| Author | Message | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Pheeki, That thing about Cain not respecting the Sabbath is PURE EGW. Not the slightest hint of anything like that is found in the Bible. Look at Genesis chapter 4. That is everything about Cain in the Old Testament. There are three references in the New Testament, but they all talk about Cain murdering Abel. You will not find the word Sabbath, work, labor, rest, commandment, law, or any concept relating to the Sabbath day. There are, however, many, many references by EGW about Cain not respecting the Sabbath. I understand how you are confused about the applicability of the law. You must understand that you are seeing it as either ìOnî or ìOff.î That applies to being ìunder the Lawî or not, but it does not apply to the function of the Torah in the New Covenant. I will try to summarize my understanding in an analogy. If you look at the Articles of Confederation, the law under which the U.S.A. functioned between the Revolutionary War and the Constitution, you will see many similarities to the Constitution. It was a shadow or a precursor meant to keep the Union functioning. However, it was not destined to continue. The Constitution retained some of the wording, but was much superior and different from the previous document. We are not under the Articles of Confederation, but we can learn from it to understand why we have the Constitution. We are under a new set of rules. This is the Gospel. Some of the concepts from Torah are repeated in the Gospel, but not all. Just because a few things look the same does not mean that you can ìassumeî that anything else from the Old Testament is retained. In my analogy, the ENTIRE Articles of Confederation IS ABOLISHED, EVEN IF some of the wording is still found in the Constitution. However, NOTHING is in force from the Articles UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION. Same with the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Clear as mud? Jerry | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Also: When your brother said, ìkeeping the Sabbath . . . was a good indication of how good your ëwalkí was with the saviorî I must say that he has no basis for that from the Bible. If it were, why would not keeping ALL the Torah be EVEN BETTER and FULLY REQUIRED? This would include all animal sacrifices, all rituals, all Holy days, all taboos, and all religious practices from the Old Testament. Colossians 2:16 negates that requirement, completely. As for the ìI suppose you now think it is OK to murderî red herring, donít make me laugh. | ||
| Another_Carol (Another_Carol) |
Jerry, Thanks for the Cain issue, I've been trying to get time to look that up and having just started reading the whole Bible begining the 1st of the year I cannot remember anything said about an altercation with the Sabbath. I wanted to go back (and still will) and make sure I wasn't just talking out of the top of my head but now that you say it I also remember so little and it certainly had nothing about the Sabbath. If it's there it's there and if it isn't it isn't why can't they be big enough to just admit their error and let it go. Give me the truth that only comes thru Jesus.Carol | ||
| Pheeki (Pheeki) |
His illustration of Cain I think comes from Cain offering vegetables on the altar instead of a lamb, etc. He didn't obey to the letter- God's commands. Let's keep in mind that the story of Cain occurs prior to when we were reconciled to God (before the perfect sacrifice of Jesus was made). So what the SDA are trying to say is they obey like Abel did to the exact requirements of God's law. But they forget the text (can't tell you where) that we all have sinned and fall short...even if you keep the Sabbath pretty good, who says exactly how to keep it now that they think the Law's of Moses are done away with. (If you are going to keep part of it you should keep all of it.) ...basically it says "no work" but what does God define as work? Making money? Tecnically the SDA preacher does most of his work on the Sabbath...should he be resting! We all fall short and the SDA's fool themselves if they think they are the perfect commandment keepers. There is no such thing found in a human. Are they bordering on blasphemy? Isn't that saying you are like the Most High? Why do you need a savior? (Are those statements too strong? Perhaps. I don't really think they think they are sinless but to think they could even keep the commandments good enough to please God is ridiculous!) | ||
| Pheeki (Pheeki) |
James Jean- Good thoughts. I am trying to grasp it exactly. Could you expand on what you wrote above? Jerry, great analogy! thank-you. | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Oh, there is a little more to this Cain story than you are seeing, I think. If you look at everything before the offering of Cain, you will see NO COMMAND, INSTRUCTION, or LAW from God about any offering. When Cain made the offering, God was not pleased, but He did not accuse Cain of disobedience. God implied that Cain had not done his best, in some way. There nothing about God punishing Cain related to the offering. Cain was jealous and killed his brother. That is what brought on the punishment. Again, this is PURE EGW. Your brother is trying to ADD the Ten Commandments before Sinai. EGW assumes that the Ten Commandments existed from creation and uses this assumption to embellish the pre-Sinai Bible story. This is a classic circular argument. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Pheeki, I totally understand your question and your frustration at talking with your SDA relatives. You are, of course, absolutely Biblical in your assessment of what the New Covenant is anmd of what it does not require. While there's really no point in arguing with SDAs about it because unless they are curious about truth, they will argue with everything (I say this from close experience!), it's still helpful to have some big picture understanding in one's mind as well as some texts. Have you read Dale Ratzlaff's book, Sabbath in Crisis? It's about to go to the printer with some revisions (additions is more accurateóhe's including a section on living by the Spirit, for example) under the new title Sabbath in Christ. If you haven't read it, it's an excellent and thorough Biblical discussion of the new covenant as it relates to and fulfills the old. It is probably the most comprehensive and detailed discussion of this question that I know, and I highly recommend the book. It's available through his website, www.ratzlaf.com The law was for Israel. Period. The moral principles in the law re: loving God and treating humanity with respect are timeless. Those principles were here before the law was given on Sinai. As far as that third angel in Revelation is concerned, his call to worship God, the creator of heaven and earth, is an eternal call. Adventists twist things when they say its reference to God as Creator confirms the Sabbath. The Sabbath WAS NOT GIVEN TO MAN at creation despite Adventists' claims to the contrary. The creation account says God rested on the Sabbath and hallowed it. There was absolutely no command to mankind to rest. They had no need to be commanded to rest because they were spiritually alive, united with God with living spirits. Interestingly, the seventh day was the only creation day about which it did not say, "and the evening and the morning were the _____th day." On the seventh day God rested, and that day was not stated to have an ending. God's work was done, and man was in an eternal state of rest--until they sinned. When they sinned, they literally died spiritually. They were spirituallyt separated from God, not just hypothetically because they knew in their minds they sinned, but they were spiritually dead. That spiritual death is their legacy to us. It's not genetic, it's spiritual, and without a belief in the spirit as a real part of man that knows God that's separate from the breath, this concept is just that--a concept. It's not REAL. Adventists do not have a good way to explain spiritual death because they do not believe mankind has a spirit. They call sin genetic. Enter Moses. With his entrance into history, we have the story of Israel's formation. At last God gave a people a symbol of the rest they lost at Sinai. He gave them the Sabbath to remind them of his original intention that they be alive and connected to him, and also to point forward to the Messiah who would restore that connection. Prior to Sinai, there was no law and no concrete awareness of sin. People still were under the curse of sin; death still reigned before Moses. (see Romans 5:12-14) The law came to make people aware that they were sinners and to point them to Christ. (Gal. 3:23-25) When Christ came, he fulfilled the law. He was the reality of which the law was merely a shadow. (Colossians 2:16-17) Jesus replaces the law in the lives of the believer. A true believer is regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Because Jesus bore the law's judgment of death for us, he earned the right to restore us to life. The Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers puts us back into connection with God. We again enter God's rest when we are born again, just as Adam and Eve were in his unending Sabbath after creation and before sin. To honor the day is to honor a symbol of Jesus. The law still exists as a pointer to unbelievers that they need a Savior. It still exists to give us the proof we need that Jesus is who he says he is. But Jesus has replaced the law. His Spirit holds us accountable to more rigid standards than the law did. (see Matthew 5-7) Honoring Jesus instead of the law means we have come to life spiritually. We are connected to God eternally. We have replaced the shadow with the reality. It is creating a straw man argument to ask if we feel free to kill, steal, and commit adultery. God does not lower his standards; His standard has alwayts been perfection. The sacrifice of Jesus and the presence of the Holy Spirit, however, have finally made is possible for us to be considered perfect and for us to begin to live for God instead of for ourselves. Even Sabbath rest in Christ is a higher standard than the mere day. Now we live in continual worship, integrating our spiritual selves with our professional and personal selves. In the Old Covenant, people were required to be "spiritual" on one day in honor of a coming Savior. Now we can be spiritual always, honroing and worshiping the Lord who lives in us. I'm so thankful for Jesus! Colleen | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
I have a question about sin being genetic or sin being a violation of the Spirit. O.K., here it is: Since we are born into sin, hence the term Origional Sin then why isn't sin a genetic chaacteristc? It was passed down through to us by Adam's sin. It' our human nature to sin. That is how come we need to be saved by the acceptance (grace) of the blood shed for us by Jesus. I don't get the difference of what you mean. | ||
| Pheeki (Pheeki) |
(Deleted paragraph at writer's request.) Ok, with that said, here is the latest entry from my SDA preacher brother... We are told to try the spirits to see where they are from. Do you really believe that the Holy Spirit is going to lead us away from the Bible (Old and New Testament)? What you are calling the New Covenant is what Revelation calls the Everlasting Covenant. It's the one that was initiated in the Garden of Eden and was in place before the world was created. No one was ever saved by the Old Covenant. The Seventh-day Adventist church has never taught that anyone was ever saved under the Old Covenant. I don't doubt that you may have been exposed to some pharisaical zealots who claim to be the proponders of Adventist theology. But what I'm hearing you accuse the church of has never been Adventist theology. From Ellen White all the way down to Chuck Woods we have always proclaimed that no one will ever be or ever has been saved by keeping the law. None of that changes the fact that what the Spirit leads us to believe and do in our lives today is what He led Christ to do in His life 2000 years ago. We are not under the condemnation of the law because Christ met the requirements of the law for us. Christ also meets the requirements of the law in us if we are led by the Spirit. If we are led by the flesh, we are still under the condemnation of the law (See Galations 5:14-26) The law that He wrote in stone is the Law that He writes on our hearts. That doesn't mean that the Spirit doesn't expand on the law written in stone. The law written in stone is the first step in the developement of a Christian (Christlike) Character. The last step in the developement of His character will never be taken by any in the human race. Throught the ceaseless ages of eternity we will ever be growing more like him. II Corinthians 7: 1 Since we have these promises, dear friend, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates the body and the spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. NIV I John 2:15-17 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world - the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has done - comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lasts forever. NIV I John 3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that He appeared so that He might take away our sins. And in Him is no sin. No one who lives in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him. NIV Notice that the above verse says that, "Sin is lawlessness." Stated another way, "To live without the law is to live in sin." Any comments? | ||
| James_Jean (James_Jean) |
Pheeki: I am not a good writer, But it seems to me there is three ways to study the Bible. First there is literal, second to spiritualize, third to take the literal story but look for the spiritual meaning. An example,the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego we can take it literal and all it becomes is a good bed time story for the kids. We can spiritualize it and say thay were not thrown into a literal fire, because everyone knows they would be burned up. That robs it of any power. Or we can say yes that was a literal story, but look beyond the surface to see the spirtual meaning. That were thrown into the fire but several things give the story power. The main thing is they were thrown into the fire bound but came out free. All of the Bible is from God. But we don't give the Old Testament the same weight as the New testament. We have to read the Old Testament With New Testament eyes.The New Testament is the greater revelation of Christ. A good example of this is how Paul uses Galatians 4:21 through chapter 5 to take Old Testament verses and gives them New Testament meaning. There is only two approachs to God one is represented by Ishmael those who are in bondage to the law. Then those represented by Isaac, they are the those who trust in Christ. Now if we go on to chapter 5 we see it is only the ones who walk in the spiritual understanding who bear good fruit. Verse 4;25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jersusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children (Sinai Ten Commandments). Verse 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Take these verses in Galatians and compare them with Hebrews 12:18-29. | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Well, Iíll try, First, there is no reference in Revelations to ìeverlasting covenant.î In the formal study of the Bible, this is called eisegesis or reading oneís favored meaning into a text where no evidence proves the meaning. What we call the ìNew Covenant,î the Bible, Jesus, and (at least) Paul calls the ìNew Covenantî Jeremiah 31:31, Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, First Corinthians 11:25, Second Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 12:24 (by implication) Almost every instance in the New Testament (which means the same as New Covenant) the Greek words are kainos diaqeke or transliterated kainos diatheke. In Jeremiah the Hebrew transliteration is chadash b@riyth which quoted in Hebrews 8:8 as kainos diatheke. Kainos means ìcompletely new in form or substanceî as opposed to ìsort of new or refreshedî like neos. The important part mentioned in Jeremiah and Hebrews is the phrase ìI will remember sin no more.î That is entirely antithetical to the Ten Commandments, which are all about recognizing sin. Jesus starts this during the Last Supper when he uses the phrase ìfor the remission of sinî in Matthew 26:28. This word ìremissionî is from the Greek word ìaphesis,î which means 1) release from bondage or imprisonment 2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty Again, this is completely different from the Ten Commandments. All of the other quotes ignore the context where the primary force is NOT the individual. Rather, it is God, through Jesus, who does this purifying. Again, this is eisegesis and question begging. | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
Also, in terms of the Holy Spirit leading us "away from the Bible." Well, if the Bible says "I will make a new covenant," (Jeremiah, Hebrews) I will believe the Bible over someone who says, "that's not what the Bible says." Also, if the Bible says "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law," (Hebrews 7:12) I will believe the Bible over someone who says, "the law does not change." I know that Adventists say that Hebrews is only talking about "ceremonial law." The word "ceremony" or any derivation DOES NOT appear in conjunction with the law in Hebrews. If I talk only about the "war powers" in the Articles of Confederations in comparison to the "war powers" in the Constitution, then I later mention that the Articles are no longer in force, this does not prove that I meant that only the "war powers" were what was abolished. It is question begging (saying one thing proves another without proper proof of the inference). | ||
| Another_Carol (Another_Carol) |
Pheeki, Again I am going to say that I am so sorry that you have to go thru this because I know how hard it is, but I also know that you have an advocate as indicated in 1 John 2 : 1&2. I know that you want to show them their error believe me I understand it totally; been there done that,but what you need to remember is they are not trying to bring you to anything only trying to prove they are right. Let me tell you why I know that what you have is different from what they have. When I hear you talk of how glad you are that The Beems are not struggling like you and your husband then I know what you have is real and true and compassionate. I would like to suggest to you that at this point you take the scriptures you have been given and really study them, not just the ones they have given but every thing that is relevant to it ie in context and read Romans, Galatians, Hebrews and Ephesians whenever you get down and I will quarantee that you will be lifted up. I also know that you will be lifted up because so many people are praying for you with a love and passion that can only come from someone who has been there and does not want someone else to have to go thru it. There are stages of grief in death and I think we who have to be subjected to this false teaching have to go thru stages also and for us it has been uncomprehension, anger and now it is leave it to God, there is no more work we can do. When they have been told all the truth you know how to tell them then finally you have to release it to God. I know this sounds like one time you say do this and then you say do that but in the final anylisis I guess its like our children we finally after the books and suggestions haven't worked you do what you have to do. Just know that we are here for you and know your pain. Praying for you and your family, Carol | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
Wow, Jerry and James Jean, great posts! The problem with the Adventists arguments which you so clearly defined, Jerry, is "question begging". In a literature class a student could never get away with such misuse of the text if he or she were writing an essay. You CANNOT take your conclusions to places the text will not support. Such argumentation is dishonest and arrogant, and I know my colleagues and I at school would not let our students get away with such careless handling of the text. Why we accept and allow such poor scholarship in religion is beyond me. There's no way one can ever make headway with a person dedicated to believing their own dishonesty. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that's really what it boils down to. If a student were to argue and refuse to see the problems with such manipulation of the text he or she would not get a good grade, and further, we would see him or her as intractable. It's amazing that we demand literary respect from "secular" scholarship but allow completely sloppy explication when it comes to the Bible! I guess that what happens when you have a pet belief with no real concrete support for it! Colleen | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
BTW, Susan, in answer to your question about sin being genetic--yes, our genes are fatally flawed by generations of sin. Illness, weakness, etc. are the results of sin. But the original sin was not physical. It was a deliberate choice that resulted in spiritual separation from God. THAT is what theologians call "original sin". Adam's legacy to us was that all humanity except Jesus (Adam was created, not born) has been born without a living spirit. It's been separated from God, and without an awakening and without trust in God's promises (pre-cross) or trust in Jesus (post-cross), each human is sentenced to eternal death. Our genes suffered, just as all creation has suffered because of sin. But the real sin is not flawed genes that make us want to sin. The REAL sin is that our spirits are born separated from God. Jesus, conceived by the Holy Spirit, was in very nature God, and when he was born as a human baby, he was born with a living spirit. He was the only human to be born connected to God without original sin. That's why He's called the Firstborn among brothers. Colleen | ||
| Susan_2 (Susan_2) |
I always thought Jesus was called Firstborn Among Brothers because just like I have four sons, my oldest son is Nikky, so I figured it was because Jesus just had a bunch of younger brothers. | ||
| Joni (Joni) |
One comment about Cain. God did not accept His sacrifice because it was done in his, Cain's, own strength. He offered what he grew. Able sacrified an animal, knowing he could not save himself. He trusted in the sacrifice not his works. In other words Able trusted in God and His promise to redeem him, Gen. 3:16. Cain trusted in himself. Same today with us. We either trust in God's perfect sacrifice or in ourselves to keep the law. Joni | ||
| Another_Carol (Another_Carol) |
Colleen, Thank you for putting into words what I have thought for so long. I have been given this analagy. If you were told by one of your students that 1+1=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and you said No that is not the right answer, but lets try and learn what the real answer is and they said I have proof; 1 woman and 1 man = 1 child, 2 children, 3 children, 4 children etc, etc. Now I believe that if they were smart enough to proceed in that manner then they are smart enough to use a craftiness to try and prove a point that in effect they know is not true but just want to push your buttons. I think that is the same as some verses tell us about. Job5:13 He catches the wise in their craftiness, And the counsel of the cunning comes quickly upon them. Luke 20:23 But he preceived their craftiness, and said to them "Why do you test Me"? 1 Cor. 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written "He catches the wise in their own craftiness. 2 Cor. 4:2 But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the work of God dedeitfully, but by manifestaion of the truth commending ourselves to evey man's conscience in the sight of God. 2 Cor. 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow , as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. Eph. 4:14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the TRICKERY, of men, in the cunning CRAFTINESS of DECEITFUL PLOTTING(my emphasis). So Colleen I would ask what would you as a teacher do if presented with such and thus what in your opinion should we do? This has been my ultimate delemia, should I just let them go on believeing their deception or should I as Gal.6:1 instructs me to do; restore such one. I have thought of this in relation to debate classes and not being a student and or teacher of such I cannot say for certain but just my common sense says something is wrong with this kind of misuse of information. And like someone mentioned it borders on blasphemy as I have felt early on in my qwest for understanding of this thing. I have also felt that it is a mockery of what in fact God sent His Son to be and do.2 Cor 5:21 For he made Him who knew no sin TO BE SIN for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Matthew 26:28 For this is My blood of the New Covenant,which is shed for many for the remission of sins. I.E. He shed His Blood(DIED)so that we would be free from sin. There can be no argument there. If there is argument, who would you be arguing with?? The facts are right there from Jesus own mouth, do they care? I don't know how they can have any healthy learning instutions if in fact this is a way of teaching. Like I have said before I am a teacher "at heart" and I do not want my children to arrive at what I believe by doing exactly what I say but rather I would want to lead them to a point that they could learn on their own. I know there are no easy answers and I guess one of the reasons I write is to get it out of my system. I have pages and pages of things I have written before I got the computer and in so writting I feel a release. Thanks for listening, Carol | ||
| Loneviking (Loneviking) |
Since we are at Genesis in this discussion, another EGW'ism I just discovered (I can't believe I missed this before) is about Noah. Quick, how many years did Noah preach while building the ark? The answer is 'we aren't told!'. Noah was 500 when he had his sons. Noah was 600 when he entered the ark with his sons and their wives. Hmmm, my math says 600 minus 500 is 100. So, where does EGW come up with 120 years of preaching and building the ark? Or, for that matter, with the image of the sons helping dad build the ark? There is just so much to unlearn...... As for the law and the rest of humanity, Pheeki when you read Romans---and especially the first five or six chapters, use this concept. God has a 'general revelation'---that is our conscience and the world of nature around us to remind everyone that He exists. There is also a 'special revelation', and that is what was given to the Jews and later to the Christians. More is required of those who have been given this special revelation than those who don't have this. If you keep these two ideas in mind, the first chapters of Romans make a lot more sense. I'll try to find the Bible study that shows this, it's one that you can buy if I can just find the material again. As for the 'Ten' being what was on the stone tablets, that just isn't true. Look at Exodus 20. The old covenant recitation begins there with the 'Ten' and continues until chap. 24:3 where the Jews say 'All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do'.....and there you have the covenant. Now, look at chap. 24:12: 'Now the Lord said to Moses, "Come up to Me on the mountain and remain there and I will give you the stone tablets with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction'". Did you see that? The LAW and the COMMANDMENT--both parts of the old covenant. How could this be done? Turn to Exodus 32:15: 'Then Moses turned and went down from the mountain with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand, tablets which were written on both sides; they were written on one side and the other. And the tablets were God's work, and the writing was God's writing engraved on the tablets.' So, there is the answer as to how the entire old covenant, not just the 'Ten' were able to be written on the stone tablets. Look at Deut. 9:15, 'So I turned and came down from the mountain while the mountain was burning with fire, and the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands.' Once again, the SDA argument that the 'Ten' were all that was on the tablets is shown to be another piece of fiction inspired by EGW. Bill | ||
| Pheeki (Pheeki) |
Thank you, all of you for your prayers and support. I printed off Tesa's testimony and was reading it to my mother over the phone and my husband heard me and was screaming at me about "bashing adventism". I had went in the bedroom, out of the kids earshot and I felt I was having a private conversation with my mom when he exploded. Well, I lost it. I yelled back at him and said, "was I talking to you? Leave me alone." He did but later he was pretty harsh on the kids about cleaning up stuff. I think he took it out on them (yelled at them). This morning he seems fine. I know your prayers are really helping my situation so please keep praying for us. I am going to use the information you all gave me to answer my brother's email. I am wondering if this is productive or not? Perhaps I am planting seeds? He did admit that the Sabbath doesn't save you...but if you admit that, then you are admitting that it is not the Seal of God for the time of trouble, which means sunday is not the mark of the beast, and when you push the first domino down they all will fall... |
