| Author |
Message |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 2068
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 11:04 am: |     |
Romans 14 is not talking about those who are living in sin by insisting on committing adultery with the Law, as Paul had already discussed in Romans 7:1-6. Romans 14 is also not talking about those who have not been born again.
Jeremy |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 2069
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 11:21 am: | |
And to add my above post, Gentiles are never given permission anywhere in Scripture to keep the Sabbath.
And Paul told the Galatians:
"You observe days and months and seasons and years.
11I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain." (Galatians 4:10-11 NASB.)
Jeremy |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 2070
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 12:08 pm: | |
Everyone,
Please read the following passage for your consideration on this topic:
quote:5Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God,
6who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was,
8how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?
9For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory.
10For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it.
11For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
12Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech,
13and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away.
14But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.
15But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;
16but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
1Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart,
2but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
4in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 3:5-4:4 NASB.)
Jeremy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 6649
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 12:19 pm: | |
Actually, the point about Romans 14 is, as Gary Inrig points out in his sermon on Romans 14 (available at this link: http://trinityonline.org/cgi-bin/MediaList.cgi?section=&category=Romans), NOT talking about people who are retaining some form of law-keeping because they believe it's necessary in their "Christian experience." He pointed out that Paul was speaking to people who are born again and who are at different levels of maturity. Gary specifically said that if Paul had been addressing people who were holding onto "obeying the law" as part of their salvation, he would have told them to embrace the Lord Jesus. It wouldn't have been an issue about whether or not a day is to be observed.
If someone does not know the Lord Jesus and does not understand that his salvation is secure in Jesus, days are not the issue. That person needs to know Jesus. He/she needs to know that salvation is complete because Jesus has fully completed EVERYTHING needed for their salvation, forgiveness, holiness, and eternal security.
We can't hide under the Romans 14 umbrella when people don't know that Jesus is their salvation. When people don't know Jesus, Romans 14 is not an appropriate discussion. It makes no sense outside a framework of people being born into Jesus and being secure in Him.
As far as being slightly in the dark if one refuses to read, in this case, Sabbath in Christ, the point was in the specific context of Reb having repeatedly said on this forum that he feels ignorant of the facts that would address Adventist arguments for the Sabbath. There are legitimate answers for these arguments, and I believe that all of us who deal with Adventists need to equip ourselves with the Biblical knowledge that addresses their false gospel.
None of us can hide behind Romans 14 as an excuse. The bottom line issue is: do people know Jesus? Adventists who hedge their bets do not know they are fully secure in Jesus. This is not an argument about whether or not a person should observe a day. It is all about whether or not a person has heard the true gospel and knows they can let go of the false teachings they had learned about being saved. They may even be saved--we don't always know--but if they are hedging their bets, they are still living outside the full freedom and security of knowing Jesus. This isn't a discussion of a day; it's a discussion of whether or not people have placed their full faith in Jesus.
As long as we divert the discussion to days, we miss the real issue: have people placed their faith in the Lord Jesus? And as Gary Inrig has also said, when we don't know for sure whether or not a person is saved, our response should be to err on the side of assuming they are not rather than assuming that they are, because if they are not saved, they need to continue to hear the gospel and be brought face-to-face with Jesus. Days are a distraction...
The point of this thread was Reb's explanation of why he's going to church on Saturday. I don't think any of us object to his reasons. As a Christ-follower, he's making this decision for good personal reasons. In fact, I think we've ALL affirmed him in this decision. This argument about "different methods of salvation" is off-topic; no one is suggesting such a thing.
The point of Adventists needing to "deal with" their day is precisely because Adventists DO teach the day will ultimately be the sign of loyalty to Jesus. We have to trust Jesus with everything false that we have been taught. We have to be willing for Jesus to be all we need. Once a person places their faith in Jesus, only then does the issue of "a day" become important for an Adventist. God does ask all of us to trust Him with all the things we formerly thought contributed to our worthiness, righteousness, or fitness for heaven. As long as a person believes obeying the law is a part of one's fitness for salvation, he hasn't placed his faith fully in Jesus.
God knows when we're ready to face these successive levels of trust and truth. He leads us. We must never risk keeping people from facing the issue of trust in Jesus by using Romans 14 as a smoke screen to obscure the issues they might be afraid to face.
Colleen |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 481
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 2:24 pm: | |
Colleen
You said
quote:The point of this thread was Reb's explanation of why he's going to church on Saturday. I don't think any of us object to his reasons. As a Christ-follower, he's making this decision for good personal reasons. In fact, I think we've ALL affirmed him in this decision.
Take a look at Jeremy's post above yours. He said,
quote:And to add my above post, Gentiles are never given permission anywhere in Scripture to keep the Sabbath.
From what I know Reb is not a jew, and the SDB church is composed of gentiles. According to what Jeremy said, they have no permission to keep the sabbath, including Reb. How Jeremy affirms Reb in his decision to worship at the SDB church by saying that the Scripture nowhere allows a gentile to keep the sabbath? Is this not a denial of Romans 14, which, at least, Reb was permitted to apply to himself? Is this not saying indirectly, that Reb is not in harmony with the gospel, that he's in adultery with the law, since he has no permission to keep the sabbath?
Collen, you said regarding the reasons Reb decided to worship on saturday, that nobody objected to his reasons, and ALL affirmed him in this decision
quote:I don't think any of us object to his reasons. As a Christ-follower, he's making this decision for good personal reasons. In fact, I think we've ALL affirmed him in this decision. .
The chief reason Reb offered for going to worship on sabbath was to keep peace with his wife. He said,
quote: I COULD start worshipping on Sunday IF I wished IF I wanted to disrupt the peace in my home which I do not wish to do.
quote:I know I COULD choose to worship on Sunday anyway but I would risk antagonising her to the point she would close her ears to the Gospel I am trying to witness to her.
Colleen, I don't know if you realize or not, but you objected directly to the reason he offered. On this thread is the post number 6645 which prompted me to exit from my silence on this forum, in which you objected directly to his reasons, and objected directly to his decision of keeping peace in home by worshiping on sabbath. You said,
quote:So as you say you're not going to make a big deal out of the Sabbath in order not to antagonize your wife, you're actually welcome to do that, but she will interpet that differently than the way you intend it.
Second, loving your wife as Christ loves the church does not mean "keeping the peace". A peacemaker is completely different from a peace-keeper. Peacemakers actually inter the "fray" and encourage people to respect and love one another. Peace-keepers are weak or frightened people who refuse confrontation. Trying to be keep the peace with your wife is not loving her as Christ loves the church. Jesus loves us by persisting in confronting us with the truth.
You had questioned precisely his decision not to confront his wife regarding the sabbath, and questioned his way of loving his wife. Finally you said:
quote:Your waiting will not impress her. It will only give her false hope. As long as she doesn't see you actually grappling with the truth of all this, she will imagine that you are "calming down" and letting it go.
Again, how you affirmed his decision by telling him that he's giving a false hope to his wife?
Gabriel |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 2073
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 2:39 pm: | |
Jackob,
Reb has stated on this forum that he does NOT keep the sabbath and that he actively BREAKS the sabbath. He simply goes to church on Saturday.
Jeremy |
Stevendi
Registered user
Username: Stevendi
Post Number: 224
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 2:55 pm: | |
Gabriel,
My question was to you and in general about believers in the Sabbath. Where do you get the impression that I was questioning Reb's honesty?
steve |
Stevendi
Registered user
Username: Stevendi
Post Number: 225
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 3:11 pm: | |
Well, Reb, how's it feel to be in the center ring? For me, I'm going to another circus (subject). Like Adventism, this subject makes me tired. For the record, Colleen is giving you good information to consider, as have others. My final and free advice would be to not post any more personal-type issues in your life. Perhaps a Christian counselor would be helpful to get you and your wife's journey more in sync.
God Bless you brother, it hasn't been easy for any of us. We all need to continue to pray for one another. Each of us have plenty of issues and sins to confess and repent over. Your mistakes, if any, are no worse than anyone else's. This forum can become like a soap opera if we are not careful and respectful of one another.
steve |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 482
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 3:27 pm: | |
Jeremy,
Reb said that he breaks the sabbath because nobody could keep it. I'm not sure if this is not simply an admission of his failure to keep the sabbath, or implies that he's only going to the church on that day. But you may be right regarding Reb's position.
Putting Reb's particular situation away, it still remains the SDB church and Romans 14. Does Romans 14 give permission only to the jews to keep the sabbath? If only the jews are permitted to keep the sabbath, the entire SDB church is doing what God does not permit and we cannot apply Romans 14 to them. to be consistent, we will be under the obligation to say that the SDB believers are in adultery with the law, and are promoting the galatian heresy.
As far as I remember, nobody questioned SDB for its position. Nevertheless, your position "no gentile allowed to keep the sabbath" puts the SDB church in the category of a church which does what God forbids (it has not permission from God to keep the sabbath). Maybe you were not aware about the implications of your affirmation, still this is the inevitable conclusion.
Gabriel |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 2074
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 3:43 pm: | |
Jackob,
Reb's exact quote was:
quote:I don't have any questions about the Sabbath and I break it without guilt. I go to Church on that day yes, but I don't "keep" the Sabbath I understand that can't be done and we must rest in Christ as our Sabbath.
--http://64.226.233.122/discus/messages/11/5998.html?1187975576
Regarding the SDB position:
Yes, people have criticized the SDB position on here.
Probably almost all (if not all) of us on here would agree that the SDB church is wrong for teaching people that they have to keep the Law/Ten Commandments/Sabbath. Do you believe the SDB church is NOT wrong for teaching that Christians are required to keep the sabbath? Whether or not you believe that their keeping of the sabbath is wrong, you must certainly believe that their teaching that Christians are required to keep the sabbath is wrong, correct?
But yes, the SDB position of law-keeping is definitely spiritual adultery according to Romans 7:1-6. The SDB church admits that they believe people are under the Law, that they have to keep the Law, that they have to keep the Sabbath because the Law says so, etc. Well, that is exactly what Paul condemns as spiritual adultery in Romans 7. Again, Paul would not contradict himself seven chapters later and say in Romans 14 that it is fine for people to keep a day if they're putting themselves under the Law.
Regarding the Galatian heresy: the SDB church is teaching part of it, although they do not teach that it has anything to do with salvation like the Galatian Judaizers taught.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on August 25, 2007) |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 483
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 8:38 pm: | |
Jeremy,
I don't agree with SDB position, of course, I consider that Romans 14 apply to them, Your position that Romans 14 does not apply to them surprised me.
Adultery with the law implies legalism, as far as I know, SDB church was not accused of legalism, and was considered to be a christian church, which believes the gospel and which is not a legalistic church.
Beside SDB, in general, protestant churches consider the Decalogue to be still a part of the life of a christian. Does this imply that they are legalists too? Even apostle Paul, in Romans 7 speaks about the law
quote:For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Romans 7:22,23
In the first part of the chapter he spoke about adultery with the law, and now he speaks about it as "the law of my mind" and that he "delights in the law". Obviously Paul was not a legalist and was not committing adultery with the law. There is a difference between legalism, and striving to obey the law with a good motivation.
Gabriel |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 484
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 8:45 pm: | |
Steve,
You suggested the situation in which a sabbath keeper was hiding from truth by refusing to study the sabbath issue, in the present case Reb, when he offered another reason for his refusal of reading "Sabbath in Christ"
quote:Let me ask you a question. Would you say that any brand of Sabbath-keeper should be open to any study of the Sabbath, pro or con? If not, what are they hiding behind? If so, then what's the problem?
If you say that this is not the situation, I would change my mind, but according to your question, you left yourself open to misunderstandings.
Gabriel
Gabriel |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 1613
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 9:02 pm: | |
Can we consider there are 'potentially' OTHER possible reasons someone might suggest a "sunday" church? Consider my thoughts....He has said he can't consistently go to the SDB church because he goes to the SDA church to honor his wife on certain Saturdays. Any of us with any length of time in a church know it's hard to have consistent fellowship with intermittent attendance. Further, since he has to take his son to the SDA church to keep his wife happy, he cannot stay after and fellowship with the members. My church does series...right now we're studying Joshua. It's hard to go through a book verse by verse if you miss every other week. You miss a lot of context of the series that way. It seems, suggesting he find a 'sunday' church opens a box he does not want to open for reasons that are his. To my ears, it seems he's saying "I'll do anything God wants me to do as long as I can go to church on Saturday". But whether or not that is an accurate assessment of his position, I don't know. But the only thing I think about a "sunday' church experience is he could do it every week, enabling him to get a little more inimately involved potentially and bring a consistent feeding for himself. It would, also, open a lot of opportunities for him that do not exist if he limits God to find him a church with services on Saturday.
I was raised in a baptist church for the most part (though I certainly visited with others at other churches). When I moved to my last house after my divorce, I wanted God to find a church for me without my childhood barriers in the way. I went to a variety of denominations and non-denominations and waited for God to tell me which one....and he did. It was not a 'denomination' I had ever been associated with before. I would have missed what God had for me had I kept him in my box of a baptist variety church.
I do not know anything about the SDB church, but I do know there are a lot of options for good, Bible-based teaching available in many communities on Sundays. That is the only reason I would see a genuine benefit for him to find a fellowship he could regularly participate with and be able to live the 'one anothers' in a church community. While I recognize he chooses to limit himself for his wife, my concern is his own spiritual growth and strength. He needs to be strong and well-grounded in the truth himself if he's ever going to be a consistent witness for his family.
I hope he hasn't boxed God in by saying God can only reach his wife if he stays in a Saturday church. Or that he will follow God only as long as God leaves him at a Saturday church, when he isn't honoring his wife in the adventist church. I speak these thoughts from personal experience, not in judgment of Reb. His situation is merely the springboard for greater consideration. Can he grow with such intermittent feeding and has he put God in a box of where he can operate. Those are questions for Reb (or anyone) to consider honestly before God, not me or any of us here. I had to ask them of myself, that's why I know the exploration can provide personal insight on how much of my life I'm willing to let God run and who do I really 'serve'.
Growth is a lifelong adventure. I haven't arrived yet, but hope my experiences and processes (positive and negative) could benefit someone else. I give everyone here enough grace to have the same or similar motives. |
Snowboardingmom
Registered user
Username: Snowboardingmom
Post Number: 310
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 9:11 pm: | |
Jackob, you said, "There is a difference between legalism, and striving to obey the law with good motivation."
Actually, I get what you're trying to say, but I just want to make a point that in my "new" life in Christ, under the New Covenant, I don't strive to obey the law, even with good motivation. In fact, I don't even think of the "law" or decalogue at all! I believe I do live in obedience to it (as a result of my life in Christ), but it isn't because I strive to with good motivation. As a Christ follower, I "strive" to be sensitive to the Spirit in all that I do. I try (often pathetically) to walk in obedience to what God, through Himself indwelled in me, is telling me to do. What He asks of me is WAY bigger and more encompassing (and often more challenging!) than the decalogue.
I agree, to some degree, that "there is a difference between legalism and striving to obey the law with good motivation." But don't you think that if the Law specifically becomes PART of our focus (even if not entirely our focus), it is easy to begin to fall into legalism?
I guess it's probably not the greatest thing to admit, but quite honestly, the Law isn't even on my mind. But I can say with confidence that because of His Spirit in me, His "ways" are. Now whether I'm successful at walking in those ways--well that's another story!  Praise God for His grace that covers us in our humanness!
Grace |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 993
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 10:54 pm: | |
Grace, thank you for writing that -- it's been our experience as well (my wife's, mine, and her sister's).
*****
Gabriel, "strong man of God",
quote:Renouncing sabbath keeping is the best way for an adventist to deal with legalism associated with sabbath keeping. My objection is that this is not the ONLY way in which an adventist can trust fully in the grace of God, and not always an adventist who remains a sabbath keeper is "hedging his bets". It can be true in many cases, but it also can not be true. It is better to renounce sabbath keeper if you were an adventist, but it is not the only way in which legalism can be eliminated from a life which was involved in the legalism of adventism. My plea was not to jump to the conclusion "they are hedging their bets since they still cling to the sabbath, they keep it just in case it is truth."
I wouldn't limit God and say it's the only way, either. Yet in terms of spiritual warfare, we do know that "Sabbath" is a spiritual stronghold for Adventists. This is the major reason that we all "go for the jugular", so to speak. "Sabbath" is more than worshiping on a day for Adventists -- it represents not only the whole of Old Covenant bondage, but bondage to the Law, bondage to Ellen White, bondage to fear of the End Times, etc. In a way it is effectively the cornerstone and capstone of Adventist theology. Pulling it out Biblically collapses the foundation & claim.
In short, imagine there is a patient who has multiple physical problems caused by a malignant tumor. Wouldn't the surgeon simply want to go straight for the tumor itself?
That said, I think we have often been a bit jumpy towards Reb. I liked what Steve said above, which is worth repeating:
quote:Well, Reb, how's it feel to be in the center ring? For me, I'm going to another circus (subject). Like Adventism, this subject makes me tired. For the record, Colleen is giving you good information to consider, as have others. My final and free advice would be to not post any more personal-type issues in your life. Perhaps a Christian counselor would be helpful to get you and your wife's journey more in sync.
God Bless you brother, it hasn't been easy for any of us. We all need to continue to pray for one another. Each of us have plenty of issues and sins to confess and repent over. Your mistakes, if any, are no worse than anyone else's. This forum can become like a soap opera if we are not careful and respectful of one another.
Reb, we're your brothers & sisters, but please forgive us for overstepping at times.
Last night I was thinking about this, about how we're often jumpy around certain subjects. It's understandable, but it's also good to try and keep it in check.
For example, drinking alcohol is not forbidden Biblically nor is it evil. But abusing alcohol is (and in fact, what happens then is alcohol abuses you). If a group of people recovering from alcoholism has one member who decides to start drinking moderately, it is natural for the rest of the people to be worried about him. Or, if someone comes among a group of recovering alcoholics and starts talking about how it is okay for people to drink alcohol, it is normal for the recovering people to be a bit edgy about what he's saying, you know? It may be true, but in context -- among people who have been abused by it so much -- it is appropriate to take a wide look at the situation and perhaps wait on emphasizing the point until recovery has progressed further.
Maybe in the same way (somewhat), we were all raised abusing the "Sabbath" (or being abused by). Yes, it is permissable for Christians to privately keep holy days -- not only Sabbath, but New Moons, Pesach, Sukkot, Yom Kippur, etc. (although in context, Romans 14 does refer to Jewish Christians, not to Gentile Christians, since the book of Romans is written to a mixed audience which no doubt experienced more than a few arguments between the two groups).
However, because "Sabbath" was a spiritual stronghold in Adventism, representing far more than mere Sabbath-keeping, what Colleen said is very true:
quote:We can't hide under the Romans 14 umbrella when people don't know that Jesus is their salvation. When people don't know Jesus, Romans 14 is not an appropriate discussion. It makes no sense outside a framework of people being born into Jesus and being secure in Him.
Anyhow, it is for all these reasons that more than a few of us are a little jumpy around the topic of permissable Sabbath observing. It is firstly because we're all recovering, but more importantly it is because "Sabbath" is more than "Sabbath" in Adventism, and we understandably want to be double-sure that all of the "tumor" is out.
Anyway, Reb, please forgive us for being a little jumpy. But I know you won't be sorry for reading "Sabbath in Christ" -- it's not just about "Sabbath", if you know what I mean.
Bless you again, brother, as you continue following God and interceding for your family. |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 4198
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 11:04 pm: | |
Ramone,
Thanks for your words about the Sabbath being a touchy point for us formers. It is because we are recovering from adventism.
Reb,
Just continue to read and study your Bible. When you are ready, read Sabbath in Christ, but it is not a must do. I did not read any former writings until I had been out for two years. I spent those two years in the Bible.
Oh, we do serve an awesome God.
Diana |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 994
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 11:29 pm: | |
You know, the odd thing is, when writing that I was thinking of the reverse point:
That "Sabbath" is a touchy point for Christians. The reason is that so many Christians believe Sabbath (Saturday or Sunday) is compulsory. There is a vast amount of ignorance on the subject -- which leaves many Christians suceptible to things like Adventism, not to mention opens the door to legalism. While it is true that many Sunday-Sabbath-keeping Christians know the truth of the Gospel, I am not comfortable with any of them imposing Sabbath-keeping (Sunday or Saturday) in their congregations. I want everyone to know what Sabbatismos really means.
Just like very few of us here are comfortable with hearing people preach about compulsory "tithing", we are also uncomfortable about compulsory "Sabbathing". Not only is such a thing a bondage, but the mere incorrectness of it irritates us (and for that we must pray for patience, because it's easy to jump for the jugular -- yet the people are more important!).
All of us have our pet-areas -- the doctrines & teachings that we can't resist jumping on to correct. For some it is Sabbath, others the New Covenant, and others want to talk about how Moral Laws are still applicable, and still others tithing, and others God's sovereignty. In all these things we each need God's grace and patience, and above all His love -- to see that the people we're talking to are worth waiting for His timing on, and that they themselves are more valuable than the correct information.
Anyway, I believe the "Sabbath", "Law" and "New Covenant" issues are things that much of Christianity (particularly in the United States) is in great need of better understanding about, and often deliverance from as well. The "veil" takes a long time to fully come off for all of us.
But thank God that dim beholdings are sufficient to transform us! "Behold as in a mirror" refers to an ancient mirror (as is mentioned in 1 Cor.13), so even though we behold Christ dimly, He changes us. It is His clear beholding of us that makes all the difference.
Blessings to all in Jesus! |
Stevendi
Registered user
Username: Stevendi
Post Number: 226
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 8:47 am: | |
Gabriel,
OK, let me be direct. If a "sabbath-keeper" is not open to questions and discussions of the doctrine of sabbath and law, then they are hiding something. It could be doubt, fear, pride, self righteousness, etc. We all are sinners because we hide behind our efforts to handle things on our own rather than giving God first call. That includes me, you, Reb, his wife, everyone. The Sabbath thing can just as easily be a fig leaf attempt to self-protect as alcohol, anger, abuse, perverse sex, etc. It's all sin. When we recognize our efforts to protect ourselves from immediate and long range harm (comfort zone)are sin, then we can deal with God in a meaningful relationship. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about Reb's specific situation, I'm not calling him a liar.
steve |
Larry
Registered user
Username: Larry
Post Number: 124
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 2:56 pm: | |
I am reminded of a program I once saw about two female witches that left the occult for Christiandom. They related how every year around Halloween time they get these funny feelings and urges, because of their past involvement etc.
Ask yourself whether these ex-witches should or should not be purchasing little black cat and jackolantern style candies to bring into their homes, given their past involvement and what these symbols meant to them. I buy the stuff occassionally, but only AFTER halloween is over with, because they are 75% discounted. It's a cheap sweet!
With you and me, these candies do not make us feel any twinges of anything other than diabetes, but they represent much more to the two ex-witches.
Similarly, the adventist people have been involved with a devilish lie concerning the Jewish sabbath, and they REALLY believe this thing. Now it seems like an act of faith for an exadventist to shun the former perverseness, opting to meet with other Christians and fellowship on Sunday, or whenever, maybe Wednesday nite for worshipping with others.
In Pauls day, there seemed to be no lies involving the sabbath. Perhaps the devil had not yet hatched the plan to take over the old covenant. Whatever. It is apparent that he now has taken it over. Now we have lies connected with the Jewish sabbath and old covenant in general and sda doctrines in specific.
Reb should probably quit bringing home this style candy for his wife, probably, as it represents the old order to her. |
Reb
Registered user
Username: Reb
Post Number: 640
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 7:22 am: | |
Just so you know, I appreaciate the advice even that that I may not agree with and I do not take offence to anything that has been said nor do I feel like anyone is overstepping.
I feel I am where God wants me right now. I went to the SDB Church this Sabbath and will continue to do so, I have found a home there spiritually.
Can't do the "Sunday" Church thing right now it would ruin any chance I have of witnessing the Gospel to my wife. I would have to do it "under the radar" and the guilt I would feel about "sneaking" it is something I cannot handle. Been there, done that when I was trying the Eastern Orthodox Church(which I really like) early in my journey out of Adventism. I loved the Orthodox Church but the guilt I felt about going there "under the radar" made me stop going.
This is ultimately between the Holy Spirit, my wife and myself. Yes I would love to read Dale's book and will do so when I feel the time is right. I believe sooner or later the Holy Sprit will give my wife a desire fot the true Gospel. I have to wait on the Lord and believe. |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 174
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 8:48 am: | |
I think you have a point, Reb. Awhile back there was a family reunion of some of my relatives. We were to get together on a Sunday morning at an all-you-can-eat restuarant. Most of them were Adventist, so I wrote out several papers of why I'd left the Adventist church (with plenty of scripture to show them why what the Adventists believe isn't Biblical), to give them. Though I understand that there arn't any "unclean" meats anymore, (since the wall between Jew and Gentile has been torn down - most of you know that the "unclean" meats represented "unclean" people) I was carefull not to eat any of the bacon or ham available. I felt that eating it would have undermined my witness to them. (The scrambled eggs I got had little burn spots on them which resembled bacon bits. I saw one of my aunts staring at my plate. I should have explained that those weren't bacon - oh well.)
Anyway, I did get to pass out my papers to the relatives there (though I did miss the bacon and my church service).
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the salvation of souls is infinitely more important than our comfort.
Dianne |
Reb
Registered user
Username: Reb
Post Number: 642
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 9:02 am: | |
Exactly, Dianne. And even though I KNOW there is nothing wrong with going to Church on Sunday and have no problem with it, it would undermine my witness to my wife and to my Adventist friends.
I just started a thread in the Members Only section about how I am witnessing the Gospel and even "getting through" to some of my Adventist friends, which might not be happening were I going to a Sunday Church at this point in time. |
Sara
Registered user
Username: Sara
Post Number: 46
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 12:30 pm: | |
Reb,
I wondered how it was for you to have everyone talking "about" your situation...
I have been praying, and will continue to pray for you at this time. Transition is hard. If it were easy to walk away from Adventism, we wouldn't need a forum like this, and other types of support.
Taking ANY step away from Adventism is a big deal. God must give us courage for that. I applaud the step(s) you have taken. Worshipping at any other church was huge for me personally.
Turning away from SDA, and toward Jesus alone, and then beginning to take steps, whether they are baby steps or giant steps, is just a major upheaval. It is huge, huge, huge! Especially without full support of your spouse.
I pray you have peace. I pray God will give you joy, as you discover more of the good news of the Gospel. I pray for your marriage.
Thank you for being open, and I ask God to grant His blessings along the road. God is faithful to finish His good work in you, and in his timetable.
I have plenty of opinions about your situation--I doubt you need another opinion. I agree and disagree with a lot that has been said, however, at this point, I just want to cheer you on, and encourage you in the Lord.
Sara |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 2078
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 1:10 pm: | |
Hi Larry,
You wrote: "In Pauls day, there seemed to be no lies involving the sabbath. Perhaps the devil had not yet hatched the plan to take over the old covenant."
Actually, Paul told the Galatians, who were being told by the Judaizers that they needed to keep the Law/Old Covenant:
quote:"You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?" (Galatians 3:1-3 NASB.)
And he also told them:
quote:"However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.
9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
10You observe days and months and seasons and years.
11I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain." (Galatians 3:8-11 NASB.)
Jeremy |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 2079
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 2:00 pm: | |
Gabriel,
You wrote:
quote:Even apostle Paul, in Romans 7 speaks about the law
quote:For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Romans 7:22,23
In the first part of the chapter he spoke about adultery with the law, and now he speaks about it as "the law of my mind" and that he "delights in the law". Obviously Paul was not a legalist and was not committing adultery with the law. There is a difference between legalism, and striving to obey the law with a good motivation.
One of the questions that needs to be asked is: which Law are we talking about? You can't just take a verse out of context and assume it means a certain thing without looking at the contextual understanding.
In verse 2 of chapter 8 he explains that he serves "the law of God" through "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" NOT the Mosaic/OT Law. He says:
quote:"25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.
1Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Romans 7:25-8:4 NASB.)
When he speaks of "the Law"--that is when he is talking about the Mosaic/OT Law. Again, we should not expect him to contradict what he had just written in the first part of Romans 7:
quote:"But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:6 NIV.)
"The Law of God" does NOT = "the Mosaic/OT Law." For a good explanation of this, see Chris's post from his covenants study here and the diagram he linked to here.
Also, regarding your statement about "striving to obey the law":
The Bible says that if we attempt to keep the Law, we must keep ALL of it--the whole entire Law, all 613 commandments:
quote:"For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM." (Galatians 3:10 NASB.)
"And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law." (Galatians 5:3 NASB.)
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all." (James 2:10 NASB.)
How much better to instead obey God's command to "CAST OUT" the Old Covenant/Ten Commandments/Mosaic Law in Galatians 4:21-31 and heed His command in Galatians 5:1:
"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery." (Galatians 5:1 NASB.)
Jeremy |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 4207
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 6:38 pm: | |
Reb,
I am all for you doing the sabbath as you are doing. Who am I to say that God is not leading you??? I will continue to pray for you and your witness to your wife and SDA friends.
Isn't our God awesome.
Diana |
Reb
Registered user
Username: Reb
Post Number: 645
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 6:41 am: | |
Thanks, Diana. What I am doing right now really seems to be giving me the chance to witness to my wife and my SDA friends. I need to be where I am at right now.
Yes, our God IS awesome. |
Patriar
Registered user
Username: Patriar
Post Number: 340
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 7:20 am: | |
Our pastor, Bryan Clark of Lincoln Berean Church, makes an excellent opening to Galatians 3 when he says that we often think that legalism applies only to justification. It does not. Legalism is alive and well in true Christian churches. Clark says (my paraphrase) in his opinion, it is a leading problem in the church today.
Look again at Galatians 3:3
"Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?"
This is a HUGE issue. It's not one to be glossed over. If Christ is sufficient for justification, then He is sufficient for sanctification. We do not need an EXTERNAL Law to guide us. Snowboardingmom's testimony is precisely what I'm talking about. And I agree, I don't live with an eye towards the OT Law, ever. And I'm so thankful for His mercies. The sin He has shown me in my life goes WAY beyond what the 10 Commandments covered. Let's just leave it at that.
"HE who began a good work in you WILL CARRY IT ON TO COMPLETION UNTIL THE DAY OF JESUS CHRIST." Phil. 1:6 NASB
I'm not big on paraphrases even the Message, but I do like the way it translates that verse.
"There has never been the slightest doubt in my mind that the God who started this great work in you would keep at it and bring it to a flourishing finish on the very day Christ Jesus appears."
He won't just finish it, He'll finish it in style.
Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, and since Paul wrote Galatians and Romans, we know that he wouldn't have taught something different in each book.
Patria
(Message edited by patriar on August 28, 2007) |
|
