| Author | Message | ||
| Cloudy Registered user Username: Cloudy Post Number: 7 Registered: 7-2007 |
Has anyone read this book? I believe the author is Melil. They have been doing a series on the ten commandments using this book as a reference at the ELCA church we have been attending. I was curious about the Lutheran take on the 10 Cs. I noticed the Lutherans have numbered the Cs differently FWIW. Last week was the talk about remembering the sabbath. The pastor said he did not feel personally rigid about remembering the sabbath as a day, but some did. He tended to emphasize that sabbath was rest and that we needed rest to remember God and our family, for our health, etc. He referred to Sunday as the sabbath and remarked about the past when all shops were closed on Sundays.*grimace* I remember going to a youth group at a nondenominational church when I was a teenager hearing a Lutheran boy give a talk about how Christians were not under the bondage of the law and we should be wary of any Christians who tried to put us in such bondage. I suspected at the time that his talk was aimed at me since they knew I was an SDA. I said nothing at the time, but felt sorry that he did not understand that the 10 Cs were not bondage since it is not bondage to refrain from the evils in the 10 Cs. I felt sorry that all these Christians felt they were at liberty to break God's Law. So I was surprised to hear Lutherans giving this series. After the first message, I spoke to the speaker afterwards (that time it was the pastor's wife, a chaplain). She assured me that yes, Lutherans believed in being saved by grace alone, and saw the Cs as only "guidelines". But during the pastor's talk last week he had on the screen behind him: "THESE ARE NOT THE TEN SUGGESTIONS". *Sigh* This sounds so much to me like what an "evangelical adventist" would say, and it causes me the same "cognitive dissonance". Can anyone deconfuse me? | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 981 Registered: 9-2006  |
Cloudy, I can tell you that I don't believe the Evangelicals dwell near as much on the old and new covenants as a former Adventist might, I probably heard two sermons on the covenants my whole saved life of going on about 36 years before I came to this website. It seems to me they just do not consider it (or) they take it for granted so an awful lot of what you hear may be just due to Bible ignorance. Just guessing here, I can think of no other reason myself, maybe someone else can shed more light on it for you. River | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1136 Registered: 4-2000  |
Cloudy, Thank you for your comments. Since nine of the Ten Commandments are reiterated in the New Testament, which of these reiterated, moral commandments do you find a problem with? In addition to the nine reiterated directives from the Decalogue, there are several non-Decalogical, Old Testament moral commands reiterated in the New Testament as well (e.g., prohibition against a homosexual lifestyle, sound business ethics, love to God and to one another, etc.). Indeed, the New Testament actually contains more moral directives for godly living than the Old Testament believer had. The New Covenant provides a higher standard of righteousness than the Old Covenant could provide. Although the New Testament is a clearer, later, and final revelation to man, it does not supercede the Old Testament Scriptures. The Apostles and Jesus repeatedly quoted from the Old Testament scrolls in their evangelism. By the way, it was very effective. The early Christian Church spread like wild fire across the Roman Empire. The Old Testament is not just for historical purposes as some skeptics would like us to believe. Importantly, according to the Apostle Paul, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correcton, for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16 NASB). Without the Old Testament, there would not be a New Testament. The biblical canon consists of 66 books--not merely the 27 books found in the New Testament. Not only did Jesus quote Old Testament moral commandments, He even expanded some of them--giving them even greater weight, relevance, and meaning for Christian faith and practice. A moral law, in contrast to ceremonial or ritual laws, is one that is in effect 24/7 (every nanosecond of time) and not merely once a year, season, month, or week. Moral laws are binding upon us wherever in the Bible we find them. Without the Law there is no Gospel. For example, the weekly Sabbath was clearly ceremonial with its double sacrificing and shewbread requirements. Both the Sabbath and tithing laws are dependent upon the Levitical system being fully in place. By continuing to observe the shadows pointing to the Cross, we are actually denying the reality of Jesus Christ. The moral precepts, wherever they are found, reveal how the Bible speaks with one voice from Genesis to Revelation. In the truest sense, God is the ultimate author of the Bible--not His penmen. Certainly, it is God's Word, and we can trust all of it. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6202 Registered: 12-2003  |
River, I believe you are right. I think the subject of the covenants has been neglected because evangelical churches haven't had the misuse of the old covenant perpetrated on them as Adventists have. The fact is, Cloudy, that there are different "takes" on the covenants within Christianity. The Reformed tradition, of which the Lutheran church is a part, sees the subject of covenants more nearly like Adventists do. They see that God has always dealt with His people through covenant relationships, and they say the Old Covenant was simply an earlier, less complete revelation of God's will than the new covenant. This view neglects the pointed teaching of Galatians and the book of Hebrews and also some of the passages of Romans. Another dominant view within evangelical circles is Dispensationalism. I am less familiar with the details of this view, but it says that history is divided into eras, or ages. Isreal was one dispensation; the church is another. The millennial kingdom, they say, is yet another. etc. They say that these dispensations are quite separate from each other and have different covenants governing each. Dispensationalism has tended to see the law as being just for Israel and the church as being under the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. They do, however, honor the 10 Commandments although they've not been as likely--in the past, at least--to say they apply today as a rule of faith. New Covenant Theology, which is where most of us "formers" fall--at least within some variation of it--says, as does Hebrews, Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, etc.--that the old covenant was established at Sinai and was God's revelation of His will to Israel until the Seed--Jesus--came (see Galatians 3). Jesus Himself said He fulfilled the law, and Hebrews and 2 Cor. 3 states that it is obsolete and disappearing. Jesus Himself is the "covenant keeper" in the New Covenant. Instead of being based on the promises of mankind, the new covenant is based on God's promises. Jesus, as the representative of the human race, keeps the requirements of the covenant with the Father for us. Because Jesus is also God, His promises and "covenant keeping" cannot fail. When we are born again and made alive in Christ, all the benefits of the new covenant are ours in Christ Jesus. Now here's the "tricky" part many people struggle with. You will not likely find a church that teaches the covenants exactly as you understand them. But that's OK. Having identical views of the covenants is not required for Christian fellowship. The fact that some churches do teach the commandments, however, is a problem for many former Adventists. I personally believe the commandments, along with the entire Mosaic Law, were fulfilled in Christ Jesus. He personally holds us to His own moral standard which is higher, deeper, and more inclusive than the commandments. Not only the laws governing personal behavior were expanded by Jesus (see the Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5-7), but the Sabbath law was as well. Instead of observing one holy day in seven, we now must trust Jesus and surrender to Him with all of our lives in all of our days. Prior to Calvary, God's people could only look forward to their salvation. The Sabbath foreshadowed that completed work. Now we celebrate it every day. Now we are obligated to trust Jesus and rest in Him every day. We no longer have sacred and secular "time". All of our lives are sacred now--because we take the indwelling Jesus into every situation of our lives. No longer do we meet Him at the temple or synagogue where He resides in the Shekinah glory. He resides within us and withing His church--the entire body of believers everywhere. God is the Source of all morality. His morality is eternal and precedes the law. The law was written at Mt. Sinai. God existed eternally, and His morality is eternal. His moral requirements for us are not limited to the commands in the Decalogue. His requirements include every moral imperative listed in the NT as well as the command to come to Him and enter His rest TODAY. In fact, His moral commands go beyond anything acutally written in the NT. They include the things His Spirit instructs you to do in your interactions with others, in your thoughts, in your plans...Now we submit all of ourselves to Him. He teaches us Himself. If you are being fed, if you find fellowship and good Bible teaching at a church, don't be confused if they understand the law differently than you do. What matters most is that you are being fed and that your being spiritually nurtured in a vibrant congregation of brothers and sisters in Christ. Colleen | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 642 Registered: 6-2006  |
Hi Cloudy! I'm a lifelong ELCA. (I'm 40). I can't speak for every Lutheran congregation, but I can tell you from my experience. I learned the 10 C's in Sunday school, but we were always taught and aware that the 10 C's were a covenant to Isreal, and Isreal only. Once in all the years of my going to church (since birth) did our pastor ever do a sermon on the 10 C's. They really don't mean the same to us as the SDA's. It's never been the focus. I think it's taken for granted that we have a new covenant, something that we're all aware of and grateful for, but don't think about on a daily basis because of the focus on Jesus and the assurance of salvation that we have. I think that's probably true of a lot of "regular" Christian churches. About that study, I'm not crazy about the idea of focusing on the 10 C's except of course, to explain that they are part of the old covenant. I say that now because I'm married into an SDA family and I'm so much more aware of the differences. (Thanks to this forum!) 20 years ago I wouldn't have thought twice about it, because again, it just wasn't the focus of our faith. My suggestion, talk to the pastor about your experience with the SDA church. My pastor didn't know a whole lot about them until I told him. Your pastor needs to know. Ask him for an hour or so together so you can explain what you went through and how you feel about the whole situation. That way he can be aware of your situation as well as the cultic teachings of the SDA church. Your friend, Leigh Anne | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6206 Registered: 12-2003 |
Leigh Anne, thank you for your explanation and really good advice. Colleen | ||
| Cloudy Registered user Username: Cloudy Post Number: 8 Registered: 7-2007 |
Thank you all for your responses. I agree that it would be a good idea to speak to the pastor at greater length. I plan to call him on Monday when he is back in the office. | ||
| Cloudy Registered user Username: Cloudy Post Number: 11 Registered: 7-2007 |
After thinking about this a couple days my confusion has increased. I do not feel ready to discuss my experience as an SDA with the Lutheran pastor. There is still too much cognitive dissonance there. I am still having difficulty seeing the difference between an evangelical adventist and an evangelical lutheran. I would not be able to explain/ criticize one to another. When I was in high school (mid 70's) I recall giving an oral report on SDA beliefs in a class. I simply brought in a church bulletin and went through the fundamental beliefs. I believe there were only 12 at the time. (I have not paid attention to the fundamental doctrines over the years and was surprised to see they had multiplied to 28.) I'm sure that at the time SDA's believed that doctrine should only be based on scripture, and that whether EGW was inspired was considered a matter of private conscience. I recall the class being fascinated with the SDA concept of the 2nd coming. The pre-tribulation rapture was very popular at the time which caused a debate among the christians in the class. The current continuum of adventist thought would make it difficult for me to try to explain to some one what SDA's believe. I remember trying to explain it to an agnostic aquaintance circa 1990. I ended up outlining the sabbath and second coming as the distinctive beliefs while emphasizing that some SDAs believe very differently and it was difficult for me to speak for the denomination. However, this continuum of thought exists in all of Christianity. So, this ELCA pastor's sermon may not reflect the ELCA either. I guess what I am saying is that I do not feel competent to explain the SDA beliefs to this pastor, and am not so sure that the pastor would have the same beliefs as Leigh Ann about the covenants and the 10 C's. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1918 Registered: 10-2004  |
Cloudy, In your first post on this thread, you wrote:
The difference between the Lutherans and "evangelical Adventists" is that the Lutherans (and other Christians who believe in keeping the Ten Commandments) really, truly believe that keeping the Ten Commandments has nothing to do with getting, keeping, or maintaining salvation. Also, they do not believe that there is a "final end-time test" centered around the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments have anything to do with "the seal of God" or the "mark of the beast." In other words, just as us formers who believe in New Covenant theology do not believe that our doing good works or following the New Testament's instructions or abstaining from what the New Testament tells us is sin, has anything to do with our salvation--they also do not believe that keeping the Ten Commandments has anything to do with salvation. And just as we believe that as Christians we should follow the New Testament's instructions for living, so they believe that Christians should keep the Ten Commandments. But again, it has nothing to do with salvation. Just as we believe that if we disobey the NT we are sinning, they believe that if we don't keep the Ten Commandments we are sinning--but that doesn't mean we're not saved! You're probably used to Adventists saying "we're supposed to keep the Ten Commandments" and then saying "but it's not in order to to be saved" and not really meaning that. But the Lutherans (and others) really do mean it! I hope this helps to clear up some of the confusion. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on July 08, 2007) |
