keeping Gods comandments

[steve]

Cheryl,

I am sure you are right. I recognize the arguments, too.

[charleswest]

Isaiah 44:6
" Thus says

the LORD, the King of Israel,

And

***(Thus says) his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:

' I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

***If there are two speaking the same thing at the same time (The LORD and his Redeemer), then they are both saying the same thing. The Father and the Son are two individuals. Me and Me.

So here at least God is binary*.

But we know He is Trinary.

[charleswest]

Isaiah 9:6
"For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given;

The phrase "Son is given" would indicate that Jesus existed as a Son to his Father prior to His being born as the son of man.

I believe that "a Child is born" refers to the incarnation; and that "a Son is given" refers to the crucifixion, subsequent to the child being born. Whenever the New Testament speaks of Christ as being "given", it is virtually always a reference to Him "giving" Himself on the cross (e.g., Mark 10:45/John 10:11/ Gal. 1:4; 2:20/ Eph.5:25/ 1 Tim.2:6, 14). The only exception that comes to mind is John 3:16, which speaks of God giving His unique Son, and which appears to be a reference to Christ's atoning death, as well.

Steve, your point makes some sense. Yet I think immediately to the image of God in man, where the first man (Adam) was also a father, and beget sons who became fathers.

Since this imagery precedes all others in human history in the Historical writings, I still must regard the Father/Son relationship to be the preexisting template wherewith God created man.

I think this is further supported by the phrase "God is Love". What greater love is there but a Father for his Son?

[charleswest]

But I wonder....

Is not the word "God" a political title?

And to Three people only may not that title apply?

[steve]

Steve, your point makes some sense. Yet I think immediately to the image of God in man, where the first man (Adam) was also a father, and beget sons who became fathers.

Since this imagery precedes all others in human history in the Historical writings, I still must regard the Father/Son relationship to be the preexisting template wherewith God created man.

I think this is further supported by the phrase "God is Love". What greater love is there but a Father for his Son?

Hi Charles,

I don't consider this to be an airtight argument, since marriage was created even earlier than the appearance of sons and daughters. This makes the husband/wife relationship even more ancient and fundamental than that of father/son. Yet, we would not argue from this that the husband/wife relationship existed eternally in the godhead.

[Paidion]

The earliest Christians understood the following passage as speaking of the "begetting of the Son before all ages" as they put it.

Psalm 2:7-12

I will tell of the decree:
The LORD said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron
and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled. ESV

Now I am aware that these words seem to be Yahweh's words to David, calling David his son. This is, of course, the Jewish explanation.

But the earliest Christians obviously took these words as applying to Jesus. e.g. Heb 1:5, 5:5. The apostles and others in the primitive Church understood many passages which seemed to apply to quite different situations, as being fulfilled in Christ. Of those many, I will mention one other, “Out of Egypt have I called my son” in the Old Testament obviously referred to God bringing his son “Israel” out of Egypt and into the promised land. But the gospel writer applies it to Jesus coming out of Egypt after his parents fled there to escape Herod's intent to kill the expected Messiah.

Then Luke, in Acts 13:32-35 may also have understood God's raising up Jesus in order to bring the gospel to the world, by first begetting Him:

And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm,
“‘You are my Son,
today I have begotten you.

Now I realize that many think, because of the verses which follow, that this begetting refers to His resurrection.

And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way, “I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.” Therefore he says also in another psalm, “ You will not let your Holy One see corruption.”

However, it seems rather odd that Christ being raised from death should be called "God begetting Christ". Looking carefully at the text, it seems this is not the case.
Notice Luke adds, “And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead...” indicating a slight change of subject. Luke now quotes other scriptures which he believes predictive of the resurrection. This shows that the resurrection is a quite different matter from the begetting.

[Dennis007]

Steve, – you are a most gracious host. Your radio program is the by far the most open discussion of any Sunday Christian program that I have heard of! I want you to know that I expected to have been banned from your web site! I want the readers to know that I love you!!!

I was raised a Missouri Synod Lutheran. (At that time it was the most conservative). I married a backslider Seventh-day Adventist. I joined the SDA Church a year later. I avidly studied the Ellen G. White books. I gradually became aware that some of their teachings went against what I was reading in the books. When I began to bring up these differences, I was told that I must be mistaken. I began underlining and marking pages in the books and carrying them to class. When I quoted Ellen White and gave the reference, there was silence in the class. I began to enjoy putting the leadership to silence. I was to naive to know that I had to be stopped. Then came a church trial, trumped up charges and lying witnesses. I thought that it was the local church so I appealed to the conference. They refused to hear me and told me that I was a troublemaker. I immediately with-drew my support from all SDA Conference controlled organizations.

There is a loose knit group of members and pastors who have been put out of the Conference churches. We believe like the Adventists back in the 1800's. We are the Historic Seventh-day Adventists. I do not believe the 27 fundamental beliefs. We may in the future be sued for using that name.
http://www.trueremnantchurchofyah.info/ ... t/Lawsuit/

[charleswest]

Steve, your point makes some sense. Yet I think immediately to the image of God in man, where the first man (Adam) was also a father, and beget sons who became fathers.

Since this imagery precedes all others in human history in the Historical writings, I still must regard the Father/Son relationship to be the preexisting template wherewith God created man.

I think this is further supported by the phrase "God is Love". What greater love is there but a Father for his Son?

Hi Charles,

I don't consider this to be an airtight argument, since marriage was created even earlier than the appearance of sons and daughters. This makes the husband/wife relationship even more ancient and fundamental than that of father/son. Yet, we would not argue from this that the husband/wife relationship existed eternally in the godhead.

"Yet, we would not argue from this that the husband/wife relationship existed eternally in the godhead"

Why not? Is that not also part of the original template? Wasn't Eve hidden within Adam much the same way the Holy Spirit was hidden within God?

[brody196]

Steve, – you are a most gracious host. Your radio program is the by far the most open discussion of any Sunday Christian program that I have heard of! I want you to know that I expected to have been banned from your web site! I want the readers to know that I love you!!!

Dennis,

Steve and the moderators here are very gracious and will not ban you if you do not violate the rules. However, If you wish to be taken seriously, you should interact with what people post, rather than proof text a few verses and claim victory. We have a bunch smart brothers and sisters here who study the scriptures daily and are more than capable of defending their position in a reasonable manner. I have learned a lot about nearly ever facet of Christianity in my brief time on these boards. You will too if you stick around.

I was raised a Missouri Synod Lutheran. (At that time it was the most conservative). I married a backslider Seventh-day Adventist. I joined the SDA Church a year later. I avidly studied the Ellen G. White books. I gradually became aware that some of their teachings went against what I was reading in the books. When I began to bring up these differences, I was told that I must be mistaken. I began underlining and marking pages in the books and carrying them to class. When I quoted Ellen White and gave the reference, there was silence in the class. I began to enjoy putting the leadership to silence. I was to naive to know that I had to be stopped. Then came a church trial, trumped up charges and lying witnesses. I thought that it was the local church so I appealed to the conference. They refused to hear me and told me that I was a troublemaker. I immediately with-drew my support from all SDA Conference controlled organizations.

There is a loose knit group of members and pastors who have been put out of the Conference churches. We believe like the Adventists back in the 1800's. We are the Historic Seventh-day Adventists. I do not believe the 27 fundamental beliefs. We may in the future be sued for using that name.
http://www.trueremnantchurchofyah.info/ ... t/Lawsuit/

Are church names really all that important to begin with? The NT seems to call the church many different names(The Way, Church of God, Church of Christ, Etc..)

I spent a little time rummaging through the website you provided and found a few things of interest. I do not want to hijack or derail this thread, so if you will meet me at the "Denominations" board found under the "Church Life" index heading, we can discuss it if you are interested??

[steve]

I received a letter from another brother who is a Sabbath-keeper. I responded to his points, which I will present below, for the sake of any who might find it interesting:


Dear Brother D—,

Thank you for taking the time to lay out your concerns and your theological position on the Sabbath. You are right that I am familiar with the arguments given by Adventists. While I respect the right of Adventists (or anyone else) to see the scriptures in this light, and to keep the Sabbath themselves, there are compelling reasons why I have never found their arguments convincing. Since you were good enough to take the time to lay out your reasons, I thought it only fair for me to return the favor and present my responses to each of your ideas.

The Sabbath command was written down in stone just like the others.

Seventh-Day Adventists seem to believe that a law’s being written on stone automatically settles the question of its eternal permanence, in contrast to the temporal nature of other laws in the Old Testament, which were not written in stone. The Bible never makes this connection. A law of God is a law of God, regardless the medium upon which it is written. That the law given to Israel was connected to the Old Covenant (the Sabbath, in particular, being said to be connected to that first covenant—Exodus 31:16-17). The fact that many of these laws (e.g., temple worship, levitical priesthood, circumcision, Passover and Sabbath observance) are said to be “perpetual” does not mean that they carry over, without alteration, into the New Covenant. To suggest that laws being written on stone relegates them to a category of those which last forever is to overlook Paul’s statement on that very subject, in 2 Corinthians 3, where he specifies that the old order that fades away was, in fact, written in stone (v.3, 7).

God’s Law was not the issue in the apostolic church; it was the Mosaic Law and the annual Sabbaths. (Acts 15)

This is what Adventists always say. Finding biblical support for this distinction is another matter. Can you tell me where the “Law of God” is distinguished, in the Old Testament, from the “Law of Moses”? I believe this is an ad hoc distinction created by the Adventists, not scripture. In fact, the term “Law of God” is used of laws that are written in a “book” (Josh.24:26 / Neh.8:8, 18) — not of the ten commandments. If we look for references to “The Law of the Lord,” we find that it, too, is written in a “book” (2 Chron.17:9), and includes “the morning and evening burnt offerings, the burnt offerings for the Sabbaths and the New Moons and the set feasts” (2 Chron.31:3)—not the ten commandments. In other words, where are you finding a distinction between “God’s Law” and the “Law of Moses”?

Also, there is no reason (other than its frequent repetition by Adventists) to say that the “Sabbaths” mentioned in Colossians 2:16-17 are annual, rather than weekly, Sabbaths. In fact, the structure of verse 16 is against this. Paul mentions all the Jewish holy days, in order of increasing frequency: festivals (annual); new moons (monthly); Sabbaths (weekly). If Adventists wish to convince non-Adventists of these points, they will have to cite an authority above Mrs. White. Pointing out such ideas in the Bible will be required to convince some of us.

Col. 2 points out that the Sabbaths in question were “shadows of things to come” not weekly Sabbaths in REMEMBRANCE of Creation.

It is not strange that a ceremony that celebrates a past event in history may also foreshadow a future, spiritual reality. Passover, for example, was remembrance of the Exodus, but foreshadowed Christ (1 Cor.5:7).

Rom. 15 also is referencing Mosaic Law as it speaks of the issue of unclean foods. Jewishness, i.e. circumcision, etc. was the problem dividing the church and under discussion along with other Mosaic elements-not the 10 Commandments.

Romans 14:5 says that one man (in the church) observes one day above another; whereas another man (in the church) counts all days alike. Adventists say that this is not a reference to a dispute over Sabbath observance. The burden of proof lies very heavily upon them to establish this point, since a man who “esteems every day alike” can hardly be a Sabbath observer. The assertion is made of whole cloth, without any exegetical basis. This means that those who do not have an a priori loyalty to the Adventist movement will find no reason to accept as valid such counterintuitive interpretations of scripture.

Rev. 12:17 and 14:12 reference the “Law of God” as one of the two identifying features of individuals awaiting the joyous return of Jesus. And, of course, the 4th commandment is part of that Law.

The proper application of the “Law of God” in the Christian’s life requires that we observe which commandments are still “on the books,” and which ones have lapsed. God commanded Israel to go in and conquer the land of Canaan, but when the people refused, God commanded them to turn back and wander for another 38 years (His orders changed). When Israel decided to go back and seek to obey the earlier (now defunct) command, they were badly chastised (Numbers 14). The commandments relevant to the New Covenant are those given by the New Lawgiver, Jesus. Interestingly, Jesus never commanded anything about the Sabbath, except to say, “it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” Jesus compared the value of the Sabbath with that of other ceremonial laws—e.g., the sanctity of the shewbread and the offering of sacrifices in the temple (Matthew 12:1-6).

Dan. 7:25 asserts that the Little Horn will THINK TO CHANGE time and laws. I See the Little Horn from the Reformation and Historicist view as the Papal power. They see their changing of the Sabbath to Sunday As the defining moment of their divine appointment. (See Peter Geierman’s Catichism of Catholic Doctrine. The Catholic Encyclopedia and a myriad other sources.

The Roman Catholic Church is pretty lame in many of its assertions. The change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday is an instance of such nonsense. However, the popes were not the first to claim the law has changed. That honor goes to the writer of Hebrews (7:12). While the writer does not mention the Sabbath being changed, he does mention a change in the priesthood, which is a major change—in terms of practical benefit to those seeking atonement from sin, it is far more significant than the Sabbath. In fact, even the Jews recognized that the work of the priests in the temple was more important than was Sabbath observance, thus justifying the continuation of their labors on the Sabbath (Matt.12:5-6). The same was true of circumcision. Its observance preempted Sabbath observance (John 7:22-23), yet the sacrificial system and the rite of circumcision (both of which were more important than Sabbath observance) have passed away.

If the 7th day Sabbath had been under challenge the Jewish segment of the church would certainly have had a much bigger reaction than they did, and changing the Law of God would certainly been more than a passing inference.

I don’t believe that the Jewish Christians stopped observing the Sabbath. Nor did they stop taking Nazarite vows and offering sacrifices in the temple. In other words, they kept observing the ceremonial laws. Paul did not give contrary instructions (or any instructions, for that matter) to the Jewish believers, since he did not regard them to be within his sphere of authority (2 Cor.10:13). Yet he discouraged Gentiles from adopting those practices (Galatians).

One thing we can say is that the writer of Hebrews declared that there has been a change of the law (Heb.7:12), which includes the nullification of the Aaronic priesthood (thus invalidating the temple worship establishment). We might expect that this would cause a ruckus among Jewish Christians to the same extent as would a change of the Sabbath. Whether such a reaction occurred or not, we do not know. We do know, however, that such radical changes were announced in scripture.

I find no compelling evidence of Sunday-keeping in the NT.

I agree. There is no legitimacy in the claim that Sunday is now the Sabbath.


I appreciate your taking time to write to me (and to send a donation). I suppose you can now see that there will have to be arguments of a more scriptural nature than those offered by a single denomination before I can accept the thesis that the Sabbath remains in force. God bless you, my Brother!

In Jesus,

Steve Gregg