We should never forget that there are honest, sincere Christians who read and interpret the Bible differently. By emphazing certain texts, and glossing over others, they come to different conclusions. We see it constantly here for those who take the Bible seriously. We should not be surprised, then, if on this subject as well as others, there will not be consensus.

Once someone has accepted and believes a Biblical concept that was written for and to a particular group long before there were any Christians and that it applies nevertheless, to all Gentile Christians, it can begin to take on an aura and is vested with many great benefits: benefits accrued to those who accept and adopt it. IOW: It is good because I believe it; I believe it, therefore, it is good.

No one can deny, that according to the Torah and its writers, there were Ten commandments, and hundreds of others, that were given to the Hebrews at a time when the Hebrews were in search for a distinct identity. This identity was given them as they wrote, by their god and was not to any others. It was in celebration of their deliverance from Egypt, and as the Priests also who wrote the Creation story describing each days' activities, this was another correlative for remembering these commands. The question also arises: which was the first creation story, and which version of the Ten is most often quoted, and why?

The importance of the Fourth Commandment was a discovery of the early Adventists, and because there was another group, The Seventh-day Baptists, they firsts aligned themselves with these Baptists and adopted their worship on the seventh day. Its especial place was given added impetus by EGW, which spotlighted that commandment as being the most important, and the one most disobeyed by all other Christians.

That the Sabbath given to the Jews has never been changed is also recognized by all Christians. Paul, however, in his letters to early Christians, reminded them that they were never to judge anyone on a day they esteemed, and that it was not to be disputed. The early Christians, beginning right after the Resurrection, recognized that Christ arose on the first day of the week and in honor of that occasion, they began meeting and breaking bread on the first day of the week.

The Jews who accepted the Messiah, insisted that these new "pagan" believers should be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses (called "Moses' Law" in numerous places),which referred to the corpus of laws given Moses. Peter replied that to impose burdens that they and their ancestors were unable to keep, would provoke God's anger; and that belief in Jesus Christ was the one way to salvation.

There is no sacredness that can be extended to a particular day. While it was a simple exercise in a small theocracy, all living in a tight community, not associating with others, it still was enforced by capital punishment for disobedience. There are so many exceptions made today for those who try, usually quite unsuccessfully, to cease from work on a specific calendar day, that the "rest" mentioned in Hebrews, cannot apply to one day.

The paradox is that for those who wish to observe the Sabbath as mentioned in the Torah, they must overlook the writings of the NT that never require or command a special day to the new Gentile Christians. It is likely that the Jewish-Christians continued to observe the Sabbath, but as former pagans, they had not worshiped on any particular day and if they were given such a day, there is no command within the NT writings to that effect. Was it overlooked?

If one is to understand the Sabbath, one must understand these points:

1. Genesis 2:1-3 - these verses never command a Sabbath keeping to man. It represents a completion of creation. Afterall, in John 5: 16-18 work must have a different meaning to God/Jesus, because Jesus says they are always working:

John 5:16So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

2. The Sabbath was given uniquely to the Jews, no other country or people. It was the 1st Covenant. Deut 5: 1-3

1 Moses summoned all Israel and said:
Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.

Is there any doubt that the NT verses in 2 Cor 3:7, 8 are talking of the Ten Commandments:

7Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?

3. The 1st Covenant was fulfilled at Christ's Death. Matthe 5:17 doesn't abolish the law but Christ himself fulfills the Law. He set up a new Covenant.

4. So how are we to live if there is no law? This is where I think Ratzlaff gets a little off. The NT elaborate on the behaviors that are to be the fruits of our relationship with Christ:

http://cranfordville.com/NTViceLists.html
http://cranfordville.com/NTVirtureLists.html

5. The New Rest Day is "Today" as set up by God (Heb 4:7), and of which the Sabbath of the OT was a shadow. Col 2: 16,17

6. The 1st Covenant (OLD) is obsolete:

Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

7. It is not wrong to worship on Saturday, Tuesday or Thursday. You are saved by faith in Jesus, not the day you keep.

An interesting and good discussion topic Alex.
I especially liked the line, "In the end, I'd have a lot more time for the ex-arguments if they didn't look so often like they were publicly Martinizing their personal soteriology."

I have read accounts (ex-arguments) like the ones you mention. At some point they start to sound to me like the teacher did on the Charlie Brown cartoons.

BBLLLAAHHHbbllaaahhhBBBllaaHHHHblahblah

I scrolled down to read more discussion about Cliffs ephiphany of Ratzlaff's personal soteriology and after the first paragraph I thought I was in a Charlie Brown cartoon again.

I am looking forward to discussion of the topic you brought to our attention not personal takes on the history of the church.

Alex

Yours is a fresh and refreshing look at celebrating Sabbath!

It seems to part of a more general theme that I think I'm picking up from you:

"Please don't bring the tired old controversies, including their typical and predicatable alternatives, of the last century into this one."

I find this so helpful! Can't we have some new issues? And can't the old ones be framed in new ways? I certainly hope so!

Gerald Winslow distinguishes between "right reasons" and "good reasons" for celebrating Sabbath. The first make it a duty; the second a delight.

Once when teaching world religions on a secular campus, I had the students read "The Search for God at Harvard" or whatever the title is. When I asked them what one thing from the book they would most like to incorporate into their own lives, the overwhelming majority of them said: "Sabbath! We'd love to have 24 hours each week just to enjoy each other and think about the meaning of our lives!"

People who approach the Sabbath with a "do I have to celebrate it?" question are way behind the times no matter which way they answer it.

Nobody MUST celebrate Sabbath! Anybody who has something more important to do should certainly do it. But I can't think of anything I'd rather do!

You are right and so is Cliff!

David, I certainly did not, in my post, approach the Sabbath from "do I have to." On the other hand the SDA church approaches it from "you have to". Right?

I asked a pastor once, if I was evangelizing/witnessing to a water treatment plant manager, to become an SDA, and he had an every other weekend schedule, could he be an Adventist. He told me he would have to get a schedule so he could attend on Saturday. Now, using the product of this man's labor everyday and Saturday morning, with a shower, the answer startled me. Who picks and chooses the jobs of necessity.

Another story, when I lived in the Silver Spring, Maryland area, I attended one church that had a member who was a police officer who had been excommunicated from another SDA church for performing his mandated Friday night drunk detail. The church I attended welcomed him with open arms. Go figure.

It's not "do I have to" it is "you have to" that creates the problem, everyone enjoys time off, Sheeeeesh.

I am rather attracted to Rabbi Abram Heschel's 'Cathederal in Time' concept placed into contra position to 'Catherals in Space' symbolic of materialism.

His book 'The Sabbath' is more than refreshing.

RDS

How right you are! We shouldn't go around pushing Sabbath on to people any more than we should shove white chocoate and macadamia nut cookies [my favorite] down their throats.

Jesus said it best: Sabbath was made for people, not people for Sabbath.

The lists of the kinds of "work" people can do on Sabbath are worse than silly. They are attempts of some people to force their view of things on to others.

Victor

Heschel? Yes! He helped many of us make the shift from when Sabbath is to what it means. What a blessing!

Profound blog, Alex, (at least the part I understand. What "Martinizing" are you talking about? Rowan and Martin? Dean Martin?). BTW, though it's not directly on the subject, it kind of is . . . I rarely read NT Times best sellers but I am in the middle of Reading Lolita in Tehran, and my mind is blown. Utterly fantastic! It sure gives you a glimpse of what life could be like under religious fanatics. A good lesson for any conservative Christians who want to uphold standards (not that think it would be to big a problem on here, eh?).

Also this months Harper's had the blog entries of this kid, raised in a fundamentalist home, who went out a few months ago and shot up a church picnic or something. It was creepy.

How do we seek to uphold standards that reflect the faith we profess without turning into what they have in Iran? (Again, not that I think most folks on here worry about that too much)

Charley Brown signing off

The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.
Far too many Seventh-day Adventists approach the Sabbath as did the Jews in Christ's day. While at Loma Linda I gave a general lesson study on the Sabbath, in which I said, one had really not "kept" the Sabbath until they had walked a "Roos" mile. Dr. Roos was a pathologist who was also a botanist. We would drive either to the mountains or desert and walk- up to five miles while Dr. Roos explained every little flower, twig, and weed. That was 44 years ago. Now once in a while we now take a Roos mile with Dr. Don Yost who is a birder. He keeps lists type, place, time, weather, and other small stuff.
He has book after book on birds. But what a wonderful way to celebrate Creation and rest from one's labors at the same time. Sometimes even a potluck is a good rest--but I still prefer birding or a Roos mile. I like Graham Maxwell's comment on the Sabbath, "You farmers, plumbers, bricklayers, etc--the Sabbath is a good time to read a book. For me, I read books 6+ hours every day. Sabbath is a good time to trim a few roses for a scholar. So as a student on the college farm, I milked cows, fed the hens, cleaned out the barn, and fed the horses, and cattle. All in time for Sabbath School--Oh yes I had to shower on the Sabbath. The point is Sabbath is a very personal Man thing between a man and his God. So I don't read Ratzloff or even EGW on how to get one's shoes shined before the sun went down. Oh yes, one of my stories:
I practiced Orthodontics in Milwaukee in a group of Lutherns, Each Friday, at about 1:15 the senior member would yell down the trilevel building: "Hay Tom, The sun's going down!" I would yell back, Thanks, Ralph! I'm keeping a eye on it! I"ll be out of the parking lot in plenty of time to be home in time to shin my shoes. But thanks. That would be repeated 5-6 times every Friday Afternoon. Alway in great fun. Ralph referred me more patients than any other dentist in Milwaukee. The Sabbath is a delight, let us enjoy our time on earth with each other and with our Creator. Best his heart I think Ratsloff is working over time to get legalism out of the church. But if you've read him once, why on earth would you read him again? Tom

I'm in the middle of reading spree on Sabbath-keeping by Jewish and Christian authors. And lately I've become convinced that a huge part of Sabbath-keeping for me is the need for limits. In a world where I almost never have to deny myself any experience that I think I want, in a world where the relentless expansion of capitalism is what I'm basing my retirement on, and in a world where I can never never never do enough or do it well enough---I need Sabbath.

Sabbath tells me that sometimes I gain more by doing less, by reducing my consumption and production and simply BEING (alone, before God, and with my loved ones).

I don't do this well enough.

I could use communal support in taking (as Alex reminded us in an earlier blog) a Sabbath from all sorts of media. I still don't know how to combine participation in a worship service with rest--so many people work hard to make communal worship happen. I need the communal worship of a Sabbath service, but not at the expense of stressing about getting food ready for potluck, preparing a Sabbath School and being a greeter. Even organizing an outreach can turn into work and "productivity" and stress for me.

I don't know what the solution is. But I'm happy to keep seeking rest and celebration and creation care in my Sabbath-keeping. And I'm glad that I've learned that it's not about avoiding the mark of the beast or showing I'm part of the chosen few who might be "really" obeying God because I keep "all" the commandments. The Sabbath is way too important in my life for this sort of self-congratulation.

Thanks Alex and Cliff for this reminder!

I have an Adventist friend that took a class from a Messianic Jew on Christianity and Judaism.

He figured that as an Adventist, he would have much in common when it came to beliefs with the teacher--the importance of Sabbath observance, kosher foods, etc.

He was surprised to find out that his teacher did not think that "Gentile" Christians needed to observe Torah at all, but were under "the Noahic covenant" (Gen. 8:15?).

Anyway, this came as a surprise to him (and me) and seems to support Elaine's point.

Is Sabbath observance, as good as it is, something that is a matter of "adiaphora" (indifference) in the NT? "You can keep it, nor not... It's all good. Let's celebrate Jesus"?

Zane,

I suggest one thing is for certain. It is of first importance that we worship Christ the Lord of the Sabbath.

To not do so leads to all types of man made religion and philosophy that may even include Sabbath.

regards,

pat

Like Elaine, I don't think there is much exegetical ground on which to mandate Sabbath observance for Christians--if Paul gets to define Christian duty. Nor do I think it's possible to defend on any ground, Jewish or Christian, the pivotal, apocalyptic role that 19th century SDAs attributed to the issue of congregating on one day as opposed to another. Still, I think that Sabbath-keeping as such is a good idea. Good for the family, good for the environment, good for the community.

Interestingly, though, the Bible does not speak to the issue of HOW to do it. The Old Testament simply mandated that all people, slaves or free, were to get one day off from the daily grind. There is no word about worship. Synagogues did not exist and there is no record, to my knowledge, of people getting together on a weekly basis, before the inter-testamental era.

In the New Testament Jewish Sabbath-keeping (which Jesus and the early church took part in) is referred to but apart from the addition of a synagogue service, Sabbath-keeping is defined in the negative, with the exception of the "Sabbath was made for man" comment.

Maybe that could be one contribution SDAs could make to Christianity--to do what the Scriptures left unfinished--lay down the principles for turning a negative into a positive. I suspect that one important reason (among others) that ex-SDAs devote as much time as they do to the Sabbath issue, is that it felt like a straight jacket while they wore it, and that casting it off, felt like liberation.

Charles Scriven

Big thank-you to both Alex and Cliff.

The whole drift into Constantinian compromise was fueled, in substantial part, by the gradual refusal of the early church to avow the Jewish roots of Christian existence. Jews were dissenters. Christians became lapdogs of the imperial establishment. (And this latter is certainly true of many of the clergy, and most lay Christians, to this day. For a long time, it as become more and more the case for Adventist clergy and lay members.)

Now all (I barely exaggerate) of evangelical Christianity is practically hostile to the SUBSTANCE of the Jewish vision. We still routinely hear preachers demonize Jewish legalism, when in fact legalism is a temptation for Jews and Christians alike. And in fact UNCONDITIONAL divine love is a feature--if not a totally consistent feature--of both testaments. And in fact both testaments exhibit a passion for OBEDIENCE.)

Jewish rabbis sometimes say: "The Jew don't keep the Sabbath; the Sabbath keeps us." People like Ratzlaff--for a smart man, an extraordinarily shallow thinker--don't understand that 1) the Sabbath is a gift of grace and 2) the Sabbath reminds us to back away from the call of the establishment to genuflect before bogus (and often violent) gods.

I can say all this WITHOUT saying that the Sabbath is, first and foremost, God's way of separating the good guys from the bad guys. Paul didn't believe that, and neither do I.

But the Sabbath IS one of God's crucial gifts, and if we ever refused the gift we would certainly be as irrelevant as most of Christianity is.

Again, thanks to Cliff and Alex.

Is there more than a semantic difference between Sabbath-keeping and Sabbath observance? What is rest? What is worship?
Can both occur at the same time? These nonsensical questions plague our young people and many old as well. If the Sabbath was made for man, then it should be beneficial to man not a burden. The Jews and not a few SDA's make it a burden. It seems to me what Jesus was saying, the Sabbath is between a "man" and his God. Keep the theologians out of it. I think Paul was saying exactly the same thing. So Cliff enjoy your Sabbath and I'll enjoy mine. May Ratzloff be as fortunate.
The problems within Adventism are far beyond a specific 24 hour period as Thread after Thread on Spectrum so indicates.

Church men from the ages have made it their business to argue over who is the "greatest" seems like that argument began in Heaven. I think Jesus was telling the women at the wsll that God is not bound by time, space, or circumstances. We are therefore, we need a periodic rest--even God said so. Enjoy. I like to break bread with friends, followed by a lively discussion before or during a walk or a ride through the country. I would enjoy a Sabbath sermon if the Sabbatharian had anything to say. So I listen to a Presbyterian with a message from God. Tom

Tom,

"...a 'man'and his God"?

The Sabbath is about community. You're as "modern" as Sinatra's "I Did It My Way" when you talk like this.

Isn't part of our passion for scripture a refusal to kowtow to modernity's individualism, which has so often led to barbarism--think of Nietzsche's disdain for inherited morality; think of the peepshow; think of Donald Trump's house--in the midst of opulence.

Chuck

Being the obsessive personality that I am...Sabbath helps me to disconnect from what can be my obsessive attachment to achievement, etc...and to reconnect more deeply with God, with fellow travellers, and with my own self. I become a human 'being' again and not a human 'doing.' With church responcibility, it may not always feel this way, but after a full day away from the daily grind, I feel my life perspective has been altered for the better. I have had sustained, concentrated time to see once again that there is something way bigger than Frank's own concerns and pursuits.

And that's what Sabbath is to me...a gift of time. Time that I would probably never carve out if it were simply left up to me. Time to hear God's voice in community, time to spend with family, time to visit someone who is hurting, time to stroll through a park with my wife and friends and simply enjoy. Time to taste freedom in Christ in a more intensified way than I can on the other six days of the week.

Jesus said it best,"The Sabbath was made for man/mankind..."
To me, His actions and 'work' on the Sabbath constantly reveal God's intentions and purpose for giving it and his constant intentions and purpose towards us in general. It is for our healing, our uplifting, our betterment, and our freedom. To view Sabbath as an OT relic or vesture of a covenant of works, is simply to misunderstand God's intention of which Jesus spoke, and which he constantly modeled. Something he demonstrated not only in his entire life, but also in reference to the day itself.

Thanks for the post, Alex!

Frank

We can all agree that humans need time: time to meditate and contemplate the world around him. The problem, as I see it, is that too long Adventism has insisted that a particular day was so important to God that that day, and no other, should be used for rest and yes, to worship him (although there was no worship mentioned in the initiating of a day).

Has anyone set forth a NT principle that Christians were ever instructed to set apart a particular day in seven to rest and worship? That has been ignored while addressing all the benefits of a day set apart that is specifically different than our regular routine.

We here in the U.S. have the benefit of a 5-day work week. The former Israelite slaves most assuredly never enjoyed such a respite. God, in his infinite wisdom gave them a new life as freemen and the privilege of one day a week for rest. Interestingly, as has been pointed out earlier on another blog, although animals and slaves were to be given rest, women are not mentioned at all. It has been noted before that while the Sabbath was made for man, women were excluded, and on personal testimony, they can acknowledge that it has often been the busiest and most hectic day of the week. Ditto for pastors with the activities of that day when church services are held on that day. Are we truly resting on that day with the plethora of activities that have been planned? It can be seriously doubted.

What if individuals, because of their work or other responsibilities, chose another day for rest and meditation? Would that be a "Sabbath" for them? Introducing a different outlook on the Sabbath, as Heschel and others have done, it still is speaking of a certain day of the week, not just anyone of the seven.

If the idea of enjoying a special day for rest, meditation, and away from our regular duties is the main focus, then how can SDAs continue to preach and require abstinence from work on a particular day? To say on the one hand that the whole idea of a Sabbath is to rest and enjoy time with God; and then explain that it can only be performed on a particular day is to negate the importance of a specific day. Has Adventism
dug itself into a hole with this concept? Remember the rule of holes. Does it not apply here? How can an SDA evangelist preach the importance of a specific day if he uses only the NT, which should be the last word. Shouldn't the OT always be interpreted through the New? Does the OT trump the New?

Wow Alex, you really fell for that one by Cliff, you write:

"In the end, I'd have a lot more time for the ex-arguments if they didn't look so often like they were publicly Martinizing their personal soteriology."

Cliff did not give any Ex Adventists arguments, he gave his interpretation without any quotes from the ex Adventist of what he (Cliff) thinks ex Adventists are saying. Think about it what do you think Cliff thinks about many of your beliefs, do you think he has those right i.e. correctly interpreted views about what you believe and say?

Chuck

You know a lot more about Sinatra that you do me or Scripture when you respond as you did. When you have the time and inclination read a little of Paul and even John. I have held you in much higher regard as to your hunamity and intellectual logic that your last blog demonstrated. You can do better I am sure. If I were to order priorities, it would put God first and the Sabbath somewhere down the line. My praise and thankfulness is for His love and grace is 24/7. I "kept' the Sabbath as a faithful youngster throughout WWII. I was bound to be a Daniel in the 20th Century only to find in my maturity it was a human invention to "hasten" the return of a Jesus that disappointed 50 people in Portland, Maine in 1844 plus nothing. Worship yes, Rest yes, When take your pick! I never though you were a kin to Cliff. Tom

Tom,

I have said this before and I believe it to be true. That is that "traditionalist" SDA's and "liberal theolgical SDA's" as well as Liberal theologians in general have this in common.

There is a de-emphasis of Justification by Faith Alone by them. This opens the door to much religiousity and philosophy in the "religions" of mankind regarding man's duty to god and their neighbor according to "mankinds understanding." This perceived duty may often be alien to what God has actually directed.

regards,

pat

Pat

Thanks, I agree. As I commented earlier in another thread.
Kenneth Wood wrote and editorial piece in the ,to which I objected, in which he described Righteousness by faith as "mere". I think that tell a lot about the ego centricity of the remmant. Tom

Hi Elaine!

I think the first step, which is open to everyone, is the "sabbathness" of the Sabbath, something that can occur any day of the week. Perhaps this is one reason why pastors often take "Minister's Mondays" to relax.

The "seventh-dayness" of Sabbath is not for everybody because it is a way of (a) affirming our Hebrew heritage and (b) resisting Constantinian Christianity, as Chuck has described it.

Both ways we offer a gift, not announce as a demand.

Pat

I think we agree that in their proper meanings and order both justification and sanctification are important features of a Christian's life.

My hesitancy is that it often feels to me that some frame these issues in the way that they were worked out in the sixteenth century when much of the discussion has moved on.

It's not that the Majesterial Reformers were always wrong, though sometime they were. It is that their burning questions are not always ours.

Tillich, a Lutheran theologian, observes that the first and medieval Christians were peroccupied with death, as their art and literature and so forth amply demonstrate.

The sixteenth century Reformers were really concerned with the issue of guilt, as we see most vividly in Luther's experience.

But modern people are more concerned about life's meaning, he wrote. Death and guilt are still important issues; however, they take second place to the anxiety that our lives might be pointless.

If Tillich were writing today, I think that he would say that postmoderns are primarily concerned with community--past, present, future. I should not put words into his mouth, however.

To keep on giving the same answers when the predominate questions have changed is not always the best way to go, in my opinion.

The other side of it is that today there are still many people who are more concerned with guilt than they are with either death, meaning or community. They should spend a lot of time with Luther and Calvin.

Many thanks!

Dave

"Remember the rule of holes. Does it not apply here? How can an SDA evangelist preach the importance of a specific day if he uses only the NT, which should be the last word. Shouldn't the OT always be interpreted through the New?"

How can the NT be the last word to a person that thinks the whole bible is a intentional myth? And why would a person care what trumped what if it was all a myth anyway?

WOW! Sort of disappointed in the level of discussion on this topic so far. Most on the level of thanking God for "a gift". Two posts in I gave some texts that I had never had presented to me in our schools when I attended. A discussion of covenants, a discussion of New Covenant Theology, and discussion of fulfillment of the 1st Covenant by Christ's death and He being the True Rest.

This is a radical difference in the way Adventists have seen the Sabbath. Yet no discussion or response, a sort of status quo in the rest of the posts.

Scriven, suggested that the Sabbath is what makes us more valuable/relevant than the rest of Christiandom. WOW! What a statement. I thought the Gospel and how everything related to that is what makes the church relevant.

Dave

Tell me in 25 words or less, How Chuck promotes a sense of community in his retort to my comments? My hat is off to you if you can make any sense out of Tillich. I think he coined the idea that God is dead. If God is dead==Why a Sabbath or a community? Maybe just a shut door community? I have read Tillch-I am afraid I never understood Tillich, less likely to quote or refer to him in a debate on the Sabbath. A most unlikely source to Cliff or Chuck. Most likely, Bible Readings for the Home Circle is their primary reference point. My hope is built on the One who kept the Sabbath perfectly, not as the scribes, lawyers, and theologians of His day or ours. Tom

RDS,

You bring up issues of covenants, relationships of the covenants, and Sabbath that are truly involved topics. Any posting here, or response to a series of texts could only be superficial at best.

Maybe I'm reading into where you're coming from, but it sounds like you have read much of Ratzlaff's work. Correct me if I'm wrong. A good counter balance on the issue of the relationship of the covenants is a recent book by Skip MacCarty, "In Granite or Ingrained?... What the Old and New Covenants reveal about the Gospel, the Law, and the Sabbath." While I don't necessarily agree with every exegesis(specifically Col. 2:14-17), I feel he makes some very compelling points about the continuity of the covenants. It provides a balance to the sharp dichotomy and discontinuity upon which "New Covenant" writers like Ratzlaff almost exclusively focus.

As a side point, I've often felt that the sharp break of covenants in Christian, and especially Lutheran theology and thinking, goes logically hand in hand with replacement theology. The church as a replacement for Israel, under a covenant that simply replaces the covenant for Israel, has helped fuel a historical discounting by Christians and Christianity of anything Jewish. Taken to its extreme, we see what fruit this has born throughout Western history.

Thanks...

Frank

RDS,

Yeah...I agree, the gospel is the primary relevancy of the church. Any primary marker before that, is putting the cart before the horse and subverting the whole thing.

However, I think that the posts focusing on the Sabbath as gift, have been personal ways of saying that the Sabbath, when truly appropriated and appreciated, is an outgrowth and symbol of the gospel and the experience of the gospel. Again, this would get into the deeper issues of the relationship of covenants, and the relationship of law and gospel if one were to delve beyond the level of personal experience.

Thanks...

Frank

Tom

1. "My hope is built on the One who kept the Sabbath perfectly, not as the scribes, lawyers, and theologians of His day or ours." Exactly!

2. Tillich was both a historian of ideas and a systematic theologian. I was referring to his suggestions regarding the history of Western religion and culture.

3. We have two threads going here. One is on the Sabbath and the other is on justification, the wrath of God, etc. My remarks to Elaine were on the first topic (sabbath); my comments to Pat were on the second (reformation theology). Sorry I didn't distinghish these more clearly.

4. Did Tillich believe in God? That depends upon what we mean by the word "God," right? I think his depection of God as "the ground of being," or the basis for everything else, is right as far as it goes. But that is not all God is.

5. Tillich did speak of the death of God; however, he was not one of the so-called famous "death of God" theologians; they were Barthians. He had something else in mind.

6. I think postmoderns yearn for community more so than most everything else. I leave your "issues" with Chuck to him and you. Have fun!

7. Your reports on your "sabbath nature walks" are wonderful!

Many thanks!

Dave

Frank, to assume that I just regurgitate another's thought without owning them myself, may say more about how you gain your positions than how I do.

I have, unlike Cliff, cancelled my subscription to Proclamation, Ratzlaff's periodical, when he refused to get his second cousin's wife, Colleen Tinker to remove this from her own internet site, but made her the editor of his periodical:

http://www.formeradventist.com/studies/topical/thumbnailsketch.html

[see last paragraph]

She claims SDAs originate from the devil. That was enough for me to realize that neither the Tinkers nor Ratzlaff had anything to offer, and my own study of the issue with the Holy Spirit's direction is where I had to go.

Read those texts I gave carefully. Look to see if Noah kept the Sabbath, or Abraham for that matter. Read Hebrews 4 and 8. Then come back to the subject at hand.

"The "seventh-dayness" of Sabbath is not for everybody because it is a way of (a) affirming our Hebrew heritage and (b) resisting Constantinian Christianity, as Chuck has described it."

David, why is so important that we affirm our Hebrew heritage? We are now new creatures in Christ Jesus and the old things have been put away.

I arrived at this opinion from the clear and plain testimony of Paul's letters that were overwhelming and convincing that the letters written in stone (what could they possibly be, if not the Ten?) were obsolete.

Also, in his letter to the Galatians he was very clear that "the Law was to be our guardian until Christ came...Now that that time has come we are no longer under that guardian....there are now no more distinctions between Jew and Greek." If that is not crystal clear as it has been to millions of Christians, please explain your understanding of those, and similar words from Paul. What sort of hermeneutics or exegesis can lead one to believe that the Law is still to be our guardian??

Why does "Constantian Christianity"--something that occurred 1700 years ag--have an influence on us today, when the NT writings have been around since before Constantine? Why not call it "Pauline" or "New Testament Christianity" which began long before Constantine? Do we switch back-and-forth for doctrine between the Hebrew Scriptures and those of the New Testament, depending on a desired emphasis?

BTW, there will always be a Jewish Sabbath. Is there a Christian Sabbath?

Thanks for your reply Dave.

You comment, "The sixteenth century Reformers were really concerned with the issue of guilt, as we see most vividly in Luther's experience.

But modern people are more concerned about life's meaning, he wrote. Death and guilt are still important issues; however, they take second place to the anxiety that our lives might be pointless."

That is a fair appraisal. My question might be why people are now preoccupied that their lives might be pointless and they have anxiety with no associated guilt?

Could it be that they have not been confronted with the biblical concept of their sinfulness that they might see their need of Grace? Perhaps they have simply rejected that information since if there is a God He is simply love and there is no wrath against sinners...ever. I'm ok and you're ok in our community of meaning. After all there is no objective truth and final authority or judgment that might lead to the question, "what must I do to be saved?"

Is acknowledgement of their sinfulness (the loneliest word in today's society)and being justified and growing in holiness perhaps what might give their lives meaning and purpose? Is the Spirit's promptings that which leads to that end? Or is their seeking for some other meaning the problem itself out of which brings their lack of meaning and anxiety?

Thank you,

pat

Pat,

Do you feel that sinfulness is the loneliest word today? If people want to find meaning, then to be lonely and feel all alone would be a much worse problem, IMO. How does one feeling sinful give meaning to her life? It's the old bait-and-switch technique: First, you must be convinced of your sinfulness, that you are a sinner. Once properly convinced, then the magic remedy is offered.

Is it your experience that people who are aware of their sinfulness are happier, kinder and more loving? It would seem to be the reverse: when one feels he comes from a loving family and is respected by friends, that will shape him to also be kind and loving, not to be convinced of his sin and unworthiness until...

If Christians are truly happier, then why do the Danes feel that they are happier than citizens of any other country and they are rarely religious? The secret: they are content with life; they have realistic expectations for the future; plus there are fewer risks because their government takes care of them from the cradle to the grave, including free university education.
While they are taxed at approximately 50%, compare the U.S. taxes PLUS the health care, education, and other amenities that we also pay for individually. Probably no less than 50%, also. Security does produce more happiness with less to worry about.

Certainly, Christians throughout the ages have been filled with fear of Hell and eternal damnation by their religion. While the focus has of late been more on heaven, it is still our own personal salvation which is the appeal isn't it?

OK, this thread calls for a little dose of reality, folks.

I am an ex-Adventist and occasionally check this thread, just to see what the Adventist thought world is up to. I was pleased to see this thread, because the Sabbath has been a hard issue for me to deal with. I was curious about the responses. But, like RDS said, I am a little disappointed by the discussion (although Elaine has some excellent questions - someone should answer her!). So instead of jumping into the theological, intellectual, historical part of the discussion, thought I'd throw in a personal perspective (which is of course theological, but oh, we won't go there...)

I kept the 7th day Sabbath for the first 27 years of my life. It was a joyous occasion, something I looked forward to.

When I decided to leave the Adventist church for a more mainstream evangelical Christian church, I kept Sunday. But I felt tremendous guilt, like I was betraying a sacred trust. Eventually though, those feelings disinegrated, the more I learned and EXPERIENCED Christ as my true rest and peace, each and every day.

Looking back at my life as an Adventist and Sabbath-keeper, I see that I was quite dependent on the idea of the Sabbath. So I often found myself being more religious than usual on the Sabbath, more than other days of the week. After all, Sabbath was the day you caught up on that kind of thing. I also believed that if I only kept Sabbath, then everything would be alright (i.e., in terms of my life, my salvation, etc.) Now, don't jump in here with thoughts on how I was keeping the Sabbath. I admit, there were seasons when I was not keeping it well. But, for me, the Saturday part had quite a sway over me. Almost as if I was worshiping the keeping of Saturday rather than the worship of God and the celebration of Christ in my life.

Maybe some Adventists can truly celebrate and worship God on Sabbath. But for me, having to keep the Saturday Sabbath in the manner that Adventists teach became a burden and a hindrance to knowing the one true God.

When I started going to an evangelical mainstream Christian church, I relearned what grace meant. I met Christ there. I surrended my heart to him. And I truly started living the New Covenant message. I changed. So don't scoff the New Covenant; its a powerful message. And in my experience, I found that the dictation of a day to worship, like God had given the Israelites, didn't appear anywhere in my study of the Bible.

I'm OK with people worshipping on Saturday. But I don't think it is a rule or a mandate. Sunday or Tuesday also works. And even if liberal Adventists agree with this, the formal church is not doing anything about it - still only touting messages of how to keep the Sabbath....so I felt like I had to pick...Adventist lifestyle or a life in Christ? It was a personal decision, but I felt like I couldn't truly be a Christian in a community like Adventism. Not with regulations (whether they be there as directives or gifts) like the Sabbath hanging over the denomination's head. The Sabbath gave me much weekly rest, but it did not give me eternal salvation or an abiding peace. I have those things now.

OK, this thread calls for a little dose of reality, folks.

I am an ex-Adventist and occasionally check this thread, just to see what the Adventist thought world is up to. I was pleased to see this thread, because the Sabbath has been a hard issue for me to deal with. I was curious about the responses. But, like RDS said, I am a little disappointed by the discussion (although Elaine has some excellent questions - someone should answer her!). So instead of jumping into the theological, intellectual, historical part of the discussion, thought I'd throw in a personal perspective (which is of course theological, but oh, we won't go there...)

I kept the 7th day Sabbath for the first 27 years of my life. It was a joyous occasion, something I looked forward to.

When I decided to leave the Adventist church for a more mainstream evangelical Christian church, I kept Sunday. But I felt tremendous guilt, like I was betraying a sacred trust. Eventually though, those feelings disinegrated, the more I learned and EXPERIENCED Christ as my true rest and peace, each and every day.

Looking back at my life as an Adventist and Sabbath-keeper, I see that I was quite dependent on the idea of the Sabbath. So I often found myself being more religious than usual on the Sabbath, more than other days of the week. After all, Sabbath was the day you caught up on that kind of thing. I also believed that if I only kept Sabbath, then everything would be alright (i.e., in terms of my life, my salvation, etc.) Now, don't jump in here with thoughts on how I was keeping the Sabbath. I admit, there were seasons when I was not keeping it well. But, for me, the Saturday part had quite a sway over me. Almost as if I was worshiping the keeping of Saturday rather than the worship of God and the celebration of Christ in my life.

Maybe some Adventists can truly celebrate and worship God on Sabbath. But for me, having to keep the Saturday Sabbath in the manner that Adventists teach became a burden and a hindrance to knowing the one true God.

When I started going to an evangelical mainstream Christian church, I relearned what grace meant. I met Christ there. I surrended my heart to him. And I truly started living the New Covenant message. I changed. So don't scoff the New Covenant; its a powerful message. And in my experience, I found that the dictation of a day to worship, like God had given the Israelites, didn't appear anywhere in my study of the Bible.

I'm OK with people worshipping on Saturday. But I don't think it is a rule or a mandate. Sunday or Tuesday also works. And even if liberal Adventists agree with this, the formal church is not doing anything about it - still only touting messages of how to keep the Sabbath....so I felt like I had to pick...Adventist lifestyle or a life in Christ? It was a personal decision, but I felt like I couldn't truly be a Christian in a community like Adventism. Not with regulations (whether they be there as directives or gifts) like the Sabbath hanging over the denomination's head. The Sabbath gave me much weekly rest, but it did not give me eternal salvation or an abiding peace. I have those things now.

Elaine is right in pointing out that the Old Testament is the holy writings of a non-Christian religion. The Old Testament yields a Jewish Sabbath and this is the only Sabbath the New Testament knows of. To go beyond NT exegesis, there is of course spin, and that's mostly what I see on this thread.

RDS,

Hey...I already said correct me if I'm wrong about Ratzlaff, not impugn unfriendly motive or incompetency. I wasn't assuming you regurgitated anything, I just saw similarity. And please don't assume about my thinking processes as well...fair enough?

I will look more into Hebrews 4 and 8. As far as Abraham or Noah, this is an argument from silence. Good scholarship cannot make an argument one way or the other from such. Proof cannot be deduced for or against.

Also, in my eyes, Genesis is more concerned about establishing origins and promise, law hardly being a formal issue, other than 26:5, "Abraham kept my commandments, statutes and judgements..."

Thanks...

Frank

Elaine,

It is my belief that humanity desires autonomy from God. If there is a God, how is that going to turn out? If there isn't and He has not revealed Himself in scripture then perhaps in reality it is meaningless. So what's ones belief of reality?

If we recognize our condition then while we may not experience lasting physical peace on earth or in our life we can still have the spiritual peace and the hope offered in scripture.

To me, this is the basis of hope and meaning found in Christ who loved us and gave Himself for us.

"It was grace that taught my heart to fear and grace my fears relieved."

Satan would have us either ignore sin or on the other side create guilt for which there is no solution. He is a liar and deceiver of souls either way. The Bible offers the opposite message to both realities.

regards,

pat

Dave

Thank you for your candor and Christian courtesy. Too much of what transpires on this site reminds me of the incident with a SDA evangelist and my Dutch Reform uncle and aunt. At the end of a series, the evangelist was visiting in my uncle's home. His closing remarks were as follows: "Well you have attended every one of my meetings. You have heard the whole truth. Now you can accept and go to heaven or reject and go to hell." My uncle said, "I assume you plan to be in heaven?" The evangelist replied, "why yes of course!". To which my uncle responded: "In that case I would just as soon go to hell!" If anyone wants my frank opinion: there is far too much assignment going on and far too little evangelism. The Good News is not the Sabbath. The Good News is the Lord of the Sabbath!." If we cannot say "Jesus Christ is Lord." We are in the wrong thread. It is strange, other than a non-com or two, I have been assigned to hell by more Seventh-day Adventists and any other sub-set of Homo Sapien. I am glad, David, that you have an inclusive heart and mind. There remaineth a rest for the people of God. Tom

To almost every single Adventist I know under 35 years of age, justification by works doesn't make any sense either as a good or bad thing. It's just not an issue.

I realize that Christ saved us, is saving us, will save us. I really don't think that God gives a rats laugh how people want to emphasize the tenses. There are bigger issues in our shared reality.

Today, I want to live a moral life modeled on the 21st century applied example of Christ because I really do love our fellow humans. Not to earn any salvation or even determine who is a top-notch believer, but because I want to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves, which is the MAIN POINT of Jesus' teaching about everything in the Hebrew scriptures.

Except for a few kids in the GYC crowd, through six summers as a youth leader, academy and college and now, everyone who's still an Adventist that I know (increasingly low among those with graduate educations) got the whole justification by faith thing awhile back. We know we need a relationship with Jesus, now we want to talk our relationship with everyone else.

As Einstein said, let's make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. And I am no Einstein... : ) Thus. . .

Salvation: There is no metaphysical reason to have any existential guilt over being a human or for acts committed. Jesus took care of that on the cross and so we can just focus on acting out his teachings. If the fundamental principle of LOVING other humans doesn't keep you from intentionally harming others, think about the radical and existentially ABSOLUTE pain of God dying. If that doesn't work, talk to humans in pain and share in their sorrow, if that doesn't work, see a psychologist.

It is telling that those who repeatedly emphasize justification by faith are often the least committed to issues like global warming science, social justice, and the contours of the variety of Christian community life, in this case Adventism. We ain't the remnant. I read Alister McGrath's Luther’s Theology of the Cross and more recently his Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution from the Sixteenth to the Twenty-First Century. It's really important to understand the contextual themes in justification rather than just stand around slapping ourselves on the back for being saved and not having to feel unsaved for masturbating.

The NT is not a story of the Sabbath as day, it is a story of the Sabbath as present reality. Clearly the folks writing were not really concerned with the issue, for whatever reason. But it is an historical reality that at least some Christians kept the Seventh-day Sabbath for centuries.

Postmodernity is not a new state, merely an addition of an popular broadening, always already self-awareness of all reality. Part of recognizing the non-foundational aspect to all human-perceived experience means that I couldn't care less if someone wants to keep the Sabbath on Monday. Joining together on the 7th day doesn't make God any happier or sadder. I just want to harness every context that I'm a part of to weave together, like Christ and Paul, and early Adventists did, the powerful always narratives in spreading a sense of human community and hope for the future.

The Martinizing reference is an allusion to the classic 1950s name for dry cleaning which continues the post's play off the Walter Martin-esque attention to almost instant personal sin-stain removal and the theme of time, which gets an additional nugget at the end, a reference to Madeleine L'Engle's book which begins itself with an allusion to the book, Paul Clifford, two good folks one should read with irony. : )

So Alex,

You say the issue is, "I realize that Christ saved us, is saving us, will save us. I really don't think that God gives a rats laugh how people want to emphasize the tenses. There are bigger issues in our shared reality.

Today, I want to live a moral life modeled on the 21st century applied example of Christ because I really do love our fellow humans. Not to earn any salvation or even determine who is a top-notch believer, but because I want to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves, which is the MAIN POINT of Jesus' teaching about everything in the Hebrew scriptures.

Except for a few kids in the GYC crowd, through six summers as a youth leader, academy and college and now, everyone who's still an Adventist that I know (increasingly low among those with graduate educations) got the whole justification by faith thing awhile back. We know we need a relationship with Jesus, now we want to talk our relationship with everyone else."

-Response-

So, I don't have any responsibility to tell "others" how they might be saved from their sins in Christ who died on the cross? "Been there done that" so I get on to the important things.I just offer them the "example" of Christ and Community ("I want to live a moral life modeled on the 21st century applied example of Christ because I really do love our fellow humans")..therefore I don't need to mention sin and it's reality on the problems of society...and it's cure which alone will be found in Christ?

Alex, How IS that different from "salvation" by works?

It is only us "literalist" that insist on the message of the cross. To others "no thanks to them that the message of the cross abideth" ...because others have "moved on" to more important issues. I suggest one can not be without the other continuously.

Christians have long helped the poor and been interested in God's creation. That doesn't mean we have to include your view of "global warming" or come to recognize the importance of faith and "politics" in the equation.

Proper focus is first gained by knowing our condition and Savior. As we are healed ourselves then according to our gifts we can help heal others...first by showing them Jesus on the cross. He went about preaching the gospel of the kingdom AND healing the sick.

regards,
pat

Alexander
The problem with the debate about justification by faith is that turns Christianity into a form of gnosticism (salvation through knowledge). It tends to generate communities that attach salvific significance to theological formulas, just like early Christianity got bogged down in wars Christological wars over vowels ("homoiousios" vs "homoousios".)

Words matter but they don't need to be wielded like meat cleavers. Dale Razlaff, dogmatically, is probably closer to the New Testament than traditional adventism, but being dogmatically or exegetically right only goes so far. RDS, for instance, is absolutely right to reject Maureen Tinker's attribution of satantic influences to Adventist beginnings. Even if she had perfect dogmatic pitch, she obviously has understood little about human nature and the doctrine of salvation that she preaches. As have those who use similar words about the Roman Catholic Church.

Reading about "Sabbathing" one could get the impression that it is like a much needed vacation from work, only that it comes weekly rather than yearly, and that if one really and truly wants to honor God, it will then be the seventh day which get the designation.

Do vacationers all go to the same place? Do they all go, like in France, on a designated time of the year? "We will now all exit our work and go on vacation, it's August." Ever been there in August when most everthing is closed up? Is that like Loma Linda on Sabbath when everything, except the hospital (medical work is always exempt from Sabbath by hierarchal decree) is not in operation?

The IDEA of a sabbath rest is welcome. The specificity of the day on which it must be observed is not the same at all. Who is going to explain why Christians today should be observing a day given exclusively to the Jews some 3,000 years ago is the one and only one accepted by God today?

Aage,

So you say, "The problem with the debate about justification by faith is that turns Christianity into a form of gnosticism (salvation through knowledge)."

So gaining knowlege of the meaning of JBF as in Rom.5:1 is a form of gnosticism. Why not gnosticism by knowlege in everything else the Bible teaches?

It was JBF as the mainspring learned from sola scriptura that brought down the oppresive church of the middle ages.

pat

Tom

1. "The Good News is not the Sabbath. The Good News is the Lord of the Sabbath! If we cannot say "Jesus Christ is Lord." We are in the wrong thread." How right you are!

2. How good it would have been for me to meet your uncle. I think I would have enjoyed his company.

Elaine

If I can have your permission to do so, I would like to put aside the question of the "seventhness of the Sabbath" and ask the question in a more general way: Why should Christians today be concerned with affirming their Jewish heritage in the first place?

My own response (confession?) is two-fold. First, the reality of the situation is that the Hebrew Scriptures comprise 2/3 of the Christian canon. We should take this seriously, I think.

Second, the Christian doctrine of supercessionism, according to which Christianity makes Judaism unnecessary at best and a bestting sin at worst is at the bottom of much anti-Jewish sentiment throughout the ages. I think we should reject the idea as it has unfolded over the centuries as unbiblical and cruel.

If we can agree on this, then we can discuss whether Sabbathing is a good way to show our solidatarity with the Jewish faith. But I think that question is secondary to our need to get rid of the idea of superscessionism.

Alex

God doesn't give a "rat's laugh?" I love this and all the rest you wrote!

Pat

You weave it all together in a beautiful theological fabric even though my admiration for the Majesterial Reformers is probably less intense than some.

Many thanks!

Dave

Pat, you say tell, I say show.

Sure, talk it, walk it, do whatever it takes to help folks see the deeper principle. Saying I believe in Jesus is good, helping people to believe by acting like Jesus is good and is a witness in itself.

Axel

Just a short story on "keeping" My dad as a 16 year old sailor on the Great Lakes would take a clean empty paint can and pour hot steam in it and quickly put the lid on.
He would take it on deck and set it beside a resting sailor and say: This is the captain's special paint can, see that nothing happens to it while I'm gone. In a few moments the steam would condense, the internal pressure would be so low that the atmospheric pressure would crush the can into an unrecognizable form. Dad would return, and say, "where is the captain's paint can?" The sailor would say, I was just sitting here and all of a sudden it just crumpled!. Dad of course would say--"Looks to me you kicked the "H" out of it.
What am I going to tell the Captain? The sailor would say, I swear, I didn't touch it!" I think the idea of "keeping the Sabbath" is the best way I know of of kicking the "H" out of it. That is exactly what Jesus told the scribes et al. Tom

Alex,

I say we "can tell of 'the faith' delivered to the saints" and we can "attempt" to show how Jesus acted as we ourselves grow... only to recognize the closer we get to Christ we will recognize the more our sinfulness in deed and attitude.

The day one thinks one can act like Jesus is the day one might be saying what the rich young ruler said, "all these thing I have done since my youth."

We know how that ended up. He knew not his condition either. We may "reflect" Christ but it is a poor reflection indeed for he was without sin.

pat

"First, the reality of the situation is that the Hebrew Scriptures comprise 2/3 of the Christian canon. We should take this seriously, I think."

David, you are correct that the entire Bible is largely Hebrew; the NT is also of Hebrew origin, minus one, is it not? IOW, if the Bible we have today was written almost entirely by the Jews, there is nothing new about that.

It's how we use it that is important. Is it for history or doctrine? If we use the Bible written before Christ as doctrine, what do we do when there are contradictions written in the NT abrogating the OT as Paul clearly does?

"Second, the Christian doctrine of supercessionism, according to which Christianity makes Judaism unnecessary at best and a bestting sin at worst is at the bottom of much anti-Jewish sentiment throughout the ages. I think we should reject the idea as it has unfolded over the centuries as unbiblical and cruel."

Undoubtedly, antisemitism has its best proponents directly from NT writers and Jesus himself, or was it the writers who put words in his mouth reinforcing their own sentiments?

Because antisemitism began with the NT, it in no way negates the clear words of Paul in addressing the Gentile Christians that they were not to be bound to the Jewish laws. That a bad result ensues, does not imply that it cannot be found in the Bible. Yes, the Bible has been used throughout its inception to charge or blame
the innocent because of their origin. Don't we find, according to the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures that God ordered entire tribes (surely there must have been innocents among them) to be annhiliated?

Is that the main reason for observing the Jewish Sabbath--to maintain that heritage? Why aren't we as determined to be part of our Christian heritage?

As has been mentioned, the Sabbath is a gift, a gift from the King of the Universe. So how do we look to the gift giver if we say, "Thanks, but no thanks." And if the Gift Giver says I want to give you the most precious commodity of all--time together with Me and My friends--and again we want to be in control and say, only if you do so, Tuesdays, when we're ready and willing, I think we end up looking ungrateful to God. That means the decision about whether or not to observe Sabbath is not about Adventism, or legalism, or salvation by grace, Sabbath is about responding to God about the wonderful gift that He has offered. Do you accept the gracious gift of his company? If not, it really is simply your loss.

God also offers the gift of salvation through His Son Jesus. He is generous beyond belief. He offers both of these gifts--salvation and Sabbath--without strings or conditions. Both gifts give meaning and peace to life today. Why quibble with God over such gracious gifts or when you want to receive them?

There are some fantastic sermons by Dwight Nelson, two series infact, God's party and The Sabbath. Available at http://www.pmchurch.tv/

All this talk about legalism: If I am convinced of a truth to obedience is that wrong? So many died to preserve a way of life they were convinced of. Was that wrong? Do we just throw these accusations to convince ourselves that what are doing is right, ok? "I dont keep the sabbath just to be sure that i am not legalistic and you keep the sabbath because you are legalistic".

Pat
My point is simply that Christianity should be more than veneration of the finer points of doctrine that only make sense to the initiated (hence my choice of the word "gnostic").

Christianity started as a fellowship around a person; it did not spring from a graduate seminar in theology. Theology, which is the ultimate insider sport, has often overshadowed Christianity as community, a community which should be as inclusive as Jesus was (the Jesus of the Gospels). The best example I've seen of this ideal is probably Dave here on this blog. His theology is not necessarily mine, but his concept of fellowship and community is, in my opinion, right on.

And Pat, as a useless historical aside, let me add that although the Reformation wrought a lot of good--not the least in the Catholic church--it was not RBF as such that brought down the Medieval Church. It was the corruption of the church itself.

The Catholic theologian Joseph Lorz famously stated that Luther "rang down" a Catholicism which was no longer catholic. RBF provided the moral indignation needed to rise up against church corruption on the part of the Reformers, but most Europeans of the day were too poorly educated to have had much of a clue what the theological debate was about. And the majority of those who became Protestants became Protestants not out of choice, but because both sides agreed that the religion of the rulers would determine the religion of the people.

My Norwegian countrymen were Catholics until 1537, when the Danish king, who ruled Norway, declared that henceforth, Danes and Norwegians would be Protestants. It took nearly 200 years before this Protestant fiat became reality.

And to all of you, this is my last posting. I've enjoyed keeping company with you these last few months, and I thank you for your civility in face of arguments that must at times have been very unwelcome. Maybe I'll look in on you again some time in the future but given where I come from ideologically, this is not my natural home. All the best.

Aage, I really hate to see you go as you have brought such logical and historical background to all you've said that you will be missed. Your natural home should appreciate the knowledge you bring to all subjects theological.

Aage I understand what you are saying but still I'll miss you and your comments. If you do stop back in, be sure and say hello.

Aage, I'll definitely miss your thoughtful presence. Thanks for dropping in and you're welcome back. No questions asked about what other blogs you been seeing. . .

Pat writes: "The day one thinks one can act like Jesus is the day one might be saying what the rich young ruler said, 'all these thing I have done since my youth.' We know how that ended up. He knew not his condition either."

Classic example of decontextualized use of a text. Remember in the context of this discussion of things done, the rich young ruler first asked, "what must I do to be saved?"

I'm not wondering what I have to DO to be saved. And I'm not wondering who saves. Read what I have written above, could I be any clearer?

Furthermore, the latter part of your argument, Pat, sounds like this:

Don't try to be like Jesus because he was sinless and you ain't. If you try to love your neighbor, you'll be putting on fancy Jesus airs, but your acts won't be perfect so don't try to get that past me. Now children, who saves us? That's right! Jesus! Do you want to get saved? Wait, that was too fast. You probably don't realize what a bad sinner you are. Let me tell you what a bad, bad sinner you are and how you will only feel okay when we all say "Jesus." Now let's talk again about who saves us? Jesus. Whoa, stop talking about his acts of social healing you dirty commie, let's go back to just arguing over some metaphysical meaning of Jesus. Now let's go back to thinking about him dying because that helps us all focus about ourself righteousness by faith.

Furthermore, reading more of that story in either (Luke 18: 18-23 or Mark 10: 17-30) contra your fragmentary allusion actually furthers my point.

The rich young ruler asks: what must I do to be saved?

After Jesus tossed about the law stuff, which plenty of commentators see as rhetorical, God in human flesh says: GIVE everything you have to the poor and FOLLOW me.

I don't think that my Christ of faith could have been any clearer that.

I'm not smart enough to figure what that GIVE everything means yet, but it sure doesn't mean complain about people on welfare.

Asking to be saved is just the beginning. Following the example of Christ is the explicit point of the Gospel story.

Aage

Wow! Your decision no longer to participate surprises--shocks--me. I didn't see it coming.

I wonder if our discussion of Sabbathing exhibited how deep and painful are the differences between those of us who have decided to stay and those who have felt the need to move on. Perhaps it was like slicing open old wounds. I don't know. It hurts no matter which decision we've made.

In any case, I hope your "sabbatical" from us won't be long and that soon you will be participating again. We won't always be discussing Sabbathing!

Meanwhile, I am convinced that there is One who will be with you every step of the way.

Dave

Alex,

Intersting that Christ told the RYR, "GIVE everything YOU have to the poor and FOLLOW me." That was the RYR's, who thought he obeyed and loved God and his neighbor as himself, personal sin ...idolatry.

He did not say...RYR, start a political movement so that you can take what everyone else has to put forward my kingdom agenda.:~)

By the way,I did not call you a commie...those are your words.

Again, Christ said, "Repent for the kingdom is at hand...He went about preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing."Mt.3.

and..." At daybreak Jesus went out to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them. 43 But he said, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.”
Lk.4:42,43.

later,

pat

PS. I guess part of what I am saying Alex is that if righteousness could come by any law (including political ones) then Christ is dead in vain.

Aage,

Farewell.

I guess the RCC kinda had spontaneous combustion with or without JBF, Luther and Calvin.

regards,
pat

Aage,

It is sad to see you go. Although I have not been able to interact here a lot (let's see if I ever get internet connection at home) I have enjoyed reading your comments and they have certainly added a lot to the discussions here. As a fellow Scandinavian I wish you all the best and pray that God may lead in your life. Take care.

Sandra.

Aage,

Please stop in again. We may not all agree, but you have been one from whom which I have learned, as I do from encountering so many others on this site.

God bless...

Frank

My final thought on the Sabbath. The Lord gave man the Sabbath as a blessing. Man has made it a curse. This thread has demonstrated the vindictive nature of some who would "defend" the curse of the Sabbath. I recently attended the memorial service of a long time friend who was an overt Sabbath Keeper. Since, I had been asked by the wife to say a few words, I sat on the front row. The person assigned the "sermon" took the opportunity to praise the departed "faithfulness" and then left the pulpit and stood in front of me and went into a tirade on those who couwardly left the fold, and the fate that awaited them. The congregation was largely non-Adventist. I was surrounded by the curious who kept asking me--"What was that all about?"

I merely said, "zeal not according to knowledge." But I thought a College President had a more tempered history. But then again a cause is a cause! Brother stand for the Truth though you bring down the heavens. You certainly have had things your way for a long time--enjoy. Tom

Good stuff, and feisty, too.

Tom, pardon my offense to you.

Pat, your concern to uphold the idea of justification by faith is important.

Now let me say three things (I'm back to feisty):

1. The loss of the Sabbath (nowhere hinted at in the Gospels, which, by date of origin, FOLLOW Paul)was part of the altogether tragic antisemitism that sprang up all too soon, and fostered (besides the violence that Constantinian Christianity came to embrace)a Christian neglect of creation and of the responsibility we have to be God's partners in the making of the world.

2. The loss of our identification with the Jews--that is, the Christian demonizing of the Jews, to the point of dismissing the Sabbath even though the OT and Jesus himself saw it as a gift for everyone--fostered the sheer neglect of the Jewish genius for dissent from business as usual. (Jews did not become Constantinians.) Surely contributors to this thread will agree that conventional, or popular, Christianity is awash in social and political conformity.

3. The UNCRITICAL affirmation of the doctrine of justication by faith is what led Bonhoeffer to write the first page of "The Cost of Discipleship." Here was a Lutheran who knew very well that cheap grace--grace without obedience, grace without cost--is demonic. The whole context for the book was the Nazi assault on the Jews, which evangelical Germans had sidled up to like puppies. My point is ONLY to say that we should keep this in mind whenever we are tempted to use (commonplace, or popular) versions of this doctrine as a litmus test. Bonhoeffer was attacking such popular accounts, and was also attacking the temptation to quote Paul to the exclusion of the Gospel. His famous book, remember, was a commentary on the...Sermon on the Mount.

Chuck

Also remember that the SDA church in 1930's Germany sidled up to the Nazis like puppies as well. Health reform was the bridge in this case. Apparently, a twisted-view of justification isn't the only way that church and state were able to make strange bed-fellows.

Also, an overblown confidence in the Law and Sabbath, didn't stop the clerical leaders of Jesus' day from railroading him, either. It is not simply the loss of the Sabbath that is the problem with human beings...it is the loss of God.

Thanks...

Frank

Hi Chuck,

If your book contains Memoir by G.Leibholz read #5 as related to the church and Nazism.

As to B."s first chapter how about this quote:
"That is what we mean by cheap grace, the grace which amounts to the justification of sin without the justification of the repentant sinner who departs from sin and from whom sin departs."

Show me any strand over the last 8 months on this blog where I have differed from this thought concerning JBF.

The issue of the "German Church" after years of teaching by the liberal German school was that they had left JBF alone in Christ to trust in JBF in the Reich. They were not interested in returning to the "Confession Church" wished by Bonhoeffer.
(Theological Declaration of Barmen)
8.15 We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords--areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.
8.18 We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions.

So Chuck I suggest rather to the "German Church", Righteousness would come by the church affiliating with the goals of the state by restoring justice and prosperity to Germany and this was what Bonhoeffer and the Barmen Confession were against.

pat

Pat,

Love your reference to the Barmen Declaration.

I meant my remark to be cautionary, and I should have expressed it more carefully, so as not to imply something about you that is obviously false.

Inside evangelical Adventism, uncritical invocations of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith remain all too commonplace, and usually suggests that Christian behavior is no longer to be a preoccupation. (Certainly the old focus on jewelry and film-going SHOULD cease to be a preoppcation.)

Jesus (and Paul) were very concerned about how Christians behave. This is so although we rightfully submit all accounts of Christian behavior to Jesus-centered scrutiny.

I take it you'd agree.

Chuck

Earlier I said that that would be my final comment on this thread. But since, I picked up a copy of Renewed and Ready July 2008 issue. Page 50 contains an ad in which the main heading reads: "It's our passion to further God's work." A take on "finishing God's work". "There is the rub!" Is it the church's task to finish God's work or is it to proclaim, the "Finished Work of Jesus Christ". That is at the basis of the tension on the Sabbath, on Righteousness by Faith, and upon a host of other issues within and without Adventism.

I believe, it is the church's role to proclaim the Finished Work of Jesus Christ. Others see a need for a final generation to finish what God started. Those are the ones who made Christianity such a burden and take the joy out of not only the Sabbath but of salvation itself.

I don't know what that heading should say. It could say, It is our prayer than God finish His work in us. Or as I would characterize my teaching. It is and has been my passion to Proclaim and Explain the Finished Work of Jesus Christ, not only for me, but for all who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord. (Now that is my way.) Tom

Chuck,

I was about to edit and post this to my previous post to you

Barmen-Article 1. The inviolable foundation of the German Evangelical Church is the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is attested for us in Holy Scripture and brought to light again in the Confessions of the Reformation. The full powers that the Church needs for its mission are hereby determined and limited.

How does that go down with the "majority" on this blog?
------------------

Response to the last post of yours:

You say,"Inside evangelical Adventism, uncritical invocations of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith remain all too commonplace, and usually suggests that Christian behavior is no longer to be a preoccupation."

Of course when JBF is taught it will be misunderstood by some. That is why we need educated pastors that understand it.

As regards to our perfect righteousness before God it IS without our works offered to the repentant sinner who accepts Christ atoning righteousness as his own by faith alone. It is "alien" righteousness.

The RCC will not allow for that but always blends our sanctification to it through the sacraments or the Spirit.

The correct understanding of the Reformers is that Christ Justifies no one who He does not begin to sanctify but they are separate in action. He has "reckoned pefect" those who He is in the process of making Holy through cooperation with the Spirit.

The Reformed view has Justification "reckoning" as righteous whereas the RCC and "traditional adventism" have in reality it as "making righteous" to be Justified.

Thus the avoidance of the term Justification by Faith alone or RBFA to the blended "Salvation by Grace" of a former GC president because that eliminates that we can be reckoned perfect "now" without the needed arriving at sanctified perfection state such as the "last generation concept" before Jesus comes.

regards,

pat

PS. May I add that not understanding JBF is why we can belittle sunday keepers. We are saying they can not be justified by faith. "At worst" we should say they have not yet reached perfect law keeping...as us. However the law remains a guide in the sanctified life as Calvin would remind us...LIKEWISE some sunday keepers would suggest that we who worship on the 7th day can not be JBF. BOTH are wrong.

Chuck,

I must print the comment from the book CODiscipleship on p.30 of "Memoir by G.Leibholz read #5" to which I referred you.

"Both modern liberal theology and secular totalitarianism hold pretty much in common that the message of the Bible has to be adapted more or less, to the requirements of a secular world. No wonder, therefore, that the process of debasing Christianity as by liberal theology led, in the long run, to a complete perversion and falsification of the essence of Christianity...."

pat
“

Why do we alway mix "keeping time holy" and worship?

Isn't our first question: Whom to Worship?
Followed by Why Worship?
Then How to Worship?
Then When to Worship?
Were and with Whom?

Isn't now the acceptable day of the Lord?

Tom

"I don't think there is much exegetical ground on which to mandate Sabbath observance for Christians--if Paul gets to define Christian duty." (Aage's remarks)

It has been informative to read the blessing people find in the Sabbath. However, I have yet to read an exegetical and persuasive reason why any Christians today (if Paul is not the arbiter, who?) on WHY the Sabbath is a command from the OT that Christians today are to obey. That millions do, is not an argument based on reason: the majority does not decide what is right. If we are "people of the book" will someone please give the NT evidence that Sabbath observance has been a Christian doctrine.

Waiting....

Elaine: I start with the New and Old testament commands to Love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and soul. I have personally found that keeping the Sabbath is the best starting place I'm aware of. It guarantees to both me and all who observe me that at least one seventh of my time is dedicated to that love, rather than to my own love or that of my neighbors. It brings a reality of that love that otherwise remains vague.

As to NT scripture, et al, I'm a total novice, but I understand that while I'm no longer judged by the law, Christ tells me as described in Matthew 5 and onward, that he did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. He kept Sabbath and advised that it was made for man and me, so why look a gift horse in the mouth?

By the way, does anyone think there's any biblical rationale for "keeping" Sunday?

The key to the Sabbath is the type of Theology one espouses.

1. Covenant Theology - This as, I understand it,
has the covenants 1st and 2nd, continuous. The Decalogue is maintained as the "gold standard" and the rest of the "ceremonial law" thrown out, [which is hard to do for some].
2. Dispensationalism - believes that the Jews are still God's chosen people and eventually they will convert and accept Jesus as Messiah. Romans 11 is hung onto to make this work. Most Dispensationalist get into the Rapture, before the time of Tribulation when the "Jews see the 'light'".

3. New Covenant Theology - This view sees the 1st Covenant fulfilled in Christ at the cross. Yes, He kept the Sabbath but He also kept the feast days, and sacrifices. This view has a definite break with the 1st Covenant. Though not discarded, it is a foundation, but the behaviors desired, or fruits of a relationship with Christ are restated, or not, to give guidance to the Christian. The Sabbath is not restated, other than some assuming that Christ keeping the Sabbath while under the law, before He fulfilled it, indicates a mandate. However, Hebrews 4, speaks of a "rest" that is not yet attained and another day "Today" being established. Some interpret this a one of the "better promise" the 2nd Covenant is based on, that you can have "rest" or "Jesus" any day or minute or hour of the week, if you are right with Him, acceptd the Gospel.

In my opinion, New Covenant Theology is what would solve most of Christiandom's apparent inconsistency relative to the Law. The Westminister Confession states that the seventh day was the worship day until Christ died, then the 1st day of the week the Christian Sabbath. However, that is man made, and no authority Biblically behind it.

When the World Wide Church of God, some of the best Protestant Sabbathkeepers and festival day keepers, when they studied and renounced the Decalogue as being in effect, stated that each community would decide which day was best for their worship. Some still found Saturday convenient, and some found Sunday convenient.

I attended a large Baptist Church in Memphis. Their bulletin had an announcement that went something like this:

"If you can't attend services on Sunday due to work or other committments, why not join us Tuesday evening for worship services."

What do you think would happen if the SDA church presented the Gospel so well that we had that kind of overflow and decision to make?

I don't have time until Monday but I may offer the "Covenant Theology" view related to the "Decalogue and Intrusion" as understood by Merideth Kline.

Calvinist are Sabbatarians as was the Baptist Spurgeon yet both practice "transference" to Sunday.

Of course many of you are aware of D.A. Carson's "From Sabbath to Lord's Day" which is more in line with your view RDS.

Regards and have a great weekend "worshiping" on Sabbath or Sunday. I have my preference but I won't judge you if you don't judge me and we'll wait to see if the Lord gives us gentiles more info as events transpire. One thing is for sure neither should be enforced by men.

regards,

pat

Cliff states:

We don't just say that we are resting in Christ (anyone can do that);

Not everyone does, not everyone has accepted Christ. The better promise of the 2nd Covenant, is we don't have to wait until seven days to be in His presence or to "rest" in Him. Christ fulfilled the Sabbath shadow. Col 2:16, 17 :

16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Also, note this:

Hebrews 8:6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

Also, what is it about the word "obsolete" that Cliff doesn't understand:

Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

RDS - thank you for your insight. Question, -- the general opiinion in these posts is that the Sabbath is Jewish (and therefore temporary) but the rest of the decalogue's guides to being a lovable human bloke are not. How does the Sabbath end up as the only odd man out, while the other rules, laws, guides--whatever you want to call them--remain as helpful as ever?

Gerhard, the Sabbath as given to the Jews is based on ceremony, as were many of the other feast days and occasions that were to be celebrated and was never given to Christians. Even Jews recognize that it is their law, and was never meant for any one else.

The NT writers, said that to love one's neighbor as oneself would fulfill all the law.

If we have love for our neighbor, and look to the Golden Rule for our standard, none of the "other rules, laws, guides" are necessary.
What law can be broken if loving your neighbor is uppermost in your mind? Why are the laws against stealing, killing, etc. necessary? And, how can the 10th commandment against coveting ever be observed, regulated, or punished?? There goes capitalism.

While there are those who would have us belive that the Sabbath was for the jews and not christians it shows a shallow view of God.
One in which God wanted a certain type of worship/rest in Eden then a different one after the fall, then a different one for the jews and then evidently whatever makes you happy for Christians.
This perception may make them feel better but doesnt represent the God I find in the bible.
The faulty view that the NT trumps the old is a large part of the problem.
Why is it that the Disciples were all documented dunces before Calvary, worrying who would sit on the right hand of Christ and that Jesus was going to be an earthly king and save them from the Romans and yet people today think they were all geniuses after it?
And also, who cares what the Jews say WHO their Sabbath was for? It's not like they knew what was going on any better than the disciples before the cross. Their still waiting for Elijah to show up at the annual passover.
In the end its not about the Jewish Sabbath or the Christian Sabbath. Its about Christ as Tom often brings it back to. And as such it is about what he wants and what he wants is what he has always wanted. A people, (said in the inclusive sense) from where ever WILLING disciples can be found. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. God knows the hearts and motivations of every person and based on that, people like Paul are given the chance to align their enthusiasm with Gods purposes.

I have read may posts above saying they were relieved of the curse of the Sabbath ect.
This sounds more like a personal problem.
I have witnessed many people who stumble onto a grumpy crochety graceless uncharitable church member and use that as to the excuse why a whole church or belief system is wrong.
To me that is the pinnacle of ignorance.
If your faith is based on anything less than Christ you will always be disappointed. It just shows many of us spend to much time looking at each other as religious models and not enough time looking at Christ.

It does not behoove those from whom Jesus has so much to bear, in their failings and perversity, to be ever mindful of slights and real or imaginary offense. . . . The heart filled with that love which thinketh no evil will not be on the watch to notice discourtesies and grievances of which he may be the object. The will of God is that His love shall close the eyes, the ears and the heart to all such provocations and to all the suggestions with which Satan would fill them. There is a noble majesty in the silence of the one exposed to evil surmising or outrage. To be master of one's spirit is to be stronger than kings or conquerors. {OHC 240.4}