God will not hold against us what we ... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 5 » God will not hold against us what we do not know is sin « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh

Post Number: 54
Registered: 4-2006


Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 3:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi everybody!

In my conversation with my Adventist friend today, she told me that she belives that God will not hold against us what we do not know is sin.
She tried to find a proof text to show me, but could not find it, she will try to give it to me tomorrow.

I'm not sure if this is an official SDA belief or only hold by some SDA's.

I think it functions a little bit like the Sabbath, if you do not know it is a sin not to keep the Sabbath .. God will look through his fingers on that one .. but if you know the truth its just tuff luck you have to keep it. It would also explain that all thoes who does not know the bible and thus "do not know what is sin" will be saved ... it would constitute a more loving God than a God that will send people to hell for things they did not know was wrong.

I would very much like to hear your opinions and experiences in regard to the above.

God's love is real pure love

Goldenbear
Registered user
Username: Goldenbear

Post Number: 151
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 4:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

MWH,
I think this is a doctrine that many SDA folk adhere too. It ties nicely into the concept of accountability. Those who lived before the church didn't know "everything" therefore they don't have to live up to it all just what they know.
Aaargh, trying to reason with entrenched SDA's is frustrating because their predisposed answers don't allow them to think.
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven

Post Number: 487
Registered: 7-2004


Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 4:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That would be James 4:17 "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." I still remember that from SDA Academy Bible class days 20 some years ago, and that's exactly the way it was used, too. Goldenbear has it right that "it ties nicely into the concept of accountability."

The fact is, believers do not come into judgment and so it's a non-issue. We all sin everyday and we will sin clear up until the Second Coming when we are changed. If we have Jesus indwelling us, we're saved (because His righteousness covers us), if we don't have Jesus indwelling us, we're not saved (because we have nothing to cover our sins). It has nothing to do with what sins we're accountable for.
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew

Post Number: 1042
Registered: 7-2004
Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 6:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This, in my opinion, is another one of those crazy-making doctrines of the SDA church. I remember being taught that I would be held accountable for everything I had learned OR had the opportunity to learn. It sounds like a Catch-22 situation, which, if you think about it, a great deal of Adventism is based upon. It made me afraid to go to school/church, and afraid not to--I was essentially doomed either way. Please tell me that I'm not the only Adventist who at a very young age realized my own mortality and was aware of my human weaknesses. I read posts by the cock-sure Adventists who post at R/S and CARM, and I wonder where they got that puffed-up attitude from. Do they really believe they are keeping the law the way they profess, or are they that delusional?

Raven, thanks for the bible text--that is the one! I've heard that the book of James almost didn't make it into the canon because it can be so easily misconstrued to support legalism and works. If James is read with your Holy Spirit glasses on, it supports Gospel, if not...well, we've all been burned by James.
Lori
Registered user
Username: Lori

Post Number: 42
Registered: 11-1999
Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 8:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

During an evangelism week at Jefferson Adventist Academy we were pressed upon to witness to those that did not have "the truth". During this same message they had hardpressed how accountable we were for what we knew.

What was my conclusion??? If all these Sunday worshippers were going to heaven because they didn't know any better than I who was I to doom them to hell by telling them about a
"Sabbath message" they were going to reject!!! I walked away from week of prayer with the idea I would NEVER spread the Sabbath message...let somebody else bear the responsibility of sending them to hell!!
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4137
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 10:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lori, I understand your reaction. I was led to believe, however, that if I did not share that Sabbath message when I could, I might be accountable for that person's salvation.

Romans 4:12-14 makes it clear that even before the law was given, people who did not recognize sin were, nevertheless, guilty of sin, and "death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam..."

We are born dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1-5), and without Jesus covering us, as Raven so clearly said, we are guilty and doomed to death.

Yes, I was taught that same thing, Mwh--and that belief was internally applied to Sabbath-keeping, because the other "moral laws" were pretty much self-evident. Sabbath-keeping was probably the only law people might not know or automatically try to keep.

Colleen
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob

Post Number: 252
Registered: 7-2005


Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 2:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen, you talked about Romans 5:12-14.

I believe that Lori's decision to be quiet about the Sabbath is more common than we suppose. I guess that many adventists don't talk to others about the sabbath, waiting for the time of Sunday Law when everybody will be forced to know the truth about the Sabbath. They are waiting for the time of testing, and postpone the spreading of the "three angels' message" until that time.
Javagirl
Registered user
Username: Javagirl

Post Number: 253
Registered: 6-2005
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 11:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Raven,
Thank you for your inspiried response stating the "non-issue". Seems I need to hear over and over and over again the truth of that paragraph.

I am praying for continued "brain-washing" in the truth of the gospel regarding the righteousness of Christ, which covers me. I pray that for all of us.

Lori
Bobj
Registered user
Username: Bobj

Post Number: 21
Registered: 1-2006
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 12:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi MWH

Thank you for starting this discussion. I would just like to add some thoughts.

Acts 13:38,39 ìthrough Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.î

This is absolute freedom from anything the Law ever addressed! We are free in Christ!! Does this sound unlikely, a bit of a mystery, perhaps? Maybe so! But read Colossians 2:2 where Paul urges us to come to ìfull assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of Godís mystery, that is, Jesus Christ.î

Colossians also warns us that some will come in to try to take away our freedom. Read Col. 2:8 where Paul warns about those who would try to put you back under this Law of Moses that is so firmly rejected in Acts 15:10, where Paul calls it unbearable and says that neither we nor our forefathers could keep it.

In Col 2 Paul uses the term ìthe elementary principles of the worldî to refer to the old covenant Law of Moses, then he commands believers ìSee to it that no one takes you captive to the elementary principles (the law), rather than according to Christ.î This is a command!! Then he says in Col 2:10 that Jesus is the head over all rule and authority (including the law, meaning that Jesus trumps the law), that the fullness of Diety dwells in Him in bodily form, and that we have been made complete in Him!

Paul says a lot about a Spirit filled life, but he starts with setting his listeners absolutely free! No wonder the establishment hated him for preaching the gospel.

Praise God for Jesus who trumps the law! We are complete in Him!

Incidently, Pauls ministry was quickly authenticated with rocksóreal ones. He was stoned in Acts 14. Itís a dangerous thing to preach the pure gospel.

Courage friend! Praise God that in the gospel of Jesus Christ Paul found something worth living and dying for, and we do, too!

Bob
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2

Post Number: 2239
Registered: 11-2002
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 12:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Raven, you are sounding more and more Lutheran ll the time! SMILE! The text you quoted, James 4:7 is often referred to at the Lutheran churches I've attended. It's the one they use to get involved in a lot of various community outreaches, sduch as the home for pregnant ladies who otherwise would be homeless, the foodbank, etc. The SDA's like to say the deffination of sin is the ttransgression of the law, you know the scoop on that. So, when I get into a diacussion with the Adventists on the deffination of sin I read to them that James 4:7 text. They will himhaw around a bit and then change the conversation to something else. But, yes, I too was raised that if someone is ignorant of truth then he/she will have God wink as his ignorance. At the same time though I was taught that everyone is given upon their hearts at birth what is called 'the book of nature' and that book will let a person know right from wrong such as with adultry, stealing, etc. It includes most everything except the Sabbath in which case we need the SDA's to teach us thwe truth about.
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh

Post Number: 56
Registered: 4-2006


Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 1:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually my friend bases her claim in Acts 17:30, I'm reading some commentaries now to understand this vers better.

If you have any experience on this vers and Adventists .. let me know.
Windmotion
Registered user
Username: Windmotion

Post Number: 300
Registered: 6-2001


Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 4:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

From a parent's perspective the Adventist argument makes no sense. Why would I punish my daughter for inadvertantly disobeying me? For instance if it was her bedtime, but I didn't tell her to go to bed, is she disobeying (she is too little to tell time). When I see my child disobeying I am going to tell her, and she is generally aware of it already!

God's law is not like the income tax code with a bunch of laws written in small print that are easy to skip over that people are going to continually break without knowing it. If we are disobeying, He lets us know!

I think the problem is the somewhat relative nature of the Law. For instance in Romans 14 it says for some people eating meat offered to idols is wrong and for some it is not wrong. The reason for this is that the NT law is quite open-ended -- love your neighbor as yourself and love God. The corollory to loving God of course is letting Him into your life.

This open-endedness is a lot more complicated than a list of laws that read like the income tax code, even though the tax code may be more logical for some people.

Logically,
Hannah
Dd
Registered user
Username: Dd

Post Number: 688
Registered: 7-2004
Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 8:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bob J,

Thanks for your post above. I printed it off because of your great Scriptural references.

Thanks for sharing.

Denise
Randyg
Registered user
Username: Randyg

Post Number: 204
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 3:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Like most of you, I was also taught that you will be held accountable for the "truths" you have learned or have been exposed to. This was mainly in reference to the Sabbath, and more specifically to the Adventist interpretation of the sabbath. To refresh your memories there is a 12 page paper written by the Biblical Research Institute on the GC website at www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/document/sabbathobservance.htm than point by point tells you what is, and is not appropriate to do on the Sabbath day.

I have concluded that now I can live up to the Sabbath truth that I know.

I know that in several places in the New Testament we are told that Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath requirement that was given to the Jewish nation. Resting in God's grace through Jesus IS our Sabbath rest.

We are told in the New Testament, again in several places that the Old Covenant(Mosiac Law) is past, and we as Christians are living under a New(better) Covenant.

When your Adventist friends or family are concerned that you have left the "Sabbath truth",let them know that you are living up to the truth as best as you know how, and the New Covenant Sabbath Rest is far superior to the shadow that was given to the Jewish nation. Christ has fulfilled, enhanced, and expanded the meaning of that which was given to Moses.

Our Sabbath rest in Christ is an ongoing experience, and is indicative of our ongoing relationship with Christ and is not bound to a 24 hour point in time. Every day is set apart for worship of God, and we are thankful for this privilege. The Sabbath is not an obligation to meet, but rather a relationship fulfilled.

This understanding will of course challenge the traditional Adventist interpretation. I believe however, that it can be, and is supported in the New Testament by a preponderance of the evidence.

Now, what will they do with this New Testament interpretation of the fulfillment of the "Sabbath truth" is between them and their Redeemer.
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4146
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 4:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Randy, I like that suggestion that we tell our Adventist friends or family "that [we] are living up to the truth as best as [we] know how". That is quite powerful; for one thing, it presupposes that we DO KNOW about the Sabbath, but it puts a "living up to it" spin on our understanding to which they might resonateóand simultaneously find confusing. Perhaps it could help raise the level of cognitive dissonance that eventually would drive them to find answers...

Colleen
Randyg
Registered user
Username: Randyg

Post Number: 205
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 4:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen,
I do not try to prove to anybody that it is wrong to keep the Sabbath. My only hope is that they recognize, or at least consider that Sabbath observance can be interpreted in more ways than one. In Romans 14 (back again!) Paul is quite clear than the Day of worship is not a salvation issue, but rather Worship and relationship to God is the issue.

When Paul addresses the Weak brother and the Strong brother he is very clear that both are acceptable to God. The Weak (in the faith)brother of course is the one who does not yet fully appreciate the freedoms accessible to him through Jesus, and continues to feel obligated to try and earn his salvation through behaviors and law abiding.

The Strong(in the faith) brother completely accepts God's gift of grace and lives a life of freedom with the leading and guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4148
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 4:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Randy, I did not misunderstand you. You are right about the strong and weak brother. I just meant that addressing the issue as "living up to the Sabbath to the best of my understanding" is probably a phrase that would be less likely to elicit an argument and more likely to trigger questions. It seems it would be less likely to make a Sababth keeper feel he needs to enlighten or set straight one who is not, and it's less "in your face" than a non-Sabbath-keeper trying to explain why he's "right".

Colleen
Randyg
Registered user
Username: Randyg

Post Number: 206
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 6:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No misunderstanding. I completely agree with your point. It still recognizes the Sabbath, albeit a different phase of it. New Covenant vs Old Covenant. Sabbath rest in Jesus vs "keeping a day". Grace vs Law.

Adventism 'keeps" the Sabbath in what they feel is the right way(EGW's way). It really is not at all like it was kept in the Old or New Testaments.

Keeping the Sabbath in the New Covenant is really accepting that Christ fulfilled the OT Sabbath.
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh

Post Number: 59
Registered: 4-2006


Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 5:04 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Randyg: It seems that the link you gave above is broken ...
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh

Post Number: 60
Registered: 4-2006


Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 5:07 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The correct url is: http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/sabbathobservance.htm
Randyg
Registered user
Username: Randyg

Post Number: 208
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 7:44 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank-you my friend.

As I read through that article again this morning I just have to shake my head. Is it any wonder that there is SO much cognitive dissonance, depression, and legalism among those who feel obligated to work there way to salvation. You can never feel the joy and peace promised to Christians because you will never be good enough.

For those who think Adventism has evolved to a mature level, where discernment of principles is valued over group behaviour control, this paper is a must read.

Snowboardingmom
Registered user
Username: Snowboardingmom

Post Number: 114
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 8:12 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree, Randyg.

The section "Sabbath-A Safeguard of Our Relationship With God" was especially disturbing to me. I'm thankful that a 24 hour day isn't my "safeguard". Now on the outside looking in, these statements and guidelines seem so out there. But at the time, they made sense. In fact, I remember reading this when I was still in the questioning stage (someone had given it to me so I can re-evaluate my thoughts before making any "rash" decisions), and it actually made me think twice! But now, it just makes me sad.

I found this interesting too. "In general, Adventists should try to avoid Sabbath funerals."

Grace
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b

Post Number: 553
Registered: 7-2004


Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 10:13 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Another text to consider regarding accountability is Lev 5:17 "Now if a person sins and does any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, though he was unaware, still he is guilty and shall bear his punishment.
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob

Post Number: 254
Registered: 7-2005


Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 11:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you for this text, Ric, it's very clear.

I'm adding to this text that our Lord Jesus Christ prayed for his enemies in this way, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." Luke 23:34

Even if the soldiers were ignorant, they needed Jesus' prayer for their sins. THis means that they were condemned for their sins.

Also apostle Paul said, "We speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Corinthians 2:7-8

Here Paul explicitly said that because of their lack of knowledge the rulers of the age crucified our Lord Jesus. In spite of their lack of knowledge, their condemnation is just. It's hard to believe that they were innocent.

In one of his sermons, apostle Peter stated clearly to his listeners that they had killed Jesus, also saying that they did this in ignorance, but not only they, also their leaders. Amazing, peter included the leaders, the Sanhedrin, the priests on the list of ignorant people! But their ignorance is not an excuse.

Acts 3:15-17 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see. "Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders.
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2

Post Number: 533
Registered: 8-2004


Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 12:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you Jackob. This is very clear that sin in ignorance is still sin.

I'm curious what anybody's found from the Bible about forgiveness for known sin?

I've heard the theory that Adam and Eve's sin could be forgiven because they really 'didn't know' God well enough (and didn't understand sin well enough?) and therefore could be rehabilitated and saved by coming to understand God and His nature better, but that the reason that Satan was thrown out of heaven was that he sinned knowing the enormity of sin and somehow knowing God better than any other creature (because he was a covering cherub). Maybe this is too much of a tangent from the topic, but I do wonder if anyone has any thoughts?

At this point I'd have to say I don't know. I may have even mangled the 'theory' itself in trying to type it here! :-)

I do know that Adam was apparently held more culpable than Eve because he knowingly ate the fruit while we're told she was deceived (but they both got spiritual death and banishment from the garden with Jesus being the only hope of return.

Interestedly,

Mary
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4151
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 1:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The problem I have with trying to understand Satan's sin is that the Bible just doesn't tell us what "went down". I'm not sure we can come to any conclusions about Satan's sin and God's response to it, because we just aren't told anything except he was cast out of heaven.

I know that Ellen says he eventually repented, but God could not forgive him; it was "too little too late" (not her words!). The Bible, however, doesn't say this.

As far as Adam being more culpable because he knowingly ate the fruit while Eve was deceivedóagain, I've not seen that connection stated, either. I know the Bible says Adam sinned by breaking a command (known sin) as opposed to those who sinned prior to the law who sinned without breaking a command (Romans 5:14), and the Bible also says Eve was deceivedóa different type of sin from openly breaking a command. Yet I believe that the reason Adam was held "more responsible" was that he was the one who was considered the "head" of the human race.

In Adam "all die". Jesus came as the second Adam to become the new head of the human race for all who accepted Him and became born of the Spirit. "In Christ all shall be made alive". (1 Corinthians 15:22) I believe that if the sins were reversedóAdam had been deceived and Eve had sinned willfullyóAdam would still be held responsible because He was the "head" of the human race. God created Eve from Adamóand God gave to Adam the job of naming all the animals and also Eve (Gen 2:19-23).

Adam, Paul says in Romans 5:14, "was a pattern of the one to come". Just as one trespass (Adam's, not Eve's) meant condemnation for all men, the result of one act of righteousness means justification for all men (Romans 5:14-18).

Colleen
Mwh
Registered user
Username: Mwh

Post Number: 61
Registered: 4-2006


Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 3:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wasn't satans sin that he wanted to be like God?

I realy can't see (at the moment) that Adam was not also deceived by the devil. Like the devil still temts me through other human beings ...

Anyways saying this while tired .. just whats pops up in my mind now.
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady

Post Number: 2601
Registered: 3-2004


Posted on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 6:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

After browsing through the article about sabbath keeping, I want to jump up and shout, THANK YOU GOD, I DO NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT ANY MORE.
Looking at that article I just shake my head and am very happy, God took me out of it.
He is always AWESOME.
Diana

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration