Through years of intensive Bible studies, I came to the conclusion that Seventh-day Adventist doctrines were incorrect. I had to follow God and my conscience, so I had my name removed from the SDA church in 2010. Here are some of the things I've learned along the way. I pray you will have the courage to check things out for yourself. Don't take my word on it. Study for yourself! To receive notifications of new blog entries, enter your email address in the box below and click "Submit".
Monday, February 13, 2012
Jesus fulfilled the Law & the Prophets - Part 13 - Acts 21-28
Acts 21:20-21 - "When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: 'You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to their customs." Then they gave Paul instructions on what to do (in verses 24-25) so that "everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from teh meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." It appears that it was good for Jewish Christians to still keep the law (the whole thing), but Gentile Christians were only put under the Noahide laws. This will be clarified later in Paul's writings.
Acts 22:3 - Paul was a Jew and thoroughly trained in Jewish law
Acts 24:14 - "However, I admist that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets..."
Acts 24:17-18 - Paul says he was ceremonial clean when we brought gifts for the poor and presented offerings. If one of the arguments in favor of Sabbath-keeping for Christians is that Paul "kept" the Sabbath, we should be consistent and say that we need to be ceremonial clean since Paul made sure to follow Jewish law. In fact, in verse 8, Paul says, "I have done nothing wrong against the law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar."
Acts 26:22-23 - "...I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen - that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles."
Acts 28:17 - Paul says he has done nothing against the Jewish people or the customs of their ancestors.
Acts 28:23 - "They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets."
Acts 28:26-27 - fulfillment of Is. 6:9-10
Jesus fulfilled the Law & the Prophets - Part 12 - Acts 11-20
Jesus fulfilled the Law & the Prophets - Part 11 - Acts 1-10
Jesus fulfilled the Law & the Prophets - Part 10 - John 15-21
Jesus fulfilled the Law & the Prophets - Part 9 - John 8-14
I don't know about you guys, but I'm sure learning a lot through this experience! Many of these passages were already familiar to me, but many are new, too! It's exciting to read the New Testament and see how the Old Testament was pointing to Jesus. It's all about Him! I'm sure there are far more eloquent articles on this subject elsewhere, but for me this is all about reading it straight from the source so I'm sure of what it's really saying - then I share it here. I know these are much different from my usual blogs, but even if I'm the only one reading this, I am learning & growing by reading & writing these passage down. Here we go again! :)
On a side note, if you have a Strong's Concordance or access to the internet, look up "entole" and "nomos". They are the original Greek words that are translated as law or commands in English. Nomos is used for law (as in the law given to Moses - the whole thing) and entole is used for the commands of Jesus. They are different words completely, even though in English they are sometimes both translated as commandments or similar.
- John 8:1-11 is talking about the woman caught in adultery. Verse 5 - "'In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?'" Now remember, this was the law that God gave through Moses - it included stoning. Instead of abiding by the law that He Himself set, Jesus told them that whoever was without sin could throw the first stone. We are all sinners, but through Jesus we have forgiveness. The law that God gave through Moses was for a specific people for a specific time frame - it wasn't for everyone everywhere for all times!
- John 8:28 - "So Jesus said, 'When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.'" Much emphasis is put on the fact that God spoke the 10 Commandments. And yet even more emphasis should be put on everything that Jesus Himself spoke. He was here speaking to us the very things that God the Father wanted Him to say. Talk about direct access to God! And yet somehow that isn't as "big" as God speaking the 10 Commandments to the Israelites...?
- John 8:31-32 - "To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, 'If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.'" We aren't told to hold to Moses' teachings (which was in fact God speaking to the Israelites through Moses since He gave the laws), but to hold to Jesus' teachings. Jesus revealed the will of God to us while He was here. He gave us commands to follow under the new covenant. Keeping these commands won't save us, but because we accept Him and He saves us we want to follow Him!
- John 8:31-41 talks about the Children of Abraham
- John 8:48-59 talks about how Abraham longed to see this day
- John 9 talks about Jesus healing a blind man on the Sabbath. Verse 16 - "Some of the Pharisees said, 'This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.'" Sound familiar? Hmmmm.... You know, it's interesting to me that if the Sabbath is so important and is supposed to be the final test at the end times that Jesus Himself broke the Sabbath according to the laws that God set. Yes, some of the Sabbath rules were man-made, but God commanded the Israelites not to pick up sticks on the Sabbath - Jesus told a man to pick up his bed & walk (knowing it would cause a stir). God commanded the Israelites not to gather food (manna) on the Sabbath - Jesus & His disciples picked wheat on the Sabbath to eat. Jesus compared the Sabbath to ceremonial things - circumcision and eating sacred temple bread. He seems to go out of His way to heal on the Sabbath, knowing it would be a big deal. Multiple times, we are told in the Bible that Jesus broke the Sabbath, and it isn't disputed.
- John 10:22 mentions Hanukkah (the Feast of Dedication)
- John 10:34-36 - "Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods', to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?..." This passage quotes from Psalm 82:6. Jesus references Psalms as part of the Law, so the Law included more than just the first 5 books of the Bible.
- John 12:13 quotes from Psalm 118:25-26
- John 12:15 - fulfillment of Zech 9:9
- John 12:16 - "At first his disciples did not understand this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him."
- John 12:34 - "The crowd spoke up, 'We have heard from the Law that the Christ will remain forever, so how can you say, "The Son of Man must be lifted up"? Who is this "Son of Man"?'" The Law included more than just the actual commands given in the books of Moses.
- John 12:38 - fulfillment of Is. 53:1
- John 12:40 - fulfillment of Is. 6:10
- John 12:41 - "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him."
- John 12:47-50 again talks about the judgement and what it's about - "'As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.'" Jesus spoke what the Father wanted Him to speak. We are to keep the words that Jesus spoke - and those who reject Jesus will be condemned by the very word that Jesus spoke.
- John 13:18 - fulfillment of Psalm 41:9
- John 13:34-35 - "'A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.'" In the Old Testament, God set aside His people by a bunch of rituals - circumcision, holy days, priesthood, 613 rules... That is what made them distinct from other nations. Under the new covenant (in the New Testament), Jesus tells us that what sets us apart is love. They will know we are Christians by our love! Not by outward appearances. Not by what day we "keep".
- John 14:10 - "'Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.'" Why do we pay more attention to what God spoke to the Israelites in the Old Testament than to God's instructions to us in the New Testament?
- John 14:15 - "'If you love me, you will obey what I command.'"
- John 14:21 - "'Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.'"
- John 14:23-24 - "Jesus replied, 'If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teachingg. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.'" Again and again - If we love Jesus we obey His teachings! He doesn't say, "If you love me, obey the 10 Commandments," or, "If you love me, obey the law of Moses." Remember, He refers to the law of Moses a lot. But here it's something different - we are to obey Jesus' teachings!
On a side note, if you have a Strong's Concordance or access to the internet, look up "entole" and "nomos". They are the original Greek words that are translated as law or commands in English. Nomos is used for law (as in the law given to Moses - the whole thing) and entole is used for the commands of Jesus. They are different words completely, even though in English they are sometimes both translated as commandments or similar.
Jesus fulfilled the Law & the Prophets - Part 8 - John 1-7
Jesus fulfilled the Law & the Prophets - Part 7 - Luke 17-24
Jesus fulfilled the Law & the Prophets - Part 6 - Luke 9-16
Jesus fulfilled the Law & the Prophets - Part 5 - Luke 1-8
Jesus fulfilled the Law & the Prophets - Part 4 - Mark 9-16
Jesus fulfilled the Law & the Prophets - Part 3 - Mark 1-8
I thought about only covering one of the four Gospels since they have a lot of overlap, but I decided against that since they are each written to a different audience and do have new material as well.
- Mark 1:2 - fulfillment of Mal. 3:1
- Mark 1:3 - fulfillment of Isa. 40:3
- Mark 1:44 - Jesus told the leper who had been cured to offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded (they were still under the law until Jesus' death)
- Mark 2:23-28 - Jesus & His disciples break the Sabbath by picking grain (which was against the law given by God through Moses to the Israelites). Jesus compares it to David breaking God's law by eating the holy bread in the temple - which was a purely symbolic/ritualistic thing that though it was law for the Israelites has no inherent moral value to it and isn't applicable to us today. He then tells us that the Sabbath was created for the benefit of man, not the other way around. It's interesting to me that the Sabbath is considered moral to some when it was clearly created. Worshipping God has always been right. Murdering has always been wrong. Moral laws are by definition eternally right/wrong and aren't created. The Sabbath was ceremonial just as the Passover, New Moon Festival, and the other holy-days were. Jesus then tells us He is above the Sabbath - He is Lord (or ruler) of it just as He is Lord of all!
- Mark 3:1-6 - Jesus seems to go out of His way to heal on the Sabbath, even though He knew it would cause a stir
- Mark 4:12 - fulfillment of Isa. 6:9-10
- Mark 7:1-23 is the same as the passage in Matthew dealing with clean/unclean. The summary is verse 18-19 - "'Are you so dull?' he asked. 'Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.' (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean")." Note that I didn't add that last part - it's in the Bible.
Jesus fulfilled the Law & the Prophets - Part 2 - Matt. 16-28
I'm continuing my study on how Jesus fulfilled the prophecies and "shadows" of the Old Testament.
- Matt. 17:1-13 is the Transfiguration. Such an incredible story! Moses & Elijah show up and the disciples offer to make altars for all three (including Jesus). But then Moses & Elijah disappear and God speaks - "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!" (the last half of verse 5). God is getting rid of Moses & Elijah and telling the disciples to listen to Jesus. It's reminiscent of God speaking the 10 Commandments to the Israelites at Sinai, but this time He's replacing the law (represented by Moses) and the prophets (represented by Elijah) with Jesus' teachings! So powerful! That in no way diminishes the importance of the law & the prophets to the people that it was intended for, but once Jesus came they had served their purpose. We aren't supposed to focus on the law or the prophets anymore. God told us to listen to Jesus!
- Matt. 17:10-13 - Jesus compares John the Baptist to Elijah
- Matt. 18:16 - Jesus is quoting from Deut. 19:15 and reiterates & expands the command for the church (similar to what he did in the Beatititudes sermon).
- Matt. 19:1-9 is dealing with divorce. Jesus refers back to Gen. 1:27 & 2:24 speaking for the permanence of marriage. In verse 7, the Pharisees ask why Moses allowed a certificate of divorce (see Deut. 24:1-4). Verse 8 - "Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.'" It's interesting to note that the original law in Deut. was from God (through Moses - the mediator), along with the other 612 laws. They were given to a specific people at a specific time, but when Jesus came He is changing it.
- Matt. 19:16-26 - the story of the rich young ruler. He asks Jesus what he has to do to get eternal life & Jesus tells him to obey the commandments. He lists off 6 commands - 5 of which are part of the 10 Commandments and one which is in the rest of the law (Lev. 19:18). The young man said he had kept them all (he had kept the law perfectly, apparently), but asked what he still lacked. Jesus told him to sell everything he had and to follow Him.
- Matt. 21:1-5 - fulfillment of Zech. 9:9
- Matt. 21:9 quotes from Psalm 118:26
- Matt. 21:13 quotes from Isa. 56:7 & Jer. 7:11
- Matt. 21:16 quotes from Psalm 8:2
- Matt. 21:42 - fulfillment of Psalm 118:22-23
- Matt. 22:32 quotes from Ex. 3:6
- Matt. 22:34-40 - When asked what the greatest commandment in the Law was, Jesus didn't quote from the 10 Commandments but instead quoted from other parts of the law (Deut. 6:5 & Lev. 19:18). Verse 37-40 - "Jesus replied: '"''Love the Lord your God with all of your heart and with all of your soul and with all of your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hand on these two commandments.'"
- Matt. 22:43-44 quotes from Psalm 110:1
- Matt. 23:2-3 - "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you..." This fits perfectly with the new covenant beginning at Jesus' death. Until then, they were obligated to keep the whole law given to Moses.
- Matt. 23:39 quotes from Psalm 118:26
- Matt. 24:15 refers to Dan. 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11. He goes on to list inconveniences (not impossibilities) - pregnant women, nursing mothers, leaving in the winter or on the Sabbath (they were in a Jewish city whose gates were closed on Sabbath - Neh. 13:19)
- Matt. 24:29 quotes Is. 13:10 & 34:4
- Matt. 24:36-41 compares the situation to the days of Noah
- Matt. 25:31-46 talks about the actions of the saved vs. the actions of the lost. It's not at all about law-keeping (in Matt. 23 Jesus was raking the Pharisees over the coals for keeping the law but missing the point - love), but about loving God and loving your neighbor. Feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, taking the stranger in, clothing the naked, taking care of the sick, visiting those in prison.
- Matt. 26:24 - "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him..." (fulfilling more prophecies with His death)
- Matt. 26:26-29 is the Lord's Supper. Jesus makes it clear that His blood is the blood of the new covenant. Verse 28 - "This is my blood of the (some transcripts say "the new") covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." We will learn more about the new covenant in the rest of the New Testament (it's interesting to note that testament and covenant are interchangeable in the Bible!).
- Matt. 26:31 fulfills Zech. 13:7
- Matt. 26:53-54 & 56 - "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?... But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled..."
- Matt. 27:9-10 - fulfillment of Zech. 11:12-13, Jer. 19:1-13 & 32:6-9
- Matt. 27:35 - fulfillment of Psalm 22:18
- Matt. 27:46 quotes from Psalm 22:1
- Matt. 28:18:20 is the Great Commission - "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Jesus fulfilled the Law & the Prophets - Part 1 - Matt. 1-15
I am starting a study - verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book - to see how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament (the Law & the Prophets) and how the new covenant has replaced the old covenant. Here are some of my notes.
- Matt. 1:22-23 - fulfillment of Isa. 7:14
- Matt. 2:4-6 - fulfillment of Micah 5:2
- Matt. 2:15 - fulfillment of Hosea 11:1
- Matt. 2:17-18 - fulfillment of Jer. 31:15
- Matt. 2:23 - fulfillment of "He will be called a Nazarene."
- Matt. 3:1-3 - fulfillment of Isa. 40:3
- Matt. 3:15 - "Jesus replied, 'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented. (This was pertaining to Jesus' baptism)
- Matt. 4:12-16 - fulfillment of Is. 9:1-2
- Matt. 5:17-20 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Jesus isn't destroying them - but He is fulfilling/completing them. Their purpose was to point to Him, and He has fulfilled their requirements.
- He then goes on in the rest of Matthew 5 to teach a new way. Note that He views the law as a whole (the 10 Commandments as well as the other laws). He starts each section by saying things like, "You have heard that it was said," or "It has been said" or "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago..." And then He lists certain laws that God gave to the Israelites in the law - Do not murder (Ex. 20:13), do not commit adultery (Ex. 20:14), anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce (Deut. 24:1), and eye for an eye (Ex. 21:24, Lev. 24:20, Deut. 19:21), love your neighbor (Lev. 19:18). He replaces those commands with His commands - "But I tell you..." Those were the laws that God had given through Moses for the Children of Israel, but Jesus was changing them. Jesus gave a completely new set of guidelines for those who were listening to Him. He goes from Matt. 5 through 7.
- Matt. 7:12 - "So in everything, do to others what you would have them to do you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." If we love we don't need a list of rules. Not only will we not kill people (which only a few people do this), but we won't even hate others. Better yet, we'll love them and be compelled to help them.
- Matt. 7:29 - "teachers of the law" (the law was viewed as a whole)
- Matt. 8:1-4 - Jesus healed a leper and then commanded the man to offer the gift that Moses commanded (remember, the law came from God thru Moses. While Jesus was here, He started the transition from the old covenant to the new covenant. The new covenant began at Jesus' death, but Jesus was born under the law and kept it Himself).
- Matt. 8:17 - fulfillment of Isa. 53:4
- Matt. 9:12 - Jesus quotes from Hos. 6:6
- Matt. 10:35-36 - Jesus fulfilled Mic. 7:6
- Matt. 11:10 - fulfillment of Mal. 3:1
- Matt. 11:13 - "For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John."
- Matt. 11 ends and Matt. 12 begins talking about rest. In Matt. 11:28-30, Jesus says, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." Chapter 12 starts of by saying, "At that time..." then goes into the story about Jesus and the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath and Jesus healing a man with a shriveled hand on the Sabbath. Jesus then compares what they did to King David & his friends eating consecrated bread (which broke the laws that God had given the Israelites). He also compared it to the priests in the temple breaking the Sabbath to fulfill what was required of them by law and saying they were innocent of breaking the Sabbath. In verse 6, Jesus says that He is more important the the temple. And in verse 8, Jesus said that He is Lord of the Sabbath - just as He is Lord over everything He has made! The Sabbath was symbolic of the rest we have in Jesus.
- Matt. 12:15-21 - fulfillment of Is. 42:1-4
- Matt. 12:38 - "teachers of the law"
- Matt. 12:39-42 - Jesus compares Himself to Jonah & Solomon
- Matt. 13:13-15 - fulfillment of Is. 6:9-10
- Matt. 13:34-35 - fulfillment of Psalm 78:2
- Matt. 15:1 - "teachers of the law"
- Matt. 15:1-9 - Jesus says that the Pharisees and teachers of the law are breaking God's laws and keeping their own. Among what Jesus says are "the command of God" and "the word of God" are - "Honor your father and mother" (Ex. 20:12 & Deut. 5:16) and "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death" (Ex. 21:17, Lev. 20:9). They are both from "the law", although they are not both part of the 10 Commandments.
- Matt. 15:7-9 - fulfillment of Isa. 29:13
- Matt. 15:10-20 Jesus talks about the "clean/unclean" laws. He says, "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean." (verse 11) Verses 17-20 describe it even more - "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'" The clean/unclean laws given to the Israelites were symbolic, just like most other things given to them.
Human reasoning vs. the Bible
I'm sure we've all heard that we should take what the Bible says on a subject and not resort to human reasoning, but that's easier said than done. Often, it's hard to sort out what is just a "good story" or what is actually in the Bible. Just because something makes sense and sounds good doesn't mean it is Biblically supported. If the Bible talks about the subject then we need to first look at what the Bible says while putting aside our own preconceptions and the "good stories" we've heard. That's not to say that they aren't necessarily true - but when we read the Bible we shouldn't be doing so with the purpose of making our beliefs work. If we do that, we can take texts completely out of context and twist them to say whatever we want.
Here are some examples of human reasoning (or "good stories") versus what the Bible actually says on the subject.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=197312573614179 - Biblical references here
Here are some examples of human reasoning (or "good stories") versus what the Bible actually says on the subject.
- The 10 Commandments - Human reasoning says, "They were written on stone so God must have meant for them to last forever," "God spoke them with His voice, so we should pay attention to what God has deemed important," "They are God's perfect, royal, eternal law - they existed before the world was made and will continue to exist in heaven." While these all seem like good arguments and they make sense (for the most part), there are some problems with them. I haven't found a single text in the Bible to prove these assertions. On the contrary, when we look at the Bible DOES tell us about the 10 Commandments, we get a completely different picture. Over and over again, they were called the words of the old covenant or the tables of the covenant, and the new covenant has replaced the old covenant.
- The Law - Human reasoning says, "God divided up the old covenant laws into moral, ceremonial, and civil. Only the moral laws carry over" - in otherwords, "Only the 10 Commandments carry over." The Bible, however, doesn't separate them. It is "the law" - not "the laws". And it intermittantly uses "Moses' law" and "the Lord's law" when talking about the law (one great example is Luke 2:22-24 & 39). Contrary to popular belief, the 10 Commandments aren't "The Law of the Lord" and the "rest" of the law considered "the Law of Moses." That is human reasoning and not what the Bible teaches.
- The Sabbath - Human reasoning says, "The Sabbath was instituted at Creation. Adam and Eve kept the Sabbath. The patriarchs kept the Sabbath." The Bible tells us otherwise. The Bible doesn't mention the Sabbath until the time of Moses. Multiple verses put the giving of the Sabbath at Sinai - not creation. Yes, the Sabbath was given to the Israelites as a reminder that God was their Creator, but it was also given as a reminder that God delivered them from Egypt. There is no Biblical record of anyone before Moses' time keeping the Sabbath.
- Wine - Human reasoning says, "Wine is bad - God couldn't possibly have endorsed drinking wine. All positive mentions of 'wine' in the Bible must refer to grape juice." This is a prime example of humans reading things into the text. I've had someone ask me - "You couldn't POSSIBLY think Jesus actually turned water into alcoholic wine?!?!?" Well, yes, actually I do. The Bible tells us it was wine, and it tells us that the custom was to bring out the best stuff first and save the poorer quality for later when the guests were too drunk to notice.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=197312573614179 - Biblical references here
Why I left Adventism
Growing up Adventist, I rarely heard of people leaving the Adventist church. The few that day were thought to have backslidden, apostatized, or turned their backs on God. Not once did I hear of anyone studying their way out of Adventism or leaving due to doctrinal reasons - after all, we had the truth. And yet that is the sole reason I ended up leaving the Adventist church - over doctrines. After months & even years of intensive Bible study, I realized that I could no longer reconcile the Bible with Ellen White or Adventist doctrines. For that reason alone, I had to have my membership removed and find a Biblically-based church to attend.
My experience is far from unique. It was only after studying my way out of Adventism that I became connected with a network of other former-Adventists who had very similiar experiences to mine. In fact, just a few months ago, someone took an unofficial survey of "formers" to see why people left. The vast majority left over doctrinal reasons after discovering that the Bible and SDA doctrines didn't line up. Why isn't that common knowledge in Adventism? Why do people still think people just leave over a "bad experience" or because they are backsliding? This is clearly not the case. Here is a link to the survey - https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/K5T52NM - You can sign up to receive the results of it, too.
This experience of studying my way out of Adventism has been by far the most challenging and difficult thing I've had to face. I've lost my reputation. I've lost friends. I've been personally insulted and had my motives & sanity questioned. Why? All because I posted what I've learned along the way. It's not a pleasant task. It would be much easier to keep quiet and let everything think I was still an Adventist. But that would not be the right thing to do.
My experience is far from unique. It was only after studying my way out of Adventism that I became connected with a network of other former-Adventists who had very similiar experiences to mine. In fact, just a few months ago, someone took an unofficial survey of "formers" to see why people left. The vast majority left over doctrinal reasons after discovering that the Bible and SDA doctrines didn't line up. Why isn't that common knowledge in Adventism? Why do people still think people just leave over a "bad experience" or because they are backsliding? This is clearly not the case. Here is a link to the survey - https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/K5T52NM - You can sign up to receive the results of it, too.
This experience of studying my way out of Adventism has been by far the most challenging and difficult thing I've had to face. I've lost my reputation. I've lost friends. I've been personally insulted and had my motives & sanity questioned. Why? All because I posted what I've learned along the way. It's not a pleasant task. It would be much easier to keep quiet and let everything think I was still an Adventist. But that would not be the right thing to do.
“I love you, and because I love you, I would sooner have you hate me for telling you the truth than adore me for telling you lies.” Pietro Aretino | |
So, for the record, I didn't leave because I had a bad experience in Adventism. I didn't leave because I wanted the easy way out (trust me, this is much harder). I didn't leave because of the people. I don't share what I've learned to hurt or attack anyone. I don't want to offend anyone, but I would rather share what I've learned than keep quiet to avoid possible offense. I would never, ever want someone to go against their conscience. I'm not asking anyone to blindly give up with they believe in. All I'm asking is that you check it out for yourself. Look at the evidence on BOTH sides. Pay attention to what happens when you start asking questions - especially honest, heart-felt questions. It will surprise you... |
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Great Controversy worldview vs. the Bible
One of my Adventist friends asked some great recently that got me thinking about the Adventist view of what's going on behind the scenes versus the standard Christian view. Although I always thought the Great Controvery view was Biblical, I have learned a lot over the last year or so. I'm still learning and have a lot more to learn, but here are her questions as well as some of my thoughts (this was in the context of a discussion on the covenants). Feel free to add to them.
The farther away from Adventism I get the easier it is to differentiate between what the Bible says and what Ellen White says. After all, growing up I thought they both said the same thing. We were certainly taught that Ellen White doesn't contradict the Bible. I've seen so many instances of that being untrue now that I've lost track. But I still forget how deep the thinking goes. The very worldview presented by Ellen White is so different from what we find in the Bible that if two people try to discuss the same thing (but coming from #1 the Great Controversy worldview and #2 the Biblical worldview) the conclusions reached will be miles apart.
To very briefly summarize the Great Controversy worldview the way I understand it (the way I believe Ellen White and Adventism teach) - Lucifer was jealous of Jesus in heaven because God exhaulted Jesus over him. Lucifer felt this was unfair of God and rebelled. Long story short, God gave Lucifer (Satan) rule over the Earth to demonstrate what happens when we don't obey God's laws (or to demonstrate that Satan couldn't set up a better system). The battle of the universe is whether or not God is fair in His laws. If humans can keep God's commandments perfectly (with God's help) then we will vindicate God and prove that He is fair (in both the laws He sets and that He is able to save us). The basis of the Great Controversy theme is that God's holy law is the 10 Commandments. The final test which will divide true followers of God from followers of Satan will be the test of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is viewed as the seal of God and Sunday-keeping is the mark of the beast (because you are ultimately worshipping Satan by worshipping on a day other than the one God designated).
I started collecting evidence from Ellen White to support each of these claims, but there is literally so much that she writes on this topic that it fills chapters and even books. If you wish to see evidence for a particular point, let me know and I'll find it for you, but to present all the evidence here would turn this blog into a book! Just read the first few chapters of Patriarch's and Prophets to get the picture that she presents. At first glance, many of the differences may seem subtle, but the whole Great Controversy theme sets the stage for the 10 Commandments and the Sabbath to be viewed with the highest importance.
One thing I was surprised to discover is that the Bible actually doesn't say much about "pre-creation". Unlike Ellen White who gives extensive detail of Lucifer being jealous of Jesus and the fall in heaven, the Bible is mostly silent. Here are 2 passages. Isaiah 14 is often used to describe the fall (and it may well do that - it sounds like it), but technically speaking it is describing the king of Babylon (cross reference 2 Thess. 2 and it sounds like this is speaking of someone other than Satan).
Rev. 12:7-9 - "And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."
Luke 10:18 - "He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.'"
The fall of man is detailed in Gen. 3. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate the fruit. It's interesting to me that the original sin had absolutely nothing to do with the 10 Commandments. From what I understand, the focus in Adventism is on specific sins (namely breaking any of the 10 Commandments), but the Biblical understanding is a sin-condition. I think that Adventism touches on this, but focuses more on specific sins. My understanding is that when Adam & Eve disobeyed God (again, which had nothing to do with the 10 Commandments), humanity was cursed with the sin condition. We are born sinful (even before we commit any actual "sins"). Humans can't stop sinning and our only hope is a Savior.
And since I'm sure this will come up - I'm NOT at all advocating that since we can't stop sinning we shouldn't try to be good or follow God's commands, but I am saying that on this earth I don't believe the Bible teaches that humans can or will stop sinning. If we could - even by simply allowing God to be perfect in us as some would argue - would we really need a Savior? If Jesus didn't have to die for us to save us - if we just had to allow God to help us be perfect - why did He die?
As to why God sent Jesus - John 3:14-18 answers that. "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."
It also explains what the judgement will be about. Other versions translate "condemn" as "judged". The judgement is about this - whether we accept Jesus or not. As fallen humans we can never measure up to God's perfect standard. The good news (the Gospel) is that Jesus died for sinful humans to save us!
I found this passage this morning that gives a great account of what we're talking about
Gal. 3:17 fits perfectly with this passage in establishing that the law was given to Moses (not before). "What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise."
This passage in Romans tells us that even those who didn't break a specific command (before Moses) still sinned. The Bible presents quite a different picture from Ellen White once you really get into it. And you can see how the answers to the original questions will be very, very different depending on whether you get your worldview from the Bible or Ellen White (even if you think she is in line with the Bible). The Great Controversy view is largely all about the 10 Commandments. If you look at them from that perspective you will never be able to grasp that the Bible teaches the 10 Commandments were the old covenant which fades away...
I have a few questions.. Why are we in the position we're in? What caused the fall of humanity? What happened prior to the fall of humanity that affected us? Why did God allow us to live even though we should have died? Why did he send Jesus to die the death that we earned and deserved? What does the devil want? What does he want to prove?
The farther away from Adventism I get the easier it is to differentiate between what the Bible says and what Ellen White says. After all, growing up I thought they both said the same thing. We were certainly taught that Ellen White doesn't contradict the Bible. I've seen so many instances of that being untrue now that I've lost track. But I still forget how deep the thinking goes. The very worldview presented by Ellen White is so different from what we find in the Bible that if two people try to discuss the same thing (but coming from #1 the Great Controversy worldview and #2 the Biblical worldview) the conclusions reached will be miles apart.
To very briefly summarize the Great Controversy worldview the way I understand it (the way I believe Ellen White and Adventism teach) - Lucifer was jealous of Jesus in heaven because God exhaulted Jesus over him. Lucifer felt this was unfair of God and rebelled. Long story short, God gave Lucifer (Satan) rule over the Earth to demonstrate what happens when we don't obey God's laws (or to demonstrate that Satan couldn't set up a better system). The battle of the universe is whether or not God is fair in His laws. If humans can keep God's commandments perfectly (with God's help) then we will vindicate God and prove that He is fair (in both the laws He sets and that He is able to save us). The basis of the Great Controversy theme is that God's holy law is the 10 Commandments. The final test which will divide true followers of God from followers of Satan will be the test of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is viewed as the seal of God and Sunday-keeping is the mark of the beast (because you are ultimately worshipping Satan by worshipping on a day other than the one God designated).
I started collecting evidence from Ellen White to support each of these claims, but there is literally so much that she writes on this topic that it fills chapters and even books. If you wish to see evidence for a particular point, let me know and I'll find it for you, but to present all the evidence here would turn this blog into a book! Just read the first few chapters of Patriarch's and Prophets to get the picture that she presents. At first glance, many of the differences may seem subtle, but the whole Great Controversy theme sets the stage for the 10 Commandments and the Sabbath to be viewed with the highest importance.
One thing I was surprised to discover is that the Bible actually doesn't say much about "pre-creation". Unlike Ellen White who gives extensive detail of Lucifer being jealous of Jesus and the fall in heaven, the Bible is mostly silent. Here are 2 passages. Isaiah 14 is often used to describe the fall (and it may well do that - it sounds like it), but technically speaking it is describing the king of Babylon (cross reference 2 Thess. 2 and it sounds like this is speaking of someone other than Satan).
Rev. 12:7-9 - "And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."
Luke 10:18 - "He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.'"
The fall of man is detailed in Gen. 3. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and ate the fruit. It's interesting to me that the original sin had absolutely nothing to do with the 10 Commandments. From what I understand, the focus in Adventism is on specific sins (namely breaking any of the 10 Commandments), but the Biblical understanding is a sin-condition. I think that Adventism touches on this, but focuses more on specific sins. My understanding is that when Adam & Eve disobeyed God (again, which had nothing to do with the 10 Commandments), humanity was cursed with the sin condition. We are born sinful (even before we commit any actual "sins"). Humans can't stop sinning and our only hope is a Savior.
And since I'm sure this will come up - I'm NOT at all advocating that since we can't stop sinning we shouldn't try to be good or follow God's commands, but I am saying that on this earth I don't believe the Bible teaches that humans can or will stop sinning. If we could - even by simply allowing God to be perfect in us as some would argue - would we really need a Savior? If Jesus didn't have to die for us to save us - if we just had to allow God to help us be perfect - why did He die?
As to why God sent Jesus - John 3:14-18 answers that. "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."
It also explains what the judgement will be about. Other versions translate "condemn" as "judged". The judgement is about this - whether we accept Jesus or not. As fallen humans we can never measure up to God's perfect standard. The good news (the Gospel) is that Jesus died for sinful humans to save us!
I found this passage this morning that gives a great account of what we're talking about
Rom. 5:5-20
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Gal. 3:17 fits perfectly with this passage in establishing that the law was given to Moses (not before). "What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise."
This passage in Romans tells us that even those who didn't break a specific command (before Moses) still sinned. The Bible presents quite a different picture from Ellen White once you really get into it. And you can see how the answers to the original questions will be very, very different depending on whether you get your worldview from the Bible or Ellen White (even if you think she is in line with the Bible). The Great Controversy view is largely all about the 10 Commandments. If you look at them from that perspective you will never be able to grasp that the Bible teaches the 10 Commandments were the old covenant which fades away...
Common misconceptions
There are many common misconceptions that Adventists have toward non-Adventists or former Adventists. I used to believe them myself. I don't remember being taught them specifically, but I obviously learned them somewhere. And now that I'm on the outside looking in, I've come to realize that the mentality I had is common in many Adventists. It's almost amusing, and yet disturbing, to hear the same words come out of the mouths of so many of my SDA friends or relatives during a discussion. The responses are quite predictable now. I'm sure you've experienced some of these, but here are a few examples.
(And let me preface this by saying that the tone may come across a bit harsh. I don't mean it to. I tried thinking of a better way to write it, but it comes across as "us" vs. "them". As I said before, I used to believe these myself. I'm not trying to attack people who believe this way - I just want to point out that these are misconceptions).
I think that is one reason that as an Adventist we felt so sure we were right. We had seen the arguments - what we thought to be the issues - and Adventists made a much stronger case. What we didn't know then - and what Adventists don't know now - is that those aren't the issues at all. To make their doctrines seem air-tight they build up a straw man and then tear it down with their arguments. They present this picture of what people who leave Adventism are like, but the reality is much different. In my 28 years as an Adventist, I never heard an Adventist say another Adventist left the church for doctrinal reasons. It was always presented as the person was backsliding, going into the world, leaving God, they were hurt by someone in the church, abandoning "the truth", or something along those lines. And yet I would wager that a huge percentage of those who leave Adventism today are leaving for doctrinal reasons.
This is a huge stumbling block when you try to have a conversation with an Adventist. They think they know what you believe and so - no matter what you say- they hear what they think you are saying, not what you are really saying. It's really frustrating. And it's so hard to get the other person to understand that you don't believe that way, because they are taught that is what non-Adventists believe.
(And let me preface this by saying that the tone may come across a bit harsh. I don't mean it to. I tried thinking of a better way to write it, but it comes across as "us" vs. "them". As I said before, I used to believe these myself. I'm not trying to attack people who believe this way - I just want to point out that these are misconceptions).
- When I tell people I no longer believe Ellen White was a true prophet, I'm asked things such as, "So why don't you like Mrs. White?" That is not the issue. My belief that she wasn't speaking for God has absolutely nothing to do my "liking" or "disliking" her. They'll bring up things like, "You have to take what she said in context - don't read compilations," as though that were a cure-all for every one of her odd or contradictory statements. And it assumes that we've heard random bad or strange things about her without checking it out - basically believing "all that garbage on the internet."
- When I say that I don't believe the 10 Commandments apply to Christians the assumption is made that all morality is thrown out the window. "So you believe it's ok to kill and commit adultery? And steal? And lie?" Really? Why is that the logical conclusion? And even when I point out examples of morality outside of the 10 Commandments, it doesn't seem to change the mentality at all.
- When I say that I don't believe the Sabbath applies to Christians - "So you keep Sunday? But that's the mark of the beast! God never changed the day from Sabbath to Sunday! The Pope did!" There's so much to say on this one, but I'll keep it brief. In their question, they completely miss the point. I don't believe a day is holy at all. Sunday isn't holy. Saturday isn't holy (it was to the Jews, as were the other feast days - but they were all just a shadow of Jesus). It is incomprehensible to most Adventists that we could believe no day is holy. Their focus (because of Ellen White) is on Sunday vs. Sabbath, but for the majority of former Adventists the day is a non-issue! We are told to worship God TODAY! When I point out that I don't "keep" any day, the conversation usually goes silent. They know exactly how to argue against Sunday vs. Sabbath, but I never once heard in an SDA Bible study or sermon about people who didn't keep any day holy. The "right" day was always the issue in Adventism!
I think that is one reason that as an Adventist we felt so sure we were right. We had seen the arguments - what we thought to be the issues - and Adventists made a much stronger case. What we didn't know then - and what Adventists don't know now - is that those aren't the issues at all. To make their doctrines seem air-tight they build up a straw man and then tear it down with their arguments. They present this picture of what people who leave Adventism are like, but the reality is much different. In my 28 years as an Adventist, I never heard an Adventist say another Adventist left the church for doctrinal reasons. It was always presented as the person was backsliding, going into the world, leaving God, they were hurt by someone in the church, abandoning "the truth", or something along those lines. And yet I would wager that a huge percentage of those who leave Adventism today are leaving for doctrinal reasons.
This is a huge stumbling block when you try to have a conversation with an Adventist. They think they know what you believe and so - no matter what you say- they hear what they think you are saying, not what you are really saying. It's really frustrating. And it's so hard to get the other person to understand that you don't believe that way, because they are taught that is what non-Adventists believe.
Is it un-Christian to point out error?
Is it possible to be pro-something without being anti-something? Is it possible to stand up for the right without standing up against the wrong (borrowed from a Christian song)?
Is it possible to believe in sanctity of marriage without being against divorce, abuse, and adultery?
Is it possible to believe in the sanctity of human life without being against abortion?
Is it possible to believe something without believing the opposing views are wrong?
As with everything, there is a balance. For example, being a Christian, I believe Jesus is the only way to God (which the Bible teaches). I believe that those who believe different (for example, Muslims, Hindus, athiests/agnostics, etc.) are incorrect. The balance comes in how you handle it. I completely respect the individuals who believe differently than I do, even though I disagree with them. I don't get in people's face and tell them that their beliefs are wrong. I don't post comments on their Facebook page saying, "I'm right and you're wrong." I don't think less of a person for believing differently than I do. Those would all be very un-Christian things to do.
However, I do speak my beliefs on this page. I do not attack specific people, and I very much love the Adventist people themselves. It is the doctrine/theology that I have a problem with. Even though I created a site where people would have to come to if they wanted to see it (so it would be less-offensive than having it on my personal page and popping up in people's newsfeed), I know some people still feel like this is a personal, in-your-face attack.
This is something I struggle with. On one hand, I understand where they are coming from and I know it's not very "nice" to point out error's in a church - people tend to take it personally if you express your disagreements with their beliefs even if it not meant to be personal. But on the other hand, I don't know if it's possible to be Pro-Gospel (as someone here put it) without standing up against false gospels.
Sometimes I think this generation in particular has lost focus of what's important. It seems to be more important now to not offend people and just "mind your own business" than to risk offense by sharing your beliefs. But how is that compatible with Christianity? If Jesus IS the only way to God, how is it better to avoid offending someone by sharing that (though they may believe completely differently) than to not tell them and have them be lost? If the Sabbath IS the end-time issue in the world dividing true believers from false believers (as we used to believe), how can anyone say, "I'm happy that you've found another church (even if it's on the "wrong" day) - to each his own"? If Ellen White DOES teach a different gospel than the Bible, how is it "Christian" to not share what we've learned (wouldn't we encourage someone who left LDS Church to share the truth with those they left behind?)?
Why do we think the "Christian" thing to do is to just keep our beliefs to ourselves so we don't inconvenience or offend anyone? Is that what the Bible teaches?
"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked man from among you.'" 1 Cor. 5:12-13
There is a difference between looking down on someone because of their actions and calling sin "sin" or error "error". Saying something is right or wrong isn't the same as judging a person's hearts or motives or saying someone isn't right with God because of externals ("dangly earrings" for example). Christianity isn't about smoothing everything over and making everyone feel comfortable - "It's ok if you believe that. I'm happy for you! (I really think you're lost, but I'm not going to share the truth with you because it's not my business)"
While Christians aren't called to be "nice" and make people feel warm and fuzzy inside, we ARE called to love. There are so many ways to show our love for people. Sometimes the "loving" thing to do is not the "nice" thing to do. If we strap our screaming toddler into a car seat for their protection, they may hate being confined and think we are being mean, but really it's for their protection and it's the loving thing to do. If we smack a child's hand away from a hot stove to keep them from being burned, they won't see that as loving but it's done to protect them. If we point out false doctrine (which we have great examples of people in the Bible doing that very thing), it may come across as offensive or hurtful, but it's done out of love - for those we share with and for the true Gospel.
We need to get our priorities straight. To quote Paul from Gal. 1:10
"Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."
Is it possible to believe in sanctity of marriage without being against divorce, abuse, and adultery?
Is it possible to believe in the sanctity of human life without being against abortion?
Is it possible to believe something without believing the opposing views are wrong?
As with everything, there is a balance. For example, being a Christian, I believe Jesus is the only way to God (which the Bible teaches). I believe that those who believe different (for example, Muslims, Hindus, athiests/agnostics, etc.) are incorrect. The balance comes in how you handle it. I completely respect the individuals who believe differently than I do, even though I disagree with them. I don't get in people's face and tell them that their beliefs are wrong. I don't post comments on their Facebook page saying, "I'm right and you're wrong." I don't think less of a person for believing differently than I do. Those would all be very un-Christian things to do.
However, I do speak my beliefs on this page. I do not attack specific people, and I very much love the Adventist people themselves. It is the doctrine/theology that I have a problem with. Even though I created a site where people would have to come to if they wanted to see it (so it would be less-offensive than having it on my personal page and popping up in people's newsfeed), I know some people still feel like this is a personal, in-your-face attack.
This is something I struggle with. On one hand, I understand where they are coming from and I know it's not very "nice" to point out error's in a church - people tend to take it personally if you express your disagreements with their beliefs even if it not meant to be personal. But on the other hand, I don't know if it's possible to be Pro-Gospel (as someone here put it) without standing up against false gospels.
Sometimes I think this generation in particular has lost focus of what's important. It seems to be more important now to not offend people and just "mind your own business" than to risk offense by sharing your beliefs. But how is that compatible with Christianity? If Jesus IS the only way to God, how is it better to avoid offending someone by sharing that (though they may believe completely differently) than to not tell them and have them be lost? If the Sabbath IS the end-time issue in the world dividing true believers from false believers (as we used to believe), how can anyone say, "I'm happy that you've found another church (even if it's on the "wrong" day) - to each his own"? If Ellen White DOES teach a different gospel than the Bible, how is it "Christian" to not share what we've learned (wouldn't we encourage someone who left LDS Church to share the truth with those they left behind?)?
Why do we think the "Christian" thing to do is to just keep our beliefs to ourselves so we don't inconvenience or offend anyone? Is that what the Bible teaches?
- John the Baptist didn't mince words when he called the Pharisees & Sadducees a brood of vipers. Matt. 3:7
- Jesus' very message was offensive in that it meant people were doing things wrong and needed to repent. No one WANTS to be told to repent - "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." Matt. 4:17
- Jesus denounced unrepentant cities (he wasn't concerned with protecting people's "feelings"). Matt. 11:20-24
- Jesus didn't tiptoe around the Scribes, Pharisee's, and Sadducees. He called them a wicked and adulterous generation (Matt. 12:39), commandment-breakers (Matt. 15:3), hypocrites (Matt. 22:18, 23:13), said they were in error in their beliefs (Matt. 22:29). In fact, read all of Matthew 23, then tell me that Christianity is just about being "nice".
- Jesus said "Get behind me, Satan!" when Peter said that Jesus wouldn't be killed. Matt. 16:23
- He overturned the money-changers' tables at the temple (certainly not a "nice" thing to do). Matt. 21:12-13
- Peter didn't sugar-coat his words when he addressed the crowds at Pentecost. He said YOU killed Jesus. Acts 2:23, 36. Repent! Acts 2:38
- Again in Acts 3:12-15 Peter told the crowd straight up, "You disowned the Holy and Righteous One." "You killed the author of life." Wow, talk about potentially-offensive words!
- 1 Cor. 5 Paul tells them to kick an immoral man out of the church. But wait, that's not very "nice"!
- In Galatians 2 Paul stood up against Peter and called him out for his error.
- Gal. 3:1 is quite offensive - "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?..."
"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. 'Expel the wicked man from among you.'" 1 Cor. 5:12-13
There is a difference between looking down on someone because of their actions and calling sin "sin" or error "error". Saying something is right or wrong isn't the same as judging a person's hearts or motives or saying someone isn't right with God because of externals ("dangly earrings" for example). Christianity isn't about smoothing everything over and making everyone feel comfortable - "It's ok if you believe that. I'm happy for you! (I really think you're lost, but I'm not going to share the truth with you because it's not my business)"
While Christians aren't called to be "nice" and make people feel warm and fuzzy inside, we ARE called to love. There are so many ways to show our love for people. Sometimes the "loving" thing to do is not the "nice" thing to do. If we strap our screaming toddler into a car seat for their protection, they may hate being confined and think we are being mean, but really it's for their protection and it's the loving thing to do. If we smack a child's hand away from a hot stove to keep them from being burned, they won't see that as loving but it's done to protect them. If we point out false doctrine (which we have great examples of people in the Bible doing that very thing), it may come across as offensive or hurtful, but it's done out of love - for those we share with and for the true Gospel.
We need to get our priorities straight. To quote Paul from Gal. 1:10
"Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."
Colossians
This morning I was reading Colossians. Lately I have been surprised and blessed by reading the context of passages instead of just reading a verse here and there. You really can't understand what one sentence is saying unless you read it in it's proper context. I read and re-read Colossians 2 several times today and am still surprised at how beautifully and consistently everything goes together in light of the covenants. Please, read the whole chapter, but I will be quoting specifically from just a few of the verses.
"My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments." (verses 2-4)
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (verse 8)
It then goes on to talk about circumcision and showing that we are figuratively circumcised through Christ (the literal circumcision was pointing to that - it wasn't moral in and of itself, and it talks about baptism as well).
"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." (verses 13-14)
"Therefore 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. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." (verses 16-17)
"Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 'Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!' These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence." (verses 20-23)
I had so many thoughts when reading this. First of all, in Christ is all wisdom and knowledge, and we aren't to be deceived by fine-sounding arguments or deceptive philosophy based on basic principles of the world rather than on Christ. Then it talks about things that were shadows of what was to come (Christ). Among the things mentioned are circumcision, the food & drink laws of the old covenant, and the special days set up under the old covenant (yearly festivals, monthly New Moon, and weekly Sabbath). These things are all called SHADOWS. They played their part and were important at the time (they were given by God), but they weren't the real deal. Christ was.
Most Sabbatarians when they read this (I used to be the same way) start with the assumption - "This passage cannot be saying what it seems to be saying about the Sabbath, so it must mean something else." Then based on that belief, they try to find a way to make it fit. Remember, I am dealing with facts here, not trying to focus on people (and I used to believe the same way, so I am able to say "I was wrong" when proven that was the case), so please don't take this personally.
From that key thought (It can't be saying what it appears to be saying...), this verse is handled in a number of ways. Some people say that the word for "Sabbath" here is plural, so it cannot be talking about the weekly Sabbath but must be talking about the other festival Sabbaths. The problem with that is those are already covered by the first part ("religious festival") and this would be repetitive. Throughout scripture, we are presented this pattern (yearly, monthly, weekly) which include the weekly Sabbath (reference 1 Chron. 23:31, 2 Chron. 2:4, Neh. 10:33, Hos. 2:11, Ezek. 45:17). Not only that, but the word for Sabbath (sabbaton) occurs 68 times in the NT. The other 67 times are clearly referring to the weekly Sabbath, so why would this be any different?
Another way of handling it is by focusing on the "judge" part. They reason that we aren't supposed to judge other people based on these things and that it isn't telling us one way or another if they are still applicable. But that doesn't make sense in light of the next verse - they are a shadow not the reality. That seems pretty clear.
So if this passage is really saying what it appears to be saying (this isn't the only passage that deals with this, by the way, just the one I happened to read this morning), then the Sabbath (weekly) was indeed a shadow of Christ, what does that mean? Well, the Israelites were told to rest of the Sabbath. Jesus tells us not to rest on a day but in HIM. Matt 11:28-29 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Also note Hebrews 4 - the Israelites who had the weekly Sabbath rest still didn't enter into God's rest. And yet we are called TODAY (not on the 7th day of the week) to enter into His rest through Jesus. The Sabbath (and the other things listed) was simply a shadow - Jesus is the reality.
"My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments." (verses 2-4)
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (verse 8)
It then goes on to talk about circumcision and showing that we are figuratively circumcised through Christ (the literal circumcision was pointing to that - it wasn't moral in and of itself, and it talks about baptism as well).
"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross." (verses 13-14)
"Therefore 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. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." (verses 16-17)
"Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 'Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!' These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence." (verses 20-23)
I had so many thoughts when reading this. First of all, in Christ is all wisdom and knowledge, and we aren't to be deceived by fine-sounding arguments or deceptive philosophy based on basic principles of the world rather than on Christ. Then it talks about things that were shadows of what was to come (Christ). Among the things mentioned are circumcision, the food & drink laws of the old covenant, and the special days set up under the old covenant (yearly festivals, monthly New Moon, and weekly Sabbath). These things are all called SHADOWS. They played their part and were important at the time (they were given by God), but they weren't the real deal. Christ was.
Most Sabbatarians when they read this (I used to be the same way) start with the assumption - "This passage cannot be saying what it seems to be saying about the Sabbath, so it must mean something else." Then based on that belief, they try to find a way to make it fit. Remember, I am dealing with facts here, not trying to focus on people (and I used to believe the same way, so I am able to say "I was wrong" when proven that was the case), so please don't take this personally.
From that key thought (It can't be saying what it appears to be saying...), this verse is handled in a number of ways. Some people say that the word for "Sabbath" here is plural, so it cannot be talking about the weekly Sabbath but must be talking about the other festival Sabbaths. The problem with that is those are already covered by the first part ("religious festival") and this would be repetitive. Throughout scripture, we are presented this pattern (yearly, monthly, weekly) which include the weekly Sabbath (reference 1 Chron. 23:31, 2 Chron. 2:4, Neh. 10:33, Hos. 2:11, Ezek. 45:17). Not only that, but the word for Sabbath (sabbaton) occurs 68 times in the NT. The other 67 times are clearly referring to the weekly Sabbath, so why would this be any different?
Another way of handling it is by focusing on the "judge" part. They reason that we aren't supposed to judge other people based on these things and that it isn't telling us one way or another if they are still applicable. But that doesn't make sense in light of the next verse - they are a shadow not the reality. That seems pretty clear.
So if this passage is really saying what it appears to be saying (this isn't the only passage that deals with this, by the way, just the one I happened to read this morning), then the Sabbath (weekly) was indeed a shadow of Christ, what does that mean? Well, the Israelites were told to rest of the Sabbath. Jesus tells us not to rest on a day but in HIM. Matt 11:28-29 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Also note Hebrews 4 - the Israelites who had the weekly Sabbath rest still didn't enter into God's rest. And yet we are called TODAY (not on the 7th day of the week) to enter into His rest through Jesus. The Sabbath (and the other things listed) was simply a shadow - Jesus is the reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)