"This is a big problem. If the world church allowed more local congregations the resources they need to flourish, it would not be long until it had more too."

This is the secret of all the big megachurches in other denominations: the members who give know exactly where their money will be used and they can see the results within their own community. Also, the community can see that the local church is very involved with the community in its many charitable endeavors.

Compare this with the tithe that SDA members give currently. There is not really much that affects the local community at all, ergo, the church is mostly invisible. Only when a big name evangelist comes to town do we suddenly wish to announce the meetings and invite our friends (well, maybe some do, but others don't).

How much better if the tithe went to the local church and used it in many ways seen by the community, gaining name recognition and trust.
Personally, I double tithe straight to my local church as it doesn't then become like taxation without representation--I know where and how it will be used.

"We need to think of this amount as what it is: an exceedingly modest investment in possible new members."

In our evangelistic campaigns, are we looking at "achieving targets" and "increasing membership" or are we looking at introducing Christ as the Saviour? I have often wondered whether this module of defining our objectives raises above "self exaltation". I have always been taught and believed that conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit. We and our campaigns are only agents in introducing Christ to the many people we come in contact with.

The target achieving campaigner will probably think his/her duty completed with the "baptizing". The campaigner who is striving to introduce Christ will probably always try to follow-up because it is not a target they are trying for but a relationship that will make the "Church" a warm and welcome place for all.

As usual, I always doubt whether I have put across my thoughts clearly.

Sona, you have put your thoughts across very well. I also wonder about our evangelistic "words", because I don't think that anybody likes to be someone else's target or project.
And what role does listening play in our evangelism? Do we listen as well as we talk?

I like this perspective on evangelism (Ministry of Healing, p. 143):

"Christ's method alone will give true success in reaching the people. The Saviour mingled with men as one who desired their good. He showed His sympathy for them, ministered to their needs, and won their confidence. Then He bade them, 'Follow Me.'

"There is need of coming close to the people by personal effort. If less time were given to sermonizing, and more time were spent in personal ministry, greater results would be seen. The poor are to be relieved, the sick cared for, the sorrowing and the bereaved comforted, the ignorant instructed, the inexperienced counseled. We are to weep with those that weep, and rejoice with those that rejoice. Accompanied by the power of persuasion, the power of prayer, the power of the love of God, this work will not, cannot, be without fruit."

I think when we genuinely care for people, we seek to minister to them on the spiritual, physical, emotional, and mental levels regardless of whether or not they join our church. We minister not because we are trying to evangelize but because we care. And because we care, we also do evangelism because we recognize the deepest needs can only be met by Jesus.

Thus when we do evangelism, our goal is to connect people with Jesus and not merely to baptize them into our church. As connecting people with Jesus is our goal, we engage in the unending process of discipling with those who respond to the Gospel and persist in ministering even to those who do not visibly respond.

This is the perspective I see in the quote I posted above.

Thank you, SAR, for beautiful words from you and from Mrs. White. The evangelism that you describe is something that I could get enthusiastic about.

If we would be content with leading them to Christ as a loving, personal friend, would that not be sufficient?

Or, must there follow a multitude of doctrinal beliefs, few if any salvific, but germane to being a Seventh-day Adventist?

Answering those two questions will clearly define the purpose of evangelism. The first was Christ's way; the second is the official church's position: baptisms are the only quantitative measurement. If one has not become a baptized SDA, showing him Christ's love and care is insufficient.

Elain,Bonnie and SAR, your comments hit home with me. I was a teenage Baptist who became an Adventist through a loving friend and never attended an evangelistic crusade until a year or so after I was baptized.

I was taught the Ellen White quote as a nursing student and think we should put more emphasis on that type of evangelism in the local congregation and may God be glorified whether or not the person becomes an SDA at the time.

Elaine,

With regards to salvation, leading a person to Jesus as personal Savior is always sufficient. And that ought to be our primary goal.

I believe our responsibility to a person, however, doesn't end with leading that individual to Jesus. In the Great Commission, Jesus states that our duty is to make disciples. How do we do that? Jesus said to baptize and teach "everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19,20).

It took Jesus more than three years to teach His disciples everything He commanded them to do. As I'm certainly not a better teacher than Jesus, I suspect it takes much longer for me to disciple someone for Christ.

God bless,
Sean

I was just thinking that at least four of the dozen fulltime teachers in the LLU School of Religion became SDAs in evangelistic meetings of the sort that so many of us find now less than ideal. Yet each holds that they made enormously positive differences in their lives despite the things that now make all of us--them included--shiver. What are we to make of this?

That is a good and tough question, Dave. I'd be interested to know what closed the deal for each of them.

Why in the name of common sense would employees of the church win a cruise for doing the work for which they are paid? Could there be a connection between that and the fact so few remained with the church?

Sorry. I did not see Larson's comments on cruises.

Larson writes: "We do well to recall that the short evangelistic campaign was not designed to move people from no knowledge of Adventism to church membership in three or so weeks. Its purpose was to assist pastors who requested help “harvesting” the “crops” of potentially new members they had long been cultivating."

I fully agree with the principle that short evangelistic endeavors cannot normally result in solid committments by persons to whom the Christian lifestyle is new.

Would someone please explain what is meant by the "Christian lifestle"? Is it different from an Islamic, Buddhist, Mormon or atheist lifestyle in a way that is apparent to all around? Is a Christian kinder, more loving, generous, thoughtful and forgiving than others?

Or is it, perhaps, in their outward behavior of attending church and praying regularly? IOW, if you could choose between a neighbor who was living the "Christian lifestyle" and one which you did not know their religious persuasion, why would you choose and on what basis?

If Conferences allowed the local churches to keep the tithe of new members for two years it would help the local church to do everything possible to win and retain new members, it would help the local church fully disciple the new members so that they became tithers, and it would give the local church an income for further outreach. Such a system would ultimately benefit both the local church and the Conference. It would need careful oversight, but has the potential to radically improve the way we do evangelism.

Tithe, together with the Sabbath (neither of which were taught by the new Christian church) are the sacred cows of Adventism. Not only that is robbing God by not paying, but it must be turned over to the "storehouse" (read conf. office) to be considered tithe.

Then there are those of us who are renegades and tithe to the local church where we can see and have a say on how it's used; or to other local charities. It's only "policy" the other sacred principles of the SDA church that rules as effectively as the official doctrine. How many times I've heard ministers say "It's not according to Policy" or that the "Policy must be followed." How many have had the privilege of reading that secret document?

Your Friend

Because it reeks of conflicts of interests, I agree that giving memebers of the clergy like myself bonuses, in the form of holiday cruises or anything else, for "winning the most souls" is a very serious violation of our profession's ethical standards.

More than anything else, this is what prompted me to write the column. My profession is demeaned, degraded and defiled by such practices. All of us--clergy and laity alike--must do what we can to banish them. Thank you for your help!

Ritchie Way

You are correct. Letting the local church retain the tithe of new members for two years and then returning to the normal pattern would more than pay itself, if the money were used as intended.

My father ran the numbers on this in the early 1970s and no one challenged them. But although a couple of conferences in North America initally showed great interest, in the end none of them was willing to give it a try on a "pilot study" basis.

I suspect that there was some ligitimate uncertainty as to whether each local congregation would actually use the money as intended.

As I look back on it now, I am almost relieved that the plan was not put into place and I think that, had we ever talked about it, I could have convinced my now deceased father to agree.

We are back to the conflict of interest issue. Congregations probably shouldn't wholly depend on the tithe of new members to finance such endeavors because this might cause us to put too much pressure on them.

The principle of investing more at the local level in ways that result in greater overall effectiveness still makes sense. Just how to do this is the question!

I'm glad you brought this up!

Elaine

What a great question!

To put it into the context of my teaching here at Loma Linda, is there any important ethical difference between two health care professionals who are equivalent in every relevant way, save that one is a Christian and the other is an atheist?

I suggest that, to those who want a superficial answer, you and I should say "no," but that, to those who are willing to dig only a little bit deeper, we should say "yes."

I think I'll try something on this topic in an upcoming column.

Meanwhile, I recall that James Gustafson, who was teaching at the University of Chicago Divinity School at the time, wrote a book on this topic titled "Can Ethics Be Christian?"

I think you might enjoy it, particularly the story with which it begins about what he observed while having a drink at a local bar after a long day of research on Christian ethical thought!

Thanks for the idea!

Dave

David, you asked:

"is there any important ethical difference between two health care professionals who are equivalent in every relevant way, save that one is a Christian and the other is an atheist?"

As someone who has in the last few months needed the best surgeon for two separate procedures, I never thought of asking about his religious affiliation nor would it have made one whit of difference to me.

What was important was his professional qualifications and experience, which I diligently researched and determined that he was the very best for the particular surgeries, as was the anesthesiologist and the specialty hospital where they practiced (recently reported in Forbes, Mar. 10 as having major complication rate of 1.82% compared to a large sister hospital with 4.98% for the same procedure). (The large hospital was a Catholic one.)

If the physician adheres to the Hippocratic Oath and comes highly recommended, what and how could his religion presume to make a difference?

My surgeon's name would have indicated he was possibly Indian, and could have been Buddhist or Hindi, Christian, or ? Is there an inference that a Christian professional will be more ethical than any other or no religion?

I have known many LLU physicians and have found that they are no better nor worse than others, and some have brought shame to their alma mater.
It's a moot question for me. But would make a good discussion. What is your opinion?

It is clear that some Adventist congregations in the U.S. are being starved for funds by our system, but when you refer to "global," readers jump to conclusion that this due to world missions or other larger, denominational activities and that is simply not true. The research shows that 86 percent of the Tithe Fund is spent by the local conference and the majority of congregations receive more in the way of pastoral staffing than what they pay for. Only seven percent of the Tithe Fund goes to world missions. The GC, divisions and unions operate on less than seven percent of the Tithe Fund.

Where does the investment go? Across the NAD, about 40 percent of the Tithe Fund goes to our school system, Kindergarten through university. And, the majority of the local churches in each conference get pastoral staffing beyond their fair share of the Tithe they turn in. These are the smaller churches in the conference and usually account for none of the net growth in membership. The 10 to 20 percent of the churches that contain the largest share of the members are the ones that are starved and they usually account for all of the net growth in the conference membership.

An open offer to anyone: If you can get me a copy of the most recent annual financial statement and statistical report for your conference, I will happily do an analysis of these items for your conference. You can reach me at (800) 272-4664.

-Monte,

I can tell you that my small church of 25-30 functional members gave over $140,000 dollars of tithe in 2006. And we had a pastor who was there half time if we were lucky! Thus, I have a hard time identifying with what you are saying. At that time, we were the ones feeling starved for leadership that we felt we needed, and for which we also felt were financially deserving.

Thankfully, this has changed. We've been actually given a full time pastor, to help us cast vision, and lay plans to move this small congregation foward, with the eventual goal of planting a new church(and hopefully more). We simply could not do this without someone fulltime to train membership and direct the ship ahead. We are already seeing the difference in our church.

Something to reconsider about those 'unproductive small churches' other than casting blame upon their membership?

Thanks...

Frank

With regard to Elaine's comment that the Sabbath and tithe were not taught by the new Christian Church, I find that statement problematic. Are we talking about the Jerusalem Church, or church communities in other areas? Until which time are we referring (the first year, the first decade, or what)? Did all church communities teach the same thing (apparently not, according to the Jerusalem Council narrative). Are we told in any early documents everything that each church community taught? Is what was taught considered a fundamental belief or doctrine (we as Adventists teach many things, some of which are not considered fundamental beliefs)? If something was not repeatedly taught, was it equally not practiced? Did not the early Christians continue to worship with the Jews in their synagogues for some time? Furthermore, to state that something--or anything--was not taught could be logically fallacious (argumentum ex silencio). I would suggest that there is no New Testament scholar who could produce a list of everything the early Christian Church taught in, say, 35 CE. We simply do not have complete documentation.

While it is true that we do not have the complete beliefs and doctrines of the new Christian church, the Didache is one of the first.

The Jerusalem church is often used to refer to the Jewish branch of Christianity--and which fades from sight after the fall of the temple in 70 A.D. From that date onward, it is only the Gentile Christian church of which we read.

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, did exempt them from most of the Jewish rituals as is shown in his letters to the churches.

An argument from silence can go either way: proving or disproving. When something in the Bible is not mentioned, it seems, IMO, that we cannot assume that, nevertheless, it should have been. That neither tithe or Sabbath observance (both strict Jewish directives) were ever given to the Gentile Christians stands alone as not an endorsement that they were to adopt. Circumcision was the main obstacle to the God-fearers who may have worshiped with the Jews that prevented them from becoming Jews, and was also the first and most important step that was mandatory if they were to obey the other Jewish rites and rituals.

Paul commended gifts freely given (which would have been an excellent time to introduce tithing if it was to be followed) and it was not to be done if it gave undue hardship to the giver. He did collect money to be sent the poor in churches.

All this indicates to many, that tithing is an OT Jewish practice introduced to support the Levitical priesthood. Now that there were no longer priests (who didn't own land or have a business), it was no longer a requirement.

In addition, at the time of Christ, the priests were no longer an inherited tradition but were appointed by the Romans who hired and fired them like servants, whose puppets they had become. The Temple had become the seat of collaboration with the Roman occupation authority; which is why Jesus overthrew the money-changers as a symbolic negation of everything the institution stood for.

Elaine,
I simply do not have the time to comment on how incorrect your conclusions are.

Consider 1 aspect only. Was Jesus God or a Jew or both? You may try and discount the Sabbath as a Jewish convention but you cannot escape Jesus and his observance of the Sabbath. Nor his words concerning it.

Monte, I appreciate your comments. We all have opinions but few have actually studied the published results. Thank you for your work in that area. Many people forget how the church supports education and how expensive that is.

David,
Concerning the tithe issues you mentioned concerning your father.
In some of our conferences, we have been supporting church planting as a path toward church growth and small group ministries.
As Frank mentioned, these smaller new churches are commonly filled with very highly motivated members. Because of this these churches also often have a healthy tithe base.
When we plant a new church, in addition to providing seed monies for startup costs we have been using a decending 5 year scale where the church plants tithe goes into a fund and then back out to them according to their financial requests for outreach.

It has seemed to do quite well as long as churches continue to be planted. A church goes off the schedule in 5 years so unless new churches are comming online the funding diminishes over time.

Michael,

please don't put words in my mouth. I always recognize that Jesus was born, circumcised, lived according to all the Jewish rules.rest day, and died a Jew, period. As a good, obedient Jew, he observed all their rules, including offering sacrifices and going to Temple.

The new Gentile Christians were NOT and were never invited to become Jews, observe Temple sacrifices and Paul never told them they must obey Jewish rules; on the contrary, they were given few essentials by James, leader of the Jerusalem church: "I rule, then, that instead of making things more difficult for pagans who turn to God, we send them a letter telling them merely to abstain from anything polluted by idols, from fornication from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." A letter was directed to be sent to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, and concurred by the whole church: "It has been decided by the Holy Spirit and by ourselves not to saddle you with any burden--and repeated the above essentials."

There is absolutely no indication in the NT that the former pagans-turned-Christian were instructed on observing the rest day of the Jews nor in paying tithe. Assumption is NOT FACT! Reading into scripture what is not specifically written is cursed in Revelations.

Here’s some quotes from Catholics regarding the Sabbath vs. Sunday Issue:

“The Protestant says: How can I receive the teachings of an apostate Church? How, we ask have you managed to receive her teachings all your life, in direct opposition to your recognized teacher, the Bible, on the Sabbath question.” The Christian Sabbath (2nd. Ed.; Baltimore; The Catholic Mirror, 1893) p. 29, 30

“…those who follow the Bible as their guide, the Israelites and the Seventh-day Adventists have the exclusive weight of evidence on their side, whilst the Biblical Protestant has not a word in self defense for the substitution of Sunday for Saturday.” Catholic Mirror. Sept. 9. 1893

Taken from: (www.Immaculateheart.com/maryonline December 2003)- website has since been moved. For more quotes from Catholic Scholars about this issue:
http://www.sabbathseventhday.org/

Catholics are not shy about this issue and insist that it was Rome on its own authority who changed the day of worship. This same website later then went on to give a few comments about the article:

“The Adventist are the only body of Christians with the Bible as their teacher, who can find no warrant in its pages for the change of the day from the seventh to the first. Hence their appellation, “Seventh-day Adventist.” Their cardinal principle consist in setting apart Saturday for the exclusive worship of God in conformity with the positive command of God himself, repeatedly reiterated in the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments, literally obeyed by the children of Israel for thousands of years to this day, and endorsed by the teachings and practice of the Son of God while on earth.

No Protestant living today has ever obeyed that command, preferring to follow the “apostate church” [The Catholic Church] referred to than his teacher the Bible, which from Genesis to Revelation, teaches no other doctrine, should the Israelites and Seventh-day Adventists be correct. Both sides appeal to the Bible as their “infallible” teacher. Let the Bible decide weather Saturday or Sunday be the day enjoined by God. “

Editors Note: It was on this very point that the reformation failed at the Council of Trent.

SDA and the Catholic Church are agreed to stand on opposite sides on this issue. It’s either Sola Scriptura (SDA) or Holy Tradition + Scripture (Catholic). There are no in betweens. Lukewarmness is a fatal condition according to Revelation.

Elaine,
"Reading into scripture what is not specifically written..."
I kind of always wondered what your proof text was for the create your own theology viewpoint.

Your quotes of James were what we might call minimum factors today. In fact is was even less than the minimum factors since he did not include what are obvious things like not murdering and stealing ect. I add this since you believe anything not specifically mentioned by him or Paul is allowed.

James or Pauls position was not this alone. It was understood as it still is today that growth would entail the eventual understanding and incorperation of other things as well.

Hebrews 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

Infants have minimum factors. It is not desired to stay in that state.

Further, you write, "As a good, obedient Jew, he observed all their rules, including offering sacrifices and going to Temple."

The rules were not all their own. You forget that they not only observed the "rules" handed down by God, but also their specific interpitations of those rules.

It was their embellishments of Gods rules where they were in error.
We dont throw the baby out with the bath water, do we?

Tony,

It is most interesting that you bring the old, discredited Catholic statements about changing the Sabbath day of worship.

While at a very late date the Catholics claim this is their act, nothing could be further from the truth. A careful study of history reveals that the Christian church began meeting and breaking bread on the first day of the week in honor of the Resurrection (Acts 20:7). Pentecost, considered the birth of the Christian church, was by law on the first day of the week (Lev. 23:16).

Early first and second century church fathers: Ignatius, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, all record meeting on the first day of the week in honor of the Resurrection, as does the Didache.

Thus, the evidence is clear that the early Christian church began worshiping and meeting on the first day of the week. Even the Greek term used by John in Revelations, is the ONLY and first use of that specific term, properly translated as "Lord's Day."

By the mid-fourth century this was an accepted day by the Christians and Constantine in 321 declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest (worship was never mentioned) throughout the Roman Empire. He was never a bishop or leader in the Roman Catholic church. In an effort to unify the Roman Empire he gave all its subjects a day of rest (formerly there had been none). However, in the country he gave agriculture workers freedom to lawfully continue their pursuits.

Regardless of the Catholic church's claim to have changed the Sabbath, the Edict of Constantine in 321 was the first official declaration of a day of rest for his subjects, who had previously not enjoyed a day free of work. This was 1700 years before the Roman church claimed such authority.

Constantine's edict was in no way to be considered an act of worship, but in an attempt to unify the Roman Empire, he recognized that the first day had been a day respected by the new Christians. He was never a bishop in the church but always an emperor.

All of this is a matter of recorded history, not a church claim.

Elaine,

I’m sorry, I forgot to place the date when those two older quotes were placed on the immaculateheart.com website. It was in December 2003. 5 years ago doesn’t sound too bad though. : ) If you’re looking for quotes in more recent times, I have them too. the Catholic Church isn’t shy in giving them:

“Protestants...accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change...But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that...In observing the Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope.” Our Sunday Visitor, February 15, 1950.

“Perhaps the boldest thing, the most revolutionary change the Church ever did, happened in the first century. The holy day, the Sabbath, was changed from Saturday to Sunday. ‘The day of the Lord’ was chosen, not from any direction noted in the Scriptures, but from the (Catholic) Church’s sense of its own power...People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become 7th Day Adventists, and keep Saturday holy.” St. Catherine Church Sentinel, Algonac, Michigan, May 21, 1995

“Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code (ten commandments) was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai...Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity--love of God and of the neighbor; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5)...The (Catholic) Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day...He (God) claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy...” The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 4, “The Ten Commandments”, 1908 edition by Robert Appleton Company; and 1999 Online edition by Kevin Knight, Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

Or are those still “old, discredited Catholic statements”?

Acts 20: 7- This verse discusses a meeting that took place on Saturday night. According to the Bible and interpretation of scripture, this would have been called the first day of the week. (Remember Genesis reads : “Evening and morning, day_. Not the other way around.) However, considering the fact that Paul was to leave the next day, and would probably never be seen again by those present, it could be concluded without too much assumption, that this was a special meeting for one last goodbye talk from the beloved apostle Paul. Other than this particular instance, it is recorded that Paul had a habit of teaching and preaching on the Sabbath, even outside of a synagogue on one occasion where he met with some non-Jewish women to worship by a river (Acts 13: 27, 42 - 46 & 16: 13). One must also consider Acts 2:46 -- “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts…” Judging from this passage, it appears to be a quite regular custom of the early church members to come together on all days to break bread. This seems to indicate no special worship service or holiness for the Saturday night service mentioned in Acts 20:7

Sabbath-keeping, THE ORIGINAL POSITION OF THE CHURCH, had spread west into Europe and from Palestine, it spread East into India (Mingana Early Spread of Christianity, Vol. 10, p. 460) and then into China. The introduction of Sabbath-keeping to India even caused a controversy in Buddhism in 220 AD. Sunday worship was only being pushed by Rome and Alexandria, both whom were influenced heavily by the culture and paganism in their respective cities.

As for early Church Fathers, Origen also enjoined Sabbath-keeping:
After the festival of the unceasing sacrifice [the crucifixion] is put the second festival of the Sabbath, and it is fitting for whoever is righteous among the saints to keep also the festival of the Sabbath. There remaineth therefore a sabbatismus, that is, a keeping of the Sabbath, to the people of God [Hebrews 4:9] (Homily on Numbers 23, para. 4, in Migne, Patrologia Græca, Vol. 12, cols. 749, 750).
Similarly the Constitution of the Holy Apostles (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7, p. 413; c. 3rd century) states:
Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands.

Augustine of Hippo, a DEVOUT SUNDAY keeper, attested that the Sabbath was observed in the greater part of the Christian world (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF), First Series, Vol. 1, pp. 353-354).
He lived around the time where you CLAIM that most of the Christian world worshiped on Sunday.

As for Constantine’s “Sunday Law”. First of all, the wording in the letter itself is insufficient to claim sacredness.

“All judges and city people and the craftsmen shall rest upon the venerable DAY OF THE SUN”-First line of Constantine's decree.

Shouldn’t he have said “Day of the SON” if he was truly a converted Christian who wanted all to embrace this new faith known as “the Way” later on Christians?

But secondly and most importantly a royal mandate is not enough to prove as a sufficient substitute for divine authority, Eusebius, a bishop who sought the favor of princes, and who was the special friend and flatterer of Constantine, advanced the claim that Christ had transferred the Sabbath to Sunday. Not a single testimony of the Scriptures was produced in proof of the new doctrine. Eusebius himself unwittingly acknowledges its falsity and points to the real authors of the change. "All things," he says, "whatever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's Day."--Robert Cox, Sabbath Laws and Sabbath Duties, page 538.

This is just some evidence to propose that the Biblical Sabbath is STILL the Saturday we know today. Therefore, the weight of evidence I’m afraid is on the SABBATH that God hallowed and sanctified. I’d just like for the facts to be placed on display so that as people with free will, we can see the evidence for ourselves.

One final note, John had visions on the Sabbath day. The "Lord’s Day" is at all times the Seventh-day Sabbath in the Bible and Sunday is NEVER called the Lord’s Day in Scripture. Mark specifically explains that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, not the first day of the week as has been popularly claimed.

"On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet."-Revelation 1:10
Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Mark 2:27,28

Tony, good comments.
The documentaion Elaine provides is partially true in that, due to the Hadrianic anti Sabbath legislation during the rain of the Emperor Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) that was designed as an anti Jewish measure which weak and near sighted Christians thought to side step by starting to worship on the same day as the pagan sun worshipers.
Rather than being the spiritually justifed position arrived at by study and principal, it is instead a mark of shame and captiulation made by people who traded their conscience for ease. This lesson is lost on many people.
In Justin Martyr's Apology to Emperor Antoninus Pius (circa A.D. 150 he writes: "Sunday is the day we hold our common assembly." He goes on to rationalize their decision by way of correlating the light being made on the 1st day and the light of the world rising on the first day.
We humans are great at rationalizing arent we?
Later Jerome (A.D. 342-420) wrote: " If it is called the Day of the Sun by the pagans, we most willingly acknowledge it as such.."
What I always find most interesting is that there is documentaion saying that the church could grow much faster if it was made more palatable to the pagans vis-a-vis worshipping on Sun-day.
It is laughable to me that after sacrificing the Sabbath to make it easier for themselves and to convert more pagans by worshipping on Sunday they later change their tune and Prescillian Bishop of Avila (ca. A.D. 340-385)is quoted as saying, Anathma is pronounced against those Christians who in their sacred ceremonies venerate and acknowledge as God's the Sun, the Moon and all the heavenly host, which are detestable idols worthy of the Gehenna.
Talk about bait and switch Christianity.

Fascinating discussion. Sorry for jumping in a little late.

While I agree that the so called NT evidence for first day worship is sketchy, at best, and while I see the Sabbath all over the whole Bible OT/NT, I have a couple of thoughts regarding arguments used to support the Sabbath in the NT.

I agree with Michael about the origins of the move from Sabbath to Sunday. But this also says that we cannot simply attribute this to the sole doing of Catholicism, no matter how many quotes one can marshall of their claims. The fact of the matter is that this was a more gradual development throughout the post NT period, one whose origins pre-date Catholicism.

Secondly, the Lord's day in Revelation is not necessarily the Sabbath. That connection can only be made by piecing together Revelation 1:10 with Mk.2:27-28. However, the meaning of a text should first be determined from its immediate context rather than by more distant proof-text. The context and linguistic support within Revelation itself seems to lend more support for the Lord's day as being "the day of the Lord," i.e. Yom Yahweh/ the day of judgement. This makes more sense to me in the flow of the book. John is taken into vision and shown things concerning the day of judgement /Yom Yahweh, which certainly is so much of the subsequent subject matter and imagery of Revelation. This view removes the Sabbath/Sunday argument from this text completely, unless one reads a Sabbath/Sunday controversy into the judgement issue. While that may be true in and of itself, it is a stretch to read it into this text. A good treatment of this issue can be found in Bacchiochi's doctoral dissertation.

Just sharing in the interest of sharpening our biblical and historical support.

Thanks...

Frank

We should be willing to acknowledge that the Christian church was not at all like we know today, but for the first four or five centuries the church was still deciding its doctrines, dogma, and hence, what was heresy.

Most of the cardinal doctrines of the church did not spring up miraculously but were debated, discussed, and even violently argued during those first centuries. Why should we be surprised that there is still not agreement and uniformity on everything?

There was no doctrine of the Sabbath instituted for the early Christian church; no declaration defining the nature of Christ; no concept of the Trinity, and more.

While it is most assuredly true that the Jewish converts to Christianity continued to observe the Sabbath, circumcision and dietary laws, as the Bible explains, these were never given to the Gentile or pagan Christians as articles of their faith. There would never have been the argument about circumcision if this had been readily adopted by the pagan "God-fearers" who worshiped with the Jews, but were forbidded to belong to the Jewish group because they were not first circumcised, which, according to the Jewish rules, was the first and most important rites to allow pagans to "become" Jews.

Can anyone show where the Gentile Christians were told to observe the Jewish Sabbath (BTW, the Jewish Sabbath can never be the Christian Sabbath), or any of the observed Jewish rites? IOW, if it had been a requirement first to become a Jew (by circumcision) and then a Christian, where are the leaders who should have told the Gentiles these important doctrines?

In Paul's letter to the Galatians he provides the answer to the purpose of the Law: It was to be the guardian UNTIL Christ came and now that we are no longer UNDER that guardian we are all equally sons of God with no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female.

In his letter to the Colossians he is very specific: "Christ has overridden the Law....from now onwards, never let anyone else decide what you should eat or drink, or whether you are to observe annual festivals, New Moons or a Sabbath day--things which are a mere shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ."

If these are still things to be observed, why not the annual festivals and new moons? Is there a selectivity in choosing certain portions and eliminating others?

Elaine
You're right. The early church, led by Jesus' own brother James, preached that those who believed that Jesus was the Messiah were, like all Jews, subject to the Torah. In Act 21 Luke writes that he demanded Paul come to Jerusalem and answer the change that he was telling gentile converts that they need not worry about the Torah (Paul had argued that only those "weak" in faith, should bother with the Torah).

Paul changed Christianity from being a Jewish messianic movement to a universal religion. In the process he denounced the brothers of Jesus as "superapostles" who preached "another gospel".

I still think that Adventists are fine in choosing Saturday over Sunday as a day of worship. Paul carried over into the new "dispensation" the common morality of the Old Testament, but without the Jewish specifics, such as diatary laws and holy days. Whenever Paul mentions the Sabbath in doctrinal passages, it's always in the negative, responding to Christians who want to hold on to the Torah. But he does not establish a new day of worship, and I don't think he would have objected (not that that would matter to me) to Saturday being chosen for public worship as long as it was not done to satisfy the Torah.

In the early 1960’s the University of Kentucky established a School of Dentistry as part of its medical center. In those early days of enthusiasm, a farmer out of the hill country presented himself to the hospital with a complaint of severe, persistent, constant stomach pain. The Chair of the Department of Oral Medicine was present at the initial examination. Of course, that included an examination of the oral cavity: which revealed a large cancerous ulcer on the roof of the mouth.

Immediately, the entire diagnostic power of the Medical Center was focused on the roof of the farmer’s mouth. Ignoring entirely the chief complain of the patient.

After two days of tests with no relief to his stomach pain, the hillbilly got up, dressed, and went home.

The key to successful evangelism is the same as for successful health care delivery. One must start with the chief or presenting complaint.

It should be obvious that “The Judgment Hour” evangelism is at the root cause of 79 baptisms and only 5 retentions. Certainly fear is a great motivator but hope has a lot more staying power and assurance even more.

Remember the first angel of Revelation had the “Everlasting Gospel”! If God starts there shouldn’t we at least consider it?

Tom

Frank,
Thank you for your comments! It’s true, the change from Sabbath to Sunday was a gradual process and not a one-time deal like some may think. I must clarify though, by Catholic Church I am referring to the branch of Christianity situated in Rome. You may know from church history that Rome was the last seat out of the 5 bishoprics to Survive (Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch being the others). Even though, the Catholic Church as we know it today was shaped later on, I refer to the influence the Bishop of Rome when I say that the Catholic Church helped change the day of rest from Sabbath to Sunday.

I have to question your analysis of Revelation 1:10 for two reasons:

1) Revelation was written in Greek, not Hebrew. Yom YHWH is Hebrew and even transliterated, this is not what is written in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament). Yom YHWH is still translated “Day of the Lord”, “Day of Judgment” in Hebrew would be Yom Mishpat.

2) You are correct in the claim that the word in the passage read “krisis” COULD be rendered as judgment yet, we cannot impose a definition into a word simply because it would work for our own interpretation of the text. Its what is called a “definition fallacy.” Most, if not all translators and commentators on this text would say that this word means “a separating, sundering, separation.” Therefore, “Day of the Lord.” This if of course unless you have a bible that reads “day of judgment.” If you do have one that reads that way, please let me know for future reference.

Elaine,
Here are some references which should be helpful:

“The ancient Christians were very careful in the observation of Saturday, or the seventh day ... It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival ... Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious assemblies on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same” (Antiquities of the Christian Church, Vol. II, Bk. xx, Ch. 3, Sec 1, 66. 1137,1136).

" . . . the Christian Sabbath [Sunday] is not in the Scriptures, and was not by the primitive Church called the Sabbath." -- Timothy Dwight, Theology: Explained and Defended (1823), Ser. 107, vol. 3, p. 258.
"Take the matter of Sunday. There are indications in the New Testament as to how the church came to keep the first day of the week as its day of worship, but there is no passage telling Christians to keep that day, or to transfer the Jewish Sabbath to that day." -- Harris Franklin Rall, Christian Advocate, July 2, 1942, p.26.

As for the Law being nailed to the Cross:

"The binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. This fourth commandment begins with the word 'remember,' showing that the Sabbath already existed when God Wrote the law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are STILL BINDING?" -- D. L. Moody, Weighed and Wanting (Fleming H. Revell Co.: New York), pp. 47, 48.

The Sabbath was observed into the fifth century by Christianity (Lyman Coleman Ancient Christianity Exemplified, Ch. 26, Sec. 2, p. 527). Certainly, as at the time of Jerome (420), the devoutest Christians did ordinary work on Sunday (Dr. White, bishop of Ely, Treatise of the Sabbath Day, p. 219).

You mentioned Justin Martyr earlier, he introduces the concept of Sunday worship (ANF, Vol. 1, First Apology, LXVII, pp. 185-186) and attempted to convince his Jewish friend Trypho of the correctness of this practice (e.g. see ANF, Vol. 1, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. XII, p. 200). Bacchiocchi, whom we all would agree is perhaps THE authority on the transition from Sabbath to Sunday worship,(From Sabbath to Sunday, Pontifical Gregorian University Press, Rome, 1977) deals with the failure of Justin to cite any previous examples in justification for the practice. Justin’s argument presupposes that in his time Sunday observance was alien to both Jews and Jewish-Christians (p. 156). The Nazarenes also did not observe Sunday, as is supposed by Epiphanius (ibid.). The Nazarenes, whose existence in the fourth century is attested to by Jerome, appear to be the direct descendants of the Christian community of Jerusalem who migrated to Pella (Bacchiocchi, ibid.).

Sola Scriptura.

"Can anyone show where the Gentile Christians were told to observe the Jewish Sabbath (BTW, the Jewish Sabbath can never be the Christian Sabbath), or any of the observed Jewish rites? IOW, if it had been a requirement first to become a Jew (by circumcision) and then a Christian, where are the leaders who should have told the Gentiles these important doctrines?"

Perhaps this is the crux of your misunderstanding.
You make the assumption that new Christians were made to be Jews first and Christians second. Although there were some converted Jews who were confused about it at the time you mis-apply it to people today in error.
Your confusion about the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sabbath contributes to this as well.
The text you often quote where Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27) describes not only what was made for whom, but also how many Sabbaths were made.

As to the other parts of the Jewish law you always include.
These ceremonial laws were the ones nailed to the cross.
THere was no more need or reason to have them after Christs sacrifice.
I know you know all these things but you often intermix them to siut your interpitations.

This shows a church that little cares for new or older members. Care for our members we have is crucial. Dont baptize people unless we care about them going forward. A waste of time and money!!

Debating the Sabbath Question (when to worship)is not a Christian occupation. The proper questions are Whom to worship and Why? The issue of When, Where or with whom are subordinate. Let us focus on whom and how! Tom

Tom,
With all due respect, as Seventh - day Adventist, we cannot simply brush aside the Sabbath issue as you have suggested. The issue at stake here is to WHOM your allegiance lies with.

8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy [WHEN we should worship]. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates [HOW we should worship]. 11 For in six days [Evolutionists would disagree with the beginning of this verse but is God a liar?] the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD [WHOM we worship by keeping the Sabbath] blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”Exodus 20.

The Sabbath involves all that you have brought forth. We cannot simply bury our heads in the ground and pretend like history never happened. The Reformation failed BECAUSE of the Sabbath issue. Not only that, but if you still believe in the eschatology our church holds to, this debate will be the very issue in the end-times. Make no mistake; Sunday is a man-made day of rest with no mention of its sanctity stated by either our Lord Jesus or the Apostles. SDA’s need to be clear on this issue, for if we are not convinced by FACTS, how can we ever hope to accept other issues that are only grounded on FAITH (like are our sins ACTUALLY forgiven by believing in Jesus?

Tom,

Yes, absolutely, it is who we worship rather than when. God appreciates and accepts our worship any where and any time.

The Jews of old, and Adventists today have made the day of worship of ultimate importance, even the identifying mark of the church by its name and prophetic future on all those who worship on a different day.

Tony, no one here has ever advocated worship on Sunday, but we cannot ignore history and there are numerous records of the early GENTILE Christians meeting on the first day, so that at the time of Constantine, where were the Jewish Christians still observing the seventh-day? Nor did the early Christians attempt to substitute Sunday for a rest day (or the Sabbath) but rather than resting, Sunday was a day for celebrating the Resurrection. This is also confirmed repeatedly by history.

Michael, your use of "cermonial laws" is never so used in Scripture but is a later adjective that attempted to separate the law into divisions; something no good Jew ever did. They always referred to the Law, or Moses' Law as one, inseparable document.

You also refer to Mark's quotation about the Sabbath being made for man. Jesus was speaking to Jews who were most careful about proper Sabbath observance. Paul, written before any of the Gospels, and also a Jew, never advocated Sabbath observance of any kind to the Gentiles and surely one cannot assume that they were previously properly observing the Sabbath nor could they as they had not been circumcised.

In addition to Adventists adhering to sound, historical facts, rather than apologists, they will never be able to converse with those who are far better informed on early church history.

You might research Kenneth Strand's essay "How Sunday Became the Popular Day of Worship (he is, or was professor of church history, Andrews Theological Seminary). He states that the "New Testament is normative for Christian practice."

According to Mervyn Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt, editors for "Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday," they write: "The children of Noah were given seven Laws only, the observance of the Sabbath not being among them."

The rabbis did not believe that the Sabbath had been given to Gentiles, as in Ex. 16:29, it says:
that the Sabbath was NOT given to the heathen; but if some of the heathen observed the Sabbath, then not only do they not receive any rewared but they are even considered to be transgressing (as quoted in Maxwell & Damsteegt above). Again: "A non-Jew who observes the Sabbath whilst he is uncircumcised incurs liability for the punishment of death. Why? Because non-Jews were not commanded concerning it. "It is a sign between Me and the Children of Israel; therefore any non-Jew who, being uncircumcised, thrusts himself between them incurs the penalty of death. The Gentiles have not been commanded to observe the Sabbath" (again from the book above).

Question: Are Christians guided by the rules and laws set forth for Israelites in the Hebrew Scriptures, or should the New Testament be a Christians guide? Should we become circumcised because Jesus did? Should we observe the seventh day because Jesus did? Should we "go not into the way of the Gentiles" as Jesus instructed the twelve? Does his message override Paul's mission to the Gentiles? Jesus and Paul never met, so Jesus never had a specific mission to the Gentiles, even warning his apostles not to go to them.

"The rabbis did not believe that the Sabbath had been given to Gentiles, as in Ex. 16:29, it says:
that the Sabbath was NOT given to the heathen; but if some of the heathen observed the Sabbath,...."

Of course the rabbis thought that. History has shown that the rabbis were mistaken on just about everything. Do you really put forth as a convincing argument what a group of people known to be wrong thought about who could observe the sabbath?

The Sabbath didnt start with the rabbis did it? It started in Eden with Adam and Eve. So who was the Sabbath made for?

"Michael, your use of "cermonial laws" is never so used in Scripture but is a later adjective that attempted to separate the law into divisions; something no good Jew ever did."

I used the terminology to better communicate a specific set of laws to you. If you study you will see there were diffrent areas of laws. But the concept is useful enough to point out how you again use the examples of what a good Jew did as though good Jews are the example of everything spiritually correct when the fact is that the Jews had every advantage and still missed what was right in front of their face.

Further you say, "They always referred to the Law, or Moses' Law as one, inseparable document."
And you think Moses law is /was the same as Gods perfect unchanging law?
You must not remember what Christ said about Moses Law. He said Moses made concessions in his law because of YOUR hard hearts and then he further went and refined the true meaning of the principal they were discussing. It happened to be marraige if you remember. Moses law is not interchangeable with Gods law.

"Should we "go not into the way of the Gentiles" as Jesus instructed the twelve? Does his message override Paul's mission to the Gentiles? Jesus and Paul never met, so Jesus never had a specific mission to the Gentiles, even warning his apostles not to go to them."

This is another example of a overly simplistic understanding of the texts.
Gentile was a word Jews and Christains used to apply to unbelievers. To Jews prior to Christ, there were only Jews and Gentiles in the world. When Christ came there became Christians and Christians knew the world consisted of Jews, Christians and everyone else who they called Gentiles.
If you didnt learn that from scripture I will include a definition for you.
Gentile
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the King James and various other versions of the Bible it is used to refer to non-Israelite tribes or nations, as an English translation of the Hebrew words goy / גוי and nochri / נכרי. It is also used to translate the New Testament Greek word εθνοι/ethnoi. The primary meaning of gentile is ‘non-Jew’.

Do you really not have a understanding of what not going in the way of the Gentiles means? If I said, Go in God's way or Go in the way of the world, would you still have difficulty with the concept?

You say, "so Jesus never had a specific mission to the Gentiles, even warning his apostles not to go to them."

This is comepletely contrary to the great commission. Not only did he tell them to go to the Gentiles he told them in what order to go. Acts 1:8 "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."
Your interpitation leaves quite a distorted picture of the bible, Christ and Salvation too.

"You also refer to Mark's quotation about the Sabbath being made for man. Jesus was speaking to Jews who were most careful about proper Sabbath observance. Paul, written before any of the Gospels, and also a Jew, never advocated Sabbath observance of any kind to the Gentiles and surely one cannot assume that they were previously properly observing the Sabbath nor could they as they had not been circumcised."

Your point would make some since if the newly converted Gentiles wanted to become JEWS. What Paul actually said was that the gentiles Didnt need to become JEWS to be Christians. You create linkage where there is none.

So I ask again, Perhaps this is the crux of your misunderstanding.
Making the assumption that new Christians were made to be Jews first and Christians second.

The assumption was one the Jews made in saying that the new Gentile Christians should observe the Law. James corrected them and made few requirements of those new non-Jew Christians.
Only if the Gentiles had been required to obey all the Jewish laws would that have implied that before becoming Christians they would, of necessity have to obey the Jewish laws; this they were never required to do--including the Sabbath.

Tony, Michael and Tom,

I would like to share my opinion. Since Adventism has always been weak on “righteousness by faith alone” I believe they have misplaced the importance of the Sabbath. Since they “already” in “practical application” often apply the “mark” to non-7th day Sabbatarian’s presently they become in fact “legalist” for justification.

The privilege of the Sabbath is to recognize the “Creator of heaven and earth.” It is a sign and “warning” against accepting “alternate systems” that promise to bring “lasting peace” which in fact becomes a form of idolatry. As in the plain of ancient Babylon's Dura the substitute statue man offers in the future will offer and seeks to make “peace on earth” on their terms rather than God’s which requires repentance and faith in Christ.

The Revelation “crisis” is yet future and presently man (gentiles) can worship as “everyone is convinced in his own mind.” In the future, I suggest events will show that man’s “new creation” worship day and concepts are at obvious odds with God’s and are linked to a developing system alien to the historic faith.

The Sabbath will remind and draw believers back to the Creator-Redeemer rather than man’s substitute. At that time (and not until then) it will be consistent to believe in Justification by faith Alone. Then the salvation offered by “faith alone” in our Creator-Redeemer’s Sabbath vs. the system offered as an alternative will be obvious.

My two cents…

Regards,

pat

Pat,

while it is true that for Adventists, they prefer the Exodus 20 version of the Fouth Commandment which spoke of God as creator, the Jews emphasized the preamble: "I am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."

This is also the reason given in the version of the Ten in Deut. 5: "God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers...but with us who are here today." In the Fourth commandment they were commanded to observe the seventh day because they were to "remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt and that your God brought you out." That was the reason given for observing the Sabbath: in memory, or memorial for the deliverance from slavery.

For those of us believe from the evidence, that the Torah containing the different versions of the Ten were not written down before 1000 BC, and the "P" version possibly during the Exile, we cannot assume the books are arranged in chronological order, or that they did not have different authors, hence the obvious discrepancies. If one adopts the JEDP hypothesis, it was the priests who wrote the first chapter of Genesis, outlining the activities of creation week and also the Ten C. version in Ex. 20, which is the most commonly used.

Since the Priestly version (Ex. 20) focuses on Creation week, the contrast of the other two versions reminds the Israelites of their delivery, what should be the reason given by those who observe the Sabbath today if based on the Ten?

Elaine,

He is both our Creator and Redeemer. Where is the problem?

I don't accept the JEDP hypothesis which is falling out of favor even among many "liberal" theologians.

regards,

pat

Yes Jesus Christ is Lord of the Sabbath. But who then is the Lord of the other six days? Didn't Christ make it clear to Moses that God, the Eternal One, is always in the Present! Is He not the Great I Am? Which day is not His?

In Jesus days on earth did not the Jews and Samarians argue over where to worship as we now argue over when to worship?

Did not Jesus make it clear that true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth?

Pat, you are right on in your comment on Righteousness by Faith alone and the way that concept is diluted with sabbatarianism.

The why worship is the theme of Revelation. The universe worships God because of His creative power and His redemptive love. See Revelation 4: 11 and 5: 9, 10.

It seems to me then, that any ecclesiastical demand to worship at any given time is usurpation of power and beastly in its origin. Tom

Tom,

Yes, It seems Paul's anathemas were always against the Judaizers "adding requirements" to the "gentile" converts in order that they "really" be believers.

The book of Revelation seems to me to warn of syncretized purpose of the state with religion/spirituality that is counter to the Creator Redeemer Christ. I think when that time comes it will be self-evident to those relying on the Bible and the historic Christian faith regardless of the day they presently worship on due to the associated voices and dissonance. True believers will be called to "come out."18:4.

This "judgment" did not began in 1844 and Rev.14:6-9. Attention there is pointed to the everlasting gospel and the Worship motif of the "creator of heavens and the earth" vs. the developing Babylonian system and those worshiping it (as in the plane of Dura motif). The Babylon "system" is to be "judged" in Rev.18:8 as warned of in the previous cited text of Rev.14.

I am content with the "broadbrush" approach. People get into trouble trying to be too specific with prophecy. It is enough to say this world will not be our enduring home but we look for a "new heaven and new earth" beginning at His literal visable coming in the clouds with power and great glory.

regards,

pat

Pat, thank you for sharing. Interesting.
Tom, you also make some good observations.

Quite often I hear quoted that true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, with the accent on spirit which we often perceieve as a effort to make the Sabbath shall we say, less important.

My question concerns the truth. If a non Sabbatarian uses this text or believes in it then what does the truth mean to him/them if it is not the Sabbath?

I have heard people trying to justify their understanding of the spirit part by saying the truth part, means the truth of the spirit part.
Sorry for that difficult sentance.
I would be interested in your thoughts on this.
Thanks

Michael,

In "Spirit and Truth" means the requirements given to a people at a specific time. The "Judaizers" thought the spirit and truth taught by Moses meant that the gentiles must be circumcised to be "true believers."

The church council spoke up in Acts 15:28-29 and said "gentile believers" had these restrictions of "spirit and truth" placed on them,

28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”

We must guard against applying "marks" against the "gentile believers" of which most of us are a part unless one is a "converted Jew." This is also true in the area of foods, drink, and days that the syncretistic Greek philosophy/Judaism spiritualities offered in Colossians.

God will make known His requirements and desires at the proper time...He is able.

regards,

pat

Elaine,

Because Paul did not give specific instructions concerning Sabbath observance to Gentiles, you assume that they did not observe it at all in their churches. This is the same type of argument you have used on other biblical issues on other posts...argument from silence. No scholar worth his weight will venture any firm conclusion on such, because varying conclusions can be extapolated in a number of ways.

However, the NT, aside from Paul, is not silent on the issue of the Sabbath. Jesus himself is portrayed as doing more healing on the Sabbath than at any other specific time. His actions speak louder than any words could concerning the purpose for which the Sabbath was given, for our welfare and healing, for mercy and not for fulfilling ritual.

This is also seen in contrast to and sparks controversy with the Pharisaic and Rabbinic halakah that grew up around Sabbath observance. Jesus' own actions, rather than sweeping the Sabbath aside, were meant to restore the true meaning, beauty and purpose of the day...a special time for people to be uplifted by their healing God, and by one another. Thus, the Sabbath is really about relationships, not rules to be kept.

Considering that the gospels were written later in the first century than Paul's writings, and circulated among Gentile churches that were already established, these pictures of Jesus' own actions on the Sabbath could have served as models for them. Models of what Sabbath observance was really to be about. They also could have served as models for Jewish Christians as well, in their controversy with the synagogue over Sabbath observance. (N.B. could have)

Also, this throws Jesus' statement in Mark, "the Sabbath was made for man..." into an entirely different light. While Jesus was addressing Jews originally, tradition says that Mark wrote from Rome. Gentiles and Jews together would have made up his audience. Thus, this statement about the Sabbath would have been understood by them in its universality. It was inclusive...the Sabbath was made for mankind, Jew and Gentile... just as the gospel is for Jew and Gentile. There is no difference, as Paul states in Romans.

The splitting of Jewish and Gentile Christianity on this issue by the later church, has arisen from a distorted and imbalanced view of covenental discontinuity within the Scriptures, and has also gone hand and hand with replacement theology, an anti-Semitic teaching if there ever was one. Romans 11 certainly has a lot to say along these lines.

And I've said enough for now...

Thanks...

Frank

Michael

I think Pat said it well. Although I am not sure about his end time scenario. I think the endtime testimony is the answer to the questions: "What think ye of Jesus Christ?" Whose Son is He? Was the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection necessary? And was it sufficient? If that testimony requires a test of time--I do not find it in the Book of Revelation. Tom

Michael,

In John 4, spirit and truth is used in the context of the Samaritan woman and her fellow villagers coming to believe in the person of Jesus, as opposed to the "proper place or people of worship." I would understand it essentially against this backdrop.

How further truths are understood can only be left to the Spirit leading people in this primary truth.

Just some thoughts...

Frank

This would not be such a heavily contested idea had not Adventists continually proclaimed that the Sabbath was one of the "testing truths" and made it the most important doctrine, warning the rest of the Chistian world to "come out of Babylon" so as not to receive the Mark of the Beast.

Tom and I agree (the wisdom (s)ages :-) The acceptance of God in our lives trumps all the other, mostly superfluous addenda the SDA church has added to its armaments against everyone by proclaiming "We alone have the TRUTH"!

Elaine,

"This would not be such a heavily contested idea had not Adventists continually proclaimed that the Sabbath was one of the "testing truths" and made it the most important doctrine, warning the rest of the Chistian world to "come out of Babylon" so as not to receive the Mark of the Beast."

Agreed that "methodology and primary focus" have been in error.

Several have written to me, inquiring if the message of justification by faith is the third angel's message, and I have answered, "It is the third angel's message in verity."-- Review and Herald, April 1, 1890.

meaning if true?

pat

"The acceptance of God in our lives trumps all the other,"

I guess that depends on a mature understanding of what acceptance entails.
"If ye love me, keep my commandments." That includes the 4th one.

Frank, I have the same understanding as you concerning the Samaritan woman and spirit and truth.
Jesus was speaking to the future. In John 14:6 Jesus said, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
Truth speaking to action or belief and spirit speaking to motive and/or heart.

"I guess that depends on a mature understanding of what acceptance entails.
"If ye love me, keep my commandments." That includes the 4th one."

Doesn't that create a tremendous problem for the billions of Christians who are unable to accept the validity today of the fourth commandment for them? Are they all wrong (and only Adventists right) when they reject Judaism's teaching on the Sabbath? Are you implying that the billions of sincere Christians are too immature to understand and accept what you do?

As long as Seventh-day Adventist evangelists insist on majoring in apocalyptic scriptures, I would suggest they at least start with Ezekiel 16: 1-14. In the King James translation, Ezekiel receives and presents the Gospel in the most picturesque Jacobean language.

“1Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, 3And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite. 4And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all. 5None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the loathing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born.
6And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live. 7I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare. 8Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine. 9Then washed I thee with water; yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil. 10I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers’ skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk. 11I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck. 12And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head. 13Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom. 14And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.”

Several years before the infamous Glacier View Massacre, I had the privilege and good pleasure to be on a panel with Elder J. R. Spangler, and Harold G. Coffin at a conference held at Glacier View on the topic of the mission of Christian education. The organizers of the conference placed Elder Spangler and Dr. Coffin and me in the same cabin. Naturally we became very good friends.

Some months later, Elder Spangler published a lead article in Ministry focusing on Ezekiel 16. He presented Righteousness by Faith in a most winsome and compelling manner. Of course, I wrote him and thanked him for his contribution at a critical moment in Adventism.

In my letter, I shared with him several paragraphs from John Bunyan’s little paperback entitled: “Justification by an Imputed Righteousness.”

The operative paragraph is found on pages 31, 32 which reads:
“Question: But how could a Holy God say, live, to such a sinful people?

Answer: Though they had nought but sin, yet he had love and righteousness. He had, 1. Love to pity them; 2. Righteousness to cover them: ‘Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold thy time was the time of love,’ Ezek. Xvi. 8. What follows?
1, ‘I spread my skirt over thee;’ and, 4, ‘Entered into covenant with thee;’ and 5, ‘Thou becamest mine.’ My love pitied thee; my shirt covered thee. Thus God delivered them from the curse in his sight. ‘Then I washed thee with water (after thou wast justified); yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from thee, and anointed thee with oil,’ ver 9. Sanctification then is consequential, justification goes before—the Holy Ghost by this scripture setteth forth to the life, free grace to the sons of men while they themselves are sinners. I say, while they are unwashed, unswaddled, unsalted, but bloody sinners; for by these words, ‘not washed, not salted, not swaddled,’ he setteth forth their unsanctified state; yea, they were not only unsanctified but also cast out, without pity, to the loathing of their persons; yea, ‘no eye pitied them to do any of these things for them;’ no eye but his whose glorious grace is unsearchable; no eye but his who could look and love; all others looked and loathed; but blessed be God that hath passed by us in that day that we wallowed in our own blood; and blessed be God for the skirt of his glorious righteousness wherewith he covered us when we lay before him naked in blood. It was when we were in our blood that he loved us; when we were in our blood he said, Live. Therefore, ‘men are justified from the curse in the sight of God while sinners in themselves.”

Elder Spangler responded in part as follows: “Thank you so much for your November 6, 1978 letter, and copies of the remarks of John Bunyan on Ezekiel 16. I never knew he even wrote this book, .......I had never heard any other Seventh-day Adventist minister interpret this passage as I have done, and thought it was quite unique. And now I find that nothing is unique, but John Bunyan did this long before I ever thought of it!”

To preach an end time theology one would be wise to first preach a redemptive love theology. Nothing else has “staying power!” Tom

Good story and good point, Tom. Again, I hope someone is recording these!
Dave

"Are you implying that the billions of sincere Christians are too immature to understand and accept what you do?"

Are you implying that popularity is the mark of truth?

"Doesn't that create a tremendous problem for the billions of Christians who are unable to accept the validity today of the fourth commandment for them?"

I suppose it does. I didn’t write the 4th commandment, I just follow it.

"Are they all wrong (and only Adventists right) when they reject Judaism's teaching on the Sabbath?"

First of all it’s not Judaism’s Teaching of the Sabbath. The Sabbath came long before the "Jews" in Eden.

Second, if you would remember there are quite a few seventh day versions of many Christian denominations. Baptists, Church of God, ect. ect.
Your bias concerning Adventists is showing.