Florida Hospital will Permit Bacon to be Sold in a Leased Restaurant on its Property
by Monte Sahlin
By AT News Team, January 8, 2014
Florida Hospital, the flagship institution of the Adventist Health System (AHS), has agreed to allow a Panera Bread restaurant being opened on hospital property to include bacon on its menu. That is a change in policy, reports United Press International (UPI) in its "Odd News" category.
For more than a decade, a Wendy's restaurant on hospital property has not been permitted to serve pork products. The hospital maintained this policy "due to religious reasons," according to the UPI report. AHS is affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church which teaches its members to observe the Old Testament prohibition of "unclean" meat from Leviticus 11, in part due to the extension of the concept to Christians in Acts 15:29.
The UPI story quotes David Banks, identified as senior executive for the Florida Hospital campus in Orlando, that the hospital's thinking on the issue has "evolved" over time. "We really wrestled with the issue," he said. "Those are two decisions separated probably by 20 years." He indicated that the situation with Wendy's may be reviewed.
Pointing out the difference between the beliefs of church members and the use of property rented by an outside organization, Banks continued; "We deeply believe in the things we believe in. However, we also want people to have choice. While it is an important part of the Adventist subculture, it's not the main thing we want to be known for."
Finally! Now that vegetarianism is gaining in popularity, the church is not practicing strict kosher. It was against Christianity and there was no religious justification for it; and lately some in the church had been appealing for health reasons which was not the original reasoning for pork's restriction at all.
Another insidious form of "evolution." Better described as compromise of principles. Banks' explanation is not at all satisfactory. Is it all about the big buck?
Maranatha
Further proof that when you are in the forest you cannot see the trees. Just after mega TV evangelist Joel Osteen preaches on global TV the Biblical virtues of eating only clean meets (met with catcalls from his studio congregation) here comes FL Hospital with a decision to allow pork on the premise to be sold. If it was good enough for Wendy's which is a far bigger company than this new outfit, this should have told you something. Here's a marketing tip for FL Hospital – Wendy's and Panera Bread want your business. You are the largest hospital in Orlando. By refusing pork on your menus and causing them to adapt, it is a witness not only to them but to Jews, Muslims and whoever else follows Bible dietary laws. Apostle Paul will be very disappointed in your decision. He wrote almost 4 chapters on the issue of idol worship and unclean foods. What's next? allowing heathen idols in the lobby to pacifiy your non-Christian patients. Whoever made this ridiculous call should be fired on the spot and the decision reversed immediately. What do you think Dr. Kellogg would say about this? When the decision was made back in 1903 to allow the GC to control the medical work (which cost us our main health reformers who saw trouble brewing) who would have thought a century later that the medical wing would be so independent from the ministry that they can blatently make this move? Do we hear a cry of protest from the FL Conference or Southern Union? Or is there nothing they can even do? Come on pastors, speak up before its too late. The last time a major hospital (Branson in Toronto) wrestled with this type of decision (allowing coffee machines in the lobby) it was met with indifference. Use whatever excuses you will, Branson Hospital no longer exists and Canada is now a country without an SDA hospital. Very disappointed but more astonished at this decision. It is time for Ted Wilson to prove that the post of GC President is not a figurehead and reverse this craziness. The drive for financial success has overtaken the purity of the gospel at the FL Hospital. As the "flagship" hospital of Adventism this decision will resonate with other worldly adminstrators around the globe with the urge to follow suit to make a better buck. I am embarrassed as an Adventist, and ashamed to see this news printed in the World Christian press. I write a daily syndicated news column for Christian radio called Signs of the Times News sponsored by Voice of Prophecy Bible Studies. Tune in on http://www.gsradio.org at 5 PM EST on Monday, Jan 13, it will be our lead news item. My prediciton: if the Review has the nerve to print this news in the world edition it will be met with an unparalleled and unified howl of outrage that will reach heaven itself. Hey, if Americans react to a traffic scandal in New Jersey with livid frustration over out of touch beaurocrats, how will Adventists react to likewise out of touch medical beaurocrats publicly staining the beliefs of the remnant church and revealing what was once termed a "creeping compromise" taking place in Adventism. Doubtful this decision sees the light of day once the body has a say.
P.S. The Lord calls eating unclean foods an "abomination" or in modern language a sin for those who know the truth. Florida hospital is knowingly allowing sin on the grounds. For this the Lord will not be mocked. I doubt if the admin board thought this deeply about the matter but by allowing unclean foods to be served in the hospital it is a round-about-way to increase more patients for the hospital. Unclean foods bring disease, like nothing else on earth. That alone should have been the deciding fact for doctors to hold their ground for prevention of disease sake. Physician where art thou? Biblical scholar where art thou? Maybe this is one time when the doctors were wrestling and agonizing over this decision, someone should have called in one of their five year old kids and asked their opinion. No doubt the child would have set them straight.
Glen, I can't find a like button so I will voice my support for your post instead.
Pork has never been deemed clean by God. Even when Noah loaded the ark he was told by God to bring seven pairs of clean animals, and my guess is that this was not the first time the antedeluvians had heard about clean/unclean animals. And it is not deemed clean in the NT no matter what the NIV tries to tell us.
We can not heal people in our institutions and then feed them pork. It is like fixing them and letting them kill themselves again.
It is about time we stopped seeking political correctnes and took a stand
Where did Paul condemn any meat as unclean?
Peter addressed the Pharisees who had become believers who insisted that the pagans (new gentile believers) whould be circumcisewd and insturcted to keep the Law of Moses (this included unclean meats and many other rule). His answer: "It would only provoke God's anger now, surely,k if you imposed on he discipls the very burden that neither we nor our ancesters were strong enough to support."
James, the leader of the Jerusalem church then spoke: "I rule, then, that instead of making things more difficult for pagans who turn to God, we send them a letter telling them merely to abstain from anything polluted by idols, from fornication, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
This letter was sent to Paul and Barnabas and the whole church concurred with this.
Please cite Scripture from NT where gentile Christian believers were ever told to avoid "unclean meats."
Christians cannot ignore the NT and return to the OT for doctrines; might as well accept Judaism.
I have no idea what Elaine is talking about. I agree with everything that Glen has to say. I would advise everyone to read the ENTIRE chapter of Act 10. If anyone is on SDA grounds,they should abide by the SDA guidelines. Please do not sell your souls for money.Ellen G.White spoke of the slow introduction of OUTSIDE influence into the church.I fear that this is it for the SDA church.First it was clapping in church.Then it was bands with drums and guitar.I went to a (SDA) church one sabbath and thought I was in a sunday church.And now this………The end is near
Paul says «…so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:» Acts 24:14 The word law is Torah. So he kept the dietary laws, as did Peter.
Acts 15 is one of those passages that are very easily misunderstood.
James is not worried about his fellowmen becoming christians but the gentiles converting and joining the God of Israel’s table fellowship. Joining the jewish fellowship so to speak.
In doing so they where required to astain from four things in the culture of the day assosiated with idol worship.
And starting with that, continue on in verse 21; they assembled in the synagogues and where taught Torah. The law.
It is a «start with this, and we’ll fill in the blanks as we go along»
The dietary laws were never done away with, read what the new covenant is as defined by God himself, Jeremiah 31.31. He writes His law in our mind and in our heart.
It is quite odd to see how we twist what is said when it comes to food. Most resistance from Christians comes with food. We have no problem when our doctors tell us what to eat and what not, we spend fortunes on book and magazines to help us to eat properly. But when the word of God says «don’t eat this» we fight Him every step of the way. Why? As far as I can tell it must have something to do regarding our need to be «free». But if we bend even a simple thing as food, what does this imply about other things God might desire of us?
Since the SDA 'health system' is simply a church-owned business based on the turnover of (largely) surgical patients for the amelioration (not 'cure'), a lot of the time, of the modern western diseases of lifestyle, it makes perfect sense to allow a Bread-based restaurant onto the premises. It will help create future customers for the Coronary artery bypass graft surgery department.
Thing is, health reformers, the wheel has now turned full circle on the Kellog experiment. Cornflakes are toxic, bacon is good. Well, provided the little pig has not been lot-fed on soy beans and other dodgy grains/legumes.
Reading the posts above, are we to assume that the Jewish diet is now the health reform diet? Fish is back, goat, lamb, beef…… all good again? That is good news. Those Graham crackers and dry corn flakes are such hard work. But just make sure there is no bacon.
For myself, I am so glad to read Romans 14. Especially v.17 "for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."
Elaine: 'Please cite Scripture from NT where gentile Christian believers were ever told to avoid "unclean meats."'
Please cite Scripture in the NT where it says explicitly Christians were told not to make graven images – you know, as found in that 'Jewish' document the Ten Commandments? Or are you saying Paul and the other Apostles would be ok with graven images?
Alternatively, was it so obvious it didn't need to be said? The 4 commands in Acts 15:20 don't mention explicitly graven images, murder, stealing, lying or coverting – but are these then not applicable to Gentiles?
Sometimes things are implicit and not explicit in the Bible; sometimes the Bible author thinks something is so obvious it isn't worth mentioning. For example, Jesus has the 'except in the case of adultery' exception in Matt but not in Mark. So is Mark contradicting Matt, or is it such that to Mark's Gentile obvious the exception in the case of adultery was so obvious it didn't need to be said unlike it did to Matt's Jewish audience?
No, they might as well not. That was the whole point of Acts 15. The 4 commands were not just made up. They aren't 'Jewish' even though they do come from the Law of Moses. James and Peter were quoting the Noachide commands in Gen 9 and the requirements of 'Resident Alien' ger of Lev 17-18.
The Apostolic Decree of Acts 15 was not asking Gentiles to be Jews. But conversely, the Apostles were not denigrating the Law – or rather – they were upholding those parts of the Law that were applicable to Gentiles in the OT. In this way, the NT is not a break from the OT but clearly a contiuation of the OT. James make the same observation himself in Acts 15:21, in suggesting this is all so obvious to Jews because the requirements for ger found in the Law of Moses have already been well-known to Jews in their synagogues throughout the Diaspora for many generations.
Serge: 'For myself, I am so glad to read Romans 14. Especially v.17 "for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."'
True – especially as an 'essential' issue. Much of the criticism of Paul and others seems to be aimed at those who feel 'non-essential' issues like circumcission are 'essential' salvation issues. However, even Paul who mostly strongly challenged circumcission in Acts 15 then went to circumcise Timothy himself in Acts 16. Thus, the issue isn't so much as the Law as legalism. All the Law is still useful to teach, is holy, righteous and good.
As for food, Paul had real problems with those proto-Gnostic Jews who were advocating aesthetic practices as mandatory. And yet, towards the end of Paul's own life and ministry, James's takes steps to reaffirm the Apostolic Decree – go read Acts 21.
I see a number of extremes here, very applicable today in Christian issues from music to baptism. There are modern Christians, especially those who hold to sacaremental theology, who as much misapply new 'badges of covenant membership' as the old ones.
Elaine: 'Please cite Scripture from NT where gentile Christian believers were ever told to avoid "unclean meats."'
Please cite Scripture in the NT where it says explicitly Christians were told not to make graven images – you know, as found in that 'Jewish' document the Ten Commandments? Or are you saying Paul and the other Apostles would be ok with graven images?
Alternatively, was it so obvious it didn't need to be said? The 4 commands in Acts 15:20 don't mention explicitly graven images, murder, stealing, lying or coverting – but are these then not applicable to Gentiles?
Sometimes things are implicit and not explicit in the Bible; sometimes the Bible author thinks something is so obvious it isn't worth mentioning. For example, Jesus has the 'except in the case of adultery' exception in Matt but not in Mark. So is Mark contradicting Matt, or is it such that to Mark's Gentile obvious the exception in the case of adultery was so obvious it didn't need to be said unlike it did to Matt's Jewish audience?
No, they might as well not. That was the whole point of Acts 15. The 4 commands were not just made up. They aren't 'Jewish' even though they do come from the Law of Moses. James and Peter were quoting the Noachide commands in Gen 9 and the requirements of 'Resident Alien' ger of Lev 17-18.
The Apostolic Decree of Acts 15 was not asking Gentiles to be Jews. But conversely, the Apostles were not denigrating the Law – or rather – they were upholding those parts of the Law that were applicable to Gentiles in the OT. In this way, the NT is not a break from the OT but clearly a contiuation of the OT. James make the same observation himself in Acts 15:21, in suggesting this is all so obvious to Jews because the requirements for ger found in the Law of Moses have already been well-known to Jews in their synagogues throughout the Diaspora for many generations.
Serge: 'For myself, I am so glad to read Romans 14. Especially v.17 "for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."'
True – especially as an 'essential' issue. Much of the criticism of Paul and others seems to be aimed at those who feel 'non-essential' issues like circumcission are 'essential' salvation issues. However, even Paul who mostly strongly challenged circumcission in Acts 15 then went to circumcise Timothy himself in Acts 16. Thus, the issue isn't so much as the Law as legalism. All the Law is still useful to teach, is holy, righteous and good.
As for food, Paul had real problems with those proto-Gnostic Jews who were advocating aesthetic practices as mandatory. And yet, towards the end of Paul's own life and ministry, James's takes steps to reaffirm the Apostolic Decree – go read Acts 21.
I see a number of extremes here, very applicable today in Christian issues from music to baptism. There are modern Christians, especially those who hold to sacaremental theology, who as much misapply new 'badges of covenant membership' as the old ones.
In a mature 21st Century church, the decision of an Adventist hospital to add an item to food to a menu would be a non-event. It would be a simple business decision. However, the true believers among us continue to remind the rest of us that there continues to be many whose ideal of an important religious issue is rooted in the ethos operating within a 19th Century sect that needs visible ways of distinguishing between those who are "in the truth" and those who are "out of the truth." Apparently, growing up is very hard to do for some religious communities.
How about sharing with all of us what you perceive the difference is between a believer, a “true believer,” whatever you meant by the “the rest of us.”
Correction (clarification): …a “true believer,” and whatever you meant by "the rest of us.”
I thank Mr. Foster for his question since I should have explained that I used the term "true believer" in the manner that Eric Hoffer in The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements defined it. And the "rest of us" are not True Believers in the sense that Hoffer defined the term.
OK, how did Hoffer define the term? Since you are using someone else’s terminology and someone else’s definition; please just explain to us what they meant by it—since this is what you mean too.
Do you mean you have never read Eric Hoffer classic book? That is strange. Perhaps if you think back . . .
And further to Stephen's questions, what would Dr Taylor think about for example a 21st Century Christian hospital adding blood to its menu – say blood pudding? Is he ok with that as well clearly contrary to Acts 15 and 21? If the answer he is ok with that, then is there anything Dr Taylor would not be ok with?
What makes a Christian a 'Christian' at all? I'd be tempted to say that the Gospel overrides everything, being the beief in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Perhaps Paul and the Apostles thought that message took precedent over everything else, that because they thought Jesus was coming reall soon, everything else was only secondary. But people like Dr Taylor don't seem to believe in that either. So what's left?
If all that is left is the moral teachings of Christianity, what exactly makes that even distinctively 'Christian' at all? Forget Adventist identity, I don't think many of the usual 'liberal' nay-sayers here quite know what being a 'Christian' even is about.
I think it would be safe to say that what many think of "being a Christian" is certainly not what Mr. Ferguson thinks it is. We can all be thankful for that.
I understand and appreciate the concerns of Elaine and others who feel Adventists are retreating into Judaism by adhering to the Biblical dietary laws. A good start point is to determine that Noah was not a Jew and God gave him a division of animals 7 (6 female + 1 male) of the clean and 2 x 2 the unclean. Another point is that God called eating unclean an "abomination" (the thing I hate). If Calvary freed up unclean animals then it is the one and only abomination that was reversed from O.T. times. Then we have a problem with Isaiah 66, which every Biblical commentary confirms is talking about the last days when Jesus comes back. Isaiah plainly states at this time the "rebellious" ones will be eating swine's flesh and will be consumed. Did Isaiah goof in writing down the angel's report to him which ended up in God's holy Bible? Of course not. For 25 years I was a "colporteur" and heard from people a lot smarter than us here in this forum all the various reasons why we should be allowed to eat "unclean" foods. When I retired I spent over 1 year writing a book entitled "UNCLEAN FOODS: TO EAT OR NOT TO EAT." My book covers every objection that was put before me by theologians and medical issues caused by eating unclean foods. For example, a person is required a certain daily amount of the trace element zinc in their diet which can be found for example on the skin of a potatoe. There are certain popular shellfish whereby one sitting consists of 2500 times the required daily amount of zinc; thus incidents of toxic paralysis result sometimes causing death and at minimum diarreah for days. What came out of my book was Apostle Paul's greatest work. Today, we live in a society that bases a large portion of its political and interstructural system on the Roman template and our educational system on the Greek template. In Paul's day there was nowhere to turn without seeing an idol which was embedded deeply into all levels of society. Paul almost single handidly destroyed idol worship in these ancient civilizations to the point where today they are relegated to popular fiction and philosophy but nowhere do you see statues and worship of Diana and the gods and goddesses of Greece and Rome being worshipped publicly. Sure we create our idols but nothing to the extent Paul dealt with. These societies were bent on sacrificing foods to idols and unclean meats of course were a major part of it.
My book sells well in sample Christian bookstores and I've now got a reprint available of the book and an ebook version. If anybody on this forum would like a copy please send me your email address to
colporteur7@aol.com
As the laws on clean, unclean meats was first given at Sinai, quite a few centuries after the flood, there was no information on the division of animals at that time. Confusing the order of the books as being in chronological order is a common mistake, but there is no evidence of record of meats at the time of the flood as it was a common Sumerian story in many cultures, none of which except the Hebrew Bible ever mentioned unclean animals.
Additionally confusing the flood story, there are three acounts recorded in Genesis:
One account (Gen. 6:19) "From all living creaturesk, from all flesh, you must take two of each kind aboard the ark, a male and a female….so that there lives may be saved.
Genesis 7:1-3: God said to Noah, "Go aboard the ark, you and all your household. Of all the clean animals you must take seven of each kind, both male and female; of the unclean animals you must take two, a male and its female."
Gen. 7:7: "Noah with his sons, his wife, and his sons' wives boared the ark. (Of the clean animals and the animal that are not clean, of the bird and all that crawls on the ground, two of each kind boarded to the ark with Noah, a male and a female), according to the order God gave Noah."
This is seen as evidence by many scholars that there were several stories combined as one, but clearly with very different details. The version, attributed to the Priestly version, was written after meats were separated by the rules at Sinai; not until that time had there been mentioned clean or unclean meats which were not mentioned in the story in Gen. 6. No ONE writer would be so confused but no one at that time wanted to delete any accounts and simply combined them.
Here is my lead news item on a syndicated edition of SIGNS OF THE TIMES NEWSCAST for Christian radio stations:
TUE, Jan 14
In the religious world, the Jews, Muslims and Seventh Day Adventists could always be counted upon to uphold the validity of avoiding the eating of “unclean foods.” To the Jews they regard it as the laws of Moses, the Muslims observe due to the life of Abraham and the Adventists regard the Biblical dietary laws given to Noah as being universal and timeless.
United Press International is reporting a chink in the Adventist armor.
Pointing out the difference between the beliefs of church members and the use of property rented by an outside organization, Banks continued; "We deeply believe in the things we believe in. However, we also want people to have choice. While it is an important part of the Adventist subculture, it's not the main thing we want to be known for." There are 18 million SDA’s worldwide who have yet to respond to this breaking news.
"The hospital maintained this policy "due to religious reasons," however, senior executive David Banks, says that the hospital's thinking on the issue has "evolved" over time. "Those are two decisions separated probably by 20 years.""
Is Banks practicing hocus pocus? I doubt whether time or any reasonable factor has changed the practices enjoined by Scripture. I would not look to the "great" hospital in Florida to have a scintilla of influence in my life or that of the church. It, IMO, is essentially a worldly operation with a veneer of Adventism. Pretty sad.
Maranatha
Mr. Banks is being very reasonable in his comments. The "hocus pocus" part seems to be the kind of reasoning of "Mr/Mrs/Ms TS." He/she apparently has never read the comment of Jesus that it is not what goes into your mouth which is important. The Florida Adventist Hospital is a fine institution reflecting modern Adventism in the First World.
I presume Matthew 15:1-20 is the passage you are referring to.
Food is not the topic in the Matt 15. discussion, but rather the washing of hands before eating bread (v.2). The Pharisees meant that one would become unclean if not doing the ritual of hand washing.
Agree with Heiki. Jesus was actually talking about eating food with unwashed hands, which was a command of the Koehn (priesthood) which the Pharisees were trying to impose on ordinary Jews. Pharisaic religion was all about trying to extend special purity commands that applied only to the Kohen to ordinary Jews.
Similarly, many of the disputes in the NT were about legalism rather than the Law. The problem with circumcision in Acts 15 is that the Judaizers were teaching that it was necessary for salvation. And yet Paul thereafter in Acts 16 had Timothy circumcised!
The point is about turning 'non-essentials' into 'essentials'. We do it all the time. But the converse is not necessarily true either – that a 'non-essential' is supposedly of no relevance, because clearly it is.
Perhaps Dr Taylor is unaware that Jesus was actually a Jew?
Hmm. Jesus was a Jew. Wow, that explains a lot. I had never realized that before. Mr. Ferguson is being so very helpful.
Shows how liberals are fast [d]evolving down their slibbery slope and are openly letting compromise in through the front door. (Not forgetting how some Adventist hospitals allow the butchering of human offspring). The porkshop in question should not be allowed to sell pork on the premises of an Adventist institution. This they call being progressive. Mr Banks overstepped his mark and has therefore landed himself in hot water – or, should I say – has landed his bacon in the frying pan.
To hospit, to hospit to buy a sliced pig,
Home again, home again – the profits are big;
To hospit, to hospit to buy a sliced hog,
Home again, home again – next perhaps dog?
Dr Taylor: 'I think it would be safe to say that what many think of "being a Christian" is certainly not what Mr. Ferguson thinks it is. We can all be thankful for that.'
Interesting comment – what is Dr Taylor talking about exactly here? Who are the 'many' he describes? Is he disagreeing with my view that Christianity is foremost about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus:
'I'd be tempted to say that the Gospel overrides everything, being the beief in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Perhaps Paul and the Apostles thought that message took precedent over everything else, that because they thought Jesus was coming reall soon, everything else was only secondary.'
I would have thought many, if not most, people who claim to be 'Christians' would subscribe to that sentiment?
Mr. Ferguson is quite correct in his pronouncement about the historic center of Christianity being the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I hope that he is making the point that that central focus has nothting, zero, nada to do with what one eats or does not eat.
Mr Hammond is a poet! Very good. Regretfully, the quality of the conversion is not being helped. Let's just we have differenct perspectives on this issue (what else is new?) and let it go at that. By the way, Mr. Banks is not in hot water.
For Glen Striemer, if I may, a couple of questions.
Since you have done the research and now written the book on the subject, could you give us, me at least, a taste for the medical evidence against biblically unclean foods? One or two points of the main evidence against Pigs will be sufficient.
But since you also raised the subject of certain popular shellfish, which I take to mean oysters, could you provide the reference to the cases of 'toxic paralysis,' or even the lesser effects, which results from the presumed excess of zinc? I practise medicine in Australia, which is a big producer and consumer of oysters, and have never, in 25 years, come across a single case of toxic paralysis which results from the eating of oysters. (But I do see people every day who are dying as a result of eating wheat and man-made vegetable oils).
Were you aware that Sr. Ellen White didn't let anyone rob her of her liberty in Christ and make her conform to Judaizing dietary laws? No siree bob. It was oysters for Ellen.
In 1882, when she was living at Healdsburg, California, she wrote a letter to her daughter-in-law, Mary Kelsey White, in Oakland, in which she made the following request: “Mary, if you can get me a good box of herrings, fresh ones, please do so. These last ones that Willie got are bitter and old. If you can buy cans, say, half a dozen cans, of good tomatoes, please do so. We shall need them. If you can get a few cans of good oysters, get them.” {MR852 2.3} (Copied that straight off the EGW Estate website.)
On this evidence, I don't think the bosses in FLorida hospital have a case to answer, do you? But I do question their allowance of the Bread supplier on their premises.
Very interesting, Serge. Luke 12: 22 & 23, "Jesus spoke, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat"; "The life is more than meat". Luke 12:29 "And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink"; verse 31, "But rather seek ye the kingdom of God". Hmmm, it appears, it is most difficult, that even those SDA'ers who've accepted that not every SDA fundamental conservative tenet is sacrosanct, to give up some of the legalism, that the rest of Chistendom have accused SDA'ers of. Still following the OT Judaic kosher laws. Jesus says don't give it any thought, why would He say that, unless true?? i believe we should be concerned about what comes out of the mouth, not what goes in.
Along with Serge's query about pork relative to health, i haven't heard of any reports about deleterious problems of eating pork, whereas almost every month we hear of outbreaks of salmonella poisoning, of groups of people, from eating chicken products.
A lady in Texas lived to be 115 years of age, when asked what she attributed her longievity to, she said eating bacon. She said she had eaten it every day since childhood, and at most meals, and hoped it would be available in the afterlife. ::)).
OK, folks, frankly I'm not even sure why this hit the radar. It's a total non-issue to me. I'm not a pork eater but there ARE more than just a few issues that merit our energies than this one….
Dr Taylor: 'Mr. Ferguson is quite correct in his pronouncement about the historic center of Christianity being the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I hope that he is making the point that that central focus has nothting, zero, nada to do with what one eats or does not eat.'
Yes as a matter of soteriology (salvation); no, not necessarily as a matter of ecclesiology (the Church).
I think you'd benefit Ervin from reading some of the latest on the New Perspectives on Paul ('NPP').
The problem with much of the NT disputes about the Law is they weren't about the soteriology of the Law – don't tell Stephen Foster. Rather, they were about Judaizers trying to turn ecclesiological issues into soteriological issues.
We see it all the time in the modern Church. You see it every time there is a dispute about music, wholly a cultural matter of taste. You see it when someone tries to turn that 'non-essential' issue into a 'salvation' issue.
The modern 'orthodox' Christian Churches aren't much better. They might say the old covenant badges of membership, like circumcission, are now non-binding, at least on Gentiles – the situation re Jewish-Christians is less clear in light of Acts 21 (go re-read that chapter). However, traditional Christian Churches think that old covenant badges, like baptism or communion, are now somehow binding. They treat circumcission as an ecclesiological issue whilst thinking new badges are 'essential' to salvation as sacraments.
If cutting one's penis doesn't get us to heaven, neither does magical water or magical bread. Neither will eating or not eating bacon. We are saved by faith through grace – that's it.
However, the converse is not true either. To say any rite, such as baptism or communion, does not save us is not to say it isn't relevant. The OT Law is likewise holy, good, righteous, spiritual and useful – or so the NT says. Baptism and communion might not be a 'salvation issue' (unless you believe in sacramental theology), but we can still have benefits from them as ecclesiological ceremonies that helper foster greater Church community.
I'll even go so far as to say Sabbath-keeping is not a 'salvation issue', in the sense that Rom 2 seems pretty strong authority for the proposition that those who have never kept the Sabbath will still be in heaven. However, there are strong grounds for arguing Sabbath-keeping is an ecclesiological benefit, as well as an eschatological sign – made for man and of practical benefit in our rat-race world. Even if one were to argue Sabbath is not essential for Gentiles, Is 56 makes clear that it is encouraged for Gentiles, and Jews are explicitly prohibited in the 4th Commandment of trying to discourage the Gentile by making the 'alien' work on the Sabbath.
Thus, it's all about perspective and priority. Eating bacon won't condemn you to hell anymore than eating with unwashed hands will – Jesus made that clear. But does that mean you would deliberately eat dinner with unwashed dirty hands?
When we talk about other parts of the Torah, about the disposal of excrement or leprosy, then this discussion gets even more interesting.
Wow, what a discussion this has turned into. Elaine, the idea that Noah's report was one of many that were
left in the Bible is a legitimate thought. However, if we believe in the Bible then we know that it was written by "holy men of old as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." To this end, Moses was God's chosen man to write the first 5 books of the Bible. He didn't require the aid of other ancient religions who Satan made sure ran closely to the Biblical account. At the time of Moses writing out the first 5 books, only Satan knew what really happened and that is why you can see similarities between ancient religions and Christianity, the track runs close for awhile then really veers off track.
As for my medical friend in AU, I have the references to send but maybe what I will do is just post some of the medical reports right here on this site tomorrow.
In this entire discussion, let us remember that the God of the OT called eating unclean foods a "sin." If it was reversed at Calvary then it becomes the only sin in the Bible that is reversable into a blessing. Does this make sense to the Lord who changes not? And what about Peter. 10 years after the "washing hands issue where it was said it was what came out of our bodies as opposed to what went in" – Peter said to God, "Lord you know I have never eaten anything unclean." Why not? If Jesus paved the way Himself what was holding Peter back from eating them? The truth is that neither Peter nor his Lord Jesus ever ate them.
As for being a salvation issue, most of genuine Christian world eats unclean unknowingly. And like every good Christian, when truth arrives in their soul they make appropriate changes. Heaven will be filled with unclean food eaters. But to those who know better and flaunt the eating of unclean foods in God's face this is an entirely different story born by the witness of Isaiah 66 which speaks of the rebellious ones.
Finally, the EGW quote of her eating oysters, I need a reference to see it for myself. But even if I do see it for myself, it has no bearing on whether I will eat oysters. EGW is not my God, simply a pilgrim on the journey whom God chose to especially bless. Have you ever read the Desire of Ages or Steps to Christ? These are books beloved by Christians of all faiths.
Doesn't strike me as a 'discussion,' Glen. More like 'The Dinner Game.' For a discussion, there has to be agreement on the meanings of words etc. And a willingness to come to terms with the issues raised. I'll leave Elaine to comment or not on what must surely be her own bemusement, but I am wondering why its so difficult for you to give a brief summary of your medical evidence for why Pig flesh is unhealthy, while 'clean' flesh is ok? Anyway, if you post the studies you have, that might suffice.
Regarding the 'sinfulness' of eating pigs (which by the way I do not do, well, not much anyway. But if Earl's story of the 115 year old lady is true, maybe I should eat more bacon??). But the question is that of 'sinfulness' of eating pigs. Does the prohibition against pigs, and all 'unclean' foods, fall in the category of the moral law or ceremonial law? Because if the latter, then Jesus did do away with it on the cross. So it is NO LONGER a SIN.
And if eating unclean foods 'knowingly' at the end of time will keep you out of heaven, then I'm afraid you will not be expecting to see Ellen in the next life becasue she KNOWINGLY ate unclean oysters, long after she delivered the HEALTH message to the REMNANT people.
If you need to see the reference for yourself, all you have to do is go to the E G White Estate website, find the shiny new search engine (its very good) and type in 'oysters.' ALL will be revealed. You won't even need eyes to see or ears to hear.
The same rules about unclean meats also had several for unclean humans. Read those and see if anyone today obeys them. You and I know they do not. Everyone selects the one about unclean meats and forgets all the "unclean" adjective to humans and houses.
Sorry which ones are you talking about exactly?
From: Helmer Heghesan
About serving bacon on Florida Hospital property.
This is too close to Roman Catholicism: the nuns filing suit to even ALLOW their employees to be able to purchase contraceptives with no cost to the nuns! I agree with Helmer: are there no lines of religious liberty for others? We are only responsible for what we sell; and evidently the hospital does not sell pork products, but this is merely allowing a company to offer pork and other food to hospital employees and visitors. If the church ever gets to the place the want to control any more, someone should charge them with denying religious liberty to those who may want to ignore the Jewish kosher laws. They were never given to Christians Read the instruction in Acts to the gentile Christians–not a word about unclean meats.
This is too close to Roman Catholicism: the nuns filing suit to even ALLOW their employees to be able to purchase contraceptives with no cost to the nuns! I agree with Helmer: are there no lines of religious liberty for others? We are only responsible for what we sell; and evidently the hospital does not sell pork products, but this is merely allowing a company to offer pork and other food to hospital employees and visitors. If the church ever gets to the place the want to control any more, someone should charge them with denying religious liberty to those who may want to ignore the Jewish kosher laws. They were never given to Christians Read the instruction in Acts to the gentile Christians–not a word about unclean meats.
I do largely agree about religious liberty – I don't agree with Elaine's reading of Acts 15.
The four commands in Acts 15 are largely held to be cross-references to the Noachide commands of Gen 9 or the ger ('Resident Alien') commands of Lev 17-18, which the Torah held as applying to Gentiles. James seems to acknowledge this in verse 21, in suggesting this is all too obvious, because this stuff has been well-known by the synagogues for many generation, who read the Law of Moses every Sabbath. The apologetic speeches in the latter part of Acts, such as Acts 21, are all about defending Paul before the Jews, and not about the Gentile mission, because the situation towards the Gentiles was again so obvious.
Scholars have also noted that the 4 commands do not actually reflect all the ger requirements. For example, it was obviously ger for Gentiles not to make graven images, and yet the 2nd commandment is nowhere explicitly reaffirmed in the NT anywhere. The leading consensus is that these 4 commandments are a summary of all the ger requirements. As such, we should be careful in reading silience or merely an implicit explanation by the Apostles as somehow a suggestion that the opposite. The Apostles didn't mention it all in fine detail precisely because it was so obvious to them.
So the question for all Gentile-Christians is simply this – what is ger and what is not ger? Not making idols or worshipping pagan gods is ger. Interesting, Sabbath is most likely ger, as the 4th command shows. Passover is also possibly ger, as is the Feasts of Booths. Not eating blood definately eating ger. Not eating pork is less clear, I admit, but Adventists argue it is ger on the basis of Noah having 7 clean animals on the ark.
Finally, it is important to realise all of these disputes about the Law were possibly only ecclesiological (about governing the Church) and not soteriological (about salvation). The problem in the NT was that certain Judaizers were saying these rites were salvation issues – they weren't. But the opposite wasn't true either – just because they aren't salvation issues doesn't mean it isn't useful as a ecclesiological issue for Church community. I don't believe new covenant rites like baptism or communion save us either – but they certainly do have a purpose for the Church community as outwards signs.
It's all about perspective and priorities.
As to the hosptial, the question is not what is necessary but what creates the least problems. In particular, Paul didn't think circumcission necessary in Acts 15, but in the very next chapter, in Acts 16, he has Timothy circumcissed not to cause offence! Is the hospital doing all it can to stop controversy?
P.S. I have references for all this from reputable non-Adventist sources if you want them.
There is a difference between having pork in one's lunch box and selling it to the public at an Adventist institution. So too with the rental property mentioned by Mr Heghesan above: selling pork at a rented property owned by Adventists won't be in order. (Nor would an abortion clinic too I would say!) – Or a nightclub for that matter. What the occupants may eat is not the issue here (unless of course they are cannibals or sell cannibas, deal in pornography and so forth on Adventist property). The restaurant should be given marching 'orders.' But that's not on the menu yet!
Interestingly enough, I believe the Church Manual technically makes it a grounds for disfellowshipment to sell alcohol or cigarettes – someone might wish to double-check that. Not sure for bacon.
I suspect Paul would say even if you don't have a personal problem with bacon, if others do, don't do something that causes offence to those who do.
typo above: should be cannabis
Hey Guys, be sure to lock up the cadaver tank room, and turn out the lights, before going home. "Cannabis??, O' pal, you had me going there for a moment. ::))
DISEASES FROM UNCLEAN FOODS
Rather than reference every statement here, these reports have been gleaned from the 3v, 1500 page Encyclopedia of Foods published in Spain, translated into English. Biblically, it is obvious we will never change the minds of some of you partaking in this dialogue, so my counsel to you is enjoy eating unclean foods while you can still enjoy it. As for the 115 year old woman bacon eater, every once in a while you find a centurian who drank a shot of brandy a day along with smoking his cigar. They leave behind millions who perished prematurely due to the same habits. Bon appetit.
SHELLFISH
"No other food tends to be as contaminated by bacteria, viruses and toxins. As a group they are carrion eaters feeding primarily on dead and decaying animals, sea vultures cleansing the sea of organic waste. The poisons on the bottom of the seas are passed from one carnivorous creature to the next increasing in toxicity as it moves up the food chain. Shellfish are the most perishable food product with rapid decline after death. The boric acid solution used to maintain shellfish’s rosy color and retard decay is also a toxic. Those who eat a plate of unclean mussels from the sea, ingest 3,500 times more zinc into their system than is required. Shellfish cause allergies due to the amount of germs they contain. Shellfish is high in uric acid, synonymous with arthritic pain. The following situations are severely agitated by the use of shellfish: Aids, lymphoma, malignant tumors, and patients undergoing chemotherapy. Cholera in developed countries is linked to consumption of raw oysters. For a diabetic to persist in eating shellfish this can eventually lead to blindness. In severe viruses caused by eating shellfish, no amount of cooking, roasting, frying or steaming can kill them.
Shellfish are high in cholesterol (2x that of beef). Wounds infected by shellfish can result in amputation. Hepatitis A from wastewater can remain alive in the sea for up to a year and commonly infect shellfish. Hepatitis C may never be fully cured and is strongly linked to eating raw seafood.
It is strongly recommended that patients undergoing renal dialysis avoid shellfish at all costs. Shellfish is an enemy making worse cases of liver disease and alcoholism. Shellfish are very difficult to digest due to abundant collagen which slows the digestive juices. Shellfish cause poisoning, paralysis, diarrhea, nervous disorders and sometimes death. Ingestion of contaminated shellfish produces severe blood poisoning proving fatal in half of the cases.
The following symptoms of food poisoning appear within 30 minutes of digestion of shellfish – a tingling sensation to facial area, headache, nausea, vomiting, numbness, paralysis of respiratory muscles and abdominal pain. Often times if the food is not ruled "contaminated" by health authorities the cause of death remains a mystery. Mice are used to inject tissue extracted from suspected shellfish to see whether they die. To be fighting gastritis or ulcers and eat shellfish is to reverse the healing process.
(Note: God made shellfish as valuable creatures to clean up the pollutions of the sea. Filthy waters in, clean waters out)
PORK
Pigs are immunologically similar to humans." [Wikipedia] (Note: if you are ever in a plane crash and eating fellow humans is your only option, don't worry, we taste like pork)
Single stomached animals contrast with the four chambered stomachs of the clean animals. Creatures such as the horse, pig and rabbit lack the purifying filter of the clean stomached animals. Pork
is rich in a gelatinous material [mucopolysaccharide] and serves to support bacterial growth. The high free amino acid content in pork serves as pre-digested nutrients for germs. If the pig were a clean animal with multi-stomachs, many of their problems as food would disappear. Pork contains plenty of hypoxanthine which is an addictive stimulant. Pork contains more histamine which provokes allergies. Consumption of pork fat is related with cardiovascular disease such as arteriosclerosis due to its high total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol content. Consumption of pork is associated with increased levels of uric acid which causes gout. Cysticercosis occurs when pork tapeworms end up in the brain causing seizures, difficulty with balance, and swelling of the brain.
It is transmitted from the feces eating swine and is almost non-existant in Muslim countries where pork is forbidden. Children that eat one of more pork hot dogs per week have a 210% higher risk of brain tumors. Consumption of processed pork (ham, bacon) increases the risk of cancer of the nervous system [cerebral glioma] due to the nitrosamine content of these foods. The greater the pork consumption in a country results in the higher the incidence of cervical cancer in women. Pork provides the ideal medium for the cholera germ which can cause this devastating and sometimes lethal disease. Pork contains more tyramine which produces hypertension, along with its high salt content. The pork worm [trichinellia spiralis], the cause of trichinosis is normally a parasite of the pig or the rat. One gram of infested, inadequately cooked pork may contain as many as 3000 trichina larval cysts, both male and female. Once inside the digestive system, the worms develop into adults and mate. Each pregnant female gives birth to thousands of live young worms which gnaw through the small intestine and then travel via the bloodstream to the muscles where they form cysts. The effects of trichinosis are wide-spread and hard to diagnose, the symptoms varying from so-called rheumatism, fever, anaemia, headaches, muscular paralysis, internal bleeding – and even blindness. It can lead to edema (swelling of face or eyelids). The Cornell Medical Centre has revealed trichinosis strikes about one out of every four persons at some time in their life. Diarrhea is caused by eating raw cured ham. A germ found in pus is often exposed during the slaughterhouse butchering process. Abscesses often existing on the swine’s feet are inadvertently opened often contaminating the carcass. This causes gastroenteritis. A 1985 study found a significant correlation between cirrhosis and pork consumption from its high content of nitrogenous compounds which must be metabolized in the liver. The use of any cured pork, even once per month, triples the risk of toxoplasmosis which can cause miscarriage, fetal brain damage or blindness.
Pregnant women who eat one or more pork hot dogs per week expose their unborn children to a 230% higher risk of brain tumors. The histamine content of pork fosters eczema and boils.
Salmonella contaminates between 5-30% of swine carcasses in slaughterhouses. Many swine already have the bacteria in their gut upon entering. Only high temperature cooking can kill it. Barbeque heat is not hot enough according to the Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta, GA. Warts are common on the hands of butchers and slaughterhouse workers that handle pork and caused by the HPV7 virus.
Condylomas are tumor-like growths of viral origin in the form of huge warts on the anus or external genitalia. There have been cases disappearing after simply giving up pork.
In closing, we look to one of the most heathen nations in the history of planet earth to see what their relationship to the pig was:
The ancient Egyptians regarded the pig as detestable. If they touched it casually, they at once plunged into water to purify themselves. RA said to the other gods, "The pig will be abominable" and they were never sacrificed to him.
Go ahead my fellow Christians, eat what even the heathen gods wouldn't touch. You've got plenty of good company along with the legion of devils who asked Jesus to send them into the swine to perish.
All this health info is not relevant to this situation: No one is arguing the health benefits of harms from "
"unclean" meats. It has always been, since given to the Israelites, strictly for being a "separate and chosen people." They were not to associate with foreigners, and the most effective method is to be unable, because of dietary laws, to eat and drink and become friends with other tribres.
No where in the Bible when these laws were given was there a mention of harm caused by ingesting them as no one can biologically or physiology give reasons that beef and horse meat (both eating grass) cause one to be "unclean" and the other is kosher.
Stop introducing irrelevant arguments. It's the same as if someone said that the Sabbath was given because every seventh day is different from the rest of the weekdays. If one was in a coma and awoke and didn't know what day of the week it was, would there be some way to identify if it were Sabbath or not?
Either those who want to live by the Judaic laws should obey them and cease explaining, or cease and desist from all useless arguments. Ask a practicing Jew to tell you why they are unclean: their reasons should be the same as yours: because God told them, period. He told them but the Gentiles were never given such restrictions.
Seems we've entered a warp, where near-surreal realities are the norm.
We've done a complete backflip, dropped the honest health message and have profiteered from "disease management", bound it into legal religious restrictions and dropped the ball Dr Kellog tried roll. Corn flakes (and all those wonderful analogue "mark of a best" meats) are touted as healthier than most other fare. Except-the GMO corn and soy (along with it's phytoestrogenic properties) are NOT healthy-and some punster ought remark perhaps that pork is healthier-unless it was fed said cornflakes and sawdust "fiber enhanced" soymeats!
Yup, we've got the market cornered on health food. Been to potluck lately?
Cheeses truly cover multitudinous sins!
Referencing Helmers (Lähetän sinulle monia terveisiä!) question (and others), no, the hospital is not SERVING pork, despite how some hear wish to to characterize the issue so as to take righteous umbrage.
Perhaps the corporate church and affiliated corporate entities need define their "standards". Do we enforce a proscriptive, or empower one to choose prescriptive? Which did God choose-from the Garden, through the flood, Sinai, the cross, each moment of our own lives?
As usual, Elaine has already made the most important point about this non-issue. The reason for "unclean meats" among the ancient Hebrews had nothing to do with health, it was entirely about being "unclean" from a ritual perspective. That health thing is a modern gloss. If one wants to make a big deal about what you eat or what you don't eat, great. I personally think that vegetarianism is a great idea for all kinds of reasons, but its a personal thing. And if you want to make-up religious reasons to support your personal wants, be my guest. But don't think they will or should carry any weight for anyone else.
As usual, Elaine has already made the most important point about this non-issue. The reason for "unclean meats" among the ancient Hebrews had nothing to do with health, it was entirely about being "unclean" from a ritual perspective. That health thing is a modern gloss. If one wants to make a big deal about what you eat or what you don't eat, great. I personally think that vegetarianism is a great idea for all kinds of reasons, but its a personal thing. And if you want to make-up religious reasons to support your personal wants, be my guest. But don't think they will or should carry any weight for anyone else.
Doesn't Acts 15:20,29 and Acts 21:25 suggest Christians (yes even Gentile ones) should consider it relevant what they eat? I'm pretty sure I didn't 'make up' those biblical texts, and the Apostles didn't even do that, given they are most likely simply refering to Lev 17-18 or Gen 9. But if you want to just 'make up' your own religion, one not based on the Bible, then I understand you live in a free country (until your government started holding people in indefinite detention, spying on its citizen and assassinating with drones its own citizens).
«The reason for "unclean meats" among the ancient Hebrews had nothing to do with health»
Why not? It makes sense to me that our creator knows what fuel we best function on. Or did God just haphazardly single out the pig as being unfit for human consumption? Could he as easily have chosen the goat as unclean?
Remember that even in the garden of Eden God told us what to eat. So I do not this is done by mere chance, God has our health in mind when He said «this is food for you, and not this».
If the laws given to the Jews were really for health and not religious reasons, why are chickens "clean" and pork "unclean"? Which are more or less healthful and why?
The Jews never made claim, nor did God ever mention those food laws were given for their health but were designed to keep them separate from ever associating with the foreign tribes: In the Middle East.
Remember, the first thing Abraham did when the three visitors came to him? He invited them into his home and for a dinner with the finest food. Those customs are still practiced in those countries and even today in our modern world, if we want to get to know someone better, we "break bread with them" by inviting them to our homes to dine. Kosher laws were most effective against that. It is only moderns today who attempt to claim that those Kosher laws were given for healthful reasons. Show that from Scripture.
The NT erased the Jewish Laws for Gentiles as demonstrated by the vision given to Peter: "There is nothing that is unclean to you."
Indeed, why pig and not chicken. Good question, and I do not have the answers. We do read God outline what to eat and not. I simply observe that the Bible says it is not for human consumption. Defining things as unclean is an effective way of telling people to stay away from certain things.
I am not sure that kosher laws were to stop the Israelites from eating with others, but interesting thought. What if someone came to them to visit? Would they not eat lamb or goat? It would be more effective if God told them not to talk to strangers 🙂
The reason I think God had our best in mind when He outlines dietary laws, is the rest of what I read. Reading the Bible I read of a God that has us in His mind.
When my kids were small and I would tell them not to eat this or that, it was not because I wanted to show them who is in charge. It was because some of the things they wanted were not good for them.
When God told Adam and Eve what to eat in the garden, was it clean/unclean? Yet God still told them what they were to consider food.
In Acts 10 we read Peters story.
Peter is told to kill and eat. And we read Peter’s response as «Not so». The greek means «by no means», or paraphrased «ten wild horses couldn’t make me».
We read that Peter «…doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean» verse 17. The word doubted is also translated perplexed. Was God not clear? Had not Peter walked and talked with Jesus, sat at his feet and listened to his teachings? What was there to doubt? Was it not God speaking to him? Peter then goes to the house of Cornelius, and in verse 28 Peter explains what his vision meant; «…God hath shewed me that I should not call any MAN common or unclean». Not food, but man (or woman). He then elaborated in verse 34 and 35.
If the laws given to the Jews were really for health and not religious reasons, why are chickens "clean" and pork "unclean"? Which are more or less healthful and why?
The Jews never made claim, nor did God ever mention those food laws were given for their health but were designed to keep them separate from ever associating with the foreign tribes: In the Middle East.
Remember, the first thing Abraham did when the three visitors came to him? He invited them into his home and for a dinner with the finest food. Those customs are still practiced in those countries and even today in our modern world, if we want to get to know someone better, we "break bread with them" by inviting them to our homes to dine. Kosher laws were most effective against that. It is only moderns today who attempt to claim that those Kosher laws were given for healthful reasons. Show that from Scripture.
The NT erased the Jewish Laws for Gentiles as demonstrated by the vision given to Peter: "There is nothing that is unclean to you."
If the laws given to the Jews were really for health and not religious reasons, why are chickens "clean" and pork "unclean"? Which are more or less healthful and why?
The Jews never made claim, nor did God ever mention those food laws were given for their health but were designed to keep them separate from ever associating with the foreign tribes: In the Middle East.
Remember, the first thing Abraham did when the three visitors came to him? He invited them into his home and for a dinner with the finest food. Those customs are still practiced in those countries and even today in our modern world, if we want to get to know someone better, we "break bread with them" by inviting them to our homes to dine. Kosher laws were most effective against that. It is only moderns today who attempt to claim that those Kosher laws were given for healthful reasons. Show that from Scripture.
The NT erased the Jewish Laws for Gentiles as demonstrated by the vision given to Peter: "There is nothing that is unclean to you."
If the laws given to the Jews were really for health and not religious reasons, why are chickens "clean" and pork "unclean"? Which are more or less healthful and why?
The Jews never made claim, nor did God ever mention those food laws were given for their health but were designed to keep them separate from ever associating with the foreign tribes: In the Middle East.
Remember, the first thing Abraham did when the three visitors came to him? He invited them into his home and for a dinner with the finest food. Those customs are still practiced in those countries and even today in our modern world, if we want to get to know someone better, we "break bread with them" by inviting them to our homes to dine. Kosher laws were most effective against that. It is only moderns today who attempt to claim that those Kosher laws were given for healthful reasons. Show that from Scripture.
The NT erased the Jewish Laws for Gentiles as demonstrated by the vision given to Peter: "There is nothing that is unclean to you."
If the laws given to the Jews were really for health and not religious reasons, why are chickens "clean" and pork "unclean"? Which are more or less healthful and why?
The Jews never made claim, nor did God ever mention those food laws were given for their health but were designed to keep them separate from ever associating with the foreign tribes: In the Middle East.
Remember, the first thing Abraham did when the three visitors came to him? He invited them into his home and for a dinner with the finest food. Those customs are still practiced in those countries and even today in our modern world, if we want to get to know someone better, we "break bread with them" by inviting them to our homes to dine. Kosher laws were most effective against that. It is only moderns today who attempt to claim that those Kosher laws were given for healthful reasons. Show that from Scripture.
The NT erased the Jewish Laws for Gentiles as demonstrated by the vision given to Peter: "There is nothing that is unclean to you."
If the laws given to the Jews were really for health and not religious reasons, why are chickens "clean" and pork "unclean"? Which are more or less healthful and why?
The Jews never made claim, nor did God ever mention those food laws were given for their health but were designed to keep them separate from ever associating with the foreign tribes: In the Middle East.
Remember, the first thing Abraham did when the three visitors came to him? He invited them into his home and for a dinner with the finest food. Those customs are still practiced in those countries and even today in our modern world, if we want to get to know someone better, we "break bread with them" by inviting them to our homes to dine. Kosher laws were most effective against that. It is only moderns today who attempt to claim that those Kosher laws were given for healthful reasons. Show that from Scripture.
The NT erased the Jewish Laws for Gentiles as demonstrated by the vision given to Peter: "There is nothing that is unclean to you."
I won't be surprised if there are Adventists too who may perhaps also be eating pork. Just a wild guess though based on the evolving trends, attitudes and practices one sees nowadays among certain pockets of Adventism. Alcohol would also be included here.
Mr Hammond must be living in some area of the world a great distance from any major First World Adventist medical or educational institution for him to express surprise about contemporary Adventist food and beverage choices.
Yes, Mr Hammond may well be suprised just how fat many of we first-world Adventists are, having long abondoned our health message. I live in the First World but I do not live near any Adventist medical or educational institutions. No doubt I don't have the privilege of living in such a cultural bubble, alas, I am forced to spend most my time with work colleagues, friends and family who are not Adventists. Could Dr Taylor perhaps elighten us all about contemporary Adventist food and beverage choices, especially in the sort of Adventist bubble communities, such as the one he lives in. I am imagining a big McDonald's available on Adventist medical campus, where I can buy a nice bacon double cheese burger delux – you have those in your country?
As usual I don't read Elaine and I'm wondering why I even read what Ervin writes. It is strange that a man who professes to be an SDA has so little interest in its theology other than diss it.
Maranatha
I take great exception to Mr/Mrs/Ms TS statement that I'm not interested in Adventist theology. Far from it. It's a facinating topic, full of all kinds of elements which come from all kinds of historic sources. I also would prefer to regard any of my commentaries on it as not "dissing" it, but simply considering it carefully as a product of the thinking of many very interesting 19th century personalities.
Yes, I don't doubt for a second Dr Taylor is very interested in Adventist theology, but probably in the same way as Saul was interested in Christianity, Dr Joseph Mengele was interested in Jewish twins, Marx was interested in capitalism and Fox News is interested in fair and balanced reporting. The more interesting thing I would love to know from Dr Taylor is why he is interested in Adventist theology, given he seems to share absolutely no Adventist theological beliefs with the rest of us, if even traditional Christian ones (which I broadly define by reference to the Nicene Creed, as the most universal formulation of basic Christian beliefs across some 2,000-plus denominations).
Stephen, flattery is unbecoming to you. When you say that Dr. Taylor "seems to share absolutely no Adventist theological beliefs with the rest of us" perhaps you will do us the favor of informing the reader who exactly who "the rest of us" is. Adventism is a very large, worldwide tent, and unless you have observations from all these thousands of groups of Adventists, it s remarkable that you are so capable of knowing what "the rest" believe. Please help us understand what is believed by those Adventists who comprise that group of which you are one of the "us."
Elaine: ‘When you say that Dr. Taylor "seems to share absolutely no Adventist theological beliefs with the rest of us" perhaps you will do us the favor of informing the reader who exactly who "the rest of us" is. Adventism is a very large, worldwide tent… Please help us understand what is believed by those Adventists who comprise that group of which you are one of the "us."’
Elaine, a truly intriguing question. Thank you for asking it.
Probably the most straight-forward definition of an “Adventist” is someone who makes a public declaration of affiliation with the SDA Church through acquiring and retaining membership.
Alternatively, one could say an “Adventist” is someone who broadly subscribes to the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, recognising the FBs are not a creed but only a description.
I suspect a combination of these two requirements is probably best. Adventist membership is acquired by adults with free will, not infants, and Adventist members always have the freedom to renounce their membership (as you have done). Therefore, if someone is an Adventist member, and that person decides to retain that membership, then there is a reasonable assumption this person will, broadly speaking, adhere to SDA beliefs and practices.
Don’t worry though, by those two standards you well and truly would not be an Adventist – if contamination with the “Adventist label” is what you are concerned about? I think we all get the picture you are not an Adventist but only a disgruntled ex-Adventist, who delights in torturing Adventist souls, so rest assured I want mislabel you as an Adventist.
Adventism may well be a “large, worldwide tent” as you say, but I doubt it is as wide as you think it is.
The only other methodology of characterising who “the rest of us” Adventists are, is my referring to what the SDA Church leaders, appointed by “the rest of us” 22-plus million, through democratic principles, says about the matter. I refer you to the SDA brochure ‘Who are Seventh-day Adventists’:
http://www.nadadventist.org/site/1/docs/Who%20are%20Seventh-day%20Adventists%208mgs.pdf
‘Seventh-day Adventists are Bible-believing Christians who base faith, hope and the future in Jesus Christ. The name ‘Seventh-day’ indicates our adherence to the biblical Sabbath, while ‘Adventist’ means we anticipate the promised return of Christ.’
If you would prefer to offer up your own definition of “Adventist”, I think that would itself warrant a very interesting discussion. So feel free. Perhaps Dr Taylor could offer it up in a new thread as one of his upcoming articles?
Stephen,
You have misquoted me; please carefully check your statements. I never said what you quoted me as saying about Dr. Taylor. You need to apologize to both of us for such flagrant false statements.
Elaine: 'Stop introducing irrelevant arguments.'
Elaine I truly loved this comment – it made me laugh so out loud. The pot truly calling the kettle black here. If I had a dollar every time you dealt with a difficult injunction from scripture but arguing scripture itself is not authorative or from God I'd being a relatively rich man – by your American standards that is – where I assume the average wage is about $2 a day.
Elaine: 'Either those who want to live by the Judaic laws should obey them and cease explaining, or cease and desist from all useless arguments. Ask a practicing Jew to tell you why they are unclean: their reasons should be the same as yours: because God told them, period. He told them but the Gentiles were never given such restrictions.'
This Elaine does go to the heart of the issue, so I am glad you brought this up. What is a 'Jew' and what is a 'Judaic' law exactly? How do we define these terms?
The fundamental question concerning Christian-Gentile practice, and this is especially important for Adventist identity, is the question of what parts of the Torah are 'Jewish'? It is overly simplistic to equate the Torah with the 613 rules of the Mitzvoth, because the Torah also has less onerous commands for Gentiles. To make it even more complicated, the Torah equates more onerous eschatological standards of behaviour expected for the Messianic Age (which Christians believe began in the NT era, as affirmed by Peter that these are the 'Last Days'), such as the raddical communalism (or communism) of the Jerusalem Church, as prophesied in say Isaiah 56, 58, 65 and 66. Finally, to show how overly simplistic your classification of 'Jew' and 'Judaic Laws' are, the Torah also imposes onerous and special rules for the Kohen-Priests and for those who take the Nazirite Oath.
So fundamentally, the question is how should Gentiles live? We can all agree that we are saved by grace, not any 'covenant badge', as Peter attests in Acts 15:11, but how should we live practically from day-to-day? The Apostolic Decree gives the most coherent NT answer in Acts 15:22, 29, and repeated for emphasis again in Acts 21:26.
There is almost universal scholarly agreement that these four commands come from the 'Resident Alien' requirements found in Lev 17-18. There is less agreement whether it also reflects the Noachide commands of Gen 9. So the Apostolic Decree does not abrogate the Torah for Gentiles; rather, it simply affirms what the Torah itself teaches.
Are the four Apostolic Decree commands of the Jerusalem Council explicit – we need to do no more? The Apostolic Decree does not mention all the 'Resident Alien' requirements. Moreover, it does not explicitly require Gentiles adhere to monotheism, or avoid graven images, or refrain from infanctide – all distictively 'Jewish' commands of the Torah which are also imposed on Gentiles.
The reason why these are not mentioned is because the four commands are a summary of the 'Resident Alien' requirements of the Torah. This is reflected in James' comment in Acts 15:21, suggesting this is all so obvious because all the Diaspora Jews know this, because the Law of Moses has been read in the synagogues for generations.
So the nub of it all is whether a supposedly 'Jewish' practice is 'Jewish' at all, or whether instead a practice or requirement is actually imposed by the Torah on Gentiles through the Noachide or 'Resident Alien' requirements. This indeed causes a bit of a problem for many scholars, who have to admit the Sabbath is indeed a 'Resident Alien' requirement – in fact it is the command of the Decalogue (Ex 20:10) that explicitly mentions 'aliens' in it.
The situation with unclean meats is more difficult. Three of the commands of the Apostolic Decree are actually food-related laws, so it is simply rubbish to say food is not a relevant issue for Gentiles. Whether 'unclean' meats, as opposed to say eating blood in meat, is a 'Resident Alien' requirement is a more difficult question, but it is possibly reflected in the Noachide command imposed universally on all human beings in Gen 8:20.
But I doubt Elaine or Dr Taylor will actually engage these issues. Instead, they'll simply go only complaining that Adventists are trying to be 'Jews' following 'Judaic laws', which is such a spurious claim.
Sorry that should be Acts 21:25 for the repeat of the Apostolic Decree.
Who is a Jew? Even they are asking the same question.
In the latest Economist. an article raises that question. In the past the rabbis have made those decisions and it was that every child with a Jewish mother was a Jew. This has nothing to do with either faith or behavior and Jews may be atheist as many are: apostasy is a venerable Jewish tradition. This is similar to America where a child born to an American mother becomes an American citizen by birth.
The Law of Return stated that anyone who has, or whose spouse has, at least one Jewish grandparent can claim citizenship in Israel–a standard expressly modelled on the critiera for persecution under the Nazis. This Law also recognizes conversions but that the rabbis reject. Conversion are sometimes annulled for violations of Sabbath or other religious rules (imagine that!)
In America, 22% of Jews describe themselves as having no religion (swap "Christians" for "Jews" for a nonsensical statement).
The question becomes: how Jewish is the Adventist religion and where is it most like and when it is most different? Why should there be a concern for conformity to the Jewish rules? Perhaps on a religious basis, Adventists could become Israeli citizens!
My oh my…. Arguments like this bring back memories of my SDA youth. I recall that "Bacos" (artificial bacon) was also controversial. Clearly, things that now seem to me to be so shallow and silly are alive and well among SDAs. What is so telling about these arguments is how bitter and hateful they can become, betraying deficits in the ability to "love one another" and treat each other with respect.
Yes all true Joe, but it can work both ways as well. The NT equally teaches we should not deliberately do provocative things, like eat meat offered to idols, if we know it is likely to cause offence to others. That is the loving thing to do and illustrative of respect. The question is whether the Adventist hospital had that in mind when they engaged in conduct that they must have reasonably foreseen was going to cause a hornets nest – so much so that the AToday reporter (whoever they were) felt the issue 'news worthy' enough to report on this very site.
And doesn't Acts 15:20,29 and Acts 21:25 suggest Christians (yes even Gentile ones) should consider it relevant what they eat? If you no longer believe in the authority of the Bible, then I understand it all seems a bit riddiculous. No doubt it seems crazy that Christians in the Early Christian period would literally be willing to die rather than give sacrifice to Caesar, who the Roman State said was a god. All this business seems bizzare to non-believers, but we would appreciate at least understanding of why issues can be very tense. Paul and Peter (largely caused by James) had a public shouting match about table-fellowship after all – and they were all pillars of the Church!
Joe-"What is so telling about these arguments is how bitter and hateful they can become, betraying deficits in the ability to "love one another" and treat each other with respect."
Isn't that more than a little hyperbole and judgmental besides? Is genuine disagreement not acceptable? Or…
Maranatha
I think Joe has the right idea here. As a literature evangelist for 25 years I would go into homes, present what I felt was a Biblical health message for the benefit of the hearers' health more so than to prove a Biblical point. If they protested I would quickly move onto a subject where common ground could be found. I remember getting escorted out of one Amish home after daring to mention unclean foods but that was about the extent of it after visiting thousands of homes. I do also remember many who gave up pork including one Mennonite family ridding a freezer load into the dumpster. Mexican Mennonites relocated to Canada have a story circulating in their lore whereby they tell of every single pig which is butchered having a muscle in their right knee squeezed together by the devil's bite mark made as they rushed over the cliff. Surely an old wive's tale but one respected by the Mennonites. The general rule among this people group is that the pig is bad food for them even though many of their sect continue to eat it.
So, yes, in the spirit of the colporteur, let us not insult one another. Earlier I presented the medical info on eating unclean for the benefit of those eating it. However, treating one another with respect is more important than whether you personally believe in eating unclean meats. God never judges us on how smart doctrinally we are but how we Christians love one another. Thanks Joe for bringing this point up.
I think Joe has the right idea here. As a literature evangelist for 25 years I would go into homes, present what I felt was a Biblical health message for the benefit of the hearers' health more so than to prove a Biblical point. If they protested I would quickly move onto a subject where common ground could be found. I remember getting escorted out of one Amish home after daring to mention unclean foods but that was about the extent of it after visiting thousands of homes. I do also remember many who gave up pork including one Mennonite family ridding a freezer load into the dumpster. Mexican Mennonites relocated to Canada have a story circulating in their lore whereby they tell of every single pig which is butchered having a muscle in their right knee squeezed together by the devil's bite mark made as they rushed over the cliff. Surely an old wive's tale but one respected by the Mennonites. The general rule among this people group is that the pig is bad food for them even though many of their sect continue to eat it.
So, yes, in the spirit of the colporteur, let us not insult one another. Earlier I presented the medical info on eating unclean for the benefit of those eating it. However, treating one another with respect is more important than whether you personally believe in eating unclean meats. God never judges us on how smart doctrinally we are but how we Christians love one another. Thanks Joe for bringing this point up.
I think Joe has the right idea here. As a literature evangelist for 25 years I would go into homes, present what I felt was a Biblical health message for the benefit of the hearers' health more so than to prove a Biblical point. If they protested I would quickly move onto a subject where common ground could be found. I remember getting escorted out of one Amish home after daring to mention unclean foods but that was about the extent of it after visiting thousands of homes. I do also remember many who gave up pork including one Mennonite family ridding a freezer load into the dumpster. Mexican Mennonites relocated to Canada have a story circulating in their lore whereby they tell of every single pig which is butchered having a muscle in their right knee squeezed together by the devil's bite mark made as they rushed over the cliff. Surely an old wive's tale but one respected by the Mennonites. The general rule among this people group is that the pig is bad food for them even though many of their sect continue to eat it.
So, yes, in the spirit of the colporteur, let us not insult one another. Earlier I presented the medical info on eating unclean for the benefit of those eating it. However, treating one another with respect is more important than whether you personally believe in eating unclean meats. God never judges us on how smart doctrinally we are but how we Christians love one another. Thanks Joe for bringing this point up.
I think Joe has the right idea here. As a literature evangelist for 25 years I would go into homes, present what I felt was a Biblical health message for the benefit of the hearers' health more so than to prove a Biblical point. If they protested I would quickly move onto a subject where common ground could be found. I remember getting escorted out of one Amish home after daring to mention unclean foods but that was about the extent of it after visiting thousands of homes. I do also remember many who gave up pork including one Mennonite family ridding a freezer load into the dumpster. Mexican Mennonites relocated to Canada have a story circulating in their lore whereby they tell of every single pig which is butchered having a muscle in their right knee squeezed together by the devil's bite mark made as they rushed over the cliff. Surely an old wive's tale but one respected by the Mennonites. The general rule among this people group is that the pig is bad food for them even though many of their sect continue to eat it.
So, yes, in the spirit of the colporteur, let us not insult one another. Earlier I presented the medical info on eating unclean for the benefit of those eating it. However, treating one another with respect is more important than whether you personally believe in eating unclean meats. God never judges us on how smart doctrinally we are but how we Christians love one another. Thanks Joe for bringing this point up.
sorry everybody, just trying to get the hang of this site and didn't know my every click was posting my article again.
And an hour I was unable to click comment; the editing was possible, and preview responded so it's understandable that comments may be posted more than once. It's the site glitch.
Elaine: ‘Who is a Jew? Even they are asking the same question.’
Great question – and they were asking it back in the NT times.
A key and overlooked issue during the 2nd-Temple period of the 1st-Century was not merely a question of Jews vs Gentiles but a question of Hellenised-Diaspora Jews vs Palestine-Temple Jews. Paul’s apologetic speeches at the end of Acts are primarily about Jews vs Jews – not about Jews vs Gentiles.
The battle between Sadducees vs Essenes (two Priestly groups) is another good illustration. The NT seems to come down on the side of the non-Temple variety, and to some extent the question of Gentiles was an adjunct or prop to that discussion.
For example, Stephen seemed to be a Hellenised-Diaspora Jew, where one recalls the deacons were selected because Hellenised-Diaspora widows were being neglected. Many scholars believe Stephen’s speech is a polemic against the Jewish Temple.
Similarly, the focus of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is not just about Gentiles – it is about your question of what is a Jew and what do Jews have to do. The quoting of Amos is a reference to the eschatological Temple of the Messianic Age. The OT prophesied that the Messianic Age will see the inclusion of Gentiles, who will also come to worship at this Temple.
So the Jewish-Christian Apostles were most likely arguing that the new Church community, not a physical body, was this new eschatological Temple. The evidence of the non-physical Temple view is the inclusion of the Gentiles. So the Gentiles were largely just secondary pawns in a wider discussion about who or what is expected of Jews who now believe they live in the Messianic Age.
Elaine: ‘In the past the rabbis have made those decisions and it was that every child with a Jewish mother was a Jew. This has nothing to do with either faith or behavior and Jews may be atheist as many are: apostasy is a venerable Jewish tradition. This is similar to America where a child born to an American mother becomes an American citizen by birth.’
Yes, and that seemed to be a key concern of the NT writers and figures as well. The Pharisees thought they were saved as part of the Abrahamic covenant, as citizens of Israel, whilst Jesus controversially said they were in fact children of the Devil. Paul says it is circumcision of the heart, not physical circumcision, that really matters, which is not a break from the OT but rather merely confirms what the OT itself teaches – he was quoting Deut. As noted above, the Apostles, including conservative James, were still on the side of Judaism and the Law, but like the Essene community or even the Pharisees but not the Sadducees, Judaism in the Messianic Age does not have to be connected with Temple rituals, as the physical Temple has been replaced with the eschatological Temple.
So the issue you are raising is actually a very old one.
Elaine: ‘The question becomes: how Jewish is the Adventist religion and where is it most like and when it is most different?’
Another great question. Let’s take a step back though and ask how Jewish is Christianity?
Christianity worships a Jewish God Yahweh, believes a Jew from Palestine was the Jewish king in fulfillment of Jewish scriptural prophecies, was founded by 12 Jewish Apostles (plus Jewish Paul), cited as their authority the Jewish scriptures.
The Apostolic Decree confirmed that Gentiles are still bound by the Law. It is just that Gentiles are only bound by those lesser requirements that the Law itself imposes on Gentiles according to ‘Resident Alien’ and Noachide requirements.
If you read the end of Acts 21 (go and re-read it), Luke (who is actually writing for a Gentile audience, is pro-Pauline and represents the proto-orthodox Church) certainly is not against Jews or the Law. Acts 21 reconfirmed the Apostolic Decree for Gentiles and affirms Paul’s position as a Law-abiding Jew.
For Luke and the Early Church, scholars think he would want to deliberately tie Christianity (including Gentile-Christians) to Judaism, because to do so would to avoid Christians of the special rights and protections of the Roman State towards Jews.
The sort of theological-anti-Semitism most Christians today espouse, and you seem to espouse, and which modern scholars in the post-Holocaust era like E P Sanders have to readdress, is actually a hallmark of a slighter later period. Importantly, when Judaism went from protected status under Roman law to liability, especially as a consequence of the Jewish Wars, then Christians starting doing the reverse of Luke – trying to distance Christianity from Judaism. However, it is important to recognize that such theological-anti-Semitism primarily represents a latter period and not the NT itself.
So in answer to your question (as modified) of how Jewish is Christianity – quite a lot actually. However, it is more complicated that 3-word slogans might suggest.
Finally, if instead you are asking why we are following Jewish holy scriptures or worshipping a Jewish God (as I know you don’t really believe), one might well ask what you are doing here? It would be like going to a Islamic website and asking why a Muslim doesn’t eat pork or drink alcohol.
Elaine: ‘Why should there be a concern for conformity to the Jewish rules?’
Indeed, but who says Adventists are trying to be Jews? I certainly don’t think Adventists are trying to be Jews. I don’t see Adventists tying blue tassels to their garments or obeying all 613 rules of the Mitzvoth.
I believe Adventists are trying to be righteous Gentiles, to follow the ‘Resident Alien’ and Noachide commands given in the Torah for Gentiles. This is what the OT expects, and this is what the NT seems to confirm also in Acts 15.
We Adventists keep the Sabbath precisely because it is a ‘Resident Alien’ command – in fact – it is the command of the Decalogue that is specifically applicable for ‘aliens’. So the irony that most other Christians say the other 9 continue to apply but not the Sabbath is really ironic.
We Adventists keep certain food laws because they are also ‘Resident Alien’ commands. As sacrifice and eating meat went hand-in-hand, it is a nonsense to suggest the NT Apostles were happy with Gentiles eating a pig, as long as that pig was no strangled or offered to idols. The example of Noah with the 7 pairs of clean animals suggests that Gentiles, who are not expected to offer sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem, are nevertheless expected to offer only clean meats to Yahweh.
And it is also important to note that the ‘Resident Alien’ commands are only a minimum – not a maximum ideal. The NT also expects a higher ideal of eschatological behaviour. For example, there certainly sin in marriage, and yet the NT expects the higher ideal of celibacy, which matches our expected state in the resurrection.
In some ways the Roman Catholics understand this best, because they do differentiate the minimum standards of behaviour expected of laity with the higher eschatological ideals of their monastic communities (much like the Jerusalem Church with strict radical communism) and clergy (much like the higher standards expected of deacons and elders). If there is a criticism of Adventism, I think it adheres to a higher eschatological standard, but wrongly thinks all Christians are bound by that standard – the situation with alcohol or polygamy comes to mind. However, the Sabbath is definitely an eschatological ideal for Gentiles as made clear in Isaiah.
Finally, let’s assume for a moment you are correct. Even if you are, that Gentiles don’t have to keep any Jewish laws at all not explicitly mentioned, does that mean you think the NT is ok with Gentiles making graven images to pagan gods, say to Caesar, given that commandment of the Decalogue is not specifically reaffirmed?
Moreover, even if ‘Jewish’ rules (assuming say the Sabbath and unclean foods are ‘Jewish’) are non-binding, there is no sin in Gentiles following them. The Law, including these ‘Jewish rules’ are still good, holy, righteous, spiritual and useful to teach – so says Paul. Paul might be the champion against circumcision in Acts 15, but he then has Timothy circumcised as recorded in the very next chapter of Acts 16? Also read Acts 21, where Paul is clearly portrayed at the end of his ministry as a Law-abiding Jew.
Stephen,
Being religiously confused seems to part of Adventism. You are a fully qualified member.
Elaine, I am not sure if insutls classify as proper reasons. Why can't you engage the merits, or otherwise, of my points, by engaging in the actual issue, which is what the Apostolic Decree did or did not expcet of Gentiles in Acts 15:20,29 and Acts 21:25?
This is the major issue raised in the article itself, where if you scroll right back to the top of the page, the AToday News day say:
'AHS is affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church which teaches its members to observe the Old Testament prohibition of "unclean" meat from Leviticus 11, in part due to the extension of the concept to Christians in Acts 15:29.'
As to being religously 'confused', perhaps you will enlighten us all what that is exactly?
How are you not 'religious confused' yourself, with your own bizarre John Shelby Spong non-theistic, anti-Christian and anti-Semitic beliefs?
At least I am pretty much an open page as far as what I believe. I don't believe I am a Jew, I believe I am righteous Gentiles, a 'Resident Alien', trying to live up to the requirements of the Law imposed in the OT and affirmed on Gentile-Christians by the Apostolic Decree in the NT. I don't keep the Sabbath or obey certain food laws because they are distinctively 'Jewish' but precisely because they are universally applicable to all human beings.
Moreover, I know from many discussions that you subscribe to a very anti-Law view of things, where you seem to suggest Christians are only bound by 'moral' aspects of the Law – is that correct? And you also seem to subscribe to an anti-Semitic theology where you suggest Christianity is intended as a new and separate religion, a break from Judaism – is that correct?
If so, both of those ideas are dead wrong. In fact, theologians such as E P Sanders have rightly suggested that such anti-Semitic views represent a latter period of the Church, not that of the NT, and that such anti-Semitic theological views were attributed to contributing to the holocaust. Sanders makes the point that the Pharisees never believed in salvation by works and many of the attacks on Judaism are straw-man arguments.
For NT authors like Luke, they would have wanted to link Genitle-Christians with the Law and Judaism, not the opposite, so as to try and avail the Gentiles with the special protections for Jews by the Roman State. It was only later, when being Jewish suddenly became a liability instead, that a shift occured in Gentile-Christian theology to distance itself from the Jews and Judaism.
I suspect you may well come to these anti-Semitic theological ideas because of a deep emotional reaction against Adventism, which you seem to equate with Judaism. Like many Christians, who like (before it become politically incorrect) call to Jews 'Christ-killer', you seem pretty confused yourself. You want to simply ignore that Christianity is a Jewish sect, believes in a Jewish God, praises a Jewish king from Nazareth who taughth that 'salvation is of the Jews', uses Jewish scriptures, follows Jewish ethics (even the 'new' ethics of Jesus derived from the OT), and practices Jewish ceremonial rites (even rites such as baptism have their origins in the OT).
Again for the avoidance of doubt, I have much respect for Jews, the Law and Judaism. However, I don't believe Adventists are trying to be Jews. They are only trying to be what the Law itself requires on Gentiles, which never was circumcision, but only the 'Resident Alien' and Noachide commands. This is what both the OT and NT suggest is applicable to Gentiles. In this way, Christianity is not a new and separate religion from Judaism, but rather the very opposite – the fulfillment of the Law and restoration of Israel in the Messianic Age.
Oh Stephen, who hath bewitched you? These are nothing more than the specious arguments of the Judaizers. For freedom Christ has set us free, and He has given us no other law than to love. Letter to Galatians…. worth reading over and over.
Be what you are, an embodiment of divine love.
Sorry Serge, but it is important not to mix concepts. The Apostolic Decree in Acts 15:11 made it very clear we are saved by grace, not works. Don't get confused in thinking we are necessarily talking about soteriological (salvation) as opposed to ecclesiological (Church community) issues.
Moreover, the Apostles were only dealing with the minimum, what was necessary for salvation, not the maximum ideal. The problem was the 'Judaiziers' were saying circumcision was necessary for salvation. They were not uphold Judaism or the Law in making that claim, because the Law itself doesn't require Gentiles to be circumcised.
For example, I don't personally believe the magical water of baptism or eating magical bread and wine literally saves us, unless the sacramental theology of most mainstream Christian groups (who should be careful of what stones they throw). However, baptism and communion are clearly two ecclesiological ceremonies strongly encouraged and much benefit in the NT.
So perspective is important here. So please don't misconstrue or verbal me in suggesting we are saved by works and not grace through faith.
However, what do you make then of Acts 15:20,29 and Acts 21:25? What do you make of Paul engaging in Jewish ceremonies himself, in taking the Nazirite oath of Acts 18:18?
As to Paul, be careful less you read it with an antimonianism bent, as Peter himself complains about in 2 Pet 3:15-17. Be careful you are not doing just that by selectively quoting.
It might also be a discussion for another time, but how are we saved exactly? Are we not actually judged by our deeds? Consider this spanner in the works from N T Wright (a notable Anglican theologian and bishop) on New Perspectives on Paul:
Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works. He says this clearly and unambiguously in Romans 14.10–12 and 2 Corinthians 5.10. He affirms it in that terrifying passage about church-builders in 1 Corinthians 3. But the main passage in question is of course Romans 2.1–16.
…The doers of the law, he says, will be justified (2.13). Shock, horror; Paul cannot (so many have thought) have really meant it.
And as to how you and the rest of Christianity might be reading Romans and Galatians, with Wright going on to explain it isn't salvation by working our way to heaven:
Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works… Nor is it even the take-it-or-leave-it offer of a way to salvation. It is a royal summons to submission, to obedience, to allegiance; and the form that this submission and obedient allegiance takes is of course faith. That is what Paul means by ‘the obedience of faith’. Faith itself, defined conveniently by Paul as belief that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, is the work of the Spirit, accomplished through the proclamation (N. T. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul”, 10th Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference, 25–28 Aug 2003: 9)
Again, this is not to say be can work our way to heaven – Wright makes that clear. But it challenges many of the latter anti-Jewish, anti-Law and anti-Semitic readings of Paul's work.
Thus, perhaps be careful in saying who is a supposed 'Judaizers'. The Judaizers were not very good Jews because they were actually perverting the Law.
Serge, AMEN and AMEN!
Not only outdoing the Jews on their dietary laws, the idea that a religious organization should attempt to prevent and control food for others is getting too close to encroaching on their religious liberty. No one is forcing anyone, especially Adventists to eat ANYTHING. They do not have to eat at the places that serve food they don't care for. This is the height of religious intolerance for others' beliefs. Making a big case for this only makes Adventists look even more ridiculous. NOT for refusing to eat pork, but trying to prevent others' ability to buy and eat it. Should Adventists being boycotting McDonald's?
Should Adventist hospitals allow McDonald's on their premises? Would an Adventist organsiation look so ridduculous then?
Leasing space for McDonalds, are any other corporation is not an endorsement of all their products. There is a world if difference. Why is this being treated as if was an endorsement of their products? You would be surprised to know that at one time the G.C. owned a brothel in Nevada. No one even considered that was an endorsement for prostitution. You would probably be surprised if you knew all the property, including stocks, that the G.C. owns.
And it isn't an encrouchment on their religious liberty if it is our property.
It is not "our" property, it is owned by Florida Hospital and they use the name "Adventist" by permission and from its early origin.
And it just occured to me, your example of McDonald's is such a poor choice because McDonald's is very sensitive to the religious sensibilities of others. For example, I have just come back from Singapore, where McDonald's only serves turkey bacon and not pig-bacon as not to offend the Muslim Malay population (who are not even the majority). And I believe there are kosher McDonald's in Israel and McDonald's in India that doesn't serve either bacon or beef (to not offend either Muslims or Hindus).
If an Adventist hospital did give a lease to McDonald's, which I assume you are totally ok with as not to infringe their liberties, then I suspect McDonald's probably would show sensitivity to SDA beliefs.
Your claim that this is the 'height of religious intolerance' is itself the height of intolerance, and shows everything wrong with many liberal views. It is intorelant to do sell bacon in an Adventist hospital that you know, or you should know, will offend Adventists, just as it would if you sold beef in a Hindu hospital or bacon in a Muslim hospital.
AToday: 'Pointing out the difference between the beliefs of church members and the use of property rented by an outside organization, Banks continued; "We deeply believe in the things we believe in. However, we also want people to have choice. While it is an important part of the Adventist subculture, it's not the main thing we want to be known for."'
Are there any limits to this thinking I wonder? What if the restaurant wanted to serve alcohol, would the SDA hospital management be ok with that? What about if marijuana was legal and the restaurant wanted to serve that, like they do in Amsterdam's cafes, would the SDA hospital management be ok with that too? What if a shop on the SDA hospital's premises wanted to sell cigarettes? They are all personal choices aren't they?
I think there is a marked difference between the SDA Church supporting religious liberty in society generally, compared with how it acts in relation to its own property. This isn't a religious liberty issue, because no one is forced to take a lease on our property if they don't want to.
More than 2 years ago it was easy to find veggie burgers at McDonalds in Paris and other European countries. They try to meet customer's demands. Have you investigated to see the number of pork sandwiches served at Paneras, or is just one of many sandwiches? This must be a very "Adventist" concern for you, based on the number of comments you have made. If this is an important doctrine in Adventism, it is sadly majoring in minors when that is the main thing non-Adventists will know of them.
It was of no concern for the early church, but evidently Adventists have picked up a new doctrine.
Elaine I don't care about this hosptial – I really don't.
Why I have posted so much is because this topic broadly corresponds, by chance, to something I am quite into in my own studies. That being the simple and very relevant question – how are Gentile Christians meant to live their daily lives in a Christian community? To me, the best and most relevant passage of the NT on that subject in Acts 15, which was quoted in the intro to this news topic.
Importantly, I don't think these things are necessarily soteriological issues; rather, they are ecclesiological issues. The problem with the 'Judaizers', who were not very good Jews at all because they perverted the Law, was that they tried to turn ecclesiological issues into soteriological issues. I admit Adventists do it all the time, but so do other Christians.
For example, the idea of sacramental theology, that we are saved by magical water is similarly the error of turning an ecclesiological issues into a soteriological issue. But that reverse, which I think is what you are trying to do, is not correct either. Just because baptism doesn't literally save us, because it is just an outward symbol, is not to say it has no purpose and isn't important.
I'm happy if someone wants to say Sabbath-keeping or eating blood are primarily ecclesiological issues, not soteriological issues. But it would equally to say they weren't relevant.
The reason why I think this topic important is because all Christians (although probably not you Shelby Spong types) believed we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus. We can dispute how that actually occurs exactly, but in the end the question of 'how' doesn't really matter. That question doesn't really impact our daily lives.
In this way, I don't really think soteriological issues are as relevant as ecclesiological issues, in the sense that it really is ecclesiological issues that most impact our daily lives and what separates Christians on a day-to-day basis.
I've said this many times before, but it is all about perspective and priority. I know you are perhaps trying to portray me as some sort of works-based Jews, which is not quite right. I am simply offering an opinion on the application of a number of rites found in the Law, probably ecclesiological, and which I believe the NT Apostles expected to still apply to Gentiles based on the underlying premise of 'Resident Aliens'.
To some extent, this comes down to whether one has anti-Semitic theology or not. Does one believe the NT was the abolishment of Israel, the abrogation of the Law and the replacement of Gentiles as the new Jews. Or, does one think the NT actually restored Israel, upheld and fulfilled the Law, did not replace the Jews but rather fulfilled the OT prophecies about the Messianic Age, where the Law would be expounded and the Gentiles would become part of the People.
For 2,000 years, unless quite recently with say E P Sanders, Christianity has been based on anti-Semitic ideas of Jews as 'Christ-killers'. Recent NT scholarship suggests and promotes a long-held Adventist idea, that the anti-Semitism is not reflective of the NT period itself (where Gentiles would want to identify with Jews to be protected as Jews by Rome) but rather to a later time (when Jews suddenly became persona non grata, because of the Jewish Wars).
It's your choice – anti-Semite or not? 6 million dead Jews and a Christian Church (especially the German Protestant Church and the RC Church at the time) says this issue is relevant.
Stephen, this use of 'Anti-Semitic' in an effort to tar Elaine with that questionable brush is disgusting and you should stop it immediately. Besides that, your theology, in its reliance precisely on the likes of Sanders and Wright is highly suspect. You are not arguing from a position of strength on this one. If the Moderator won't say it, I will: Cut it out.
Serge I was not talking of personal anti-Semitism but theological anti-Semitism. Are you denying that anti-Semitism long entrenched in mainstream Christianity had in no way contributed to the Holocaust? Hitler didn't invent anti-Semitism but very much inherited it from the Church. That is my point. That is also the point of imminent scholars, such as E P Sanders in his New Perspectives on Paul (NPP), in trying to readdress some of this entrenched theological anti-Semitism.
If you cannot understand the importance of what I am saying, which is wholly legitimate, then more the problem you. Christians collectively need to take responsibility for the potential impacts of our anti-Jewish and anti-Law views.
Stephen, Back to some of the other issues.
The Judaisers (a term adopted by academia) were not as you represent them at all. They were Christians, of a 'fleshly' sort, who very distinctly required law-keeping for salvation. In your references to Acts 15 you seem to have missed v 24.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
So for these teachers, circumcision was but the prerequisite to entering fully into Judaism and keeping the law. And its purpose was to be a means of salvation. How else can it make sense for Paul to say to teh Galatians: 4. 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
And the 'flesh' referred to is the act of keeping Torah. Gal 3.16 – 21 reinforces that this is the whole context: is salvation by grace or the works of the law.
There is no spurious distinction here between soteriological and ecclesiological matters. It is all soteriological. And keeping of Law is rejected. So I suggest that it is you who should not be verballing Paul as to what he intends here. It is unambiguous. Except to one not born of the Spirit, where flesh reigns.
You asked: 'What do you make of Paul engaging in Jewish ceremonies himself, in taking the Nazirite oath of Acts 18:18?' I make of this an example of Paul making himslef all things to all men, in order that he might win them. Here, let him speak for himself: 1 Cor 9: 19 ¶ For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
This reference to 'the weak' sits just after Paul's description as to how the 'weakness' is ascertained. (1Cor 8 ) It relates to the eating of meat/food sacrificed to idols. Christians who know that an idol is nothing can eat freely. The 'weak' have yet to learn this truth.
Now we live in an age where meat/food is not routinely sacrificed to idols. (At risk of great distraction I would like to ask……. if we say grace before eating and there is a two-dimensional image of someone who is supposed to look like Jesus hanging on the dining room wall, is this the moden equivalent of sacrificing food to idols? I do not think this a trivial question. To me it goes to the heart of whether we worship in a material/fleshly way, or in Spirit and in Truth).
SO it would seem to me that the Apostolic decree of Acts 15 is largely a transitional measure, between the days of a predominately Judaic-minded church and the largely Gentile one which followed. At no point were the Gentiles to be seen to be aliens within a Jewish sect. The direction of transition was all in one direction, away from old covenant thinking to that of the new. Nowdays, Fornication is still out as it is not 'of love.' Things strangled and blood are not much of an issue any more, are they?
First things first Serge. Re verse 24, I wish you had used a more modern and reliable translation. The NRSV, which is the best and most accepted modern translation does not say this:
'Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds'
My NRSV says in the notes that your KJV version only representive of other manuscripts.
I'll deal with the rest of your comments in turn.
Yes, the Mss favour your version, but there is ample evidence for the KJV also. But there ought be no dispute that v 24's ref to circumcision and keeping 'nomos' are entirely consistent with, and likely are a restatement of, these things previously mentioned in vv 1 and 5. Circumcision and lawkeeping are the clear burden of the Judaizers.
As an aside, I was in London just before Xmas and close by the British Library. Called in to view Codex Sinaiticus. A singular pleasure. It was especially curious to note the number of 'amendments' which various editors had entered after the original text was put down. (Sinaiticus, our oldest complete ms, does not contain the contentious portions of the KJV text in v 24).
But it is difficult for you to establish a major theological argument based on a single unreliable text. Even assuming the KJV is correct, I am not sure if your understanding of it is necessarily correct.
Serge: 'And the 'flesh' referred to is the act of keeping Torah. Gal 3.16 – 21 reinforces that this is the whole context: is salvation by grace or the works of the law.'
Serge, I am not sure your selective quoting here is valid. I am not sure if you can use Paul in Gal to interpret what Luke means in Acts 15. We'd have to deal with Paul on his own terms. Happy to do so but in a different thread. Here I want to deal with what James and Peter meant, as reported by Luke, in Acts.
Paul is an active participant in the Jerusalem Council. It is likely that teh Council was called in response to Paul's strong rebuke of the Judaizers. James and Peter, particularly, with his references to Grace, would not have made any statements in the decree to which Paul had not already agreed. I am pretty sure that the letter to teh Galatians sets out the theological case which would have held sway in Jerusalem, regardless of the dates of each.
Yes, and the Apostles affirmed that we are indeed saved by grace, not works in Acts 15:11. No one is disputing that. But the Apostles still upheld the validity of the Law, at least as being relevant to the ecclesiological life of the Christian community of faith, by imposing the four commands from Acts 15:20,29. Peter quotes from Amos 9 and James affirms the Law of Moses in Acts 15:21 as to his reasoning.
The Law never required Gentiles to be circumcised, so the Judaizers were making a straw-man argument. I think the point of Acts 15:24 is James saying these Judaizers don't speak for him. James is hardly an anti-Law fellow, if you read the end of Acts 21 – go re-read it!
As to Paul's theological reasoning, he makes clear that the Law is not abolished – at least not in its entirety: Rom 3:31; Gal 3:21.
And if the Law has no relevance for Christians, which is what I hear you saying (correct me if this is not your argument), then why does Paul quote one of the Ten Commandments in his household code: Eph 2:1-3?
Note, Paul is quoting the Law to post-convert Christians. Why is he doing this if the Law is totally abrogated, and no longer has any use?
Sorry that is Eph 6:1-3
Serge: 'So I suggest that it is you who should not be verballing Paul as to what he intends here.'
Who is talking about Paul in Gal? I'm talking about Acts? Perhaps I am missing something here?
see above
Serge: 'You asked: 'What do you make of Paul engaging in Jewish ceremonies himself, in taking the Nazirite oath of Acts 18:18?' I make of this an example of Paul making himslef all things to all men, in order that he might win them.'
Serge there is not indication Paul is taking the Nazirite vow simply to please other Jews.
Serge: 'SO it would seem to me that the Apostolic decree of Acts 15 is largely a transitional measure, between the days of a predominately Judaic-minded church and the largely Gentile one which followed.'
Interesting idea. This is what RC believe and teach – Eastern Orthodox teach the opposite.
I am inclined to take the Eastern Orthodox position. There is no indication that this was meant as merely a transitional measure – at least at Luke portrays it. The simple evidence of this is that at the very end of Acts, in Acts 21:25, Luke ensures we get the message by having James repeat this command. And interestingly, Luke has Paul deny that he supposedly told Jews not to obey the Law!
I could well ask whether monotheism is a 'transitional' measure, or the prohibition against graven images, or infantcide, as they also were requirements found in the Law imposed on Gentiles as Ger requirements.
Sorry just to add to the last point, there is historic evidence from the Church Fathers that the Apostolic Command still applied. Tertullian in Apol 9 notes that there are still a number of Christians who refuse to eat blood.
Eusebius in Eccl. Hist. 5.1.26 defends the charge that Christians are cannibals (a misconception based on the eucharist) by pointing out that Christians don't even eat the blood of animals.
Didascalia 24 makes a similar point that Christians don't eat food offered to demons nor eat blood.
So both scripture and history suggest the 4 commands of the Apostolic Decree were intended to apply before just a temporal period of time.
Serge: 'There is no spurious distinction here between soteriological and ecclesiological matters. It is all soteriological. And keeping of Law is rejected.'
Possibly, however, you point here is quite complex when we consider the various defined terms. First of all, what is 'the Law'? Do we mean the entire OT, the Penteuach, the Decalogue, or just the 613 commands of the Jewish Mitzvoth. Alas, Paul himslef is inconsistent with the term nomos himself and uses it at different times to mean each of these different things. Sometimes Paul means legalism.
Second, I am not entirely sure what you or we are talking about when discussing whether something is a soteriological issue or ecclesiological issue? I was willing to suggest that the 4 commands of Acts 15:20,29 were ecclesiological and not soteriological, meaning a Gentile need not eat blood to be 'saved' per se but as an issue of Church unity. However, if you are wanting to say refraining from eating blood is a salvation issue then fine.
Perhaps the 4 commands of Acts 15:20,29 were soteriological in nature. They all involve worship – of monotheism. Whilst Acts 15:11 makes clear we are saved by grace through faith, that faith presumably means faith in a monotheistic God. So perhaps anything that undermines monotheism is indeed a salvation issue.
The question is whether the other requirements of Ger, notably the prohibition on graven images, Sabbath-keeping and prohibition on infantcide, are 'salvation' issues or not. Again, I would probably say know because I reject sacramental theology – of saying rites 'save' someone.
Or are you saying you do accept sacramental theology? Do you believe the rites of baptism and communion are 'essential' for salvation?
Perhaps we are otherwise getting our wires crossed here then?
The Council was called in order to rebutt the claims of Jewish Christians that circumcision and Law keeping were vital for salvation. Paul refutes this in Galatians and in company with Peter and James in the Council. The Four decrees are offered as some kind of compromise, by which Gnetile converts can modify their behaviours in order not to offend the 'weakness' of some of these Jewish 'believers.' I shall concede, some of the decrees appear more 'ecclesiological' when the notion of compromise or transition are taken into account, and wehn viewed from our perspective of 2,000 years of hindsight and vastly differing 'ecclesiological' praxis. I agree with you re role of sacraments.
Ok then. Let's assume it is all ecclesiological – that this is all about Church unity – possibly table-fellowship issues then.
The fact remains the Apostles imposed requirements on Gentiles that had bearing to the 'Resident Alien' requirements in Lev 17-18. Let's at least give the Apostles credit that they simply didn't make those four commands up out of thin air.
Now if I understand it then, the question between us is whether they intended these ceremonial precepts, derived from the OT and reaffirmed by the Apostles, to somehow continue to be binding on Gentiles into the future. Is that right?
Of course you may have also been right the first time. The four commands may well be soteriological because they all involve rites involved in avoiding pagan worship.
And if only ecclesiological and not soteriological, why the last command about fornication? This seems to be a reference to the 'sexual crimes so abhorent they are against God Himself' in Lev 18, like incest and beastiality.
Why include that weird command if this is only about table-fellowship – Paul wanted Gentiles in freedom from the Law to engage in orgies but conceded they should not do so in front of Jews out of respect for their 'weakness'?
Don't this show the Apostles had something in mind more than just a temporary command to do with table fellowship?
Serge: 'At no point were the Gentiles to be seen to be aliens within a Jewish sect.'
I don't quite understand your point here Serge. There is almost universal agreement that the Apostles came up with the four commands by reference to the 'Resident Alien' commands of Lev 17-18. A simple Wikipedia search shows this. If you need to be convinced by someone more reputable, check our Richard Bauckham. He says in James and Gentiles (Acts 15.13-21) on page 172:
'it has been widely recognized that the terms of the Apostolic Decree are based on Leviticus 17-18 and therefore have an exegetical basis which is not explained in Act…
…Thus the four prohibitions in the Apostolic Decree constitute a precise reference to the laws in Leviticus 17—18 which are said to be binding on "the alien who sojourns in your midst.
[Therefore he Jerusalem Decree] deals with the question of Gentile Christians in a way which… fully upholds the law of Moses by requiring of Gentile Christians obedience to the four commandments which the Law itself imposes on them.' (emphasis added)
And it would be absurd for the Apostles to be suggesting the abrogation of the Law here. Firstly, Peter quotes the OT of Amos 9 as to his justification. Most importantly, James explicitly quotes the Law of Moses read on the Sabbath in Acts 15:21.
It seems James is saying this is all so obvious, which is why we are affirming this well-known summary of the Ger requirements, beacuse the Jews throughout the Diaspora have been reading these Ger requirements in their synagogues for generations.
By the end of Acts, the issue is not Jews vs Gentiles but Jews vs Jews. The Gentile issue was largely solved and was no longer controversial. That sort of scenario could only have occured if the Apostles simply affirmed the Ger requirements of the Law, which even the Pharisees would have accepted.
And again, circumcision was never a Ger requirement. What James is actually saying in Acts 15:24 is 'these Judaizers don't speak for me'. They didn't speak for James because they were perverting the Law.
The Apostles may have used the ger requirements as providing a convenient and acceptable form of words for the compromise as I describe it above. My diffculty is seeing this within the notion that they did so out of deference to the larger/superior Jewish economy. They had the full confidence of the anointing of the Holy Spirit, so they were not going to concede that they were second place to the old Judaism they had recently parted company with. They had no need to adopt the ger requirements, but did so out of love for Jewish 'weaker' believers who had yet to discover their full freedom in Christ.
If you are saying that teh Judaizers were perverting teh ger laws, by demanding circumcision, and so James rebuked them for misusing ger, then I think you, and your theological mentors, have missed the point. The current trend, led by E P Sanders, to recast Christianity as a subset of its parent, Judaism, is imho, misguided, if not downright subversive and potentially fraught with hidden agendas. Christianity is a child who has utterly outgrown her parent's limitations.
Law is abrogated as a method of salvation. It is not abrogated to the extent that it equates with the requirements of Love.
Serge: 'The direction of transition was all in one direction, away from old covenant thinking to that of the new.'
And what is the 'new covenant' exactly? Is it the abondonment of the Law or rather the expounding of it? Doesn't the OT itself suggest the Law's expounding – not its abrogation – as made clear in Jer 31:31.
You might say it is the abrogation of 'Jewish' ceremonial rites, like sacrafices. True. But does that mean all distinctively 'Jewish' ceremonies were done away with as well?
For example, does that mean that monotheism and the prohibition against making graven images were also abrogated? Are these not 'distinctive' and 'Jewish' practices – the most Jewish. Are these not ceremonial (liturgical cultic or ritualistic) and not moral, as they really have nothing to do with treat other people and only to do with how to worship a diety?
So are you saying it is ok for Christians to now make an idol to Caesar, who the Roman State was a god, and make a sacrafice in worship to that god? Because the book of Revelation itself may indeed based around the persection of Early Church Christians who were forced, but refused and died as martyrs, for doing just that.
So explain to me then what 'distinctive' and 'Jewish' ceremonial practices continued to apply under the New Covenant and which were abrograted by the New Covenant? I think if you think about it, it is a little more complicated than you perhaps think!
Serge: 'At risk of great distraction I would like to ask……. if we say grace before eating and there is a two-dimensional image of someone who is supposed to look like Jesus hanging on the dining room wall, is this the moden equivalent of sacrificing food to idols? I do not think this a trivial question. To me it goes to the heart of whether we worship in a material/fleshly way, or in Spirit and in Truth'
Great question Serge. It relates to my question immediately above as to what 'Jewish' ceremonial rites and practices you think do or do not still apply under the New Covenant. If you approach this from suggesting antinominiasm, which is that the Law has no use or application for Christians, then does this mean Christians are indeed free to worship pagan gods – even pictures of Jesus on the walls? If you say no, how can you, if you say the 'Jewish' Law now has no relevance?
The question of Iconclasm was indeed a major issue for the Medieval Church, especially in the Byzantium Empire. So I don't think your question very relevant and also to the heart of the matter.
If we Gentile Christians are not to follow the 'Jewish' Law, on what basis can we said to still find relevant, apply or be bound by 'Jewish' ceremonial commands like monotheism, or the command prohibiting graven images?
The only theological answer that makes sense is to say the Law is still relevant (noting personaly Law-keeping does not save, as Acts 15:11).
As to the question of which parts of the Law, which I mean the Torah and not merely the 613 Commands, the only thing that makes sense is to look to the 'Resident Alien' and Noachide commands, found in the Torah itself. That is most likely what a modern Rabbi would advise today, and that is what it seems the Apostles suggested in Acts 15.
By applying the 'Resident Alien' and Noachide commands of the Torah, affirmed by the NT, one can see that say monotheism and idoltry is relevant, but circumcision is not. Circumcision was never required under the Torah as a requirement on 'Resident Aliens', whilst monotheism was.
Serge: 'Things strangled and blood are not much of an issue any more, are they?'
Speak for yourself and your own country – remember this site doesn't just involve Adventists (and ex-Adventists) from America.
The command about strangled animals has much to do with animal cruelty. It has been a massive issue here in Australia recently, given we export so many animals to foreign (mostly Arab) countries. Reports have come out that the animals have often been brutally beaten to death, rather than killed in the relatively painless method required implicitly (and developed extensively by Jews over the centuries) of a quick cut to the throat by a very sharp knife.
Perhaps if we started butchering our own meat again, rather than believing it magically appears on supermarket shelves, we'd realise this still is a relevant issue.
As for eating blood, never heard that diseases come from blood? Blood also has highly symbolic value, as we know from the Jewish feasts of Passover and Yom Kippur, and as we know from the Christian rites of communion and Easter.
Serge: 'Nowdays, Fornication is still out as it is not 'of love.''
Not sure what to make of this statement here Serge. What is interesting though, is that the Apostolic prohibition is against fornication (pornea) and not adultery (malek). Someone might have something to say about that. It seems the Apostles may not have been concerned with marital problems, like polagymy, but with abhorent sexual sins found in Lev 18 that are so terrible they 'offend God.'
Curious…. Is prohibition of fornication a ger requirement?
Maybe I should have said, prohibiton of fornication still stands, as it is not an act of love. Idolatry, which is an attempt to portray spiritual/immaterial beings or values, is always wrong. But it is a constant desire of those who are not 'spiritually-minded' to give some form or representation to their beloved beliefs. In this sense, Harry Anderson is an idolator almost without peer. But he painted all those spiritual verities as if they were literally/materially real, becuase he was employed by a church which is founded on the philosophical bedrock that all that exists is material in nature. That is the sin of idolatry….. denying the Spirit and then attempting to portray things physically/materially.
Things strangled relates more to the non-bleeding out of the carcas (sp?) and so is realted to blood. Cruelty I think was less of an issue back then. Physical cruelty seemed to be part and parcel of life.
Diseases come from all over, not only or exclusively blood. And I don't think ger was imposed for health reasons. The symbolism relates strongly to the Levitical statement, 'the life is in teh blood.' (This is the best context in which 'we are saved by the blood of the Lamb' ought be understood, not simply a 'washing' or 'cleansing' in a bath of blood as in, say, Mithraism. That is the negative aspect of the symbol, relating ot forgiveness of sins. This use of blood is the positive aspect. The divine Life of the Son is the source of our resurrected / recreated life AFTER we have 'died with Him.' Rom 6.5 etc). It is possible to see its prohibition as similar to the prohibition of idolatry, ie, blood symbolises the Spiritual life of the Son, do not use/misuse this concept in any material sense.
Yes it is. Lev 18 says these sexual crimes apply to aliens and not just Jews.
Now you're picking and choosing as your own authority which parts of the Apostolic Decree stand and apply into the Gentile era and which don't.
So are you now admitting the first 3 commands possibly do still apply for Genitles after all – because they all relate to idolatry?
And why then would say graven images be allowed (Ger but not explicitly mentioned in the NT) or even Sabbath (Ger but only implicitly mentioned in the NT)? Do these also not relate to true worship of the Creator Yahweh and not pagan idols?
I'm not 'picking and choosing' which parts still apply. Merely observing that some aspects of it are not as culturally releavant, eg, food offered to idols. I distinctly do not say graven images are allowed, as they deny the Spiritual nature of the Divine, who can NEVER be represented in literalist/materilaist form. But I think you have to come to terms with the fact that the church you extol for its virtues is a major idolator through its printing of thousands/millions of two-dimensional graven images of One they represent as their God. Even the venerable Ancient of Days gets a representation or two in some books.
The other aspect I take issue with is your contention that the Decree finds its context within the notion of the church as a sect of the greater Judaism and the ger are only meaningful when confined in this way. I contend that the 'weaker brethren' were in fact the Jewish Christians who did not comprehend the extent of the separation between New covenant thinking and the old, under which they chose to remain, and whose language they trusted. Hence, it was clever of teh Apostles to couch the Decree in the convenient language of ger requirements. It helped the weak Jewish believers, and it helped the wider Church. Even in the early church, Politics is the art of compromise. The fact that aspects of the ger happen to coincide with good spiritual practice does not of itself give ger any sort of religious superiority. Love 'conquers' all.
Who decides whether something is 'cultural relevant' – you I suppose?
If we want to get really controversial, I could say homosexuality is just a 'cultural' thing, even though I note it is condemned by the Ger requirements in Lev 18 and by Paul in the NT.
I don't venerate the SDA Church Serge. I realise it is imperfect.
As to idoltary and icons, I don't necessarily disagree.
Serge: 'Gal 3.16 – 21 reinforces that this is the whole context: is salvation by grace or the works of the law.'
I never said salvation was by works – that's totally miscontruing what I am saying. You're the one who said this was a soteriological (salvation) and not a ecclesiological (Church unity and fellowship) issue. Acts 15:11 itself made clear we are saved by grace.
Fundamentally, you still have to deal with the issue I raise above, which is if the Law has no relevance to NT Christians, and the 'distinctive' and 'Jewish' ceremonial rites, practices and liturgies do not apply, then why should we continue practicing monotheism or refrain from making graven images? Why not take the Lord's name in vain? What is your reasoning?
Moreover, despite affirming we are saved by grace and not works, the Apostles still imposed the 'Resident Alien' requirements in Acts 15:20,29, and James reaffirmed them in Acts 21:25.
Even if something doesn't save us, it can still be useful. Paul also teaches in Rom 7:7,12 that the Law is not sin, it is holy and good.
The scriptures (which to Paul was the Law, as the NT didn't exist) are useful to teach: 2 Tim 3:16.
Paul also categorically states that the Law has not been abolished but rather established through faith: Rom 3:31; Gal 3:21.
Under the New Covenant, the Law was to be expounded – not abrogated: Jer 31:31.
Finally, Peter warns against the very thing you are now doing – misconstruing Paul, who Peter admits is confusing, to promote antinominism: 2 Pet 3:15-17.
I don't accept that I am promoting antinomianism. I simply say that along with all else that is superior in Christianity, the commandments to Love are superior to the Decalogue. In fact, Love is the fulfilling of teh Decalogue. Love thy neighbour as thy Self. (Question, who is my Self?). Paul's quotation of teh fifth commandment is another example of the correct ordering of priorities in the New Covenant order.
Old Covenant, since you asked earlier, says, 'all that JHVH has said, we will do.' The 613 Mitsvoh? were developed over time in order to facilitate this. It became apparent that this just didn't work. Acts 15.10 Neither we nor our fathers were able to bear…' The books of the prophets are testament to the failures of human nature, and teh dawning that motives are of far greater significance than actions. So they called for a new way, a way that can change motives, and allow right actions to follow. Jesus stood firmly in this tradition of the prophets, and also true to this prophetic tradition, he was killed. (Acts 7.52) (I quote that text with some trepidation that you will find me Anti-Semitic. But I respond, Jesus was a Semite.)
But He did open the new and living was by which the old might die, and the New might live. And ALL of this is based on the deepest understanding of Deut 6.4 'Hear O Israel, the Lord is God, the Lord is ONE.' This is not a numerical monotheism being referenced here, at its deepest level. It is recognising that LIFE, all that IS, is of ONE. As Paul would later say, whoso is joined ot the Lord is ONE SPIRIT 1Cor 6.17 .
And this is strongly related to the most 'difficult' text in Scripture, imho. 1 John 3.9 9 Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God. ( I say 'difficult' because its meaning is so overwhelmingly unbelievable that most folks just glaze over if they bother to read it at all, or they specifically reject the obvious mysticism that is required in order to interpret/understand/live it).
This is the ultimate pro-nomian text. But note the basis for it….. 'His seed abideth in him.' This is new covenant understanding at its finest. One could also say, His blood floweth in his veins. It is a situation where the believer knows precisely what the process is, and he basks in the sensation of Life which is now 'genetically' his/hers (seed = sperma). The new creation is complete.
I am not disagreeing that the commands of love are superior to the Decalogue. The commands of love do not abrogate the Decalogue – they fulfill and expound them. The Decalogue has negative commands – the commands of love are positive. Jer 31:31 prophesied this.
But the question remains whether 'love' includes true worship of God? And does true worship of God involve avoiding pagan rites and practices? Monotheism is not 'Jewish', in the sense it is only intended for Jews. The same goes for avoiding graven images, avoiding blood and yes the Sabbath.
I'm a bit dumbstruck by 'the question remains whether 'love' includes true worship of God?'
Love is all there is man!
How does this sound by way of response: John 4. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
Thus He sweeps away the cultic practices of all temples, all sacramentalism and all externalised behaviours designed by teh hopeful to influence divine favour, Sabbath included. The one who has found rest 24/7 does not need one day out of seven to find it or to externally show it. Heb 4… we which have believed do enter in to rest. Thus we are able to esteem all days alike, for all are days of rest.
As for avoiding 'pagan rites and practices,' I suggest you read one of the many books which recognise the wide array of similarities between Greek pagan mystery religions and teh Christ story. Freke & Gandy's 'Pagan Christ' is but one. There you will find such interesting things as quotes from early church fathers lamenting that the devil had pre-empted the story of Jesus to such an extent that he set up pagan religions hundreds of years in advance of the advent of Christ. Fascinating.
But perhaps it is thou who should explain SDA idolatry with its printing of images of 'Jesus' who more closely resembles a Greek Adonis than an uncomely Semite. I know people 'love' those sweet pictures of Jesus, but is it true worship, or is it idolatry?
So if you reject the requirements of Ger, how do we know what is true worship involved in truly loving God and what isn't? Just trust in human instinct, which is fundamentally flawed and led to paganism in the first place?
Why is monotheism still very much a matter of loving God for the Gentile but say the Sabbath (the commandment that specifically is addressed to the 'alien' Gentile) just a non-binding 'cultural' thing for Jews?
If I say to a wife I love, I truly love you and only you, but starting from tomorrow, the 'date' night we used to set aside every Saturday, is now out the window, do you think she would think me still as in love with her?
As for how to distinguish pagan rites and practices from truly monotheistic ones, I don't think God, Paul or the Apostles expect me to work this out by reading Freke & Gandy's Pagan Christ book. I suspect even Paul thinks I should work it out by the Law itself (which I mean in its broad terms the scriptures) which he says is good, holy and spiritual (Rom 7:7,12,13) and is useful to teach (2 Tim 3:16).
I think this is the fundamental difference between our approaches. You want to rely upon yourself, what you personally think is right, to what true loving worship of God entails. I see that approach fraught with danger, for the very reasons Paul himself makes clear in Gal 1:8 and Gal 4:8,9.
I instead what to understand what is expected by reading scripture and that includes 'non-salvation' issues of Church rites, like baptism, communion, sacred space and sacred time.
I agree about portrayals of Jesus as a white Aryan god. Heard of UFC Jesus – google it. I have given sermons before where I have noted that the true historic Jesus was a Semite, and would likely be stopped and detained at an airport by Homeland Security.
Stephen, pardon me, you are displaying the instinct and nit picking of a emeritus Jewish rabbi. i believe we are better prepared if we consider the weightier matters of salvation. Your reference to Wright/Anglican and various of Paul's notes were, i believe, not to the nitty gritty management, window dressing of the Christian, but to whether there was "fruit of the Spirit", direct result of true repentance of personal sin. Pointing out the difference between "repentant/non-repentant. Lack of Godly love for our brethren, because of our carping and condemnation.
As Elaine noted, Florida Hospital is not owned by SDA, GC. There is i believe, aprofessional mgment. team at Fla Hosp which has given thought of what else is required on campus, and an additional eating outlet was chosen to meet their needs. i seriously doubt they would offer rental space to a liquor store, strip club,or brothel, as wouldn't any other non-SDA associated hospital. Also most city licensing depts. wouldn't permit it, even in Las Vegas. We cannot be a policingdept. for the world, IN FOOD OR DRINK OR ???? Man must eat and drink. He does not require our selecting for him.. By having choices nearby, we are not choosing or encouraging where there is variety of choice.Let's not get caught up in ordinances, laws that suck the vitality out of our lives. Jesus said, "take no thought of what you or others eat or drink". Develop the Godly love habit.
Earl, thank you for the compliment in suggesting I am a highly experienced teacher of high standard. Alas, I am only a young-ish legal practitioner – but in secural Australian law and not religious law – although the law of equity does derive from Church courts.
Earl let me put it another way. If my wife tells me she loves me, and will love me no matter what I do or don't do for her, how should I react to that love? Should I take that as licence?
Should I take that to mean I can cancel our date night, or perhaps forget our anniversary, because she'll love me no matter?
How should we worship one God if we truly love Him, as the first and greatest commandment demands? How do you work out what is acceptable to God as part of monotheism, as opposed to idolatry which He abhores?
Food and drink is a little more complicated. Jesus said take no thought to what you drink, which I take to mean don't worry about where your next meal comes from. However, Paul makes clear drunkeds, who obviously don't give thought to what they drink, won't be allowed in the kingdom! (Gal 5:21; 1 Cor 6:10)
As for food, those same texts arguably also cover gluttons as well, as carousers won't be in the kingdom either. It was also enough of an issue that the Apostles gave 3 special commands about it (Acts 15:20), which was repeated twice (Acts 15:20,29) and then a third time a number of years later to ensure Paul and the Gentiles got the message (Acts 21:25).
It is nothing but Gnostic rubbish to say God doesn't care about what we eat or drink. You should know that through the long-quoted Adventist text about our bodies being Temples for the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:16-17). We are to eat to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31).
Earl, great thoughts.
Ok the discussion with Serge about Acts 15, I think, is bearing some fruit. The question seems to be whether the four commands in Acts 15:20,29, which seemed to be derived from a cross-reference to the 'Resident Alien' commands in Lev 17-18:
1. Are soteriological ('salvation') issues or merely ecclesiological ('Church unity and governance') issues; and
2. Only expected to be temporary or permanently binding on Gentiles?
Regardless of all that you have written, Stephen, the fact is that there was no Jewish Christian church after the temple was destroyed. Yes, there are a few scattered Judeo-Christians but the Christian church since that time became non-Jewish. The history of the church after the canon was closed (excluding Revelation which was never written as history) became the Christian church that is the one we reconize today.
If Adventists or other Christians choose to adopt some, and only some of the Judaic Law, that is there choice, but it can never be supported by the NT; laws which never were a requirement for Christians. To continue to obey the Law given to the Jews is to ignore Christ who has replaced the Law of 613 rules and gave us the Law of Love which summarizes all those minute rules given to the former, illiterate slaves, who like children, had to be instructed on very minute details: rituals and practices that were given to separate them for all the surrounding tribes.
Anyone choosing to live by them is their personal choice, but to teach it as a belief based on the Bible cannot be supported.
Elaine: 'Yes, there are a few scattered Judeo-Christians but the Christian church since that time became non-Jewish. The history of the church after the canon was closed (excluding Revelation which was never written as history) became the Christian church that is the one we reconize today… If Adventists or other Christians choose to adopt some, and only some of the Judaic Law, that is there choice…'
Elaine I really don't understand anything of what you are saying here.
The question of the 4 commands of Acts 15:20,29 is not about Jews, Jewish-Christians, Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem or 'Judaic' Laws, but about Gentiles in the Diaspora.
The 4 commands are not 'Jewish' – how many times do we have to have that discussion. They are what the Law prescribes for Gentiles, based on the 'Resident Alien' parts of the OT, and affirmed by the Apostles in the NT.
If you deny the authority of the Apostles in the NT then that is your business – Adventists and other Christians don't.
The Early Gentile Church in the Diaspora continued to uphold the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15. For example:
The Eastern Orthodox Church continues to uphold the validity of the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15.
Elaine: 'Christ who has replaced the Law of 613 rules and gave us the Law of Love which summarizes all those minute rules given to the former, illiterate slaves, who like children, had to be instructed on very minute details: rituals and practices that were given to separate them for all the surrounding tribes.'
Elaine this statement is on so many levels I almost don't know where to start. Perhaps with your definition of 'Law'.
First of all, what is 'the Law'? Do we mean the entire OT, the Penteuach, the Decalogue, or just the 613 commands of the Jewish Mitzvoth. Alas, Paul himslef is inconsistent with the term nomos himself and uses it at different times to mean each of these different things. Sometimes Paul means legalism.
Second, the 'Law' has a number of rites (of ceremonial and not moral nature) including notably: monotheism and the prohibition against making graven images. Are you saying Paul did not expect Gentile Christians to observe monotheism or the prohibition on making graven images, which have nothing to do with ethics towards fellow humans but wholly are of a ceremonial (liturgical, cultic and ritual) concern? Please enlighten us all?
Elaine: 'rituals and practices that were given to separate them for all the surrounding tribes.'
True of the 'Jewish' rites like circumcision, but not of the 'Resident Alien' rites and practices, which were to apply universally to all humans.
The most notable 'universal' rite is monotheism, probably followed by the prohibtion against making graven images (which incidentially is not explicitly mentioned in the NT either!) Are you saying these requirements are 'Jewish' and Jesus, Paul and the other NT authors want Christians to dispense with these ceremonial (liturgical, cultic and ritual) practices?
What about infantcide, another requirement imposed on 'Resident Aliens'? You ok with infantcide then, which was a 'distinctive' and 'Jewish' practice, which separated it from the pagan world, given Greco-Roman soceity practiced it as a common form of contraception control? If no, why not, given it isn't even explicitly reaffirmed in the NT? If yes, wouldn't that make you a monster?
How are Christians to pick and choose how to live their day-to-day lives? Moral issues like infantcide might be explain by a principle of love, but what about very ceremonial issues, like monotheism and graven images?
Elaine: 'Anyone choosing to live by them is their personal choice, but to teach it as a belief based on the Bible cannot be supported.'
Elaine, I'm the one saying the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:20,29, reaffirmed by James in Acts 21:25, is in the Bible – because it is!
The Eastern Orthodox believe this decree was intended to be applicable on a permanent basis for Gentiles, and the history of the Early Church outside Jerusalem demonstrates that.
You're the one suggesting we ignore the Bible, so your statement is very curious indeed.
You're simply engaging in exactly what Peter warned in 2 Pet 3:15-17. You are trying to twist Paul's writings, and then ignore the other Apostolic writings and the Gospels, to adopt a form of antinominism.
Dr Erwin says: "Clearly, things that now seem to me to be so shallow and silly are alive and well among SDAs. "
——-
I'm not sure why Dr Erwin views upholding Adventist standards as 'shallow and silly' especially those pertaining to healthy living and obedience our Maker. Perhaps he can elaborate a bit on this. Or, perhaps what he said was just a part of a trademark ex-Adventist drive-by. The current health crisis in America and in many other parts of the world is good enough reason for the Adventist health message to be embraced and benefited from especially in terms of 'Preventative Medicine.'
I'm having a difficult time locating where I wrote what Mr. Hammond said I wrote. If he would please indicate how many hours or days ago I am supposed to have posted this comment on this thread, I would certainly appreciate it. By the way, what pray-tell is a "trademark ex-Adventist drive-by."?
Dr Taylor has indeed been verballed? I believe it was Mr Joe Erwin who made that comment.
Dear Dr Taylor
It was Dr Erwin (Joe Erwin) who made the 'shallow and silly' comment about Adventism – not you. I'm not sure why on earth you would assume it was you when your name wasn't used at all by me in the comment.
Mr Ferguson incorrectly suggests that Dr Taylor is been verballed in the comment. That is not the case at all. I clearly referred to a Dr Erwin in my comment.
Sorry Trevor you are right. You clearly quoted Dr Erwin not Dr Taylor – Dr Taylor read that comment wrongly as applying to him and so did I. My apologise.
Serge: ‘And the 'flesh' referred to is the act of keeping Torah. Gal 3.16 – 21 reinforces that this is the whole context: is salvation by grace or the works of the law.’
Elaine: ‘If Adventists or other Christians choose to adopt some, and only some of the Judaic Law, that is there choice, but it can never be supported by the NT; laws which never were a requirement for Christians.’
Earl: ‘Stephen, pardon me, you are displaying the instinct and nit picking of a emeritus Jewish rabbi.’
Motivated by comments from Elaine and Serge I re-read Galatians twice this morning. I have also tried to address Earl’s claim that I am tying to be a Pharisee.
Background
The background context to the whole book of Galatians is that Paul is angry – very angry (he suggests his opponents castrate themselves!) – of certain Jewish-Christians who seek to ‘enslave’ Gentile-Christians by expecting the latter to become circumcised (Gal 2:3,4,10 and Gal 6:12). This event may or may not correspond to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1,2,20,29).
Paul continues to bevery angry, because later on during the Antiochian incident, certain Jewish-Christians like Peter and Barnabas stop eating with Gentile-Christians (Gal 2:12,13), stop living ‘like a Gentile and not like a Jew’ (Gal 2:14), but instead to revert to Jewish exclusivism. In particular, Peter and Barnabas stop eating with Gentiles when James (Jesus’ brother) sent some of his own followers to spy on them – it seems James was very conservative.
Interestingly, Paul admits James agrees with him at least on the question of circumcision, so James does not expect Gentile-Christians to be circumcised (Gal 2:9,10). However, it seems James doesn’t seem to agree with Paul’s view about eating arrangements (Gal 2:12). We should keep in mind Galatians is only Paul’s side of the story, and we should have a thought for poor Peter – stuck in the middle between Paul and James.
Paul then delves into a long treatise on the ‘works of the law’. Paul makes clear: both Jews and Gentile Christians are saved by faith and not ‘works of the law’ (Gal 2:15); that the Holy Spirit came to the Gentiles without the ‘works of the law’ (Gal 3:5); the works of the law are a curse (Gal 3:10,12); the law was given at Sinai 430 years after the covenant of Abraham does not annul the covenant of Abraham (Gal 3:17:18); the law was just a disciplinarian until Christ came (Gal 3:24); the law stops unity between races, classes and genders (Gal 3:28); and which Jesus was born under the law (Gal 4:4).
Major issue: the ‘works of the law’, but what law exactly?
So what exactly are these ‘works of the law’ exactly? What ‘law’ is Paul even talking about? Is Paul talking about the sort of legalism that dominated Medieval Catholicism and which Luther sort to redress? Is Paul concerned with individual efforts to find salvation through good works? Are we reading this passage through Luther’s eyes and his historical setting of Medieval Europe rather than Paul’s?
Why Paul is confusing
In A Summary of the New Perspective on Paul, October 16, 2009, by Mark Mattison:
‘Thus in Sanders’ view Paul’s letters do not provide a consistent view of the law. Paul’s central conviction — the universal aspects of christology and soteriology, and Christian behavior — led Paul to give different answers about the law, depending on the question. “When the topic changes, what he says about the law also changes.” When the topic is entrance requirements, the law is excluded. When the topic is behavior, the law is to be fulfilled. The arguments to which Paul is driven to defend these answers are construed as less consistent yet.’ (emphasis added)
Sanders is right of course. To use Romans as a parallel to Galatians, Paul similarly means different things at different times when he uses the word law (‘nomos’). He refers to the Pentateuch (Rom 3:21), the entire OT (Rom 3:19), a principle (Rom 7:23) and the Decalogue (Rom 7:7). Peter himself attests that Paul is confusing, which results in people distorting Paul’s words to promote lawlessness (2 Pet 3:15-17).
So what context is Paul using in Galatians in condemning ‘works of the law’? What ‘law’ is he suggesting is not binding or relevant for Gentiles? Is Paul condemning the relevance and applicability of the entire OT, the Torah, the pre-Sinai Gentile covenants (especially given to Abraham, Noah and Adam) or just concerning himself with the 613 rules of the Mitzvoth (only applying to Jews)?
New perspectives on Paul
I think there is something to be gained from new perspectives on Paul regarding this issue. In particular, N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, from 10th Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference (25–28 August 2003) says:
[13] The same point emerges in Galatians 2.11–21. Here, beyond cavil I think, the point of vindication is not ‘how someone becomes a Christian’ but the question of tablefellowship: with whom may I, indeed must I, share table-fellowship? Peter’s action in separating himself from Christian Gentiles was not implying that they needed to perform moral good works; it was implying that they needed to become physically Jewish. Paul’s argument against him was not to do with the mechanism of how people come from being sinful idolaters to forgiven members of Christ’s people, but with the equality within the people of God of all who believe the gospel, Jew and Gentile alike. That controversy, indeed, dominates the entire letter in a way that, alas, I think Martin Luther never saw (though specialists may correct me). (emphasis added)
Was Paul in Galatians condemning the law as the Torah (first five books of the Bible)?
No he can’t have. For the simple reason, Paul quotes with approval the Torah to support his argument! (Gal 3:8)
Was Paul in Galatians condemning the law as the pre-Sinai Gentile covenants?
Again, no he can’t have been. Paul makes it very clear that this law, which should not bind Gentiles, does not annul the pre-Sinai Gentile covenants – notably the covenants of Abraham (Gal 3:16,18). Instead, this non-binding law, which is in opposition to the covenant of Abraham, is the law given at Sinai 430 years after covenant to Abraham. So what law is Paul obviously talking about – it is obviously the 613 rules of the Jewish Mosaic Mitzvoth (Gal 3:17).
So Paul certainly is saying nothing against the pre-Sinai Gentile covenants, which are the ‘Resident Alien’ (Ger) and Noachide commands. Paul is telling the Gentiles they don’t need to follow the 613 rules of the Mitzvoth, which notably included circumcision, because that ‘Jewish’ covenant was only temporary and does not annul the prior Gentile covenant with Abraham.
Was Paul in Galatians condemning the law as all ‘ceremonial’ aspects of the ‘Jewish’ religion?
Again, no he can’t have been. The most distinctively ‘Jewish’ part of the Jewish religion is monotheism. And yet Paul makes it clear that these Christian-Gentiles have given away their former enslavement to pagan gods (Gal 3:8). Moreover, Paul makes clear that those who practice idolatry will not inherit the kingdom (Gal 5:20).
Was Paul in Galatians condemning all forms of expected moral behaviour?
Again, no he can’t have been. Paul makes clear rather forcefully with a warning, that if you engage in certain behaviours you won’t be in the kingdom (Gal 5:21). This is not unlike Paul’s teachings in Rom 2:14-16 that on the day of judgement all of us, whether Jew or Greek, will be judged according to our deeds Paul certainly is not advocating antinomianism!
Was Paul in Galatians promoting legalism himself?
Hardly, because Paul says we are made righteous with God based on faith (Gal 2:15,16). This really is a non-issue, because the other Apostles also agreed we are all saved by faith (Acts 15:11).
Again, this shows the dispute was primarily an ecclesiological (Church unity and practice) issue and not a soteriological (salvation) issue. It wasn’t, as Luther read it, a question of trying to get to heaven through trying to be a really good moral person. It was only soteriological in the sense of some wrongly thinking they had a ticket to heaven because of their special status as Jews, by having a circumcised penis, which made them part of the ‘in’ group.
It also wasn’t so much about individual salvation by moral good works as much as notions of collective salvation through incorporation within the ‘true remanent People’. The emphasis on individualism seems to be more of a recent phenomenon deriving from Protestantism – Protestant work ethic and all that. This issue has much relevance to mainstream Christians who think they are saved by infant baptism, or Adventists who think they’ll be saved solely by being a member of the ‘remanent’ Church.
So Paul was obviously condemning the 613 commands of the Jewish Mitzvoth
So it seems relatively clear, to me at least, that Paul was most concerned with the notion of binding Gentiles with the 613 commands of the Jewish Mitzvoth. That is the only ‘law’ that really fits in with what Paul is saying. It was this ‘works of the law’, which Paul was focused on.
It was this Mitzvoth law that distinguished a Jew from a Gentile (Gal 3:14), was given at Sinai 430 years after the covenant of Abraham does not annul the covenant of Abraham (Gal 3:17:18), was just a disciplinarian until Christ came (Gal 3:24), that stops unity between races, classes and genders (Gal 3:28), and which Jesus was born under the law (Gal 4:4).
Paul was not condemning the pre-Sinai Gentile covenants, such as the covenant of Abraham and Noah, nor condemning moral behaviour. For example, the requirements of Ger do not divide people between races, classes and genders do, like the Mitzvoth does, for the simple reason that the requirements of Ger are intended to be universal – to apply to all descendants of Abraham and Noah.
In fact, Gentiles should live to an even higher standard than Jews, according to the covenant of Adam. That is what Jesus suggests in his counsel on divorce, in living according to the way it was ‘in the beginning’ (Matt 19:4,8). Paul likewise is certainly not lessening the standards, either in terms of ceremonial issues (such as idolatry and sorcery) or moral issues (such as drunkenness or carousing) (Gal 5:21). Rather, Paul expects even higher standards from his Gentile-Christian converts! (Gal 5:22,23)
What is involved in knowing God and turning away from idolatry?
To put this all another and less technical way, Paul makes clear that the Gentile Christians now know God (Gal 5:9), have given up pagan gods that are not really gods, such as some form of new-age animistic and heretical elemental spirits (Gal 5:8,9). Paul makes clear those who practice idolatry or sorcery will not be in the kingdom (Gal 5:20). This conforms to ideas that love is the fulfilment of the law (Gal 5:14).
So how should a Gentile-Christian behave towards God in worship then? What is relevant? Should a Gentile-Christian engage in practices long associated (and contrary to popular belief still alive and well today) as paganism and idolatry? Is worshipping other gods acceptable? Is using God’s name as a magic talisman, as those who promote prosperity Gospel, do? Is setting time aside for God and acknowledging Him as creator less or even more important in the modern world today? And is eating blood, or eating a strangled animal, consistent with what the Bible teaches about proper monotheistic worship?
Do we see false worship even amongst Christians? Do we see it in icons, magical bread that becomes flesh, or special blessings that get us the Ferrari we want?
If you truly love God with all your heart, you will worship Him in the way the Bible prescribes. If think your way of worship is acceptable to God, well that is really a matter for you and Him on the Day of Judgment.
Stephen, this is quite sad. Your words reveal that you just don't get it. "how do we know what is true worship involved in truly loving God and what isn't? Just trust in human instinct, which is fundamentally flawed and led to paganism in the first place?"
The one who has died, the one who is born of God, the one who is a new creation, the one who has the mind of Christ, the one who can truly say, 'it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me,' this one is no longer led of human instinct. This one is led of God. This one 'cannot sin.' Because their new genetic nature, their new instinct, if you will, is all of God. Study 1John 3.9. Simply read it over and over and over again. Meditate on it. It is not amenable to rational dissection. Only the heart can know it. It is a 'hard saying,' and yes, it is utterly mystical, but it contains the key to Life.
1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because His seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God.
Then it will be that all your anxiety to worship God perfectly will evaporate with the morning mist in the light of the Son.
ps…. no need of further argument with us on this. I think its time to have it out with your Father.
So Serge are you saying you are now sinless? You have no need for the Law to point out sin for you as Paul makes clear in Rom 7:7:
'What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”'
If you love God, why do you deny Him the time He deserves, in acknowledging His Sabbath – made for all mankind? Is not the Sabbath about monotheism – acknowledging the Creator? Is not denying its validity idolatry?
I agree eventually eventually the Law will be in my heart, in all our hearts, so no one will need to be taught, as made clear in Jer 31:31. However at that point the Law will be affirmed, not abrogated, as you seem to be suggest. But that is a work of a lifetime, as sanctification is the work of a lifetime – unless you subscribe to ultra-conservative Last Generation Theology or Pentecostal-Holy-Flesh movement.
In the interim, even Paul thought the Law necessary for teaching, and not just to the unconverted but the converted, as he cites the Decalogue in Eph 6:1-2:
'Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother”—this is the first commandment with a promise'
As for 1 John 3:9, you missed 1 John 3:4, in that sin itself is 'lawlessness':
'Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness'
So wouldn't denying the Sabbath, part of the Law, the Decaloge, a Ger, to deny the Creatior, be a sin and type of idolatry?
As for 1 John 3:9, this is clearly an eschatological hope. Unless you are seriously suggesting a form of Perfectionism, that we will be sinless this side of heaven? Are you perfect and sinless Serge? If not, then why don't you need the Law to point out your sins, or are you better than Paul himself, who admitted he did?
It seems to me that Stephen is making a valiant effort to "get it." He is clearly trying very hard to understand what it is "all about." He deserves credit and support for that. After all, it is not so easy for any of of, is it?
Thank you Joe. As I said to Greg in another post, the concept of love covers all the issues, both ceremonial (i.e. how should we worship God) and moral (i.e. how should I treat my fellow human being), that the Law (and here I mean it in the broad sense and not the Jewish Mitzvoth). As the NT repeatedly puts it, love fulfills the Law. The Law is not against Love – they are two sides of the same coin.
I believe worshiping only Yahweh, not making graven images, not taking His name in vain and keeping His Sabbath is all exprressions of love. To not do these things would be tatamount to idolatry, in putting something before me and God. To truly love God means doing these things with all my heart.
I do struggle to do these things I admit, because I am not perfect – perhaps unlike Serge. I am not a naturally righeous person, and there is a war within myself, as Paul acknowledged. One day I know the Law will be in my heart, so I'll need no further teaching, but I don't really subscribe to Perfectionism this side of heaven, because I am not quite the fundamentalist you think I am.
Like a pagan, I don't think I would naturally worship just 1 God, or refrain from making graven images, or know to spend time with God, if the scriptures didn't tell me those things. Serge might be able to know these things naturally, because perhaps he escaped the effects of the Fall, but I am a rotten person, who needs the Law to point out sin, as Paul made clear in Rom 7:7.
I look towards the eschatological hope of sinlessness in 1 John 3:4 – but it is a hope. Again, I could only hope to have attained Serge's sinless state, so that I 'cannot sin' any longer. What it must be like to wake up and look in the mirror and know I was perfect!
Steven, we are our own worst enemy. We continually refuse to pass go and collect our reward, and i have forgotten the text where Paul spoke of fighting the air, or something like it, and or Don Quiote jousting at the windmill, always fighting to the nth degree but never gaining the victory. Drat it, there must be more to it, there has to be……..
We are saved by G R A C E, NOT BY WORKS. We can't earn it, it is the free priceless unspeakable gift of GOD.
Jesus did it all. Jesus paid the price, the blood money, the ransom which was the price demanded for sin; His crown of thornes, His blood dropping in the sand, His mental and physical torture, His being maligned and jeered at and spit on, but before He closed His eyes and died He cried out "Forgive them Father, they don't know what they are doing".
Stop punching the air, stop jousting at windmills, accept the free gift that Jesus has given you, that you cannot give to yourself, abundant and eternal life in His eternal spiritual realm. Its yours, all you have to do is say, "God Jesus, i am ashamed of my sinful being, i am sorry that i caused you the terrible unthinkable ordeal you endured for me. Forgive me of all the deadly sins and transgressions i have committed to you and to my family, friends and neighbors. Please have the Holy Spirit abide with me. Thank you Father, for your grace, your mercy, your abiding love. Praise your Holy Name.
God hears every call of repentance. He is faithful and just to forgive you your sins and He says He forgets them. God is the source of perfect love. Make a joyful noise unto the Lord. Come before His thone with thanksgiving and praise. There is joy in heaven as every single sinner comes to the throne of GRACE, because at that moment the sinner is assured of everlasting life.
PRAISE GOD….PRAISE GOD…. PRAISE FATHER, SON, HOLY GHOST.
Earl: 'We are saved by G R A C E, NOT BY WORKS… Stop punching the air, stop jousting at windmills, accept the free gift that Jesus has given you, that you cannot give to yourself, abundant and eternal life in His eternal spiritual realm. Its yours, all you have to do is say, "God Jesus, i am ashamed of my sinful being, i am sorry that i caused you the terrible unthinkable ordeal you endured for me.'
Earl, I think you are all verballing me. I never said we are saved by works – never! And you all complain I don't "get it." How can you all not get it I am talking about something fundamental here – belief in monotheism, the worship of one God, who sent Jesus Christ. This is the fulfillment of the Law, the greatest commandment, to love your Lord with all your heart, mind and soul. To say you live by grace and not works is not licence to sin, nor is it licence to worship other gods! True love of God is to embrace monotheism and reject idolatry.
I have continually refered to Peter's statement in Acts 15:11, that we are saved by grace and not works. Peter makes that point very clear before going on to give the 4 commands in Acts 15:20,29. So just like Peter, it is important to understand context.
We are saved by 'faith', but what is that exactly? We are saved by faith in the Gospel, which is believing in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the kergma of Christianity and everything is subordinate to it.
There are a number of other issues, like say whether we should baptise children or adults, or take alcohol in the communion wine; however, these are not 'salvation' issues, unless you embrace Roman Catholic sacramental theology, believing infant baptism is a 'magical' rite than gets you to heaven like circumcision did according to some Jews in the NT. However, even as 'non-essential' issues, these issues were and still are important to the life of the Christian community. That said, I am primarily at this point talking about something more fundamental, the 'salvation issue' of what 'salvation' is, how we get it through faith in God, and what 'faith' in God means exactly?
Fundamentally, to believe in Jesus, who God sent, is to believe in God. To believe in God is 'essential' for salvation. Paul makes that clear in Gal 3:6:
'Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,”'
To believe God is to reject idolatry, which is to essence of rejecting God. Paul makes this clear himself in that great 'anti-Law' tract of Galatians. As Paul says in Gal 4:8,9:
'Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods. Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again?'
And further in Gal 6:20,21, Paul warns those who engage in idolatry will not be in the kingdom of heaven!
'idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.'
And to those who don't head this warning, that don't embrace monotheism but instead turn to pagan idolatry, the worship of 'elemental spirits' Paul says in Gal 4:9,11 that he has wasted his time trying to teach them they are saved by grace through faith and not works!
'Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? …I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted.'
So it is simply nonsense, as you, Elaine, Serge or any other person, claims they are saved by grace by faith, but then don't really have faith at all because you don't embrace a monotheistic God but instead embrace idolatry. That is why the Apostles in Acts 15:28 imposed the four commands of Acts 15:20,29 as 'essentials.'
Did you get that, the Apostles said in Acts 15:28 these four commands were 'essential'! Why do you think? Is it possibly because they saw these four commands as implicit to monotheism, which is the essence of faith, which is to believe in one God, who sent Jesus Christ?
Practices such as the Sabbath or not making graven images seem to relate to monotheism, in acknowledging no God but God and God as Creator. So it is simply hypocicy to calling others legalists, and suggesting you are saved by grace through faith and not works, when one engages in idolatry at odds with what faith even means.
Steven, maybe i'm wrong in my underestanding of the Gospel. i believe that once a sinner repents of sins, he has repented to our one and only GOD. the sinner has accepted GOD'S grace and with God the Holy Spirit abiding in his life, he goes forward learning, and reaching out in love to every one, and strives to keep sin out of his life, and when he fails, he feels the guilt, and is on the hot line immediately.
We each know what sin is. We each can feel and know the Holy Spirit is working in us, because immed. we know we've erred, we are instantly convicted. i don't worry about the Ten Commandments, as they are etched in my memory,they condemn the sinner. i don't worry or give time re: Judaic laws as they don't apply to me. i abide in Jesus Christ and His New covenant for all people. Of course there is knowledge & wisdom in the OT, and most Christians are aware of earlier days of Earth's history. But my interest is in Jesus Christ, my future is totally in His love, His Care, and His promise to restore my soul. Not with any part of Israel and 600 items that condemn. Obviously you are highly motivated and inquisitive to see and know of every morsel of information of the past. i am amazed at the prodigious time you have allotted to this extensive effort. You are a superman to do this and still maintain a fulltime job and quality time for family.
The wife says "I love you whatever you do….hmmm, think about it, and whatever you do…. don't even think about missing even one weekend date.
Earl: 'i believe that once a sinner repents of sins, he has repented to our one and only GOD.'
Good. Then you agree loving God with all our hearts means worshiping him and no other, to refrain from making idols, from misusing His name, and in acknowledging Him as Creator in the Sabbath? These are 'rules' – these are signs of love of God. It's about relationship – not rules. When you love someone, you treat them a certain way.
A man who says he truly loves his wife doesn't then take a mistress (other gods); or make idols (look at other women in lust); or take her name in vain (spread gossip about her that isn't true); or forget your anniversary (the Sabbath). As it is with a man and his wife, so it is with God. And God tells us He is a jealous God – He doesn't want us loving other gods.
Earl: 'We each know what sin is.'
Do we Earl? I don't think we do. Ever since the Fall, we have been broken beings. We are so broken that God even needs to intervene to tell us we are broken! That is why Paul himself admits the Law is needed to point out sin (Rom 7:7).
You, Elaine, Serge and others claim not to need the Law to know sin, and then claim forgetting the Sabbath isn't a sin! That seems to be case in point – exhibit one – that human beings do need God to intervene even to show them just how sinful they need to need a saviour.
Earl: 'I don't worry about the Ten Commandments, as they are etched in my memory,they condemn the sinner.'
Earl, having the Decalogue etched in our hearts is the end goal of salvation, as made clear in Jer 31:31. At that point, we won't be capable of sinning (1 John 3:9). However, sanctification is the work of a lifetime. Unless you are seriously suggesting you have obtained perfection, you will continue to need instruction, to be brought to repentence on a regular basis, to die daily as Paul said. Even Paul quoted the Decalogue explicitly in instruction fully converted Christians (Eph 6:1,2).
Earl: 'Judaic laws as they don't apply to me.'
What pray tell is a 'Judaic' law exactly? The two great commandments are 'Judaic laws' as they derive from the Torah (Deut 6:4; Lev 19:18). Jesus said 'salvation is of the Jews'. Monotheism itself, the very essence of grace through faith, is a 'Judaic Law'. Paul refers to Abraham's savaltion in Galatians as being because of his belief in God, which is found in the Torah.
So this is simply another mud-flying straw-man argument. Jesus would simply say something like He did to the Saducees (Matt 22:29):
'Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.'
If by 'Judaic Laws' you mean the 613 commands of the Mitzvoth, that only applied to Jews alone, then yes, they do not apply to Gentiles. However, the whole scriptures, including the OT, are not 'Jewish'. The covenants of the 'Resident Alien' (Ger), of Abraham, of Noah and of Adam (re-constituted in Christ as the Second Adam), are not 'Jewish'!
Monotheism, prohibition on graven images, blaspheme and the Sabbath are not 'Jewish'. They are aspects of true worship of God, which is what faith is all about. To say you have faith but then reject the essential aspect of monotheism is simply illogical nonsense.
Earl: 'I abide in Jesus Christ and His New covenant for all people.'
And what is the New Covevant exactly Earl? It is the Law written in our hearts! (Jer 31:33,34). So someone who has the Law truly written in their hearts would never say the Sabbath is irrelevant, just as someone who truly loves his wife would never say his anniversary isn't important. Again, it isn't about 'rules' it is about love.
Earl: 'But my interest is in Jesus Christ, my future is totally in His love, His Care, and His promise to restore my soul'
And how did Christ explain Himself? He explained His life, death and resurrection, which is to say the Good News of the Gospel, by the OT itself (Luke 24:44-47):
'Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.'
So again, you offer nothing but a false choice of OT vs NT, where it is OT and NT. You merely create straw-man arguments. The Law is not against Jesus; the Law itself teaches us that we are not saved by works but by grace through faith.
Did not Jesus also say in Matt 5:17:
'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.'
And then Jesus warns in Matt 5:19:
'Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.' (emphasis added)
You, Elaine, Serge and others better be careful, because you seem to be teaching others to break not just the least but some major commandments here with your cheap grace. An illogical notion that in the name of love we have licence to sin, which notably includes transgressing important aspects of monotheism, such as the Sabbath.
Earl: 'Not with any part of Israel and 600 items that condemn.'
I think you mean the 613 commands of the Mitzvoth, which was given 430 years after Abraham to Moses at Sinai (Gal 3:17). These were the aspects of the Torah that applied only to Jews.
Well, I'm not interested in them either. I'm not trying to be a Jew – another verbal against me.
I am only interested in the pre-Sinai covenants, which apply to all human beings. Paul makes it very clear the Mitzvoth does not do away with these convenant, such as the covenant of Abraham (Gal 3:17).
In fact, as Christians, we are under an even more onerous Law than what the Jews had. It is the restored covenant given to Adam, who had no written law. You think it easy to live up to love? It isn't, as this horrible world shows.
Sometimes to do live up to the spirit of the Law is harder than merely following its letter, as the Pharisees do. When you follow its letter, you can find ingenuous ways to get out of the obligations, like the Pharisees used to do. This is the exact sort strict legalistic gymnastics that we see destroying our justice system today, and which Jesus condemns explicitly as perversions of the Law (Mar 7:10-13).
So again your cheap grace is just that – cheap. It is cheap because having the Law in our hearts, in following out of love and not out of fear as 'rules', doesn't make life easier – usually it makes life harder!
Jesus expected us to have greater righteousness than the Pharisees (Matt 5:20).
Earl: ' i am amazed at the prodigious time you have allotted to this extensive effort. You are a superman to do this and still maintain a fulltime job and quality time for family.
The wife says "I love you whatever you do….hmmm, think about it, and whatever you do…. don't even think about missing even one weekend date.'
Thank you Earl – I am hardly a superman. I am just interested in religion, all religions, and the Bible in particular. The interesting discussions here on AToday help promote me to my own private studies.
I am pretty good as academic things, and apart from working full time as a lawyer, I am doing a Masters Degree (in Divinity, MDiv) as a hobby, as well as quite involved in my local church. And yes, I still have time for my wife but we have no children just yet.
However, whilst academic things come relatively easy to me, don't ask me to pick up a hammer. I am pretty useless and useful things.
Earl: ' i am amazed at the prodigious time you have allotted to this extensive effort. You are a superman to do this and still maintain a fulltime job and quality time for family.
The wife says "I love you whatever you do….hmmm, think about it, and whatever you do…. don't even think about missing even one weekend date.'
Thank you Earl – I am hardly a superman. I am just interested in religion, all religions, and the Bible in particular. The interesting discussions here on AToday help promote me to my own private studies.
I am pretty good as academic things, and apart from working full time as a lawyer, I am doing a Masters Degree (in Divinity, MDiv) as a hobby, as well as quite involved in my local church. And yes, I still have time for my wife but we have no children just yet.
However, whilst academic things come relatively easy to me, don't ask me to pick up a hammer. I am pretty useless and useful things.
Earl: ' i am amazed at the prodigious time you have allotted to this extensive effort. You are a superman to do this and still maintain a fulltime job and quality time for family.
The wife says "I love you whatever you do….hmmm, think about it, and whatever you do…. don't even think about missing even one weekend date.'
Thank you Earl – I am hardly a superman. I am just interested in religion, all religions, and the Bible in particular. The interesting discussions here on AToday help promote me to my own private studies.
I am pretty good as academic things, and apart from working full time as a lawyer, I am doing a Masters Degree (in Divinity, MDiv) as a hobby, as well as quite involved in my local church. And yes, I still have time for my wife but we have no children just yet.
However, whilst academic things come relatively easy to me, don't ask me to pick up a hammer. I am pretty useless and useful things.
Earl: ' i am amazed at the prodigious time you have allotted to this extensive effort. You are a superman to do this and still maintain a fulltime job and quality time for family.
The wife says "I love you whatever you do….hmmm, think about it, and whatever you do…. don't even think about missing even one weekend date.'
Thank you Earl – I am hardly a superman. I am just interested in religion, all religions, and the Bible in particular. The interesting discussions here on AToday help promote me to my own private studies.
I am pretty good as academic things, and apart from working full time as a lawyer, I am doing a Masters Degree (in Divinity, MDiv) as a hobby, as well as quite involved in my local church. And yes, I still have time for my wife but we have no children just yet.
However, whilst academic things come relatively easy to me, don't ask me to pick up a hammer. I am pretty useless and useful things.
Silly computer glitch!
Dear Mr Ferguson
RE: "I think you are all verballing me. I never said we are saved by works – never!"
———
I'm sure you must be referring to liberals and cheap grace proponents here in your usage of 'you are all verballing me.' I have not misrepresented your position in this regard sir, and yes, I agree, (even as a witness too), that you have never said "we are saved by works" – which in fact, neither have I. But get used to it! Welcome to the world of religious liberals! If they even get a whiff of any reference or perceived inference towards obedience to God, His immutable Law or even sin for that matter then the blue lights start flashing, siren and all, and the 'saved by works' police will pull you over for a citation. I have found that the usual 'saved by works' accusations and its derivatives are just a cop-out used to discredit a fuller estimation, understanding and experience of the unsearchable riches of Christ which accompanies a wholehearted approach to experiential Christianity as summarised in Gal 2:20. Then there are the humanists who religiously and piously practice the secular works of the day.
From what I have gathered: [All] those who have rejected the light on the Sanctuary Doctrine as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, (1844 and all), have a diminished estimation of obedience in terms of 1] Salvation by Faith and 2] in terms of Justification by Faith and Sanctification by Faith including the bigger picture of 3] Righteousness by Faith. This in turn lowers their estimation of the price Jesus paid on the cross of Calvary for our disobedience to His Law – aka sin. In doing so they make void His Law (Gal 3:31).
The second verse mentioned above should be Romans 3:31.
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Trevor thanks for your words here. I have indeed to tried get use to our 'liberal' (I think 'ultra-liberal' is more fitting, as I usually think myself as a liberal) religious friends. But yes, it is frustrating.
You are also right, the accusation, 'You are teaching salvation by works' is just so much mud that these ultra-liberals fling by the galleon, hoping some sticks. They say 'All you need is love', but then suggest acting with love is legalism.
It reminds me of a man who says he loves his life more than life itself, and then beats her up. And then when the concerned bystander says that behaviour is perhaps not consistent with his so-called profession of love, the bystander is told to but out because he doesn't understand the depths of love in the relationship.
Some may think it a crude way to put it but I see it as a "give the drunk a drink" type of religion that is being propagated nowadays.
Yes, a very good analogy. It's like saying, 'Don't worry brother, we accept and forgive you for your drunkedness because we love you', which should of course be true for any church. And then we show our 'love', so-called, by giving the drunk another drink! That's not love – that's the opposite of love. Love is to help the drunk stop drinking, even if he calls you every name under the sun.
Another common misconception I think these proponents of cheap grace seem to promote is the idea that living according to the Law of love, which is to say having the Law in our hearts, which fulfills and not abrogates the Law, is somehow easier than the negative and legalistic following of the Law, as the Pharisees had. It isn't. When you think about it carefully, legalism is actually the easier path!
In fact, as Christians, we are under an even more onerous Law than what the Jews even had. It is the restored covenant given to Adam, who had no written law.
When you follow its letter, you can find ingenuous ways to get out of the obligations, like the Pharisees used to do. This is the exact sort strict legalistic gymnastics that we see destroying our justice system today, and which Jesus condemns explicitly as perversions of the Law (Mar 7:10-13).
So again your cheap grace is just that – cheap. It is cheap because having the Law in our hearts, in following out of love and not out of fear as 'rules', doesn't make life easier – usually it makes life harder! Jesus expected us to have greater righteousness than the Pharisees (Matt 5:20).
So who is calling who a legalist? I think some of our 'ultra-liberal' friend may in fact be the legalists here. They are looking for the 'easy way', the 'trick', like the Pharisees were; whereas, Jesus actually promised if we followed Him persecution, where we'd have to take up our own Cross like Him!
If we really love God and love our fellow man, then really means some pretty difficult choices at times. God showed this Himself, in the most difficult choice of all, in sending His son for us. Whereas, the cheap grace of our ultra-liberal friends is just a gimick, like the Pharisees used to do all the time, such as offering money to the Temple so they wouldn't have to support their parents as required by the Decalogue command to honour our parents. Jesus made it clear what He thought about such gimicks in Mar 7:9-13:
'For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, ‘Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban’ (that is, an offering to God)—then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother,thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.”'
This is funny Trevor and Stephen; in that as Seventh-day Adventists go, I had always considered myself as a moderate liberal —that is until my introduction to atoday.org.
It goes to show that it’s all relative. (Having never been to Loma Linda, I always had the impression that it was a bastion of Adventist theological conservatism.) Clearly, I needed to ‘get out more.’
I have likewise found that, contrary to stereotype, in lieu of obedience to God, liberals often emphasize a salvation by works; even though in reality we are saved by grace and not by our own works (yet lost via unrepentant, willful disobedience). Thanks for the explanations and observations gentlemen.
Yes indeed. Do you remember a discussion with Elaine and Dr Taylor some months ago, where it appeared they seemed to reject traditional notions of atonment and salvation. When really pressed, they said something to the effect that they believed 'salvation' was really by being a good person. I remember thinking gobsmaked that that is legalism – and you're all calling us legalists! I believe the discussion was in reference to ex-SDA theologian Robert Brimsmead, who became so 'liberal' that he rejected traditional Christianity and likewise believed it was all just about being a good person.
And scroll up to see Serge's reasoning as to why he supposedly doesn't need the Law (which I mean not the Jewish Mitzvoth but the wider scriptures and Decalogue), not even to point out sin as Paul makes clear in Rom 7:7, because supposedly he is perfect! Serge quotes what I think is an eschatological promise in 1 John 3:9 as his reason – that he cannot sin!
And again, we're called the legalists. If any 'conservative' Adventist even suggested such perfectionism, they'd be devoured by lions. Even those amongst conservatism Adventism believe in the eschatological hope of being sinless, say at the close of probation, I don't know any conservative Adventists who going around saying they don't need to be told because they are perfect now today.
So again, it is funny who is called the 'legalist' and supposedly believing in salvation by 'works.'
PS…….. Precisely where did I say 'I' cannot sin?
Serge: ‘Precisely where did I say 'I' cannot sin?’
Serge I am sure you do or will regret keeping this discussion ongoing. As for me, I am thoroughly enjoying it and happy for it to continue.
Serge, as to what you precisely said or didn’t say, your actually quote was:
‘The one who has died, the one who is born of God, the one who is a new creation, the one who has the mind of Christ, the one who can truly say, 'it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me,' this one is no longer led of human instinct. This one is led of God. This one 'cannot sin.'’
I assume this ‘one’ in your statement includes you. Otherwise, you would be suggesting you are not ‘one’ of these ‘ones’ who are a new creation, not the ‘one’ who has the mind of Christ, not the ‘one’ who is no longer led of human instinct, or not the ‘one’ who is led of God.
If you did not mean this ‘one’ to include you, how bizarre would that be? That would make you nothing but a complete hypocrite, which I assume you are not trying to be – and I certainly don’t take you as such. You’d be lecturing others on the state of those who are born of God, whilst admitting you were not born of God yourself!
And you have explicitly said, nay you emphasized with quotation marks ‘x’, that this ‘one’, presumably including yourself, ‘cannot sin.’ And to say a human being this side of heaven ‘cannot sin’ is nothing but perfectionism, of the kind you don’t even find in the most ultra-conservative elements of Christianity. Even proponents of Last Generation Theology within ultra-conservative Adventism aren’t that extreme, because they at least realize they are still sinners today, although they believe at the close of Probation they will become sinless.
So it is entirely obvious that you clearly included the mention of ‘one’ who ‘cannot sin’ to include yourself. It appears to me, and perhaps I am reading it wrong, that you are simply backtracking before you realize how absurd your such literalist reading of 1 John 3:9 truly is.
If, however, you are suggesting that you apply radically different rules of the English language, I’d be interested to hear it. I know Americans have their own weird spelling and ways of saying things, but even then, I think you meant the ‘one’ who ‘cannot sin’ to include yourself. Maybe some other Americans can comment on the idiomatic nature of your statement. I am always, always, willing to stand corrected, and willing to learn, so please explain yourself more precisely as to what you actually meant then.
I made a very nice reply to this just now and I can't find it. Will try again.
Stephen, please don't draw conclusions which are not there. I was very careful not to say 'I' cannot sin. I am aware of your doctrine of sinless perfectionism and I do not ascribe ot it. But I wonder if you do? It is a foundational doctrine, ie, it is the teaching of your founder, EGWhite. Here is an example:
Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above, are to stand in the sight of a holy Godwithout a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort, they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative Judgment is going forward in Heaven, while the sins of penitent believers are being removed from the sanctuary, there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God’s people upon earth. GC p 425
Now if you do not subscribe to that doctrine, does that make you a liberal?
Simply put, it cannot be 'I' who cannot sin, because 'I' am crucified with Christ. Gal 2.2, and whole of Romans 6. In fact, I take 1 Jn 3.9 to be a very pithy summary of Rom 6. If John had intended it to apply at some distant future, he would ahve said something like 'will not sin at the eschaton.' Something very like Ellen in the quote above. But no, he said 'cannot sin,' present continuous. And the crucial point is, 'because His seed remaineth in him.' This is entirely consistent with Rom 6 and Gal 2.2 ……. Christ liveth in me.
The main reason SDAs cannot easily comprehend or tolerate this doctrine is that they have a materilaist view of human nature. THey also have a materialist view of divine nature, which complicates things even more. But it is very difficult for them to see how it can be that 'I am crucified with Christ,' when such a thing doesn't happen physically. It must be make-believe. Or 'imputed,' which is pretty much the same thing. But for Paul, who considers his 'old man self' to be REAL, dying daily is equally REAL. For Paul, it is equally real that it is no longer Paul who lives, but Christ. Such is the nature of understanding what it means to die spiritually.
And likewise to be raised spiritually. Born again, a new creation. etc. So that Christ can say, John 5.24, this one 'has passed from death unto life.' Nothing eschatalogical about that. John reiterates in 1 John 3.14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. (notice the tense….. have passed…… not a future event at all).
Is this all 'make-believe' 'maybe in the future some time' kind of thinking? No, it is here and it is NOW. If dying to your egoic desires is raising the bar too high for you Stephen, don't complain to me. I didn't write it.
2 Peter 1.4 is another passage of required reading here. 'partakers fo the divine nature' is another way of saying what John says in the phrase, 'His seed remaineth in him.'
The doctrine of Theosis is too little considered in Western theology, but it is making a comeback. In your response below, teh section titled Conclusion of the Matter, is correct to acknowledge that this perspective on the Christian experience is entirley mystical in nature. Union with the divine is the only option. As John said elsewhere, quoting Jesus' prayer, 'Father I pray that they may be one even as we are one.' Or as Paul said, 'whoso is joined to the Lord is ONE SPIRIT.' 1 Cor 6.17 Its difficult to entertain this kind of thinking when one believes one is only a material body.
And, because one believes in a material self, Sinless Perfectionsim is mandatory. EGW is at least consistent.
Apologies. The correct ref is Gal 2.20
Serge are you suggesting something akin to what is suggested in the Pulpit Commentary:
http://biblehub.com/1_john/3-9.htm
‘Note that St. John does not say οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτεῖν," cannot commit a sin," but οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, "cannot be a sinner." An act is different from a state of sin.’
As for Theosis, yes, I don't have a problem understanding the text in those terms. However, I don't believe it all happens in an instance.
I still think the Law has a place. Not a place in saving us, but in bringing us to salvation. Paul himself makes that abundantly clear.
Stephen I'm fine with 'cannot be a sinner.' But I have trouble seeing how one can 'sin' as an act, but not therefore be a 'sinner.' However, given that the heart's motive is what is truly judged, The 'state' of one's heart is of far greater significance than one's inadvertant acts. When Love motivates all actions, it is a bit parsimonious for others to judge acts as sins. I don't believe God does.
Now you say, 'I don't believe it all happens in an instance.' Sounds like you see it in traditional 'sanctification is the work of a lifetime' terms. Pray tell, how do you relate to the quote above from GC…… standing in a state of sinless perfection without a mediator? By the grace of God and their own diligent efforts?
Seems to me, the price you pay for avoiding 'spiritualism' is a philosophy of Materialism where the body is included in this sanctification process of sinless perfectionism, since you are nothing more than a material body. How do you think it goes? Are you willing to declare precisely where you stand on this?
I know I said I wouldn't bother engaging in this now fairly pointless discussion with Stephen, but this comment simply cannot be allowed to stand.
"Serge quotes what I think is an eschatological promise in 1 John 3:9 "
So we are supposed to ignore this phenomenal text simply because Master of Divinity student Ferguson thinks it is an eschatalogical promise! Outrageous! IF that is the quality of your divinity studies, I give you a big fat F.
How about you make your case, from the text?
Serge: ‘So we are supposed to ignore this phenomenal text simply because Master of Divinity student Ferguson thinks it is an eschatalogical promise! Outrageous!’
No need to feign outrage Serge for my suggestion that we don’t read a Bible text absolutely literally. Normally it is the conservative fundamentalists who advocate this sort of absolute literalist reading, as a proof-text, and without context. But as Trevor, Stephen and I have discussed, in many regards, ‘ultra-liberals’ are in their own way more legalistic and fundamentalist than even many ‘ultra-conservative’ Adventists – at least when it suits them – as it clearly does seem here.
Furthermore, I always get bemused with these supposed outbursts of recorded outrage. Funny thing is, I don’t see such ‘outrage’ from even our more conservative Adventist friends here on AToday. I think they have long learnt they need to behave – we can’t all operate with impunity by having the last name Nelson. And I never, incidentally, see our conservative brethren calling for censorship from the moderators either – it always seems to be our more liberal friends, who aren’t even SDA members, who want to undermine free speech of robust discussion.
So I strongly suggest you live up to your purported ‘cannot sin’ state of being and control your professed outrage, so we can have a civil conversation. If the anger gets too much for you, I suggest taking a few deep breaths and walking away from the computer. I am sure some of a more conservative bent, like Trevor, has to do this regularly, in response to many of the ultra-liberal comments here. It would be preferable if we could have a discussion without such professed bouts of recorded outrage.
Reason from the surrounding context of John
If John really meant we are now totally sinless in the present, which what I see you advocating, and which why you seem to think we no longer need the Law to point out sin as Paul suggests (Rom 7:7), then that would totally contradict John himself. Many commentators observe that it would simply undermine John’s earlier statement in 1 John 1:8,10:
‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us… If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.’
So is John calling himself a liar? If you say you no longer need the Law to point out your sin, because you are ‘one’ who ‘cannot sin’, are you now the liar?
Moreover, many commentators note John is talking in eschatological terms:
So we can’t read 1 John 3:9 as a proof-text in a vacuum, as you have clearly done. Context is everything, everything and everything, and context suggests an eschatological context.
Reason from Bible Commentaries
But don’t take my word for it. Even the commentary from the IVP New Testament commentary found on Biblegatway (i.e. a generic, non-Adventist view, so you don’t accuse me of SDA propaganda), which took me all of 5 minutes to find, supports my argument. This Bible commentary makes the point that the unusual statement about ‘cannot sin’ is primarily addressed in eschatological circumstances, in anticipation of the end of the world in the Last Days, as I already told you before:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+john+3&version=NRSV
“Because of their absolute and emphatic nature, these statements pose a great challenge to interpretation. (Surveys and discus sions of the options are in Brown 1982:412-15; Marshall 1978:178-83; Smalley 1984:159-64; and Stott 1988:134-40.) They seem both overstated and inconsistent with human experience. And to make matters more complicated, 3:4-10 also seems to contradict earlier statements (1:8, 10) that the denial of sin is a sin in itself.
…But can absolute statements such as the assertion that the child of God cannot sin (v. 9) be heard as encouragement and good news? Yes, they can—if we re member that when John reminds his readers that they are the children of God now (3:1), he also directs their hope to the revelation of what they shall be (3:2). Although there is transformation, there is also continuity between present and future. In speaking of the present reality, John anticipates the promised transformation, just as he elsewhere speaks of the reality of eternal life and the outworking of God's final judgment in the present time.
…More specifically, however, lawlessness may refer to the lawlessness expected in the last days, the ultimate rejection of God's truth to be manifested in false teaching and immorality.
…And he will return to complete the work he has begun—to transform us into the image of the God who is pure (3:3). Both the initial manifestation of Christ and his return are spoken of in terms of the effect his work had on sin: in his first coming he took away sin (3:5, 8); in his return (2:28; 3:3) he purifies us.”
And further in the “Reformation Study Bible” (again non-Adventist), they suggest John is actually meaning sin in a more restrictive sense, still acknowledging day-to-day sins but not apostasy:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203&version=NRSV
“The present tense of the Greek suggests behavior that is characteristic or usual. In this way John acknowledges, but does not excuse, the possibility of occasional sin. Another possibility is that John has in mind the specific sin of apostasy, mentioned in 2:19 (cf. also 5:16–18). If so, John means that true believers will not totally abandon their faith.”(emphasis added)
And in the Pulpit Commentary, John is suggesting we are held to be sinless in God’s eyes, that we cannot be a sinner, which is quite different from suggesting we cannot commit a sin:
http://biblehub.com/1_john/3-9.htm
‘Note that St. John does not say οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτεῖν," cannot commit a sin," but οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, "cannot be a sinner." An act is different from a state of sin.’ (emphasis added)
And once again, in support of my idea that this is an ‘ideal’, and eschatological hope, not to be understood so literally in the present as you have, the Pulpit Commentary goes on to say:
‘This is an ideal to which every Christian is bound to aspire – inability to sin.’ (emphasis added)
Shall I go on or is that enough for you? These four separate, non-Adventist commentaries, clearly support my view and put to bed your literalist perfectionism. I only found these on Google and haven’t done a detailed study of 1 John 3:9. If you insist, I could give you even more commentaries in support. However, perhaps it would be better, given the overwhelming and obvious support for my less extreme view, that you supply your own evidence here?
Reason from Logic
Finally, this must be eschatological, or at less something less than the absolute perfectionism that you promote, for the simple read that otherwise John’s statement here is clearly false, making it is otherwise at odds at what we all know of human experience.
It really is quite simple Serge. It you say this text must mean total fulfillment in the present, as opposed to an eschatological hope, or rather meaning a gradual fulfillment of this promise over the work of a lifetime, then simply suggest you ‘cannot sin’. Because that is how you are reading it – the ‘one’ of God, which you obviously mean to include you, ‘cannot sin.’
And because you ‘cannot sin’ you are now like Adam, so you no longer need the Law to point out sin as Paul did in Rom 7:7. The New Covenant is totally fulfilled in you, so that you no longer need to be taught, as predicted in Jer 31:33,34.
I see that text as obviously meaning that this is the end goal of the New Covenant. The kingdom of heaven does begin now, that is for sure, and the Holy Spirit begins to work within us. But I don’t know anyone who ‘cannot sin’. Do you? Are you suggesting it is you that ‘cannot sin’?
Even Peter, who after Pentecost was filled with the Holy Spirit, stilled sinned. Don’t you remember Paul calling him a hypocrite – and Barnabas also? So according to you that must have made Peter a false prophet, because he clearly did sin whereas as according to you he should not have been able to sin?
Conclusion of the Matter re 1 John 3:9
If we wanted to be technical, we could say this text clearly supports Last Generation Theology, which is an ultra-conservative movement of Adventism. That at least sees the state of sinless in this sort of eschatological terms. What you propose itself is extreme, even by Last Generation Theology standards.
You are right insofar as I imagine what John might have in mind is indeed mystical. It is probably something akin to Theosis, as taught in many Christian traditions.
However and again, all these traditions seem to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit working in us is the work of a lifetime. In the meantime, we need to die daily, which means confronting our sin daily.
The Law is not our enemy here, because the Law is God’s character, which again points out sin (Rom 7:7). The Law helps us realise just how hopeless we really are, so that we need a saviour.
Fear not Stephen. I am slow to anger, and this occasion is not one of them. (But I grant that your implication that Elaine was 'anti-Semitic' was a whole lot too much). Forgive me, but when I read – not every word, granted, you are too verbose – your material, I mainly just smile.
As you will infer from my repsonse above, I am quite pleased to see your Conclusion of teh Matter. You may be getting there after all. John's is the mystical gospel. "Father I pray that they may be one even as we are one," etc. I am sure he would endorse Paul when he said, 'whoso is joined to teh Lord IS ONE SPIRIT.'
Steven Ferguson, are you really Steven Ferguson? Or an imposter? You were away from ATODAY for awhile, and now you've returned and i hardly recognize you as the previous Steven Ferguson. To be honest, i find it most difficult to follow your comments, they go on and on, with some repetition. It seems as you have forgotten all the personal comments of most of us, over the previous months as to what we have shared of our beliefs. i have enjoyed ATODAY 13 months,and although you've used a lot of space in the past, it seems as though you now must analyse each of us, and render your decision as to whether we measure up to your acceptance of us being candidates for ressurection. You have in the past 2 days, consigned both Elaine and i to the lake of fire, so it seems. Some believe judgment began when Christ entered heavenly portals following His ressurection, some believe it started in 1844, but it seems you believe 2014 is the year.
With your most recent renderings here, you raise the bar too high for God's created. If you apply all that you have written here in the past few days, that we must be judged by. perhaps there will only be 144 thousand souls saved. Steven your comments are disturbing. You mentioned Pharisacal, sorry brother, but your recent offerings seem to border in that area. If only Bible scholars inherit the kingdom, because you seem to consider unless every T is crossed, and every i is dotted in every verse Ot and ET and interpretation agrees with yours, the rest of us poor souls are "batting the air", and jousting at windmills". When i mentioned i had the Ten Commandments in my human computer, they are in my memory, subject to instant recall, not that i am sinless, and perfect. Most of us here have repeated oer and oer, we are terrible sinners, and we must have a loving Savior to rescue us. We will be sinners until we assume room temperature.
Jesus is the only living human/God who has was not tainted with sin. We cannot change our stripes. we live in diseased corrupted flesh which we will endure until the grave.We have confessed our sins, and God said we are forgiven, and we will be in the kingdom with ever lasting life, WHY?? because He has done for us what it was inpossible for us to do. By God's perfect love and grace we are His everlasting abode. I can't and don't keep the Ten Commandments, even though i know them, they condemn me the sinner. The NEW COVENANT given to everyone states we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ , my Lord, my Sustainer, my Saviour, my Redeemer, my ALL IN ALL.
Brother Steve, you are loved here. Back off the judging, please.
Earl, it seems you are quite wounded by same of my comments. As sincerely apologise if I have made you feel uneasy with any of my comment. However, please keep in mind you have actually called me in effect a legalist, a nit-picking rabbi or a Pharisee. You have effectively repeated some of these insults even in your post here of complaint!
Earl: ‘Steven Ferguson, are you really Steven Ferguson? Or an imposter? You were away from ATODAY for awhile, and now you've returned and i hardly recognize you as the previous Steven Ferguson.’
Who knows Earl? Maybe I am starting to following in the footsteps of Stephen Foster. I used to think I was a ‘liberal’ Adventist until I came to AToday, and met people who claim to be an ‘Adventist’ and claim the Adventist ‘tent’ so ‘wide’ that it meant believing or disbelieving virtually anything – making a mockery of what it means to be a Christian and especially a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. Despite this being an obviously ‘liberal’ Adventist website, perhaps being exposed to such ‘ultra-liberal’ views has in fact had the opposite result – turned me more ‘conservative’?
However, I think the greater truth of the matter is, I probably just seem more conservative for the simple fact that Serge, Elaine and I presume you, are adopting such a radically ultra-liberal view. It is pretty mainstream Christian to make clear we are saved by grace and not works, but that the Law still has its place in pointing out sin (Rom 7:7), and that salvation by grace is not licence for lawlessness. It is pretty standard Christian belief that the Ten Commandments and the OT more generally still applies to Christians in the NT-era (although Christians debate exactly which ones and how they apply).
Earl: ‘You have in the past 2 days, consigned both Elaine and i to the lake of fire, so it seems’
Earl, I have never suggested any such thing. I have merely pointed out that we are all sinners, and that none of us are perfect, and as such all of us need guidance to lead us to repentance. We get some of that guidance from the scriptures, from the Law, as Paul makes clear in Rom 7:7. I am merely challenging the apparent hypocrisy of those who suggest they are now so perfect that they no longer need that guidance, but then clearly demonstrate they do.
You all were one of the ones who suggesting I was a legalist. You were the one who suggested, if even implicitly, that I was teaching anything other than salvation by grace, which was simply not true. It was you who jumped on the Elaine Nelson ex-Adventist bandwagon – not me.
I don’t know how many times I have to defend myself against this clear insult of supposedly teaching salvation by works – I don’t nor ever did. How many times do I have to quote Acts 15:11. According to a ‘control F’ search, I have explicitly quoted Acts 15:11, at least 8 separate times on this page!
And you’ll note unlike others, such as Serge, I have not made any claims of so-called professed outrage. Nor I have been a snitch, in suggesting the shackling of free speech by appealing to the censorship of the moderator. Censorship should never win a debate based on free speech.
Earl: ‘With your most recent renderings here, you raise the bar too high for God's created.’
No I don’t, and that again is perhaps my fault for not being clear enough, although I did quote Acts 15:11 at least 8 times. Again, I never said we were not saved by grace but by the Law. The purpose of the Law is to point out sin (Rom 7:7) – it doesn’t save us. My dispute is with those who suggest the Law has no purpose whatsoever in the life of the Christian under the New Covenant.
It is others, like Serge, who actually raise the bar impossibly high – so maybe you should make your complaint to him. It is Serge who suggests that if ‘one’, which I presume includes him, is a true born-again Christian one ‘cannot sin’ – not merely as an ideal or aspiration for heaven, but what he thinks all true Christians are living up to now. So who is really raising the bar too high? I only see becoming ‘sinless’ in the aspirational terms of sanctification being the work of a lifetime.
I also made it clear on many occasions that many of these discussions are not ‘salvation’ issues at all but merely ‘Church unity’ issues. As I said on several times, I don’t believe the Roman Catholic doctrine that undergoing the rite of baptism literally gets you to heaven – I believe it is just an outward sign. So the issue of baptizing children vs adults is not technically a ‘salvation’ issue. But conversely, just because it is not a ‘salvation’ issue but just a ‘Church’ issue is not to say baptism is not important – it clearly is!
Earl: ‘You mentioned Pharisacal, sorry brother, but your recent offerings seem to border in that area… Brother Steve, you are loved here. Back off the judging, please.’
Earl, again, I understand what you are saying are where you are coming from – really do. But as stated above, I believe I just seem more conservative for the simple fact that Serge, Elaine and I presume you, are adopting such a radically ultra-liberal view.
However, please look in the mirror. I have only mentioned those biblical warnings against idolatry and lawlessness in the context of you suggest that we have licence without the Law.
Moreover, it was you who first jumped on the Nelson bandwagon and suggested I was a legalist, suggesting I taught salvation by works and not by grace. I never said anything to you until you piped in supporting Serge and Elaine, by saying I was supposedly ‘displaying the instinct and nit picking of a emeritus Jewish rabbi.’
Then you have essentially repeated the accusation by claiming I have raised the bar too high. Now you are openly calling me a Pharisee! And you dare suggest I ‘back off’.
It is like I have been set upon by a group of bullies in my own home, and instead of just taking the beating I have fought back. Now giving you all a black eye, you call the police and claim me the bully! But I try not to get angry, clearly unlike others, and these discussions are only done in a good spirit of robust debate.
Let’s try to make this discussion civil all round then please. It would be great if you stop calling me names like legalist, a nit-picking rabbi or a Pharisee, before we end up asking we castrate ourselves as Paul said of his opponents in Galatians 5:12.
"A Little learning is a dangerous thing."
"Too much learning has made thee mad."
This is not rabbinical school and you are not the teacher.
Neither are you Elaine, of great master!
Why are you even here Elaine, and a website affiliated (per its very name) with the Seventh-day Adventist Church? All you do is knock the basic beliefs of SDAs specifically, and even Christians generally? If I am trying to be a rabbi, you're trying to be the Devil's advocate.
The 'About Us' and 'Who We Are' page of this site says:
Mission: Adventist Today reports on contemporary issues of importance to Adventist church members. Following basic principles of ethics and canons of journalism, this publication strives for fairness, candor, and good taste. (emphasis added)
I am a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, so that clearly explains why I am here. I'm here because AToday is a journalistic publication covering issues of importance to me, an Adventist member.
But what's your purpose here – really? Is it to challenge us somehow? Is it teach us? Or is it just pure devlish delieght, to crush people's most dearly held beliefs, their very hopes for life and the future, for your own pleasure? Do you enjoy pulling off the wings of SDA insects?
So pray tell us, really, why are you here? Is it not to be our own rabbinical teacher?
As for learning, you know a lot more than me Elaine. Talking about too much learning is simply the pot calling the kettle black! You have read so much you simply don't believe anything anymore. As I have said elsewhere, I believe Jesus may have been talking to you, when he talks of someone who has lost the faith of a child.
Stephen Ferguson,
I think that most liberals just don’t want to believe—yet do. (This creates some big time cognitive dissonance.) This explains why they stick around; while sticking around makes them more miserable. (This is especially true of Adventist liberals.)
They believe against their will (not to). It’s almost like having belief-implants in their skulls and they are beating their heads against the wall to get them out. Conservatives anger them by reminding them that, no matter what, the implant is still there.
We all have 'belief implants' Stephen, its jsut that conservatives' implants seem to malfunction much of the time. boom boom.
Of course, the difference Serge is that whether conservative implants function properly or not, conservatives are relatively comfortable with their belief-implants; and are not beating their heads against a wall attempting to remove their implants.
It is in this sense that you might even regard conservatives as blissfully ignorant.
Is this venue the "Adventist Enquirer?"
Listening to the bloody knuckles striking flesh, smelling the blood, wincing at the grinding of bone, my heart wearies. But the winners cry- "HURRAY!!!! We have won the war"
is yet untempered by the darker reality we've not yet at all heard.
-the spirit is as dead as our unloving hearts.
I hear the sigh of God, and he aches for his bride, perfect and beautiful.
"How much longer?" he cries, as all creation groans.
Good poetry sir!
Stephen: ‘You are right insofar as I imagine what John might have in mind is indeed mystical. It is probably something akin to Theosis, as taught in many Christian traditions. However and again, all these traditions seem to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit working in us is the work of a lifetime. In the meantime, we need to die daily, which means confronting our sin daily. The Law is not our enemy here, because the Law is God’s character, which again points out sin (Rom 7:7). The Law helps us realise just how hopeless we really are, so that we need a saviour.’
Serge: ‘As you will infer from my response above, I am quite pleased to see your Conclusion of the Matter. You may be getting there after all.’
Ok, so let’s approach this issue from one of theosis, of love, and of Paul’s analogy in Galatians of works of the flesh versus fruits of the Spirit. I think we may in fact agree mostly on principle, and perhaps only slightly disagree on application. Please hang in there with my usual verboseness, where Voltaire once said something like, “Sorry for the length but I didn’t have time to draft something shorter.”
If God’s Spirit is starting to live in us, our natures will begin to change, as you have said previously. The result will be the abandonment of the works of the flesh, which include idolatry and sorcery (Gal 4:8,9 and Gal 5:20). Instead, we will start to live the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:17), which means leaving our old life of paganism. We will come to better worship a single Creator-God, as Abraham did when he left pagan Mesopotamia, and was counted righteous for believing (Gal 3:6). So it is by their fruits (or lack thereof) we can know whether someone truly is from God, as Jesus observed (Matt 7:15-20).
Now as for application, for someone who has the Spirit in their hearts, who is undergoing theosis, we would expect to see the abandonment of idolatry and embracing love of monotheism as fruits of the Spirit – wouldn’t we? So it would be inconsistent for someone with the Spirit in their heart to take steps to reject God, by abandoning monotheism, or making graven images, or blaspheming God’s name. These things would all be works of the flesh, as forms of idolatry, contrary fruits of the Spirit.
So dare I say, wouldn’t also rejecting the benefit of God’s Sabbath, which is to acknowledge God as our Creator, also be a work of the flesh – a form of idolatry? Would that be inconsistent with the process of theosis under the New Covenant, which was prophesied to include Gentiles in coming to experience God’s Sabbath (Isaiah 60:22,23)?
The ‘Judaic’ laws which Paul condemned existed to divide Jews from the rest, just as foreigners, slaves, woman and eunuchs were all denied entry into the inner Temple. And yet the OT itself says under the New Covenant these divisions will fall away (Isaiah 56:3). This is what Paul sees himself in the radical egalitarianism of the Church (Gal 3:28), with the NT fulfilling the OT. That is why table-fellowship was such an issue, because it divided people.
But the Sabbath is no such dividing ‘Judaic’ law, because it was never intended to divide. It was always intended as an inclusive practice, like communion, to apply not just to Jews, but to slaves, to foreigners and to benefit even livestock! (Ex 20:8-11). It is the most inclusive of all the commandments.
The Sabbath was not divisive but instead intended under the New Covenant in an eschatological sense for the benefit of all humanity in fellowship with God – to the eunuch (Isaiah 56:4) and foreigner both (Isaiah 56:4).
Thus, it seems wrong to classify the Sabbath as a distinctive ‘Judaic’ law, because it wasn’t merely introduced at Sinai, 430 years after the covenant of Abraham (Gal 3:17,18). Instead, the Sabbath part of the pre-Fall Edenic covenant (Gen 2:1). And the pre-Fall condition seems the ultimate goal of theosis, where we will live as it was ‘in the beginning’, as Jesus made clear (Matt 19:8).
Now the only argument against Sabbath-keeping is the contention, not wholly true anyway in light of Jesus’ many teachings on true Sabbath-keeping, that it was not explicitly reaffirmed by the Apostles in the NT. But why does it need to be?
Isn’t it wrong to expect the NT to spell out or re-affirm every single ‘rule’ from the OT to apply to us Christians? Isn’t that actually legalism! Isn’t that a ‘rules-based’ approach to belief and practice?
The NT doesn’t explicitly spell out the prohibition against making graven images or infanticide either, and yet I would suggest they are clearly borne out in the commands of love, implicit in the difference between the works of the flesh and fruits of the spirit. Perhaps these things were not spelt out because they were so obvious, because Christian-Gentiles already kept these things and so were not controversial enough to warrant debate (Acts 13:42, 15:21, 17:1-4, 10-12, 16-17 and 18:4)?
Therefore, for those who say Sabbath-keeping does not apply because it is not specifically spelt out in the NT, aren’t these detractors the ones adopting a legalistic and ‘rules-based’ approach to the issue? Shouldn’t we be motivated to keep God’s Sabbath out of love instead – not out of any ‘rule’?
Consider this as the conclusion of the matter; a man should not buy his wife an anniversary gift because it is a ‘rule’ written into their marriage contract, or simply out of a sense of societal obligation (that it is the ‘done’ thing to do), but should rather do so out of a motivation of love. Why then should our love-relationship with God be any different?
Stephen Foster: 'I think that most liberals just don’t want to believe—yet do'
Serge: 'We all have 'belief implants' Stephen, its jsut that conservatives' implants seem to malfunction much of the time. boom boom.'
I think the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' should be banned by convention on this site. We are not actually talking about 'liberal' and 'conservative' Seventh-day Adventists.
As Stephen Foster often says, very rightly, he thought he was a 'liberal' Adventist before coming to AToday. I am pretty sure I am a 'liberal' Adventist, by even Western standards, yet compared to the so-called liberals regularly posting here, I am labelled and made to feel like a legalistic, nit-picking Emeritus Jewish rabbi, arch-conservative.
In most cases, we are really talking with 'liberal' Adventists, who often are not even 'Christians' by most definitions, but are in fact discussing with ex-Adventists (people who have fully left the Church) or anti-Adventists (people who might technically still be members, but reject its core ideas, notably the Seventh-day Sabbath and the Second Advent, which forms the basis of even our name!)
So I suggest we change all future references of 'conservative' to 'Pro-Adventist' and reference to 'liberals' to 'Anti-Adventist.'
Stephen you might be on to something… example Ryan Bell a profound liberal and now "living without God, prayer, and the Bible for a year…"
Dear All4Him
If what you have written here regarding ex-Hollywood Church paster Ryan Bell is correct, then whilst this news is sad, it shows the dangers and risk of liberals becoming disillusioned when driven by the cultural influences of secular society and its government, especially when forcing it upon the church and being told they can't have their way. Liberal theologians, pastors and church leaders who have over the years fed their congregations cultural junk food are largely responsible for this disillusion and for leading Adventists astray.
Stephen you might be on to something… example Ryan Bell a profound liberal and now "living without God, prayer, and the Bible for a year…"
Suggest that to the editors.
Regarding certain reactions and attitudes (not forgetting the ad hominems) directed at Mr Ferguson and his postings/positions of faith.
One reason they're attacking Mr Ferguson here instead of what he's saying is because Mr Ferguson has got them on the back-foot on most of the issues being discussed here and when those with opposing views get cornered they start passing untoward remarks. Mr Ferguson has on numerous occasions challenged certain aspects of our Fundamental Beliefs and has at times even agreed to the particulars of questions raised by others who aren't in any way aligned with traditional or historically held Adventist Beliefs. Based on this alone he can hardly be pidgeon holed conservative or fundamentalist. I've also had a run-in or two with him and but he should be respected and valued for his depth and remarkable insight (and outlook) on a wide variety of issues. Even though I disagree with some of his views on some issues, he has good intent and reasonable out of the box thinking which most on any religious forum should value and appreciate. Take for instance the issue he raised regarding AToday's core interests and objectives being reasonably scrutinised by him. Yeah sure, he ruffles the feathers of Dr Taylor and his class favourite (and side kick) Mrs Nelson and challenges the rants of the ex/anti/virtual Adventists among us. All I can say is that fundamentalist religious liberals will stop at nothing in order to railroad their cheap grace give the drunk a drink doctrines and their secular humanist ideals on the church and when Adventist's like Mr Ferguson come along and honestly asked them reasonable questions or addresses what he thinks are flaws in their views or positions they hold, he is called a Pharisee, which to me is really a conspicuous overkill, and telltale sign of the weakness of their own arguments and beliefs. At least Mr Ferguson can say: Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt!
Stephen: 'I think the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' should be banned by convention on this site. We are not actually talking about 'liberal' and 'conservative' Seventh-day Adventists… So I suggest we change all future references of 'conservative' to 'Pro-Adventist' and reference to 'liberals' to 'Anti-Adventist.'
Elaine: 'Suggest that to the editors.'
Elaine on second thoughts, instead of the term 'Anti-Adventist', perhaps the better term would be 'Nelsonite'. I hope you'd be honoured by that term Elaine, because you are clearly the spiritual (or is that unspiritual?) leader of the ex-, former- and contrary- Adventist contributors. And I mean that as a major compliment, because you are a fierce women to debate.
I am thinking the definition of Nelsonite should be something like this:
"Nelsonite: A person who has a current or former affiliation with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but who rejects the two core beliefs from which the Church's name derives: belief in the Seventh-day Sabbath, as found in the fourth commandment of the Decalogue; and belief in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ."
What do you think? You always talk about the large SDA tent and I have tried to be as broad as possible. However, you really can't more broad SDA tent than the two issues that make up our name can you?
I really prefer the title of "Great Debater." Which reminds me, I heard the author of a book with that title a few days ago based on the great thinkers: Burke and Paine. I always have admired those who were able to write and speak clearly, as it is partially gift, but largely based on wide reading. All great writers and speakers were very widely read in all subjects. I have read Paine and Voltaire and I am only one of millions who still aclaim their greatness after several centuries. I have no illusions of any such status but it is something I strive for in all my writing: no personal attacks except in humor; be brief and give your positions and the reasons and let the chips fall where they may. No one should try to please simply to avoid argument.
Thanks for the compliments. Few have reached such accolades as you have given, Stephen ;<)
BTW: your list of beliefs I reject is far too small.
Elaine, I if I ever say someone is adopting a 'Nelsonite' position, you will know it is a nod in accolation to you. As I said, I don't think the terms 'liberal' or 'conservative' are very useful terms anymore, so I'll be trying to avoid them.
Steven Ferguson, brother, you are a perpetual motion machine. Taking on all comers with some understandings different than yours, with vehemence, unrelenting in scope. In my old age, i envy your youthful energies. All your assumed aversaries here, are unchangable in their stripes, and do believe you protest much much to much. We value you, and respect your choice of interpretation of life's wisdom, and wish you peace as you paint us not into a corner which you personally find hard of acceptance. Often some SDA conservative responders here, accuse the progressive (so called liberals) Christianas not Christian, but losers, because we do not agree on the IJ; time lapse of Creation; effect of the Ten Commandments versus the New Covevenant of Jesusthe Christ; Fallibility of portions of the Holy Scriptures; etc etc. Yet, some of us are confident in our Saviour and His promises, that by our FAITH in His grace and love, we are saved, as our repentance, and condemnation of sin in our own lives, and guidance by the Holy Spirit is in line with God's forgiveness and acceptance. We are not without knowledge of the Ten Commandments, this is why we each want no part of sin in our lives, to dishonour God, and refuse His free gift of life everlasting. Our souls know not God's future plans for us, but when this mortal corrupt sinful flesh gives up the ghost, we will be thankful for the future God has prepared for us. We are not fearful, we are not doubtful. With joy in our Lord Jesus, in whom we honour as our Creator, our soul keeper, our God, we have His peace. In your ardurous journey, i pray you have the peace of the Prince of peace, Jesus the Christ.
Thank you Earl for your kind words and I agree with everything you said. The only statement that I found was especially worth further discussion is this question of what is a 'liberal' or 'conservative' SDA, as I have been struggling with those terms lately:
'Often some SDA conservative responders here, accuse the progressive (so called liberals) Christianas not Christian, but losers, because we do not agree on the IJ; time lapse of Creation; effect of the Ten Commandments versus the New Covevenant of Jesusthe Christ; Fallibility of portions of the Holy Scriptures; etc'
I agree of course, and would probably be in the 'liberal' SDA camp by you r description here. However, AToday is a bit more complicated because people like Elaine go farther than this definition. The effect is that often there are not two 'sides' to a discussion but actually three 'sides'!
There are conservative SDAs, liberal SDAs (I usually put myself in this camp and would hope you are in this camp as well) and Nelsonites (which I have named in Elaine's honour, to mean those somehow affiliated with SDAs, whether ex-members like Elaine or current members like Dr Taylor). What distinguishes Nelsonites from liberal SDAs, from what I can gather, is they reject the two core fundamental beliefs that make up the SDA name – seventh-day Sabbath and Second Coming of Jesus.
P.S. I know I analyse people's statements to death, but at least you know I am taking the time to read every word. I think a lot of discussions here are otherwise people just talking past each other.
Stephen, I don't know if you have taken the time to 'read every word' or whether you simply missed my post above, or if you have chosen not to respond. In case its not the latter, I would like to revisit the gist of the matter regarding 1 John 3.9, and the Theosis teaching inherent in it.
Now you say, 'I don't believe it all happens in an instance.' Sounds like you see it in traditional 'sanctification is the work of a lifetime' terms. Pray tell, how do you relate to the quote above from GC…… standing in a state of sinless perfection without a mediator? By the grace of God and their own diligent efforts?
Requoting it here: "Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above, are to stand in the sight of a holy Godwithout a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort, they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative Judgment is going forward in Heaven, while the sins of penitent believers are being removed from the sanctuary, there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God’s people upon earth." GC p 425
Given that you are a 'liberal' Adventist, you may not see the necessary corollary between a belief in the IJ and the inevitability of 'sinelss perfection.' If so, what do you make of this EGW teaching? Given also that you hold to the 'materialism' philosophy which underpins virtually all of SDA doctrine, do you admit that this 'putting away of sin' implies/demands 'sinless perfection' in the body?
Seems to me, the price you/SDAs pay for avoiding 'spiritualism' is a philosophy of Materialism where the body is included in this sanctification process of sinless perfectionism, since you are nothing more than a material body. How do you think it goes? Are you willing to declare precisely where you stand on this?
PS Since you are currently looking for names with which to label folks here, and thereby presumably find it easy to pigeon-hole them, will you allow me to offer yet another category to assist you in this process. This is the class of people here who are 'deeply committed Christians whose life-long study of scripture and listening to teh voice of the Holy Spirit has taught them that the doctrines of SDAism are flawed, wrong and harmful, and who wish to share these Truths.' Or Sharers, for short.
Serge: Stephen, I don't know if you have taken the time to 'read every word' or whether you simply missed my post above, or if you have chosen not to respond. In case its not the latter, I would like to revisit the gist of the matter regarding 1 John 3.9, and the Theosis teaching inherent in it.
Apologies Serge, I did reply to your last comment on theosis and 1 John 3:9, in a new thread above (scroll up), but was waiting for your reply. You may have missed it, so I’ll simply repeat here again in the immediate next thread below for the sake of convenience.
I do try to read every word, which is why you see the multiple strands of quotation. It may at times look like I am undertaking forensic analysis, but I am actually trying to ensure that I carefully read everything you are saying.
Otherwise, I find in this place people spend too much time talking pass each other instead of actually listening, and listening intently. I may be verbose, because to quote Voltaire, ‘Sorry for the length but I didn’t have time to make it shorter.’ However, my main aim is to read everything you say carefully, word-for-word as much as possible.
In this latest comment, you also raise some other very interesting questions and issues – a number of them – about materialism, the body, sin, perfection and labels. I will try to deal with those in a number of threads then, to make it easier. As ever, you’ll have to put up with my verboseness.
Serge: Stephen, I don't know if you have taken the time to 'read every word' or whether you simply missed my post above, or if you have chosen not to respond. In case its not the latter, I would like to revisit the gist of the matter regarding 1 John 3.9, and the Theosis teaching inherent in it.
Ok, so let’s approach this issue from one of theosis of taking on the divine nature, of love, and of Paul’s analogy in Galatians of works of the flesh versus fruits of the Spirit. Please forgive my usual verboseness. I would appreciate if you took the time to read every word of this, as I try to do with your own responses.
Salvation and the Spirit living within us
If God’s Spirit is starting to live in us, our natures will begin to change, as you have said previously. The result will be the abandonment in our lives of works of the flesh, to be replaced instead with fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:17). This is indeed mysterious – I think we are in much agreement here.
And such a person will be declared righteous because of their faith in God, not because of any human endeavor of works. So this means they will believe in God, by embracing monotheism and rejecting paganism, as Abraham did in leaving his old pagan life in Mesopotamia, and was counted righteous for believing (Gal 3:6). However, even belief is ‘something’ and not simply ‘nothing’, and even belief is a type of ‘work’, at least according to one way of looking at it (Jam 2:21,22,23); although, we need to be very careful here of denying salvation by grace (Acts 15:11).
It is not simply an academic belief that saves us, because even the demons have that (Jam 2:19); rather, it is the sort of belief that asks to be saved by Jesus, as the thief on the Cross had. However, the thief, even in this simple belief, made it clear that He acknowledged his own guilt (Luke 23:40,41) but also Jesus’ power to save as King and Messiah (Luke 23:42).
The process of theosis and fruits of the Spirit
So we believe in God and are saved by faith through grace, where as a consequence the Holy Spirit will lead us away from works of the flesh, which include idolatry and sorcery (Gal 5:20). We will do away with our previous pagan beliefs, such as the worship of demons and elemental spirits (Gal 4:8,9). It is not a matter of following ‘rules’, or academic belief; rather, it is a matter of being motivated by love for God and for God alone.
Thus, motivated by love, we will worship God will all our hearts, minds and souls, the greatest of all commandments (Matt 22:37). This is actually what the Law was always meant to be about (Matt 22:39), because this is what the Law itself prescribed (Deut 6:5). It is all about relationships – first and foremost with reconciling our relationship with God – who is jealous for our love, just as a human lover craves monogamy.
This is seen in the process of theosis, that leads us away from our Pharisaic approach to keeping the Law, of trying to earn salvation by works, but instead sees the Law put in our hearts (Jer 31:33). The Law will then become innate in us in our changed natures, like it was for Adam before the Fall, who needed no written Law, so that we will no longer need teaching (Jer 31:34). For Jesus is the Second Adam (1 Cor 15:45), who reconciles us back to God (2 Cor 5:18-21).
And because theosis brings a change in us, from works of the flesh into fruits of the Spirit, it is by fruits which we can judge someone claiming to come from God (Matt 7:15-20). So do we broadly agree so far on these general principles?
Application to Sabbath-keeping
Now as for application then, if someone who has the Spirit in their hearts, who is undergoing theosis, we would expect to see the abandonment of idolatry and embracing love of monotheism as fruits of the Spirit, which Jesus says we can observe – wouldn’t we? So it would be inconsistent for someone with the Spirit in their heart to reject monotheism, or to make graven images, or to use blaspheme God’s name, because all of these things are inconsistent with loving a monotheistic God with all our hearts.
So dare I say, doesn’t true loving worship to God also involve the Sabbath, the fourth corner of true worship of God and the rejection of the flesh of idolatry (Isaiah 58:13). And isn’t that also part of the promise of the New Covenant, of the Gentiles coming to know God’s Sabbath (Isaiah 56:1,2,4,6)? Isn’t this all part of the eschatological hope, that is the end objective of theosis, being the restoration of our relationship with God and each other, exemplified in our worship and fellowship on the Sabbath (Isaiah 66:23).
Moreover, wouldn’t someone who loves their fellow man realize that making them to work on the Sabbath be inconsistent with the command of love to our fellow man? Don’t all living creatures need rest, and in taking rest, realize we ultimately need to rely on God and not ourselves? Isn’t that the very foundation of love? Consider that the Sabbath even prevents us from making our dumb livestock work – so it is wrong to say animal cruelty was not an issue exemplified in the Law! (Ex 20:8-11; Deut 22:10-12). And I am not talking about perversions of the Sabbath, as the Pharisees had, which left a dying sheep in a ditch, because that is inconsistent with the true spirit of Sabbath-keeping as well.
Therefore, it is true that the ‘Judaic’ laws divided Jews from the rest of us, as foreigners, slaves, women and eunuchs were all denied entry into the inner Temple. And yet God says under the New Covenant these divisions will fall away (Isaiah 56:3). This is what Paul sees himself in the radical egalitarianism of the Church (Gal 3:28).
But the Sabbath is no such ‘Judaic’ division at all, but instead intended for the benefit of all humanity in fellowship with God – to the eunuch (Isaiah 56:4) and foreigner both (Isaiah 56:6). The notable Jewish theologian Abraham Herschel in The Sabbath argues the Sabbath was the original Temple which all could enjoy, not the temporal one made out of canvass or stone described to Moses. Thus, the Sabbath is not a distinctive ‘Judaic’ Law that had only a temporal application for Jews under a covenant given 430 years after Abraham, but rather is part of theosis, in returning us to our pre-Fall state, where the Sabbath was hallowed in the Eden (Gen 2:1).
Addressing the absence of Sabbath-keeping in the NT
Now the only argument against Sabbath-keeping is the contention, not wholly true anyway, that it is not explicitly reaffirmed by the Apostles in the NT. But why does it need to be?
Isn’t it wrong to expect the NT to spell out or re-affirm every ‘rule’ to apply to us, like Sabbath-keeping in detail? Isn’t that actually legalism? Isn’t that a ‘rules-based’ approach?
The NT doesn’t explicitly spell out the prohibition against making graven images or infanticide either, and yet they are clearly borne out in the commands of love. Perhaps these things were not spelt out because they were so obvious, because Christian-Gentiles already kept these things (Acts 13:42, 15:21, 17:1-4, 10-12, 16-17 and 18:4)?
Perhaps they were not spelt out precisely because the Apostles didn’t expect a legalistic approach, where every practice of monotheism and morality had to be explicitly re-affirmed as a ‘rule’ for Christians?
Therefore, for those who say Sabbath-keeping does not apply because it is not specifically re-affirmed in the NT, aren’t they the ones adopting a legalistic and ‘rules-based’ approach to the issue?
Stephen, its difficult to have a conversation like this when we are so at odds with each other. Your perspective is vastly different to mine. eg,
"If God’s Spirit is starting to live in us, our natures will begin to change, as you have said previously."
I don't think I would have said this previously, as I do not hold to the 'process' concept you present. It is not a 'work of a lifetime' to be accomplished. It happens in the moment of belief, of understanding who one is, who Christ is, and how one receives the divine gift of His Life.
2Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he IS a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
John 5.24 ….. has passed from death unto life……
1 John 3.14 …… have passed from death unto life……
Rom 8.29,30 …… whom he justified… he also glorified
1 Cor 6.11 …….are washed…… are sanctified…. are justified…..
Heb 2.11 …… are sanctified…….
Heb 10.14 …… are sanctified……
'Our natures' do not begin to be changed. Our 'old man' natures DIE. Cease to exist. 'If we be dead with Christ…" is the principle. Romans 6 describes the dying of the old nature. But in this act of ego-death, resurreciton immediately follows, the divine Life arises within. Thus is the act of 'new creation' by the Spirit. Yes, it is mystical, this spiritual union with teh divine, but it is the golden theme in all of Paul's deepest theology, those htings which Peter said were 'hard to be understood.'
But of course, when one considers that it is but the beginning of a process, and that one's fruits should be observed to be 'holy,' as adjudged by another, then there will be the kind of emphasis on outward behaviours that are considered to be in accordance with some outwardly definable Law. This is not how Paul describes it in his letters. And to go back to Galatians, he specifically describes and rejects such attitudes as Judaising, ie, giving outward conformity to Law-keeping any place in the Gospel.
Consequently, your reiteration of the role of Law is, imho, an example of modern Judaising and I reject it, on hte basis of the principle that theosis represents the new creation of one's spirit into the image of Christ, ie, Christ IN YOU. It is not a process taking a lifetime. It happens NOW, and lasts for eternity.
Sorry Serge, you are right, I perhaps do not quite understand it. I am trying to understand though. What you seem to ascribe to sanctification, I have typically thought (as taught by most Christians) as applying to justification.
If this has already occured, in the present tense, and that your nature IS now in the present absolutely and completely changed, why do you still sin? Or are you saying you no longer sin?
Its a funny way you have of 'trying to understand though.' You persistently respond with stock answers of a materialist/works perspective. eg, It is not I who is ascribing those texts to Justification. It would be far more convincing if you looked at those texts seriously and said, whoa, I always took those as something else……. maybe I should look at them again, without my preconceived interpretations……. clearly, Paul is using those terms, jsutification, sanctification, glorification in ways far differently to the way most Christians imagine them.
I am not saying I no longer sin. I am reflecting the words of 1 John 3.9. Which is what started this 'talking past each other' conversation. It si John who says I no longer sin, and or am no longer sinner, to use your preferred version. I prefaced my ref. to that text with the words, it is one of the msot difficult in the NT. Still is. But rather than react with typical stock answers, go and ask God what on earth HE means by it,a nd maybe why he inspired John to put it there!
Serge I might be asking what God means by it by asking you – if you are God's ambassador spreading the Gospel.
What you suggest sounds totally contradictory. If John is really saying you are no longer sinning at all, then why do you continue to sin? Why do you continue to demonstrate works of the flesh, like anger or jealousy, as we all do?
To me personally, this text and many like it only makes sense in an eschatological sense. I really am trying to understand your perspective, and it sounds great, but anyone who simply looks around them knows no human being is perfect and sinless.
And what then of judging someone by their fruits (Matt 7:15-20)? And what if someone demonstrates in their life works of the fles (Gal 5:20). So if I see a professed Christian have a bout of anger, which is a work of the flesh, does that demonstrate that this person is not actually a "real Christian", and has never undergone conversion, because their natures clearly have not changed?
How is your view not dangerous perfectionism by another name? I believe I am justified and declared perfect by grace through faith right now, but I don't believe my nature has been totally changed to the extent that I am now a perfect person who never sins. I do have bouts of jealousy and anger from time-to-time, which are works of the flesh to which I must repent and die daily – don't you?
Was Christ's apparent anger at the money-changers a manifestation of the flesh?
Perfectionism is precisely teh kind of 'change of my nature' that you describe. Paul says (ROm 6) that his role is to die with CHrist. His 'nature' can but die. It is not for renovating. That which comes in is the nature of Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. If that is dangerous perfecitonism, have it out with God. Or come to terms with it. Understand it. But don't ask me to explain it. Only God can teach such things. 'wisdom among the wise.' 1 Cor 2.6
Sorry Serge, but I don't really understand you here. What you don't seem to address is HOW can someone whose nature has died once, and you seem to suggest it only happens once and not daily, commit a future sin? Shouldn't it be impossible?
Sorry Serge I know I am asking you many questions, but I am not arguing – I really am interested in your views here. However, I have a few texts I want you to comment on. I think it might be easier if I start a new thread below.
Serge: ‘Pray tell, how do you relate to the quote above from GC…… standing in a state of sinless perfection without a mediator? Given that you are a 'liberal' Adventist, you may not see the necessary corollary between a belief in the IJ and the inevitability of 'sinless perfection.'
To be honest Serge, as a ‘liberal’ Adventist from a Western country under the age of 40, like most people in my situation, I don’t give a great deal to thinking about Ellen White or what she taught. I try to live up to the SDA Church’s so-called professed stance on sola scriptura.
But perhaps Sister White must not be understood in such a dogmatic way, as I perhaps wrongly and dogmatically misunderstood what you were getting at in interpreting 1 John 3:9. I know Ellen White has in fact mentioned in other passages ideas promoting theosis:
‘As we partake of the divine nature, hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong are cut away from the character, and we are made a living power for good. Ever learning of the divine Teacher, daily partaking of His nature, we cooperate with God in overcoming Satan’s temptations. God works, and man works, that man may be one with Christ as Christ is one with God. Then we sit together with Christ in heavenly places. The mind rests with peace and assurance in Jesus.’ (The Review and Herald, April 24, 1900) (emphasis added)
So maybe you and Ellen White are not as far apart as you think. However, I am no Ellen-phile, so I don’t really have a dog in that fight.
The passage you quote is not an example of Theosis. It is a works-based misunderstanding if ever there was one. God does indeed work, but man's role is to die, to recognise he IS DEAD, in his sinful nature, and to continue to die daily. The Spirit will then be free to work His new creation. Sitting with Christ in the heavenly places is not teh end result of a process. It happens in the moment of re-creation.
If we look at the text Ellen misquotes, in context, Eph 2.6, we see that Paul has an entirely opposite view of how GOd works in us, in contrast to how EGW describes it.
Eph 2.4 ¶ but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved),
6 and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus:
7 that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus:
8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not of works, that no man should glory.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.
It is not a process by which one partakes a little more of divinity each day until a quota is reached, such as implied in the concept of 'standing without a mediator.' The true believer can never create teh divine nature within. This is laughable. It is the gift of God. There is a maturing process which takes place. It is akin to a growth in confidence that God is doing what God alone can do. An increase in understanding of one's only role……. recognise that one is Dead!, allow the old nature to die daily, allow teh Spirit to work His work, daily.
The passage you quote is not an example of Theosis. It is a works-based misunderstanding if ever there was one. God does indeed work, but man's role is to die, to recognise he IS DEAD, in his sinful nature, and to continue to die daily. The Spirit will then be free to work His new creation. Sitting with Christ in the heavenly places is not teh end result of a process. It happens in the moment of re-creation.
If we look at the text Ellen misquotes, in context, Eph 2.6, we see that Paul has an entirely opposite view of how GOd works in us, in contrast to how EGW describes it.
Eph 2.4 ¶ but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved),
6 and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus:
7 that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus:
8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not of works, that no man should glory.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.
It is not a process by which one partakes a little more of divinity each day until a quota is reached, such as implied in the concept of 'standing without a mediator.' The true believer can never create teh divine nature within. This is laughable. It is the gift of God. There is a maturing process which takes place. It is akin to a growth in confidence that God is doing what God alone can do. An increase in understanding of one's only role……. recognise that one is Dead!, allow the old nature to die daily, allow teh Spirit to work His work, daily.
Serge: 'There is a maturing process which takes place. It is akin to a growth in confidence that God is doing what God alone can do. An increase in understanding of one's only role……. recognise that one is Dead!, allow the old nature to die daily, allow teh Spirit to work His work, daily.'
I'm confused here Serge. Is it theosis in an instant or as a process? Or do you perhaps mean we have it in an instant, but the problem is we don't realise it, so it is the realisation that occurs daily?
I guess the question is, who are you exactly? If we are resurrected with Him today (Eph 2:6); how does that sit with Paul's denial of that exact thing as being right now in Philippians 3:10-14.
What is this other person of your who sits with Christ in heaven exactly? Is it a separate conscious being? Does it have subjective consciousness – so that is literally thinking separately and looking down on you right now? Would that suggest promoting a type of Nestorianism – we are actually two people? Or is this immortal being of yours, which sits with Christ, more like dormant seed – perhaps having objective immortality only in the sense of being in God's mind? And does this objectively immortal aspect only become subjectively conscious at the resurrection? Does 1 Cor 15:37,38 give any hints?
I guess the question is, who are you exactly? If we are resurrected with Him today (Eph 2:6); how does that sit with Paul's denial of that exact thing as being right now in Philippians 3:10-14.
That is an apparent conflict which you will have to work with yourself. NT is full of them. Imminence, Immanence. Now is salvation, teh whole creation groans. etc. I have taken the view that 'experiencing Christ in the now' version beats projection to some unknown eschaton. To me, 1 Cor 15 makes better sense if it is in fact a description of my resurrection from death in sin, as per Rom 6. The 'two people' you speak of could be our 'two natures' which vie for supremacy. The 'old man' sinful 'egoic' material nature, First Adam, vs the new man, second Adam spirit nature, which is not a renovation/makeover of teh old but entirely 'new creation.' You must recognise that sentence as a summary of multiple NT texts/passages.
Our role, I would say only role is to recognise who we truly are. This could also be stated as, who would you like to be?
I would also like to suggest that the debate you and I are having here they also had back when the canon was coming into being, both in teh writing and deciding which writings to include. Fisrt four centuries or so. I don't think that dichotomy was resolved then (although I do think the literalist Roman / western church prevailed). The more mystically/spiritually inclined Eastern church (later to split entirely with ROme) still exerted some influence. Besides that big picture aspect, there is an inherent dualism in understnading these questions whatever historical age one studies. Its in the nature of the question. Plato's influence on teh NT is far greater than is often given due. We jsut happen to live in an age now where materialist philosophy predominates.
Serge: ‘Given also that you hold to the 'materialism' philosophy which underpins virtually all of SDA doctrine… SDAs pay for avoiding 'spiritualism’
This is a more interesting argument. I am happy to be corrected, but my understanding for SDA ‘materialist’ philosophy is commonly called, within Adventism, the notion of ‘Wholism.’ If you take the time to read all my verbose writings, you will fine I have a slightly different take on this than most traditional Adventists.
First thing first, what we mean by the terms ‘materialism’, ‘spiritualism’ and ‘body’. I think these are all very hard to define.
When Paul talks about us having ‘spiritual bodies’ (1 Cor 15:44), he then describes them in ‘material’ terms. Thus, to a fish, the body and life of a bird seems impossible, as ‘non-material’, even though it is ‘material’ of a sort (1 Cor 15:39). A bird also seems ‘non-material’ in the sense that it can fly, which seems to defy the laws of gravity.
Moreover consider is light, which is ‘material’ in the sense it does exist as ‘something’ in the universe, even though it has no mass – and can paradoxically be both a particle and wave at the same time? Is something made of light a ‘body’?
Jesus’ own resurrected body seemed corporeal on the one hand, as he ate fish and honey, as well as was poked and prodded. However, it seemed very immaterial on the other hand, in the sense that it could walk through walls, or shape-shift (or glamour people’s minds) or do supposedly other supernatural things.
So my primary point is – perhaps don’t be too dogmatic here. We are dealing with concepts impossible to define, because they are beyond comprehension.
Serge: ‘…do you admit that this 'putting away of sin' implies/demands 'sinless perfection' in the body?’
What do you mean by ‘perfection of the body’? I assume you don’t mean perfection from vagaries of infirmity? Even Jesus, who was sinless, still was humanly infirm. He got hungry, tired and felt pain. So I assume you mean this in some sort of moral sense?
Serge: ‘…the body is included in this sanctification process’
The body (noting we perhaps have not defined ‘body’ exactly) clearly is involved in the sanctification process – of theosis of the Spirit within us, in taking on the divine nature. But perhaps we should look at this issue in less legalistic terms and instead see the matter as works of the flesh versus fruits of the Spirit.
Paul says in Gal 5:19-21 that the works of the flesh include (but not limited to): fornication, impurity, licentiousness, drunkenness and carousing. These are things that involve the body – as far as I can see.
And Paul also says in Gal 5:23 that the fruits of the Spirit include self-control – again, connected to the body.
If that still is not enough, Paul makes it very clear that theosis of the inward Spirit does not mean licence to sin with the body. The two are linked because our bodies are Temples for the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 5:19,20). Thus, a person who has the Spirit living in them will not live with his father’s wife (1 Cor 5:1) or visit a prostitute (1 Cor 6:16).
Serge: ‘How do you think it goes?’
I am not entirely sure how it goes and I think you are debating the wrong person if you want a dogmatic conservative SDA answer. I think a preliminary question is what existence is exactly – and conversely what is death?
Is death loss of the material ‘stuff’ that makes up our bodies – because don’t we lose all the atoms in our bodies over a number of years? So don’t we die several times in an average lifetime, because all the atoms that were there when we were born are no longer there when we die?
Instead, perhaps death is the loss of information? Thus, we die because all our information, especially our memories, are lost. Yet, even in death some part of that information might continue to exist, in our genetic information (in our children and relatives). One might say the singular achievement of mankind is writing, as I can read the inner thoughts of a person now long dead in a book.
However, does that mean if I made a perfect clone of myself and they even had all my memories they would be me – possibly. But if I had to guess, I’d tend towards existence as ‘information’ and not existence as ‘stuff’.
So for Star Trek fans, I would chose to be beamed up by Scottie. This is because the teleporter machine technically kills you and replaces you will a clone, destroying all your current atoms and remaking an exact replica (down to the atom) in another spot)
Are you willing to declare precisely where you stand on this?’
I am willing to admit we have an immortal ‘soul’ of a sort. However, that is not to say I disregard traditional Adventist teachings – I just have a slightly ‘refined’ view of it.
I believe we only have subjective existence here on earth. When we die, that subjective existence comes to an end. Therefore, like a good Adventist, I reject the notion of subjective immortality outside of ‘body’ (noting the very limited meaning of the term body). I agree with Elaine that much, that our existence after death is like it was before birth – non-existence.
However, I believe God knows everything – every thought we ever had or will have. And I believe this information, especially our memories, personality and everything that makes us ‘us’, is never lost. As such, we continue to exist in a sense in God’s mind. This is commonly known today as “objective immortality” – RC theologian John Haught is a big proponent.
At the resurrection, I believe God will create new ‘bodies’ (again noting the limitation of that term) where our ‘information’ will be ‘downloaded’ into our new bodies. Consider the crude analogy of an old computer, with its data uploaded onto the internet, and then downloaded onto a new computer when the old computer dies. The Star Trek teleporter is another good example, where one exists subjectively, then only objectively in the ship’s computer and then subjectively again in another location.
The remaining interesting questions for me include: 1) can someone chose not to plug themselves into the Cosmic Internet of God’s mind, so when they die all their information is deleted forever?; 2) is theosis the process by which we upload more of ourselves into the Cosmic Internet of God’s mind, meaning more of us will be downloaded at the resurrection; and 3) can God Himself delete someone from objective existence within the Cosmic Internet of God’s mind?
Trying not to multiply too many words in responding to this and the couple of others above. They all suffer from the same misunderstanding of the nature of the 'self.' It seems to me, in your case, which is the most common one, Selves consider themselves to be a viable separate entity capable of independent existence apart from God. Such folks talk a lot about getting/developing/having a 'relationship' with God. As if there is only needed a little negotiation and this will set things to rights. So 'old covenant,' imho.
The 'materialism' which formed the basis of EGW and James White's understanding of hte nature of all things as made of matter, including the nature of God, is the primal source of the errors of Adventism. (It is also related to the dictum, 'Literalism is Idolatry,' but that is not the emphasis here). And since my true 'nature' is of matter, and God is also of 'matter,' despite clear scripture to teh contrary, and Jesus is forever 'matter' in a human body, this can only mislead the understanding into imagining that dealing with such a material God is merely a case of I'm here, You're there, lets work it out!
But if, otoh, God is spirit, and our true nature is that self-same spirit, and as Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
And as Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
It becomes simply amazing "…. that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God." Eph 3.19
And equally amazing that, 1Co 6:17 "… he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."
This is also the basis on which Christ is Second Adam…… first Adam is lving soul (material)…. second Adam is Life-giving Spirit. Those who are born of Spirit are liekwise, spirit. As Christ is son of God, being 'conceived of the Holy Spirit,' they share His nature. 1 Cor 15.45, Heb 2.11
A retreat into materilaism might make it seem a bit easier to understand the 'how' of things, but the end result is quite mistaken. Only a persistently ego-centric stance will deny this spiritual death of one's old nature and resist the path to divine union. Divine union is the antithesis of 'relationship.' When two are one, there is no place for any relation between them.
Similarly, when concepts of Life and Death are misconstrued in purely materilaist terms, ie of 'bodies,' then errors result. Life IS God. 'In Him we live and move and HAVE OUR BEING.' WE are NOT BODIES, but spirits. This is the conclusion of hte study of human nature that is reached by the New Testament era. OT was more confined to the notion that we are bodies. NT says our true nature is spiritual, and immortal (John 5.24).
But this is the very understanding which James and Ellen did not like, as they feared it would lead to Fox sisters' like 'spiritualism,' which was an equally mistaken view of the 'spookism' parlour games they played. Materilaism is not the answer to false spiritualism. Rather, we are to 'try the spirits,' and align ourselves with the true. "We have teh mind of Christ." Anything else is UNreal, and need not be remembered. Christ is thus all and in all.
Can you expland a little here Serge. Don't worry if you response is long – I don't mind. What exactly is our natures then if they are spirit? What is our material bodies then – does shells? How do you see the connection between the material body and immaterial spirit?
Is it body or soul; or body, soul and spirit (I believe it was Appollinarius thought the latter and was somewhat accidentially called a heretic)?
What is the nature of this spiritual existence? Does it have consciousness? Do you have subjective consciousness through your material body and subjective consciousness through your immaterial spirit?
So is your immortal spirit, sitting next to Christ on his throne, having a conversation with Jesus about the weather whilst looking down on your body down here?
Or is your body down here just an empty shell – an automon? Is your body just remote-controlled, like a drone, from your immaterial spirit in heaven?
What IS the exact nature and interrelationship of our body, soul and spirit – according to you?
I cannot tell you the exact nature of the interrelationship of body soul and spirit. Most of these questions defy the usual capacity of language to convey. I refer you to the experience of Ro 8:16 The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children, offspring, of God: ……. but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered; v 26. I like the translation which reads, 'with sighs, too deep for words.'
There is an absolute sense in which the experience of the 'deep things of God' can only be known by the one experiencing them. They cannot be communicated very well at a human level. 1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
But I will try to give you something, however inadequate, of a rationalised basis for why it might be thus. Descartes, the great dualist, is famous for his saying, cogito ergo sum, 'I think, therefore I am.' He was only partly correct. A better, to me, restatment of that idea goes something like, 'I observe that I am thinking, therefore I must be more than the sum of my thoughts.' In other words, not only do I have consciousness, I have supra-consciousness. Or the capacity for it.
Thoughts are a function of brain. Consciousness is said to be a function of mind. Supraconsciousness ……. is this a function of Spirit? Lack of a rational explanation is not proof of the negative. ANd absence of proof is not proof of absence. I cannot tell you HOW spirit interacts with brain, how immaterial spirit interacts with material body. Is it as simple as body is a shell for the spirit? Unlikely, but what other model do we have? Curiously, the Greeks thought soma (body) to be somewhat similar to sema, or tomb. But there is no doubt that Paul considered spirit to be a superior state of existence over flesh.
So we are left with mere words. flesh v spirit. body v mind. thoughts v consciousness. But we need not be left without the capacity to experience Spirit, even thought we lack teh means to define or even describe such experience. Clearly Paul had this dilemma.
I think the ancients also had a schema by which they sought to describe these higher levels of human experience of consciousness. The so-called 'elements' of Earth, Water, Air and Fire (which are depicted in teh colours of the veil of Moses'tabernacle) represent in a kind of ascending order the nature of consciousness.
Finally, after the work of Carl Jung, consciousness is manifested at two levels. 'Cosmic consciousness' represents the One Mind, God, if you will. Local consciousness manifests through individual 'minds.' This is not a 'how' explanation, but it can be a model of 'what.'
One thing to bear in mind…….. there is no spatiality in the sense of 'up there' vs 'down here' as your literalist terms imply. 'down here' is the material realm. 'up there,' 'heaven' is the arena of consciousness, of spirit. I'm sure that sounds heretical to most.
And none of your answers seem to answer how, according to your view then, you are not perfect and sinless.
This one is easy. The thing called 'I' is 'old man' first Adam egoic 'me.' Clearly, this is that 'body of sin' which must be destroyed. Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
For many folks, it is our old egoic self which is the thing they imagine being taken to heaven. Christ died so that 'I' dont have to. WRONG. Christ died, and we die with Him. (You might care to ponder 'how' this occurs, if 'how' is important to you). But since He had life in Himself, He was raised. We do not have such life. The only Life available to us after our spiritual crucifixion and death is His Life. I cannot tell you 'how' such a miracle occurs. But I can repeat teh words, you shall seek Him and you shall find Him when you search with ALL your heart. Sincerity in all of its depths demanded here.
End result, God at this point of our spiritual death, crucifixion with Christ, creates a new me, but its not me. Its Christ. And will you tell me that the new creation is not 'very good?' Is this new creative act of God not perfect? 1 John 3.9 HIS seed remains in him…….. he is no sinner.
Serge: ‘Since you are currently looking for names with which to label folks here, and thereby presumably find it easy to pigeon-hole them, will you allow me to offer yet another category to assist you in this process. This is the class of people here who are 'deeply committed Christians whose life-long study of scripture and listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit has taught them that the doctrines of SDAism are flawed, wrong and harmful, and who wish to share these Truths.' Or Sharers, for short.’
Serge, you may have me backwards here. My beef is with the tendency to label everyone on this site as belong to just one of two groups – ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’. If I am suddenly a legalist, nit picking Jewish Emeritus Professor or arch-conservatives, then something is wrong with these labeling methodology, as I am otherwise on the liberal wing of current Western Adventism.
My point is, if we are going to go for some overly simplistic labels, I then prefer new and more accurate terms – ‘Pro-Adventist’ and ‘Anti-Adventist’ (or maybe ‘Nelsonite’). As to your own preferred label, assuming you 100% correct, than the doctrines of SDAism are flawed, wrong and harmful, then I presume you should have no problem with admitting you are squarely in the ‘Ant-Adventism’ camp?
Mark 7:18-23
And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."
Jesus was talking about eating food without ritual washing of hands.
Jesus comment, following the ritual washing of hands incident, was flat out statements that He brought forth for knowledge of what He believed.
This weeks Sabbath for you is past, for me on the W.coast US, it is 6 hours old.
Have a Ga day Steven and all.
Actually Mark 7:19 it wasn't a statement of Jesus at all. It was an interpolation of Mark. It's Mark's interpretation of what Jesus said.
The corresponding text in Matt has no equivalent interpolation, which is not suprising given Matt's Jewish-Christian audience. We need to realise the different historical-cultural contexts of the Bible authors, and not take such a dognatic view, thinking it was all simply dictated word-for-word like some holy secretary.
Sorry Early, forgot to say Ga day back. Actually it is still Sabbath for me, as I live in Perth, on the West Coast of Australia, which is 3 hours time difference from Sydney.
And here it is the Lord's day already…….. Peace to all.
Stephen, do you think Mark considered that this teaching is limited to the washing of hands only? No, Mark interepreted Jesus' words to mean that He was in fact declaring that there are no longer 'clean' vs 'unclean' foods. This is quite at variance with some on this thread who state flatly that the OT food laws still apply in the Christian era.
What do you think Paul meant by this? 1Tim 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 for it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer.
Serge, clearly some of the OT food laws do apply as made clear in Acts 15:20,29.
I am not entirely sure what Mark meant. I have a better idea of what Jesus meant though. He was concerned not with the Law but with perversions of it, of Pharisees extending priestly purity laws to ordinary Jews. The requirement to wash hands was only required for Levite Priests about to eat Temple food. The Pharisees thought that by extending these priestly purity laws to ordinary Jews, it would make them more moral, and hasten the coming of the Messiah. Jesus saw this as a perversion of the Law, as evidenced in His statement about Corban – avoiding looking after parents or paying a debt by dedicating the monies to the Temple instead.
I happily agree Mark (or even Jesus) was saying food laws don't make one moral or immoral. That was a problem with the Pharisees, including those who promoted circumcission. The issue wasn't about these practices per se but about turning 'non-essential issues' into 'salvation issues.' Washing your hands before eating clearly isn't a sin – but Jesus was certainly not advocating we eat with dirty hands either.
It's all about perspective and priority.
As for 1 Tim 4:4,5 Paul is dealing with a proto-Gnostic heresy. It is important that you also read 1 Tim 4:1,2,3.
The Gnostics thought the material world was inherently evil. As such, they engaged in ascetism, such as forced celebacy and mandatory fasting. That is not to say celebacy is not an ideal, nor is fasting a sin, because Jesus seemed to acknowledge both. However, the Gnostics tried to impose this on everyone. They attempted to forbid marriage; whereas, Jesus and Paul only encouraged celebacy.
In fact, didn't the Gnostics view the material world in a similar way you do Serge? Have you ever studied Gnosticsm, because I get the feeling their beliefs and practices would appeal to you? One of my best friends is a very involved practicing Gnostic, so I know a little about it. She has just returned from Turkey where she studied with the Sufis.
Do you have a single example of a NT figure actually eating an 'unclean' animal, like a pig? As opposed to how we eat food (say with unwashed food), or how the meat was prepared (say sacraficed first to a pagan idol as part of the butchering process), or who they ate with (say Jews and Gentiles eating together)?
Serge: 'I don't think I would have said this previously, as I do not hold to the 'process' concept you present. It is not a 'work of a lifetime' to be accomplished. It happens in the moment of belief, of understanding who one is, who Christ is, and how one receives the divine gift of His Life.'
Ok Serge, I think this raises a very interesting issue worth further exploring. The issue is whether sanctification, the process of becoming perfect and divine-like, which seems the ultimate goal of the New Covenant (Jer 31:31-34), occurs instantly or is a process that occurs over our lifetimes. I guess I have the 'traditional' view that we are instantly declared perfect by grace through faith, but that our natures do not become perfect instantly but that it is a work of a lifetime. Otherwise, I think saying we are instantly perfect seems to me just another version of dangerous perfectionism.
The following texts suggests sanctification is not something that necessarily happens instantly, but rather is the work of a lifetime: 1 Thes 4:3-8; Phil 1:6; 2 Pet 1:3-7; 2 Pet 3:14,18; Heb 12:4.
Moreover, the NT seems to be full of self-professed Christians who need to have sin pointed out to them, who require discipline: Gal 6:1; Rom 7:7; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Heb 12:7.
And Paul needs to refer the Law in teaching fellow converted Christians! (Eph 6:1,2) Why would he need to do that, to use the Law to point out sin (Rom 7:7), if in fulfillment of Jer 31:33,34 his fellow Christians had undergone such radical changes they no longer needed teaching?
Finally, how do you deal with Paul's clear statement that this hasn't occured yet, but is still just a goal, in Philippians 3:10-14:
"I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus." (emphasis added)
Serge: 'hey all suffer from the same misunderstanding of the nature of the 'self.' It seems to me, in your case, which is the most common one, Selves consider themselves to be a viable separate entity capable of independent existence apart from God. Such folks talk a lot about getting/developing/having a 'relationship' with God. As if there is only needed a little negotiation and this will set things to rights. …A retreat into materilaism might make it seem a bit easier to understand the 'how' of things, but the end result is quite mistaken. Only a persistently ego-centric stance will deny this spiritual death of one's old nature and resist the path to divine union. Divine union is the antithesis of 'relationship.' When two are one, there is no place for any relation between them.'
Are you suggesting in the afterlife it is the total destruction of the ego – like Buddhist nirvana? Do you believe in heaven we lose all individuality? Is that where you are coming from Serge?
So is it like we all upload the essence of our 'selves' into a cosmic internet, which is God, and that all forms of individuality are forever lost?
How does that also tie into your notion that theosis begins right now? If you are already in perfect union with God, in the present right now, why do you currently still posses a personal and subjective consciousness?
Is this getting close to how you see things?
Perhaps I could answer with a question also. What does Paul mean when he says, Phil 2. 5 For, let this mind be in you that is also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,
7 but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made,
8 and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death—death even of a cross,
What does this mean, 'did empty himself?' Unto death on the cross. The same cross we are required to empty ourselves on also. (Rom 6). And in resurrection, it is no longer 'I' who lives. It is Christ.
What does this all say about the 'essence of our selves.?'
Jesus was God – I'm not.
The aspect of God which was the Word gave up the likeness of His divinity in becoming Jesus of Nazareth. It was no doubt like you or I being transformed into an ant or single-celled organism – beyond our comprehension. Jesus was limited, by time and space, in having to grow in wisdom from a helpless baby, and claiming not to know the hour of His Second Coming, unlike the Father, who as the source outside of space and time does know.
So to you that is a yes – the afterlife is the total destruction of the subjective personality?
Isn't your form of afterlife sometime akin to saying we will become God then?
There is a big difference between saying God lives in me, and I change as a result, compared with me saying I can become God.
Isn't that pantheism? I'm not quite sure your afterlife is that appealing to me. It kind of sounds like death!
Is there a Christian denomination Serge that most closely matches your beliefs, so I can study up more about it in my own time?
The ego is always antithetical to the gospel, so it is not surprising that this view of the gospel is not appealing to you. Des Ford used to say, maybe he still does, that 'you are not ready for heaven until you are prepared to go without it.' I never understood that, because I resisted the notion. But mainly because I had my idea of hte kind of heaven I wanted and no-one was going to take away my heavenly manison and streets of gold. But when I grew up into Christ, I put away those childish 'things.' That materialist and materialistic view of heaven is utterly false. Recognising that fact is a kind of death. Exactly the kind of death Rom 6.5 demands of us.
For me, the afterlife is the full flowering of my enChristed individuality. But I ask you, After when does the 'after life' begin? You seem to be turning on the point of death of your material self. I believe it to be a spiritual death. John 5.24 is quite clear on the point of transition.
To use another analogy, If, as you mentioned elsewhere, we are/seem to be, two people at war with each other, one of them is an imposter. Which one do you wish to be?
I know of no specific denomination that closely matches these understandings, but there are certain to be many, along with many individuals. I don't think your 'study up' approach is what you need Stephen. You need to re-read the NT, esp Paul and John, with a more careful eye, questioning all the things you currently take for granted. Maybe start with some of the texts/passages i've highlighted. Meditate, truly meditate on them, and wait on teh Lord, to reveal it to you. Trying to study the words of others, second and third hand, and presume that you can argue against them, usually on the basis of your own mistaken preconception, is not God's method of teaching.
You could also work throught the 28FBs. Try to analyse the basis for each of them, and whether a 'spiritual' understanding is a better way of conceiving the materialism inherent in just about all of them. I haven't done this exercise myself, but I suspect there will be a spiritual conception articualted in teh NT which yields a better, more satisfying way of understanding them. After all, Jesus 'spiritualised away' a lot of the Jews' earthly/material misconceptions of His kingdom.
Here are a couple of very basic questions.
1. You must be born again. You must be born of the Spirit. John 3.3,4,5,6,7, etc What is the 'You' referred to here?
2. Is this You material in nature or immaterial? (Keep in mind Adventist bedrock understanding that there is no 'immaterial' anything). Being an Adventist 'liberal' might give you a slight advantage here.
3. Is this the old 'you' being renovated like an old house getting a coat of 'righteous' paint, or is this in fact an entirely 'new creation?'
4. Spiritual 'genetics.' If you are born of the divine Spirit, are you not now of a divine spiritual nature? 1 John 3.9 Heb 2.11
Thank you Serge. I am not sure if this is the natural end of our very interesting discussion. Do you have any other thoughts or points you want me to check out? Are there any authors or commentators that match much of your thoughts here?
I think I do see where you are coming from. Perhaps to overgeneralise, and you will no doubt dispute this, but what you seem to be promoting is something similar to ideas found in Eastern religions, especially Buddhism. In Nirvana, the ego is totally destroyed. However, Nirvana seems to me more alike total destruction – eternal death – not eternal life.
However, I do admit I struggle with your notion that the afterlife, which somehow begins now, means the total death of the self-acculised ego. That seems rather horrible to me. That also seems to be contrary to other NT texts about the resurrection of the 'body', albeit this body being of a very different nature and 'stuff' from our earthly body.
For example, what of angels? Are they self-aculised beings or just empty shells controlled by remote control from the Godhead? And why did God create Adam and Eve as perfect beings with egos then?
And why did Jesus bother to raise Lazarus from the dead? And why wasn't Lazarus' ego subsumed at death into the amalgamated Godhead, where ego dies? And what of Jesus' own apparent continued individuality post – death? And that of Moses and Elijah, who appeared at the Transfiguration?
I can perhaps meet 'half way' with you – or rather go one step 'beyond' you here. I can accept that we continue to exist in a non-ego way as part of the mind of God. The current theological name I believe for this is 'objective immortality', and its main proponent is John Haught of Georgetown University. We do begin our eternal life right now in the mind of God, and perhaps many of the texts you have cited address this aspect. There is no subjective-ego existence immediately after death in the mind of God.
However, I believe other texts do point to a subjective-ego existence after death as well. The Bible does suggest a resurrection, which seems to include self-accualised existence. Perhaps it is here where mere objective ego-less existence in the mind of God is transferred back into a new recreation of subjective existence – just as Jesus was raised from the dead and had self-accualised existence, as did Moses and Elijah.
And another major question just popped into my mind. If your view is correct, that the afterlife, which begins now, is the total destruction of the ego without the hope of a future subjective self-actualised existence, what then is the point of the Second Coming. Why all those NT texts about waiting for the parousia? It would make no sense whatsoever! How is your view not promoting the heresy Paul warns about in 2 Thes 2:2:
'…not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here.'
I don't deny there is certainly a 'spiritualist', anti-ego, the afterlife-is-now strand in the NT. But it seems you are also denying the 'bodily' resurrection, historical-parousia, self-actualised afterlife, strand of the NT.
Perhaps the solution is to combine these strands, rather than just picking one – which you have possibly done for one – and to your credit, perhaps SDAs do to the other? Perhaps the greater truth is a combination of these strands?
I thought you might at least have some kind of attempt to respond to the specific questions re nature of who/what is 'born anew' Stephen. Maybe then you could see that there is no 'self'-actualised life at all. Here or hereafter. Life is an attribute of the divine. not our small selves.
This 'strand' of spirituality in the NT is much larger than you first imagine. It is highlighted by Paul, of course, in 1 Cor 2. After stating that he speaks to them of the 'wisdom of God,' which is unknowable to most, he further differentiates between those who, it woudl appear, represent differing levels of undersatnding of this wisdom. The sarkikoi jsut don't get it at all (3.1). Then come the psychikoi, (v.14) 'natural man.' He is certainly religious, but not 'enlightened,' shall we say. Finally, the ones who are taught dierctly by God, the pneumatikoi, (v. 15)the 'spiritual man.' You will notice a kind of ascending order here…. flesh, mind, spirit.
Further, the 'spiritual' are equated with the 'perfect' of v.6. The word for 'perfect' is teleoi, from telos, whose central idea is a goal or end point. Strangely, those who were 'initiated' into the mystery religions of the time were also referred to as teleoi. So in a sense, initiation into Christ, new birth, can we say?, is also their 'completion,' in Christ. (Reminds one of Jesus' statement regarding the 'very elect').
So Paul definitely recognised a hierarchy if you will of kinds of spiritual experience, and he worked towards the 'spiritualisation' of all. with mixed results to be sure. It is not so much that I deny the 'other strand' you mention. It is jsut that it is projected externally to one's inner spiritual experience, it is usually future-oriented, and is itself totally dependent on one having the inner spiritual experience right as a prerequisite, so the unknown future becomes a bit ho hum in terms of emphasis.
But there is quite a clear demarcation between 'spiritual now-ists' in NT vs 'natural/literal futurists,' when you start to see the NT in those terms. And this argument persists for centuries within the church, until the literalist/western arm begins to hold sway, C3,4 approx.
ANd the Parousia is a good example of how the argument, for want of better term, played out. John 14.1-3 v3 is where SDAs stop reading. But the context goes right through the chapter, and it clearly speaks of the return of Jesus in SPirit to be in His people. His parousia, or 'presence' with them being the main theme. Now SDAs say, yes, maybe, but THE REAL second coming is not in spirit, but REAL, in clouds. That all depends on one's definiton of Real.
Speaking of coming in the clouds. Matt 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
This text is classic literalist 'second coming' material. But I like the last phrase….. the angels gather the elect, 'from one end of heaven to teh other.' In Mark he says, Mark 13.27 …shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
There is the very strange concept that he gathers the elect 'from' heaven, and then persumably takes them 'to' heaven. Ah, I hear you say, one is spiritual, and one is Real.
A second, even more startling reference is 2Thes 1.10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
So this is the setting, or context, of the verses you quote 2Thes 2.2, which is of course taken to represent a Real second appearing. But the earlier text is pretty clear, to me, that this 'day of the Lord' refers to His appearing, IN His people. You must certainly allow that as a perfectly viable exegesis of hte passages.
So I can only repeat that this more spiritualised view of much of the NT is much more than a strand. The perspective and preconception of the observer/reader is what most conditions one's interpretation.
In the New Testament Gospels, we see the people of Israel embracing the fulfillment of the Law, Jesus Christ (Luke 19:28-30). In the Book of Acts, we see non-Jewish people accepting Christ and coming into prominence. These Gentiles have been saved and a discussion arises among the apostles at the Jerusalem Council as to what laws they need to keep. In Acts 15, Peter argues that God had saved them (as noted by an obvious manifestation of the Holy Spirit coming upon them in Acts 10:44-47) and yet they were not obeying any of The Mosaic Law. Peter then states to those men attempting to put these new Christians under the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:10-11NIV), “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
It’s a mystery to me that Adventists appeal to keeping the dietary rules of the Mosaic law but ignore the others laws that mention being “unclean”. I’ve noticed that the dietary laws often confuse people about their salvation. I asked an Adventist friend what would happen to her if she ate pork. “I would be unclean” she said. Meaning she thought she would be defiled or tarnished in the sight of God. It was clear to me that this woman had no security in Christ, having a fear either of falling from God’s grace or not knowing salvation in the first place, which of these I cannot say. But either of these spiritual conditions is a horrible place to be in. In this sense the dietary law was adding to her insecurity, and, in that manner, she was under a curse. Galatians 3:10 NIV “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law’."
As Christians, we are under a new covenant. But I think this is missed by many in the denomination. A covenant is a contract, and thus the Old Covenant is an old contract. Paul explains how long the old contract lasted and what purpose it fulfilled:
Galatians 3:19-25 (NIV) "What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come…Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law."
Wayne: 'It’s a mystery to me that Adventists appeal to keeping the dietary rules of the Mosaic law but ignore the others laws that mention being “unclean”.'
Wayne you have a number of undefined terms here. What 'dietary rules' do you mean exactly? What do you make of Acts 15:20,29?
What is the 'Mosaic Law'? Do you mean the entire OT, the Decalogue, the Torah (first five books of the OT) or just the Mitzvoth (613 rules specifically given for Jews but not 'Resident Alien' Gentiles)?
Isn't monotheism (the worship of one God and the fleeing of idolatary) part of the 'Mosaic Law'? What about avoiding making graven images or infantcide?
Wayne: 'As Christians, we are under a new covenant. But I think this is missed by many in the denomination. A covenant is a contract, and thus the Old Covenant is an old contract. Paul explains how long the old contract lasted and what purpose it fulfilled'
Wayne what 'law' is Paul talking about here? The Mitzvoth, given just to the Jews at Sinai, being the basis of the Old Covenant. Does Paul mean to say the pre-Sinai covenants are done away with as well, including the covenants to Abraham, Noah and Adam?
To use Romans as a parallel to Galatians, Paul similarly means different things at different times when he uses the word law (‘nomos’). He refers to the Pentateuch (Rom 3:21), the entire OT (Rom 3:19), a principle (Rom 7:23) and the Decalogue (Rom 7:7). Peter himself attests that Paul is confusing, which results in people distorting Paul’s words to promote lawlessness (2 Pet 3:15-17).
First of all, Paul can't mean to suggest the abrogation of the entire OT, or even the Torah. For the simple reason, Paul quotes with approval the Torah to support his argument! (Gal 3:8)
Paul makes it very clear that this law, which should not bind Gentiles, does not annul the pre-Sinai Gentile covenants – notably the covenants of Abraham (Gal 3:16,18). Instead, this non-binding law, which is in opposition to the covenant of Abraham, is the law given at Sinai 430 years after covenant to Abraham. So what law is Paul obviously talking about – it is obviously the 613 rules of the Jewish Mosaic Mitzvoth (Gal 3:17).
So Paul certainly is saying nothing against the pre-Sinai Gentile covenants, which are the ‘Resident Alien’ (Ger) and Noachide commands. Paul is telling the Gentiles they don’t need to follow the 613 rules of the Mitzvoth, which notably included circumcision, because that ‘Jewish’ covenant was only temporary and does not annul the prior Gentile covenant with Abraham.
So back to the original point, Adventists don't nor never have (although most lay members don't understand the finesse of it) refrain from unclean meats because it is part of the Mitzvoth given at Sinai. Rather, we eat it because it is part of the pre-Sinai covenant, which the New Covenant restores. The Apostles affirmed the pre-Sinai covenants, which applied to Gentiles under the pre-Sinai covenant of Noah and 'Resident Alien' commands of the Torah. Paul affirms that it is the pre-Sinai convenant of Abraham that continues, and which the covenant at Sinai given 430 years later does not annull.
So the question really is, forgetting the issue of the Jewish Mitzvoth, are there any 'dietary' commands for Gentiles under the pre-Sinai covenants, restored through the New Covenants? The Apostles clearly said yes in Acts 15:20,29.
The reason why Adventists don't eat pork is because Noah had 7 pairs of clean animals on the Ark. Again, Noah was not a Jew. It is under his convenant that Adventists refrain from eating pork.
252 comments so far. Good grief! What an interesting plethora of words to address IMHO such a perifpheral non-issue in the 21st Century involving ritual uncleaness and the tenous religious significance of what one eats. But now the subject of "sinless perfection" has been raised. As one of my granddauthers would say: "How Adventist!" However, as usual, Elaine and several others continue to hold down the rational end of the discussion. I also notice that I have been included in a group called the Nelsonites. This is a gret honor.
I think you'll find that many good runs of discussion on this site, it isn't the article itself that remains the focus, but rather that the article serves as a jumping-off point for interesting further discussions. Given the issue goes to the heart of the question, "Do Christians have to be Jews, and if not, what parts of the Bible should they follow", I'm surprised there isn't more comments frankly. And then there is the long discussion between myself and Serge about the nature of the afterlife, when it begins, and what it involves the total destruction of the ego and self-actualised subjective existence.
I'm not raising sinless perfection. The issue is raised by Serge, as to what he thinks 1 John 3:9 says. I believe this is a merely eschatological hope – Serge believes (in a way I can't quite understand) this is a reflection of our present and current state as Christians.
Elaine hasn't been much involved in the latter parts of these discussions. All the credit for maintaining the rage against Adventism, which seems to be the unofficial purpose of this site, has to go to Serge. He has done an outstanding job and I am mightily confused with at least half of what he is saying.
Yes, I did have you in mind in the group called 'Nelsonites', as a short-cut descriptor to Elaine and her merry band. I tought it immensley more suitable than 'liberal', because you, Elaine and others really aren't 'liberal' Adventists by any standard I know. If you could think up a superior term, especially if you find the term 'Nelsonite' prejorative (although I think it is actually quite flattering of Elaine, the spiritual anti-Adventist heavy weight on this site) I'm happy to go with it; however, I think we need to dispense with the overgeneralisation of 'liberal' and 'conservative.'
Dr Taylor: 'As one of my granddauthers would say: "How Adventist!"'
Dr Taylor, you don't have to answer this unless you want to – not that you ever answer questions anyway. What context was there behind this statement. Is your granddaughter an Adventist? How do you think she defines her Adventism? Does she reject virtually every belief and practice of the SDA Church – like you?
And while we are at it – how do you continue to define yourself as an Adventist, if you reject all the SDA Church's beliefs and practices?
Mr. Ferguson is incorrect to state that I "reject all of the SDA Churches beliefs and practices?" How could I do that and be a good and regular member of the Adventist Church? I simply reinterpret and redefine certain terms and phrases used in the 28 Fundamentals. If someone disagrees with my reinterpretations and redefinitions, that certainly is their perfect right. I would submit that I have the right to my own reinterpreations and rededinitions as does any other member of the Adventist Church.
It is very easy to remain a member in good and regular standing even though one doesn’t believe any of the fundamental beliefs that are enumerated and explained by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, like some.
All you have to do is come up with words like “reinterpret” and “redefine.” Such words would provide plausible deniability if there’d ever been a witch hunt to expose and excommunicate non-believers, which there hasn’t.
Actually the fact that there hasn’t been, nor fortunately is there ever likely to be such a 'hunt,' makes it easier still to remain an Adventist while not believing anything that Seventh-day Adventists purportedly believe.
Apparently, Mr. Foster has forgotton that what "Seventh-day Adventists believe" has been worked out in a series of committees of individuals with the specific wording the results of a series of compromises to respond to specific challenges and issues. The same can be said for "what Christians believe." That too was worked out over centuries by various bodies to solve specific problems that confonted the church. One of the most important of these bodies was chaired by an emperor whose main concern was unity in his empire and not "orthodoxy."
Perhaps it would simply quicker of Dr Taylor to outline what aspects of the 28 FBs he does believe in? I think we'd be here all day if we asked him to outline what he doesn't believe.
If I recall previous discussions with Dr Taylor, he didn't seem to believe in the seventh-day Sabbath or the Second Coming of Jesus Christ – the two core beliefs that make up our name. He also seemed to reject to idea of the physical-corporeal-historical resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I'd be fascinated to know how Dr Taylor justifies to himself that he is an Adventist in 'good and regular standing' – let alone a Christian.
I continue to be facinated with commentators on this thread who are so good at "mind reading" that they "know" what someone "really" thinks about a given topic in the absence of being able to quote anyone's words. These individuals also seem to think that someone needs to "justify" (such an interesting use of that word) their affiliation with a given faith community or tradition. In the Adventist tradition, the only possible entity one needs to "justify" themselves to is the local church community because that where affiliation and membership is defined. Thus, Adventism has a "congregational" system when membership is concerned. An interesting development given the history of Adventist polity.
Ervin Taylor: 'In the Adventist tradition, the only possible entity one needs to "justify" themselves to is the local church community because that where affiliation and membership is defined. Thus, Adventism has a "congregational" system when membership is concerned. An interesting development given the history of Adventist polity.'
Who says we are talking about Church membership. I'm not suggesting you being disfellowshipped as an apostate, because as you rightly point out, that is only a decision your local congregation can make. What they do or do not do in relation to you is a matter for them.
However, that is not to say belief and practice is only a relevant issue for the local Church. For example, for a Minister who is caught having an extra-marital affair, or a professor of theology teaching heresy, or a lay member serving on the Conference Executive who is found to have committed fraud, none of these persons can simply say, "It's none of your business that I justify myself to you because the local church community is where my affiliation and membership is defined." So if you are going to talk of Church polity, it may be a bit more complex than you describe.
In your own bio on this site, it says you are a "past executive publisher of Adventist Today." It also says your blogs include "Adventist history/theology."
So of course your own membership is wholly a matter for your local Church. However, we are not primarily talking about membership – we are talking more broadly than that. I would think it not unreasonable if readers naturally would like to know what you actually believe on Adventist history and thelogy, when you purport to be an authority on those very subjects!
There is also an interesting legal principle that might be applicable here. Usually in a court situation (at least in Britain and Australia), one cannot bring up a witnesses bad past history unless they claim they good past history. In this case, you were the one who said you were a "good and regular member of the Adventist Church." Given the very unusual statements you commonly make, that seem quite at odds at the stated belief, mission and practices of the SDA Church (as broadly defined in documents such as the 28 FBs or Church Manual), it is again not unreasonable for readers to ask for further information as to where you are coming from.
Finally, for conversation to become meaningful dialogue it usually requires both parties explain where they are coming from. In a religious context, that would probably require parties explain what their own beliefs and practices are, so the parties then can examine what they agree and disagree on. I would have thought this would all be blatantly obvious for a professor of anthropology?
The increasingly frustrating part about some contributors on this site, is that they love to criticise the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which you claim to be a part of as a 'good and regular member', but then don't explain their own beliefs and practices. In effect, they engage in a 'drive by' (as some have coined the term), which is to make a criticism of Adventism from a position whereby the criticiser's own views cannot be criticised.
I find such 'drive by's' cowardly and disengenious. I do not say my own beliefs and practices are perfect, nor are those of my Church. My views are still changing and will probably change in the future. However, I am pretty honest about what I believe and don't believe, as is my Church. That's more than can be said for many of the regular critics here.
Seems to me Stephen, a little intellectual honesty is required here. Pots and kettles style. Earlier I quoted EGW in GC re 'standing without a mediator.' I did so to discover whether your fondness for Law Keeping had as its end point the SDA teaching which is the equivalent of 'sinless perfection,' ie, having developed a character which can stand sinless after Christ completes His IJ work and leaves the Most Holy Place of the Sanctuary on Planet Heaven, in preparation for His literal return in clouds to Planet Earth. (All of this literalism is made possible only by favour of the SDA teaching of human nature, and the resurrected/ascended Jesus, as material monist).
You simply dismissed it all by stating that you adhere to sola scriptura and so therefore will not fight for an EGW teaching. (conveniently forgetting that SDA teaching of EGW's prophetic gift is based sola on scriptura… Rev 19.10 if memory serves). Other lapses of convenience include the evolution of SDA thinking from Literal heavenly sanctuary, with its eschatalogical IJ, its ark of the covenant in MHP containing the two tablets, with the fourth shining more brightly than them all. So your sabbath-keeping is entirely the result of the vision of the prophet you will not now endorse, at least in terms of her other teachings which are entirely consistent within the SDA context.
How does this doctrinal selectiveness make you different from Ervin? Just how is it that you continue to define yourself as an Adventist?
Forgot to add a text which is highly relevant, in terms of the overall discussion also:
2Cor 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
Are you perhaps suggesting Serge that Jesus Christ is in your alone, and in no one else – not in any other person on planet earth? After all, you seem to suggest that there is no other group, and no other person alive or dead since St Paul, who can be named you shares the same beliefs as you do.
The Seed is Christ Jesus. The OT is to us Gentiles, a history of the covenants made to those who lived before the Seed was born as a babe and lived for approx 33 years. The Seed brought a NEW Covenant that mandated the terms all Creation would live under.Those living before the Seed's arrival had laws,rites, ceremonies etc. all focus on the Seed which was to come. The unGodly life style of man, following Adam's transgression, was such that God could not stomach man, and except for Noah and family, annihilated man.
The resulting laws after Noah, were harsh and exacting, as God had to proveto man the deathly reward of sinful flesh The Ten Commandments condemnedthe corruptness of the sinful nature of man, that man was incapable of escaping.God pointed to a future Saviour, the Messiah, the Seed, Jesus Christ. Jesus arrived approx 2000 years ago, and He gave a NEW covenant that was for all mankind of all ages. Those before the Seed's Earthly arrival, and all until He returns in glory. The former laws, admonitions, ordinances, etc, before the Seed's arrival on Earth, although knowledgeable by all mankind, are not applicable since the Seed brought forth the New Commandment of love. Salvation by grace through Faith in the saving grace of the Seed. The only possibility of man to obtain ressurection to everlasting life. The prize obtained through no works, no brownie points, by man, as sinful corrupt flesh could only be reconciled by the blood sacrifice of the Seed, Jesus Christ, who lovingly gave up His blood once, for every single sinner ever to walk this Earth. The weak sinful corrupt flesh in which man's living soul resides must be destroyed, as sinful flesh cannot inhabit heavenly places. At death of the flesh, the soul is instantly rescued by God, and restored to man in God's time frame, at man's ressurection. The purified soul with it's gloried new spirit body, alike the glorious body of God Jesus Christ, will endure forever.
Jesus was ressurected from Earth in His glorious Spirit form. Although not having tasted of sin Himself, He is God, and had no further use of flesh.
Where did Adventists first discover the prohibition on unclean meats? Wasn't it from the Levitical laws given to the Israelites?
While "clean" and "unclean" animals are written in one of the three flood accounts, (Gen. 6:19)
records:
"From all living creatures, from all flesh, you must take TWO of each kind, male and a female; two must go with you so that thier lives may be saved. For your part provide yourself with eatables of all kinds, and lay in a store of them to serve as food for yourself."
It is evidently either very repetitous to have THREE (3) accounts of the same story of entering the ark; or the writer was totally confused in retelling. The first account tells of TWO (2) of each animal.
In the second account there are seven (7) clean animals and two (2) unclean. And in the third (3) account there wer two (2) animals taken into the ark; no mention of clean nor unclean.
Gen. 7:2-3: "God said to Noah, ….of all the clean animals you must take SEVEN (7) of each kind, both male and femle; of the unclean animals you must take tTWO (2), a male and female."
Gen. 7:8-9: 'Noah with his sons, his wife, and his sons' wives boarded the ark. Of the clean animals and the animals that are not clean, TWO (2) of each kind boarded the with ark, a male and a female."
After the flood, God said "every living and crawling thing shall provide food for you, no less than the foliage of plants. I give you EVERYTHING, with this exception: you must not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood in it."
Only once in these three accounts were "unclean" written. When Noah came for the ark, God said: "Every living and crawling thing shall provide food for you, no less than the folaige of plants. I give you everything with this exception: you must not eat flesh with life, that is to say blood in it."
The original story may have been told after the flood when Noah became intoxicated from the fruit of the vines he had planted. (Gen. 9:20).
Elaine: 'Where did Adventists first discover the prohibition on unclean meats? Wasn't it from the Levitical laws given to the Israelites?'
No it isn't. The commands in the pre-Sinai covenants (of Abraham, Noah and Adam), which Paul makes clear are not annulled by the Mosaic Covenant 430 years later (Gal 3:17), cover the 'unclean' and 'clean' distinction. Thus, your base assumption that Adventists derive their food laws from Levitical Israelite commands of the Mitzvoth is incorrect. We derive it from the commands and examples of Noah.
Elaine: 'It is evidently either very repetitous to have THREE (3) accounts of the same story of entering the ark; or the writer was totally confused in retelling. The first account tells of TWO (2) of each animal… Only once in these three accounts were "unclean" written.'
That common theory historical critical theory of JEDP may or may not be correct. Assuming it is, why do you think something has to be repeated in every account to be valid. Why can't it be valid if it is found in just one tradition?
You're forgetting the primary point, which is the final redactors of the P account made sure the story reads this way. The same way the P accounts links the Sabbath to creation. Even adopting your historical-critical approach, the redactors of P are just as much authors of the OT, and adopting the approach of redaction and structural crticism, it is arguably the finished product that matters as much if not more than the ancient individual different strands of tradition.
You seem to operate on the presumption that unless something in the OT is explicitly repeated in the NT, or here repeated multiple times in the OT, it somehow has no ongoing application. That seems like such a flawed, if not legalistic, approach to things.
So good try Elaine to confuse everyone by introducing historical criticism of the Torah, but it doesn't really help your argument at all.
WAYNE WILSON, Yes Yes, you are right on!! re: God's New Covenant replaces "ALL" of the former covenants. We see the confusion it is causing S. Ferguson, just as the Jews were confused by the Gentiles having a different covenant, THE NEW COVENANT.
STEVEN FERGUSON, Our corrupt flesh cannot inhabit the presence of God. This is why the flesh must be destroyed. If a person believes we will be physical bodily ressurected, they are mistaken. Jesus ascended on His return to the presence of the Most Holy in His glorious Spiritual being, which He will provide to us at our ressurection.. In your ongoing dialogue with Serge, the following:
1. Abraham's "FAITH" is what he has bequeathed to his descendents, Heb 11:1
(Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not see.)
2. Paul did a lot of adlibbing, adding to the inspired portions, ie: 1st Tim 4:7, theHoly Spirit would not have made that comment. Even Peter said Paul confused him.
3.Re: Celibacy? The healthy body demands an outlet, assuaging for this impossible to turnoff mental demand. Perhaps this was the "thorn in Paul's side".
4.Speaking of the ressurection: Gathering of the redeemed from seeminly one corner of the universe to another. We perhaps innocently believe souls from Earth are the only ones to be rescued, whereas God has inhabitants from other galaxy planetary locales that are to be redeemed, for various reasons other than sin??
5. FAITH: Heb 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. Was it not Abraham of
whom it was said "his faith was accorded to him as righteousness"????
6. BTW, Stephen, rats, bats, black holes, sorry but Stephen Hawking has announced he was mistaken, there are no black holes, everything passes through.
(with no whirlwind or resistance, hinderance, turbitity etc, my paraphrase of understanding).
What's the New Covenant Earl? And do the pre-Sinai covenants, including the covenant of Abraham, continue? Paul seems to suggest yes in Gal 3:17. The New Covenant only does away with the 613 rules of the Jewish Mitzvoth. The Law is expounded and internalised, not abrogated, as made clear in Jer 31:33,34.
As for the resurrection, are you saying you agree with Serge that we will lose self-actualised existence, so that you will no longer exist subjectively except perhaps as part of some 'meta mind?' I think theologians sometimes describe what Serge is talking about as a 'world soul'. Is that what you believe also?
As for black holes, are you saying that space and time are eternal and not created by God? So you deny the doctrine of creation ex nihlo? So that means the 'chaos' of primordial space and time is effectively a co-equal always eternal aspect equal to God?
Steve, Jesus is GOD. How do you reconcile the fierce God of the OT, versus the God of love and grace of the NT?? Mal 3: 5 & 6 "sayeth the Lord of Hosts. For I AM the Lord, I change not; Mal 4: 5& 6 Behold I will send you Elijah the
prophet….And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, LEST I COME AND SMITE THE EARTH WITH A CURSE. Steve, this is the last verse of the OT.
In Matthew, following the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus continues reference to the "law of moses, the Ten Comm" as they identify what is alien to God's character.. Jesus then in Matt 18: continues His reference to children, and in verse 11 He says "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost", and verse 14 "Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish", Ref: the parable of the lost sheep.
Matt 20: 28 "The Son of man came to give His life a ransom for many".
Matt 22: 36-40 re: the first & great commandant.
Luke 15: 2 re: Jesus, the Pharisees and scribes murmured " this man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them, and Jesus gives the parables of the lost sheep, and of the prodigal son.
Luke 18:26 & 27 "And they that heard it said, who then can be saved? And He said, the things which are impossible with man are possible with God.
Luke 19: 10 re: Jesus said, "FOR THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SEEK AND TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST".
John 3: 16 "FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTON SON, THAT WHO SO EVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE". "FOR GOD SENT NOT HIS SON INTO THE WORLD TO CONDEMN THE WORLD; BUT THAT THE WORLD THROUGH HIM MIGHT BE SAVED". "HE THAT BELIEVETH ON HIM IS NOT CONDEMNED".
So, Steve, we first have the "LAW", which cannot save, but codemns man; andthen we have Jesus, the Law Giver, who overrides the "LAW", by sacrificing Himself for His Creation. Praise His Holiness.This is Perfect Godly Almighty LOVE. This is the NEW COVENANT. Love that supercedes the Law. The LAW illuminated the ETERNAL moral factors of God, and God upheld and satisfied the LAW, by shedding His blood for every sinner, of all time.
God Jesus parables of lament, of that which "WAS" lost, and of finding andsafely returning it to the fold, often has me imagining that He still has hope for the return of Lucifer to the heavenly courts?? Redeemed from the Earth. Lucifer, the first sinner. The most beautiful and talented of God's Creation.
Steve, more later re: your questions.
Earl: 'So, Steve, we first have the "LAW", which cannot save, but codemns man; andthen we have Jesus, the Law Giver, who overrides the "LAW", by sacrificing Himself for His Creation. Praise His Holiness.This is Perfect Godly Almighty LOVE. This is the NEW COVENANT. Love that supercedes the Law. The LAW illuminated the ETERNAL moral factors of God, and God upheld and satisfied the LAW, by shedding His blood for every sinner, of all time.'
Earl I don't disagree with anything you say. It is largely one of perspective. We may be simply saying the same thing in different ways and confusing each other.
The Law certainly does not save – it actually does the opposite in pointing out sin (Rom 7:7). However, under the NT the Law is internalised in our hearts (Jer 31:33). The negative way of applying the Law, the 'Thous shalt not' are certainly gone, because the Law is applied internally in our hearts, as commands of love. This is why under the New Covenant one doesn't need to be taught (Jer 31:34).
Pre-Fall Adam didn't need to be taught in a table of stone not to comit adultery, because he already his wife as himself. Therefore, the Ten Commandments would have no point or meaning for Pre-Fall Adam. If the Holy Spirit now lives in our hearts, then none of the Ten Commandments really should be needed for us either, because we would naturally obey them in spirit, through the commands of loving God and loving our fellow neighbour.
Earl: 'Steve, Jesus is GOD. How do you reconcile the fierce God of the OT, versus the God of love and grace of the NT'
It's the same God to me Earl. I do not promote proto-Gnostic, anti-Semitic theology that seeks to remove Christianity from its Jewish heritage.
Importantly on that point, the New Covenant isn't really 'new' at all. It is actually the old, old covenant of Abraham, who was counted righteous for believing. This covenant of Abraham is actually found in the Torah itself!
A big problem with this discussion is what 'Law' are we talking about? Are we talking about the entire OT, the Torah (first five books of the Bible), the Ten Commandments, or the Mitzvoth (the 613 rules for Jews only)?
That is Paul's point in Gal 3:17. Paul is saying the Jewish covenant at Mt Sinai did not do away with the even older covenant given to Abraham 430 years earlier. So Paul is saying all Gentiles, as heirs of the promise to Abraham as father to many nations, are still bound by the olders covenant of Abraham but not the Jewish covenant. The Jewish covenant is the 613 rules of the Jewish Mitzvoth. The covenant of Abraham is still found in the 'Law', because it is found in the book of Genesis, which is part of the Torah.
And Earl I would still be interested to know where you share Serge's view that:
As for the resurrection, are you saying you agree with Serge that we will lose self-actualised existence, so that you will no longer exist subjectively except perhaps as part of some 'meta mind?'
Serge: 'Seems to me Stephen, a little intellectual honesty is required here. Pots and kettles style. Earlier I quoted EGW in GC re 'standing without a mediator.' You simply dismissed it all by stating that you adhere to sola scriptura and so therefore will not fight for an EGW teaching. (conveniently forgetting that SDA teaching of EGW's prophetic gift is based sola on scriptura'
Serge, good attempt to 'catch me out' with your very legalistic attempt here. Sorry, mate, but it won't work.
Serge, I think I am pretty intellectually honest. Unlike others, I don't talk in endless riddles. My faith is relatively easy to understand, much reflected in 'adverage Adventism'. Unlike your belief system, it is not so complicated that I can name no other Christian group, or no individual Christian alive or dead, who subscribes to my views. Spreading the Gospel is after all, a team game.
I'm pretty much an 'average Adventist'. I have been personally emailed just this week by someone who enjoys my comments, and for my stance of standing up for the silent majority of the 'average Adventist' reader of AToday.
You tried to suggest I had must adopt theological beliefs through the prism of Ellen White, and if I do not, I am somehow selectively choosing my beliefs. I don't.
FB#1 of the 28 FBs states re The Holy Scriptures:
'They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.'
And FB#18 of the 28 FBs re The Gift of Prophecy makes clear:
'One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant
church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her
writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.' (emphasis added)
I agree with all that. However, I realise Ellen White was not infallible. She herself made this clear on a number of occassions. She also made clear how human prophets were, and that God was with the penmen, not in the pen.
Ellen White's own theology changed over time, seen in the Shut Door Theory, or in her evolution on ideas about Christology (from Arianism to Trinitiarianism) and soteriology (from an emphasis on works to an emphasis on grace with the 1888 message of Wagnor and Jones). She herself said, and I agree with her, that knowledge about God is progressive, and that after her certain ideas will have to continue to change.
Serge: 'So your sabbath-keeping is entirely the result of the vision of the prophet you will not now endorse, at least in terms of her other teachings which are entirely consistent within the SDA context.'
I agree my Sabbath-keeping is the result of a prophetic vision. However, one that occured before a burning bush, and who wrote about the Sabbath being instituted at creation. It is also found in an itinerant preacher from Galilee, who taught true Sabbath-keeping, making it clear it was made for mankind (note not for Jewish-kind).
Serge: 'How does this doctrinal selectiveness make you different from Ervin? Just how is it that you continue to define yourself as an Adventist?'
As the 'Nelsonites' like to say (Elaine Nelson and Dr Taylor both) Adventism is a 'broad tent.' The Preamble to the 28 FBs make clear it is not a creed but only an indicative statement of belief. Therefore, I wholly accept a certain spectrum across Adventist belief and practice.
The simple (and yet very hard) question is how broad is Adventism? I am willing to admit it is very broad. However, I doubt it is so broad as to reject the authority of the Bible, or the seventh-day Sabbath, or the Second Advent of Jesus, or the physical-historical Resurrection of Jesus Christ. These concepts are so 'fundamental' because they make up our very name – Seventh-day Adventist.
The difference between Dr Taylor and me is that he does not subscribe to even these basic Adventist concepts. He claims he 'simply reinterpret and redefine certain terms and phrases used in the 28 Fundamentals'; however, the truth of it seems to be that he simply rejects all of the 28 FBs. I do see and accept variations of interpretations within the broad parameters of the 28 FBs – he seems to simply reject them outright.
I can say honestly that I broadly subscrive to all 28 FBs. I may interpret them in a different way to say Trevor, but I think Trevor would broadly consider me a brother. Dr Taylor is a very different kettle of fish.
Dr Taylor could clarify which 28 FBs he subscribes to, but I doubt he will. Because Dr Taylor likes to talk in riddles, and not show his hand.
I find in life it is much easier to criticise others, and their beliefs and practices, without putting one's own views out there for scrutiny.
Serge: ‘ANd the Parousia is a good example of how the argument, for want of better term, played out. John 14.1-3 v3 is where SDAs stop reading. But the context goes right through the chapter, and it clearly speaks of the return of Jesus in SPirit to be in His people. His parousia, or 'presence' with them being the main theme. Now SDAs say, yes, maybe, but THE REAL second coming is not in spirit, but REAL, in clouds. That all depends on one's definiton of Real.’
The issue of realised eschatology gets to the heart of both Adventist identity and Serge’s ‘unique’ view, which is to deny the possibility of a physical-historic Second Advent event.
Serge, I acknowledge you are right – but only half-right. You saw my comments above accepting the possibility of a non-ego and non-subjective existence immediately after death, and which actually begins now today, according to ideas commonly classified as ‘objective immortality’ (see John Haught). However, I say one needs to go a step further, and in accordance with traditional Adventist teachings, recognising the NT as teaching future subjective ego-individual existence in new resurrected ‘bodies’, beginning at a future historical Second Coming event.
You instead selectively quote strands of the NT that most appeal to you. The issue of the Second Coming is case in point. The NT does talk about the kingdom of heaven beginning now, found within us (Luke 17:21). So you are certainly partly right here.
However, you are simply engaging in latter retrojection, influenced by proto-Gnostic pagan philosophy, wholly inconsistent with the background and historical context of the Apostles, who operated within a Second-Temple mindset of 1st-Century Judaism. Your sort of viewing things only coming to the fore after a few centuries, when Christians essentially gave up hope about Jesus returning again.
The NT clearly does teach about a future Second Coming historical event. It is the other half of the coin, in accordance with concepts of inaugurated eschatology, best taught by Matthew, Luke and Paul. You are simply skirting around the issue, where you seem to embrace ideas rooted in proto-Gnostic heresy already present and condemned by Paul in his own day in 2 Thes 2:2:
'…not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here.'
Your attempted exegesis is simply wrong. Your views here are not dissimilar from that of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who claim Jesus came in 1914 – but just in a spiritual sense – so that only every ‘spiritual eye’ could see Him. Paul is clearly expecting an actual historical event, as would any of his readers, when he talks about in 2 Thes 2:3 the idea that the Day of the Lord will not come until the man of lawlessness is first revealed.
Your idea of a wholly spiritualised and immaterial Second Coming makes no sense whatsoever. Why would Paul and Peter need to give affirmations in their later writings, giving comfort to the apparent delay in Christ’s return? Peter in 2 Pet 3:4-7, in prelude to the famous passage re a day equalling a 1,000 years, makes clear the Day of Judgment involves the end of our physical created world:
‘First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!” They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless.’
And then in 2 Pet 3:12-13, Peter talks about the destruction of this current physical world and the creation of a new one:
‘…waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire? But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home.’ (emphasis added)
I could point to a number of other texts, but don’t want to go overboard. This single passage in 2 Pet is probably sufficient to demonstrate Peter sees the Second Coming in ‘material’ terms.
One could perhaps need to go no further than the message found in Acts 1:11, that Jesus will return in the same way he left. That is to say, Luke (which should be read with Acts) ends with the resurrected Jesus explicitly making it clear He existed in corporeal form, as noted in Luke 24:39-43:
‘Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate in their presence.’ (emphasis added)
The resurrected Jesus said He had ‘flesh and bones’. Now that is not to say of a kind like we earthly humans do. Jesus elsewhere talks about our resurrected forms being in the nature of angels, who seem to be able to do the amazing sort of things the resurrected Jesus does. But to say we don’t understand the nature of the resurrected ‘spiritual body’ is very different from your ultra-non-material view, which adopts the Buddhist notion of a non-ego existence devoid of individual self-actualised existence.
You will disagree, of course, and engage in theological gymnastics to justify your retrojected eisegesis of these passages. You will simply ignore these passages and attempt to deflect the arguments by bringing up other ‘spiritualised’ passages. I will of course disagree with your disagreement. That’s how this story goes.
The one distinct advantage I have is to acknowledge you might be partly right; whereas, your ultra-non-materialised approach requires you to say I am wholly wrong. I am willing to see two aspects to this story, whereas you must ensure all the square pegs fit inside your round holes.
If you have come to AToday to convince we remaining Adventists to abandon our current belief in the Second Advent, you’ll probably have to do a better job than you’re doing. That might of course be our fault, because we are not smart enough to understand your very advanced message, given you can point to no Christian denomination, and no person alive or dead since Saint Paul, who seems to share your own views here.
Stephen, it appears to me that even though you claim to rely on sola scriptura, you are in fact very reliant on other commentators. Any one but Ellen, that is. So here are some refs for your edification.
Partakers of the Divine Nature, Christensen & Wittung, eds 2008
Union With Christ: The new Finnish Interpretation of Luther, Braaten & Jenson, 1998
Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification and Theosis in Paul's Narrative Soteriology, Gorman, 2009
Enjoy.
Thanks Serge – yes that will be quite helpful.
I like to read widely – that is true. And I don't just limit myself to Adventist authors – that is true.
We are all reliant on others to some extent Serge. Spreading the Gospel is a team game, after all. Theology is communication about God within a faith community. Individual ideas outside of a faith community is heresy (in the original, non-prejorative sense of the word).
I'll definately see if I can check out some of these authors. I am very interested in Theosis, which all these books seem to be addressing.