| Author | Message | ||
| Djconklin |
>the same Paul who said "cast out Hagar" also said "Let no one judge you . . . with regard to . . . a Sabbath day", ARRRGH!!!! ;) Given the total context a better translation of Col. 2:16 would be: Do not let anyone judge you for the eating and drinking [i.e., the feasting that would take place] either while partaking in a feast day or new moon or Sabbath. The last half of vs. 17 then rounds it off by saying "let the body of Christ [i.e., the church] decide [such matters]." For more information on this see the study on Colossians 2:16-17 at my web page biblestudy.iwarp.com. I owe part of the above translation to www.parsimony.org/biblequestions/colossians2-16.asp | ||
| Sherry2 |
No, Djconklin, the outward sign is not the Sabbath, it is the Lord's supper. Compare the covenants and understand covenant history. Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me" and partake of the blood of the covenant through the grapejuice (or wine) and the breaking of bread. We are New Covenant Christians...just as circumsion is not the entry sign of the covenant, baptism is..., so communion is the remembrance sign of the covenant, not the Sabbath. I have found the study of the covenants to be entirely fascinating. And it fits so perfectly with the Gospel... | ||
| Djconklin |
Sherry: I was working from memory; here's the text I had in mind: (KJV) Exodus 31:13 "Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you." I don't know of any texts in which the Lord's Supper is a sign about it being Him who sanctifies us. BTW, in your study of the covenants did you run across the verse that states to whom the new covenant was to be made with? | ||
| Sherry2 |
Jesus doesn't sanctify you? I am so sorry to hear that. He is the One and Only One who can! | ||
| Patti |
David wrote: "BTW, in your study of the covenants did you run across the verse that states to whom the new covenant was to be made with?" Galatians 3:15 Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," MEANING ONE PERSON, WHO IS CHRIST. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. | ||
| Bruceh |
Darrel ---Bruce, how can you apply old covenant curses to new covenant beleivers in Jesus Christ? Don't forget that the same Paul who said "cast out Hagar" also said "Let no one judge you . . . with regard to . . . a Sabbath day", and "he who regards one day as special does so to the Lord". Perhaps some sabbatarians may curse you for abandoning the Sabbath, but don't assume that is true of all.----- You are Dead right Darrel I agree with you 100 percent. Once you have Entered the New Covenant you are free, and I do not mean to demean your Sabbath. But it is not you I am worried about what about your Family do they understand or do they not enter the Rest or the New Covenant because of the work of the Sabbath. I believe that If you choose to take on the Sign of the Old Covenant it is your resposiblity to educate your children and pray for Gods guidence. Bruce Heinrich | ||
| Cindy |
Djconklin, Hi again! Some thoughts on the blood of Jesus,the New Covenant Himself, and how trust in this blood 'sanctifies' us.... "Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful." Hebrews 10:19-23 "Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT THAT SANCTIFIED HIM, and who has insulted the spirit of grace?" Hebrews 10:28&29 "May the God of peace, who through THE BLOOD OF THE ETERNAL COVENANT brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen." Hebrews 13:20&21 As ever, grace alone, Cindy | ||
| Djconklin |
Sherry, >Jesus doesn't sanctify you? I am so sorry to hear that. He is the One and Only One who can! Who do you think is speaking in Exodus 31:13? | ||
| Djconklin |
Actually, Patti the verse(s) I had in mind about the establishment of the new covenant was Jeremiah 31:31-4. See also the article on it at http://ucgbend.org/Articles/contents.htm | ||
| Susan |
Hi Djconklin! Here's a thought I have on Ex.31:13. I think it's God the Father speaking. But if you embrace the doctrine of the Trinity then you would have to say that Jesus Christ was one with the Father at that time. So my understanding is that you could refer to either one as speaking in Ex.31 and be correct. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it. I just love the Trininty! You see Jesus has always been one with the Father. He is totally God. If you believe he was created then you are not in agreement with orthodox Christianity. A big problem I have with SDA teachings, is how they treat the nature of Christ. I know this has been mentioned before but it's a biggie! They teach he had a sinful nature. I believe this to be heresy. I know I'm way off the topic, but does anyone else remember how SDA's used to sing the hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy"? They changed the last line "God in three persons, blessed Trinity", any ideas why??? In Christ alone, Susan | ||
| Djconklin |
Susan, >A big problem I have with SDA teachings, is how they treat the nature of Christ. ... They teach he had a sinful nature. ARRRRGH!!!!!! I was never ever taught anything like this at anytime! Who were you listening to? And why?!? | ||
| Susan |
Djconklin, "Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature. Christ took our nature and it's deteriorating condition." (Q.D. p.654-656). Since I'm a fourth generation former, I was raised with adventist indoctrination from birth. I was pumped with this kind of heretical teaching in my SDA home, school and church. When I became a Christian (at 23), the evil veil of Adventist doctrines, that had clouded my understanding lifted, and I was free to learn what Christianity and the bible were really about. Perhaps you were more fortunate then I. Was EGW kept from you? | ||
| Patti |
Hi, Susan. You are right. I believe someone mentioned "Holy, Holy, Holy" before. There is a thread running on Adventist Issues that discusses the anti-trinitarian views of SDAs up until 1930. (Some people say until the death of Ellen) You are right about the heresy of Christ's sinful nature. What an awfully vile doctrine! Yet, it is the "norm" with SDAs. On 2 different forums they are loudly proclaiming that Jesus was exactly as you and me. One person even described in detail (I won't bother with the gory details) how Jesus lusted just as he himself does. HERESY and BLASPHEMY! Jesus was/is GOD. God could not sin. They go on to quote that text in Hebrews that says He was tempted in all ways as we are. I believe that text means what it says, but it is truncated: He was tempted in all ways just as we are tempted in all ways. But, since Adam's fall, our ways are not God's ways. We are tempted according to our sinful flesh; He was tempted not to finish or to bypass His work of salvation. BTW, have you ever wondered why SDAs preach the sabbath as a literal "everlasting sign" between God and His people, but they do not preach circumcision, which was also given to Abraham in the same terms. Genesis 17:9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. Or the Passover, which was to be a perpetual ordinance: Exodus 12:14 "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD--a lasting ordinance. 15 For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. 16 On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat--that is all you may do. But the most important reason that the sabbath is not binding on Gentile Christians is in Hebrews 4 and Colossians 2:16, 17. It was a shadow of the rest we find in Jesus Christ. Jesus fulfilled ALL of the law and the prophets. Just as His sacrifice fulfilled and made obsolete the sancutary service. When the Reality comes, the shadow has no substance or meaning. Jesus is our Sabbath. He is the perfect fulfillment of every part of the law. Those who place Christ in sinful flesh do not understand the work of Jesus Christ. He came to do something that only God could do. Only God could work out a righteousness so perfect and so complete that it could save an entire sinful world and bear the infintessimal sin of a wicked world. My thoughts seem to have wondered also. Yet, it is all related. Those who believe that our works are part of our salvation have to make human flesh less sinful, make sin less sinful, miniaturize the law of God so that it becomes something sinful man is capable of keeping and thus please God, define sin as what we cognizantly do, something that we have control over, and thus recreate Jesus Christ in their own image--a fallible human Who came to show us how to do it, Who overcame only through the help of the Holy Spirit. Those who believe that we are saved only by the mercy (undeserved favor) of God through faith ALONE, see themselves as being helplessly and hopelessly sinful, that sin is not merely what we do, but what we ARE, that all of our thoughts and actions are steeped in sin, that our only hope is in an alien, vicarious righteousness, the perfect righteousness of the Son of God Himself. There is your dichotomy. Never the twain shall meet. We are either saved by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, His life of perfect obedience, ALONE, or we are saved by something that we do, something inherent in us. There are no two other choices in Christendom. All heresy is a variation on the second theme. SDAism, RCCism, Mormonism, and much of evangelical Christianity fall under the second category. Yet, God has a remnant scattered throughout the earth who know that their only hope is the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. We must fulfill our Gospel commission and loudly proclaim the TRULY Good News that Jesus Christ, our Substitute and Surety, has worked out our salvation IN TOTO! Funny thing is that whenever one proclaims salvation in Jesus Christ alone by faith alone persecution inevitably arises in some degree. People do not want to hear that there is nothing that they can do to save themselves. They want to hear what to "do." They do not want to relinquish that last hold of what they think is "freewill" and rely totally upon the saving mercy of Jesus Christ alone. And they react quite negatively in opposition. What should we do? We keep on telling. It is not our place to do the work of the Holy Spirit. He is the One to convict and convince; but we must TELL. And pray for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to fall upon the listeners, as on the Day of Pentecost, so that they "hear" and understand the magnitude of the saving act of Jesus Christ in our behalf. | ||
| Colleentinker |
Thank you, Susan. To say Jesus inherited deteriorating sinful nature is to say he was born with a dead soul. When Adam and Eve sinned, they died spiritually. Their souls were cut off from open and unbroken communion with God. The sin problem had not been solved yet by the blood of Jesus, and the ability to have a restored nature with the indwelling Holy Spirit hadn't happened yet. To say Jesus inherited sinful nature is to say he was born with a dead soul. But this belief is heresy. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He was God. He was born with a living soul. He could not have been God if he had a dead soul. Adventist teaching is subtle, but by claiming Jesus inherited sinful nature, it's declaring that he was not fully God. Sinful nature is not just deteriorated genes. If it were, we, in our sinful flesh, could not be given a new heartóa living soulówhen we accept Jesus and receive the Holy Spirit. Jesus was God, not an emanation of God, not some substandard but imperfect projection of God. He was the Lamb without spot or blemish. That declaration does not simply mean that he didn't sin. It means that from his conception until his death he had no sin in him. He had a living soul. He was not cut off from God at any point. He did not have to earn or gain a living soul. He did not have to prove that he could live without sin. In fact, I believe that when he went into the wilderness after his baptism, he did not go to prove he wouldn't sin. On the contrary, the Holy Spirit, not Satan, led him into the wilderness. He was there 40 days and nights without food. He was in a hopelessly weak, near-starvation condition. The Holy Spirit led him into the wilderness to be tempted to PROVE TO US THAT HE COULD NOT SIN. The wilderness experience he had was for our confidence that he was the spotless Lamb of God. He could be our perfect Redeemer. He was no ordinary human. He was absolute God within a human body. His inherited genes had nothing to do with his nature. His nature was sinless, perfectly connected to God. Colleen | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Patti and All, I also have been confused about circumcision. I've asked Mom a number of times why she is NOT preaching that right along with the Sabbath. As to the nature of Christ. The SDAs I have been around absolutely teach that Christ had the same sinful nature as we do or he could NOT have been tempted in all things as us! Being raised a 3rd generation SDA, I feel confident that I know this as a fact! Add to that the very idea that Christ and Michael are the same just totally distorts who Christ is! I'm so thankful to now know gOD as GOD! Not a mere sinful man mixed with GOD! BTW Patti, do you have a comment on a previous post of mine? "Concept this by Jeff Harken in chapt 16 of his book, "Grace plus Nothing": 'True obedience is no mere performance of mechanical laws, (to obtain a blessing or to avoid punishment), but true obedience is a response to God's grace, empowered by his Spirit.'" I thought that was an awesome sentence. WDYT? Sure great so to see this site is up and busy again. Maryann | ||
| Cindy |
Susan, Patti, and Colleen... Great, inspiring posts! I can't add anything more! I'm in one of those rare moods, speechless!! :-)) Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Djconklin |
Susan, Your cited the following: "Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature. Christ took our nature and it's deteriorating condition." (Q.D. p.654-656). Now I might be mistaken but I believe EGW didn't write that. Also, does the book define "nature" or did you just assume what it meant? | ||
| Cindy |
Maryann, You've got my interest as to what 'story' you were going to tell me! (yesterday's post). E-mail me a brief note when you get a chance... Grace to you! Cindy | ||
| Djconklin |
Patti wrote "You are right about the heresy of Christ's sinful nature. What an awfully vile doctrine! Yet, it is the "norm" with SDAs. On 2 different forums they are loudly proclaiming that Jesus was exactly as you and me." I'm just amazed that someone who hasn't been an SDA for 20 years can tell what the current "norm" is for all of those who still believe. Note also that we aren't told when or where these alleged discussions took place. And why should I lend credence to some obviously mis-informed individuals? There's enough wierd opinions floating around without assuming that these are "the norm"; why not seek the truth and let the chips fall where they may? | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Djconklin, You said to Patti: "I'm just amazed that someone who hasn't been an SDA for 20 years can tell what the current "norm" is for all of those who still believe." SDAism has been so clear in the past about the "corrupt" nature of Christ that if there, by chance, has been a change to the correct, it still doesn't matter. Here's why; TRUTH IS NOT PROGRESIVE! If EGW was teaching that heresey when she walked this earth and was a prophet just passing on the truth, it certainly shouldn't have changed in the last 20 years! On who's authority is her original teaching of the nature of Christ changed? Inquiring minds want to know! BTW, I have SDA friends that very definately claim the corrupt nature of Christ today. And, I'm sorry but you saying, "what the current 'norm' is for all of those who still believe" just does NOT sound Biblical. I didn't think "current norm" was sound theology. Please correct me if I mis-understood. Maryann |
