| Author |
Message |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2093
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 11:40 am: |     |
Welcome, Jeremiah! We look forward to hearing your story as you feel ready to tell it. Your picture shows you holding a violin. Where do you play, and where did you study? (There are at least three music majors on this forum!)
Melissa, I also love your sentence "It is the event, not the day, that is special."
Of course when we associate a day with an honored event, we do get a day that is also special--think Christmas, Easter, birthdays--(well, they used to be special, anyway!) and so forth. The difference between a special day of observance now, though, from the specialness of the Sabbath is that the Sabbath was considered holy. Israel had to observe it apparently for its own sake. They had the shadow; they didn't yet know its fulfillment.
Now, post-cross, God has revealed the reality behind all those OT symbols: Jesus. Our observances now are about the meaning they derive from Him.
Jeremy--while the R/S posters would not affirm that salvation is by faith alone, they are pretty historic in their leanings. "Modern" Adventism would affirm salvation by grace through faith alone--then confuse people by making Sabbath keeping an act of faith which OF COURSE one would do if one loved Jesus.
At least here in So Cal this sort of redefinition is very common. It sounds very convincing to people who don't know where Adventists are really coming from. I know of one young SDA who convinced an evangelical youth pastor of his sincere devotion to salvation by grace through faith, and gained access to a youth group where he was even given pupit time.
In a private conversation with a former SDA young man, said SDA admitted he was attending the evangelical youth group to call the sheep back to the fold, and when questioned directly, admitted he was there to draw the sincere to Adventism.
I really do pray for the truth to become known and for those in bondage to be set free in the truth of Jesus.
Colleen |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 829
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 12:30 pm: | |
Jeremy, in my experience (albeit limited) the SDAs I come in contact with will say that they believe salvation is by faith alone. The will often deny that SDAs teach anything else. They will then go on to add so many "buts" and qualifiers to salvation by faith that it effectively nullifies the enitre doctrine of sola fide. I am not suggesting that the average Adventist truly believes sola fide in practice, I am merely saying that they affirm it with their lips.
Chris |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 733
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 12:54 pm: | |
Chris, I guess my main doubt was that the majority of SDAs would use the word "alone," especially. It seems that some think that they can add anything they want as long as they don't say "faith alone."
For example, I wonder how many SDAs you could get to even superficially agree with the following statement: "Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ's finished work alone plus nothing."
In other words, like I said before, if they do say salvation is by faith (or even faith alone), they usually have a different definition of "faith," which as you said, includes Sabbath-keeping, and keeping the 10 Cs, abstaining from pork (or all EGW-forbidden foods, etc.), etc., etc.
Jeremy |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 830
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 1:04 pm: | |
Come to think of it, you're right about the word "alone". I believe I've added an additional word to the response I somtimes get, but it's an important word. I would agree that "alone" is not normally stated (and it should be).
As to how many would agree with "Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ's finished work alone plus nothing." In my experience relatively few I have spoken with would fully embrace this core Gospel statement.
In fact, not too long ago I had a heated debate with a SDA that rejected the "through Christ alone" portion of the statement.
Chris
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2095
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 3:41 pm: | |
Great distinction, Jeremy--I believe the word "alone" is missing when I hear the formula from Adventists, also.
Colleen |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 4
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 7:18 pm: | |
I have heard people say that "alone" is missing from the Bible as well, in those statements regarding being saved by faith. I haven't really studied that out.
I'm on the books and attending SDA churches, was raised very conservative historic SDA, and consider myself exceptionally open minded. My current outlook would make me say I'm "just a Christian".
The violin is in my picture not because I'm a great violinist... I'm not, but I play as a hobby. I'm a violin maker by trade.
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 738
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 8:37 pm: | |
The actual word "alone" may be missing from the Bible verses, but the idea is not. In other words, the Bible verses don't just say that we are saved by faith--they say that we are saved by faith and NOT by works and APART from or WITHOUT works.
Here are a few examples:
quote:"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithóand this not from yourselves, it is the gift of Godónot by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV.)
"But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
5He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
6whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:4-7 NASB.)
"...so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.
28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." (Romans 3:26b-28 NASB.)
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28 KJV.)
"We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;
16nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified." "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." (Galatians 2:15-16, 21 NASB.)
Jeremy |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 833
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 8:43 pm: | |
It seems to me that when the reformers cried "sola fide" (faith alone) it was a shorthand way of summarizing a doctrine the Bible clearly teaches. Saying "faith alone" is a more concise way of saying the same thing the Bible says in more words:
Ephesians 2:8-9 (NASB)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Chris |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 834
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 8:44 pm: | |
Oops, Jeremy beat me to it while I was still typing/posting............. |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 5
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 9:31 pm: | |
Thanks Jeremy for the list of some relevant verses.
I notice some things about these verses. There seem to be two categories;
1. Verses that use the phrase "works of the law".
2. Verses that seem to use "works" in a generic sense.
In context the phrase "works of the law" probably refers to works of the "law of Moses" i.e. the entire OT system of law including the 10 commandments. This would mean that a Gentile is not required to "keep the law" as per Acts 15, to be saved.
The other category of verses stress good works in their immediate context, but these are good works done in us or through us by God, by faith.
So good works are definitely part of the Christian experience. But they are the works God has ordained for us, not the works we did to try to gain God's favor.
Jeremiah |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 6
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 9:43 pm: | |
Before I forget... thanks everyone for the welcome!
Here's a snippet from Tertullian, 200 AD, from his apology, where the quote "the blood of Christians is seed" comes from;
"Others, again, certainly with more information and greater verisimilitude, believe that the sun is our god. We shall be counted Persians perhaps, though we do not worship the orb of day painted on a piece of linen cloth, having himself everywhere in his own disk. The idea no doubt has originated from our being known to turn to the east in prayer.22 But you, many of you, also under pretence sometimes of worshipping the heavenly bodies, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise. In the same way, if we devote Sun-day to rejoicing, from a far different reason than Sun-worship, we have some resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to ease and luxury, though they too go far away from Jewish ways, of which indeed they are ignorant. But lately a new edition of our god has been given to the world in that great city: it originated with a certain vile man who was wont to hire himself out to cheat the wild beasts, and who exhibited a picture with this inscription: The God of the Christians, born of an ass.23 He had the ears of an ass, was hoofed in one foot, carried a book,24 and wore a toga. Both the name and the figure gave us amusement."
It's interesting to try and figure out who was "keeping" the day of Saturn from this passage.
Reading Tertullian reminds me of reading AT Jones. He's very good with words and puts you into the world of his time so you can get a feel for what it was like to be a Christian during difficult times.
Jeremiah |
Jh
Registered user
Username: Jh
Post Number: 1
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 4:19 pm: | |
Jeremiah and Jeremy,
Thank you for pointing out the patterns of words: "works of law," "works." I have labored over understanding these terms and have found answers in the books of two leading New Testament scholars: N.T. Wright (Jesus and the Victory of God) and James D.G. Dunn (The Justice of God). Their understanding comes from the Dead Sea Scroll named 4QMMT (journal of Biblical Archeology 1984)which is the first time the term "works of law" has been used other than by the apostle Paul. The definition of these phrases hold the key to understanding Paul and, perhaps,to helping more SDA's finding the Good News. I need your help in getting the message out.
The terms "works of law" or "deeds of law", or "dead works," and the shortened "works" appear in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Hebrews. It is an idiomatic phrase understood by Jews and Gentile proselytes of Paul's day to mean circumcision, Sabbathkeeping, new moons, festivals, food laws, purity laws, temple sacrifices etc, which marked the Jew (as God's covenant people) from the Gentiles.
However, the term "obey the law" is praised along with "good works" and are taken by Paul to refer to righteous (Godly) living and acts of love and mercy. Paul considers keeping the "works of the law" without "obeying the law" to be useless.
The "works of law" are not applicable to Gentiles or Jews in the New Covenant since both people enter by faith through the work of the Holy Spirit. The essence of Paul's letters is to warn the early Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians who are being coerced into circumcision, keeping the sabbath, new moons, festivals, food laws, etc., to not boast in "the works of the law" because it is love and mercy that counts as "obeying the law."
Paul reminds the early Christians that they recieved the Holy Spirit by faith (New Covenant sign) but not by "works of the law" (Old Covenant sign). Paul exhorts the Christians who have the love of God poured out in their hearts by the Holy Spirit to do good works, i.e., love neighbor as Christ loved us. Those who walk by the Spirit and obey Christ's commandment to love as He loved fulfill the righteous commands of the law (i.e., law of Christ). This is the essence of New Covenant Christian living!
I still have trouble explaining these terms. May be you can help me explain them more clearly.
I have gleaned from the many discussions on this forum that when a loved one has completely rejected you because he firmly holds that SDA's Sabbath teaching is biblical and true, that I am to leave him alone. For how long? The idiomatic understanding of "works of the law" holds the key to understanding that SDA is preaching the keeping of an old covenant sign which was and is not a New Covenant command. Should I keep silent when the truth is so straightforward? Please help me too. Thank you!
JT |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 1601
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 7:40 pm: | |
JT
You leave your SDA relatives/friends to God and you pray and pray and pray some more for them. When they start asking you questions, then you answer them. I can talk to my sisters about all kinds of things, but I cannot mention anything to them about why I left the SDA church and what I have learned since then. I pray for them and leave them in God's awesome hands.
Diana |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 7
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 8:08 am: | |
Thanks for your informative post, JT. I had heard a little about what you are saying. What you posted gives keywords for searching and learning more. I like the extra insight possible from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Jeremiah |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 211
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 8:49 am: | |
Welcome to the forum JT!
Mary |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 506
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 9:54 am: | |
I second Mary's welcome, Jh. We here on the forum are suckers for good clear information regarding the scriptures. Thank you.
Belva
(Message edited by belvalew on June 09, 2005) |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 741
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 10:08 am: | |
Welcome to the forum, Jh. We're glad you've joined us!
You said "the term 'obey the law' is praised" by Paul, but I can't find that phrase in Paul's writings--did you mean a different term? 
Jeremy |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 507
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 10:18 am: | |
I have a question regarding Paul. Yes, I can understand why the SDA do their best to discredit him because of all the NT writers, his letters say the most to nullify their approach to salvation and the law. Do any of the rest of you recall instructors insinuating that Paul was ugly, crippled, maybe even gay? The teachers I had that made those insinuations were saying that was why he had the "thorn in the flesh" that Paul had mentioned. Because he was ugly, he had poor relationships with women, the same was said about the fact that he was crippled, and they said he was gay because he preferred the single lifestyle and the company of men.
My reading of Paul through non-SDA eyes find no evidence of the above. Paul preferred the single lifestyle because he was on the go all of the time, and that sort of lifestyle would have been a hardship for a wife and small children. It appears from his writings that he recommended the heterosexual lifestyle to others, and for the sake of women, who were persona-non-grata in his time, he reminded men that they needed to love their wives. He frequently mentioned the prominent women within the Christian community that he came in contact with, and by so doing made it clear to the entire community that God was no respector of persons, that what mattered was the completion of the work in love. So if a Priscilla, or a Dorcas, or any of the others Paul mentioned, was serving the greater good of the Christian community, Paul commended them.
Now I'm hearing, through posts on this forum, that there is an effort within the SDA movement to de-emphasize the writings of Paul. I'm not surprised, but am deeply saddened. My days spend on the R/S forum gave me insight into the historical SDA's discomfort when confronted by what Paul had to say about salvation, and they refer to his writings as "easy grace." If you show a SDA the clear texts written by Paul, they will accuse you of twisting scripture.
Some of the earliest documents in Christendom, as I understand it, came from Paul's pen. He predates the 4 Gospels by decades, and his letters are mentioned in the letters of the other apostles. He was a powerful force in the shaping of the early church and it is, in my opinion, dangerous to turn one's back on what he had to say. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2104
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 11:01 am: | |
Jh, welcome to the forum! Interesting insights re: the terms regarding "works".
I'm also a bit puzzled about where Paul praises "keeping the law"--do you mean passages such as Romans 2:12-16 where he commends the Gentiles who did not have the law yet "do by nature things required by the lawÖsince they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, theri consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them"?
The distinction made in the Dead Sea Scrolls between "works of the law" and "obey the law" are interesting. For me, the point that I had to come to understand was not so much that distinction (although I see how that distinction is truly helpful) but what, exactly, is "the law"?
I have finally come to understand it this way: the Law is not merely the transcription Moses gave Israel. The actual Law is God Himself--or at least intrinsic to and generated by God. It is the "law" that governs all of physics, biology, life, death, sin, justice, etc. The HUGENESS of the law can only be fully contained in God. This fact is why true "law-keeping" can only happen when God enlightens mankind (as in the case of the pre-cross Gentiles who did not "have the law") and now gives believers new birth through the indwelling of the Living LawóGod Himself in the person of the Holy Spirit.
Obeying the Law means saying "Yes" to the Holy Spirit, because the Law is actually in and of God. The Mosaic law (including the 10 Commandments) was merely a shadow pointing toward Jesus who IS the law--who brings us alive by placing His Spirit who likewise IS the law within us.
The law we see at Sinai is not the summation of God's eternal law. It was merely a shadowy representation of the bigger reality God wanted to reveal: Keeping the law means Knowing Jesus and honoring Him, because God is our Law.
This way of "picturing" law has helped me, at any rate!
Belva, I've heard those same things about Paul--including that the "thorn in his flesh" was a bent toward homosexuality which he had to submit to God and choose instead to be celibate.
I see no Biblical (or for that matter, extra-biblical) evidence for these claims. I agree with you that the effort to discredit Paul, both within Adventism and also among liberal Christians, is a result of not liking his teaching.
Ephesians 3:9 has Paul declaring that God chose him not only to preach to the Gentiles but "to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which ages past was kep hidden in God, who created all things."
In other words, God chose and groomed Paul to explain HOW the New Covenant works, and how we are to live by the Spirit in surrender and submission to Jesus. When people reject Paul, they are rejecting God's appointed apostle to whom He gave the responsibility of teaching the church the new reality in which they live: the New Covenant of Christ's blood!
Colleen |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 212
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 11:08 am: | |
I remember hearing that to be a member of the Sanhedren you had to be married. That Paul likely had been married at least at some point and that it is unknown what happened to his wife (perhaps she died young, perhaps she left him, perhaps . . . you know how speculation can run).
Anybody else ever hear of this idea? Anybody know of any resources that could be adduced to the point?
Mary
|
Bob
Registered user
Username: Bob
Post Number: 303
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 11:41 am: | |
Colleen, I appreciate your perspective on the fullness of Law being God Himself! With this more encompassing perspective, one can read such Psalms as 119 and recognize them as praise and adoration of Holy God Himself, rather than just homage to the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic laws by which Israel was governed.
Bob |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 837
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 1:36 pm: | |
Saul of Tarsus (Paul) was a member of the Pharisee sect. However, I am not aware of any evidence that he ever sat as a member of the Sanhedrin (The Sanhedrin was a name for the highest Jewish tribunal made up of 71 men in Jerusalem as well as the two lower tribunals with 23 men each). If there is information pointing to Paul being a member of the Sanhedrin please let me know.
Chris |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 508
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 1:38 pm: | |
Dear Colleen, Thank you so much for that description of the law. That allows us Gentiles to just look around ourselves in wonder and appreciate the Mind of God that we see all around us, thus leaving us with nothing but awe for the creator. I know that there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved, Jesus only can, and has redeemed. Am I a Universalist if I also believe that the Awesome and Just God of all that is, who knows the heart of every individual who has ever lived, can see the hearts of people who have surrendered to all they know or perceive about the creator, then He can choose to save those people?
I truly believe that if an individual, after learning about Jesus, then turns to another God, that person is taking a wrong turn, and has chosen to give up salvation. I'm glad I don't have to make that decision. Other than that all I can think is "Who am I to judge?"
Belva
|
|
