What I perceive is taking place here is on your side, suspicion we are demanding obedience to be saved, and on our side, suspicion you think to obey to the minimum so long as you are saved. Perhaps we both have reasons to see each other through that lens... There was certainly a time when seventh day adventists focused on the law so much, others saw our church as very legalistic. But that was a long time ago... Albeit I'm sure there are exceptions still. However, the corollary to that is the utter rejection of the law, antinomianism, in others. Maybe there's a middle ground where you see Sabbath observance as a simple act of obedience to a God Who ought to be insured in all things, particularly in regards to commandments, but not in any way, shape, or form, as a means in order to be saved.
When I told Barney I was raised in Reformation Theology I did not mean that I agree with all of it, hook, line and sinker. Melanchthon disagree with his brother, Martin Luther, on issues. There were some areas Luther would not compromise on, and I think we all need to have areas we don't compromise on.
But I don't agree with Luther's almost fatalistic Predestinarianism. I am a Predestinarian, but I also believe in Free Choice--some feel that is a contradiction, but I don't.
I might see some of the *requirements* of Protestant Christianity different from Luther, as well. He seemed to have a Catholic style view of the Eucharist, seeing it as an essential sacrament. I'm not opposed to calling the Eucharist a "sacrament," but as you can see, I see the value more in what it represents, symbolically, than the ritual itself.
Lutherans tend to feel that we are not good, and are able to live redeemed lives only by the grace of God. This almost becomes an excuse for not being good, or for not even trying. If grace is a gift of God, God doesn't expect us to be good. He only expects that He is good. We simply conform to it when He reaches out to us, and He forgives the rest.
Calvinism takes it a step further by calling mankind virtual "reprobates," incapable of doing anything good apart from salvation. Even our good works are despicable and wretched--totally depraved.
I don't agree with the idea that man is inherently bad. In reality, God created mankind to be good. Sin certainly separated Man and God into two different "homes." One home is where we live apart from God, doing things by our own will. The other home we're invited into, even as sinners, to walk with God and do what pleases Him.
But Man is capable of cooperating with God to do good at any time. The problem is, people want to do good when they want to do good, to cooperate with God when it suits them. That certainly makes God happy.
But this doesn't change a person into the image of God that God made Man to be. To have a good nature we must live all the time in relationship with God, doing His will. To just do good when we see fit does not qualify us to be in good standing with God, and it is likely that we do many wrong things in this condition. God's concern is that we live in the same home with Him so that whatever we do, we do it in consultation with Him. That way we acquire a New Nature.
I am actually far more of a "holiness" person than latitudinarian, or antinomian. It's just that I dislike doing things by rote, assuming certain traditions as "proper." For example, I see nothing wrong with praying with your eyes open, committing a ballet dance to the Lord (my daughter did this in church), playing Christian Rap or having not one but several pastors.
I'd like to see elders do more ministry of God's word in the church instead of letting the pastor do everything. I don't believe in the 10% tithe as a legal requirement. I believe in giving according to the need and according to the ability. A Church Board doesn't always establish a "need," but may choose for their congregation what *they think* is a "need." Etc. etc.
But I do believe we should pray about everything we do, from what we do at church to what we do in our job. And I think we should show discretion about what political party we're affiliated with and what entertainment we watch on TV. We need to have standards.
We shouldn't have excessive fellowship with unbelievers--we're witnesses to them. We should insist on Christian rules in the house, even if one of the spouses is an unbeliever. If they want to leave let them leave.
I've got my own views. But yes, there can be compromises we make for the sake of peace and fellowship. But we each have to have firm standards.
That's why the Early Church took a couple of centuries deciding what the cardinal doctrines of the Church are, or what constitutes doctrinal orthodoxy. If we get a few basic rules down, and then begin to live in a true spirit of love, then we're good, I think--no matter what our denomination.