Time to get into this week's study, which can be directly accessed at the following link:

http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/06d/less07.html

Let the study and discussion begin.

I like the introduction to this week's study in the Sabbath Afternoon section:



Abram, or Abraham, was a person of faith, demonstrated by his works of faith.

Sunday's study is about Abram's Background.

Is there anything in his background that made him eligible for such a calling by God that we will be looking at further in Monday's study?

Abram repeatedly told his wife to pose as his sister whenever they would enter a new territory. Where does this land on the faith scale?

My answer to that is that Abram had his lack of faith times just as we do today.

It tells me that God can and does use anyone. 1 Corinthians 1:26-28 covers this quite eloquently, quite timely for the NewTestament to reaffirm what God has done in the OldTestament

God Bless,
Will

Monday's study is all about The Call of Abram.

Did Abram respond to the call immediately? The following in the lesson study for Sunday states that he didn't leave until after his father died.



Here is what Stephen said about this:



Why didn't Abram respond to the call right away, or was that even important enough of a question to be asked?

When God called Abram, did God want Abram to respond right away, or did He leave it up to Abram to respond when he was good and ready to respond?

What about when God calls us? Does God expect us to respond right way, or when we are good and ready to respond?

This is a rather loaded way of asking the question, isn't it? I mean, one couldn't really answer this, "when we are good and ready to respond," could one? It sort of begs the question, does God call us before we are ready to respond? What would be the point of that?

Then, why didn't Abram leave right away?

Why did he wait until after his father died?

It seems Haran would be half way between Chaldea and Canaan.

Also, what do we make out of this?
Gen 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Gen 11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.
Gen 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
Gen 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:


Was it Abram or his father Terah who was first called? In either case it appears that it was Terah who first got started towards Canaan.

Interesting text, as it seems from this in conjunction with Acts 7:2-4 that Abram must have received two calls.



I had never realized this before about the two calls until västergötland brought it to our attention.

In light of this, Abram (Abraham) responded to the first call in which his father went with him, and then responded to the second call to continue on to Caanan, after his father died.

We are told that Sarah was not telling an untruth by stating she was a sister of Abraham.

When I worked in West Africa I discovered that a young man in Western Nigeria would call any young lady in his village a sister.

In former days a fellow female Adventists was always called a sister?

Does it depend on circumstances if we are telling the truth or not?

How often does the Lord call us more than once? Should we depend on it that He will give us a second call?

I agree.

Here's my question: While in the midst of this lack of faith, was Abram in a saving relationship with God? How does that apply to our lack of faith today?

I think the problem was that he did not reveal that she was also his wife.

We are told that God cursed at least two kings who where fooled by Abram not telling the truth about his wife. If ones actions threaten to whipe out entire nations, are they still innocent pranks?

Here's my answer: No. Without faith there can be no salvation. That applied to Abram, and that applies to us today.

In the case of Abram, in those instances, I don't see any indication that the relationship was broken.

Do you?

The EGW quote in Tuesday's study may help to answer this question.



Are we not all showing a lack of faith in certain areas of our life?

Does that, therefore, mean that we are not in a saving relationship with Jesus Christ?

From the following quote from Wednesday's study, there is also a lesson of faith:



God continued to communicate with Abram and to lead him, therefore, I do not think that his lack of faith resulted in a severed relationship with God. It didn't help the relationship, however, I do not think it broke the relationship.

From tuesdays study, the first verses of chapter 12The translators margin comments say: The verb here as vocalized in the Masoretic Text literally means, "Be you a blessing," which makes the Hebrew syntax somewhat problematic. A change in vocalization would yield, "and it [your name] will be a blessing" < end quote >

How do we best understand this verse?

It is always a blessing to have a good name.

John says born of God -> sinneth not. Therefore, if lying is a sin, then that is evidence that there's a problem with the relationship.

Just like unfaithfulness in a human mariage is evidence of a problem in the relationship, the same goes with our relationship with God.



I don't think that quote was talking about Abram's lying. It was talking about the famine that led him to go to Egypt.

Note what EGW says in that same paragraph:


The "lessons that were to be placed on record" were those of "constancy and obedience" to God. I don't think Abraham's lying because of lack of faith counts as constancy and obedience.



Here's how I see it: We are saved by grace through faith. Without faith, we have no access to God's grace. Without God's grace, there is no life.

It may be hard to swallow, but that's what I believe the Bible teaches. Regardless of how you and I might feel about it, the facts remain unchanged.

If we manifest a lack of faith in any area of life, we are poor, blind, and naked. If we think that we are somehow safe in that condition, we are deceived. Remember, Laodicea was spewed out.

The only solution is to acknowledge our lack, then go to Him who has the gold, the eyesalve, and the robe of righteousness. Abraham was the father of faith, not because he failed under duress (Egypt), but because he eventually learned to fully trust God in all circumstances (Isaac).

I'm not saying that a broken relationship cannot be fixed. What I am saying is that unfaithfulness is a sure sign of a broken relationship.

And while one is in the midst of unfaithfulness, there is no safety. The only safety is to turn around (i.e. repent) and be faithful once more.

Sure, it's possible to have a relationship with God that lacks faith. But it is NOT a saving relationship.



I don't like this statement. It seems to imply that there is some kind of balance where the failures are put on one side and the successes on the other. That would be rather legalistic.

Is the phrase a command to be a blessing?

Daryl wrote I dont think this is what it is refering to. Either it means God wants Abram to be a blessing or it means Gods blessing will come trough Abram, which I think we would identify as Jesus. Thats the ways I see about this.

Arnold wrote I will ask with the diciples:
Mat 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

Hoping that Jesus will answere now as He did then:

Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Grace is God saving impossible cases. The feast in heaven is for sinners who come home, not saint who have no need of doing so.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Arnold futher wrote Even when compared to the idea that God requires perfect performance to even give us the faith to approach Him?

Arnold also wrote Thats a good question, and one I think noone can answere for sure.

/Thomas

No, that would be even more legalistic. Anything that views our actions as the cause of our relationship with God is legalistic.

Amen! No matter what God's requirements are, with men it is impossible to meet them. But with God, it is impossible to fail to meet them.

And yes, when we see the breadth and depth of God's standard, we will fall on our faces in self-distrust. But as long as we fall at the feet of Jesus, his answer is the same: Stay with Me and you'll be fine.



Here I think I see a hint of disagreement between our views of salvation and grace.

The question is asked, "Who then can be saved?" I do not believe the difficulty is in the transportation. IOW, salvation is not simply a matter of relocation from Earth to Heaven.

Neither is salvation a matter of eating and drinking. Multitudes followed Jesus because He met their temporal needs by multiplying the fish and loaves. Multitudes follow Him today for the same reasons, though they have traded in their fish and loaves for mansions and gold.

I believe the angel's explanation of salvation. Jesus came, not just to improve our location, not just to meet our physical needs, but to save us from our sins.

When people begin to grasp the true concept of salvation, they are led to ask, "Who then can be saved?" But they do not wonder how God can transport them to Heaven. They do not question if God can feed, clothe, and house them. The impossibility they perceive is in the thought that they can and must be freed from sin. (A corrollary to that is that we must continually walk by faith, and not by sight.) Thank God, the answer remains the same: With man, this is impossible. But with God, all things are possible.

Indeed, grace is God's instrument in doing the impossible. By grace we are saved, through faith, and that not of ourselves; it is the gift of God. (Eph 2:8-9) But is the purpose of grace merely to provide transportation to Heaven? No. Is the purpose of grace merely to provide for our temporal needs? No.

What is grace for? Grace makes the ungodly godly, the unrighteous righteous. And their newfound holiness is not limited to heavenly bookkeeping, but they actually live this way in the present.

The feast in Heaven is for those who have been saved by grace. It is not for those sinless saints who have no need of grace; there is no such thing. But neither is it for sinners who continue to be unfaithful in certain aspects of life, nor for those who have strayed and have not returned to the Shepherd; they have not experienced the grace that brings salvation. The feast is for the unworthy sinners - slaves of self, sin, and Satan - who have been freed, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

So John, who heard Jesus' answer, can say, "We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him." (1Jn 5:18) Anyone who finds this impossible is with man. But all who are with God will experience this blessed assurance.

No, I wasnt thinking of transportation when writing that, anymore than Jesus was thinking about transportation when He said:
Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

and:

Luk 15:10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth. This was an interesting take on 'salvation of eating and drinking'. Usually Ive seen that in reference to such who insist that eating or drinking something either includes or excludes a person from salvation.It seems to me that the essence of Johns letter is:
1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

And:
1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

Yes, but I understand it to be much broader than that.



Any kind of focus on meat and drink that takes the focus away from righteousness is a waste of time and effort. That includes eating and drinking both as the cause or purpose of salvatation.

It is good to hear that we are not focused on going to Heaven. I think that is a misguided focus.

Note that the joy in Heaven is for the "sinner that repenteth." Neither God nor the angels are concerned about moving sinners to Heaven. Their concern is that sinners repent.

And repentance is not a light matter. It is a radical change in one's thoughts, feelings, and actions. It is a sorrow for sin and a turning away from it.

Therefore, the feast in Heaven is not for sinners who are merely relocated, but for former sinners who have been re-created.