Archive through April 03, 2006 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 5 » Rick Warren on the Sabbath » Archive through April 03, 2006 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 1197
Registered: 7-2003


Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 7:36 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Cathy2 and Raven,

For the sake of clarity, I do not believe I am misunderstanding the doctrine of baptismal regeneration nor the way Lutheranism teaches it. I do understand that they are not teaching that the physical act, in and of itself, is salvaic. Rather they would say that it is a "means of grace" through which Christ saves us so we're not saved by the act itself (a view nearly identical to the Catholic view).

I do understand the view, but at the same time I strongly disagree with it. It is the idea of baptismal regeneration that I disagree with, not necessarily teriminology like "means of grace". I have no problem with saying that baptism is a means of grace, but I think most protestants mean something different by this then Catholics and Lutherans.

I do not see how it is tenable to posit spiritual regeneration at the moment of baptism particularly in infant baptism.

Once again, if you take an Arminian slant, then that baby could not possibly have chosen to put their faith in Christ so that baby could not possibly have a regenerate spirit (Arminians believe that faith proceeds regeneration).

If you take a Calvinistic slant, God chooses some to regenerate and not others. God regenerates His Elect in His own time according to His sovereign will. This is not done on a human timetable or by human choice. So the fact that a parent makes a choice to take their infant to church to be sprinkled on a particular day does not in any way guarantee that the infant is Elect. Even if the infant is Elect, the day chosen by the parent to sprinkle the baby doesn't determine the day God will choose to regenerate the baby.

At the best, this act of sprinkling can only be said to be an act of dedicating the child to the Lord and promising to raise the child in the knowledge of the Lord. It may be that the Lord will choose that day and time to regenerate the spirits of those infants who are elect, but we cannot possibly know that with any certainty anymore than we can look at someone walking down the street and know that they are elect.

Can anyone see a way around this whereby baptismal regeneration could work theologically?

Again, this is an interesting point of debate, but not a matter to divide over. Although it's important it's not essential. This is also not an attack on Lutheranism by any means. It's just me disagreeing on one particular theological point that I believe to be a hold over from Catholocism.

As a final point to mull over (although I won't go into detail at this point), I submit to you that this idea of baptismal regeneration, especially as applied to infant baptism, is deeply rooted in a misunderstanding of the covenants. Does anyone else see the connection?

Chris
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b

Post Number: 455
Registered: 7-2004


Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 10:34 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Chris, I understand your points fairly well. This is a topic that I have wrestled with quite a bit. And it remains a question on which I am not firmly settled. There are two important, related topics that go with understanding this topic, IMO--monergism and predestination. Infant baptism can only make sense, at least to me, within monergism. If salvation is a synergistic combination of our will and God's actions, then it seems that believer's baptism would be necessary. However, monergistic regeneration doesn't seem to create this same requirement. Next comes the question of pre-destination. Although Luther was big on monergism, he found double predestination detestable (perhaps one of the reasons I relate well to much of Lutheran theology is that I find myself in this same place with monergism and election). Thus a Lutheran view is neither totally Calvinistic nor Arminian.
Rafael_r
Registered user
Username: Rafael_r

Post Number: 21
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 10:36 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/sabbath.htm

http://www.peacemakers.net/johnbunyan/bun-sabbath.rtf

Chris, would you please read this to file and tell me what they mean for you.

Rafael
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob

Post Number: 151
Registered: 7-2005


Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:46 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rafael, about the second link, and what bunyan said about the Sabbath. There is an excellent article by John G. Reisinger about Bunyan and the Sabbath .

He showed how Bunyan in the first part gave excellent proofs that the Sabbath is not a moral law and it was not a "creation ordinance". In this way he destroyed any forms of sabbatarianism. But in the second part he tried to sustain that the Sunday is the christian sabbath, failing to see that he contradicts himself.

It's worth to read the entire article of Reisinger, but I'll will post some part of it


quote:

Bunyan can be very easily misread. No side of the Sabbath issue can honestly claim Bunyan as "their man." He simply does not fit any place. In the first section of his Sabbath treatise, Bunyan destroys the very foundation of covenant theology\'s view of law. His basic view of the nature and origin of the Sabbath commandment is exactly what I believe. In the next section he makes a 180 degree turn and lays out covenant theology\'s doctrine of the "Christian" Sabbath. I personally think Bunyan\'s "whole" position is totally untenable. He sets forth two contradictory positions. I believe he contradicts himself simply because he does not work out in detail the clear implications of the presuppositions that he so carefully proved in the beginning. His treatise is a half and half mixture that does not fit together. My covenant theology friends agree with my assessment. We merely disagree on which half Bunyan was right and which half he was wrong!

We must remember why Bunyan wrote this particular treatise. He was fighting seventh day Baptist. He was writing against people who believed the same theology as the modern Seventh Day Adventist. Bunyan clearly saw that there was no Biblical answer to the seventh day people if the fourth commandment could be pushed back to creation. The phrase "Creation Ordinance" was not yet in vogue but that concept is precisely what Bunyan was talking about. He was arguing that God did not appoint any day of worship for Adam, or for anyone else, prior to Mount Sinai. Neither the seventh day, or the first day, or another day, or even one day in seven, is in any sense holy in and of itself. All God did in Genesis was reserve a day for Himself and then much later, at Sinai, God gave Israel His day as the sign of the covenant that He made with them at that time.This is Bunyan\'s view.




Reisinger said that Bunyan helped him greatly in the problem of the Sabbath. Resisinger article is a must which every New Covenant believer must read. It will offer you, even if you are a former sabbatarian, a perspective which is hard to forget
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady

Post Number: 2423
Registered: 3-2004


Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 1:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

When I became a Christian and joined my church, I heard a lot about Warren's book. I bought it, but never read it. In fact, I forgot I bought it. Then when this 40 days of purpose started, I bought this second book. The thoughts crossed my mind, "proof texts" and the next thought was, I learned lots of this in my 12 step program, only it was not called a relationship with God. I have lost or misplaced this 2nd Warren book.
I did not realize what Warren thought of the 4th commandment until this thread. I had purused the book, but did not read the last section in depth.
So, I tell myself that God took me out of the SDA church and told me to go the church I now attend for a reason. The reason will unfold as time goes on. Of one thing I am assured: God will not drop me!!!
He is so awesome.
Diana
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 3663
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 2:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If one considers baptism from a new covenant framework, its purpose seems to become more clear. Just as circumcision was the entrance sign into the Old Covenant and Sabbath was the continuing sign of observance and loyalty to the Old Covenant, baptism is the entrance sign into the New Covenant with the Lord's Supper being the continuing sign of participation.

Circumcision foreshadowed the "circumcision of the heart" which the OT prophets repeatedly said God desired. That heart circumcision was fulfilled at Pentecost when the new birth was insitituted for believers. Since then, the entrance sign into the New Covenant is a ceremony that no longer foreshadows spiritual rebirth but looks backward to the accomplished work that makes new birth possible. It is a personal identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection that makes regeneration possible for us.

I realize that the classic Reformed position sees infant baptism as a "replacement" for circumcision; in other words, they baptize babies so they can become part of God's covenant people as Jewish babies became part of the covenant people upon circumcision.

There is quite a large Reformed community in Redlands, and I encountered several during my time on the faculty at Arrowhead Christian Academy. I'll be honest; because they see baptism and regeneration being synonymous, they have a difficult time clearly articulating how one becomes a Christian. If infants are regenerated, there's no sense of urgency for them to personally experience the repentance/forgiveness phenomenon that results in the new birth.

A few years ago, the school was selecting a new principal. The favored candidate spent a faculty meeting with us, and someone asked how he would articulate how one becomes a Christian. (The question came up because this person's son had had a pretty intense disagreement with one of his Bible teachers when they were studying the book of Acts. The disagreement was over the subject of infant baptsim.)

At any rate, this candidate could not articulate the need to repent and accept Jesus as His Savior. His somewhat vague comments left me as confused as the old Adventists comments would leave me.

However it "works", I believe that we have to see the Biblical model as normative for practice. The Bible never describes infant baptism, and baptism is always enjoined for people who have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Chris, your arguments make a great deal of sense to me, both from the Arminian and the Calvinistic persepctives.

Colleen
Jan
Registered user
Username: Jan

Post Number: 51
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 4:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Chris/anyone: Who are the modern day popular proponents (theologians or writers) for New Covenant theology?

Also, don't most of the Reformed Covenant writers consider Sunday as "Sabbath"?

Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 1199
Registered: 7-2003


Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 9:38 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rafael, Edwards and Bunyan didn't provide one single bit of scripture that shows that Sabbath observance is required for New Covenant Christians. They didn't provide one single text instructing the fledgling NT church to keep the Sabbath. Why is that?

Here's their problem, no where in scripture is Sabbath keeping said to be a required part of holiness for Christians.

They completely failed to demonstrate any such command from scripture, therefore their arguments for Sunday Sabbath are invalid.

Chris
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 1200
Registered: 7-2003


Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 9:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jan,

John G. Reisinger is the New Covenant Theologian that I am most familiar with. You can read many of his articles at SOUND OF GRACE.

In answer to your second question, yes, most Reformed Covenant Theologians do consider Sunday to be a mandatory Sabbath for Chrisitians. I believe this flows inevitably out of the Reformed view of the Covenants and the Law.

Chris
Cathy2
Registered user
Username: Cathy2

Post Number: 102
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 10:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ric_b,

I view your post above the same as my beliefs.

Lutherans do not believe in Free Will.

Lutherans are not Calvinists.

Raven, I'm sorry. I should have said, we both go to the LCMS, not belong (I happen to be a member.) I and my kids go to the ELCA church, sometimes, for the youth things, now that we have a car. Also, they allow women to teach classes. I don't feel locked into one church 'membership' (even if it's on paper) on earth, only a part of the Body of Christ, wherever it is.

Grace to you~
Cathy
Rafael_r
Registered user
Username: Rafael_r

Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2006
Posted on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 8:38 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit...®
Revelation 1:10 (New International Version)

10I was [a](A)in the Spirit on (B)the Lord's day...®
Revelation 1:10 (New American Standard Bible)

10I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day...®
Revelation 1:10 (King James Version)

. Choose also the most seasonable time. All things are beautiful and excellent in their season. Unseasonableness may lose the fruit of thy labor, may raise difficulties in the work, and may turn a duty to a sin. The same hour may be seasonable to one and unseasonable to another. Servants and laborers must take that season which their business can best afford; either while at work, or in travelling, or when they lie awake in the night. Such as can choose what time of the day they will, should observe when they find their spirits most active and fit for contemplation, and fix upon that as the stated time. I have always found that the fittest time for myself is the evening, from sun-setting to the twilight. I the rather mention this, because it was the experience of a better and wiser man; for it is expressly said, ìIsaac went out to meditate in the field at the even-tide.î

The Lordís day is exceedingly seasonable for this exercise. When should we more seasonably contemplate our rest than on that day of rest which typifies it to us? It being a day appropriated to spiritual duties, methinks we should never exclude this duty, which is so eminently spiritual. I verily think this is the chief work of a Christian Sabbath, and most agreeable to the design of its positive institution. What fitter time to converse with our Lord than on the Lordís day? What fitter day to ascend to heaven than that on which he arose from earth, and fully triumphed over death and hell? The fittest temper for a true Christian is, like John, to ìbe in the Spirit on the Lordís day.î And what can bring us to this joy in the Spirit, but the spiritual beholding of our approaching glory? Take notice of this, you that spend the Lordís day only in public worship; your allowing no time to private duty, and therefore neglecting this spiritual duty of meditation, is very hurtful to your souls. You, also, that have time on the Lordís day for idleness and vain discourse, were you but acquainted with this duty of contemplation, you would need no other pastime; you would think the longest day short enough, and be sorry that the night had shortened your pleasure. Christians, let heaven have more share in your Sabbaths, where you must shortly keep your everlasting Sabbaths. Use your Sabbaths as steps to glory, till you have passed them all, and are there arrived. Especially you that are poor, and cannot take time in the week as you desire, see that you well improve this day; as your bodies rest from their labors, let your spirits seek after rest from God.(Richard Baxter, Saints everlasting rest).

I enjoy sabbath keeping, a day of joy and peace, the day in which Chist arose for my justification and I do not find any reason in the NT for not to keep the sabbath.

This will be my last post about this subject, I know that you dont agree with me, I respect your view.
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 1201
Registered: 7-2003


Posted on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 9:25 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rafael, I enjoy worshipping on the Lord's Day as well, but it is NOT the Sabbath. There is absolutely no biblical proof that the Sabbath was ever transferred from the seventh day to the first day. I am not arguing against taking a day, like the Lord's Day, to spend in corporate worship and spiritual activities. I think this is a VERY valuable thing to do. I'm just saying there is no command for Christians to keep the Sabbath. If there were then we should be keeping it on Saturday, not Sunday if we're going to be consistent.

Chris
Dd
Registered user
Username: Dd

Post Number: 660
Registered: 7-2004
Posted on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 10:01 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My husband and I stayed in the SDA church 2-3 years longer than we would have if we could have seen evidence in the Bible that pointed the Christian to change Sabbath worship to Sunday. We could not get over that hump.

All Christians today who call Sabbath or the Lord's Day Sunday, have missed the point and should change their denomination to SDA as the Old Covenant laws tell us. Anyone living under the law should be worshipping on Saturday.

It was not until we finally understood that our Sabbath is TODAY in the rest of Jesus Christ that we could feel the freedom of finding a church that met all of our needs.

Sabbath rest or the Lord's Day is not about a created day but it is about worshipping the CREATOR OF DAYS. Whether that day is Saturday, Sunday, Wednesday...it is a blessing to set a day to meet with other's who love to praise God together.

Resting in Jesus,
Denise
Snowboardingmom
Registered user
Username: Snowboardingmom

Post Number: 51
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 11:55 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Denise -- my husband and I had that same hump!

I remember I had been studying with a Church of Christ lady, who was insistent that Sunday was the only true day of worship. I remember my husband and I thinking that given the evidence under that statement, SDAs definitely had it right. The Bible is clear that the 7th day is Sabbath. We kept asking ourselves the question, "Where does it say in the Bible that Sabbath changed from Saturday to Sunday?" All our lives, we had been "trained" to ask that question. It took a long time to realize that we were looking at it all wrong, and that wasn't the question we should be asking.

It was recently, when we were talking about this topic again as well as other SDA beliefs, that my husband said it's so interesting when you get in a rut of approaching a theological argument a certain way, it's so difficult to change perspective and "see it" from a different view. It's usually then though that it suddenly becomes clear.
Lindylou
Registered user
Username: Lindylou

Post Number: 137
Registered: 1-2005


Posted on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 12:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dd: I liked the statement: "Sabbath rest..... is not about a created day but it is about worshipping the CREATOR of DAYS."

"For only we who believe can enter his place of rest... So God's rest is there for people to enter. But those who formerly heard the Good News failed to enter because they disobeyed God. So God set another time for entering his place of rest and that time is TODAY! Hebrews 4:3-7

The word TODAY seems pretty encompassing of the 7 day week! If each of us entered Christ's rest TODAY - we'd be resting in Him EVERYDAY!

I don't think that anyone is taking issue here with someone taking one day of the week to fellowship with their Christian believers. A problem only arises when this set aside day becomes a "must do"
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1478
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Saturday, April 01, 2006 - 7:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Both Jackob and Chris mentioned that great John Reisinger website on New Covenant theology.

Here is a clear definition of what New Covenant theology is, and there is listed what I consider one of the most perfect belief statements there is. The only problem is that it is difficult to find a church which would teach this statement of faith. www.ptitx.org/News/whatis-NTC.htm

Stan
Nate
Registered user
Username: Nate

Post Number: 8
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 2:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Stan,

Sorry, I missed your comment the other day. My feelings about Rick Warren and the pdl phenomenon are mixed. First, i think the book was great. Rick is truly a man that God is using in a big way. He has been called to touch a certain segment of the world and he is doing it well. I love his humble spirit and generosity toward the kingdom. He has paid back his entire salary to the Saddleback church through the book proceeds. He has invseted in kingdom work around the world.

The problem I have with the pdl phenomenon is what is lost in translation. Many churches are trying to implement the PDL and PDC material into their local contexts without asking the Lord what should carry over and what should not. Much of the heart is lost. There are many churches that are becoming great at church growth principles, but weak in solid Biblical study and in listening for the lead of the Spirit for their own contexts. Many churches have become enamored with the mega-church mindset and lost the heart to seek the face of the Lord. People get caught up in programming rather than relationship with Jesus or with one another. In short, I believe Rick is being obedient to God's call on his life and he has helped many churches get a vision bigger than they had before. The problem is many are missing listening for the Spirit in their own contexts and are trying to duplicate the Saddleback work of God. Much of the freshness is lost. The emphasis has moved to the form instead of the power.

In Christ,

greg
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1482
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 7:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks Greg for taking the time to respond to my question.

I think all of us on this forum would agree that your book on the New Covenant and Adventism is a great book, but many of us who post here would have a hard time calling Warren's PDL a great book. While it is not heretical, Warren's use of scripture out of context and proof texting with loose translations and paraphrases which make the point he wants to make is similar to what EGW and several other SDA writers do, and several others on here have pointed this out in the past. God can use even books like these to reach people.

But your book is well written, and scripture is used in its proper context.

I agree with your point about the reproducibility of the market driven concepts behind the book "Purpose Driven Church". It is like suddenly Rick Warren becomes the model for how the rest of the evangelical community is supposed to do church, and it doesn't work, because the methods aren't Biblical. Of course, I might be biased, as I am a big fan of John MacArthur and have read a lot of his material against Warren and the PDL phenomenom, but what he says seems to be Biblical and make sense. These same methods were tried in Charles Spurgeon's day, and he railed against this in his famous writings on the Downgrade phenomenom, and how churches were becoming like the world rather than separate from the world. John MacArthur saw these trends developing back in 1993, and did write a great book called "Ashamed of the Gospel"--when the church becomes like the world, and starts using worldly marketing and fad driven concepts rather than solid expository teaching.

But when churches all started having these 40 days of purpose meetings to study Rick Warren's PDL, a man's book, rather than God's book, the Bible, then I see that as a real problem.

But, again, thanks for coming on. I personally benefitted from reading your "open letter" that was posted on many different sites. I also appreciated you coming to our FAF reunion.

Stan
Randyg
Registered user
Username: Randyg

Post Number: 151
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 9:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Greg,

I too would like to thank-you for the "Open Letter" you wrote. It was an inspiration to me and a great summary of much of my journey over the last couple of years. I have shared several copies of your book with those in my circle who are questioning. Your book has been a tremendous witness, and I thank you for it.

Prayers for your Ministry,

Randy
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob

Post Number: 153
Registered: 7-2005


Posted on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 12:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Greg,

You provide a unique perspective in your "Open Letter" about Mathew 12:1-8, when you asked the question: "What type of law was David breaking? A moral law, or a ceremonial law?" and "Were the priests exempt from the moral commands? Could they lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery? No. of course not. "

For me, was the clear proof that the Sabbath was a ceremonial, not a moral law. A moral law cannot be unbreaked and people still be innocent. David was considered guilty and condemned because of his sin with Bathsheba, but eating from the bread of the temple was not a sin. The ceremonial law permits exceptions, but not the moral law. Nobody can break a moral law and be guiltless, but the priests broke the sabbath every saturday and were innocent. The conclusion is unescapable: the sabbath cannot be a moral law, it is a ceremonial law.

Even in this situation, it was hard for me to break the sabbath connection. But it was impossible for me to argue and sustain that the sabbath is a moral law after reading your "Open letter" and especially your commentary about Mathew 12:1-8.

On the official adventist forum of Romania a link to Greg's "Open letter" was posted under the thread "Ex-sabbatarianism, apostasy or spiritual progress?" And the nesletter of Bacchiocchi was also given to counter your letter. At first someone says that it is good that Bacchiocchi responded, because the adventists have some weak points, but, was concluded that some other factor, your mental and emotional life was unstable, and this affected your mental ability.

The underlying idea is that they are smarter than you or any former adventist. When I saw this, I just wanted to demonstrate my stupidity. And I posted and emphasized only the Mathew 12:1-8 proor, mentioning that I was indebted to Greg taylor for this perspective.

The majority just ignored the issue and discussed other arguments with another guy who never was an adevntist trying to persuade him to keep the sabbath. Nobody tried to disprove, just one guy, who just said that it is a fabricated situation made only to serve my purposes, and sugested that I must be proud that the adventists believe that I 'm an apostat.

I was ready to ask him boldly: What is fabricate in what I say? What is not true? What is a lie? But I choose to say nothing and leave the discussion and the forum.

What I learned is that Mathew 12 is perhaps the great proof that the Sbbath is ceremonial. Thank you Greg, personally and on account of those adventist who will have nightmares when they will encounter Matthew 12 from now on (smile).

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