| Author | Message | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1751 Registered: 10-2002  |
Someone posted up a very good website called "Moses Wrote About Me" on Facebook, and I was startled by two things I read on the site in this article. I am still reeling from these two sections of the article which I've quoted below! The full ramifications haven't hit me yet. Two pillar-like assumptions just got pulled out from under me, you know? This first section is astounding because, suddenly, I realize that the idea of the Ten Commandments pre-existing Sinai did not originate from Adventism: Firstly, Adventism owes a great debt and one of its loudest arguments to the Westminster Confession of Faith -- to the Reformed/Calvinist/Covenant-Theology idea of the law. It was not Ellen White who came up with the idea of the Ten Commandments pre-existing Sinai, but it was the Westminster Confession. It is difficult for WCF/Covenant theologians & believers to get ahold of the New Covenant's perspective on "law", even if they are grounded on "grace". Adventists may have a hard time grounding on "grace", but the misunderstanding of "law" is not originally their own -- it is a stronghold inherited from the WCF (made stronger and more focused because of Sabbatarianism, and the Investigative Judgment which further adds the motivating factor of fear to that). As shocking as that was, however, I was more shocked when I read another part of the same article. Naturally I assumed (I think with most other Christians!) that the basis of the Old Covenant Law was the Ten Commandments (or "moral law"), but... The reason this section is so earth-shattering to me is that it somehow exposes this paradigm that I think we all have -- the idea that the "Law" was based on morality. Yes, the purpose of the Law was to point out sin (through ancient Israel's example). However, the foundation of this "pointing out of sin" was not the transgression of commandments, but rather the priesthood. The priesthood was the ultimate basis of the Old Covenant Law, the ultimate basis of pointing out sin. Yes, the commandments pointed out sin, too, but ultimately those commandments were resting on top of the foundation of the priesthood. The priesthood -- the fact that we needed an intercessor with God. The priesthood -- the fact that we could not approach God. The priesthood -- the sacrifices that the priest had to make. The bottom line for showing us our sins was DEATH, the death of innocent lambs... ...the death of THE LAMB of God. This means that the "conviction" of sin in the Old Covenant was on the same basis as the conviction of sin is in the New Covenant: Bless you in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1845 Registered: 8-2004  |
WOW! This explains a lot . . . | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1752 Registered: 10-2002 |
I'm still in shock... especially this part: The example with the threefold distinction (moral, ceremonial, civil) is amazing. The center of things was the ceremonial, not the "moral". That is incredible! And it is true! I can't completely see how it is true in the Old Covenant -- I'll need to do some imaginative thinking to try to "crawl in the skins" of the Old Testament Israelites and see how they saw it. But I can see how it is true in the New Covenant! Because when calling people to "obedience", the apostles appealed to the gospel, to the cross, to do as Christ did for us. And in the highest "moral" command ever given to mankind, Jesus Christ appealed to Himself instead of to a law: "Love one another as I have loved you." In the New Covenant, Jesus --the Priest/Sacrifice/Sabbath-- is the fountain from which all morality flows, both with individual morality and also in civil situations (society). Now think of the ramifications of this on our attempts to re-use or re-invent Old Covenant laws/morality! The center pillar of the Old Covenant was the ceremonial, not the moral. The moral rested upon the ceremonial! So what happens when we re-institute OC "moral laws" without the center pillar of the OC? (I'm still getting my head around that one!) Additionally, if the moral & civil were not the core of the Law, but rather the ceremonial, then we can understand yet another way in which "the Sabbath day" was at the core of the Ten Commandments! Not only was the Sabbath at the "center" of the 10C when you count the number of Hebrew words, but spiritually the Sabbath was also at the center of the 10C! Consider! The Sabbath remembered a time (in Eden) in which none of the other commandments were necessary! The Sabbath recalled a time before sin entered the world through Adam. The Sabbath recalled a time of perfection, a time of being naked and yet unashamed before God. The Sabbath held the memory of righteousness. And elsewhere in the Law when telling them to keep Sabbath, God said to Israel, "Keep the Sabbath as a sign that I the Lord sanctify you." In other words, the Sabbath told Israel that "God makes you holy!" Holiness did not and could not come through the keeping of the other 9 commandments --- holiness could not come through "moral" laws. (The promise of) Holiness came through the ceremonial laws! This is why the Sabbath was the center of the Ten Commandments, physically and spiritually! And that is why "the law made nothing perfect". The Ten Commandments without the Sabbath are like the Mosaic Law without the priests & sacrifices. It's just not itself without its center pillar! And indeed, without the promise of God's holiness, what is left of the 10C but death? Ironically, if we stake our "moral foundation" today on the Ten Commandments, we are doing something that not even the Old Covenant called for! The Old Covenant ultimately had its foundation --even it's moral foundation-- on the priesthood, not on the commandments themselves. And in the same way, the New Covenant has its moral foundation on Jesus Christ, not on 'moral' commandments. Yes, there are obvious 'moral' things that are true and timeless. But these things are timeless simply because they rest on the gospel of Jesus Christ! The gospel does not rest on moral commands or morality itself, but rather morality rests on the gospel! I'd better go to bed. Bless you in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1848 Registered: 8-2004 |
Even the Old Covenant was all about Jesus! | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 429 Registered: 1-2004  |
If the basis of the law in the Old Covenant was the priesthood, then the "church" before Christ was living and active. Spirituality was not properly based on following a written code. If a person wanted to interact with God, he participated in the life of the church. He didn't go read the law and try to figure out what God wanted, but rather went to the foundation, the priests. This is SO eastern... interaction with a living organism rather than study of a book. It's meeting the person rather than studying their resume. God ordained the Old Covenant priesthood, and then God sent Jesus to be the fulfilment of the priesthood and to be our only high priest. But at least in Eastern Christianity, the method of knowing God has not changed from the live interaction model. It has not become knowledge by close study of the written description of God, however valuable this study may be. God is too big to be successfully contained by words. Jeremiah | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1756 Registered: 10-2002 |
...or by human priests representing Him, but is now accessible directly through the Holy Spirit.  | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 196 Registered: 8-2005 |
I posted that. To a certain extent SDAism is "consistent" Covenant Theology. The WCF just allows for Sunday as a "Christian Sabbath". | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1757 Registered: 10-2002 |
Thanks, Brian, for posting it on Facebook. I couldn't remember your name here on FAF so I didn't want to credit the wrong "Brian"! You're right... SDA takes Covenant Theology's view of the law more consistently than Covenant Theology itself does. This really exposes the fact that CT is not actually a systematic method of interpretation, but is based on the tradition of Calvinism and the Westminster Confession. In other words, it is based on the views that Calvin had and those who followed after him. That is why the "system" of CT is not able to comfortably handle expansion or correction -- it can't transcend the views that its founders had. This is generally the trouble with any kind of "system". It sets up camp at its definitions of Biblical truths, and can't handle it when one of its pillars is exegetically shown to be inaccurate. This is why it is important to ultimately adhere to God alone and His word alone, instead of to a certain system or denomination. | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 765 Registered: 11-2007  |
I knew the part about Covenant Theology But that is WOW - the thing about the ceremonial being the center of the Torah. Even being in the Hebrew Roots for years, that part never really hit me. We took the law as a whole - and no longer divided it into categories, but as a whole, I can really see that Torah was then, very much based on the priesthood. Amazing. I'll have to chew on that for awhile. It's easy for us to miss that because we don't see the temple and magnitude of the sacrifices that were offered every day, and during feasts - it was unimaginable. Also been immersed in John for awhile, and I had just read the verse you quoted above. Joh 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. Joh 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: Joh 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; Joh 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; Joh 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. It's all centered on Jesus, sin and righteousness both! No mention of the law. Goes so well with Paul's words - "Now righteousness apart from the law.." It's just SOOO clear now. The whole gospel of John is blowing my mind right now. I want to just go jump in and live there for awhile.. | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 430 Registered: 1-2004 |
According to Ignatius of Antioch, the rejection of clergy in the Church has pride at it's root. This is not to say that priests stand between God and the people, in the sense that most Evangelicals think of it.
You'd have thought Onesimus would object to this teaching, if it contradicted the teaching of Paul. And if one is to say that the churches of Ephesus and Antioch had fallen into apostasy this early, it lays a strong foundation for starting from scratch doctrinally as did the SDAs. Everything becomes up for grabs! Jeremiah | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9510 Registered: 12-2003  |
Ramone, Yes--but I think the Westminster Confession gets the formation of the law a little wrong, too. First, the Bible simply doesn't say God gave Adam a covenant of works. God gave Adam a command not to eat of the tree—and he broke the command. At Sinai God gave the law first—and the priesthood was included in the law. It was, in fact, inseparable from the law. The law depended on the priests, and the priests depended on the law. The entire thing was a shadow. A few years ago R. K. MacGregor Wright wrote a very interesting article for Proclamation called "The Unity of the Law: What Was Nailed to the Cross?" In it he explains when the law was subdivided into moral, ceremonial, and civil components. It happened during the 3-4th centuries and was related to certain Greek philosophical ideas. You can read it in this issue: http://lifeassuranceministries.org/Proclamation2005_JulAug.pdf The idea that God made a covenant of works with Adam is part of the structure developed on which to build covenant theology. Actually, the law was not based, as I understand it, on either morality or on the priesthood. The law was literally a specific covenant made with Israel; the 10 Commandments were the literal words of the covenant, or the "abstract" or basic statement of the covenant; the rest of the law comprised the specific details of how the covenant was to be kept. The priesthood was integral to the law: it couldn't function without the law—and vice versa. The priesthood did not precede the law but was the "working component" of the law. Morality, however, is eternal and is intrinsic to God. The OT law was never necessary to have morality. Romans 1 and 2 point out that morality is possible even where there is no law—among the pre-cross Gentiles. But the New Covenant still has law—it's just a change in the law. With a change in the priesthood came a change in the law—and now, with the eternal priesthood realized in Jesus, we also have the eternal Law of Christ mediated not by a written law but by the indwelling Holy Spirit. I totally agree with your conclusion: SDA takes Covenant Theology's view of the law more consistently than Covenant Theology itself does. This really exposes the fact that CT is not actually a systematic method of interpretation, but is based on the tradition of Calvinism and the Westminster Confession. In other words, it is based on the views that Calvin had and those who followed after him. That is why the "system" of CT is not able to comfortably handle expansion or correction -- it can't transcend the views that its founders had. This is generally the trouble with any kind of "system". It sets up camp at its definitions of Biblical truths, and can't handle it when one of its pillars is exegetically shown to be inaccurate. This is why it is important to ultimately adhere to God alone and His word alone, instead of to a certain system or denomination. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1758 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jeremiah, if I were to approach things in the "by the book only" approach you mentioned above, then I think I would agree with what you've written above, that things must be based on the church fathers' traditions. However, I've taken the based-on-the-living-Priest approach, and He's a darn good teacher of what He's written in the Scriptures. If the basis of the church is representatives of Christ and tradition, then we don't have as much "living" interaction with the Living One. Interacting with tradition and representatives is not the same as interacting with the Living One Himself. A minister once said, "God has no grandchildren; each generation is meant to experience the manifest presence of God." I agree. The basis of the Old Covenant law was the priesthood, as Hebrews wrote. However, the priesthood was a shadow of Christ. The former regulation was set aside and replaced by Jesus Christ. Not by Christ and a "new priesthood" -- not by the erection of new shadows, but by the Light Himself. (Though it was speaking of the common problem with "images", this picture also applies to needing "representatives".) Eastern Orthodoxy, like Judaism, has many man-made traditions. Many of them are beautiful and valuable, but they are still traditions. God is not against tradition, but we are not to lock one another into man-made traditions. Synagogues, Rabbis, Church buildings, Church clergy... they have been good and bad at times, just like "tradition" is always a mixed bag. Humankind always has culture and tradition, but the gospel is not encased in any one culture or tradition. It needn't destroy every culture or tradition, either. But cultures & traditions must humbly recognize themselves for what they are, and not grandiosly assume the culture and the gospel are one. (Example: The Greek culture believed that demons inhabited sculptures/statues, and thus to this day there are only "icons" in Eastern churches, with legalistic limits on how much bas relief an icon may have. What was originally a cultural belief became "gospel", so to speak -- standard practice among the churches even in cultures that did not have the same belief about statues. In fact, the belief about statues was Greco-Roman superstition and is not derived from Scripture at all in regard to statues which are not made for religious purposes. Because of the confusion of culture and gospel, "Ancient Christianty" in this case does not "speak to today's world".) And yes, at an early point in Church history, confusion did apparently enter about the covenants, since we see the Church reverting to Old Covenant forms (priests and buildings), whereas a hundred years earlier the Church was breaking bread in their homes without "clergy". The confusion between the Levitical priesthood and New Testament "presbtyrs" is an example. The shadow of the Levitical priesthood is fulfilled in Christ firstly, and secondly in what Peter said to all believers, "You are all priests." Hailing presbytrs and church rituals as the fulfillment of the Old Testament shadows is off the mark according to the Scriptures, and I won't bend Scripture in order to harmonize it with history or tradition. We've all gotten things wrong at times, but God has always stayed with people who had faith in Him. Whether Orthodox, Catholic, Calvinist, Arminian, we have all made mistakes and all gotten things wrong. God tolerates a lot of junk from us, but His presence among us does not always depend on the degree of correctness in our church practice or structure. At times God "puts the smack down" (to use a modern phrase), but at other times He doesn't. I don't always understand why, but He has His kids' best interests at heart in all that He does. Let me boast a little: I have found something higher than a perfect church! I have found a perfect Savior. He is living and active, and brings me and my family life regardless of rituals and "priests". When I was an Adventist I thought I needed to be in a church that "had all the truth". When some people leave Adventism, they search for a "church" (institution) that has all the truth. And a few think they find it. What I and others I know have found, however, is a Person. He's living and active. So it becomes hard for us to boast any longer about our "church". We know we've got flaws. But among us we have a flawless Savior! Bless you in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1759 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Colleen, I think we probably agree on things and may just be running into terms? The whole Law was indeed a specific covenant with Israel, but that covenant was made for all mankind to learn from. Not for all mankind to keep, but to be an example to all mankind. The whole purpose of God's interactions with Israel was so that "through your seed [Christ] all nations will be blessed." This extends to the Sinaitic covenant, by which we can forever see the consequences of sin (wrought out in the recurring disobedience and judgment of the Israelite nation). Because the Law (entire) was also a shadow of Christ, it is fitting that the core of the Law was the priesthood -- the shadow of Jesus Christ. It's amazing, then, as well, to consider that the book of Hebrews spends most of its time on that subject --the priesthood-- when attempting to persuade Jewish people that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and they should not revert to Judaism. I had wondered before at why so much time was devoted in Hebrews to the subject of the priesthood, you know? Why not point out more about the sacrifices? Or why not say more about God's morality and how Christ fulfilled that? But instead the author takes extensive time to talk about the priesthood. It seemed rather irrelevant to me in the past, like a sidetrack or detour. Yes, the law (priesthood & moral & civil) was given all together, and is inseparable. But somehow at the same time, the other parts rested on the priesthood, as Hebrews says: It's still a new thing for me to comprehend! I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. But even though I don't completely understand or get it all yet, already things are making more sense... why Hebrews took so much time focusing on the High Priest, as well as how the Old and New Covenants both center on Jesus Christ. Anytime God does something like this to me (knocks out an old idea by pointing out something very clearly spelled out in Scripture --which I just hadn't seen before!), it takes awhile for things to sink in and usually causes more paradigm shifts under the surface than on top of it. Coming out of Adventism there were a lot of screwy ideas about the Law -- but then again, as shown above, a lot of them were passed down from Calvinism (interesting thought -- Adventism takes after Calvinism with Law and Sabbath, and after extreme more-than-Arminian Arminianism with regard to salvation... it's a sort of unholy matrimony of the worst of both worlds). Anyway, it will take awhile to soak this in and allow Scripture to speak for itself on these matters. It kind of exposes more places that I had "filled in the gaps". Blessings, Ramone | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9519 Registered: 12-2003 |
I understand what you are saying, Ramone. Yes, I agree. And you're really right when you say that it was the ceremonial law that foreshadowed our holiness—or how we become holy, not the moral components. In fact, this insight emphasizes my personal complaint with rendering Sabbath as "merely" ceremonial—along with all the other obsolete ceremonies—while continuing to uphold the "moral principles of the 10 Commandments". For Israel, those ceremonies WERE moral requirements; they were the means of their realizing atonement and rest and worship and relationship with their God and Sovereign. The idea that ceremonial laws were not "eternal" but moral laws are misses the heart of this matter. Just as Jesus expanded the "moral law" to embrace one's motives, thoughts, and reflexive reactions (how far those requirements are from mere adherence to law), He also expanded the Sabbath and all ceremonies. Jesus still requires of His people everything foreshadowed in the law, including the ceremonies--but now He gives us the reality of the ceremonies personally in Jesus. But we're not negating the observance of the heart of the ceremonies. Now our "job" is to honor those ceremonies by embracing their fulfillment—because fulfillment was always what the ceremonies taught! It really hit me in Israel last fall, when our Jewish guide asked Elziabeth Inrig, after she gave a clear and succinct lesson on Judges, where she studied and said she's LOVE to have her notes. I said to Elizabeth, "What Bernice (the guide) can't understand is that a true Christian understands the law and honors it fully, and a traditional Jew can't do that, because the unbelieving Jew has rejected the Fulfillment of the law. By rejecting the Fulfillment, they break the law." Christians actually DO keep what the law "taught". We don't do ceremonies, but now we honor and worship Jesus and offer ourselves to Him. This personal reality is what those laws foretold. So yes—the ceremonies and priesthood WERE the living heart of the law, because they revealed the Savior and Salvation. If Jews believed God and thus honored the meaning and essence of the ceremonies and the intercession of the priests, they were counted righteous, or moral. And today, our faith is literally credited to us as righteousness—or morality—because we believe God and trust Jesus. If we reject Jesus as our Sabbath rest and Sacrifice and Priest, we are breaking the moral law we claim to honor. Colleen | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 164 Registered: 10-2008 |
I finally took the time to read this thread. Powerful statement: If we reject Jesus as our Sabbath rest and Sacrifice and Priest, we are breaking the moral law we claim to honor. Mind twister that one . . . especially for a newbie coming out of Adventism. I like the statement though - something in me clearly resonates with that. This gives a new thought to the scripture text that we are to be a living sacrifice. Romans 12:1-3. Thanks to all that contributed on this thread. Keri | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 431 Registered: 1-2004 |
Ramone, I understand what you are saying. However, I think that if you really believed that no humans should be appointed by God to be over us, that you would have no need of anybody but Jesus and the Holy Spirit, since even the Apostles and their writings would be redundant. You currently trust Jesus, and the first and possibly second generation of those appointed by Him. In my experience, to migrate from Orthodoxy to what I have seen of the "no churches" movement would be compareable to having a relationship with someone in person and then deciding that only letters and email were permissable. What I have seen is that the things that were supposed to hinder our relationship with God (rituals, clergy, icons, etc) actually work better than the things that were supposed to be superior (go straight to God without using any "stuff"). So while I understand what you're saying, and while I once believed very much like you believe, my current experience will not allow me to go back, because of how much "better" Orthodoxy works for me. I am willing to accept that your experience may differ from mine, i.e. your mileage may vary. Somehow, for me as well as many other people, God is experienced mystically in the Orthodox Church in ways that go beyond complete understanding. I can not tell you how it happens, but attending Holy Week services and Easter, for example, allows me to "be there" in the life of Christ like I would never have thought possible. It is completely a spiritual thing, in spite of all the physical actions, and it is like "time" becomes irrelevant. It is like viewing and being in another dimension that is normally invisible. For all spiritual purposes, it is like being an eyewitness of Christ. Jeremiah | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1761 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Jeremiah, Thank you for your kind note. I don't know how to describe this, but in trusting Jesus (and as He said, the testimony of the people who told about Him), there is no "distance" between Him and I because of lack of rituals, icons, clergy, etc. I understand this because, you see, I am terribly familiar with "long-distance relationship". I came as a missionary to Japan (in SDA) for a year, met and fell in love with a church member named Yoko, and then had to return back to the States without any goal or purpose. We wanted to be married. We tried planning it, trying to bring her to America. But the more we tried to orchestrate things, the more it strained us because God had other plans. Finally we had to surrender our plans and efforts to be together, and He did it in His own way -- by bringing me here instead of her to America. And I wouldn't have it any other way! While I lived in California, it was easy to think of "Japan" as a sort of dream. Mind you, I had lived there for a year as a missionary and gone through many things. One homeless man we ministered to had been miraculously healed. We had stood up to intense pressure from the church leadership to stop ministering to the homeless people. We had grown closer together. We had grown stronger spiritually. But somehow the change of locations and returning to the place of your old life... well, it can make even the greatest experiences seem like a dream. While apart I kept pictures of her. I wrote to her. I emailed. I bought cheap telephone cards from Riverside liquor stores. I was tempted while we were apart, but God held onto me and held us together. He used me in Riverside, and He used her here. Then He withdrew me, picked me up and put me here, and I will be here for quite awhile until the work He has called me to is finished. Those times we had "while apart" were not easy, but in a way they were precious. In fact, I still haven't deleted my old yahoo email account because it has all the old emails she sent me! I have to sign in every month so the account and her old letters don't get deleted! Part of me feels a little guilty about it, though, because I only sign into the account for the purpose of it not being deleted. You see, I don't read the old emails anymore. Because I live with her now. I've got the real thing. We do have our annual traditions -- well, just one, really, on our anniversary (we go to the city aquarium, haha!). I carry a picture of her in my wallet, but rarely do I ever look at it. (Actually, ironically, Japanese men just don't carry pictures of their sweethearts! Kids are okay, but just kids). Have you ever read C.S. Lewis' little book, A Grief Observed? It's a little thing he wrote for himself after his beloved wife succombed to cancer. He wrote the book originally as notes to himself to keep from going crazy -- to keep from succombing to utter depression. In his notes, he realized that the pictures of his wife were lifeless. He ached for her, not for pictures of her. They didn't capture the real her enough. His memory even failed. He missed the reality of her herself. Not his ideas of her or memory of her, but the real her herself, because her real reality always trumped whatever image he had formed of her. She was an iconoclast. And he noted that God Himself is the great iconoclast. We build our houses of cards, thinking we understand Him, and He has to come every once in awhile and knock our houses of cards down. I think of how odd it would be if I were to re-insert the long-distance items back into my life now, now that I live with my wife. If I were to spend time writing emails to her as if she were far away. If I were to buy telephone cards. If I were to spend time on the phone with her! If I were to look at pictures of her often. If I merely tried to re-capture the ache in my heart that I had during that time when we were apart! It would be completely odd, especially for her, because here she is with me! It is the same with God for myself, and for many others that I know. Granted, I've got an artistic bunch of brothers and sisters in Christ, and we like a lot of things. Some friends really like Orthodox churches because they are filled with so much symbolism. But they aren't dependent on them. God is with us wherever we are. We live and move and breathe in Him, and we worship Him in Spirit and in truth, not by location or special rituals that are meant to bring us closer to Him. Sometimes those things are nice, but the closeness we have with Him is direct. Often when we depend on the rituals, it's almost like we have to step outside of that direct closeness... on the premise of closeness through the ritual. A few examples of this. When my son was only two weeks old, I was rocking him to sleep in my arms and wanted to sing something to him. To God, really. I wanted to worship as a lullaby. I began to sing the traditional Jewish song, "Shabbat Shalom". I knew Jesus is the true Sabbath-rest, so I wanted to sing that thinking of Him. But it was too much of a mental exercise. I had a song in my mouth that celebrated the peace of the Sabbath day, and although I knew the day represented Christ, it was still just too much distance, too many mental hoops to go through for me. My heart was used to direct worship of God, direct communion. No hoops. It was then that I realized I needed new words for the song and asked God for it. Some time later I changed the words: Shabbat shalom... Moshiach Yeshua, You have brought us home Yeshua, Yeshua, Shabbat, Shabbat shalom! Another time there was a beautiful song that a young worship group had written about when the children welcomed Jesus into Jerusalem and shouted "Hosanna!" The song has such a wonderful cry to God. But the verses, the verses were still in the shadows. They were in the past. The song was a sort of dramatic exercise, in that sense, trying to sort of re-enter the past and cry out with the children. Artistically I can soooo respect that and admire it. Intellectually it is great. But spiritually my heart yearned to just worship God directly with the song. I was too used to that new wine, too used to direct communion with Him. So I had to do some word-changing again! Just so that I could worship God with that beautiful song in a more living way. Directly. Without having to jump into the skins of folks in the past, so to speak. I didn't have to use my creative imagination anymore. I could just speak from my heart to the living God, and our communion could continue unbroken. Last example. There was a church some friends and I attended in Corona where they were led by the Spirit in worship for a long time. The first time I attended, actually, they ran out of time for the sermon because the worship (in song) had gone on so long! It was wonderful. That was the first place that I heard messages in tongues (interpreted, that is). It was so incredibly Biblical! I think it was there that I first learned to worship God. I saw people lifting their hands to God. Me, coming from Adventism, I wondered, "What will happen if I lift my hands to God?" I knew it was Biblical, but it felt so strange. I was afraid of what others would think when they saw me. I thought I would look stupid, and it felt stupid to even think of doing it. A breakthrough happened for me, however, when I realized something about the people I saw lifting arms to God -- they didn't care what I thought! As an Adventist I had this idea that if someone was raising his or her arms, they were trying to look more spiritual or attract attention to themselves! But it was completely opposite that. They lifted their arms simply because it is a natural, expressive reaction of the spirit & soul in a human body when encountering the presence of God (as witnessed all throughout Scripture). They raised their hands not caring what I thought! I learned that worship was not about the people around me, but about the One on the throne above me and who lives inside of me. This began a time of growth that would eventually set me free to worship God anywhere and at any time. This church let the Spirit lead the worship time. But as the days went on, things began to change at the church. When Easter and Christmas arrived, they decided to start a choir. They had special Christmas songs and sang them. The regular free-flowing-in-the-Spirit worship time was cut out or cut short. The seasonal songs for the "special holy days" were sung. And the palpable life was gone from the room. We tried to celebrate the days, and in so doing, somehow we interrupted our daily communion with God. I could see the drain on the worship leader above. He tried going back to more spiritually free worship by inserting two regular worship songs, but it wasn't enough. I felt bad for him. A friend I know once had a great big birthday party, and some of his friends invited other friends. It was good because everybody got along surprisingly well. So well, in fact, that my friend began to feel lonely. He realized he could probably step out of the room and not be missed. The party had taken off on its own, even though it was his party. Later he said, "I felt like Jesus at Christmas." How odd, indeed, would it be if all my friends and family got together to celebrate my birthday, did a pageant of the story of my birth, gave each other presents, spoke of my birth glowingly, had ceremonies to remember it, celebrated the day, etc.? Call me crazy, but it would seem like they were celebrating the birth of someone who had died a long time ago. It would be more like a memorial service, the kind of celebration that happens when the living person is not actually there. I have been ruined by the presence of God. Screwed up. Addicted. Hooked. Ruined. Unable to be satisfied with anything else. Mind you, I've been in services with "good music" and "emotional" stuff going on. I've been in places where they (and I at that time) needed that emotional high to feel that they had touched God. And I've been in other places where that wasn't needed. I've been in dead places. I've been in an Orthodox Easter service. I've been in places where the singers couldn't sing. I've been in places where the singers could sing. And I can't really say that any of these places had a "lock" on what was right or not. Some were closer than others, and some had a format that allowed God more than others. But the one consistent thing was that wherever I went, it was not enough to talk about or do some mystical things that were supposed to bring us closer to Him. I need Him Himself, directly. I had an insatiable hunger for Him, that only He Himself could satisfy. So I've kept moving and not permanently parked at the places in my past. I'm following the "cloud", haha, so to speak! No, I'm following Him. Once at the Berean bookstore in Riverside, my friend and I stopped in on the way to an evening worship. We were short on time and I just wanted to check for one book. On the left side of the store was a small coffee-shop like area where someone was playing a guitar that night, like a little concert or something. My friend went over there. I looked for my book, couldn't find it, and being mindful of our short time I wanted to leave right away to make it to the worship on time. I looked for my friend but couldn't find him. Granted, he was a tall guy, so it shouldn't have been a hard job! I realized he was probably sitting down in the coffee area listening to the music. I was irritated and ready to thwack him on the head because we had to go to make the worship service on time! I went over to get him and something happened as I got near. I got convicted inside... my friend was worshiping God, the guy on the guitar was worshiping God... I was suddenly confronted with wanting to hold onto my irritation... versus surrendering to the same thing--the same Spirit--that had captured my friend so much that he had to sit down and start worshiping God. In a nutshell, it was like the fragrance of God hit me right there, and I entered a place of worship. Not the building, not the bookstore, but where this person was ...this guy on the guitar. I had no idea who he was, but he was worshiping God, and that fragrance poured out. God came there because He loved it. And I got confronted by God's presence there. I had to "give up", too! I sat down and worshiped God. There was nothing else I could do! I've gotten addicted to God's presence. He lives inside of me, mind you, but there are times I forget that or my mind gets caught up in something else. He snaps me to attention in different ways at different times. Sometimes I love being in churches during worship time. Other times I want to head for the door or a corner just so I can worship God and be with Him. I've gotten addicted to meeting Him among other Christians, as well. This is one reason that "church" can often be very frustrating for me, because the Spirit is usually given very little room to move. The most descriptive portion of Scripture about what happens "in church" is the one part of Scripture that is least followed. 1st Corinthians 14:26 specifically says that when we come together, God gives something to everyone, and that what God gives to everyone must be shared so that everyone will be strengthened. I've experienced this at home prayer meetings, but not in large traditional "churches". Not for awhile anyway. Waiting on God together. Someone laying a need before the others, and God speaking through others. And really knowing that He is speaking, too! Not taking it for granted based on "who" the person is, but rather just an inner knowing because of the strength of His spoken rhema word. Because what is spoken has life in it. Because Christ is lifted up. I can't put this down into a formula, but it is probably one of the biggest reasons I've been "ruined" for institutional churches. I've discovered what it means when we say that we are the Body of Christ, and what it means to let Him truly move among us. And I can't go back to forms and shadows, or a format in which one person shares what God gives him/her and everyone else is silent. It's just not what is in 1st Corinthians 14. It was the most bizarre thing to read in my Orthodox Study Bible the many times they spoke so absolutely about how there should be no spontenaity in church. The Old and New Testaments are filled with God's interruptions -- even while people were doing what He had instructed them to do! And then in 1st Corinthians 14, and as seen in the meetings described in Acts, God interrupted them time after time. 1st Corinthians 14 simply makes room for His interruption. Verses 26-31 even anticipate and expect His interruption. God isn't tamed. He's wild. When I make room for His wildness, He gets to be Himself. When I come before Him empty, without an agenda, He gets to share His heart. I am so ruined by that! I love doing this especially with others, waiting on Him together, hearing His heart together. "Agape" opens up in the midst of us and inside each of us, and His love is intoxicating. God is just so ALIVE! I love beautiful art, traditions, things from cultures, church decorations, things made out of devotion and faith. But God is ALIVE! I can't always use the instruments of long-distance relationship. Sometimes I can, sometimes I do, but when I do that too much, I start missing direct communion with Him. And I'm brought back home, back to Him directly. Bless you in Jesus! Ramone P.S. A couple more pictures kind of touching on these things: "Ruined" - http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2009/02/ruined.html "The Interruption of God" - http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2009/02/interruption-of-god.html | ||
| Mtnviscacha Registered user Username: Mtnviscacha Post Number: 4 Registered: 6-2006 |
Greetings to all. I haven't posted on here for ages, and only remembered the site again, after reading elsewhere some articles about sda teachings. Anyway, I looked at the discussion subject list and saw a mention of "Westminster", and that got me curious as I am just beginning to attend a Westminster Presbyterian church, after spending the last couple of years or so thinking and reading about reformed teachings. I am reading alot of in-depth articles explaining covenant theology, and only recently came across this article:- http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant%20Theology%20&%20Justification/Ligons_covtheology/03.htm This class (part 3 of a 12 part class) presents an argument for a covenant of works/nature being set in place by God, with Adam being the other party. Colleen mentioned earlier in her post about no-where in the bible there being mention of a covenant of works with Adam. In one sense, you are correct (you will understand what I mean if you read through the link). The article is quite long, but I think that anyone carefully thinking about it, will receive some very enlightening insights and things to think about. I suppose I just put this up, as the bible is awesome in its richness and depth. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1852 Registered: 8-2004 |
Ramone, I just finished reading your post and thoroughly resonate with it. God IS PRESENT right now, right here, and is readily accessible no matter where we are on this globe. He is not limited by time, space, or rituals. Thankfully, He meets us where we are. There are rituals that can beautifully guide us, but they are a means not an end and are not to be depended on. God is great at breaking through while we are busy making other plans! | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4353 Registered: 9-2006  |
Ramone, Great post. River | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 198 Registered: 8-2005 |
Mtnviscacha, here is an excellent counterpoint: http://www.worldwithoutend.info/bbc/books/NC/abrahams_seed/ap_03.htm "Why do men insist on ignoring the two major covenants that the Holy Spirit continually speaks about, and then proceed to build a whole system of theology on two covenants never once mentioned by any writer of Scripture? And remember, in order to do this, they have to read verses like those from Hebrews eight and refuse to let the word "covenant" mean "covenant." These men must say, "I know the Bible says new covenant, but it really means new administration of the same covenant." Covenant theology insists on putting the word "covenant" in Genesis where the Holy Ghost has not put it, and then they refuse to let the word covenant really mean "covenant" when the Holy Spirit does use that specific word in passages like Hebrews 8. Amazing!" - John Reisinger | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1762 Registered: 10-2002 |
Brian3, Ha! I think I detect a note of (understandable) frustration in Reisinger! But he hit the nail on the head squarely. It's similar to the mental exercise so many of us did while Adventists when trying to understand the "why" of the Sabbath. Especially in liberal areas, everyone came up with his or her own personal explanation as to its importance and what was allowed and not allowed on it. I remember once a friend shared how he believed that the Father Himself came down to earth on the Sabbath, making the day extra special. Or something like that. Favorite Adventist reasoning includes things like the "parts of 'a seal' -- name, domain, etc." in order to prove that the Sabbath is the seal of God. It's not stuff from Scripture, but it is put together in order to make the logic of it all fit together. To make it all fall into place better, to make things smoother, etc. In the same way, Covenant Theology "goes beyond what is written" and unintentially marginalizes what Scripture actually says. It does this not because CT was arrived at from Biblical exegesis, but because it is carrying on the tradition of maintaining the beliefs its founders carried (namely John Calvin, but also others). Unintentionally, the practical result is that the views of the founders (the Reformers, mainly) is looked at as being rather absolute. As wonderful, truthful and God-inspired as the Protestant Reformation was, it didn't get everything right. God was restoring the core -- justification by faith in Christ's finished work as it is written in Scripture. The spirit of this teaching is the important thing, not the systems which the Reformers themselves developed (which, upon Biblical evaluation, fall short). We must set up camp at the Bible alone, not at the Reformation. We can do this and at the same time appreciate how God moved through them. As an Adventist, I learned to believe that God only "moved among us" and not outside of Adventism. But when I was coming out of Adventism, I learned that He's been moving in lots more places than I knew! Even among people that had certain things wrong. I learned to look at Christian history and see His footprints -- times when He moved among people. Not all of the people "got stuff right", but He moved in their lives, meetings, and ministries. He didn't move there forever, however. In fact, when He lit up one part of the Body, that part then tended to "set up camp" (so to speak) at what He had just done or showed them. What then happened was that they got stuck there. They enshrined the new discovery (or rather, the re-discovery) and when God came along again moving in another group, the previous group persecuted them! This has happened time after time after time in Christian history. In a sense, it's like setting up a monument whenever God moves, and then calling all people to that monument, and believing they need to acknowledge it and worship God there. In the same way, when on the Mount of Transfiguration, Peter saw Jesus with the two prophets, and wanted to pitch tents for them, to set up camp there! The mountain was holy, he thought! This was a great place! "It is good for us to be here" is what he said. But they didn't stay on that mountain. The Father interrupted Peter's religiousizing, and said, "Listen to My Son!" Peter ended up following Christ away from that mountain. Christ went down the mountain and to the cross. Peter would eventually follow Christ then to his own cross. The goal was not a holy "place" or bring all people to the same "holy moment". God would not dwell in tents or buildings made of hands anymore -- His temple is now our bodies! And we tabernacle in Him. We follow Him wherever He leads. That is why in Revelation it says in the same breath that we "serve Him night and day in His temple" and that He is our shepherd who will "lead us". We move, but He is in us, and we are in Him. In contrast, "religion" wants to set up camp and traditions so that all can enter into God's presence in the same way, time, or place as someone previously did. Okay, it's my bedtime! Bless you in Jesus! Ramone | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1857 Registered: 8-2004 |
And yet God Himself rarely does things exactly the same way twice. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9528 Registered: 12-2003 |
Ramone, your post about rituals and the actual presence of God was so good. Thank you. Mtnviscacha, I just spent about a half-hour reading the sermon to which you linked. I have a number of serious disagreements with the author, not the least of which is his statements that Sabbath was a creation ordinance for man, that God knew he would need rest and thus created Sabbath for him. This assumption is not stated in Scripture. It is extrapolated from a particular theology. Genesis never gives a command for Adam and Eve to rest. Indeed, rest from what? Only God's work is mentioned; Adam and Eve were created "into" God's rest; they lived in God's finished work. Further, the issue in Genesis wasn't that Adam would be blessed if he performed God's commands. The issue was whether or not Adam and Eve would trust God. Indeed, this trust and faith in God without being able to see the future or to understand what would happen as a consequence is the thing that is credited to ALL believers as righteousness. The issue is never the works; the issue is always whether or not one believes God. From the detailing of this fact when God calls Abraham (Genesis 12) to his believing and entering an official covenant with God (Genesis 15) to the book of Romans where, especially in chapter 4, Paul explains in detail how faith (the gift of God) is itself credited to ALL believers as righteousness, it is clear: God's relationship with man has always been on the basis of our faith and trust in Him. The arguments for a covenant of works with Adam requires the same sort of "machinations" as the theology of Adventism. It's not clear in the text. If one picks up the Bible and reads it without commentary but with prayer for wisdom from God, one will not "get" a covenant of works. One will see a personal betrayal between our first parents and God. Brian3, thanks for the Reisinger quote! Colleen | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 240 Registered: 8-2008 |
EXACTLY!!!!!! So many people fail to see that Eve's real sin wasn't simply eating a piece of fruit. Fruit in and of itself is harmless. Eve's sin was that she chose to believe what the Serpent said instead of what God said. Because she didn't have faith that God would provide everything that was good for her to have, she distrusted God and sought to gain good things on her own power. This is why Paul said that whatever is not from faith is sin. |
