It's Finally
Starting To Make SENSE!
[Below is the message that was sent to a dear friend that prompted what this most important feedback is all about]
Good Day, Brian,
I will come right to do after wishing upon you and your wife a blessed day, with all of God’s richestblessings.
I have given this idea some serious thought and I wanted to pass it by you, since we see thing a wee bit differently in thisarea.
God’s :aw is a perpetual law that never changes and can be said that has always existed, even before the creation of any living thing on this Earth or in the universe for that matter.
Christ came to this world
because it had fallen under the curse
of Satan and only through a ‘bloody’ (as the Brits love to say)
could this curse be turned into a blessing. Because, Christ was a representative
of this Law, only He or the Father had to shed blood or to be a
sacrifice of it.
This is why the Jewish nation has been under condemnation for so many centuries, they put the curse on themselves by saying or claiming to be God’s chosen people and straying from it as far as is possible. Is t here a parallel here to a group that we are quite familiarwith?
In this system that was
presented to Moses as their
representative, ONLY breaking one of these sacred laws, there were only ten,
would requite a bloody sacrifice. Being legalistic, as some
we know all too
well, the tendency was to pile on to this list of Ten. In
essence, making he
Pilers as god and the One and Only God a myth or folklore.
Christ came to be the final answer to this question of a
perpetual sacrifice, His shed blood would cover ALL sins until there was a
point in time when events on this earth would conclude.
As a sinner, I am he last person that should be saying this,
because the Sabbath issue is only one in ten, yet breaking it qualifies as
breaking ALL Ten! As Paul was quoted in saying referring to ‘sinners’ "of
whom I
am CHIEF". (1 Tim. 1:15)
So, while it is an sct that should be avoided, because we are human flesh, it cannot be avoided and it is ONLY by the shed blood of Christ that we are released from this bondage...which goes right in with the New Covenant.
My understanding of this
Covenant, is that Christ surpasses all
attempts that we may make on our own behalf. There is NO way that we can Save
Ourselves! There is no merit or virtue in what we do, even if done in Christ’s
name. He, and only He, is capable of providing our
salvation yjrpugh AND because
of His Son’s sacrifice, all it requires is a contrite heart that accepts
our culpability and wishes to atone for it.
This is the reasoning
behind the idea that the 4th
Commandment is still valid. We acknowledge that Go’s word is everlasting and
that He never errs, so why is that different for this
Commandment? Why wasn’t
the 4th made to be the 1st? Why was
the Sabbath made to be
the LAST of the commandments honoring God? Yet Christ said
that breaking any one
of these is like breaking them ALL! I can only go back to what the Bible says about Lucifer, that he
would deceive the very Elect, IF IT WERE POSSIBLE!! So, There
must be something that separates these ‘saints’ from the’ wannabe
saints’!
I believe that in our
zeal to honor and serve God, we tend to
want to cast off EVERYTHING that attaches us to the falsehood of Adventism,
and of course the Sabbath is chief among these castoffs. Un the other hand,
SDAs are prone to overlook that little inconsistencies and belabor
the ‘good’ that they do, which is of no value to God. This is
why Adventism is a ‘works’ oriented form of religion. Which is
the main reason why I believe
Ellen White to have been a False prophet or messenger, straight from the depths
of this world.
Have you ever wondered that Sat could be so clever as to
highlight ONE of God’s mmandments while making this Church ‘chief
amongst sinners? How do most SDAs keep the Sabbath? Is it to honor God or
to pat themselves on the back claiming themselves to be better than their fellow
men?
If the Sabbath is as much a part of God’s Law as not committing any of the sins that would land us in prison among our fellow men, would it still be valid today? The very fact that I am released from the bondage of an Adventist lifestyle also frees me to worship and honor God and His Son in a way that honors them in a way that is acceptable to THEM and not to an arbitrary group of nobody’s!
Adventists are mot capable
of thinking differently simply
because they consider themselves to be God’s chosen people who Alone
have the Truth. It always requires a humble heart before you can see yourself
as God really sees you, and not too far behind are your fellow human beings who were
once blinded by their own pride and self-righteousness.
I do not know if I wrote this in a way that makes any sense to
you, but I wrote from my heart and I will let God take care of how it appears
to
the reader.
The essence of the New Covenant,
I believe, is embodied in these teachings.
Blessings always,
Bob
`
Hi Bob.
Good to hear from you again. Thank you for the blessings in the Lord that you and Catherine have wished me. Thank you too for your answer to the issue on the Sabbath. I would like to respond to some of the points you have raised.
You said:
I have given this idea
some serious thought and I wanted to pass it by you, since we see thing a
wee bit differently in this area.
God’s :aw is a perpetual law that never changes and can be said that
has always existed, even before the creation of any living thing on this
Earth or in the universe for that matter.
I agree God’s laws are eternal and enter every area of the universe.
Before the world sinned that law was written upon every heart, every
conscience, Adam’s included. Therefore, it seems to me that there was
no need for a written statement of law.
You said:
Christ came to this world
because it had fallen under the curse of Satan and only through a ‘bloody’ (as the Brits love to say) could this
curse be turned into a blessing.
Well, actually Genesis reveals that God did the cursing and it
was intended for a blessing. Sure, though, in a sense one can say
that
Satan caused
the curse to come but actually Adam and Eve, who did not have to
sin, were the
one’s responsible.
You said:
Because, Christ was a
representative of this Law, only He or the Father had to shed blood or to
be a sacrifice of it.
I remember this thought because it comes straight out of Ellen
White. Actually I am not aware that the Bible says anywhere that
Christ
was a representative
of the Law. Fulfilment, yes, because his incarnate life was an
embodiment of all Law. Perhaps that’s what your meaning
is. Clearly, in his glorified state, before he came to the earth
Christ was like Adam, an embodiment of
the law, with His Father the Law-Giver, for he is perfect righteousness.
You said:
This is why the Jewish
nation has been under condemnation for so many centuries, they put the curse
on themselves by saying
or claiming
to
be God’s
chosen people and straying from it as far as is possible.
But the fact is they did remain his people until the Cross.
They were God’s
people all the time they honoured his covenant with them as a nation despite
their backslidings. But, if I understand you correctly, your implication
is that when they disobeyed they ceased to be his people and divorced themselves
from God. This, I agree.
You said:
Isn’t there a parallel here to a group that we are quite familiar with?
Yeah, no prize from you I guess when I say Seventh-day Adventism!
You said:
In this system that was presented to Moses as their representative, ONLY breaking one of these sacred laws, there were only ten, would requite a bloody sacrifice.
My understanding is that
all Law has moral consequences, doesn’t it?
If not, why not? When an Israelite sinned, irrespective of the type of law
he broke, he had to offer a sacrifice, which pointed to Christ’s perfect
sacrifice; a life of perfect fulfilment to the law. My understanding is that
there were more than ten commandments under the Law of Moses. If by ten you
mean moral laws well there were a lot more than ten moral laws, there were
laws around jealousy, homosexuality, bestiality, etc. Only the blood of Jesus
could requite the Law of Moses. The mistake I made in the past was to arbitrarily
divide the Law of Moses into three parts for which there is no Bible authority.
The act of dividing the Law has had serious remifications for those like the
SDA church, and has led them to do those things which God’s Word actually
now forbids. For example, to keeping the 7th day Sabbath, which Scripture
clearly reveals was given to the Jews and not
to any other nation.
You said:
Being legalistic, as some we know all too well, the tendency was to pile on to this list of Ten. In essence, making he Pilers as god and the One and Only God a myth or folklore.
Yes, over 600 laws under the Jewish system and perhaps even more judging by the extent of Ellen White’s books under the Seventh Day Adventist system. But conversely we have reduced the Law to Ten Commandments for which there is no authority in Scripture. God’s moral law, if you wish to call it that, is infinite and could never be proscribed down to ten laws. You may say, well the Ten Commandments are a representation of the moral law of God. But, where is your authority for this? First of all the Bible does not use the term ‘moral’ law. So who is to say what it includes? It can mean anything to anybody. One persons view is as good as the next. Ellen White had a go and chose to represent ‘moral law’ as summed up in Ten Commandments which she then calls eternal law. Lets say you are right and the ten commandments are eternal, and apply the 4th commandment to the angels before the world was created. It means that they have sons and daughters, servants, gates, strangers and cattle within their gates!!! If we apply it to Adam and Eve they too had servants and strangers and cattle within their gates, which is very interesting given they lived in a garden!!
No, moral law is an arbitrary designation for which Scripture is silent. George does this with the argument he presented. Perhaps we are not as fully out of Adventism as we think we are? We must be, as you well know, exceedingly careful not to add to the word of God that which it doesn’t say. One reason is that it can cause us to embrace all manner of ideas based on presuppositions and assumptions. I think to claim that moral law comprises only ten commandments is such an example, which does despite to the Bible which evidences to the contrary.
You said:
Christ came to be the final answer to this question of a perpetual sacrifice, His shed blood would cover ALL sins until there was a point in time when events on this earth would conclude.Amen!
You said:
As a sinner, I am he last person that should be saying this, because the Sabbath issue is only one in ten, yet breaking it qualifies as breaking ALL Ten!
That's true of course. But was he referring to the Decalogue? Paul wrote extensively about Law, and by the whole Law he included all types of law, and if we use the sda arbitrary definition he meant all ‘moral’, ‘ceremonial’ and ‘civil’ law; this he called the law of MOSES. Paul said that if you insist on circumcision then you must keep the whole law and that means going back to laws of sacrifice, eating, drinking, the Jewish Sabbath etc, etc. When we do this we make Christ’s sacrifice of none effect and, as he said in Galatians 5:4, those who attempt to be justified by the law (of Moses) have fallen from grace. By this we testify that we keep the Law of Moses as a way of salvation, though this may not be our intention and I know its not yours, Bob.
You said:
As Paul was quoted in
saying referring to ‘sinners’ "of whom
I am CHIEF". (1 Tim. 1:15)
Me, too, Bob, me too.
You said:
So, while it is an sct
that should be avoided, because we are human flesh, it cannot be avoided
and it is ONLY by the
shed
blood of
Christ that
we are released from this bondage...which goes right in
with the New Covenant.
Agreed, we sin often out of ignorance and weakness, but
Bob, Paul also describes the Law of Moses as the law of
bondage.
Why? Because
the
Law points out sin;
it doesn’t save. It condemns us. Trying to keep that
Law in human strength, as you say, results in bondage.
You said;
My understanding of this Covenant is that Christ surpasses all attempts that we may make on our own behalf. There is NO way that we can Save Ourselves! There is no merit or virtue in what we do, even if done in Christ’s name. He, and only He, is capable of providing our salvation yjrpugh AND because of His Son’s sacrifice, all it requires is a contrite heart that accepts our culpability and wishes to atone for it.
Amen and Amen! Romans
8:1 says that "There is therefore now no condemnation
for those who are in Christ Jesus. Therefore why should
we keep a shadow which brings condemnation? Christ is the substance. Christ
has set us free from the
law of sin and death. What Law?--all law. Again, there
is not condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Who are those in Christ
Jesus? And what
does it mean to be in Christ Jesus? Verses 9 and 10
begin to answer the question what it means to be "in Christ Jesus." “You
are not in the flesh you are in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in
you. Anyone who
does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong
to Him. But if Christ is in you although your bodies are dead because of
sin, your spirits are
alive
because of righteousness. I believe that here is the
crux of the matter; the focal point of why we differ, Bob. It is right here
where you and I are
at
variance in our understanding and, my friend, more
than a wee bit, because this is, in the final analysis,
an issue about the difference between salvation by
faith,
or salvation
by works.
Christ,
as you said,
sets us free from that bondage in that He is a fulfilment
of the Law (all Law
and in the highest spiritual sense) – in the Spirit of the Law—perfect
obedience imputed to Him through the Spirit of His Father. And what He did
in his life he then imputes to those of us who are in Him, i.e. His obedience.
He gives us His obedience, once and for all; for all time – past, present
and future. When we are in Him, His righteousness is put to our account,
(again, past present and future, not just the past, as SDAs like to teach.
We are complete
in Him, once and for all, the moment we surrender to Him. What he did at
the Cross was a final atonement for all time; not merely for the past as
the SDA
teach, leaving us in a quandary about our future. As far as sanctification
is concerned, and I know this
is what is concerning you, ---and, please, do not doubt
for one moment this is concerning me too, as far as
sanctification is
concerned, it is Christ’s
life, His life in us through His Holy Spirit, moment by moment, that fulfils
all the Law in us through our spirit. And, how is the Sabbath expressed? --
through perfect rest in Him, the rest that He attained by His perfect life.
The Sabbath preshadows rest now and for the future, in Christ. Its about giving
up on our works and letting His works take their place. That’s the rest
that the Sabbath pointed to. He is our rest. But don’t you see Bob, its
not about externals anymore; its about internals; it’s about a new
heart which expresses the righteousness of the Christ. Because He is a fulfilment
of the Law, an expression of the spirit of the law, in the highest sense,
when
He is in us, all that the Law demanded is fulfilled in us too. The love that
pours from the heart will be expressed in
perfect obedience to God’s will. This is what gives peace and joy;
resting in Christ who is our Sabbath rest and to whom
all law pointed. The Law was
a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. It is about God
writing the Law in our hearts (i.e. our minds) so that we produce the fruits
of obedience, AS
THE
SPIRIT CONVINCES US and as the Spirit guides and directs
us, each moment what to do, and as the Spirit gives us the power to do it.
If Christ is living
in
our hearts it will be evidenced by life of perfect
obedience, marred only by the corrupt or imperfect channels through His righteousness
pass, or through
which it is expressed, But it is expressed in and through
us in a degree that
we could never attain. Salvation is redemption through
Christ once and for all, and then the process of sanctifying us for Heaven.
The spirit of the
Law, which the letter of Ten Commandments never expressed,
is fulfilled in us and
frees us from the Law. Why? Because
through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life
sets us free from the law of sin and death (Romans
8 verse
2). This
is confirmed
by
Romans 8
verse 3
which says, "If you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by
the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live." Thats
why this is a life and death issue.
Now, through Christ living in us, the divine will is fulfilled in us by Him, NOT BY US!! It is God, working in us both to will (i.e. desire, want) and to do (i.e. carry out) His will… Philippians 2 verse 13. It’s a perfect obedience to His will because He initiates it and does it. Moreover, it is His work imparted to us because only He knows where and in what area we need to change. We cannot initiate it. Our hearts are too deceitful; we cannot know what to initiate let alone do it. The Spirit thus works in our hearts, at His time and pace, and exactly in the areas which He sees we need to change. And, Bob, thats why we are no longer under a written law. The Law was a ministration of death because observing it could not save us because we could never perfectly obey it. Under the New Covenant all we can do, and what we must do, is to surrender to God in total trust. Faith is trust. As I wait on Him, in total trust and surrender, the Spirit of the law of life that is in Christ Jesus (Romans 8) works in me. His spirit directs the work in me. He convicts me of my duty via my conscience and as I respond that principle is written on my heart. This is the ministration of life; ministered to us by Christ Himself personally through His Spirit. It’s not me choosing a particular precept and then working on it. Only the Spirit knows the condition of my hearts; exactly what I need and when it is needed, and also when it can be wrought in me. That’s my understanding of how God writes the law in our hearts. And, as we grow from glory to glory, or from one level of perfection to the next, the righteousness of Christ is fulfilled in us by Christ’s Spirit, more and more, until we reach the perfect day.
You said:
This is the reasoning
behind the idea that the 4th Commandment is still valid. We acknowledge that
God’s word is everlasting and that He never errs,
so why is that different for this Commandment? Why wasn’t the 4th made
to be the 1st? Why was the Sabbath made to be the LAST of the commandments
honoring God? Yet Christ said that breaking any one of these is like breaking
them ALL!Bob, in Christ we honour God in all aspects of his will. I am sorry
my friend but I believe your reasoning contradicts the Old Testament and contradicts
the New Covenant. A study of the OT scripture shows me that the Sabbath was
a special sign between God and the children of Israel alone. It was given to
their fathers and it wasn’t given to the Gentiles (hence strangers were
to keep what the Jews did when they were in their homes Exodus 20). It was
a sign of deliverance -- that He had brought the children of Israeil m out
of Egypt: Deuteronomy 5 verse 15, "And remember that thou wast a servant
in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through
a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: THEREFORE the Lord thy God commanded
thee to keep the sabbath day." It is as we well know a sign that he was
sanctifying them, the children of Israel: Exodus 3l:13 (17), "Speak
thou (Moses) also unto the children of Israel, saying,
Verily my sabbaths shall ye keep: for it is a sign between
me and your generations; that ye may know that I am the
Lord that
doth
sanctify you." The Sabbath
was given as a sign of the Old Covenant God made specifically with the children
of Israel not with Christians. The New Covenant does away with the Old, which
the Bible says has been taken out of the way. That was a ministration of death.
We are no longer under the law for salvation. Read 2nd Corinthians, chapter
3 verses 7-11, 14. Remember it refers to "the ministration of death, written
and ENGRAVEN IN STONES”. Was it not the Ten Commandments that God wrote
on two stone tablets? This Paul says has faded away. The Ten Commandments
was probably symbolic of the whole Law and undergirded it. It is described
as the
words of the Covenant. Even though the Ten Commandments were not the covenant
itself (a covenant is simply an agreement between two parties), they were
the terms of the
covenant. Because the Ten Commandments constituted the
part of the agreement between God and Israel that the
Israelites agreed
to keep,
the Old Covenant
became synonymous with the Ten Commandments. In Deuteronomy
4:13 Moses writes, "So
He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is,
the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tables of stone." If
you analyse these commandments it can be seen that they were analogous to
criminal
law in their application in the life of the Israelite, hence: thou shalt
not. . . While the Ten Commandments have been interpreted as a moral or ethical
code, they were in fact analogous to criminal law. Although the offenses
are
predominantly against ethical or moral standards, they must still be recognised
as offenses. Whether portions of certain commandments had existed in some
form prior to Moses time can only be speculated. The fact that they have
criminal
law application (except the 4th)
creates doubt on the application given to them as eternal
laws since there was no crime in heaven.
Again, under the New Covenant we are under a new ministration—the ministration of life, a new law and a new sign. Christ said; if you love me keep my commandments. SDAs have assumed, that the commandments referred to here is specifically the Ten Commandments but in this they err. We know that many of the commandments are indeed included but they are in a different form; they have been rewritten according to the context of the New Covenant. We are clearly told in Scripture that Christ not only fulfilled the law but brought in a new law, Hebrews 7 verse 12 “For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also". Interestingly the NT scriptures do not refer to Christ’s commandments in terms of a set number of commandments like the Old Testament does in relation to Ten Commandments. What is commanded refers to anything that Christ has taught us and commanded us to do. Why should we place a meaning on scripture which when read at face value that meaning it does not give, It’s the same as saying that three days and nights means something else. Why can’t we accept that what is being said means what is says. Nowhere is the 7TH day sabbath commanded in the New Testament. Are we to build an argument on silence and assumption? Consider that nowhere do the Apostles instruct any of the Gentile churches about the 7th day Sabbath and how incidently it must be observed. Why not? If it valid why did they not instruct in this? That’s a serious omission if the 7th day Sabbath is still valid. But it is not commanded, nor is any day commanded for that matter, despite claims by sabbatarians. Its mere assumption that we must keep the Saturday or the Sunday as a Sabbath. I refuse to build a doctrine on arguments from silence. I believe, what the Bible clearly says: the old has passed away, and the new has taken its place. The sign of the New Covenat is the Lord’s Supper.
You said:
I can only go back to what the Bible says about Lucifer, that he would deceive the very Elect, IF IT WERE POSSIBLE!! So, there must be something that separates these ‘saints’ from the’ wannabe saints’!What can I say? You said there must be and I quote “something” Again, can we build a doctrine of supposition? If the SDAs are wrong about the Sabbath then they are likely to be wrong about the mark of the beast. I think the jury is out on that one; at least it is for me.
You said:
I believe that in or zeal to honor and serve God, we tend to want to cast off EVERYTHING that attaches us to the falsehood of Adventism, and of course the Sabbath is chief among these astoffs.
Yes, thats true but I think it will help to start from the very beginning and test all things that we have been taught because, as you know, if the SDAs are wrong on one point they are likely to be wrong on all points in some way or another. Their doctrine has been poisoned by Old Covenant theology and even their prophetic understandings are unlikely to withstand the the test of sola scriptura.
You said;
On the other hand, SDAs
are prone to overlook that little inconsistencies and belabor the ‘good’ that they do, which is of no value to God. This
is why Adventism is a ‘works’ oriented form of religion. Which
is the main reason why I believe Ellen White to have been a False prophet
or messenger, straight from the depths of this world.
Amen, hence we need to be more than cautious
what comes out of Adventism for it has all
been tainted
by her
works. I
think we
should be more
than afraid!
You said:
Have you ever wondered that Satan could be so clever as to highlight ONE of God’s Commandments while making this Church ‘chief amongst sinners?
Yes, I have. But this is speculation because there is no evidence from the Bible that he has done that. But its fairly sure Old Covenant bondage is something Satan wants to keep us under in some way or another. He did it before through Judaisers who entered the first century church. Demands to obey the Mosaic Law, keep God’s children attention off what Christ has done for them, and it is certain that Satan wants that more than anything. The point is this: all the time we look at the Law we are not looking at Christ and we remain under a veil: 2 Corinthians 3, verses15 to 17: But until this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds, but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is present, there is freedom . For me thats good news!
You said:
How do most SDAs keep the Sabbath? Is it to honor God or to pat themselves on the back claiming themselves to be better than their fellow men?Alas, I used to think that way! And thats why Seventh-day Adventists have had to write so many books of man-made laws under the label of Ellen White, so as to keep membership under control. Legalism must necessarily thrive on systems and control schemes. That’s why the Jews invented so many laws, although as we know they themselves did not uphold that which they put on others. But most Seventh-day Adventists are hypocritical about Ellen White; they teach EGW but don’t follow her writings – mmmm, but that’s probably not possible to do anyway, given the apparent contradictions!!!
You said:
If the Sabbath is as
much a part of God’s Law as not committing any
of the sins that would land us in prison
among our fellow men, would it still
be valid today?
I don’t understand this sentence,
so cannot comment.
You said:
The very fact that I am released from the bondage of an Adventist lifestyle also frees me to worship and honor God and His Son in a way that honors them in a way that is acceptable to THEM and not to an arbitrary group of nobody’s!
Amen! And how sweet that feeling is. And if we choose to worship and rest on one day of the week thats our prerogative. SDAs judge and condemn as Babylon those that keep Sunday. Doing this they disobey NT teaching of Colossians that we are not to judge anybody for the day they keep: "Let no man impose those things upon you, for God has not imposed them: if God has made you free, be not you again entangled in that yoke of bondage."
You said:
Adventists are mot capable of thinking differently simply because they consider themselves to be God’s chosen people who Alone have the Truth. It always requires a humble heart before you can see yourself as God really sees you, and not too far behind are your fellow human beings who were once blinded by their own pride and self-righteousness.
Yeah, a good dose of humility would have helped the GC in 1919 to have done the right thing and so spared you and I and millions of others from a grand heresy, alla Ellen White verbal inspiration. It is their weakness then which causes them today to condemn the masses of Christians in the world while considering themselves as an elite class. By condemning folk for keeping a certain day of the week is in direct contradiction to Colossians 2:16. This spirit is seen in Ellen White’s forbidding of ministers to eat. Interestingly Timothy 4:3 forbids making abstinence from meat eating a test of fellowship. In this same verse it tells us that such teaching is straight up from the pit. from the “spirits of error, and doctrines of devils”. Boy, do I have some repenting to do. You said:
I do not know if I wrote this in a way that makes any sense to you, but I wrote from my heart and I will let God take care of how it appears to the reader. Bob, I do understand and what I see is a man who sole motive is to do God’s will. I can relate to that because thats my desire too. Please accept my response as being in the same spirit your message was sent to me. I am still open to correction if what I have presented is unbiblical.
Finally, Bob, I know I have sent you a lot of material lately and you probably have not even had time to read it all, but I am asking you to do so because the material covers the crux of the issue that divides us. With all due respect to you Bob, I believe upholding the 7th day Sabbath contradicts the very heart of the New Covenant. And there is another article that I have just come across which I believe really describes the issues I have attempted to present here in reply, and much more succinctly than I ever could. Please see attached from a theologian who is a former Seventh-day Adventist. I know that you will find it very interesting, whatever your conclusions.
Blessings
Brian
Dear Brian,
You have a way of lovingly opening my eyes. Having grown up as a preacher’s kid, some habits or tendencies are hard to curb!
But Brian, I am learning each and every day, especially when we speak on the phone or write to each other. The only thing that I wish I could easily circumvent is that we cannot study together. Some day, soon, I plan on going to Ireland, and I will make a plan to stop over in the UK, especially since my wife’s good friend lives there and suffers from breast CA, so she would like to visit her soon.
As I listened to your words on my Text-to-Speech program, you said something that made me think about the time that Christ went to Samaria and encountered the woman at the well. John 4:20-24 gives the gist of this dialogue. Christ was implying, by agreeing with her, that true worship could only be done in Jerusalem. Was this a reminder to what the New Covenant would mean or bring?
Huh?! And the day was coming (just a few weeks hence) when this would no longer be necessary!!! Brian, you ARE beginning to make more sense than you have ever done!
I understand readily how this would come across to those that measure their virtue by how they keep the Sabbath. Why has this idea never been presented before. Oh I know that pastors and theologians have made sermons on the woman at the well, yet these verses are never highlighted, rather they are used to reinforce the Sabbath that the Jews and SDA’s kept.
Brian, I know you like to write and I can only urge and encourage you to write, write, write! You have so many ideas floating in that fertile mind of yours, and I am humbled that much it has been released since you came out of Adventism! How cowed we must have been then!
Brian, I am dying to introduce something to you that was just brought to my attention last night by another friend on the East Coast...they like calling it the RIGHT Coast!
I will simply include his words below and Forward this message on to him, followed by some questions and short comments:
"Hi Bob! Just finished reading Brian's latest letter on the "Further Reasons", and it has me hung up on one word; "Seed". Christ was the Pure Seed of God, no? None other, before or after him, have been pure save Adam and Eve in the beginning, no? At what point did the seed of man become corrupted? At the fall, no? Was the promise of Christ given to them in the garden or was it not given until Abraham? How did Enoch get to heaven if not before Abraham? Brain seems to think a lot of Paul, what of Romans 16:20? How does Rom. 16:20 relate to the Seed of God?
Seems to me the whole world is infected with the seed of Satan. I am beginning to wonder if this seed did not come through Eve and I am not talking about having only eaten a piece of fruit. I have also discovered Adam was with her when she stepped out of line. Interesting, isn't it, that I was told throughout my childhood and youth, not to mention into adulthood, that Eve's first "mistake" was leaving the side of her husband. We were told she wandered off from her husband, was tempted, "ate" and returned with a handful of forbidden fruit which she then gave to Adam. That, however, is not how I read Scripture.
Here's the tricky part, Bob. Nowhere in the Decalogue do I read where there is any transgression in eating any fruit of any tree which man was given to eat of freely in the beginning. There is the matter of the 7th commandment, however. This passage referred me to 2 Corinthians 11:2,3; and that text referred me back to Leviticus 21:13. I find it extremely fascinating that, in Genesis 5, there is no mention of Cain in Adam's bloodline. Eve, in the last verses of chapter 4, makes mention of Seth to replace Abel, whom Cain slew. She seems to deny Cain as being of her husband's seed. It was through the seed of Seth that men began to call upon the name of the Lord.
I'm not trying nor wanting to go off on another doctrine here, Bob. I just find it curious and wonder what your take on it may be. God seems to be rather harsh with His use of the word, "fornication" in Revelation, if you get my drift, as well as the use of the word, "whore". These are very descriptive words to be used in Scripture. My question is; might they date back to the fall of man?..
I hope you are well. Haven't heard from you in awhile. Since we last spoke, I've been, once again, silenced from the "Christian" website where I had made 10,791 posts due to my argument against the trinity of gods. All love, jc"
It doesn’t take any intelligence to figure put who he is implying the father of Cain to be! But what a concept! And without much research he has supported it quite well!
My immediate question was how? My thinking had always been that angels were asexual beings. Ut I also believe that much of the concepts present in my mind must have come from the texts of the books that we were told contained all wisdom and was inspired to boot! Doesn’t the Bible say that the human race came from Adam & Eve? If it does, it could only have started with Seth.
My thoughts then saw the picture of Lucifer trying to get back at God and His Son after being dismissed from his home. He must have been at his sharpest wit and anger then. His ONLY focus was how to ruin God’s plan. I have to wonder how much family planning and moral training Eve was given after her creation? However it was done, Adam was none the wiser. As the only man alive he had no doubt who the father was as Eve’s belly enlarged. For the moment this is mere speculation, BUT, it answers so many questions! And as John pointed out the Bible does use some rather crude language in describing whoredom.
John, I can only include you in what I said to Brian; write, write, write! You probably have the least amount of data to research, yet it can open so many hidden Truths from within the world’s History Book.
Let me know what you think. I have to get some letters ready for the website!!
God's richest blessings to my two wonderful Friends
Bob De La Torre
(see www.a4t.org)