled by Jesus.  But what’s missing in this thinking is that while our obedience to the law was fulfilled, our obedience to Christ will persist out of love, albeit imperfectly.  Reformed theologians capture this in the progression of “guilt, grace and gratitude” (see this article for an excellent summary by Michael Horton).  We are guilty before God, He gives us grace through Jesus, and we serve Him from gratitude.  So much of the former Adventist arguments are centered on the fourth commandment and the implications for non-observance in light of Christ’s fulfillment of the law, but when our service to Him is motivated by love, the picture changes dramatically.  For example, if an Adventist observed Sabbath out of gratitude and not out of a need to maintain salvation, no one could bring a biblical argument against him.  As is unfortunately the case for so many Adventists, the Sabbath is seen as a “test” for future salvation, thus effectively reducing their religion to a works-based enterprise.  The words of the apostle Paul should give us pause before making the keeping of any commandment a “test” of salvation: “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” (Galatians 2:21 ESV)

Greg

Posted anonymously by: Ane

New Mexico,

Great Post!

I’m among the group saddened by what I see in regards to people leaving the SDA church who no longer believe in the Bible. It grieves me as I personally and intimately know some I care very deeply for.

I am wondering what your thoughts are in regards to this text?

Then that lawless one [the anti-christ] will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. –2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

It appears to me that blatant disregard for truth is considered wickedness!
My Bible commentary says that this unbelief is willing, intentional and closely connected with the Gospel.

It appears to me this text is saying if we refuse to acknowledge deceit in our theology regarding the Gospel we will not recognize the anti-christ ... in fact God will send a delusion causing us to fall for the anti-christ.

Posted anonymously by: ane

Greg,

BTW, can you teach me how to use the quote function on this forum? I can’t figure it out.

You said:

As is unfortunately the case for so many Adventists, the Sabbath is seen as a “test” for future salvation, thus effectively reducing their religion to a works-based enterprise.

How would you council those who have left Adventism but are still madly in love with Sabbath and who can come up with all sort of innocent reasons for continuing in it ... but who at the very core of their motivation are actually erring on the safe side clinging to it just in case?

If I were to look God in the face and be really honest with Him, that would still be at the very core of my motivation for clinging to it and is why I feel I have to totally let it go.

Ane

Hi Ane,

It’s easy to quote other people...you can hit “reply” link under their message and you’ll get a nice quote box with the entire message, or you can selectively quote portions by copying and pasting into your message, bracketing the quote with quote tags like this:

http://www.forthegospel.org/gfx/quote_comment.gif

Incidentally, it is easy to sign up for an account to change that “unverified” status to “verified”.  Plus you get the bonus of being notified by email when someone replies to a thread you’ve commented on (this can be turned on or off easily).  To sign up for an account, go here: http://www.forthegospel.org/user/register

To answer your question about the Sabbath, I would ask the Adventist if he agrees with the words of the hymn: “My hope is built on nothing less, but Jesus’ blood and righteousness”.  If he would rather change this hymn to “Jesus’ blood and my obedience”, we would have a lot to discuss (e.g. Romans 4:1-8, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-6).  But if my Adventist friend affirmed that his only hope of salvation was by the righteousness of Christ, I believe he has Christian liberty with regards to Sabbath observance.  Romans 14:5-6 cuts both ways, indicating that our observance or non-observance of the day should be done to honor Jesus.  Similarly, many Christians observe “Sabbath” on Sunday, and I would not argue with them over this decision of conscience.  We can safely leave those who profess faith in Christ alone within the jurisdiction of the Holy Spirit on these matters.

All of this said, I would also recommend to any Adventist who has concentrated his efforts on the keeping of a day that he expand his spiritual rest to the entire week, resting in the finished work of Jesus Christ who is the substance to which the shadow of the Sabbath points (Hebrews 4:1-7, Colossians 2:16-17).

Greg

Welcome back to 4TG New Mexico, and you make excellent points. I noticed this comment from you regarding Ellen White:”

I’m not saying she is a true prophet in the sense that I consider her doctrinally authoritative or as especially accurate. To the extent that she tried to use her gift to assume doctrinal authority or to in any way control other people, I’d agree she was a false prophet. She certainly didn’t understand the gospel and was an extreme legalist. That being said, there is every indication that she was a sincere Christian woman with severe limitations in her theology. From my understanding of the gospel, despite her many sins she is probably a saved woman, and therefore doesn’t qualify as a false prophet in the same sense as Muhammad who denied the divinity of Christ, spewed hatred and murder, rejected the vicarious atonement and taught salvation by works. Although it may just be a matter of terminology, I hesitate to call a saved Child of Christ a “false prophet” and to place her in the same category with a man whose works and writings give every indication of a Satanic origin.”
----------------------------------------------------

I have to agree with you and this is what my late friend Walter Martin said also. She doesn’t belong with Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy. I know of too many people who have come to know Christ through reading “Desire of Ages”, assuming of course she wrote it.

It is amazing to me how some on FAF are rubbing their hands together and making horribly irresponsible statements such as this:

“Ellen’s eternal punishment is certainly going to be of a very severe variety” (Jeremy)

I cringe when I read stuff like this. First of all, we should recoil in horror about the plight of the lost. Jeremy is actually playing God by claiming to know with certainty that Ellen will be suffering in severe pain for all eternity. We don’t know what her relationship to God was at the time of her death. Also when someone has been dead for as long as she has, we can’t possibly know all the circumstances around her life. HMS Richards Sr. attested to her Christian witness, and I know he was trustworthy.

However, this does not take away from the fact that she was an extreme legalist, and taught many false doctrines. She was not a true prophet of God in the sense that Moses and Elijah were. I don’t think she fit the criteria for a NT prophet either. I am just saying we need to be totally fair with all the evidence, and since I knew Walter Martin well, it makes me ill to see the FAF folks claiming he was deceived and fooled by SDAs. Walter Martin was no fool!

Stan

Posted anonymously by: Ane Edwards

Testing.

just wondering if this’ll work

Sorry guys, I’m sort of forum illiterate.

Ane said:

I am wondering what your thoughts are in regards to this text?

Then that lawless one [the anti-christ] will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. –2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

It appears to me that blatant disregard for truth is considered wickedness!
My Bible commentary says that this unbelief is willing, intentional and closely connected with the Gospel.

It appears to me this text is saying if we refuse to acknowledge deceit in our theology regarding the Gospel we will not recognize the anti-christ ... in fact God will send a delusion causing us to fall for the anti-christ.

Ane, I believe it is a sin to deliberately mislead people.  I doubt a deception as large as the SDA church has perpetrated could arise without someone bearing responsibility for it.  However, organizations are made up of many people who often don’t understand how their actions combined with the whole will play out.  For that reason, I do not have the ability to distinguish who is sincere, who is simply too spiritually immature to understand the deeper spiritual concepts and who is deliberately falsifying. 

I can document many theological errors in the SDA church and can document how these things have negatively impacted people’s lives and society in general, but I can’t judge individuals.  The inability to feel completely free from sins is one of the most destructive teachings of the church since it leads directly to legalism.  The only way we can keep the law is to be free from the law.  The lack of assurance is very destructive in many ways.

I have a cousin who works for the church who has recently come to the realization that what he has believed is partly incorrect, and he is experiencing the general disillusionment with Christianity which goes with that discovery.  This has been a gradual process for him and he now feels isolated from his wife who has not yet reached the same level of understanding.  To judge people who are at varying levels of understanding can be very destructive.  Because the process can be difficult, this is where I believe former Adventists or ones who are on the fringes of the church such as I can use our experience as a wonderful tool to lead people to a fuller understanding of the gospel.

Anne said:

How would you council those who have left Adventism but are still madly in love with Sabbath and who can come up with all sort of innocent reasons for continuing in it ... but who at the very core of their motivation are actually erring on the safe side clinging to it just in case?

If I were to look God in the face and be really honest with Him, that would still be at the very core of my motivation for clinging to it and is why I feel I have to totally let it go.

You didn’t address this question to me, but I find it very interesting so I would like to discuss it also.  My response to your question would be a question of my own, “why would any one feel the need to council a former Adventist or any one else who was madly in love with Sabbath?”

So far as I know, Jesus and all his disciples kept the Sabbath, so what’s the problem if someone keeps the Sabbath today?  One of the Christian groups which I admire the most are the Messianic Jews, I love their services, and they keep Sabbath. If you haven’t met these people, you ought to become acquainted with them.

From my own research into Sabbath, it appears the sabbath was an important part of the covenant given to Israel, and since we as Christians are grafted into the root of Israel, it still plays an important part in most Christians lives today, whether they meet on Saturday or Sunday.  Although the Isrealites were not yet prepared for the freedom of the gospel, and laws of Moses were by necessity given in an extremely legalistic manner, they are the foundation which enables us to understand the Christ event and the New Covenant. 

In retrospect, it is apparent that the Sabbath was given to minister to the people’s spiritual and physical needs.  Because Israel was a theocracy in which the laws of Moses combined religious and civil rules, the Sabbath was extremely important to give workers a much needed day of rest to recuperate physically and spiritually.  So far as I can tell, this was a radical innovation which had far reaching effects on society since the commandment forced the rich and powerful to give their hired workers, their servants, their wives, their slaves and even their animals a day of rest.  This was an extremely important innovation to move society forward in recognizing the rights of the disadvantaged, and in establishing a fair and just society.  The Sabbath guaranteed everyone including animals the opportunity to a small bit of freedom,once a week,when they could attend to their own spiritual, mental and physical needs rather than always being at the service of their master.

Although in a free country people have more choices about when they wish to enjoy their days off, the same moral and physiological principles which led to the Sabbath commandment exist today.  Although in Western society the laws mandating limits to work hours are now set by secular governments rather than by religious authorities, those laws still exist and are generally regarded as an important part of worker protection.  Unfortunately, those freedoms are not enjoyed everywhere.  There are still countries today which practice traditional slavery or economic slavery or where the workers are just too poor or too disadvantaged to assert their rights.  In those societies, Sabbath is just as important today as it was in the days of Israel, to remind employers, if they will listen, to give the people over whom they have power a day of freedom every week to rest and worship God at their discretion. 

If you have noticed, I havent’ addressed the obligation for the individual Christian to keep the Sabbath themselves nor have I discussed how they should keep it if they so desire.  To make those rules regarding Sabbath would defeat the entire purpose of Sabbath as a day dedicated to celebrate human freedom.  The Sabbath was made for the benefit of others, or as Jesus said, “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.”

And to answer the next question; No, I didn’t go to church today.

Posted anonymously by: Ane

New Mexico

Thanks for sharing all that insight. I picked up on several good points and angles I’d never considered before! And I agree there is nothing wrong with observing Sabbath as long as you don’t do it to earn salvation or make it mandatory on others.

The concept I am struggling with is there anything inherently wrong with erring on the side of safe by clinging to something in regards to the Law just in case? How do you council someone who is doing that? Who has come to you for advice. They understand that no form of Law keeping saves you, but are hanging onto Sabbath anyway, just in case, aren’t they still putting themselves under the law if they are doing it to be safe, no matter how many nice packages they wrap Sabbath up in? Aren’t they treading on thin ice if at the root of their motive is fear of their salvation?

Posted anonymously by: Bobj

Hi Friends,

I hope you don’t mind me entering this part of the discussion.  In Romans 14 Paul puts the day we worship on and the food we eat on about the same plain--and says it really doesn’t matter.  But at the end of the chapter he addresses those who would like to hedge their bets on salvation, and states clearly that whatever is not of faith is sin.

As I see it, Paul is saying that if we are keeping sabbath or eating a certain way just to be sure we are saved, we are sinning.  It’s not of faith. 

The NC commands to forgive, love, remember me when you take this cup, to stand fast in the freedom we have in Jesus, etc.  Acts 15 warns judiazers not to add burdens to the new Christian believers.

Have a great day, everyone!
Bob

Posted anonymously by: bobj

Hi again

Just a little correction to what I wrote above.  Sometimes when I go back to re-read something I see that it could be misleading, so I’ll try to do better here.

The middle paragraph can be easily misconstrued to mean something beyond what Paul was saying.  I’m inferring from Paul’s general writings that I think he would not want us to make sabbath or dietary matters an issue of salvation or a matter of works.  Paul states that the kingdom of God is not about food or drink, and a few verses later says if its not of faith its sin. 

I think further clarification may not be needed. 
Bob

Posted anonymously by: Ane

Bob thanks for pointing that out fact about that if it is not of faith it is sin. I somehow missed that point in Romans 14. That is a most helpful point!

Ane

Posted anonymously by: ANe

And no I was not drinking when I typed that last response! I don’t drink but I do sometimes transpose my thoughts! Sorry for the typo.

Ane

Ane said

The concept I am struggling with is there anything inherently wrong with erring on the side of safe by clinging to something in regards to the Law just in case? How do you council someone who is doing that? Who has come to you for advice. They understand that no form of Law keeping saves you, but are hanging onto Sabbath anyway, just in case, aren’t they still putting themselves under the law if they are doing it to be safe, no matter how many nice packages they wrap Sabbath up in? Aren’t they treading on thin ice if at the root of their motive is fear of their salvation?

Ane, to me the question you have asked appears to be based on the assumption that Christians are not supposed to keep the law.  If that is the case, my understanding is different than yours.  In fact it is probably different from a majority of former Adventists.  To explain how I have arrived at my conclusions and to support those conclusions from scripture would require an extremely lengthy discussion.  I don’t mind discussing it, but I want to make it clear that my answer is only the conclusion and is not intended to be a complete answer.

To the best of my knowledge, there are two major ways within Protestantism to combine the Old and New Testament. 

1. One is called dispensationalism in which God has divided history into several dispensations each with it’s own unique laws and it’s own methods to gain or maintain salvation.  Although the SDA church doesn’t clarify it’s methodology so most SDAs probably don’t even know these methods exist, the founders of the church were dispensationalists. 

The best evidence for the method by which the early SDAs arrived at their sanctuary doctrine is in the paper written by Crossier in the Day Star extra about a year after the disappointment since it seems to be the first paper in which the present SDA sanctuary teaching was first described.  Mrs. White was shown in vision that his paper was doctrinally correct.  The original article contained some of the same positions SDAs hold today including the idea of a close of probation and also that the scapegoat is the Devil who will be the ultimate sinbearer.  Since Crosier was a dispensationalist and based his arguments primarily upon dispensationalism, he believed the “dispensaion of grace” had ended in 1844 and the they had entered the “dispensation of the time to come.” There were some things in the article which the White’s apparently came to regret, but sinceit was endorsed by Mrs. White in vision, they had a problem.  To solve the problem, James White republished the Day Star extra but with significant portions deleted to reflect their new understanding.  Crosier was obviously upset and complained to James White because he had discovered the errors in his theology and didn’t want his article promoted and also because he thought it was dishonest to alter the article and then republish it, but James White did it any way.  I have a later edition of James’ reproductions which supposedly was the unabridged edition, but there were major portions of the original article missing.  It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that James White had intentionally set out to deceive his readers who didn’t have the original article to compare.  The revised copy is still sold in SDA bookstores today without any indication that I have noticed that it has been altered.  People reading it would have no way to know they were reading an altered document.

I was lucky enough to procure an exact copy of the Day Star extra a number of years ago from a bookstore in Payson, Arizona called Leaves of Autumn.  Because I knew how rare they are, I bought several copies of them.  Since then he has sold out.  Most people who are interested probably buy the later edition from the Book and Bible houses and never realize they are the victims of a fraud.  Incidentally, because they have a lot of information about EGW, I have thought of sharing this document with the people at FAF, but since they won’t talk to me, that seems to be ruled out.  I spent several hours today putting the articles on my computer and I may post them with the deletions so other people can see what has happened.
Anyway, it was in that paper, based on dispensationalism, that the Adventist pioneers came up with the incorrect theology which is included in the Adventist Sanctuary doctrine. Because the Adventist church is founded on dispensationalism, most former Adventists seem to move into hurches which teach dispensationalism whithout realizing why they are there.  The idea that obedience to the law is incompatible with the gospel is a direct outgrowth of dispensationalism.  Unfortunately, in my own study, it appears that dispensationalism has little Biblical support.

Anyway back to the point, I believe most Adventists aren’t very aware of the meaning of dispensationalism but because of the dispensationalism inherent in the doctrines, they probably gravitate towards it even when they leave the SDA church.  For instance, the the theology that there will be a “close of probation” is incomprehensible except in terms of dispensationalism.  On the other hand, there are many dispensationalists who are completely orthodox in their Christian beliefs, so it is inappropriate to condemn all dispensationalists. 

2.  The other method of uniting the Old and New Testment is through covenant theology.  According to covenant theology, God has stated His relationship to His people in a series of covenant statements which each builds upon the previous covenants.  Rather than abandoning the previous covenants, the newer covenant fulfills and expands on the provisions of the previous covenants.  Covenant theology views scripture as a united whole in which God’s will for us has gradually been unfolded over thousands of years covenant by covenant.  I know covenant theology is Biblically accurate since I discovered covenant theology by myself from the Bible before I found that there are many other Christians who also understand the covenants in the same way.  In fact, when one talks about the “Old Testament” or the “New Testament,” the terms refer to the old and the new covenants.

To understand the relationship between the old covenant and the new covenant is simple, read the terms of the new covenant.  It is important to understand a couple of things before reading the new covenant.  First, the Hebrew term “torah” found in the new covenant means the laws found in the five books of Moses, in other words the laws which many former Adventists believe have been done away with.  Second, the core terms of the Sinai covenant ware made directly with the nation of Israel, was spoken by God Himself from Mt. Sinai, was written on the tables of stones, and was placed in the ark of the covenant.  Israel were and still are God’s covenant people.  Gentiles are saved by being grafted into Israel as “spiritual Jews.”

Here are the terms of the new covenant in the original context.

Jer 31:27-37
27 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will plant the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the offspring of men and of animals. 28 Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant,” declares the LORD. 29 “In those days people will no longer say,
‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
30 Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--his own teeth will be set on edge.
31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD,"when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt,because they broke my covenant,though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD."I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.I will be their God,and they will be my people. 34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’because they will all know me,from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD."For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
35 This is what the LORD says,
he who appoints the sun to shine by day,who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night,who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar--the LORD Almighty is his name: 36 ”Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,"declares the LORD,"will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me.”
37 This is what the LORD says:
“Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,” declares the LORD.
NIV

There are several poins to notice:
1.  The new covenant, just as the old was given to physical Israel, the Jews.
2.  The new covenant is associated with the promise that the nation of Israel would never be rejected.
3.  In the new covenant god takes the Torah and writes it in our hearts.  Whereas previously the Torah was written in scrolls and on tablets of stone, it is now written in our hearts.  This is a huge, quantum advance in human understanding of righteousnesss.  This is the birth of the human conscience where behavior is now regulated from within rather than by external force.  The impact the human conscience has had to improve human society is almpst beyond comprehension.
4.  The new covenant immediately follows this promise that God would write the law in our hearts with the offer of unconditional and unlimited forgiveness.  Because an internalized Torah causes guilt when we sin, God’s abundant grace is an absolute essential ingredient in the new covenant.  It is this unique combination of law, guilt, and grace through the ministration of the Holy Spirit which makes the new covenant so effective in renewing the human heart.

To do justice to this subject would require many pages, but I have given you the highlights of where I’m coming from.  So my question is this, if God has promised to write the Torah in our hearts, why should we consider it inappropriate for new covenant Christians to keep the Torah?
Pleasse don’t misunderstand me, although the new covenant includes the promise to write the Torah in our hearts, that doens’t mean that every rule in the Torah is still valid.  It is my understanding that we are supposed to study it in order to separate the eternal principles of righteousness contained in the Torah and the rest of the Bible and separatte them from those things which were culturally or nationally derived and have no further application today.  Ultimately, this process will be a personal matter in each person will arrive at somewhat different understandings of how to best serve God.  So I guess my question is how her decision to keep Sabbath could be a problem if she understands the gospel?

I’m not sure if this brief summary of my position makes sense, but I tried to cover a broad subject in a very few paragraphs.

Posted anonymously by: Ane

New Mexico

Maybe if I state my stance more clearly you will better understand where my question about Sabbath is coming from.

I hear you saying you believe it was the Torah [as in the 5 books of Moses with all 613 commands] that was written on our hearts in the New Covenant. Although you don’t believe every rule of the Torah is still valid. I’m not clear how you go about deciding what parts of the Torah are valid and which are not. I would like to hear more from you in regards to that. We might actually be saying the same thing only we seem to be going about arriving at our conclusions differently. I’m just not sure.

Here is how I understand it for myself, based upon my own study:

I don’t mean to imply that New Covenant Christians are not under law! I most certainly believe we are! I just believe that law is something much greater than the Torah written in our hearts. It is the ultimate law of God which now indwells us through the presence of the Holy Spirit.

I do not believe it was the Torah, as in the five books of the Moses with all 613 commands that was written in our hearts. I believe all 613 of the Torah’s commands were fulfilled by Christ. Jesus fulfilled that Law completely and gave that Law its full meaning by His ability to keep it with 100% accuracy. I believe the Torah functioned as a tool to show us how far short we fall from ever being able to please God perfectly.

The following passages do not imply to me that ANY part of the Torah was left standing.

2 Corinthians 3 states the Old Covenant was fading away.

Galatians 3 states we are no longer under the tutor (AKA The Law).

Galatians 4 states that the entire Old Covenant was to be cast out.

Hebrews 8 states the Old Covenant is obsolete and Hebrews 9 even lists the tablets of stone under the obsolete items of divine worship.

So in order for me to figure out what “Laws” I am now under I have to focus on the teachings of Christ and His Apostles to see what they taught. Certainly there are aspects of the Old Covenant/Torah that carried over into the New Covenant. I know that because Christ and the Apostles focused on those aspects and taught them. But I don’t see the 7th Day Sabbath as one of them.

What I do see the New Testament teaching is this:

For as many as are of the works of The Law are under a curse; for it is written, Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of The Law, to perform them. Now that no one is justified by The Law before God is evident; for, the righteous man shall live by faith. However, The Law is not of faith; on the contrary, he who practices them shall live by them. Galatians 3:10-12

For whoever keeps the whole Law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. James 2:10

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by Law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit,
by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. –Galatians 5:1-5

...for not the hearers of The Law are just before God, but the doers of The Law will be justified. –Romans 2:13

In other words, to be justified/saved by The Law [or as you call it the Torah] you actually have to be able to DO/PERFORM ALL 613 commands of The Law with 100% accuracy, NO FAILURE RATE. Who can do that? No one other than Christ has ever been able to! Since the Old Covenant included the Sabbath and is where the Sabbath commands and mandates originated from you are required to keep all of the Old Covenant Sabbath commands IF YOU OBSERVE SABBATH AS A SALVATION SAFETY NET. And if you are observing Sabbath as a safety net then you are also required to keep the entire 613 commands as well.

If you are observing Sabbath from personal conviction because it enhances your life I don’t see that as a problem at all.

My concern stems from someone who has said they still want to cling to it because of all the benefits derived from it, but at the core of their clinging to it is still the root of salvation fear. I have deep concern for them. And want advice on how to approach it.

I don’t judge people who observe Sabbath ... I’m just concerned about those who do it to obtain or even maintain salvation.