| Author | Message | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 198 Registered: 11-2005 |
"Our actions reveal if we really have salvation." No - they don't!! I adamantly disagree. Of course, if we're born of the Spirit, we will have the "fruits of the Spirit". But it's because of being born again, crossing over from death to life, that we know we really have salvation. Not our actions! If it was by our actions, then at what point do we know that our "actions" were enough? Where is the line drawn? This is not just a debateable, some say this-some say that, issue! This is an issue that the Bible is VERY clear on -- this is not debateable! This issue has eternal consequences! I'm sorry, but knowing I am saved, and experiencing that salvation on such a deep, daily level has changed my life. To say that it's dependent on my actions, or rather "our actions reveal if we really have salvation", trivializes all that Christ did on the cross for me. I may not have the answers for all of the "debateable" theology out there, but I do know that this is not one of those debateable things! This is not just theology, this is a reality that's very close to my heart!! And something I'm very passionate about (if you can't tell by all the exclamation points!). Grace | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 199 Registered: 11-2005 |
One more thing... There are a lot of people who's actions may seem as if they have salvation, but they are still living in darkness. There are atheists who are "good" people, who give to the poor, helping the "down trodden and needy". But bottom line, they haven't been born again. They haven't realized they need Christ to get to the other side. I don't care how good someone is, or how good one's actions portrays them to be; if they don't know Jesus, they have no salvation. It's that basic. It's all about knowing Jesus, submitting ALL of your life to Him, and allowing Him to indwell us literally by His Spirit so that we can do His will and HIS actions. Once we're His, it's never about OUR actions again. Grace | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4843 Registered: 12-2003  |
Amen, Grace. No, this isn't a debate. Once we are born from above, we are truly changed. The world is full of two kinds of people: spiritually alive and spiritually dead. We can't tell by looking, always, which is which. Those sealed by the Spirit are aliveóborn from above through no work of their own. Those not sealed by the Spirit are dead, as Grace saysóeven if they're feeding the hungry and clothing the poor. Jesus tells the lost who remind him that they cast out demons and served the poor in His name that He never KNEW them. Their actions look like the savedóbut Jesus doesn't KNOW them. Colleen | ||
| Randyg Registered user Username: Randyg Post Number: 301 Registered: 12-2004 |
Welcome back Chris, and thank-you for the clarity of your post. Please visit more often as we miss you. .....now if I could just lose that Welcome back, Kotter theme song Bless you our brother. Randy | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 426 Registered: 10-2002  |
Hi WoW, Again, I know you have a lot of responses going back and forth, but I really want to hear your thoughts on what I wrote in my last post about "Sabbath" in Eden. I focused on this issue because essentially Adventism has emphasized "Law" because it needed to establish "the Sabbath day". Once the Sabbath is removed, and once one reads Scripture plainly (it states that the 10 Commandments ARE the "Old Covenant" -- Deut. 4:13 & Ex. 34:28, etc.), then as a result the emphasis on "Law" falls. Again, please let me know what you think about these things. If you don't have time, please let me know. But I tried to write what I did in a (hopefully) sensitive way, and I hoped that it would share some things with you that you perhaps may not have noticed or considered before. I'm not going to jump in on the "free will" debate (Calvinism, Arminianism, or Erasmus' Catholic defense), but I do want to briefly comment on the text you cited from Philippians. Yes, you're write that there are many, many apparent contradictions. However, the Philippians text does not show one of them (and I realize that what I'm saying disagrees with C.S. Lewis' brief mention of the text in "Mere Christianity" -- I admire him greatly, btw). The key difference is that the Philippians text says "work OUT your salvation" -- not "work TOWARDS your salvation." In Christ the Holy Spirit has come to dwell in us. God Himself--Salvation Himself--lives inside of us. Our lives are not a process of working TOWARDS salvation, but rather of letting God work OUT what is already inside of us. God has taken up residence in our spirits, and the rest of our lives are spent learning from Him and letting Him manifest His love in us -- from the inside out. Not from the outside in. We are not working toward victory, but rather we are starting FROM a position of victory. "Work out" your salvation because God is "in" you working. Let Him do His stuff. It's like being "soaked" or "drenched" from the inside out. A glimpse of this is seen further in the next chapter of Philippians, when Paul writes, "Only let us live up to what we have already attained." We have already attained salvation! Or rather as he said a few verses earlier, "Christ Jesus took hold of me". Now (figuratively) I run to take hold of eternal life, but I recognize that He has already taken hold of me. He has saved me. I no longer need to worry about being saved. I've got the victory! Or even better, the Victory has got hold of me! (Philippians 1:6, it should be recognized, refers not to the "work" God is doing inside of us --sanctification-- but rather to the work of "partnering in the Gospel" that the Philippians were doing to aid Paul.) Blessings to you in Jesus, Walk. In Him, Ramone | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 91 Registered: 8-2006  |
Taken from: http://www.ellenwhite.org/archive/corner20061008.htm "The SDA Church recently held an Ellen White "summit" and took full advantage of the opportunity to bash those investigating the claims of Ellen White. A video has been made of Professor Jud Lake's presentation (http://ellenwhitesummit.foxyresearch.com). "Elder Lake claimed that those leaving are "not-grounded", "confused", and "disgruntled". After reading through these post it accured to me that this group must be the most GROUNDED Bible thumping Jesus freaks I have have ever encountered. Sorry Elder Lake... | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 92 Registered: 8-2006 |
btw... A Jesus Freak is a good thing. My wife pointed out that if someone is not familiar with that definition they might be offended. A Jesus Freak is a on-fire-for-the-Lord-Christain that won't let anything stand in his way... | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 428 Registered: 10-2002 |
Timmy, you've brought up something that might be at the heart of what's going on in this thread... Adventists are unable to fathom that people might leave Adventism for Christ. The idea of Adventism actually having legitimate errors is tough, but the idea that other churches might have it "more correct" is much, much harder to imagine. That is why it is easier for Adventists to look at Formers as if they are disgruntled, confused, deceived, or as if they never grasped Adventism properly in the first place. As an Adventist I thought of Formers as fitting into similar categories. I wouldn't have been able to comprehend anything other than those basic four possibilities. If I had talked with a Former, I would have not been able to listen to them fully -- my mind would've squeezed them into one of those categories, and I would be responding to the mental image I had of what they must believe instead of actually responding to the person him or herself. And conversely, it is equally possible for us to do the same thing to Adventists, completely forgetting what it was like to be Adventist and completely forgetting to exercise the same sympathy, love, patience and understanding that we ourselves would have appreciated when we first began to hear the rumors of cracks in the Adventist walls (or rather, the "rumors of the 'scandal' of Grace"). I bring this up not only to help us remember what we looked like (and are still capable of looking like) -- so that we are not like one looking in a mirror and walking away having forgetten what we saw -- but I also bring this up because I think maybe hitting lots of points at WalkOnWater might not be a good approach... (Forgive me for discussing "you" like this, WoW)... I know WoW came with the reason of research for a book, perhaps on Former Adventist perspectives, etc. We've seen that WoW exhibits the beliefs of a liberal Adventist -- that is, someone one who has heard some of the rumors of Grace but hasn't been able to let go of the yoke of the Law. Just as when we were Adventists, most of us had pigeon-holed Formers in one of the four categories (disgruntled, deceived, confused, not-grounded) and we wouldn't have been able to truly hear what they said, it is also likely that WoW may have entered this forum for the purpose of collecting points of view that WoW perhaps thought he/she already understood. The last thing WoW may have expected to find was a point of view (or a Biblical truth) that he/she didn't know. Perhaps WoW did not come to do apologetics for SDA, but at the same time, when given a lot of questions about SDA, it's easy to slip into apologetics mode. On the other hand, it's possible that WoW came for the purpose of "ministering" to Formers, however, due to the liberal SDA influences I think we can all hear in WoW's posts, I think this is somewhat unlikely. A very likely possibility is that WoW him/herself may not have been sure why he/she came here. You know, sometimes we set out to do something but we're not exactly sure of the deeper reasons we're doing it. For example, in 1996-98 I went through a time of philosophical searching. I couldn't believe in God, but I couldn't quite leave the church, either. I told myself that I was sticking around to help them think more, because I thought they couldn't see what I could see. I basically thought I stuck around believers so I could help them or enlighten them. However, in hindsight it's obvious that I was sticking around because I doubted my own philosophy. There was a magnetic pull deeper than I consciously recognized---my soul needed to know if there was something real, because it certainly felt like it deep down inside. After meeting God and living as a missionary for a year, I returned to LSU and in 2000 I set out to do research about the original "Great Controversy" book, and then moved onto 1888. Although I collected a lot of information, the thing that was driving my search underneath was a desire to know the truth, although I didn't realize that was what I was looking for, nor did I realize that I was searching so intently because I was dissatisfied with things thus far. Only after meeting the Holy Spirit and gradually seeing past the veil of the Law could I begin to understand why I had searched as I did. I think WoW might be here for reasons that he/she doesn't fully understand, and that there may be more than "research" which has brought WoW here. If the purpose is to "witness" to us, then I pray WoW clearly comes out and says so. If the purpose is to gather data for pigeon-holed conclusions, then perhaps a relentless barrage of arguments & proof-texts from us might not be a good approach. If WoW is approaching from a pigeon-holed view of Formers, then the best thing we can do is to patiently talk with WoW in such a way that WoW has to eventually let go of preconceived ideas about Formers and begin to listen. I think that this forum can accomodate such a conversation, but it would take great patience and understanding on our part, and of course an honest approach of the visitor. Because we truly do love our Adventist family and pray for their freedom in Christ, bearing with them in patience and love when they approach us is perhaps the best witness we can give to His awesome, loving freedom and grace. Forgive me, all, for writing so much! I've done the bombarding as well. Also, I haven't been able to read all of the posts thus far. Did WoW put up any questions for us? (Since he/she came for the purpose of collecting data?) | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 35 Registered: 8-2006 |
Chris, Your post with it's clear presentation of the gospel and Scripture brought tears to my eyes and almost burst my heart. Thank you so much. As Colleen said, we have no idea who is lurking here, as I myself did for many years. Adventists as well as many other Christians and non-Christians alike needed to see the beauty of the grace of God that reaches down and quickens the dead and saves us for an eternity in His presence. I printed out your post as well as this thread and shared it with a co-worker today, both to point out the differences in Adventism and Christianity as well as to encourage her in her own walk with the Lord. Thank you, God bless you abundantly, and although this is the first time posting to you, I want you to know that I have been tremendously blessed for many years with your insights and spiritual maturity. Sincerely, Susan | ||
| Tricia Registered user Username: Tricia Post Number: 27 Registered: 3-2006 |
Ramone, Thanks for the last two great posts, very true and well stated. Tricia | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 43 Registered: 9-2006 |
Dear Agapetos: I find your last post to be helpful. It certainly does not make a very good impression on outsiders when Formers accuse and attack them. In fact I have come to fear that Formers are in danger of repeating the judgmentalness they accuse Adventists of. If Formers have a better gospel, one would hope it would show in the way they treat people who are not of their persuasion. Recently I stated that "Our actions reveal if we really have salvation." The immediate response from one Former was... "No they don't!! I adamantly disagree." If having a relationship of joy and love in Jesus does not make any difference in how we treat others, one might question if the relationship is real. That was the whole message of the man who was forgiven a debt of $5 million and went out and beat up on a man who owed him fifty cents. If we really have salvation; if we really have forgiveness, it will show in our actions, It will show in how we treat others. So if Formers really want to show they have a superior hold on the gospel, "they will show they are Christian by their love" rather than by judgmentalness. I salute you for attempting to communicate some of this to your fellow Formers. By the way, I do not consider myself to be a liberal SDA. Neither am I conservative. I am just an SDA who loves Jesus and is passionate about being involved with helping others fall in love with Him. I find I can be a spirit filled Christian while remaining in the SDA Church. I used to feel the oppression of Adventism. And once I found Jesus, I could see the problems with the church even more clearly than I could before. But that created a desire in my heart to share what I had found. I also know there are many sincere, born again Christians in the Adventist Church. I fellowship with them as we reach out to other Adventists who do not know the Lord. By the way, I may not ask a lot of questions as I do my research. I simply listen to the tone and content of what is being said. Thanks again for your post. God bless, WalkOnWater ------------------------------------------ TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 44 Registered: 9-2006 |
A few days ago someone asked me about my views on Sabbath keeping. I hope no one is too shocked but I keep the 7th day Sabbath. I do not keep the Sabbath to gain God's favor. I do not think Sabbath keeping will get me to heaven. I do not do it as a legalistic demand. Instead I happen to think it is awesome that God has given me a seven and a half week, all expense paid, guilt free, vacation time every year. Most people would "kill" to get seven and a half weeks of vacation time, with pay, every year. But I hear people coming up with every argument in the book as to why they couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't accept the Bossesí vacation offer. In fact, God's vacation package has triple benefits. First, I rest in Him for my salvation. Second, I rest from my works to save myself. Third, I can take a literal 24 hour vacation every week to celebrate my rest in Jesus. Talk about fringe benefits! It leaves me totally mystified to think anyone would give up any of those benefits. To me it does not make logical sense how hard people fight against vacation time. And then they say I am hung up on WORKS!!! And here I am, the one who is taking a triple REST!! Go figure!! WalkOnWater | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 283 Registered: 11-2004 |
Yes, resting from our working all the time is important! Working 7 days a week is too much for anyone. Because someone no longer believes the Sabbath is applicable to them doesn't mean they don't still have a rest from work. Vacation time can be anytime now. I know some SDA leaders that run themselves ragged all week to practically collapse on the Sabbath and sleep most of the day away. Perhaps a more balanced view would be to have time to celebrate resting in Him everyday. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4854 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dear Walk, No one would think of asking you to give up your weekly vacation. A great many of us also have our weekly vacations. But the day we have them variesóin fact, the day we "rest" is completely unimportant in Christ. Whether we have a weekly vacation or not is irrelevant. If we have Jesus and His totally finished work, his substitutionary death, His blood covering us and His righteousness qualifying us as saved for all eternityóthat is what matters. Of course I understand your reasoningóin fact, I believe I can safely say every one of us here understands it. We were all THERE! But the actual point of fact is that you believe, at some level, that the Sabbath is the best day for your vacation. The reality is that you believe it's the best day because of the fourth commandment and because of Ellen's teaching about the ultimate, future significance of the day as a sign of belonging to God. You probably don't use Ellen's teachings as part of your defense, and you might even say that what she says doesn't matter to you (although I doubt you in particular would say that)óbut in reality, her teaching is part of the influence that has convinced you that your weekly rest should be on Sabbath. The NT is absolutely clear that no day is more sacred than another, that Jesus is greater than the templeóin which the law residedóand that in HIM is the Sabbath and, indeed, the whole law. Hebrews, 2 Corinthians 3, Galatians, Colossians 2, Acts 15, Romans 3, 7, 14óthese ALL show that Jesus is the substance of the shadow of the law, and that in Jesus the law is obsolete. Soóno one is saying there's anything wrong with taking a vacation day every week. But you know what? The Sabbath was NEVER about vacation. It was always about Jesusónever about us. God didn't give Israel a day off because they needed it or earned it or deserved it. He gave them Sabbath as a shadow of Him. It was never a TESTóit was always a SIGN. Signs point to things. The Sign of the Sabbath was a sign of belonging to the Mosaic covenant. It was a sign that pointed toward the fulfillment of the covenant. Jesus is the substance of that shadow/sign. Actually, to believe at any level that the Sabbath is about you having a vacation (the Israelites didn't consider it a vactionóthey had to refrain from all work including leaving their tents upon pain of death), that it's supposed to be on Sabbath, that it has any intrinsic value on this side of the cross, is unbiblical. Colleen | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 45 Registered: 9-2006 |
Response to Collen And a good, good morning to you Colleen: I must say it is fun to play tennis with someone who has spent a lot of time perfecting their game. You are keeping me on my toes! Thanks. But I fear you just served up something that looks like it hit the net. You began your post with the words, "No one would think of asking you to give up your weekly vacation." and then you end your post with the strong words, "to believe at any level that the Sabbath is about you having a vacation ... is unbiblical." Now I know you will immediately say, "He did not quote my whole thought!" And you are right, I did not. In fact your first line makes it sound like your philosophy is, "Live and let live". But over the last week, or so, what I am hearing over and over from Formers is that Sabbath keeping is unbiblical and unless I give up my 7th-day Sabbath vacation I am living under a double curse. 1. I am living under the curse of the law. 2. I am living under the curse of Ellen White and Adventism's deceptive theology. I find it interesting that no one thinks I am living under a curse if I refrain from murder, adultery, not taking the Lord's name in vain, etc. But if I take my vacation on the 7th-day Sabbath, and believe God honors the 7th day, then I am living unbiblically. NOW, you would be totally correct if I was keeping the Sabbath to gain salvation. Yes! I would be under a curse. But if I am keeping the Sabbath by walking in the Spirit, then the Sabbath becomes a rest that brings life and joy and freedom in Jesus. But letís look far more deeply at why I keep the 7th-day Sabbath. Before a person dies, he writes his LAST WILL & TESTIMENT. He does this so people will know what his wishes are after his death. Jesus, before His death on the cross, also wrote a LAST WILL AND TESTIMENT. He wrote it WITH HIS LIFE. During His life He revealed to us what His WILL was. And what did His WILL tell us? Some of the first things that jump out at us are these: The WILL told us that those who lived as He lived were His heirs, heirs of the Kingdom!! The WILL told us that it was His WILL that we be like Him. The WILL told us that, like Him, we are to live in union and communion with our Father in Heaven. The WILL told us that without being connected to Him, we can do nothing. Now a person can put anything they want into their will. But once they die, NO ONE CAN CHANGE THE WILL. What this means is that when Jesus died on Calvary, He had included exactly what he wanted in His LAST WILL AND TESTIMENT. But once He died, no one could change the will. If anyone was a Sabbath keeper, it was Jesus. During His life He kept the letter and the spirit of the Sabbath as His Father had meant it to be kept. Jesus' life was one of total rest and confidence in His Father. He declared that He did not do His own works but the works of His Father in heaven. Jesus kept the Sabbath by bringing physical and spiritual healing to those around Him. He showed us by personal example what Sabbath keeping truly was. He honored the Sabbath and kept it. Thus the Sabbath was a part of the LAST WILL AND TESTIMENT Jesus wrote with His life. When Jesus died, He said, "IT IS FINISHED". And part of what was finished was His LAST WILL AND TESTIMENT. He had shown by His life what it meant to be a true Christian. The truth about the Sabbath and what God intended by giving the Sabbath was thus forever written by Jesus' blood into His WILL. To say "grace trumps law" was NOT something Jesus wrote in His LAST WILL AND TESTIMENT. To say the Sabbath is passÈ, or no longer of importance, was not something written into Christís WILL. To say 9 Commandments still apply but one does not, was not written into the WILL. Trying to change someone's WILL after the person dies is considered a crime. I sincerely do not want to be caught trying to change the LAST WILL AND TESTIMENT OF JESUS CHRIST. That's one reason I keep the 7th-day Sabbath. Thanks again, Collen, for a good game. WalkOnWater | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 284 Registered: 11-2004 |
The word ìtestamentî is rendered from a Greek word, diatheekee, diatheekees, meaning a compact, or covenant. (NT Strongís #1242 from Thayer's Greek Lexicon) Galatians 3 talks about this covenant and how the law was to bring us to Christ and that once we believe in Him we are no longer under the law. "24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." The 9 commandments are also part of the law. To a believer the law of love goes far beyond "do not kill" or "do not commit adultery". Even the lost will not kill or not commit adultery. The will of Christ is revealed in His Word which does not end with the Gospels. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 359 Registered: 7-2005  |
In Romans 7 the apostle Paul clarifies the new relationship existing between the christian and the law. The believer is no longer married with the first husband, the law, but with the second husband, Christ. As a unit, the relationship of the believer with the law ended forever. And this is true in every aspect of it, the ten commandments and the rest of the commandments which are listed in Torah. The curse of the law mentioned in Galatians 3 is not only for failure to keep the ten commandments, but all commandments contained in Torah "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law Galatians 3:10. The book of the law included the ten commandments, and many moore. The Law (Torah) defined sin for the people of Israel, and people were under the curse and punishment of the law for all kinds of sins, even for those sins we think that are no longer sins today. For example, the two sons of Aaron were burned for bringing unholy fire to the altar (Leviticus 10). The greatest commandment was not written in the decalogue, but in the Book of the Law, "Love God with all your....". Is THIS commandment for today? NO. This answer may sound entirely foolish because the New Testament epistles are full of commands to love God and one another. But this is not the same command written in Torah. It lacks the curse. If this command was the same as in Torah, all christians will still be under the curse because nobody keeps this command!! Nobody really loves God with all his heart and the neighbor as himself after God's standard. God requires perfection, and we are not perfect. All believers are still sinners, not doing perfectly what Christ commands us to do. There is always room for improvement. The New Testament command is not the same command, even if at the surface it's the same. Yes, this is a moral principle, to love God and our neighbor, but if we are still under the requirement of Torah at this point, we will all be under a curse, for not keeping it as we must. God requires perfection, without a taint of sin, and Jesus mission was to fulfill this requirement, and to put an end to the law and it's curse. If we are to keep the commands, we are to keep the commands written in the New Testament, which have not a curse attached to them. All the Torah's commands have a curse attached to them. The sabbath is a command from Torah, and is not found in the New Testament. When someone keeps the sabbath, he shows respect specifically for the Torah, because, if he is left without Torah, he has no specific command in the New Testament to keep the sabbath. He honors not a New Testament command, but a Torah command, and it's automatically under it's curse. It's very important to understand that the curse exist for every failure to keep the command, not becuase someone tried to keep it in a legalistic manner. "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law" Galatians 3:10 The law requires perfection (doing everything, in the least detail) 24 hours per day without interruption (continue to do...). Every time somebody fails to keep the sabbath, he is under a curse. He must keep it holy all the time, fulfilling all requirements. This is the yoke of the law. | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1502 Registered: 7-2003 |
Walk, it sounds as though you are saying the epistles don't count by saying that when Jesus died nothing changes. Jesus death brought in a NEW covenant. And by bringing in the new, he made the old obsolete. But if you don't value the epistles because they were written post-cross, you cannot possibly understand the new covenant. But Jeremiah prophesied it was coming. It is not putting old wine in new wine skins, as detailed in Galatians, it is a truly NEW covenant. Second, Jesus is very clear in John 5 that not only did HE work on the Sabbath, but God did as well. I read in one place he went to synagogue on Saturday because it was a custom, but no where that he kept the sabbath. Frankly, there are a number of things Jesus did that do not mean they are mandated...I don't see men wearing dresses these days...he did not drive a car, so does that mean christians shouldn't drive cars. If we are ONLY to do the exact things Jesus did, we all do many things that are 'sins'. He never owned a house, he didn't have indoor plumbing, electricity, .... where does it stop? But it becomes okay to say that it's a sin to worship God on Sunday because of what...and I realize I've just made a jump you didn't make explicitly, but if your worship is 'right' because it's on Saturday then you must believe mine is wrong on Sunday ... elsewise, as Colleen said, it's still a 'vacation' every 7th day. And to condemn people who worship on Sunday by what Biblical standard?? That leads to my next point.... Third, and this is a nitpicky thing for me, where does the 4th commandment command worship or church attendance? It doesn't. Where does scripture say it is wrong to worship God or attend church any other day of the week? It doesn't. The adventist twist on 'sabbathkeeping' says it's wrong to worship God on Sunday. IS that really logical? Is there really EVER a wrong day or time to worship God?? I think it's in Ezekiel where it speaks to the abominations in worship, and WHEN one worships our holy God is NEVER an issue. Since I think the epistles are just as valid as the gospels and the old testament, I HAVE to look at Romans 14, which speaks to a person following their own convictions regarding holy days. Christians do not condemn adventists for the day they worship, but adventists clearly condemn Christians for the day they worship. Fourth, and I'll stop, if you read the sermon on the mount, and consider it Jesus sermon, he says 'not murdering' is inadequate....he says not to be angry without cause. He says 'the law says not to commit adultery' and I think we all recognize that from the 10 commandments, and then he says that is insufficient a standard, but he who has lusted has committed adultery. Jesus moved from outward appearances to inward heart. I can keep the letter of the law and be as lost and condemned with lust and hate and envy and strife. The 10 commandments do not create righteousness. There has not been a law given that can create righteousness. But you have to consider the epistles as valid to find those truths. I realize some of this is duplicate from u2, but I was writing before I read his. So, I'm going to post it anyway. If you want to hold onto Saturday as a sabbath and do what you do, I don't think anyone will argue with you. To think you are somehow better, more spiritual or superior for it is the issue. We all stand before God sinners. Someone who keeps a holy day is not any less a sinner than one who does not. I'm willing to bet 90% of non-adventists never even have serious thoughts about whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' to worship God on any particular day. We just seek to worship. I would think that would be a good thing, not bad. If one day is 7 is all that it is...then taking my Sunday vacation shouldn't be a problem. But it's not one day in 7. It is Saturday. And though you can't find a scripture passage that mandates worship for that rest (especially in the 10 commandments), I have yet to meet an adventist that didn't believe worship was required for a sabbath to be kept properly. By this belief alone, they create incredible division and animosity towards non-adventists which is clearly against scripture....Jesus himself prayed that we would be "one". How is condemning for doing something scripture does not speak against justify that division? That is my issue with so-called 'sabbathkeeping'. The division and animosity it creates typically from those who wish to inflict their standards on those not convinced it is a mandate for Christian behavior. Since the majority on this forum used to hold to that belief, I'm sure they'll have more deeply theological answers, but for me, as someone never raised in holy day traditions, it is the most pointless source of contention I've ever encountered. I don't say that to be disrespectful, just to be honest. | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 46 Registered: 9-2006 |
Dear U2: You say, "The will of Christ is revealed in His Word which does not end with the Gospels." You are quite right about that. But what did Jesus do before He died? He honored the Sabbath He obeyed the Sabbath He showed what true Sabbath observance really means He showed how to really keep the Sabbath Holy He showed what is meant by a true Sabbath rest He condemned those who were keeping the Sabbath as a means of righteousness. Doesn't it seem strange that He would spend three and a half years of teaching on the subject of the Sabbath and then immediately follow it up with abolishing it? I believe that instead of abolishing it, He established it by showing what the Sabbath was really for. Furthermore, since Jesus did not write the abolition of the Sabbath into His WILL, it would be very dangerous for someone to have the gall to tamper with what Jesus wrote there. So, yes, there is much written after the gospels. But all interpretation of Scripture must be done in line with the provisions of the WILL. One cannot come along and glibly change what Jesus wrote. I see a lot of Paulís writings quoted on these pages. And I love Paul and what he has to say. But we must always interpret Paul by what is in Jesusí WILL. We have no right to change Jesusí WILL by our interpretation of Paul or anyone else. In other words, we must never use scripture to interpret what is in the WILL. Instad, we must interpret Scripture by fully understanding what is in the WILL of Christ. God bless, WalkOnWater ---------------------------------- TenBLoÿ@hotmail.comwhat | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4859 Registered: 12-2003 |
U2bsda is rightóthe will of Christ did not end with the Gospels. Ephesians 2:8-9 explains that God's grace to Paul was to explain the mystery of "this administration", or the New Covenant, to "everyone"ónot just to the Gentiles. Jesus performed his entire recorded ministry with the exception of a few incidents betwen his resurrection and ascension as a man under the law. As he told Peter, James and John after the transfiguration, Don't tell anyone what you have see here until after my resurrection. (see Matt. 17:9) The Transfiguration illustrated that Moses (the law) and the prophets (Elijah) would disappear, and Christ alone would remain. The Father even spoke the words, as the disciples discovered Moses and Elijah were goneó"This is my Son; listen to HIM!" They were not to tell anyone until after the resurrection because until then, the Old Covenant was God's revealed will and program, and God's people had to live under its requirements until the new, living way to the Father was opened. No one was free to replace Moses or Elijah with anything until Jesus had fulfilled all their shadows. Then He became their fulfillment and their replacement in humans hearts. And yes, Jesus absolutely DID address the issue of Sabbath to the Pharisees in Matthew 12. I always wondered why, when Jesus had the clear opening to say something to them when they questioned him about his disciplies breaking the Sabbath, he didn't just say, "One greater than the Sabbath is here." Instead He said, "One greater than the temple is here." But now it's clear: what Jesus said was WAY BIGGER than merely that He is greater than the Sabbath. First, Jesus compared his disciples plucking grain to David and his men eating the showbread from the temple unlawfully. This comparison meant more than the fact that acute need trumps the law. Jesus' comparison to David is one of His connections to David as a type of the Messiah. When David took his men and ate the showbread, he had already been anointed king over Israelóbut no one yet knew it. Samuel had anointed him, but the priests, the kingdom, etc. did not know. Israel's rulers were blind to David's chosen, anointed status. But David knewóand by his eating that showbread (and by Jesus' reference to this event) it became clear: God's anointing trumps the law. David was blameless NOT because he and his men were hungry and had the right to break the law. He was blameless because He was God's anointed, the forerunner and shadow of Jesus the king/priest, and his anointing placed gave him God's authority to break the law and eat that bread. THIS is the reason Jesus referred to David. Then Jesus said that even the priests desecrate Sabbath because of their temple workóbut they are blameless in this desecration. They are blameless because they have God's anointing to intercede for the people. The law of Sabbath rest didn't apply to the priests because they were performing the duties that gave Israel their security against God's wrath toward sin. They were doing their own foreshadowing of Jesus: they were interceding for Israel during the holy hours. Their office was above the Sabbath. And then Jesus said, "ONe greater than the temple is here." The temple housed all that was sacred to the Jews: the shadows of redemption, the law, the presence of Godóand Jesus said that HE himself was greater than this repository of ALL God's special revelation up to that point. In Jesus resided the atonement, the law, the presence of God. He Himself was replacing the temple which housed the law. That law included all TEN commandments. In Jesus was not only all morality, but in Jesus was all ceremonial reality. Sabbath rest was IN HIMónot just an external command. As God He was not subject to the written lawóHe was its Creator. (As a man in a mortal body, he had to live under that law until he rose from the dead.) Just as David's and the priests' anointings trumped the law, so Jesus' divine anointing trumped the lawócompletely. He IS the law. Then Jesus said, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." By this He did not mean, as I used to think, that the Sabbath is a huge, eternal, universal reality of which he was the managerómuch as the queen is imonarch of the bigger reality of the United Kingdom. What Jesus was saying here is that HE HIMSELF is the bigger reality; the Sabbath is the shadow of Him. He is LORD of the Sabbath. It is a creation, a thing over which He has dominion. It is not the eternal "thing"; Jesus is the eternal One, and the Sabbath is His creation and His "servant". Jesus couldn't explain the NC practice of Sabbath in any more detail than he did, for the same reason the disciples couldn't speak of the transfiguration before his resurrection. Israel was STILL under the law. But Jesus was telling them that He Was Godóand all their laws and conventions would be swallowed up in Him. God appointed Paul to explain how this administration of the New Covenant would work. And Galatians leaves no doubt: the law was temporary until Jesus would come. The Spirit replaces the law in a believer's life. The Spirit brings rest and peace and obedience to God Himself. The law is no longer in view. See Colossians 2;13-15; 2 Cor. 3; Hebrews; Romans 3, 7, 11. And Walk, in all reality, I wouldn't take the time for this much detail if I didn't know that others reading actually have questions about these issues. Many of those questioning do not see this exchange as anything resembling a game. They are internally engaged in a struggle for eternityóand they know it. To trivialize this discussion by comparing my answers to you as my volleying the ball back and forth in a great game of words and theories is really to trivialize the gospel and Jesus Himself. I am not engaged in a game; I am praying to honor the Lord Jesus and to speak truthfully about Him and about our position in Him. No, I do not begrudge you a weekly vacation, Walk. No one here does. But I do say that insisting that the vacation be on a particular day IS a false gospel, and Paul agrees in Colossians 2 and Galatians. Jesus did not die to uphold the law. Jesus died to take all your sin, Walk, and all my sin into Himself. He BECAME our sin (2 Cor 5:20), and He BECAME a curse (Gal. 3:13). God turned away from Him because HE BECAME OUR SIN. The reality of this truth is overwhelming, and I cannot even write about it without crying. Jesus did not "will" us the Sabbath. Jesus gave us Himself. His true "last will and testament" is found in Matthew 27:26-29 where he says, "Take and eat; this is my bodyÖDrink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Jesus' bequeathed to us His broken body and His blood. THOSE are His legacy and will for us. We will never be evalutated for heaven based on a created day. We will be received or not received based on whether or not we know JesusóJesus alone. He alone is our Sabbath, our salvation, our security, our righteousness. He alone. Colleen |
