Friday: Further Study – The Jerusalem Council
Further Study: “The Jewish converts generally were not inclined to move as rapidly as the providence of God opened the way. From the result of the apostles’ labors among the Gentiles it was evident that the converts among the latter people would far exceed the Jewish converts in number.
Image © Stan Myers from GoodSalt.com
The Jews feared that if the restrictions and ceremonies of their law were not made obligatory upon the Gentiles as a condition of church fellowship, the national peculiarities of the Jews, which had hitherto kept them distinct from all other people, would finally disappear from among those who received the gospel message.”—Ellen G. White, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 189.
“The Jewish Christians living within sight of the temple naturally allowed their minds to revert to the peculiar privileges of the Jews as a nation. When they saw the Christian church departing from the ceremonies and traditions of Judaism, and perceived that the peculiar sacredness with which the Jewish customs had been invested would soon be lost sight of in the light of the new faith, many grew indignant with Paul as the one who had, in a large measure, caused this change. Even the disciples were not all prepared to accept willingly the decision of the council. Some were zealous for the ceremonial law, and they regarded Paul with disfavor because they thought that his principles in regard to the obligations of the Jewish law were lax.”—Page 197.
Discussion Questions:
|
(16)
As a student of science, I have studied Thomas Kuhn's notion of paradigm shifts. Essentially a mode of thinking and practice is challenged by anomalies to an extent that the system is thrown into crisis and a new model replaces the old one. Science has a number of such paradigm shifts, notably the particle/wave/quantum models for light, and the shift from Newton's gravity model to Einstein's curvature of space model to explain planetary motion. A paradigm shift does not change the science; rather it changes the way we understand science.
The early church faced a spiritual paradigm shift, from the Jewish worldview to the new view taught by Jesus. In the 21st century, we look back and draw the inferences from the old and show how they relate to the new in a seamless progression. We sometimes forget how radical the change would have been to those who were participants. It is no great surprise that Paul spent much of his time preaching about the spiritual paradigm shift. I appreciate the quandary that faced Jews who converted to Christianity. They had to face a spiritual paradigm shift as a better (more complete) understanding was revealed to them.
A case study in the history of the Adventist Church is found in the 1888 crisis when Waggoner and Jones presented Righteousness by Faith to the believers. For some, this was a radical change that they could not accept.
One of my theology lecturers, 50 years ago quoted this: "All that’s old is not gold! All that's new is not true!". We need the Holy Spirit to guide us to discern what is kept and what is accepted. And we should remember that the Holy Spirit does not often use an epiphany to reveal the truth, but rather guides us to grow through dialog and interaction with one another.
Hi Maurice.
"A case study in the history of the Adventist Church is found in the 1888 crisis..."
I think this is a contemporary example of what the early church struggled with. How many in our church have heard of the "message of 1888"? How many of our ministers agree with it? preach it? know it well enough to "spread it to the whole world"?
God clearly has more work to do in us and through us... individually and corporately. And the end will come (Matthew 24:14)
Yes, Sieg, the "message of 1888" is indeed a "contemporary issue." It seems to me a great tragedy that some groups who see themselves as defenders of the 1888 message, which was a focus on righteousness by faith in Christ, have so interpreted this "righteousness" as to turn it into perfectionism, which sounds suspiciously like salvation by doing the right things - which is exactly what the original message was opposed to.
We can learn much from the Jerusalem Council, and righteousness by faith, rather than by adhering to a set of behaviors, is one of them.
What I found highly interesting is that most of what Ellen White had to say at the 1888 General Conference had to do with the *attitudes* of the people involved - attitudes that did not reflect the attitude of Christ. From that I get that the idea that the mind of Christ Jesus is far more important than correct doctrine.
Hi Inge. If only those who know correct doctrine were saved, heaven would be a lonesome place.
Ty Gibson did a marvelous, reasonably short article on Righteousness by Faith as preached by A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner in 1888. I am confident many will find it as helpful as I have. It can be found here:
https://lightbearers.org/the-theological-identity-of-the-remnant/
A couple of germane quotes:
The last part of the quote of TG is nearly correct, isn't it? We have no part in our justification, while Salvation includes sanctification, where we must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, while God works in us to will and do of His good pleasure. Without denying ourselves, taking up our cross daily and following Jesus, we will never be saved. We have a vital part. Read "Steps to Christ" and/or "Faith and Works" to have this explained if scripture does not seem to have enough evidence(which it does).
Paul wrote to Titus that the human agent must "deny ungodliness and worldly lust". God does not do this for us but will empower our choice and effort to deny self.
If there was nothing for the sinner to do in order to be saved(not justified), everyone would be saved. Right? But most will be lost if scripture is accurate, so why are they lost if there is nothing to do? What do you learn from John 3(just one of many passages that could be cited as an example)?
There is a lot of this idea("we have no part in being saved") going around, but it is false and perilous to accept as true. I don't care who we might quote. If you quote Paul, you'll get it correct, but you must quote all that Paul writes on this matter. Justification is not salvation if one isn't sanctified. Sanctification is "the WORK of a lifetime".
You comment:
I agree with you that there is a common misperception that when we are saved we do not have to do anything. That is indeed erroneous, but to say that we have to be good in order to be saved is also clearly wrong. If we are saved by grace and do nothing then we are not saved. If we accept salvation then we will want to respond, not to earn God's love but because we love God.
There are two issues here:
A) What does it mean to be saved? If we limit that to having booked a place in the New Earth for eternity, we have a very narrow (and I might add, selfish) view of salvation. Being saved is about the now, and our saved life should witness that we have a relationship with Jesus.
B) No amount of good works can save us. That does not diminish the importance of good works, rather it changes the reason for doing them. I was the dishes and make the bed and vacuum the carpets at home. Why do I do that? To remain married to Carmel? It would be a sad indictment on our marriage relationship if my domestic duties were all there was to my relationship with my wife. I love her and she loves me. What we do for one another is a fruit of our relationship, not the cause.
I think it is important to understand that not everyone who says that we are saved (justified) by grace is saying that we don't have to do anything. We may not have to do anything to be saved, but we can do everything to respond to that love.
In addition to all of what Maurice Ashton says, with which I agree, I have some observations:
When persons truly meet Jesus and uplift Him in their lives and conversation, they become more like Him. And isn't that the goal of sanctification? IOW sanctification and "good works" naturally accompanies a focus on Jesus.
On the other hand, I have observed that persons who largely focus on "good works"/obedience/sanctification tend to remove people's attention from Jesus. Those who focuses on good works to meet the standard of the law then focus on *self.* That self-focus tends to make people self-righteous, which is not the same as being righteous.
If I understand the gospel correctly, then Jesus makes us more like Himself, and He *never* focused on self.
I suspect that Satan doesn't care one iota whether we focus on self for the sake of self-indulgence or whether we focus on self for the sake of self-perfection, as long as we focus on self and not on Jesus. Either focus will make us unfit for heaven and turn others away from Jesus.
So I believe that our "work" is to discipline our thoughts to focus on Jesus because *He* will finish the good work He has started in us. Any other focus (particularly a focus on being good enough to save) will interfere/obstruct His work in us.
Maurice, nowhere did I write or intend the thought that "one must be good to be saved", though the Bible teaches explicitly that no worker of iniquity will be saved, or justified. All are judged by the Law of God, which will condemn every sin however secret. Is this goodness achieved without any duty on my part?
That the life that follows the Lamb "whithersoever He goeth" is without any duty on our part is not from the word of God. Some may want to take every Christian duty as "self-focused works", which means this duty is misunderstood. Self-focused will simply not allow the good works judged as righteous by the law to take place, since they are tainted from the very root. Only in SELF* denial can the Holy Spirit work within the surrendered heart. (* does God do this without me having a part?)
I believe the path of Christian duty is clearly outlined throughout scripture, but most clearly in the life-example of Jesus, which includes Gethsemane and Calvary. Does one overcome the world having no part in cooperation with God? What then does Paul mean that all are to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling..."? Especially notice the very next verse. One interesting example is that of Abraham obeying God's command to sacrifice Isaac. What did Abraham "need to do" to be obedient? Nothing? I would encourage anyone to read the account in Gen 22 and observe what the Holy Spirit will teach from that wonderful lesson of willing, self-denying obedience through faith.
At the close of your comment you say "justified(saved)...". Which is it? Justification alone saves no one does it? Does the Bible teach justification alone as sufficient for the sinner? Justification is not based on any works, yet all are judged according to their works. What does this indicate?
Robert, while I agree with much of what you say, you make several statements that concern me. Among other things, you write,
I don't know who teaches that, but it is certainly not a Seventh-day Adventist teaching. (If you do not believe that, I'm giving you an opportunity to clarify.)
A presupposition of that statement is that persons are lost or saved en masse, according to their church membership - which appears to be at odds with your first sentence.
Additionally, your statement is built on the assumption that correctness of doctrine is necessary for salvation. That would hardly produce the "innumerable host" of the saved that Revelation shows us.
I do agree that "salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus alone," but that is quite at odds with the suppositions on which your statement about "even one false doctrine" is founded. That statement sounds rather Roman Catholic because if you believe that the doctrines the Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches are correct, you are saying that members of all other churches who believe teachings contrary to what the Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches will be lost.
By contrast, we have always taught that the vast majority of God's people are still in other churches who do not have all their doctrines correct. God's people in these churches may believe some of these incorrect doctrines, but they do love Jesus and trust Him fully for their salvation. They will not be lost. In fact, I believe that they are more likely to be saved than those who have all their doctrines correct but lack the childlike trust in Jesus and the self-renouncing love that only the Holy Spirit can implant in the heart.
Inge, see the "if" in my remark?
However, what are you quoting me from in this thread? I can't seem to find it, and cannot look to verify the context. Sorry if I'm just not seeing it for some reason.
Back to the quote without it's context: every member who accepts a false teaching will be judged individually, though they follow the popular teaching since everyone else says it's correct. That will save no one. Jesus said: "let no man deceive you", and "let no man take your crown". So "IF" they accept and follow a false teaching, they are in rebellion against God individually are they not? If after the loud cry goes forth, one chooses to receive the mark of the beast with the majority, can they receive the seal of God and be saved?
Yes, Robert, I noticed the "if," and that doesn't change my point. You appear to be saying that not having correct doctrines will keep people out of heaven. You wrote that "every member" who believed such doctrine would be lost. (I linked to your comment for your convenience.)
And in this comment you seem to be repeating your statement that we are saved by correct doctrine when you say that
The corollary to "That will save no one" is the teaching that accepting a correct teaching will save people. And I believe that is a false teaching. We are saved by Jesus, not by accepting correct teachings.
Maurice, Greetings my Brother in Jesus Christ,
I needed to read a number of submissions to connect with somewhat of a maze in the discussion of a profound transition: from the Plan of Salvation that Jesus Christ learned and practiced as a Jewish boy and young man, to the Plan of Salvation through offered through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ Himself. You meaningfully categorized this transition as a "radical" "spiritual paradigm shift". I concur with you assertion: "We sometimes forget how radical the change would have been to those who were participants".
It might be educational for us to somewhat mimic your scientific model of categorization to understand more clearly the spiritual paradigm shift:
1. Like the 7th Day Sabbath was instituted by God as commemorative of His creating the Heaven and the Earth, pre-sin, as an appointment of convocation, it appears that circumcision was commemorative of God's Covenant making with Abraham, pre-Israel, initiated by Himself: Yahweh committed Himself to be God of Abraham and his generations forever, and compatibly, Abraham and his descendants will be circumcised through all generations "for an everlasting Covenant". Genesis 17:7.
It was relationally compelling, not optional, for true descendants of Abraham to administer the Covenant, and to expect that non-Israelites who become children of God to themselves share the Covenant relationship bond in the flesh. Why should this be different in the Christian Church? It is not.
But there is a difference in the commemorative models: Sabbath, pre-sin, is forever a weekly convocation with God; whereas Covenant binding circumcision in the flesh ("present your body a living sacrifice" Rom 12) pre-figured or shadowed the living sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the flesh, in His death and re-birth. It was not a Jew vs Gentile issue. Rather, there was need for a radical spiritual paradigm shift from I myself presenting a lamb or bull for a sacrifice (circa circumcision), to accepting Jesus Christ as the only authentic sacrifice for Salvation, Himself the Lamb, and additionally, Himself the Life.
The physiological male sexual organ presents as the sower of the seed of birth; which having lost the right to life/seed because of sin, presents in circumcision the anticipation of re-birth through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. "If there is no resurrection, we are of all men most miserable" 1 Cor. 15. Resurrection is the seed for new Life in Jesus Christ.
(#2 Diversity can wait)
When the Jewish nation rejected the Messiah, Jesus, then the covenant was broken by the people.
God initiated a new covenant with the true spiritual Israel.
Mat 21:43 Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits.
Rom 9:6 Not however that the Word of God has failed, for not all those of Israel are Israel;
Rom 9:7 nor because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children. But, "In Isaac shall your Seed be called."
Rom 9:8 That is, not the children of the flesh are children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for a seed.
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the nations, who did not follow after righteousness have taken on righteousness, but a righteousness of faith.
Rom 9:31 But Israel, who followed after a law of righteousness did not arrive at a law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Why? Because it was not of faith, but as it were by the works of the Law.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,
Jer 31:32 not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah;
Shirley de Beer, what a remarkable follow-up with the Word of God to confirm God's Divine spiritual paradigm shift, from shadow to Jesus Christ; from Salvation is for the Jews to Salvation is for all God's Children!!!
This is the way it always was to be in fact, the Second Adam coming to restore the First Adam. Children of Isaac (the broad scope of Salvation) was progressively narrowed from all humans, to children of Abraham, to Israel, to the Jews, to only certain strains of acceptable Jews, till "Salvation is of the Jews" became an exclusive heritage to Jewish world government. Children of Isaac lost the "shadow" cast from the Light of the Throne of God, and became darkness. Oh how God's sin darkened "Israel"/Church needed Jesus Christ!!! Oh how our sin darkened world needed Jesus Christ!!!
There was a Mary and Joseph then. There was a Simeon, Anna and Nathaniel then. Anticipating! Today, is there a sin darkened Church that needs Jesus Christ? Is there a sin darkened world that needs Jesus Christ? There is a Paul, and a Peter and an Anna; and a Christopher and an Yvette, and a Jennifer, praying and living for Jesus Christ to come, soon!!! We need the Light from the Throne of God reflecting off true "mirrors" of God's Love Gift, and we really need in now.
This is the call of God in our Sabbath School Lessons
Word contribution taken from Daily Discussion Posting - Saturday, Sunday, Monday by Maruice Ashton, Tuesday by Phil Van der Klift
Saturday: Patience- "Resolving issues in the early church required considerable patience." The first step in conflict resolution is listening to both parties PATIENTLY.
Sunday: Comfortable - "It is comfortable! Clearly, Jewish Christians had accepted that Jesus had changed their perception of the Messiah, but it was hard to let go the centuries of practice that made them feel comfortable."
Monday: Symbol - "The symbol loses its significance when it becomes more important than what it represents."
Tuesday: Unity - "The Judiaisers were operating from a viewpoint where unity is seen as uniformity. James, motivated by the Spirit of God, was operating from much deeper understanding of unity where unity and diversity harmoniously co-exist."
Wednesday: Requirement - "The requirements that the Council agreed on were surprisingly simple. Gentile converts were required to give up pagan practices, and refrain from sexual immorality."
Thursday: Letter - Letter writing in the first century was an expensive and time consuming process. The council decided make their position official by writing this letter shows the firmness of their decision.
Friday: Peculiar - The Jews saw their peculiarity in the rituals and customs. They had failed to see the peculiarity of faith in God through these customs and rituals.
Do not compromise the faith in God for tradition.
If we ever hope to walk on streets of Gold, or sit in the throne room with God, we are called upon to live an overcoming life!
There are some things that the Word of God reveals to us that will help you maintain your victory.
Like God, we must love the people of the world without falling in love with the world itself! All that this world has to offer us is not of God... but is of the world!
When you strive to give your best effort, it's not a sinful thing. In fact, God is disappointed in us when we don't give our best effort. It ruins our testimony.
1. Salvation is in One Name only, and it is not the name of a church, so there is no salvation in church membership, for salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus alone. The church exists for training all members to serve the Lord in seeking to save those still lost in sin. Only the church with the truth intact can give the gospel message in righteousness, for only the truth can set a sinner free. If any church teaches even one false doctrine, every member would be lost if holding to that false doctrine. This is why the last call will be to "come out" of these unfaithful churches.
2. Any issue that creates a division among the members is to be brought to the General Conference in session and settled there. Once a decision is made, all are to remain in harmony with it and not continue to press any opposing arguments among the members. After this, any continued controversy is to be met where it is, in the local church, and is to be settled by the congregation according to the ruling of the General Conference in session.
3. What would be the purpose of this exercise in defending a wrong course taken by the Jewish Christians? Wouldn't it be more profitable to show from the scriptures the truth of this matter?(Paul used the Old Testament scriptures to prove the Jewish argument as false) They misunderstood and thus misapplied the scriptures to support a cause that was fueled by national pride. This pride remained in some who continued to argue their point against the new direction which the Holy Spirit had led the church to adopt and follow. The signal given by the rending of the veil in the temple at Jesus' death was a clear sign from heaven, along with the teaching of Jesus. However, people sometimes wish to cling to the old ways, even when they are no longer relevant. There is no place for pride in the church which reveals the lack of the true conversion of the soul.
Most of what you say, I agree with, Robert. However we need to understand that the process of getting to the truth/unity etc, is not a work of the moment. It is a growing process and takes time.
I remember my grandfather, who took more than 50 years to come to an understanding of what a relationship with Jesus really meant. Most of that time, my little quiet grandmother was a wonderful living witness of Christ's love. Some of us take a long time. Even those of us who accept Christ early in our lives have a lot to learn and that is where the Holy Spirit, through the community of believers can do its work. Truth is not a state that we arrive at; it is a process we live in. It is about a focus for our journey, not a platform to stand on.
On institutional decisions: Institutions like the General Conference in session are not infallible. They are made up of people like us. Some of the correspondence between Ellen White, while she was in Australia, and the General Conference personnel can testify to that. Seventh-day Adventist Church history is peppered with "growing experiences". A paradigm shift takes time. It is not the work of an instant.
Would you say that sometimes, it's not a learning curve, but resistance and lack of desire to surrender? If it's only a matter of a learning curve, why do some accept quickly while others present arguments and excuses? The Holy Spirit brings conviction to every soul, who then must either exercise faith or unbelief.
When the world church gathers to make important decisions, and seeks the Lord's leading, the flaws of individuals will be overruled by the Spirit's working among the body. If we decided the body in this situation is flawed, then we have no faith in God's leading. It's one thing to not trust men, but perilous to not trust God. If all were filled with the Spirit, would there still be contentions? Remember that Jesus said the Spirit would lead us into all truth. Would the Spirit convict members in opposition of each other. As Jesus taught: "a house divided....".
You may well be right Robert, but I do not like to judge what the reasons are. Our responsibility is to reach out with the Gospel.
Robert, may I first express my appreciation for your two very beautiful statements on personal salvation, submitted on 8/28 (I think) and 8/31.
I concur with the basic premise in your question above (8/24,6:47):
"Would you say that sometimes, it's not a learning curve, but resistance and lack of desire to surrender?"
Ellen White in Steps to Christ, Consecration, makes the point that the Holy Spirit cannot do the work of transformation in us until we are fully surrendered. This thought runs counter to certain explanations of "sanctification" as the "work of a lifetime". God saves us by the implantation of the "spiritual nature" (Romans 7) in us by the Holy Spirit, described as "born again" (by Jesus Christ, John 3), or "renewal of the mind... transformation" (by Paul, Romans 12:1,2), when? When the will is fully surrendered to God (EGW, COL, Chp 25).
As you pointed out, "resistance" (the flesh) does prevent a full surrender of the will to God; which means I can be going to the Pool of Bethsaida, at the Temple, for 38 years and never be other than a spiritual "paralytic". That's a lifetime of going to Church daily, from age 20 to age 58, but there is no healing (justification nor sanctification). Jesus Christ shows up, and He has only one question: "Do you want to be healed"?(no compliment for Church attendance or office in the GC). The paralytic did not answer the question. Really!!Nevertheless Jesus healed him; then later warned him: "Sin no more, lest a worst thing...". Sanctification is a lifetime of daily justification, when the will is fully surrendered to God. They both follow the born again experience.
Since I hesitate to apply this to the role of Conference or GC Committees (your second paragraph), please anticipate a second blog.
I actually never said "committee(s)", and will not. The power of decision lays with the body, never a smaller segment of it. Vital to understand this. It is the congregation, not the church board, that must render a decision on important matters, while allowing the church board to deal with the less important yet needed decisions for the church to functions.
The moment a committee or sub-committee has the power to decide, we create the hierarchy Jesus said the church must never have.
The General Conference in session is the body, and represents all members through delegates(it would be impractical to have every world member attend. Where would they meet??!). This body alone can decide the issues that effect every member.
Brother Maurice,
In an earlier post you asked the question: "What does it mean to be saved?" You primarily responded to the ongoing SDA debate relating to works versus grace, works and grace, and works versus works. To me, some of our debates are complex and at times confusing, especially when we use terms and term definitions that are unique to SDAs (justification, sanctification, etc). Do you mind giving us a direct response the question, from you understanding "saved"?
One contributor quoted several Scriptures, particularly Pauline, that emphasized "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". Jesus in conversation with the scholarly Nicodemus is quoted by John: "God so love the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16.
On the other hand, Jesus said to the "rich young ruler": "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments". Add the statements "I only do the will of my Father" and "keep the commandments" as multiple repeated signifiers of who are saved, or the saints. These Scriptures indicate that both faith and works are necessary for salvation.
In reality, "Believe in Jesus Christ", Faith, is as much a human activity as "keep the commandments", Obedience. Faith is an imperative, the alternative being death (Hebrews 11:6); and so is "For when I was hungry you fed me... enter into life", amplified by the exterminating risk "I know you not, for when I was hungry you did not feed me..... depart". Do we really have a debate regarding the human mental and action imperatives???
But then, does powerful faith and/or acceptable work hold any merit whatsoever to save us? Does the human being have any mental capacity or physical ability for self salvation? The Old Gold of God's Word of eternal Covenant to Abraham, of necessity required also Abraham's Covenant seal in flesh circumcision for there to be a Covenant. On Mt. Moriah, Abraham (the man) could not sacrifice the Son of God (his boy), which only God can do; but Abraham (by faith) could sacrifice (by action) a Ram (God's provision), as a "shadow" cast to earth from the Light of God's Throne shining on His Covenant of Calvary.
God could not save man without man - Man's Covenant (2)
Man cannot be saved without God - God's Covenant (1)
Any issue that creates a division among the members is to be brought to the Council of Cardinals and settled there. Once a decision is made, all are to remain in harmony with it and not continue to press any opposing arguments among the members. After this, any continued controversy is to be met where it is, in the local church, and is to be settled by the congregation according to the ruling of the Council of Cardinals in session.
Very Catholic.
Acts is a textbook case of the successes and failures of fallible humans in their relationship with God's Holy Spirit. As Peter said when facing the Sanhedrin ("the highest authority" that God had upon earth at that time): "We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29. To think that a council of men is less fallible now than at any time in the past would be a mark of human hubris. The counsels of God would be my choice above the councils of men.
In question #2 above, it suggests this is an "administrative issue". I think differently. I think this is a more serious issue, namely humans (thru the church) doing God's business of deciding who can be saved.
In Acts 15:1 lies the heart of this week's lesson:
"Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."
Salvation is not something that originates from the church. It is the gift from God thru faith! The church merely administers that (Eph 3:1).. and it is a mystery that should be taken seriously.
If we are not careful we may run into the same mistake today, not with circumcision but with other things...just fill the blanks..
Unless you _______ according to ______________ you cannot be saved.
In Jesus, there are not "unless you"'s for one to be saved!
What happens is that once you're saved, then you begin to walk humbly with God as Jesus disciple.. and then all the transformation happens by His Spirit.
The key is "according to".. if it is according to a human being, than it is not salvation, it is using religion to manipulate people. Even according to Moses it's wrong, because Moses received everything from God.
Now, if it is "according to God", then it is our role as the church to "administers this grace" given to us by God with fear and trembling and much prayer.
John, you wrote: "In Jesus, there are not "unless you"'s for one to be saved!"
Read John 3 and see if this is true or not. Also, John 8:24 is rather clear isn't it? What about Mark 16:16, Acts 3:19, etc?
If there were no conditions, none would be lost. Right?
My comment was in regards to circumcision and how that became something that made it harder for gentiles to embrace the gospel (not my words but Act 15). I was just wondering if this text has some principles we can apply today.
I’m just curious, what are the conditions to be saved that you are referring to?
In each passage cited above a clear condition is given by Jesus, and in the last, by Peter, who was filled with the Holy Spirit who gave Peter the very words of Jesus to speak. Without the condition of "believing" there is only condemnation waiting for the sinner. Belief means to follow the teaching and example of Jesus, who called all to "repent and believe the gospel". This will affect every daily choice and change the very purpose of our lives. Belief is not seen in mere agreement, but is seen in actions of faith and a "new creature" that is not like the old creature, which the former ways of are "passed away". Without meeting the conditions of God's promises, we will fail of receiving the blessings offered. God forces no one, which requires a willful and deliberate response, with choices to be made. Making no choice is also a choice.
As for circumcision being a difficult barrier, what about taking up one's cross and following Jesus daily? It seems that few "Christians" are willing to do this. Yet with circumcision, every Jew obeyed the command, yet they crucified the One who gave them than distinct sign of being God's people. Signs are nothing if the actions of righteousness are missing.
Good question, John Silva! You wrote:
If we don't glean any applicable principles from the experience of the early church, we are merely discussing theory that does no one any good.
Yes, circumcision was a huge stumbling block to the gentiles. They considered it crude. To the Jews, however, it was the sign of the covenant with Abraham that was to be *forever.* So one can hardly blame them for believing that the gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to be part of God's covenant people. But the Holy Spirit led by baptizing the gentiles with His baptism without their being circumcised. And Paul explained that the circumcision of the heart had always been the important thing, not the physical circumcision. Furthermore, after the cross, all those who have faith in God are children of Abraham. (See Ro 4:9-16 and Gal 3:7-14)
In my lifetime, I've seen the mistakes of the Judaizers repeated time ad time again. Many of our missionaries exported American culture along with the gospel, and the culture ended up being of more importance than the gospel. To this very day, thousands of Seventh-day Adventists in the South Pacific islands have ingrained in them that it is necessary to wear a heavy black suit jacket to church. That's in spite of the stifling, damp tropical heat. In some churches, the pastor *must* wear a black tie - not a blue tie or a green tie, or a patterned tie, but only a black tie. It's because the missionaries taught American culture as the basis of Christianity. And that's not the only instance.
Serious mistakes were made in areas of African where multiple wives were the norm among the higher class, especially chiefs. It is horrifying to imagine the heartache of breaking up so many families in the name of the Lord. Jesus must weep. (And I was astonished to notice that things like this are still happening.) Again, it was more American culture than biblical precedent that was enforced.
We can see the same issue coming up in regard to music. Somehow certain people believe that music built on the classical tradition of Europe is the only music "holy" enough to be used in church. (Never mind that most classical composers musicians, were an immoral though sophisticated lot.) When my husband was in Japan, he was exposed to genuine Japanese cultural music, but in Japanese Seventh-day Adventist churches, Japanese words were sung to European hymn tunes. Could there be a connection between the fact that the Japanese Adventist church was stagnant and the cultural barrier presented to the population, preventing them from even examining the Adventist faith? In effect, Japanese were asked to become Americans first before they could become Adventists.
If you have any influence at all in your own congregation, I highly recommend prayerfully examining your order of service, your choice of music and everything you do in the church in terms of worship and ask how much of that serves the purpose of drawing others into an experience of genuine worship and how much of that is merely culture or tradition - American or otherwise. God did not hand us an order of worship from Sinai. And He certainly didn't specify that only American and European rhythms and tonal scales were appropriate for worship. And he didn't tell us that a syncopated rhythm is satanic, as some claim. (When my husband was preaching in an India evangelism campaign over 20 years ago, he noticed that *all* their music was syncopated. The tonal progressions were foreign to his ears, but when the words were translated to him, he found they expressed beautiful spiritual sentiments.)
If we wish to reach the world for Jesus we need to speak in the language that the world can understand, and that includes the language of music. The Holy Spirit will guide if we will let Him.
Thanks again for asking that pertinent question. But I'm curious what *you* had in mind by asking it.
Robert, I've observed over the years that in discussions of salvation our language tend to indicate an unbalanced emphasis of justification or sanctification over the other. Keep in mind that our theoretical concepts describe the ACTUAL life experience of all humans. I like to think of human salvation as typified in Israel's release and departure from Egypt and resettlement in Canaan. It mirrors human movement from a state of enslaved rule by satan (Rm 3:9-11,23) to a new state of freed rule by God (Ex 6:6-8; 1 Cor 15:22). Clearly everyone who left Egypt and who entered Canaan did so because they walked the entire distance on his/her own feet willingly. However, to emphasize Israel's walking prowess over the Power that created the conditions for slaves to walk out of Egypt rich would inappropriately glorify the impotent over the Omnipotent. If "the walk" out of Egypt, which typifies human justification (Col 1:13), shouldn't glorify the impotent neither should "their walk" through the wilderness, typifying sanctification/judgment (Dt 18:18-19; Heb 3:5-6; Mt 17:5). That portion of "their walk" was only possible because they had Divinely connected leadership in Moses, who provided a path through an impassable body of water, a covering of day-time clouds, night-time pillar of fire, manna, water and serpent-on-a-cross health. "Our walk", necessary as it is to our arrival to the promised state where only God rules, pales in comparison to all the miracles that accompany God-provided salvation. God INITIATES a new life experience (justification Jn 1:4; 10:10) *AND* God also ENABLES that life experience (sanctification Jn 15:3-4). What does that look like in actuality?
Jesus stated a list of objectionable things in Mk 7:21-23 that He says originates in a person's heart, among which is listed "deceit". Deceit comes in two flavors, intentional and unintentional. In the intentional variety a person withholds information from another to purposefully cause them to believe a lie. In the unintentional variety, a person without full information passes on false (incomplete) information to another, making the recipient complicit in a lie. Now, "deceit" is not religious or irreligious, in my view, it's just what all fallen humans do. That Jesus places the responsibility for lying squarely on "the devil" (Jn 8:44), clearly didn't have Him releasing His hearers from their "desire" to practice a lie. Do children's early, untaught willingness to lie, support or undermine man's inherent sinfulness (Ps 51:5; 58:3; Jer 17:9)? How does one rid one's self of desires--not just actions--to which God objects and come into possession of the desires He values (Ps 51:6; Mt 22:37-38)? Does knowing what God deems objectionable or acceptable, by itself, solve the human dilemma (Rm 7:23-24; Jn 5:39-40; Col 2:19,23)?
We often hear and respond to the imbalance in each other's expressions. While each one helping the other is a hallmark of the body of believers (Heb 10:24-25; Act 18:24-26), this never replaces our individual relationship with the single Source of all truths (Heb 8:10-11; Mt 23:8; Jn 14:16-17). I believe that as indispensable as "our walk" is to completing our journey, all praise is due only to God who creates all the circumstances for impotent, former slaves to walk in the right direction and reach the promised destination (Eph 2:1-10).
Thank you Lynrol for this wonderful post and included scripture. As you so nicely point out, we are impotent and powerless. If our works had had any part in our salvation, then we could boast about them ("I repented/kept the Sabbath/fasted 2 times each week, etc. and you didn't so I deserve salvation and you don't").
Your Bible texts point out that God gets ALL the glory because He does ALL the work to save us. That work includes leading us to repentance (a gift from God), drawing us to Himself (another gift), dying in our stead (gift) and giving us Christ's righteousness in place of our filthy rags (gift). These gifts come from His grace, not from our works. We cannot earn these gifts. There. Is. No. Way.
We get grace, God gets glory (1 Peter 5:10-11; Ephesians 2:8).
Further, whoever glories (boasts about/takes pride in/takes credit for) something given as a gift is a fool (Proverbs 28:26; Titus 3:3; 1 Corinthians 1:27; Psalm 5:5; Galatians 3:1-2). God is not pleased when we boast about something He has given us as a gift (Jeremiah 9:23; Jude 1:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:26-28; Jeremiah 9:24; 1 Corinthians 4:7).
Sieg, I am encouraged that you had an appreciation for the "included scripture". Our lives are vitally dependent on the incarnate Word (Jn 1:1,4) and the writings of Scripture (Jn 5:39-40;1 Pt 2:2-3), when illuminated by the Word's Successor (Jn 14:16-17).
I was particularly drawn to your use of Prov 28:26 in the last paragraph of your post. I don't feel confident that as a community of believers that we place sufficient emphasis on Scripture's truth regarding our present human state--a state from which God sent His Anointed to relieve us (Mt 26:28). To not have an awareness that the natural, hereditary state of ALL human minds (heart) is deceitful (Jer 17:9) and therefore untrustworthy, is perhaps what Jesus referred to generally as "foolishness" (Mk 7:22). It was this "foolishness" that remained in the minds of some Jewish believers (Act 15:5) that ignited the critical dispute (Act 15:2) regarding the nature of salvation (Act 15:1), that created the need for the Council in the first place. Paul realized that this natural, human tendency to trust our ideas and concepts, which also manifests itself in our interpretation of Scripture, is an impediment to the body of believers, from which we need relief along with all other sins (Lk 24:27,32,45; 2 Cor 3:14,16-17).
I find it interesting that David in Ps 4:1, says that a "fool" makes certain pronouncement(s) in the mind that adversely affects behavior (Ps 14:3). When Paul quotes this Scripture in Rm 3:10-12, he applies it equally to Jews AND Gentiles (Rm 3:9,23) as being "under sin"--meaning the condition of ALL humanity (Ps 14:2). Our natural, human tendency to trust our ideas/concepts/counsels, which represents a turning away from God, required a Divine intervention (Isaiah 53:6; Act 15:8-9)--which cannot be repaired by even our best behavior (Php 3:5-6; Col 2:23).
I believe that if the Israel people of old were faithful, Jesus would of come by then. But compliance, Idolatry and disobedience made them useless for the work of God. In these times also, disunity and false doctrines keep us away of the real life saving power.
Same applies to the church today Blanca. Revelation 7 tells us the delay is God waiting for His servants to be sealed. How many more generations until this happens? The only reason one is not sealed is unbelief.
In harmony with Maurice’s point about raising issues for group discussion rather than reliance on epiphany, I raise the following for discussion and feedback.
In regard to discussion question # 1, has ‘the right/true church’ ever been as narrow as one particular group of people? And is there a problem of significance in a group perceiving themselves as such?
As the Acts of the Apostles quote outlines, the Jews feared that if their peculiarities were not maintained, their distinctiveness would disappear. To put it in today’s language, they were primarily concerned that their ‘brand’ or group identity would lose its perceived distinction. Under this mindset, brand promotion and identity maintenance unfortunately overtake and become the driving force. This leads to a focus on promotion of the distinctive behaviours rather than a fostering of the values underpinning those behaviours.
The discussion question asserts that “certainly ancient Israel was the ‘right church’”. Was it? If it was “the” right church, how do we explain characters such as Melchizedek and others who were true followers of God? And if it was the right church, how did it end up in exile?
Could it be that, rather than being the prerogative of one particular national or denominational grouping, the ‘true church’ consists of all who are responding to the promptings of the Holy Spirit in being reborn with a new heart and right spirit (as per Jesus conversation with Nichodemus in Jn 3:5-7) - even whether they are aware of the title of the Holy Spirit or not?
What is the significance of these questions? As today’s Acts of the Apostles quote demonstrates, a group that believes they are God’s ‘right/true church’ end up focusing on promoting their distinctiveness and their identity as paramount and therefore unfortunately create a stumbling block to the fostering of salvation.
Is the Adventist church at risk of the same mindset mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles quote? What could safeguard against the Adventist church repeating the same mistake?
Phil, I'd like to deal with one of the questions you raised:
Ancient Israel was the "right church" because they had been specifically chosen by God to demonstrate His character to the world. The fact that they failed at the task doesn't change God's choice. In fact, Christ corroborated this fact when He spoke to the woman at the well. He said that "Salvation is of the Jews." (John 4:22)
Now, I believe that there were other people of faith who were saved even in Old Testament times, but the fact remains that He entrusted the truth about Himself and salvation to the Jews.
It gets more complicated after the cross. As Jesus said, His people will worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:23, 24). That's not quite as tangible as a nation settled in a particular area of the world. And Paul says that all who have faith are henceforth the children of Abraham and heirs of the covenant. Gal 3:7 But even since the cross, I believe God has always had a core group of believers with whom He entrusted His message to the world. This group wasn't always clearly identifiable, but that changed with the Advent movement of the 19th Century. Again, God clearly chose a people to whom He entrusted the last message of mercy to this world.
Is having a special responsibility a cause for pride or a feeling of superiority? I don't think so. God could make the rocks cry out if He wished. But it is a cause to feel humble and to recognize that to whom much is given, much will be required.
As in the Old Testament, the Jews were not the only ones to be saved, so now those commissioned to bear the last message are not the only ones to be saved. God has people who worship him "in spirit and in truth" in every denomination and outside of Christendom as well. These are the "other sheep" whom He will gather in when He comes.
Another thing to remember is that one of the last messages is to "Come out of her my people." That should help us recognize that many, if not most, of God's people are still in Babylon. That should humble us. They're still there because it is not safe for God to bring them among us just now, when we don't represent His character very well.
I think it might help to make the distinction between God's visible "chosen people" and those of His people who may be scattered in other folds. There being sheep in other folds does not negate that there is a fold into which He wants to draw His people.
You also ask, "If it was the right church, how did it end up in exile." I think Rev 3:19 should give us a clue.
Hi Inge, I appreciate you attempt to navigate between the call to be God's people and the challenge of being and living as God's people.
Your identification of the pre-Christ Church graphs the dichotomy:
"Ancient Israel was the right Church"
"Salvation is of the Jews"
So which is it? Today we have the "Christian" Church. Moslem/Islamic apologetics seem quite correct in saying "we are more Christians than the Christians. We don't eat pork, but they do. We do not use alcohol, but Christians do". Are we going to slim the identity of the Church of God from the Christian Church (Ancient Israel) to Seventh-day Adventists (Jews)? Then how do we name the Remnant of the Remnant, as we say?
Do you mind dealing with a little complication in your discourse on the Church? When God established His Church initially, God said to Abraham "This is My Covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you"... God embraced all descendants of Abraham as His Church, isn't that clear? Then God's people are children of both sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac. What does it mean when Jesus narrowed it down to two tribes of Israel, Judah and Benjamin, then apparently still smaller in the remnants of the Jew, then …….?
Hurford, there is no conflict and no narrowing of the promise when we consider the biblical promise/covenant and its renewal.
The first promise was made to Eve in God's pronouncement on the serpent - that the offspring of the woman should crush the serpent's head. The promise was not that every one of Eve's offspring would crush the serpent's head. It was a reference to Christ to come. And the promised lineage went through Seth, not Cain, then through Noah, etc., down to Abraham, to whom God repeated the promise. God made a covenant with Abraham, but that did not mean that all of Abraham's offspring were included, as you suggest. Paul makes that clear in Romans 4 and Gal 3, as well as Gal 4:22-24. Then the covenant continued through Jacob, not Esau. Than Jacob's name was changed to Israel, and his offspring became a distinct nation of Israel. But much of the nation fell away and the distinct nation consisted mainly of the offspring of Judah and Benjamin, as you suggest. When Jesus said "Salvation is of the Jews," he recognized the covenant heritage and the truths entrusted to the covenant people.
I suggest the line of covenant keepers since the cross consists of the children of faith, as Paul points out. Through the centuries, this lineage has continued and in the 19th Century, God chose a small group of Advent believers to whom He entrusted the last message to be given to this world. That small group grew into the world-wide Seventh-day Adventist Church. But only those who are truly children of faith are heirs of the covenant. Who those are is not for you or me to judge, but for God alone. (See Luke 6:37) But each one of us is privileged to claim the promise by faith and to declare it to the world. We have the same "everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people" as the disciples had, with the added urgency of the imminent appearing of our Lord.
I perceive that it is neither the Father nor the Son who "narrows down" the people of God. The people themselves do that by refusing to enter into a covenant of faith. We need to ask ourselves the question whether we are entering into the faith covenant that Paul wrote about. (Gal 3:7 and others already referenced above.) Are you a child of faith? Am I? (Matt 18:2-3)
It seems to me that Jesus told several parables that warn us against judging a "remnant within the remnant." In the parable of the wheat and the tares, the Lord tells His workers to let them grow together until the harvest. In the parable of the net that represents the gospel, all sorts of fish are drawn in, but, judging by the parable of the tares, it is the Lord Himself who supervises the sorting. Matt 13:47-48.
Thank you Hurford, Inge and Shirley for your thoughtful input and discussion.
Phil
"If being in the true church does not guarantee salvation, then what is the advantage of being a part of it?"
What are advantages of a franchisee in belonging to a big Corporation?
Knowledge sharing, bulk discounts, consolidated marketing, etc
So why be part of a group who understand and believe in the gospel the same way that you do?
Knowledge sharing - Bible Study, training
Bulk discounts - costs of ministers, evangelist, Bible research are all shared
Marketing - the name & main beliefs are broadcast world wide
Support - like minded people who care about you
As Maurice said "What is salvation?" If we really know that answer than all the other questions fall into line. When a word is over used and the meaning is confused it helps to describe the concept without using the problem word.
I believe what God is offering is:
1) a loving relationship with an Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent God
2) a character that is changed to be like the character of God
If a animal like a lemming's nature is to follow the leader over the cliff to its death, you can rescue it again and again from the fall but until it's nature has changed it will keep on jumping off the cliff.
God's plan for human kind is to change their nature back to being like His - knowing only good, thus texts re being born again, being a new creature.
To summarize, when we love the LORD our God with our whole heart body and mind than our actions and our nature will be changed.
As Paul said in Galatians 5:
Gal 5:16 I say, then, Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. And these are contrary to one another; lest whatever you may will, these things you do.
Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are clearly revealed, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lustfulness,
Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, fightings, jealousies, angers, rivalries, divisions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revelings, and things like these; of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 meekness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Gal 5:24 But those belonging to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
I have ask this question many years ago. Can we do anything to secure or earn our salvation? Then, can we do anything to cause us to lose our salvation? It depends on multifaceted reasons and choices. I would question forms of doctrine, as a viable alternative. God is the final arbiter. I would chose 2Peter 3:9 "God is not willing that any should perish", as the last word on the issue. Gods will, will always be done.
Yes, there is something we can do - we can/must accept God's offer of an Everlasting Covenant or we can reject God's offer/rebel against God.
Again - what do you mean by "salvation"??? Salvation is not some thing it is a relationship with someone.
So are you asking can one do something to secure or earn a relationship with the LORD??
When put like that the answer is obvious - not possible, the relationship is based on the fact that God loves us and we can love him and submit our will to Him, anything else is as a result of that relationship.
Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the Law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.
Shirley, you said something very important when you wrote
We may be ever so "good," but without a dependent faith relationship with Christ, all our "goodness" is like filthy rags. We are saved in Him, no other way. (That said, there are those who have never heard the name of Christ who nevertheless respond to His Spirit. They are also saved only in Him, even though they do not know His Name.)
Paul, it seems to me that the Bible is clear on what we must do to "secure salvation." It is the same now as in the days of Paul who said "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts 16:31)
The corollary is that we can lose our salvation through unbelief.
Yes Inge. We just can't believe that God would do that for us can we? What must we do? Believe God (just like Abraham did).
If the Israelites had believed God’s promise to make them a holy nation (Exodus 19:6), He would have kept His promise and made them exactly that. All they had to do was say "AMEN." Instead, because of their unbelief, they said “All that the Lord has said WE will do” (Exodus 19:8; Exodus 24:3; Exodus 24:7).
The Israelites didn’t believe God’s promise to make them a holy, obedient, commandment-keeping nation. Instead, consistent with their unbelief, they insisted “WE will do it” (of course they couldn’t just like we can’t). That reality apparently doesn't stop many of us from making the same mistake, insisting "WE will do it."
I know that many have created a doctrine based on the belief that Israel were saying "we will, in our own power, keep God's commandments" however I don't believe that was the case at that stage, although at a later stage they perverted the covenant God offered.
Let's recheck the Bible only like the Bereans:
What exactly did God say:
Exo 19:3-8 And Moses went up to God, and Jehovah called to him out of the mountain, saying, You shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the sons of Israel: (4) You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Myself. (5) And now if you will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure to Me above all the nations; for all the earth is Mine. (6) And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the sons of Israel. (7) And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which Jehovah commanded him. (8) And all the people answered together and said, All that Jehovah has spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people to Jehovah.
1) God said IF you obey my words & KEEP my covenant THEN I will - so the promise to be a peculiar treasure was based on conditions, God didn't say he would make them be obedient.
2) Israel agreed with the conditions God had set out.
3) Moses took their word back to God: if they were wrong why didn't God reject the words and the people, in fact Moses tells us what God's response was -"Deu 5:28 And Jehovah heard the voice of your words when you spoke to me. And Jehovah said to me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken to you. They have WELL SAID all that they have spoken." So God approved of what they said.
4) God issued/offered His Covenant - we need to remember that all the Divine CovenantS were issued unilaterally, there was no negotiations, people either could accept or reject the covenant, at no time did God accept an amendment to His covenant.
5) So in Exodus we have God offering His covenant on condition they obeyed and Israel accepted the terms. In fact Jesus said something similar: John 15:14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.
6) None of the above should be understood that I believe or that God expected them to obey His commandments or keep His covenant through their own power - there are many texts that show that God wanted to change their hearts and empower them to obey
Deu 6:5 And you shall love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. Deu 6:6 And these words which I command you this day shall be in your heart.
Deu_30:6 And Jehovah your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your seed, to love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.
Deu_30:14 But the Word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, so that you may do it.
7) in the MKJV on e-sword "obey" is used 10 times while "love" is used 16 times in Deuteronomy, in fact some people say that after John's books Deuteronomy is one of the top books that speak of love.
A couple of questions for discussion that flow from the sum of the comments above:
1) Why are we incapable of doing anything to earn or merit our salvation?
2) What does it mean to believe? What does believing encompass?