We can be impractical later..

Notice that the previous lesson had a sabbath portion on Thursday.
An Adventist visitor came to church last sabbath and asked the question, in SS class, about how some SDA are going out to eat at restaurants these days , on sabbath, and she remembered how that used to be not acceptable...so what is ok now?

The teacher was busy doing the LAW theme and this was a digression, so he just mentioned his example of not eating out on sabbath.

new, so you worship on SATURNday. The day of the Roman pagan god Saturn to which it was sacred. Fortunately Adventism has become more orthodox and has accepted the Holy Trinity. It is to be hoped they will continue that journey.

Michael, Saturday is named after the Roman god Saturn. Sorry Mickey, but if you use this logic it gets fired right back at you. I notice you even use a capital G when writing of Saturn rather then a small g. Such respect for your deity is impressive.

So Newbie...

You believe that Jesus isn't God in the flesh? Do you believe he is a created being elevated to being a lesser god? Or was he just a man who accepted the worship of his disciples, and still accepts worship as seen in the visions of Revelation? And what do you make of John 1, that says that he was in the beginning, IOW always present with God and always was God?

What's your take?

Thanks...

Frank

Frank7,

I believe that there is one God the Father (1 Cor 8:6) who is the only true God as per what Jesus prayed on John 17:3. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and He is not a created being. Infact it is through Jesus that God created the worlds (Col 1:16, Hebrews 1:2-3). I believe that Jesus is God in nature, by being the Son of God but not in personality that is why He did not even want to be equal to God (Phil 2:6) and Jesus has a God (Rev 3:12). Taking John 1:1 it says that In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God (without 'the') signifying that the nature of the Word was Divine. Consider these two examples:" In the beginning was the Woman and the Woman was with Man and the Woman was Man" and "In the beginning was the Woman and the Woman was Man and the Woman was 'the' Man". Which of the two makes sense? Obviously the first makes sense. Apply that to John 1:1 and you will see that the 'Word was God' simply talks of the nature of God. Above all, John wrote this epistle not to show that Jesus was God but rather that Jesus is the Son of God. Read John 20:31

I find the Bible straight forward just as the Adventist pioneers did and this is also what they believed in, not the trinitarian catholic apostasy that crept into the church finally in 1980.

It is my humble prayer "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him" - Eph 1: 17

Hear O Israel. Oops!

newbie, congrats you are a polytheist.

Michael, explain how it is rational to claim that we worship the Roman Sun god on the Lord's Day, but it is irrational to claim that you worship the Roman god Saturn on Saturday? I really want to know.

Michael & Fr. Jim - your comments are devolving into denigration and name calling. Please elevate the tone or risk them being censored. - website editor

Newbie...

Go read up on your Greek in John 1:1 before you say we should read the text in a straightforwrd manner. Secondly, go read about the divine implications about titles like the Son of God and Son of Man, as well. Also, you simply dismiss the connections with Jesus' use of one/echad with the Shema. His audience were orthodox, religious Jews. They knew what they were hearing and what he was saying. Blasphemy was the charge and attempted murder was the reaction because Jesus was claiming eqality with the God of Israel, not because he was claiming messiahship or the kingship. The latter is what they wanted, the former was an outrage to them.

Jesus accepted worship during his lifetime, and is shown being worshipped in Revelation as the exalted one. This is not worship being offered to a lesser god, which is the role you are assigning to Jesus. Monotheism was recast in Christianity in terms of the encounter with the God-man, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus, as the one to be worshipped, was portrayed clearly as God in the last books of the NT...John and Revelation. A progressive unfolding to this point in the NT...maybe so. but, there nonetheless.

Thanks...

Frank

Newbie...

I have given you the prologue of John 1:1-18 and Jesus IAM statements about himself. Thses are clear. if they aren't to you..so be it. I haven't cornered the market on dogmatic assertions while disregarding evidence to the contrary.

Thanks...

Frank

So this thread is turning into a trinity polemic?

Anything to avoid discussion on the most hated commandment of the decalogue on Earth.

The Moslems have Friday, The Mithra/ pseudo -Jesus crowd have SUNday ....and Jews and 1% Christianity have the original day...yet almost all are insubordinate to the commandment even among sabbatarians.

Most SDA preachers don't even present to their audiences how to keep it anymore...
Evidently they think it is preaching to the choir...yet.......

Hebrews 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

This experience is what I mention often on this site...how SDA repeats the problem of the Jews...fanatic , insubordinate, gainsayers (ROM 10:2 & 21)

Here is how bad it is...Many have heard of the expression, "love the gift, hate the giver"

The sabbath is a sign to recognize how most Christians hate both gift and giver.

Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Jim,
Hebrews 4 was written to the Jews whop were already "keeping" the Sabbath with their myriad laws of Sabbath keeping. The Sabbath they weren't keeping was the rest for which the weekly Sabbath was a shadow - the rest in Christ.

You go ahead and make new lists for Sabbath keeping, but you're not going to be entering into the rest that Heb.4 is talking about. Do you really believe that by NOT DOING some stuff, you're going to be "keeping the Sabbath" - simple as that?

@Tom Zwemer:

Not disrespect intended here but I wonder if the years have brought you any understanding on some subjects. You are totally wrong when you say that "in the end-time, the conversation should be on proper worship not on proper timing". In fact, the proper time is part of the proper worship. Sure, God will accept your worship if you are clueless about the Sabbath day but if you know about the Sabbath and don't follow the fourth commandment, can you be sure that God will overlook your violation? I don't know.

Worship is also about obedience and obedience to the commandments of God.

Sirje,

What you have posted about Heb 4 is the typical line...about the Jews keeping the sabbath.
Let me ask you...what % of Jews keep sabbath now?

Here is one closer to home...
I challenge any reader here to do a survey in their SDA church and ask by note or raising of hands who KEEPS the sabbath holy.
I don't mean observe it
I don't mean go to church that day.
I don't mean acknowledge it.
I don't mean they have that day off.
I mean KEEP IT.

As far as the lists of what NOT to do....
I am more interested in lists in what TO DO.

Jesus was very busy that day and got into discussions with the DO NOT pharisees.

The SDA church is so passive because most are raised in a what NOT to do institution.

Isaiah gave clues in IS 58 for those in that time too.

This is why I rant so much confronting pastors on teaching, training equipping sermons fror outreach and individual ministry...instead of their typical therapy/nurture/shallow soteriology sessions.

Tom,

Genesis 8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

Genesis 8:12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.

Jin interesting but a reach. but it doesn't say which day of the week Noah started his count does it.

God is a Spirit and we worship in Spirit and in Truth. . Tom

Fr Jim has a point. He was grossly insulted by Michael, and although it's in his nature to render tit for tat, this one is on Michael, not Fr Jim.

@Tom Z. Very thought provoking, indeed as Paul has stated, the law was 430 years after Abraham.
So what caused the fathers before Moses to be obedient to Gods law, that was not "verbally" given? We have a clue in that the New Covenant is the Abrahamic Covenant. Where is law written in the New Covenant, in the heart. Where did the fathers have the law written, in the heart.
And again, the New Covenant gives voice to how Gods people are obedient to Grace, from the heart. And that includes entering His rest in obedience.
But I think you have an interesting point, its the Who.
Rev 14:7 ... "Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water."
It will always be the Who. To the Praise of His Name...Jesus!

"The unique doctrines of Adventism, not recognized by other Christians are only found in the OT" - Elaine

Well, I think that the "most unique" ones are actually found only in the NMRT.*

----------
-*Newest and Most Recent Testament, aka The Red Books!

Please show me a verse where Jesus says that he is God?

****************

One final statement from John's gospel. "Jesus said, 'Before Abraham was, I AM.' " This is a clear statement of divinity. It is a claiming of equivalency with YHWH, the covenant God of Israel. It is asserting his pre and self existence, through claiming the same name and title as YHWH did at the burning bush. IOW, it is Jesus saying in no uncertain terms that he is God.

Thanks...

Frank

Klasse Dennis!!

The description of who JESUS is, is very clear as newbie has already stated. Even satan knows that JESUS is the SON of GOD. matthew 4:1-11 "if you are Son of God" the devil always mixes truth and lies. Remember also when the very devil tempted Eve in the garden of eden, he knows the truth but he always try to confuse God's people by mixing truth with lies.

The problem with God's people is that we don't read the Bible with understanding that is why satan overpowers us and we end up making wrong conclusions. May GOD HIMSELF help us to read more and understand His words.

God is one, God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Cor 8:6

Mwiza.

Frank,

So you are appealing to the translation of 'modern' NT translators to avoid my questions? The so called 'modern' NT translators are clearly biased towards their trinitarian dogma. Why translating differently from original scriptures? All in the name of modernity? I have explained John 1:1. I have given you a translation of John 1:18 and you cant see black from white?

I do not base my Christology on John 17:3. I have cited so many verses which you have consistently avoided. I have said numerous times before that Jesus existed before Abraham hence the I AM. By the way, is Jesus the Father and the Father is Jesus? These are clearly two different personages. Did Jesus say to himself "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?".

The Bible is so simple my friend! But we muddle it with our biased traditions which cant be substantiated from the Bible. Now answer my questions, Sir!

This Trinity discussion is a digression. Please stay on topic. - website editor

Will do!

Frank7:

I'm surprised you went as far as you did with newbie. Obviously s/he believes that the person who died on the cross was Michael the Archangel.

tg

@TJG, and Frank7, or was it Michael...
May I add a quote from Gerhard Pfandl, Biblical Research Institute. In a paper on the trinity in SDA history, Pfandl presents Carston Johnson's study...

Carsten Johnson, one time professor of theology at Andrews University,
taught that God’s glory consisted not of his supreme might and majesty,
but rather of his humility and self-effacement. His glory was his
“going down” to the level of his creation. And this glory did not become
visible only in Christ’s incarnation, but God has been like that all the
time.
The attribute of “going down” is not an attribute of God
developed only at the critical moment when such “going
down” became a desperate necessity, an emergency measure
for the sake of our salvation. It is not limited to the accident of
our father Adam’s fall into sin in the Garden of Eden. It is an
effulgence of God’s very being, all the time. God’s descent into the depths of creation and redemption is an expression of
His constant nature16
Thus, Johnson believed that when the angels were created Christ was
already concealing his glory in humility. From the fact that “the angel of
the Lord” (Judges 6:22) is a divine being, and Michael is called an angel
(1 Thess 4:16), he concluded that Christ at the creation of the angels
identified himself with them. Therefore, when Satan became jealous of
Christ, God was forced to lay bare all the facts. It was in this context that
the events portrayed in Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 36–38, took place.

This would explain Jesus as Archangel, and man, all the while God.

David...

Thank you!

Frank

I am a non-trinitarian seventh-day adventist just as the adventist pioneers were. Jesus is saying clearly that the Father is the only true God in John 17:3 and Paul is extending the Shema in 1 Cor 8:6 that there one God, the Father and One Lord, Jesus Christ! But these two verses are being feignly ignored. John 3:16 clearly states that God sent His Son (God did not send God!). But all that plain truth is being denied.

“The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father. He was the surpassing glory of heaven. He was the commander of the heavenly intelligences, and the adoring homage of the angels was received by him as his right. This was no robbery of God. "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way," he declares, "before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth; while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth."” {E. G. White, Review and Herald, April 5, 1906 par. 7}

My point is after embracing the trinity ( an RCC dogma created in 325AD), the SDAs lost the moral right to be preachy about the Sabbath (the fourth commandment).

hello sirje

let me reply to you, since you actually took issue with my "vlog" (i can see that you - other than some in this thread - actually took the time to listen to it).

obviously i could have thrown in heb 4 (and i would have done it just for your sake if i had known it before ;-)), but the assignment i gave myself was to exegete on gen 2,1.2. as to your comment, i want to point you in one other direction. while you mention that freedom and love have been realized in christ, i think that especially heb 4 reminds us what "realized" really means. you would probably want to agree that we have to avoid two pitfalls: on the one side a theology of the law, blind to the message of the NT (and the OT, by the way), on the other side a triumphalistic theology (theologia gloriae) which claims that everything is realized already (even if WE don't realize it). your comment seems to point in the latter direction. but the NT message always works with the tension of the already vs. not yet. that is, we are saved, but still living in a hostile environment, with sometimes self-destructive behavior and hardened hearts. we see miracles and feel pain at the same time.
hebrews 4 plays exactly into that tension. there is something realized, but not yet fully realized. now what could be a more brilliant symbol of that tension if it wasn't the crucifixion sabbath, the day between cross and resurrection? salvation accomplished, but not yet risen. now, obviously we live after the resurrection, but admittedly WE are not yet risen, not yet translated, let alone in heaven (for these thoughts i have to give credit to alan lewis, between cross and resurrection. a theology of holy saturday).
so i am not d'accord with you to level all time in a premature attempt to triumphalize the present. life needs to be lived responsibly IN TIME and WITH CHRIST and sabbath-keeping (done in that spirit) will be a strong pointer to both: what has already been realized and what is yet to be realized.

secondly, when you say "It is in Christ that God now lives "in time" - it is in Christ that God reveals deity; and it's in Christ that God reveals His character - not a DAY." you are turning my argument upside down. i said the task was: talk about god by talking about the sabbath. so my theses still runs: while god reveals his character fully and ultimately in christ, he has also revealed his character in a day (and in scripture, and in the law, and in the prophets, and in history, and in my fellow sister and brother, and in my everyday experience and and and).

happy sabbath from hamburg
dennis

Hi Dennis,

Thank you for responding. I was using your title, "Let's Not Be Practical" as the basis of my observations. The OT, as the expression of Hebrew faith, concentrates on ACTIVITY. The OT knows nothing about worship without action. (Except, "Be still and know that I am God"). The 10 Commandments were given in the context of the Hebrew experience. They all encompass action (or a different action). The group gathered at the base of Mt. Sinai didn't know how to be "Still and know God" - in that stillness.

We are all somewhat like that, as well. We don't know how NOT to be "practical"; and so we have made Sabbath keeping, not a time to "be still", but a time to BE practical doing things we think are godly - but we're still being practical. Human nature needs the "concrete" (church for worship - the sacraments for renewal - the cross for redemption). We don't know how to worship without form (a time, a place, the music, the sermon, communal prayer). We don't worship with spirit; we worship with the concrete (practical).

For most Adventists Sabbath keeping is the most practical thing they do - because our salvation depends on it. I know, that's not what the "28" say, but that is how it works out "practically". Our message to the religious world is, "Your faith is in Christ - good; BUT, you must also keep the right day".

I do need to take issue with your thoughts on "redemption not yet realized". It seems that the entire massage Jesus gave was that we may still be IN this world, but we are not OF the world. We were buried and we rose with Christ. That is the GOOD NEWS of the Gospel. We are not living in that interim, mourning the death of our Savior, not knowing that He will be rising in the morning. The Christian lives in the resurrection.

The "kingdom of God" is here now, encroaching on this world, one person at a time. And, since we're talking about the Sabbath and the REST it symbolizes, we already have that rest 24/7. That does not mean we can't get together on Sabbath and worship, but it's not that particular worship, or that particular day that gives us the REST; just as it's not the church building or structure that gives us the place to meet God - "God does not dwell in building made with hands" Paul in "Acts"?).

If we are intent to justify the Sabbath, perhaps it would be more precise to say that the Sabbath symbolizes the re-creation we have as we rest in Christ. That would be playing with words, but we seem to need to justify our practicality - even on Sabbath. By doing Sabbathy things we are making the Sabbath, itself, practical. The only non-practical aspect of God's rest is the Spirit within, which makes our very being at rest "in Christ".

Evidently, all 4 gospel authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit , were obsessed with the sabbath...since they recorded their accounts of Jesus ,decades into the NEW COVENANT/supposed sabbath cessation era and all failed to edit any of their sabbath accounts..in Matt 12, Mark 2 and 3, Luke 6, 13, 14, 23, and John 5, 7, and 9.
AND John was especially remiss, since he included several editing comments in his gospel, and wrote his account years after Paul wrote Col 2:16, Gal 4:10, Rom 14, 1 Cor 16:2.

Sabbath decalogue commandment abrogationists insult the Holy Spirit, gospel authors, and Paul by implying that they are inept.

Jim, Jim, Jim,
If you read carefully, you will find that I don't say we can't or shouldn't "keep" the Sabbath if you wan to (even as a church), but that the meaning of the Sabbath has become a celebration of re-creation. As for Paul and everybody meeting on the Sabbath - they also kept the other Jewish festivals. In fact, they were "together at one accord" during the feast day of Pentecost. (after the resurrection). Should we be keeping Pentecost? In addition, in probably your favorite version of the Bible - the King James, Paul says,...but took leave of them, saying, "I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem; but I will return ..." (Acts 18:21 - curiously left out of the other versions, but not Strong's "Concordance"). Paul also references the "days of Unleavened Bread" in Acts 20:6 We sailed from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread ... Should we be keeping the "days of unleavened bread" as well?

Then we also have I Cor. 5:8 where Paul says, Therefore, let us keep the feast ... referencing the previous verse about Christ being our Passover. If Christ is our Passover, then He is also our Sabbath REST.

Paul used the diaspora Jewish establishments to preach. The Jews met on Sabbath so that is where Paul was on Sabbath. He also references the "first day" of the week in Acts 20:7 when the group met to "break bread" which was another way of saying "communion". I'm sure Paul met with people on all different days; but single out the "first day" is curious.

The point is, Paul was a Jew (Roman citizen - yes). Early Christians were Jews - who kept all the Jewish feasts, including the Sabbath. Paul also said, One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats does so for the Lord ... Yes, this was in the middle of a discussion about meat offered to idols, but the oblique reference to "holy days kept or not" still applies.

I'm sorry, anonymous7, you've got it all wrong.
Worship is about relationship, not obedience. Worship is about joy in the Lord, not religious performance. Worship is about living with Jesus, our best friend, not about seeking God's approval on the basis of one's own religious behavior.
The present-day focus on correct religious performance is most disturbing. What we need is growth in the spirit. We need the "living water" Jesus offers. Then, and only then, will our actions have any meaning. Without the working from within, our actions are just "filthy rags," as Jesus pointed out.

Dennis, I enjoyed hearing an article "from the horse's mouth" with a human attached.
I appreciated being exposed to thoughts from cultures and their thinkers not easily accessible to me.
(And it is so so pathetic to see how so many responders on this list have not spent the 20 minutes to listen to what you were saying, but just blast in with their own little agendas!)
Viele danken für die tief aber praktishe Wörter und unpraktishe Ermutigung!
And by the way that was one huge German pillow you have to rest on!
Jack

Sirje,

My latest posts were not to reply to your input but in response to the usual resident sabbath abrogationist poster(s) who are victims of the deceiving majority clergy.

Make that "due" to the fall

Jim, just sad. Rome did not promote Mithras. How often do we have to deal with this kind of disinformation? Christians worshiped on the Lord's Day from the 1st century on. December 25th is 9 months after the Annunciation on March 25th, it had nothing to do with Mithras. You owe an apology to the Roman martyrs.

You misunderstand Augustine: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vii.1.LV.html#vii.1.LV-Page_310

For a Catholic response to these common quotes from the Fathers see: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/index.php?print=249

@ Fr. Jim. Eusebius of Caesarea in AD 339 stated, "All that is prescribed for the Sabbath, we have transferred to the Lord's Day (note 'transferred'), inasmuch as it is the most important, the one which dominates, the first and the one which has more value than the Sabbath of the Jews."
I recognize that Eusebius was an early Christian and predated the split between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church.
Yet, the Catechism of the Council of Trent (quoted in Rev. Donovan's book of the same title, 1929) stated in part, "The point of difference is evident: the other commandments of the Decalogue are precepts of the natural law, obligatory at all times and unalterable, and hence, after the abrogation of the Law of Moses, all the commandments contained in the two tablets are observed by Christians, not however because their observance is commanded by Moses, but because they accord the law of nature and are enforced by its dictate: whereas this commandment, if considered as to the time of its fulfillment, is not fixed and unalterable, but is susceptible to change, and belongs not to the moral but ceremonial law. Neither is it a principle of the natural law: we are not instructed by the natural law to worship God on the Sabbath rather than on any other day."
From where does the notion come that one of the commandments, according to scripture written by God's own finger, is purely ceremonial and not according to natural law? I am amazed with the reasoning, or lack thereof, not to speak of the arrogance of assuming the power to change what God has penned.
I have no desire to offend you. I would honestly like to hear your explanation.
Ole Kristensen
ole@kristensen.us

It took me a while to go through all the threads here. I cannot get rid of the impression that many of the above people commenting on Dennis' vlog have never ever taken the time of 20 min to listen to but spent hours to spread their weird thinking which has no effect on my every day life (inlcuding those who like me living in a post-modern world not caring about such sectarian discussions).
Thank you Dennis for giving me some of your thoughts to contemplate on them and so getting some positive input to meet the challenges this week will bear. Hope to hear more from you here.
si.

Carolyn,

Thanks for the post about your experience which is most likely typical.
How do you think this SS approach prevails?
If the pastors continue their non-fat ,dry milk typical topical shallow, hollow, homilies, can we not expect the same from the teachers, who listen to them and emulate the superficial nonsense?

We have a 50 minute , large, 50-100 attenders SS class and it is usally only myself , attending the class who makes any mention of applying the lesson to outreach efforts or taking the lesson past the shallow nurturing mode.

Basically..SDA pastors and SS teachers are poorly trained and inept.

The sooner most SDA pastors quit, retire, get terminated, the better for the SDA denominational vehicle.

This is MATT 23 for 2012

David,

I appreciate the input.

I suggest that you read Gospel Workers p 196-199 to see why I think that the basic approach to teaching in the SDA church is so immature and/or clueless.

As long as pastors only play amateur religious shrinks by presenting nurturing sermons and stick with that approach, then narcistic, meistic oriented shallow teaching approaches wil prevail.

As far as the large class envirionment being a lecture..I have experienced this at the LLU church sabbath school in the main sanctuary. The large class of AG Maxwell, Tim Jennings and the one I attend is not a lecture or I would avoid it. Including myself, we usually have 6 and above who participate with comments or questions. This can get real disruptive when the comments/questions are digressions because most class attenders do not read through , never mind study, their SS lesson.
The basic weakness of almost all SS class is related to the GW 196-199 text. Pastors and teachers don't know how to equip the saints for outreach or ministry..or they are afraid or apathetic to try.

The usual basic goal of sermons and SS classes is to get the people to only behave better.

Then what follows is the occassional ,usual lip service on 3 angels message,outreach endeavors....

but let the pros do it..just give offerings to let them do it..

I have attended over a dozen SUNday churches and the SDA classes and sermons rank down near the bottom of competency level related to their presentations.

I have seen SDA play musical churches or leave, for 40 years, due to poorly trained or inept pastors and teachers.