| Author | Message | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 457 Registered: 10-2004  |
I don't like what the CARM statement said about creation. It says the Father is the one who creates, based on Isaiah 44:24. But that text simply says that "the LORD" (Yahweh) creates. Jesus and the Father (and the Holy Spirit!) are Yahweh. And the NT says that Jesus created all things. It was not just the Father who created. Jeremy | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 739 Registered: 7-2003  |
The language involving the son being "begotten" harkens back to Origen, but is probably a mistaken translation of the Greek word "monogenes". Most modern translations (and nearly all modern linguist) agree that the proper translation is something similar to "one and only" or "unique one". The argument for this is probably too long and detailed to go into here. Also I have not generally heard the term "subordination" used for persons of the Trinity since the Father, Son, and Spirit are co-equal (although the term "subordination" is sometimes used in respect to the incarnation when the Son laid aside many of the priviledges of His full divinity and lived in complete reliance upon the Father). Usually the term "economy" is used in terms of the persons of the Trinity having distinct roles. Some of these finer points are still under discussion within the Church, but Christians have long been agreed upon the major 3 points that the Bible teaches: 1) There is only one God. 2) The Father, Son, and Spirit are God. 3) The Father, Son, and Spiri are personally distinct. Chris | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1701 Registered: 11-2002 |
It's sure too bad Dr.Gene Scott isn't around to explain the language. Belva, do you know how to access Dr. Scott's explaniation of the Bibical languages explaining the Trinity? | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 231 Registered: 7-2004 |
Great Idea! Actually the archives are down "temporarily" so it may take a while. He had a good handle on a lot of stuff having to do with the Christian life. I've been watching him translate the entire book of Romans from the original languages of Greek, Arabic, Coptic, and Hebrew. The bottom line is that he teaches about more than just Romans while he's teaching. Belva | ||
| Tdf Registered user Username: Tdf Post Number: 55 Registered: 11-2004 |
Returning to an earlier discussion, I fully admit that the predominant former Adventist view regarding the absence of the phrase "evening and morning" in Genesis represents a possible explanation of the text. However, I don't think that one has to embrace this explanation in order to accept that the law and the Sabbath are not binding under the new covenant. Through my study, I found it to be much more persuasive that Adam and Eve's family engaged in animal sacrifice, a ceremonial exercise that all of us (including SDAs) agree was fulfilled by Christ and is no longer required of new covenant Christians. Even more than relying on the former Adventist explanation regarding "evening and morning", it was helpful for me to understand that the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ (Colossian 2) and just as animal sacrifices began with Adam and Eve, were fulfilled in Christ and are no longer binding today, so the Sabbath is also no longer binding on new covenant Christians. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 749 Registered: 7-2003 |
The SDA retort is of that sacrifices were begun AFTER the Fall while Sabbath was a creation ordinance that was instituted BEFORE the Fall (and is therefore eternal). Often the continuing institution of marriage as a creation ordinance is tied to this argument (although this latter argument falls flat in light of Jesus' statement that marriage is not eternal either). Chris | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 460 Registered: 10-2004 |
Tdf, I do agree that since the NT makes it clear that the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ and is not binding, then no matter who kept it, or when, in the past, it was still fulfilled in Christ. But what the SDAs like to argue and claim is that Adam and Eve kept the Sabbath before sin even, and so they say it couldn't have been a shadow of Christ, and it has to be "eternal"--unlike the sacrifices. But, of course, the Bible never says that Adam and Eve kept the Sabbath--Ellen just adds that to the Bible. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 461 Registered: 10-2004 |
I probably should add, though, that the Bible does tell us when the Sabbath was given--and to whom it was given:
Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on March 21, 2005) | ||
| Tracey Registered user Username: Tracey Post Number: 293 Registered: 9-2004 |
Thanks Jeremy.. Tracey I can NEVER remember where the 10 C's are in the bible! I never find it w/o using the appendix thingy. | ||
| Tdf Registered user Username: Tdf Post Number: 57 Registered: 11-2004 |
Chris and Jeremy, I hear what you're saying regarding SDAs arguing that the Sabbath is eternal. In your experience, are SDAs persuaded by the "evening and morning" argument? When I was studying, it sounded like a stretch to me and I had to get past the "evening and morning" argument before I could really embrace a new covenant explanation of the Sabbath. I still haven't fully accepted the "evening and morning" explanation--and I don't think I need to in order to understand that the Sabbath is no longer binding. After all, Colossians 2 makes it quite clear that the Sabbath is not eternal (and many other texts confirm that the 10 commandment law is not eternal). Therefore, we would probably agree that the question of whether the Sabbath was instituted before or after the fall is really a moot point. Similarly, the question of whether or not the Sabbath was a Creation institution is also immaterial. In my mind, the main point is that the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ and that, under the new covenant, it is not a salvation issue. Once I grasped that, I was able to let go of the Sabbath. Everyone probably approaches this subject from their own perspective, bringing their own experiences into it. I know I did. | ||
| Lydell Registered user Username: Lydell Post Number: 669 Registered: 7-2000 |
Tdf, I see it the way you are saying. Once I saw that Jesus IS the sabbath rest, that settled everything in my mind. For me, recognizing that I have to totally rest in Christ's completed work 24/7 automatically places keeping a Sabbath day in the light of something that was symbolic. It was weak and can't begin to compare to the enormity of the reality of rest in Christ. I do think that each person just graples with the truth in a different way. For each of us the Holy Spirit probably breathes on a different aspect of the truth to unlock the door of our understanding. And aren't we thankful that He works with us individually! | ||
| Tracey Registered user Username: Tracey Post Number: 295 Registered: 9-2004 |
TDF, so how did you come to grasp that sabbath wasn't a salvation issue? Lydell, how did you see that Jesus was the sabbath rest? Also, Did both of you always view Him as God in the flesh? | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 753 Registered: 7-2003 |
TDF, I agree that exactly when the Sabbath was instituted does not directly bear on whether it is binding on NC Christians or not. If the NT makes it clear that the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ and is no longer binding (and it does) then that's the end of it for me. However, that's not the end of it for SDAs or even for Sunday sabbatarians (just ask RC Sproul). I do not think that the lack of "evening and morning" on the seventh day is conclusive. I see it as one clue among many that the rest Adam and Eve were to enjoy at creation was to be an ongoing spiritual rest without end. I believe God is still in that rest and that we now have the opportunity to enter that rest again through belief in Jesus Christ. I believe this because I believe there is much scripture to support it. If this argument was limited to the absence of a pattern on the 7th day it would be shaky indeed. When all of scripture is examined I believe it becomes a much stronger argument though. I don't think it is at all necessary to hold my particular position, but I think it is such a lynch pin in the SDA argument for Sabbath being eternal, that we must address it in some way. I hope that helps to clarify my position on this. Chris | ||
| Tracey Registered user Username: Tracey Post Number: 298 Registered: 9-2004 |
Interesting points Chris..I can understand what you mean that the at creation is a shaky argument given what the Word says in many other places. Tracey | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1644 Registered: 12-2003  |
The evening/morning issue of Sabbath at creation seemed like a weak argument if not a moot point to me at first, also. When I understood the transfiguration, that's when I KNEW that the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ. As I studied Hebrews and other passages, though, the evening/morning issue became increasingly significant. The unending quality of God's rest in which Adam and Eve participated without a command to keep the day began to look increasingly like a really significant shadow of our rest in Christ. Colleen | ||
| Tdf Registered user Username: Tdf Post Number: 58 Registered: 11-2004 |
Tracey, I do believe that Christ is both God and man. Is that your question? I've attached below a snapshot of some of the texts that have been persuasive to me as I've been studying the relevance of the Sabbath, and the relationship between Sabbath observance and salvation. I know that others have approached this subject from a different perspective (and that's fine too). 1. The Sabbath was a symbol of the old covenant between God and Israel (see Ex. 31:16, Lev. 25:1-7, Deut. 5:1-22) 2. The Sabbath is listed as one of the Jewish feasts (Lev. 23:1-3) 3. Hosea prophesied that there would be an end to the Sabbath and the Jewish feasts (Hosea 2:9-13) 4. Israel did not honor the old covenant and God established a new covenant that was based on better promises (Neh. 9, Neh. 13, Romans 10:1-4, Hebrews 8) 5. Scripture indicates that Christ broke the Sabbath (see Mark 2, John 5 and John 9) 6. Under the new covenant, the law is moved from tablets of stone and its written on our hearts; Christ establishes new covenant commandments, which are based on love (2 Corinthians 3, Matt. 22:35-40, John 13:33-35, Galatians 5:6) 7. The new covenant is based on grace and not law; salvation is described as being by faith alone, and not by commandment-keeping (Romans 7:7-13, Romans 3:20-26, Galatians 3:24, Galatians 5:1, Romans 7:5-6, Galatians 10:3-14, Ephesians 2:4-9) 8. The written code was cancelled and the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ (Colossians 2) 9. As the fulfillment of the Sabbath, Christ is our Sabbath rest (Matt. 11:28-29) 10. The Holy Spirit is the Seal of God, not the Sabbath (Eph. 1:13-14, Eph 4:30, 2 Cor. 1:21-22, Romans 8:16) 11. The old covenant is still important in that it helps us understand the new (Romans 15:4) 12. No one should judge another based on Sabbath observance or non-observance (Romans 14:1-8) These are some of the texts that have been helpful to me. tdf | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1715 Registered: 11-2002 |
I will share a tiny, short personal and frustrting story about this subject. Several years ago my mom confronted me by asking me if I'd gone to church that day, a Sunday, as she noticed my car wasn't in front of my house. I only said 'yes'. I try to say the least possible about anything involving Christianity, church, etc. You will soon read how come I have this position with my immediate kin. She first told me it is wrong to go to church on Sunday. Unfortunately I just didn't get my things and leave. I let myself get sucked into a confrontation. I replied that SDA's go to church alot on Sundays. At campmeeting they have scores of church meetings on Sundays, at the boarding high school I went to we kids had to attend church twice each Sunday and I told her if she really believed church was wrong on Sundays she wouldn't be wasting her time watching Mark Findley and Doug Batchlor and the Crystal Cathedral. So the confrontation progressesd. I was then told that the Sunday-keeping churches have the Mark of the Beast and there is no truth in them. It's not the same to watch a Sabbath-keeper on tv on Sunday as it is to actually be sitting in one of the Beasts churches on Sundays. Then, and this is where it gets really corny, I was told that God made the weekly Sabbath a command at creation. I should get out my Bible and go to Genesis capter one and read it. So, I went to her table, took the Bible off the table and read to her out loud the creation story. Then I said to her,"Did you catch what I just read? Right from the Bible istelf? There is no end to the seventh day. The perfection and the oneness with God was intended to have no end. There is no command here to observe a weekly Sabbath. It was all erfect. It says God rested. It doesn't say Adam and Eve rested. I just read it to yu. Look. That's what it says. You're making it say way more than it does." Well, I got told off in some very unkind words, something about me thinking I know more about Bible interpertation than people who really know Bible interpertaton and have made their lifes work figureing these sorts of confusing passages out. I was totally puzzled and asked her who she was referring to. She mentioned Samuelle Bacchiocchi and 'all those other Bible scholars who study to learn the truth at Andrews so they can share what they have learned with the rest of us'. I also was sold that just because the end of the verse about God resting on the seventh day doesn't end like the verses about the oter six days where it says "and there was evening and morning, the forth day.", etc. That on the seventh day it doesn't need to be stated. By now after reading through six days of creation we know those ending words are implied. I asked her how come they aren't stated in the Bible then. She said she didn't know, maybe whoever translated from the origional writigs left them out or maybe God figured by the time people had read through six days of creation the people shud be smart enough to realize the end of the day was to be there, she didn't know and that wasn't important. I was just dumbstruck. Mostly because my mother is very smart and with it and on top of things in every other way in her life except when it comes to challanging the SDA church. She went through college and taught at a local public school for nearly 30 years. She is a smart person. Yet, she will not even think to challange the SDA church. I just went home. I get so weary of those sorts of discussions (altercations) that I now have a policy of SAYING NOTHING... | ||
| Praisegod Registered user Username: Praisegod Post Number: 272 Registered: 3-2004  |
With my walk out the door, learning and truly comprehending the New Covenant put the Sabbath in perspective. When the light bulb came on about Christís finished work, even for the Sabbath, it was an exciting day. However, there was that nagging thought about the Sabbath at creation, before sin, meaning something. Once I saw that there was no end to the seventh day and once I truly grasped the silence over 2500 years, things started to fall into place. For me, seeing the Sabbath from Creation as a perpetual forerunner of our rest in Jesus made all the difference for completing the loop. I wasnít one looking to leave Adventism and was still somewhat foot-dragging that I might have to truly leave, so I finally (against my better judgment) checked out Bacchiocchiís book about the Sabbath. However, at that point Iíd been so immersed in understanding Jesus that I could see through his arguments. I still have never seen or read Daleís book as Iím totally at peace with the Sabbath issue. Probably I should buy it just to have it to loan out to someone as the Holy Spirit directs. Praise GodÖ | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 183 Registered: 5-2004  |
That resonates with me too. Once I saw that Jesus WAS the true fulfillment of Sabbath, I struggled a bit with the creation account until I finally had peace there. then, a well meaning coworker gae me Bacchiocci's book, but buy then his arguments didn't hold any water with me. In fact, I remember stopping halfway and looking up at my husband and saying that he was grasping at straws. Dale Ratzlaff's book is very good though! | ||
| Tracey Registered user Username: Tracey Post Number: 301 Registered: 9-2004 |
tHANKS TDF, I just wanted some scriptures that had impacted you to come to know Christ in His fullness. Tracey |
