I have some questions

I've some questions that needed to be clarified.

1. Is the "Lord's Day" in Rev. 1:10 refers to Sabbath day or to Sunday?

In His love

The "Lord's Day" in the scripture can mean one of at least three things, two of which are considered as a "Sabbath" and the third is unspecified:

1) A literal Sabbath day, the seventh day of the week. See Mark 2:27-28.
2) A millennial "Sabbath" day. See 2 Peter 3:8-13.
3) The literal day of the Lord's return, i.e. "Second Coming."

The phrase "Lord's Day" is never applied in the Scriptures to a specific weekly day except for the seventh-day Sabbath. In fact, except for named feast days or holidays, none of the days of the week is ever referred to by name except for the Sabbath, which is consistently the seventh day of the week. As I understand, the Hebrews gave only numbers to the other days, such as "first day", "sixth day", etc.

There is no Biblical reason to commemorate the first day of the week. While many people like to think it should be a memorial of Christ's resurrection, even in death, Jesus kept the Sabbath holy, and never once did He ask His followers to think of His resurrection day, nor to memorialize it in any way.

That the law is not changed is evident by the fact that Jesus kept the seventh-day Sabbath and proclaimed that He had not come to change the law, his disciples kept the Sabbath even after Jesus' death and resurrection, and there is no biblical command to keep any other day holy.

"The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Mark 2:28

Mark 2:27-28 are Jesus' own words. He proclaimed Himself "Lord of the Sabbath." That the Sabbath is His day should be evident from this, and John the Revelator wrote accordingly.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The Lord's Day in Rev. 1:10 has the wording "kureakê hêmera" of it original Greek, which really mean Lord's day and falls on Sunday.

We, SDA's believe it is Saturday, and claim it is Sabbath.
What is the truth?

In His love

After a bit of studying I don't believe the Lords Day in Rev 1:10 is the Sabbath, or Sunday.I recall the term "The Lords Day" used in other parts of the Bible, so it dawned on me that the event happening in Rev 1:10 is the Day of The Lord. Not Sabbath, or Sunday..
It is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and with that follows all sorts of events in the book.
I think somewhere in Hosea, or one of the books written by the minor prophets there is reference to the day of the Lord or the Lords day. The event is just as apocalyptic, and I think its referring to it.
What are your thoughts?
God Bless,
Will

According to my Strong's greek, kuriakos means belonging to the Lord and hemera can mean gentle, day and can include parts of other days, period of time, for ever, judgement, while, years.

I'd be interested in how it would mean Sunday.

In reading the verse, I could see how alternatives could be:
I was in the Spirit on the day of the flood.
I was in the Spirit at creation.
I was in the Spirit in the future.
I was in the Spirit on the day of the Lord.

I would therefore, tend to agree with Will, and that this verse is setting the setting of what is to follow.

Yes, that's another possible interpretation - but such a phrase can be read either way - day of judgement or Sabbath day (Sunday is totally excluded for good Biblical reasons!).

Here's an interesting observation someone shared -- it's somewhat complex --

In Rev. 1:5-16 are found 8 quotes from the OT

Rev. 1:5 Jesus the "witness" Isa. 55:4
Rev. 1:7 He comes with clouds Dan. 7:13
Rev. 1:7 They pierced Him, they wail Zech. 12:10
Rev. 1:8 I AM the first and last Isaiah 41:4,6 and 48:12


Rev. 1:11 I AM the first and Last Isaiah 41:4,6 and 48:12
Rev. 1:12 Seven candlesticks Zech 4:2
Rev. 1:13-15 Description of Christ as Priest Dan..7:9,13,22 and 10:5,6
Rev. 1:16 mouth sharp sword Isa 49:2


Notice the parallel order in which OT references were taken

Our text in question lies right in the middle!
Now why would John say "Lord's day"?

When we realize John was revealing Jesus as the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Creator of all things the I AM who spoke the worlds into existance, we see that John is more concerned with exalting Jesus as LORD than to raise any question as to which is the "day" of the Lord.

The OT is very emphatic that the Sabbath is the DAY of the Jehovah thy God. So by proving that Jesus is the LORD of the OT it automatically shows that the seventh day is Jesus' Day.



Scripture repeatedly places the Sabbath in the CENTER.

It's in the center of the ten commandments.
Those commandments were placed in the center of the Isrealite worship services (the most holy)


Notice too, that the quotations before and after the mention of "the Lord's day" tell us that Jesus is the "I AM, the first and the last".
The I AM of the past, present and future.

So we see the focus -- all pointing to Christ, exalting Him.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I AM the first and the last

Jehovah, Creator,
The Lord's Day
>>>>>>>> I AM the first and the Last
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>

Yes: "For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day." (Matt 12:8)

Your study is excellent as usual, Dedication.

I really like your study too Dedication and I'm sorry to bring this question on. I don't question that Jesus is the "Lord of the Sabbath day".

It just so happen that this week I started studying about the different names given to God in the OT, isn't Jehovah(H3068) giving to the Father and not the son?

And isn't Jehovah mean "the Existant one"

There are many examples of "Jehovah" being applied to Jesus Christ, or of titles applied to Jehovah being applied to Him. Here are a few:

1.In Isa. 6:5 Isaiah says He say Jehovah high and lifted up. John, in John 12, refers to the same passage of Isaiah, and says it was referring to Jesus Christ.



2.Ps. 23:1 says "Jehovah is my shepherd." Jesus referred to Himself as the "Good Shepherd."

3.Jer. prophecied that the Messiah would be called "Jehovah our righteousness" (Jer. 23:56; "Jehovah Tsidkenu")

4.Joel 2:23 says whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be saved. Both Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 quote this passage in reference to Christ.

5.In John 8, Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am," taking the name of Jehovah, which was understood by the Jews, who took up rocks to stone Him.

6.Isa. 10:20 refers to Jehovah as the "Holy One of Israel." Peter, in Acts 3, applies this same title to Christ.

7.Isa. 44:6 refers to Jehovah as "the first and the last." In Revelation, Jesus applies this title to Himself.

8.Isaiah 43:11 says: "I, even I, am Jehovah; and there is no savior besides Me." Titus 2:11-13 says this(note the end):



9.Deut. 10:17 refers to Jehovah as the "Lord of Lords." Rev. 17:14 applies this title to Jesus Christ.

some bible trivia
what we translate as "Jehovah" means eternal, self-existent, and is usually translated in the kjv as LORD.

here it means Father, Son and HS are eternal and self-existent.
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

"Angel of the LORD" or angel of the self-existent, eternal would refer to Jesus and the Father.

Psa 110:1 <A Psalm of David.> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
the selg-existent, eternal said to adon

From an unused root (meaning to rule); sovereign, that is, controller (human or divine): - lord, master, owner. Compare also names beginning with “Adoni-”.

it seems the texts have to be studied to see Who is referred to when using LORD. my general impression in ellen whites writings was that she used Jehovah to refer to the Father.

Simple thinking kuriakê is Sunday or 1st day in Greek.

The wording " τη κυριακη ημερα - tê kuriakê hêmera " has been used since the 2nd century that reffers to Sunday.

If John said that Sunday is the Lord's Day, and Jesus is the Lord of Sabbath, does it means that Christians Sabbath is Sunday?? This is what non SDA's belief.

In His love

As I said James. I personally dont believe its neither. You mentioned the wording tê kuriakê hêmera has been used since the second century, how would this go along with the book of Luke, and other books written before that time.
Do you feel there is no other option besides Sabbath or the first day of the week, which by the way would not be "sunday" but the "First of the Sabbaths". I recall the word usage to describe what day of the week it was coincided with how close you were to the 7th Day Sabbath i.e. First, Second of the Sabbath etc..
I need to dig around abit and get some references that point this out. If anyone else knows what I am referring to, feel free to post some info
God Bless,
Will

While waiting for more inputs on the Lord's day, here is my next question: Matthew 24:20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath.

The question is: if the day comes thst they must take a flight, but it is Sabbath, what do you think they will do ar act?

When applied to us, when we pray that our flight don't fall on Sabbath, but in fact it still fall on Sabbath, what should we do?

In His love

Hi James, Where do you get that Kuriake means Sunday? I just check the Greek word and it means "1) belonging to the Lord 2) related to the Lord".

There's only two instances of Kuriake in the NT.
1. the "Lord's day" in Rev 1, and the other
2. the "Lord's supper" in 1Cr 11:20.

Can you provide your source that says that kuriake means Sunday? Also your source that "te kuriake hemera" saying that it has been used since the 2nd century and reffers to Sunday? For sure we can anticipate that history records floating around for us to see will say that it means Sunday as that's what they want us to believe. However, that's not what the Greek word means according to the concordance.

Excellent critical thinking there, Elle!

This is from Wiki:



I was wondering why the dative was used instead of the genitive. This is suggesting it's because the genitive was already a fixed phrase, with its own meaning. ("hemera tou kyriou" is the genitive, which literally means "day of the Lord").

I can't remember what Samuel Bacchiocchi said about this (i.e. the "Lord's day"). Anyone know?

I just searched my emails, as I was on his list, but came up empty...so I took the search online and got the following:



To see the full context of that statement, visit the website HERE.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thanks, GC.

Revelation 1:10 - I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a great voice like the calling of a war trumpet, ……………

John got continuous visions after this statement.

So, how could we say that this vision he got happened on a day in the future. It must be happen on a literal day, if not Sabbath then Sunday.

If “te kureakê hêmera" really means in modern Greek “ a day that belongs to the Lord” which falls on Sunday, then, we must agree with non SDA’s that the Lord’s Day in Rev. 1:10 is really Sunday.

I could not agree with the idea that this day is somewhere in the future, it must be a literal day.

In His love

If "te kureakê hêmera" meant in *Biblical Greek* "'a day that belongs to the Lord' which falls on Sunday," then we'd have an argument to consider. But what it means in Modern Greek is hardly more relevant than what it would mean in Modern English.

For example, what the phrase means in Modern Greek could have been affected by the traditions of churches, in particular, the Greek Orthdox church, which keeps Sunday.

We've got to keep clear which is the horse and which is the cart.

Here are the days name in Greek:

κυριακή KURIAKE
δευτέρα DEUTERA
τρίτη TRITE
Τετάρτη TETARTE
πέμπτη PEMPTE
παρασκευή PARASKEUE
Σάββατο SABBATO

So, we knew that Sunday is Kuriake, and "te kureakê hêmera" in Rev. 1:10 - means the day of the Lord, which falls on Sunday.

Why do we insist that it is not Sunday???

In His love

So, what is your opinion for Rev. 1:10? Is it a literal Sabbath or a literal Sunday or phrase that indicates future events? I must sure about this.

In His love

Hi James, History is quite interesting and I appreciate you bringing this up. This is a good discussion and it's good to know more in dept what happen in the early history. Was it Paul who wrote about the wolves disquized in sheeps coming in the church already? So for sure, the "infiltration" had already started early on.

Anyway here's a good chapter talking about "kuriake hemera" found on-line http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/history3.htm

I've split the chapter in three :
1. Iraneus : who's comments reflected people belief in the 2nd century
2. The Lords day :What history shows
3. References:sources

Hi Tom, Thanks for these Bible references relating to Jehovah. As I said, this is currently my study and I'm enjoying it. I will respond to your 9 points this Sabbath as right now, I'm overwhelmed as usual. However, yesterday I stumble on something that says very clearly who is
1. "which is, and which was, and which is to come",
2. Alpha and Omega,
3. beginning and the ending.
4. the first and the last

To me, according to the Bible, these 4 attibutes belong to the Father.

I will just lay the Bible quotes for now and make quick comment in braket and highlights.

Yes Tom, I also enjoyed your references comparing God and Jesus.

Regarding genitive and dative, I found this at http://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_study/RP208-4RevelationSpiritLord'sDay.htm
which told me more than I ever knew about it:

the first example you gave clearly applies to the Father in the context but the context for this particular passage says otherwise. the passage in question starts with:

Could it mean that we weren't praying?
And if we weren't praying -- maybe we weren't taking this seriously enough and won't "take flight" anyway?

If Christ says we are to pray that our flight is not in winter or on the Sabbath day -- don't you think He would answer the prayer?
God has promised to answer our prayers if we pray according to His will -- and in this case we know it is according to His will.

This is an interesting study on this subject of "the Lords Day" called a Forged Chain of Sunday Evidence
taken from "A History of the Sabbath and the First Day of the Week" 4th edition as edited by Conradi, of J.N. Andrews book.

James,

The names of the days of the week in many Christian nations today reflects the Christian influence, and they are very different from the original names of these days.
In 170 CE Vettius Valens, an astrologer, gives the Greek names of the days of the week as
Hemera heliou – day of the sun (Sunday)
Hemera selenes – day of the moon (Monday)
Hemera Areos – day of Ares (Tuesday)
Hemera Hermou – day of Hermes (Wednesday)
Hemera Dios – day of Zeus (Thursday)
Hemera Aphrodites – day of Aphrodite (Friday)
Hemera Kronou – day of Cronos (Saturday)

Saint Martin of Dumio (c. 520–580), archbishop of Braga, decided it unworthy to call days by pagan gods and decided to use ecclesiastic terminology to designate them. This was the birth of the present Portuguese numbered system. I understand that the Greek names of the days of the week were also changed at about this time, or a little later, to

Kuriake – day of the Lord
Deutera – the second day
Trite – the third day
Tetarte – the fourth day
Pempte – the fifth day
Paraskeue – the day of Preparation
Sabbato – Sabbath

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week-day_names

It’s interesting to note that while in Portuguese (my language) Friday is called “the sixth day,” in Greek it remained as “the day of Preparation,” because of the Biblical Greek text. In the Bible the days of the week are called

Mia sabbaton – the first day of the Sabbath
Deutera sabbatou – the second day of the Sabbath
Trite sabbatou – the third day of the Sabbath
Tetarte sabbatou – the fourth day of the Sabbath
Pempte sabbatou – the fifth day of the Sabbath
Paraskeue – the day of Preparation
Sabbaton – Sabbath

Of course Kuriake as the name of Sunday was a name given by the Catholic Church, as in Portuguese and Spanish we have Domingo (from the Latin Dies Domini, or Dies Dominicus, “the Lord’s day”), and in Italian, Domenica, and in French, Dimanche.

And of course John just wrote kuriake hemera, which means "day of the Lord." The Catholic church fathers, over 50 years later, applied it to Sunday, but who said this was what John meant? If he meant that, as Bacchiocchi says, why in his gospel, which was written after the Revelation, he refers to Sunday as mia sabbaton, and not as kuriake hemera?

What I cited above seemed to me to be saying was that the phrase "the day of the Lord" was already taken, so a new phrase was used. For "the day of the Lord" or "the Lord's day" one would ordinarily expect a genitive, not a dative. But as the genitive phrase already had a meaning, the dative was used instead. That's what it looked to me to be saying.

It would be akin to our saying "Lordly day" instead of "the day of the Lord" because the latter already had an eschatological meaning, and that's not what we wanted to convey.

Good point! But, in any case, if even we had prayed, but the answer is not as what we want, and Sabbath comes in between, what is your choice?? To stay and die or to save your life?

I asked this because, some times it happens when I must work on Sabbath, eventhough I had prayed that my work would not fall on Sabbath day. I could not leave my job, because it is an all important job and everybody is looking for me. In fact, the job could not started or running without my presents. So, i have a responsibility, obligation to people of some institutions gathering together at the location, people who are engaged in this job, everybody with their own job and responsibility.

I think, my case could be compared with those who must flight but Sabbath comes in between. What is my choice? I preffer to serve the Lord, but I could not deny my responsibility and obligation to my job and people who needs me.

And the reality I did so far, I do my job! Is God happy with this? If I deny my job and serve the Lord, I am sure that I will lost my job from this big client. This time, I don't dare to face such risk.

In His love

So, do you mean that John has wrote "Kuriake hemera" with Sabbath in his mind? Or he got his vision on a Sabbath day and wrote it "kuriake hemera"? Because in his epistle he wrote Mia Sabbathon isntead again "kuriake hemera"?

In His love

I'm sorry.

That is so sad.




I think we've found the motive.
Sad.


Therefore, no further point in discussing "kuriake hemera"...

James, are you considering refusing to imitate Jesus' example of Sabbath-keeping and conducting business on the His holy day? Can you expect God to bless your business against His will?

There may be an important point here. While Jesus did not ask his disciples to think of His resurrection DAY, He did ask them to think of His resurrection. The early christians thought it good to devote a day to this task given by the Lord.

"The early christians thought it good to devote a day to this task given by the Lord."

Thomas, did they also think it good to abandon the Sabbath day?

Good question. At some point they must have done so, for the simple reason that the Sabbath day was abandoned.

One misstep leads to another.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't refuse to imitate Jesus, but I could not abandon my responsibility and obligation to my job while many people were connected to it and could not go further without my presence.

In fact, God did a miracle at that day (Sabbath morning, while I was working at the site of job), which became my witness on Wednesday evening pray in the church.

The miracle happened after I had tried and did all posible way to overcome an obstacle that could become very dangerous and could ruin the whole preparation job that have been taken by my team and had cost a lot, but at the end, I gave up. I just pray to God, my Almighty God that loved me, please put this obstacle away and let the whole operation be running well, smooth, safe and all in order.

And what happened when the operation started!! Nothing happens, the obstacle had been removed, all was going fine and well and safe until we completed the whole operation.

I knew that I have a good God that loved me, an Almighty God that nothing is impossible for Him, even I did this job on his Sabbath day, but he knew better my situation, my reason then any other human being. His blessing for my job and the miracle that he has done, even though it was Sabbath day, gave me the assurance what a wondeful and lovely God, I had,... better we had.

In His love

Therefore, only God, knew a man's heart, his motives, his reasons and his willings.

In fact God did a miracle on that very day, on his Sabbath day while I am working and could not leave the site for the church.

See details in my answer to MM.

In His love

It has been along time since the last miracle God has done for me in answer to my pray.

Besides his daily miracle in changing my mind and heart and behavior through his Spirit, I remember others such as casting out demons, holding 2 huricanes that is going to meet and became a very big huricane, till my vessel (i was an officer on cargo vessel at that time) passed the meeting point, He hold it for 5 days, and when we passed, the huricane moves and closing and met at the exact position where 3 days ago my vsl was there.

I know that more miracles would be done in the future, I need it, and others to whom I witnessed.

In His love

If we aren't willing to lose our jobs now, would we be willing to lose our lives in order to obey God, in case this is required of us?

my brother, talks cheap and im not in your position. but i do know that i would be reasoning much as you do. stepping out in faith is extremely hard to do if we havent been doing it all along.

i would point out that that is the problem as i read this. a lack of faith and trust.

if those people are depending on you and you obeyed God over man by giving your resignation with the reasons why, who is to say but that God could work on hearts to where they keep you and with the sabbath off?

on the other hand you may lose your job for a very long time and have to live utterly dependent on God.

i have been put in that circumstance, and still am in it. it has been about 10 years now and it has taken that long for me to learn faith and trust and utter surrender/submission. it hasnt been easy but God was with me every step of the way, and He always, always, provided.

i think it was the only way to learn and im not sorry, but grateful. i would do it again.

remember that Jesus suffered the ultimate in abuse and suffering out of His love for you because He wants you to experience the glories of heaven for eternity.

Therefore, my question is: what will do, even we had prayed but our flight falls on the Sabbath day?? Will we honor Sabbath and die, or will we take the flight?

Jesus said, pray for your flight would not fall on Sabbath, but if it happens? What then? Take the flight or stay??

In His love

There are some members in my church who could not leave their job on Sabbath day, or at least they continue with their work after they pray when entering the Sabbath. And many others in all other churches.

This problem is what SDA's face, is not easy to find a job.

On my case, it just happens once in a time.

How could I say on Friday evening, OK, come back Sunday morning guys, now is my Sabbath day, to expatriats that came all the way from Europe to supervise the job?? How can i stop a job that is running with many people from some institutions that cares nothing about Sabbath? Without my presence, the job could not go further, but the cost still running. Who would be blamed for this? Me! in Their eyes, I deny my responsibility and obligation to my job, to our job. Is that good? No, it is bad even for a son of God.

Therefore, God did miracles even it is a work done on Sabbath. In answer to a pray of faithfulness and surrender.

God did understand this kind of situation, and would cooperate, for he is a loving God.

I believe that!

In His love

Not only does God know a man's heart, but also the man.

Do I need to quote you again:
Is it not obvious that you have clearly told all of us your motive for twisting scripture? Is it not obvious you have clearly told all of us your reason for distracting us from what you have done?


Whether God, or the Devil does a miracle on the Sabbath day, does that mean you should continue to dishonor it?

Again, I am sorry you have chosen to honor man rather than God.
or to honor self.
With a touch of vanity thrown in.

I think the comment regarding the Sabbath was just an indication that it would be better to not have to flee on the Sabbath. I don't think Jesus was implying there's anything wrong with fleeing for your life on the Sabbath.

I think an important principle of the Sabbath is often overlooked, which is that as tithing is a way for us to say, "All of my money is yours, O Lord, I am but a steward of it" so is the Sabbath a way of saying, "All of my time is yours, O Lord, I am but a steward of it."

However, having said that, I wouldn't want to in the least my any judgments about you or your situation. I don't know all the details, nor how God is guiding you or how the Holy Spirit is leading you. Christ is our only model. I would point to Him, asking Him for grace and wisdom. If you ask the Lord for bread, He won't give you a stone.

I pray you will listen to Him, and that you may find grace and peace.


Tom

Yeah, too bad. But apparently a few preserved Sabbath-keeping in spite of papal persecution.

It sounds like there was a safety issue, that if you were absent from the job innocent people could have been seriously injured. Or, did I misunderstand the situation?

If there was a safety concern, and people could have been injured without you being there, then I can see why God blessed in overcoming the obstacle.

However, if safety wasn't an immediate and unavoidable concern, then I cannot say with certainty that it was God who blessed your labors on the Sabbath day.

Please fill in the details. What exactly was the safety concern, the obstacle that required your presence to work on the Sabbath?

Are you sure you aren't justifying working unnecessarily on the Sabbath? Please feel free to be forthcoming. This is a great place and time to analyze the situation for future reference.

Also, have you considered the possibility that Jesus has another job waiting for you and that He's waiting for you to refuse to work on the Sabbath so that you are forced to quit and seek employment elsewhere?

Doing the tasks of the Lord to the best of your understanding is a misstep? Ok...

James, I had to refuse to work on the Sabbath while serving my country in the military. I was an Air Force survival instructor and loved my job very much. I was looking forward to a long and happy career with the military.

But they changed the schedule so that what they wanted us to do on the Sabbath was unacceptable to me. After training the pilots and aircrew members how to evade and survive, we turned them loose to practice their skills. We instructors role played as enemy aggressors. It was a very necessary part of their training but they wanted me to do it on the Sabbath.

When I made it clear to them that I wouldn't participate on the Sabbath, they threatened to fine me $15,000 ( a lot of money back then) and imprison me for 2 years. I had a wife, 3 kids, a house, two cars, etc, and I couldn't afford to lose my job. Most of the church members encouraged me to work on the Sabbath, that it would be a bad witness to not work.

Long story short, after a series of awesome interventions on the part of God, I was able to separate from the military with honors. Now that I was out of the military, I didn't have a job, a way to provide for my family. After another series of wonderful interventions on the part of God, I started Wilderness Way Adventures, an outdoor ministry.

Now I get to do what I love to do, that is, teach people how to survive in the wilderness and how to rescue people stranded in the wilderness, and God is my employer - not the Air Force. My situation is 100 percent better than what it was. Praise the Lord. Thank you, Jesus!

Not through controversy and discussion is the soul enlightened. We must look and live. Nicodemus received the lesson, and carried it with him. He searched the Scriptures in a new way, not for the discussion of a theory, but in order to receive life for the soul. He began to see the kingdom of heaven as he submitted himself to the leading of the Holy Spirit. {DA 175.2}

There are thousands today who need to learn the same truth that was taught to Nicodemus by the uplifted serpent. They depend on their obedience to the law of God to commend them to His favor. When they are bidden to look to Jesus, and believe that He saves them solely through His grace, they exclaim, "How can these things be?" {DA 175.3}

Like Nicodemus, we must be willing to enter into life in the same way as the chief of sinners. Than Christ, "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12. Through faith we receive the grace of God; but faith is not our Saviour. It earns nothing. It is the hand by which we lay hold upon Christ, and appropriate His merits, the remedy for sin. And we cannot even repent without the aid of the Spirit of God. The Scripture says of Christ, "Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." Acts 5:31. Repentance comes from Christ as truly as does pardon. {DA 175.4}

you tested Him and found Him powerful indeed!! faithful and true.

every time i think He has run out of miracles for me, or is getting fed up helping me, here He comes running!!Mar 10:36 .... What would ye that I should do for you?

Reading your comment, I feel sorry for you. You seems haven't find the joy of knowing God. From your speech, you are a typical SDA's that you could find in many of our churches, who judge people from their act, and based their judgment on the law instead of the love of God. A cynical and skeptic man, cold loveless people but a keen sabbath keeper and engaged in many church's activities.

Do you know that God so loved me, that even though I lived in the flesh and denying Him, He still did miracle for me.

One day, about 10 years ago, where I live for the flesh and got drunk every night till morning time, a big guy using a wooden club had smashed the head of another guy sitting next to me, breaking his head and he died later on the way to the hospital.

I, panic striken, tried to calm down this guy, but instead of listening to me, he change his attention to me, and then hit me with this wooden club of 1m length and 3"x3" thick many times countless. He attacked me like a crazy animal and I got hit all over my body, hands, head, neck, feet. A big strong guy, you can imagine his power.

I must have died like the other guy with broken arms, feet, ribs and head, but what had happened instead?? Nothing happen, no broken arms, feet, ribs and head. I feel nothing, even though he hit me so hard and many times till he stopped and was tired with shoulders hanging loose. he ran away leaving me wondering why I am still alive, sounds and healthy without any damage or bad bruish. This is one of the biggest miracle God personally had done for me.

Do you think it is Satan who did it? Satan want my death, beacause once I had unmasked his mask in a face to face battle. And many times in my preaching and evagelism, where some people became Adventist. Especially now, in the coming of Mark Finley for Jakarta Big Evangelsm in early September, I did a lot in sharing the bible truth. Who knows that I could brought many souls to Jesus.

Maybe because God knew that I could become his servant and disciple one day, that he spare my life even though I live by the flesh and had deny him for a long time.

You must come to understand and FEEL the love of God, and got the joy and peace that only those who is forgiven and justified could have. God then is eager to make miracles in fron of this man.

In his love

Yes, safety is the reason I could not leave the site. Safety of the equipments, safety of the job, safety of the people gathering at the job. And no one could change me.

How great I feel and how happy I was, whenever we reached the end and complete the job at Sabbath afternoon, without accident and everything run smooth and well. The obstackle had been removed to I don't know where. My heart was filled with an awesome feeling, how great and mighty my God is, and loving me.

I will face the same situation again this next Sabbath, when the job start from Friday morning till Saturday night, even I had prayed that the job might fall at other days.

In His love

I don't think you are understanding. You have judged yourself.

You have said you prefer to serve the Lord, but have chosen man.
You have said you have to serve man or you will lose your job.
You have implied that you are serving man for the big money.

Does anyone else need to judge you what you have admitted yourself?

But I will judge you in this. Even though you fully know which is the Sabbath, you have dishonestly presented that the Sabbath has been changed in order to justify your choices. You have been attempting to mislead others by justifying what you fully know is wrong.

Rather than twisting scriptures to justify your behavior, you could approach it from how health care workers do. I'm sure it would be well for workers of nuclear power plants to work on Sabbath if alternative arrangements could not be made. If you feel justified in working on the Sabbath, I am not judging you as I don't know what is involved in your work. But I do judge you for misrepresenting God's Word as you have freely admitted.

Kland, please consider your words carefully. Are you sure you know enough of the details to judge James so harshly?

James, please explain in more detail why safety concerns lead you to believe Jesus wants you to work on the Sabbath. Thank you.

Could you state what you think I am judging James on. Perhaps I am not being clear to either of you.

and could you explain the reason of the op and the third post, as well as subsequent posts questioning if the "Lords day" is really sunday?

Please, this is none of our business and it is between the Lord and James. Who are we to judge?
James, I read what you shared here and I'm so happy that you had many opportunities to experience God's great love. God is so great and wonderfull to have spare your life after that brutal beating. Yes, I believe, He spared your life for a great purpose. I have total confidence that that love will keep you close to the Lord and His will. There's no necessity to explain your situation here. The Lord is with you and have promised to be with you always(dwell in us, teach us, guide us, etc...) and direct your every steps. And if really need so, He can lead you to someone with His spirit.

Warm Blessings and remain in His love,
Elle

Kland.

As I say, you are a very typical SDA's who judge people by their works against the law. This will lead to a cynical and sarcastic person.

You missed what I have said; I have prayed that the job might fall at other days and not at the Sabbath day, but it fell on Sabbath.

I have the responsibility and obligation to conclude the job, which onvolve may people from different institution and also expatriat from Europe who came all the way to supervise the job, which involve a cost of USD. 2.5 Million.

Do you think it is good for me, telling this people, sorry, this is my Sabbath day, the law could not allow me to work today, come back again on Sunday??

In this situation is God happy because I abandon my job and go to the church or I abandon my time to go to the church and do my job? For you, the answer is clear, because your view is solely based on perfect obedience to the law, even it would make many people angry, loosing time and money.

But the real son of God would not do that. His action is base4d on love without sacrificing other people. as long as he had tried all posible way to avoid working on Sabbath, but when it does happened the other way, with such responsibility as mine, then doing the job on Sabbath is what God would me do rather than abandon it and deny my responsibility and obligation. Serving people is serving God, when the job is succesfully done, people will agree that I'm with the Lord.

Do you think Jesus would do the same as mine? Please be careful with your answer, otherwise you become like a Pharisian.

In His love

But apparently does not know enough to remember that it is not his place to judge James or anyone else at all.

James has a choise, which he has made before and will make again. The choise of going to the cross. After that, this all is buisness entierly between James and his Lord, and none whatsoever between James and kland or James and Mike or James and Thomas. Why dont you guys just recognise that you are not James's Lord and leave any necessary conviction and responce in the only hands that are qualified to deal with them?

being judgmental, condemning and pharisaical is a universal syndrome equally applicable from the ultra-liberal to the ultra-conservative. pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.

james, if you didnt want peoples thoughts on the subject why bring it to a discussion board and ask questions?

and again, why start off with the op and subsequent posts that lead to making sunday look like the "Lords day"?

whats up with that, my brother?

it is your life, and you have to live it as you see fit, and no you dont deserve to be judged, but if you had come on here trying to justify killing someone..........

What is this? Your this doesn't seem to be what my this is. As is obvious from your response, you did not understand my this. You have addressed things which I explicitly stated I was not addressing, nor judging James on, yet failed to address what I did address. I thought Teresa, in post #115989, clearly explained what I was saying if I was not clear enough myself. I see you, James, nor västergötland have considered what she asked.

No.
You have failed to see that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I do not know enough details to judge you on what you are talking about, although your comments regarding it seem to indicate you are uncomfortable with it. But, that's between you and the Lord.

Why have you responded to what I said I was not talking about, but did not respond to Teresa?

Judge James about what? What is it I am judging James on?

Elle and Thomas, it is my understanding that James want to discuss the validity of his choice to work on the Sabbath. Knowing the details is important. I can then share my opinion based on my understanding of the Word and Jesus' example. But I will never judge or condemn him. Never. Thank you, Jesus!

kland, regarding your question as to what you are judging James on, you wrote:



The part in italics looks like it could be judging James. For example:

1.You have dishonestly presented ... to justify your choices
2.You have been attempting to mislead others by justifying what you fully know is wrong.
3.Rather than twisting scriptures to justify your behavior ...

Now I don't know that I've read every post on this thread, so it's possible that I've missed something, but to James admit to these things? That is, is it James' opinion that he was dishonest? Or that he was trying to mislead others? Or that he was twisting scriptures? (If so, I think it would be good if you quoted him doing so).

If *he* has said he has done these things, I can see that what you wrote is not judgmental. However, if he takes issues with what you're writing here, that's another matter. I would, in this case, have couched what you wrote in more qualified language. For example:



Even this seems a bit direct to me. I think my approach in a case like this would be to ask questions.

E.g. James, is the reason you are asking these questions because you are trying to justify behavior you know to be wrong?

The reason I'm bringing these things up, kland, is because you've been asking for feedback.

Thank you. That is what I've been asking for. Others have judged me, but failed to address what I said. By no one addressing it, I would assume I was correct.

This is the quote I am referring to:
1. You are correct, I did conclude he dishonestly presented it. He was arguing kuriake hemera when that wasn't his intent at all. I got that from, "I preffer to serve the Lord, but I could not deny my responsibility and obligation to my job and people who needs me". It appears to me that he admitted he really had no question about kuriake hemera. It appears to me, he fully is convicted of what is the Sabbath day, but has justified it. So while he may not have said his original post was dishonest, he did admit his real reason. Is that correct?

2. "I preffer to serve the Lord,", does that not admit he knows which day the Sabbath is? Otherwise, why would he make such a statement? Unless someone can guide me differently, he as said nothing differently than he would prefer to serve the Lord, but has chosen to serve man instead. That takes care of the justification part. Misleading others...that's back with the kuriake hemera which has nothing to do with what Mountain Man may have perceived as his real question: "the validity of his choice to work on the Sabbath".

3. Actually, now that I look at these, the first part is my conclusion to his admission of the second part which I listed individually right above the conclusion paragraph. Was I unclear on that part of what I was saying? I judged (which I stated that I did) by making a conclusion concerning his admissions.

Too direct? I guess I felt he was reeling us in by going on about kuriake hemera all the while knowing what he was doing was wrong (at least he thought it was wrong according to his above quotes). If he wanted "to discuss the validity of his choice to work on the Sabbath", then ask. Don't try to deceive people and continue attempting to do so even when his error had been pointed out. I felt duped. I have been forever changed as the next person who asks something like he started out with, I will ask, why do you ask that, before ever getting sucked into kuriake hemera or some other non-relevant distraction. That would be better, huh?

But none of these three things has anything to do with what he and others are accusing me of judging him of, are they?

Kland, love is absent in your reply. When there's no love, then your reply has nothing.

God invites us to come and reason with him. That includes any question as tabou as "Are you really there God? " Just because you know this answer and don't need to ask that question, we shouldn't judge the one who sincerely ask.

To me James was honest and even said something quite personal to us as he opened up. How many people here would make themselves vulnerable and confess? Such a delicate matter that should only be said to God as He would reply with care and never pass any judgment. There's many ways to respond without passing accusation. To me, that's where you are wrong and have judge your brother.

Tom is expressing my thoughts nicely. I agree with his assessment. My question was designed to find out why you addressed James in the manner you did.

OK, everybody, before we continue with this, better I clarify some things first, otherwise some of us would be judge unhonestly.

1st is that my question/questions has no relation to each other.

I made this topic "I have some question" because indeed I have some questions but has no relation to each other, I do not want to make each question one topic.

Thus, about "kuriake hemera" I asked, because some one from other church has defensed his view that Sabbath is no longer valid and that Sunday now is the day of the Lord. And when he brought up "kuriake hemera" I got a bit confuse, because, i never hear this.

I can counter all his defense/counter defense using Roman, Galatian, Ephesians, Philipi and others, but when it came to Rev. 1:10, I could not counter it. Our discusion has been very hot and read by thousand of peoples and I got counter attack by many people who knew how to answer, as this discusion take place in one of Internet Christian forums, and the topic is Sabbath versus Sunday.

And there is more to ask, for there are some difficult replies from their side, as this discusion is between me and some M. Div or M.Th. or ministers. And I believe one of them has wrote thousand pages of Theology concerning all part of the bible. A very tough and smart person, and I really must guard my self with an exellent knowledges of our theology and doctrines.

Thank's God, I could counter him well and explained the truth of the Gospel of Christ, hopefully many could see the truth and be changed. Esspecially with the coming of mark Finley to Jakarta, I intent to give free invitation to the forum readers, who knoows, some soul might be attracted ny the Holy Spirit and could attend jakarta biggest evangelism in early September.

My 2nd question is personal, I asked support from my brothers and sisters here and advice but not judgment, to my situation regarding working on Sabbath.

But one thing, I didn't work on every Sabbath. Instead I always give a holiday to my labour on Sabbath. All projects must stopped and no labours on sabbath. But I only could do this to my own labours or anyone related to my preparation job.

But what I witness here was a labour done on Sabbath, where all institutions and people, some from Europe came to the site and do our job, every institution with their own job and responsibility, but we are all related to succesfully attend the job. I could not stopped them, and even me, could not stopped at this moment. Therefore, i asked, whenever we had prayed for the job would not fall on Sabbath, but if in fact it fell on Sabbath, what would we do?? In my case, i honestly say, that I could not abandon my job and deny my responsibility and obligation. If I still did it, I would be blamed for the delay, the cost that occur, penalties, and possible a separation with my client.

I compare my case to the desiples of God, when Jesus said, pray that your flight would not fall on Sabbath day. But what would happen when it still falls on Sabbath? Would they ready to die or flee? Tom has a good advice, Christ was not implying that we must stay to die, or that we could not run and safe our life. Could it be the same for my case??

But, Kland has taken some wrong conclusion connecting 1st question and 2nd question and made his own conclusion about me. it is sad! Instead of giving me a good advice, he was accusing me.

What most hurt me is that his idea the miracle was done by Satan. Therefore I must explain that I am enggaed in eveangelism since 1981, but there were many times, I deny God and serve the flesh, but he still loved me and shows his miracles even in the darkest time of my life.

Satan wants my death along time ago, but God had spared me.

In His love

there will be a time very soon when most all of us will have to face what you are now facing.

we dont know until then how we will react, but at this time it is for us to try and encourage you to trust in God. and no we are probably not doing it in the best way. God works miracles for us all the time and shows us His love in a myriad of ways, but, i dont believe, that that means, or is some kind of proof that, He is condoning our actions all the time.

i believe i was the one who equated the two "questions", tho, and not kland. i think, if you think about it, one seemed to lead into the other. whether or not i offer my apologies. it was my fault.

you say you have asked God to change the day, but that hasnt happened. instead of doing that, have you presented the problem to Him as you see it, and asked Him what you should do, or for Him to work it out?

So did I explain it fully?

I hope I have explained enough times what I was and wasn't accusing you of. There's no point in attempting any further.

I had been trying to say the two items were not connected. I see you have said so, too, that they were two separate questions. I hope you can understand that my only complaint was that you were connecting the two -- at least so it seemed to me and at least to Teresa. Thanks for clarifying that.

Can you help me out and show where you transitioned between the two questions? This would be most helpful to me in future discussions with you and others. I seemed to have missed it, but Teresa and I could have misled each other and overlooked where you ended the one and started the other question. It's very important in situations like this to clearly end the one and start the next or at least give clear indication there are two questions going on. Something like, "and I have another question not connected to the first", would be clear and bring all your readers with you.

Also, the first question came across as you personally believed the Greek phrase meant Sunday rather than what now appears you were presenting your position as views from the other forums. By me missing your transition to the second question, it very much so appeared the reason as you were taking the first view was to support your second question. It would have been good when you saw I was connecting the two questions, to have emphasized they were separate. But, I realize that would have been hard to do, since it did (or does?) not appear that you understood what my complaint was or that I had connected the two.

Do you think it is possible that the reason you were "counter attacked" on the other forum could be the same reason there was misunderstanding here? It seems as you were presenting here the arguments used against you in the other forum in order to know how to respond to them. That is a good way of learning, but when you find people misunderstanding you it would be good to clarify what you were doing or people will feel duped by you.

Also, (next question ), do you suppose that some of these "M. Div or M.Th. or ministers" could be taking the purpose and reason I was accusing you of? If that being true, could that be why they "counter attacked" you? Can we make this a learning experience, see how I mistakenly connected the two questions, but do you see an incentive for others to connect the two questions? Do you see that there is every reason for them to connect the two questions?

I personally know someone who decided to become a Catholic because they said the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. But mainly, the Sabbath was also a good day for their business.

How do you think would be a good way to get the people on the other forum to give the real reason for their difficult replies?

James, thank you for explaining things more clearly. Your command of the English language is excellent. However, it would help me if you would take the time to explain more fully why you felt working on the Sabbath was necessary and acceptable in the eyes of God. To be honest with you, James, the four reasons you stated above (reposted below) come short of what I would say are legitimate reasons for working on the Sabbath. Are there any other reasons?

God's blessing be with you brother. But just a word of caution - I myself have been attacked on this very board for pointing out that in my discussion with non-SDA Christians on other boards - I found the anti-SDA arguments to be similar to a few misguided arguments on this very board.

The response I got here (from one or two contributors) was to the effect that I should not even know how non-SDAs would respond to cogent Bible-based SDA positions because I should not be talking to them on those forums if the topics are such that the participants do not always agree in mindless lock-step uniformity.

So you may need to be careful in what you say and how you say it -- even here among mostly friends.

Having said that I will go back through your posts to see if I can help. I have many years of experience in doing just what you have stated above.

But I just now saw this thread and your posted - and wanted to give you a word of caution.

in Christ,

Bob

Sabbath - if you take it from Isaiah 58 or Mark 2:27-28.

However - there are "traditions" that have developed from supposed 2nd and 3rd century sources that apply it (in those later centuries) to Sunday.

So it depends on whether you want to rely on later century custom and tradition to answer the question - or the Word of God.

in Christ,

Bob

Isiah 58 calls the Sabbath the "Holy day of the Lord" - clearly even the septuagint would have that day as "belonging to the Lord".

I think the "Lord's Day" as Sabbath still holds.

in Christ,

Bob

I agree that they would have a compelling argument if they could find a place where a NT author said "Sunday is the Lord's Day".

However they will have to endure as those who do not have that much needed text to support their view.

in Christ,

Bob

That is why God sends us the Holy Spirit to teach and guide us. Christ makes it a matter of prayer in Matt 24. We should do that as well and then on whatever day our flight is ordained - we should continue in prayer to know God's will.

The same is true of the command in Matt 24 "or in the winter".

in Christ,

Bob

i see this as a false dilemma question.

it puts God in a very bad light. it portrays Him as telling us to pray that our flight be not on the sabbath nor in the winter, but when the time comes, saying, to the effect, "gotcha" as if He asked us to do something with no intentions on His part of fulfilling the request.

but in this case, with this particular point we have a precedent.

when the followers of Christ had to flee jerusalem, was their flight in the winter or on the sabbath?

that alone tells us if He will be faithful and true, today, also.

I agree -- John was speaking of a literal day -- the Sabbath. The Bible is it's own interpreter and John quoted heavily from the book of Isaiah in his letter "Revelation". He would have known that the Sabbath is "the Holy day of the Lord" Isaiah 58:13 "My Holy Day".

There is no Bible doctrine in all of scripture that says "Whatever day you have a vision - becomes the Lord's day" and all of our non-SDA friends know it. They simply "hope" you will not notice.

in Christ,

Bob

Correction to your text above.

kyriakos - "Belonging to the Lord"
hemera - "day"


I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet,

egenomhn en pneumati en th| kuriakh| hmera|, kai hkousa opisw mou fwnhn megalhn wv salpiggov

It is instructive that in the texts where aLL agree that week-day-one IS being identified (1Cor 16:2 and Acts 20:7) we do NOT see the term that you mentioned above for "Sunday".

It shows that the later "traditions" in applying that term to week-day one are being confused with what the Bible actually says by those in your discussion.

in Christ,

Bob

God has made provision for what happens when your neighbor's Ox falls in a ditch on Sabbath saying that it is good to help for it is not only the animal's life and well-being but also your neighbor's business that is at risk by that tragic circumstance.

You must go to God and seek His council for those cases. One or two others here may enjoy sitting in the seat of God for while -- but that has no weight with our God.

I pray that God guides you as He knows best.

in Christ,

Bob

I'm just speaking for myself. I would prefer to get an admission first, and then proceed, especially in the case of someone like James, whose native language is not English (no offense intended to James!) I've been astounded, on a number of occasions, where things I thought were so clearly stated that they couldn't be understood a different way were actually intended by the author to mean something quite different than what they appeared to say.

Good advice. I'll keep it in mind. I guess he seemed to have a fairly good mastery of the English language which I assumed meant the ideas, interactions, and implications were just as good. Obviously, I completely missed there were two separate unrelated questions. Though, it's not unreasonable a native English speaking person may have done the same thing.

Besides from the points already made by Tom and Elle, I would say that the post Tom referred to would have best not been posted at all. Judging is what you claim to be doing in it and for all apparence it serves little further purpose.

James, hope the recent hotel bombings haven't affected you.

#115108 - 06/26/09 04:55 AM

While waiting for more inputs on the Lord's day, here is my next question: Matthew 24:20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath.

The question is: if the day comes thst they must take a flight, but it is Sabbath, what do you think they will do ar act?



OK, now we understand each other. I could see why you have been harsh, now you have explained it. So, forget it, and apologize me for making you think that way.



No. At the other forum (Indonesian forum), a non SDA was defending his view on Sabath and on Sunday, using Rev 1:10, he was trying to knock me out. I got a bit confuse and brought it here to this forum to seek advice. But, I think it is good to ask also my own problem which is the 2nd question. Only, it was a bit confusing and leading people (as you and Teresaq)to misunderstood me.



My discussion about "Sabbath versus Sunday" is going on a local Internet forum here in Jakarta.



Their real reason of neglecting Sabbath and accepting Sunday as the Day of the Lord is that Christ himself has made an end to the Torah by crucifiying the law to his cross. Crucifying the law means ALL laws, including the Ten Commandment, because according to them, there is no separation of the Law. Torah contains of 613 Mitzvoh and all has been nailed to the cross. They do not accept a separation of the Ten Commandments with other law of the Torah. As according to them, it is not biblical and there is no evidence.

This what I tried to explain to them and got a very hot argumentationa and counters. After using many verses from the bible (which I always can explain to them the true meaning or intention of those verses), it came to Rev. 1:10, which knock me off a little.

I will put some of these difficult replies from their side that was hard for me to reply.

In His love

Yes, i will try to do what you suggest.

In fact it is a bit completed, because some time this job runs a full 7 days, and each day of it need my presence. How to choose another day if there is none??

In His love

I hope that I didn't implying or give an indication that "working on the Sabbath was necessary and acceptable in the eyes of God."

I only want to witness something I believe God had done while I was working on Sabbath day, in answer of my pray.

The four reasons I gave is not to defend a view that working on Sabbath is allowable when circumstances is right. Not at all!1 It is my personal reasons, that needs to be settled.

But, maybe I have a slight feeling that God might forgive me for working on Sabbath because of the situations and circumstances that I faced at that time.

Is serving people (job and it's relations)an excuse for working on Sabbath?

In His love

What you said is our SDA's view.

But non SDA's is holding this verse that Lord's Day is Sunday because it's original Greek version stated "kuriake hemera" that is accepted till today as Sunday.

So,according to them, we might change the the wording of the verse asf:

Rev. 1:10 - I was in the Spirit on Sunday, and I heard behind me a great voice like the calling of a war trumpet, .....

In His love

Maybe, because there is a difference between the matters of live and death and a job at risk???

If the 1st, God will definetely answer,
If the 2nd, maybe yes may be no

???

In His love

Many thanks for your support. GBU

In His love

Matthew 12::5 - Or have you never read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple violate the sanctity of the Sabbath [breaking it] and yet are guiltless?

Here is one text that justify non SDA's to neglect Sabbath. This counter came from the same guy who brought the subject of "Kuriake hemera."

He said that because Christ (the Temple of God) is in him and he in Christ (the temple of God), breaking Sabbath is guiltless. He is just the same as those priests in the temple of God, breaking Sabbath but guiltless.

What is your answer?

In His love

James, Aren't we the temple of God, not Christ?

Here is the complete text:
Matthew 12::5 - Or have you never read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple violate the sanctity of the Sabbath [breaking it] and yet are guiltless?
6. But I tell you, Something greater and more exalted and more majestic than the temple is here!

I mean, Christ is greater than the temple of God (on earth).

John 2:21 - But He had spoken of the temple which was His body.

Christ himself is the temple (of flesh)

In His love

Breaking Sabbath but guiltless.

Breaking Sabbathy but guiltless.

Breaking Sabbath but guiltless.

They sure have a reason to deny Sabbath and accept Sunday??

In His love

James,

Why did you present your question to us if it were ok to break the Sabbath, if you already had made up your mind? It seems you had some doubts, did you not? It is a good thing to have Christian fellowship and encouragement, but when it comes to matters of principle and integrity, would you really trust us whom you have never met? Why not take your question to God? Ask Him to show you the way that you should go. Isaiah 30:21, Psalm 32:6, Isaiah 1:18, and other texts are all very helpful in understanding the manner in which God wishes to guide us.

I would doubt very much that your conscience will cease troubling you over this when it seems clear that the work you do and the work of which Jesus spoke concerning the temple priests is altogether different. Jesus did not commend simply any type of labor on the Sabbath day. Far from it.

Are you a "priest" (pastor)? Is your work on the Sabbath day in the "temple" (church)? If so, you are in the right place and have no need to be concerned. If, however, you are doing your own business, and not that of the Lord as a shepherd of His flock, Jesus' words about the priests cannot be applied in your situation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

James, I am deeply concerned for you. It seems to me, from what you've posted here, that your reasons for working on the Sabbath are "personal" (your word) rather than biblical. Please take a closer look at the reasons why you are willing to work on the holy and sacred Sabbath day. Please, brother, you owe it to yourself and to those of us (family, friends, and the onlooking universe) who love and care about you. As always, you are in my most heartfelt prayers.

God always answers. take it to Him in prayer. dont ask Him to work out the sabbath thing, just talk to Him as if you were talking to any person. tell Him how you feel, that you dont want to lose your job, etc. just take it to Him and see what happens.

what usually works for me is when i start asking them does that mean that it is now ok to steal, or to kill, etc. i have a "presentation". they usually get angry and do not reply. unfortunately it doesnt make them think.

my "presentation". feel free to adapt or disregard.
no, brother, we are not under the law. but, perhaps, we need that mindshift as in those pictures that are 2-in-1. you know, like the one that when you look at it it is a vase, but if you keep looking it changes into a woman? there are several like it. it takes a mindshift to be able to see both.

as for us "lawkeepers", actually were not. we break the law moment by moment, hourly and daily. by the law i mean the one written by Gods own finger.

i would like to ask you which of those 10 commandments are we free to disregard, now? Jesus summarized them as supreme love for God and love our fellowman as for ourselves. if we should get confused as to what that means then we have the 10 commandments, if were still not sure how deep that goes, the whole bible explains it with all the
subdivisions of that law.

lets start with the last 6-love for our fellowman.

Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

is it now ok to dishonor our parents because we are no longer "under law"? or should we seek to honor them even more because we are now a child of God and want to glorify Him?

how about, Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill? Jesus said if we hate in our heart we have broken this commandment. is it now ok to act out our anger when it wasnt ok before Jesus death? wasnt Jesus death caused by anger and hatred which led the people to kill Jesus?

Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. is it now ok for you to have affairs? or is it now ok for your wife to have affairs?

Exo 20:15 Thou shalt not steal. can i now go take whatever i want from whoever i want?

Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. can i now go about slandering whomever?

werent the 10 commandments meant to prevent this: Joh 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and
to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

if i am stealing, killing and destroying my neighbor how is he going to have life and that more abundantly?

so, yes, my dear brother, i think the 10 commandments are still in effect. i think they are very good laws and see no reason why they should be nailed to the cross. if the united states decided to do away with all its laws that protect us i would run as fast as i could hoping i could get out before a person who is into murdering got me. as for my possessions im sure the thieves would have taken them the second the laws were repealed.

teresa

Then they have to wonder that KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, YLT etc Bible translaters do not leap off of that cliff with them and declare that the word used there is "Sunday".

Also as pointed out in Acts and in 1cor 16 where ALL agree that week-day-one is being identified - Kuriake is not used at all.

All Greek Lexicons agree - Kuriakos - "belonging to the Lord or related to the Lord ". It would be hard for them to argue that the reason all Greek Scholars agree on this is because they are all Seventh-day Adventists or that SDAs are the authors of all Greek Lexicons.

As Rosangela pointed out already - a late 6th century "custom" was to also label week-day-one with that term. But since John was not writing his letter in the 6th century A.D we don't bother with that point.

Did they ever come up with a response to this point?

in Christ,

Bob

In Galatians 4 Paul makes the argument that Christ was "born under the law" and kept the law perfectly.

In Matt 5 Christ stated "I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law" thus He too claimed he would be keeping the Law perfectly.

There is no point in Christ's statement above where he argues that "I am teaching people to break the law just as I do for breaking the law is the perfect way to fulfill the law". Rather Christ argues that since the time of Moses at Sinai the priests were obligated to serve/minister before God on Sabbath and that it was part of their holy obligation on Sabbath. That was an OT age when even the most wildly speculative evangelical today would admit that the law of God was in full force. Christ argues that such godly service on Sabbath did not violate the intent on that day. He also argues that when he or his disciples do work on Sabbath in preaching the Gospel they too qualify just as priests before God since HE IS the Messiah.

Those who argue that Christ needed to come "teach us" how to break His Sabbath are not reading all the Bible that could be read on that point.

As it turns out - mankind has never needed "help" in finding ways to break the law of God. And that was not Christ's mission according to scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

James, what if Revelation 1:10 said, I was in the Spirit on Tuesday?

Would that change the meaning of the message? Would that make a difference?

James,

In looking back to where you asked the second question, I see where I messed up. Everyone continued talking about your first question and it wasn't until two pages later did someone respond to your second question. By that time.... the two became one in my mind.



James, it seems to me you have implied that the people you have been talking to have disagreed with the Bible (up to Rev 1:10), been difficult to reason with, argumentative, "hot". Teresa responds when she discusses similar things with others, they become angry.

As you have seen here, neither the Bible nor history supports Sunday being the Sabbath (Rev 1:10 included). Only late tradition. Why do you think people become unreasonable and angry when you suggest the Sabbath isn't Sunday?

What do you think is their motivation?

People who sin are “under the law”. We are under condemnation of law when we break the law. And, according to you, “we break the law moment by moment, hourly and daily”. According to your own testimony, therefore, we are “under the law” all the time. How, then, can you confidently say, “no, brother, we are not under the law”? Do you see the problem with your words?


Your testimony above seems to imply that we are free to break the law all the time, in spite of the fact the law is still very much in effect. If, as you say, we break the law all time, how can we be free to keep it? And, if we are not free to keep it, what difference does it make?

God's writing the Ten Commandments with His finger seems to be evidence.

my brother if anyone is under any kind of illusion-delusion-that they do not sin they are in for a rude awakening when Christ returns. their estimation of the law and Christlikeness is very, very low.

aaron probably has a better understanding of what all the law and gospel entails than one who thinks they do not sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

i know a man who honestly did not believe he sinned. everyone around him knew he had particular sins but he had blinded and deceived himself. i hope noone here has reached that state.

Does the Bible envision us reaching a point, in this lifetime, where we cease to sin? Or, does it envision us sinning until the day Jesus arrives and gives us a new body?

deleted.

Teresaq, did I misunderstand your comment above? It sound like you are saying believers will continue to sin until Jesus returns.

where do you get that?

From what you posted above: "my brother if anyone is under any kind of illusion-delusion-that they do not sin they are in for a rude awakening when Christ returns. their estimation of the law and Christlikeness is very, very low."

Please explain what you think the Bible and the SOP teach about believers reaching "the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression." {HP 146.5}

then you do not appear to have understood what i meant.

no. it is not related to the point i was making. nor do i appreciate being addressed in such manner.

cease to sin -- see Rev 15

Please explain what you meant.


1. Why not?
2. What point?
3. What do you mean?

I assume you have following verses in mind:

15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.
15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints.
15:4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

If so, please explain how these verses envision believers reaching the point, in this lifetime, where they cease to sin. Thank you.

Could we cease to sin while living in this sinful flesh?

Is ceasing to sin a must? When could we reach this point?

In His love

James, the Bible is very clear about it - YES!!! Do you think Jesus is promising to empower us to sin less or to cease sinning altogether? What do you think the following promises are saying about it?

John
8:11 And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Romans
6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
6:13 Neither yield ye your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness unto God.
6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Galatians
5:16 [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

1 Peter
2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious.
4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of [his] time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

1 John
3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

The bible said that we could stop sinning, IF we continually living the live of faith, but, in this body, is it possible?

If we could stop sinning, why then this body needs a transformation?

I think, we are advise by the scripture and SOP to stop sinning, but, since the mind of Christ and a new heart of love resides in this sinful body, if in case we sinned by following the flesh tendencies, then there is still God's mercy and forgiveness (1 John 1:9).

This sinful body is the source of sinning that the people of God did from time to time, but when this body is transformed to a holy immortal body, the source of sinning is gone, then the people of God would have a perfect holy mind, heart and body that is fit for heaven and eternal li8fe.

So, why should we worry about "an advice" for stop sinning from the SOP or the bible?? As long we maintain a life of faith, having the mind of Christ and love to our neighbor in the heart, we are ready to be transformed, sinning in this sinful body is something we are advice to stop, but if not, God will transform us to a holy body where no more tendencies to sin would temp us.

In his love

James, good questions. Thank you for sharing. However, did you happen to notice that the promises in the Bible do not "advice" or "counsel" or "suggest" that we faithfully abide in Jesus and "go and sin no more"? Such promises are commandments. And, we know God does not command us to do anything He isn't also able to empower us to do. "As the will of man co-operates with the will of God, it becomes omnipotent. Whatever is to be done at His command may be accomplished in His strength. All His biddings are enablings." (COL 333)

Jude
1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

Philippians
1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

1 Corinthians
10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

2 Corinthians
2:14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

Also, nothing can make us choose to sin - not self, not sin, not Satan. Yes, we are born with sinful flesh; however, sinful flesh cannot sin. Nor can it force us to sin. It can only tempt us to sin, to be unlike Jesus. In the beginning, A&E were able to choose to sin in spite of the fact they had a sinless flesh nature.

So, as you can see, sinful flesh is not the reason why we choose to sin. The reason we sin is because take our eyes off Jesus, because we neglect to choose to abide in Him. We will not, yea, we cannot sin while we are actively and aggressively abiding in Jesus. "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not. . . Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:6, 9)

True, the moment we choose not to abide in Jesus, or the instant we neglect to abide in Jesus, we dethrone the Holy Spirit and revert back to the mind of the old man, and then all we can do is sin. "All that man can do without Christ is polluted with selfishness and sin." (SC 59) The Holy Spirit does not abandon us. No way!

Instead, He influences us to receive and experience the gift of repentance, which empowers us to confess and forsake our sin. It also gives God the legal right to pardon us and to restore the relationship our sin severed. The Holy Spirit once again ascends the throne of our soul temple and resumes empowering us from within to be like Jesus. We pick up where we left off - growing in grace, maturing in the fruits of the Spirit, partaking of the divine nature, in short, being like Jesus.

i firmly believe God is able to bring us to the point where we no longer sin, but as some others have pointed out i dont believe that is where our focus should be.

i believe if our focus is on learning of Christ the changes start coming. the more we learn, and desire what we learn, then choose what we learn, we become more and more Christlike. but it is only by studying Christ and His will.

Rome 7 said that Paul's mind (the mind of Christ) is a slave to God's law, but his sinful nature is a slave to the law of sin (Rom. 7:25). This will say that eventhough having the mind of Christ, but since the body is a slave to sin, to cease sinning is not a guarantee. A&E was a perfect example, even in the holy nature, there is no guarantee that a man would not sin.



Having a sinful flesh is not the reason we choose to sin, never, but if we sinned, it is because we have this sinful body, we ara slave to sin in our sinful body. Can you see the difference?



Yes, but that is only in the mind, not in the body. The body is still the territory of sin, and no one can avoid to not sinning once in a time, and for that single sin he must die, therefore, we still need God's grace to save us.



No! I disagree! When we follow the sinful nature desire once in a time and sinned, we still have the mind of Christ and the love of God in our heart. We are still the children of God. One single sin would not and could not dethrone the Holy Spirit and back in the old man condition. It is a lie! Having a sinful nature, being a slave to sin in the sinful nature is something we could not avoid, we just wait the time we will get our holy body at transformation, during that time, there is no guarantee that we could cease to sin.

1 Tim. 1:15 - The saying is sure and true and worthy of full and universal acceptance, that Christ Jesus (the Messiah) came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am foremost.

Even Paul admit that he still sinned (from time to time), but it doesn't stop him to be still a child of God with the mind of Christ and love in him.

In His love

Are you saying we sin "because we have this sinful body" but "having a sinful flesh is not the reason we choose to sin"? Or, are you saying we sin because we are "a slave to [the] sin" that resides in our sinful body?


I take it you strongly disagree with the idea that we dethrone the Holy Spirit and revert back to the mind of the old man the moment we sin. I take it you also disagree with the idea that repentance gives the Holy Spirit the right to ascend the throne of our soul temple and resume empowering us from within to use our faculties of mind and body to be like Jesus.

Do you believe the thief on the cross "attained" unto the experience, before he died, which everyone "must have" to be saved? Do you think the following inspired insights describe his experience? Or, do you think such a state can be attained only after years of hard work?


How can we reach the perfection specified by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ--our Great Teacher? Can we meet His requirement and attain to so lofty a standard? We can, else Christ would not have enjoined us to do so. He is our righteousness. In His humanity He has gone before us and wrought out for us perfection of character. We are to have the faith in Him that works by love and purifies the soul. Perfection of character is based upon that which Christ is to us. If we have constant dependence on the merits of our Saviour, and walk in His footsteps, we shall be like Him, pure and undefiled. {TMK 130.3}

Our Saviour does not require impossibilities of any soul. He expects nothing of His disciples that He is not willing to give them grace and strength to perform. He would not call upon them to be perfect if He had not at His command every perfection of grace to bestow on the ones upon whom He would confer so high and holy a privilege. He has assured us that He is more willing to give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him than parents are to give good gifts to their children. {TMK 130.4}

Our work is to strive to attain in our sphere of action the perfection that Christ in His life on the earth attained in every phase of character. He is our example. In all things we are to strive to honor God in character. In falling day by day so far short of the divine requirements, we are endangering our soul's salvation. We need to understand and appreciate the privilege with which Christ invests us, and to show our determination to reach the highest standard. We are to be wholly dependent on the power that He has promised to give us. {TMK 130.5}

To Jesus in His agony on the cross there came one gleam of comfort. It was the prayer of the penitent thief. Both the men who were crucified with Jesus had at first railed upon Him; and one under his suffering only became more desperate and defiant. But not so with his companion. This man was not a hardened criminal; he had been led astray by evil associations, but he was less guilty than many of those who stood beside the cross reviling the Saviour. He had seen and heard Jesus, and had been convicted by His teaching, but he had been turned away from Him by the priests and rulers. Seeking to stifle conviction, he had plunged deeper and deeper into sin, until he was arrested, tried as a criminal, and condemned to die on the cross. In the judgment hall and on the way to Calvary he had been in company with Jesus. He had heard Pilate declare, "I find no fault in Him." John 19:4. He had marked His godlike bearing, and His pitying forgiveness of His tormentors. On the cross he sees the many great religionists shoot out the tongue with scorn, and ridicule the Lord Jesus. He sees the wagging heads. He hears the upbraiding speeches taken up by his companion in guilt: "If Thou be Christ, save Thyself and us." Among the passers-by he hears many defending Jesus. He hears them repeat His words, and tell of His works. The conviction comes back to him that this is the Christ. Turning to his fellow criminal he says, "Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?" The dying thieves have no longer anything to fear from man. But upon one of them presses the conviction that there is a God to fear, a future to cause him to tremble. And now, all sin-polluted as it is, his life history is about to close. "And we indeed justly," he moans; "for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this Man hath done nothing amiss." {DA 749.3}

There is no question now. There are no doubts, no reproaches. When condemned for his crime, the thief had become hopeless and despairing; but strange, tender thoughts now spring up. He calls to mind all he has heard of Jesus, how He has healed the sick and pardoned sin. He has heard the words of those who believed in Jesus and followed Him weeping. He has seen and read the title above the Saviour's head. He has heard the passers-by repeat it, some with grieved, quivering lips, others with jesting and mockery. The Holy Spirit illuminates his mind, and little by little the chain of evidence is joined together. In Jesus, bruised, mocked, and hanging upon the cross, he sees the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. Hope is mingled with anguish in his voice as the helpless, dying soul casts himself upon a dying Saviour. "Lord, remember me," he cries, "when Thou comest into Thy kingdom." {DA 750.1}

Quickly the answer came. Soft and melodious the tone, full of love, compassion, and power the words: Verily I say unto thee today, Thou shalt be with Me in paradise. {DA 750.2}

For long hours of agony, reviling and mockery have fallen upon the ears of Jesus. As He hangs upon the cross, there floats up to Him still the sound of jeers and curses. With longing heart He has listened for some expression of faith from His disciples. He has heard only the mournful words, "We trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel." How grateful then to the Saviour was the utterance of faith and love from the dying thief! While the leading Jews deny Him, and even the disciples doubt His divinity, the poor thief, upon the brink of eternity, calls Jesus Lord. Many were ready to call Him Lord when He wrought miracles, and after He had risen from the grave; but none acknowledged Him as He hung dying upon the cross save the penitent thief who was saved at the eleventh hour. {DA 750.3}

The bystanders caught the words as the thief called Jesus Lord. The tone of the repentant man arrested their attention. Those who at the foot of the cross had been quarreling over Christ's garments, and casting lots upon His vesture, stopped to listen. Their angry tones were hushed. With bated breath they looked upon Christ, and waited for the response from those dying lips. {DA 751.1}

As He spoke the words of promise, the dark cloud that seemed to enshroud the cross was pierced by a bright and living light. To the penitent thief came the perfect peace of acceptance with God. Christ in His humiliation was glorified. He who in all other eyes appeared to be conquered was a Conqueror. He was acknowledged as the Sin Bearer. Men may exercise power over His human body. They may pierce the holy temples with the crown of thorns. They may strip from Him His raiment, and quarrel over its division. But they cannot rob Him of His power to forgive sins. In dying He bears testimony to His own divinity and to the glory of the Father. His ear is not heavy that it cannot hear, neither His arm shortened that it cannot save. It is His royal right to save unto the uttermost all who come unto God by Him. {DA 751.2}
-----------

The relative estimate which the Pharisee and the publican place upon themselves is as false as that which others place upon them. Both resort to the temple at the hour of public prayer, professedly to worship God; but what a contrast there is in the motives that actuate them, and in their feelings, as expressed in their prayers! {ST, February 19, 1885 par. 3}

The Pharisee went, not because he felt his great need of God, but because he wanted to be thought a very pious and excellent man. He was perfectly self-satisfied, and thought that others looked upon him with the same complacency with which he regarded himself. He did not present the offering of a broken and contrite heart. He did not come with confession of sins, and with love flowing out in words of gratitude for the great mercy of a covenant-keeping God. He came not to present his needs. He made no supplication; he expressed no want. Standing in the temple of God, he dared to boast of his own goodness, and to measure himself with other men, and claim superiority. He began his self-worship: "God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." He then proceeded to enumerate some of his own good deeds: "I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I possess" {ST, February 19, 1885 par. 4}

The Pharisee went down to his house destitute of the divine blessing; but his self-love and vanity were fed. He was terribly self-deceived. He judged himself according to a human standard, exalted self, and covered his sins from his own sight. But God abhorred him. The publican thought himself a very wicked man, and others looked upon him in the same light; but there was nothing in his life so offensive to Heaven as the self-complacency expressed in the boastful, self-righteous prayer of the Pharisee. {ST, February 19, 1885 par. 5}

The publican went up to the temple with other worshipers; but he soon separated himself from them, as unworthy to mingle with them in their devotions. Standing afar off, he "would not lift up so much as his eyes to heaven, but smote upon his breast" in bitter anguish and self-abhorrence. He thus expressed his sense of his distance from God, and of his unworthiness to come into his presence. He felt that he had offended God, that he was sinful and polluted before him. He could not expect help from those around him; for they looked upon him with undisguised contempt. Feeling that he had no claim on the mercy of God, he looked forward with terrible dread to the Judgment, when every case will be decided. In his great need, he finds voice to cry out earnestly, "God, be merciful to me a sinner." {ST, February 19, 1885 par. 6}

The course taken by the publican is the only one that will secure pardon and peace with God. He did not compare his sins with those of others who were worse than himself. He came before God with his own burden of guilt and shame, as a transgressor of God's law, a sinner in thought, in word, and in act. He acknowledged that should he receive punishment for his sins, it would be just and right. Mercy, mercy, was his only plea. Oh, for the assurance of pardon, giving peace and rest to the sin-sick soul! {ST, February 19, 1885 par. 7}

The self-abasement manifested by the publican is wholly acceptable to God. To know ourselves is to be humble. Self-knowledge will take away all disposition to entertain the Most High with a recital of our own excellent qualities. Realizing our sins and imperfections, we shall come to the feet of Jesus with earnest supplication, and our petitions will not be passed by unheard. Ezra had the true spirit of prayer. Presenting his petition before God for Israel, when they had sinned grievously in the face of great light and privileges, he exclaimed, "I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God; for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens." Ezra remembered the goodness of God in again giving his people a foothold in their native land, and he was overwhelmed with indignation and grief at the thought of their ingratitude in return for the divine favor. His language is that of true humiliation of soul, the contrition that prevails with God in prayer. Only the prayer of the humble enters into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. "Though the Lord be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly; but the proud he knoweth afar off." "To this man will I look," saith the Lord, "even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word." {ST, February 19, 1885 par. 8}

The Pharisee expressed his self-commendation in the form of thanksgiving. "God, I thank thee," he says, "that I am not as other men are." But there was no real gratitude in his heart. His self-love had excluded every such generous principle. He neither loved God supremely nor his neighbor as himself; yet before God and men he could boast loudly of his own goodness. Thus he insulted God, while he deceived men in regard to his true character. {ST, February 19, 1885 par. 9}

There are many now who entertain the same feeling of self-congratulation that the Pharisee had. Does this feeling rise in your heart in any degree, dear reader? If so, you may be assured that while you commend yourself, the condemnation of God rests upon you. You may be thought excellent in character. Your name may be registered on the church-book; but it is not written in the Lamb's book of life. If a special work has been done for any of us, it is through the grace of God alone. Man is to take no credit to himself; for he has nothing which he has not received. {ST, February 19, 1885 par. 10}

Let us examine ourselves, and see how many vain thoughts dwell within our hearts, how much we love praise, how selfishness is shown in our manners, how often we misjudge the character and motives of others, or feel contempt for them because their appearance is not prepossessing. Let us think how our words sound in the ears of God, how our selfish thoughts look in his sight, when we judge and condemn others, who may be better in heart and purpose than ourselves. {ST, February 19, 1885 par. 11}

From the parable of the Pharisee and the publican we learn that to profess excellence which we do not possess, will exclude us from the grace which alone can make us of value in the sight of God. The teachings of Christ give no countenance to a spirit of self-righteousness which would exalt self over others. Vanity is never the result of virtue and true piety. "Every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
-

Teresa, great quotes. Thank you. But I'm not sure what you believe. Do you believe the thief on the cross "attained" unto the experience, before he died, which everyone "must have" to be saved?

Do you think the following inspired insights [quoted above] describe his experience?

Or, do you think such a state can be attained only after years of hard work?

your questions, mm, are really statements of your beliefs presented as questions and therefore answerable only by you.

ellen white was quite clear in treating of the thief that he experienced deep repentance as did the publican and therefore was "justified".

since he didnt live to practice "sanctification" it seems rather impossible to discuss what applies to those who continue living with those who experience repentance then die soon afterward.

1)Yes

2)Yes -- He met Jesus fully and accepted him.
He was changed from a man reviling and cursing into a man bearing incredible pain with peace in his heart.
Yes, I believe his whole attitude to everything was changed their on the cross when accepted Jesus.

3) No -- at every point, when we claim Christ's merits, repented of sins, and are walking with Christ in humble obedience we are accounted righteous.

Sanctification being the work of a lifetime does not mean we need a long life to achieve sanctification, but that each day for the rest of our lives we are to walk with Christ as ones "set apart for holy purpose" -- sanctified by His grace.

This is a nice way of putting this.

There is a difference between our "title" to heaven and our "fitness" for heaven. The "must have" quotes I posted above refer to our title to heaven. And, yes, you're right our fitness for heaven is forever changing. However, it does not add to or take away from our title to heaven. Our title to heaven is forever unchanging. The thief was just as entitled to heaven as was Paul and for the same reasons. The fact Paul was more fit for heaven doesn't mean he was more entitled. Seasoned saints are not more righteous or less sinful than babes in Christ.

Everyone who enters heaven "must" be without spot or blame in the sight of sight. Not in the legal sense only, but also in the real sense. The difference between Paul and the thief has to do with depth and degree of righteousness, not with more or less sin. In other words, yes, Paul was more mature in the fruits of the Spirit than the thief, but this isn't saying the thief had unconquered sins he didn't have time to confess and crucify. He was just as sinless as Paul. The only difference between the two is how mature each will be on the day they are resurrected.

I agree with Tom. Very nicely worded. I also agree with the answers you gave above to the three questions.

James,

Apparently Mrs. White ran into a case very much like yours (at least the part about the job falling on Sabbath). I just came across this story, and thought you might like to see it.


Ellen White is here recommending that this man take up the work of selling our books. In other words, it is simply unacceptable to continue working on the Sabbath, even if debt may result due to loss of income. She puts the Sabbath on a higher priority than keeping one's job.

There are certain fields which enter the "ministry" category whose work must continue on the Sabbath. Mrs. White addresses these, and says the money collected from such work should be given to the Lord, for it is His day. This would include doctors, nurses, etc. who must continue to provide care for the sick. People may not choose to become ill on the Sabbath day--but if they are not well, there is no reason to make them suffer another day because you cannot help them on Sabbath. Jesus healed on the Sabbath day.

But other kinds of work such as ordinary business have no place in our duties or thoughts during the Sabbath day. Anything which can be arranged for another day, should be. Mrs. White even says that if it is not necessary to wash the dishes on the Sabbath (i.e. you have enough dishes to last three meals), they can be left to clean after the Sabbath has past!



Many of us likely break the Sabbath out of ignorance of just how carefully God wants us to keep it. I include myself in that.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, nice find.

I agree with Teresaq, the thief was justified because of his faith without sanctification process.

His faith that saved him, as the bible said" For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith..... it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:8.

That's what happened to the thieff, nothing more.

In His love

When a believer is justified, he has piece with God, for he has a new mind (the mind of Christ) and a new heart, ready to learn the love of God, but still the same old sinful flesh.

The source of sin is no longer his mind, or his heart, but his sinful flesh. It is clear for me what Paul said in Roman 7. So, when we sinned, it is because we follow the desires of the flesh. Now, if you take out this sinful flesh (at Jesus 2nd coming) and transformed in to a new holy body, you have taken out the source of sinful desires.

Therefore, what is important in order to be saved, is keeping the mind of Christ and love your neighbors, waiting the time to be transformed in a holy body. if you sin from time to time, are you to be blamed? No! It is the sinful body to be blamed! Therefore, it must be changed. Otherwise, all those who could lead a sinless life in this sinful body don't need transformation. But there is no exception, ALL will be changed.

Sanctification is a lifetime process to bring dead the sinful desires with the mind of Christ, but the goal is not you must be perfect and sinless, the goal is you must have the love of God in your heart, the mind of Christ that lead your life till the end of your day. With this, you are ready to be transformed and FIT for heaven. Simple as that!

In fact, we are all saved by grace thorugh our faith in Christ, not because we are sinless and perfect.

If the goal is a sinless perfect life in order to be fit to enter heaven, i disagree!

And the thief on the cross had shown that as a proof, that the grace of God, theough his faith in Christ that made him FIT to enter heaven. And if one man had this priveledge, why not all of us?

In His love

James, I think you make some good points, but I'm troubled by the following:



To me, this seems to be a very dangerous position to take. To point out just one problem, doesn't this position imply that the sinful body is more powerful than the Holy Spirit? To put the question another way, isn't the Holy Spirit powerful enough to keep us from sinning, in spite of our having a sinful body?

If we are the one sinning, why, then, would we blame it on sinful flesh? For example, X murdered Y while robbing him. Who is to blame? X or his sinful flesh? Who would be sent to prison? I believe the judge and jury would find X guilty of murder and not his sinful flesh. Again, sinful flesh cannot sin - it can only tempt us to sin. And, as you know, it is not a sin to be tempted. If it was, then Jesus sinned since He was tempted the same as us.


How sinful and imperfect can we be and still be entitled and fit for heaven? Will Jesus simply erase our unconquered cultivated sinful traits and habits when He arrives to take us home to heaven? If so, what is He waiting for? Why not return now and simply change everybody who desires to be in heaven? Why not simply make them sinless and perfect?

If it is impossible to overcome every sinful habit, why doesn't Jesus just return now and eliminate the evil habits we cannot stop doing? Why is He waiting and allowing us to sin against God, ourselves, our family, and our friends? If we cannot stop sinning, if we cannot attain unto perfection, what sense does it make for Jesus to wait? According to you, He certainly isn't waiting for us to crucify self or to cease sinning. What, then, do you think Jesus is waiting for? Why hasn't He returned yet?


Our title to heaven and our for fitness for heaven are two different aspects of salvation. It is the title to heaven that everyone who is in a saving relationship with Jesus has in common. Our title to heaven is the result of what Jesus was empowered to do for us. As such, our title to heaven is based on what Jesus did for us and not on what He empowers us to do for Him.

However, the fitness for heaven varies from person to person. It is the result of what Jesus empowers them to do. Paul, for example, was more fit (more mature in the fruits of the Spirit) than the thief on the cross. But being more fit does not mean being more entitled. Our entitlement to heaven is forever unchanging; whereas, our fitness for heaven is forever changing.

The difference between Paul's fitness for heaven and the thief's is measured in terms of maturation - not in terms of sinfulness and imperfection. In other words, Paul wasn't more fit than the thief because he was less sinful and imperfect. He was more fit for heaven because he was mature in the fruits of the Spirit. Both were recreated in Christ sinless and perfect when they experienced the miracle of rebirth.

Most people do not, however, experience real, genuine rebirth. At least not initially. They are, at best, partially born again. But God does not acknowledge them as truly born again. Some go on and experience real, genuine rebirth, but most do not.

"The new birth is a rare experience in this age of the world. This is the reason why there are so many perplexities in the churches. Many, so many, who assume the name of Christ are unsanctified and unholy. They have been baptized, but they were buried alive. Self did not die, and therefore they did not rise to newness of life in Christ. (6BC 1075)

MM.

Killing is not the desires that I includes in the desires of the flesh.

Habits that lead to sin, is my focus.

A new born believer has the mind of Christ and a new heart, but he still has habits that might lead to sin when he followed it. Like smoking, drinking, lying, judging people, anger, etc. His new heart needs time to learn and comprehend what love to his neighbor is. When he did not do what is good to his fellowmen, he sinned. And what is good to our fellowmen? There are a lot, I believe. His former life was selfish, he didn’t care for anybody else except his own. This habit would not perish the time he was reborn, it would take time, with the maturing of his faith and knowledge about God.

There are many things that I believe considered as sinning, even though it doesn’t breach God’s 10 commandments, but not good enough to show his love for his neighbor. He is still not perfect in character, love and faith, but IF he lives a life lead by the Spirit and the willingness to love his neighbor, I believe that he would come to perfection of character, love and spirit that is FIT for heaven.

But during that time, could he says to himself that he has led a sinless life? Could you? Could anybody?

All this imperfection comes from our sinful body where we still lives in. Change this to a new holy body, and you will have perfection in all manners.

So, I would blame the sins I committed to this sinful body.



A sinner could not be entitled to enter heaven, but the son of God YES! Who are the sons of God? Only those who had made a perfect sinless life all their life time? No! The sons of God are those who believe in Christ, who lead a life led by the Spirit, who love his neighbors? Are they sinless perfect life? Not all of them, some yes. They had crucified their will perfectly and only live by the will of the Spirit, and thus they could overcome their flesh desires, living a perfect sinless life in this sinful body. But the rest, struggled from time to time and sinned, but they keep going a faithful life and love their neighbors. Even thought they couldn’t come to the state of leading a perfect sinless life, at least they had tried it. But they will live this sinful perfect life once they are transformed into their new body, for the source that leads to sin is gone.



What is Jesus waiting for, my answer is not because he waits till all believers attain a perfect sinless life, but because the Scripture hasn’t been preach to the last man on earth. Who is that last man on earth? Only God who knows that! He came and died to save people, and till the last person on earth knew about this, he will wait.

I believe that when he comes, there are some who has reach the perfect sinless life condition, but much more are not. But are those who are not sinless and perfect lost forever? No! As long they maintained a faithful life and has the love of God in their hearts, they are fit for heaven, because, due to their sinful body, they couldn’t come to the sinless perfect state, which says, they did sin from time to time. But as long they were sorry and repented all the time, God forgives them. That what God’s saving grace is. Not only saves us from our sins, but saves us from the penalty of sin.

The thief on the cross was the one and best example, and if God could do this to one man, why should he make exception to anybody else? The point is, this thief died the day he accept Jesus, having a sinful life all his life. How God would ban those who have leaded a faithful life and love their neighbors but hasn’t yet come to the perfection state of a sinless and holy life? He would be unfair if he do that.

But is there any place in heaven for a man, who hasn’t the love of God in his heart? The one that still leads a selfish life? NO! He is not fit for heaven.

In His love

No, it doesn't inply that that sinful body is more powerful than the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is nore powerful than the desires of this sinful body. But who can say from this day on, that they could lead a perfect sinless life till the end of their day? 5 years, 10 years, 25 years, 40 years sinless perfect life??

The answer is only with an IF... If.....if.....

So, the point is not you only could enter heaven when you have made a sinless perfect life in whole of your life time, but, you enter heaven because you have led a faithful life and love your negihbors.

At least that what I believe.

In His love.

You wrote, "If you sin from time to time, are you to be blamed? No! It is the sinful body to be blamed!" The SOP tells us that the flesh, of itself, cannot act contrary to the will of God, where "flesh" is the same thing as "sinful nature." This seems to be common sense. If we sin, it's our mind, which houses our will, that's to blame, not our flesh. This is the point I was making.

Regarding going to heaven, I believe God will take all to heaven who would be happy there. Those who would be happy in heaven, are those who have chosen to respond to the Holy Spirit, who presents Christ to us.

the fallacy i see in this is that the thief died. we are alive.

but if we find ourselves still "sinful", falling now and again, or even regularly, we just need to go to our Saviour. He said He was able to save to the uttermost. He didnt lie.

if we put our life in His hands He brings us to the point where we hate what we are doing and give it up.

I know, that the flesh can not sin of it self, but it is the source of sinful desires due to along time habits serving the flesh. Therefore it needs to be transformed. That is the point! Otherwise no one need transformation to a holy body, right? If at rebirth, we are given also a holy body than there is nothing to blame except self. same like Adam when sinned while having a perfect holy body, no one to blame except self, he blamed his wife,and Eve blamed the serpent. But in our case, we have something to blame, our sinful body. That what God wants to recreate, through transformation at Christ 2nd coming.

And I also know that the body can be subjected to the power of the mind of Christ, but, what I want to say is, when you failed and sinned, it doesn't make you lost the Spirit or the mind of Christ, your new heart, and need to be reborn again, it is not like that, nothing change, I didn't agree with MM, saying that the moment we sinned, the Holy Spirit is gone and we fall back again in our old man life. What I think is that the life still goes on the same way, having the mind of Christ and a new heart, it is only a matter of bringing the body to subjection of the mind. When you failed in one case, ask for God forgiveness. Only if you keep following the desires of the flesh, you will elapse again in the old life style, and having again a stony heart and the mind of self.

With that in mind, I would say that the fitness for heaven is not to have a perfect sinless life, but as you say, who is happy in heaven, he would be there. As I say, who has the love to his neighbors he would be there. No one who still live for self would be happy in heaven, that is the most important thing. And thus, closing the gate of heaven for their own.

In His love

James, I know English is a struggle for you, and you're doing a good job with it. I'd like to encourage you. I think some of the disagreements I have with you is due to your English.

If you say the flesh is an excuse for sin, then I would disagree with that. If you say it's something which contributes to our sin, something which will be replaced when Christ comes again, I agree with that.

As far as I understand your post above, I agree with it. I think the key thing is for us to be won by the love of Jesus Christ. Our motivation should be Christ. As Paul said, "For me to live is Christ."

well the way i understand it is that our mind can be transformed in the here and now, while we have to wait for our new perfect bodies.

the understanding i was handed from the church, for whatever reasons, (personally i think it was mindless regurgitation of the "facts" as understood) was that we would struggle with sin our whole life.

for example, a person has sins a-z, 26 sins, depending on ones alphabet. so that person, even tho they were able to stop actually doing sins b, g, w, x, would still be struggling to not do those sins the rest of their life, in addition to trying to not do the other sins or do what they are supposed to. then if they were able to stop some of the other sins they had those to struggle with on top of the first four, all day, every day.

not a happy existence to say the least.

but i learned, accidently by experience, that our God delivers us from all desire for each and every sin, that there is no more desire, no more struggle. the temptation comes on occasion but it is so mild as to be almost inconsequential. actually i would have to say another "voice pops up and tells it to go away".

now i have gotten to the point where i wonder what it would be like to be "sinless", or to have zero sinful desires. having no desire for those previous sins i found so attractive and seeing how it was bondage, something else controlling me regardless of what i wanted, it is truly freedom indeed!!

You describe two different types of Christians above. The first group experience sinless perfection in spite of their sinful flesh nature; whereas, the second group do not experience sinless perfection because of their sinful flesh nature.

What do you think accounts for the difference between the two groups? Why do the first group experience sinless perfection but not the second group?

I had no idea you believe such a thing. Please elaborate. At point in the process of conversion does a born-again believer reach this state?

i dont understand your question and i dont understand its relation to the statement you quoted. could you elaborate more?

t: but i learned, accidently by experience, that our God delivers us from all desire for each and every sin, that there is no more desire, no more struggle.

M: When does this become a reality for people?

...

t: the temptation comes on occasion but it is so mild as to be almost inconsequential.

M: Is this true of all temptations? If so, when does it become a reality for people?

...

t: actually i would have to say another "voice pops up and tells it to go away".

M: What is this voice? And, how does it tell temptation to go away?

MM.

There is no two groups as you describe.

There is only one group, the sons of God, those who believe in Christ and led by the Spirit. They are all justified people who go through the sanctification proccess.

Some of them maybe has reach the sinless perfect life condition that you meant, some of them not yet, which means they still sins from time to time. But it doesn't mean they are living by the flesh.

Is there any limitation to state that a believer has reach the condition of perfect sinless life in connection with time? One day? one week? One month? One year? 5 years? 10 years? 30 years? A life time long? To be FIT for heaven?

If the thieff on the cross have none, would there be a difference with the others?

The condition of to be fit for heaven, to enter it and live eternally, is the man is justified for his faith, nothing else. He was saved by the grace of God through faith. Not that because he has lived a sinless perfect life for how long, no body knew the time limit.

In His love

Thanks for seeing my point. I fully agree with you also.

In his love

Do you see a difference between our "title to heaven" and our "fitness for heaven"? Or, do you view them as synonymous?

Righteousness within is testified to by righteousness without. He who is righteous within is not hard-hearted and unsympathetic, but day by day he grows into the image of Christ, going on from strength to strength. He who is being sanctified by the truth will be self-controlled, and will follow in the footsteps of Christ until grace is lost in glory. The righteousness by which we are justified is imputed; the righteousness by which we are sanctified is imparted. The first is our title to heaven, the second is our fitness for heaven.--Review and Herald, June 4, 1895. {MYP 35.2}

One is your TICKET
the other is your PASSPORT

The ticket is paid for -- offered freely to all who accept Christ.
Now when we travel to another country, the ticket is essential without it we can't board the plane.
But we also need a passport.
What does a passport prove?

It shows our citizenship.

Whose kingdom do we belong to? Are we following King Jesus Christ, do " we walk in the light, as he is in the light," (see 1 John 1:7) or are we following the prince of darkness "the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:" (see Eph.2:2)

Romans 6:16 Don't you know, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

I like it! The passport reflects age (maturity). Everyone's passport is different. But not so with the ticket. The tickets are all the same. No first class versus coach. Everyone gets to go first class. Hooray!

The idea that perfection is attained after years of becoming less and less sinful is unbiblical. When people experience genuine rebirth in God's appointed way they begin perfect (complete). They are born again with all the righteous fruits and attributes of God's character. They begin at rebirth where Jesus began at birth. And then they go on unto perfection. They become perfect (mature) as they grow in grace and mature in the fruits of the Spirit. This process of progress goes on for eternity. They become more and more mature in the fruits of Spirit.

Do you see a difference between our "title to heaven" and our "fitness for heaven"? Or, do you view them as synonymous?

Righteousness within is testified to by righteousness without. He who is righteous within is not hard-hearted and unsympathetic, but day by day he grows into the image of Christ, going on from strength to strength. He who is being sanctified by the truth will be self-controlled, and will follow in the footsteps of Christ until grace is lost in glory. The righteousness by which we are justified is imputed; the righteousness by which we are sanctified is imparted. The first is our title to heaven, the second is our fitness for heaven.--Review and Herald, June 4, 1895. {MYP 35.2} [/quote]

The one whom God justified for his faith, is a just and righteous person, he has peace with God. Which mean, he has a new heart, a new mind and a new life. This justification is suitable to open the gate of heaven for him. Whether in the later days he falls from time to time in sin, but as long as he kept the faith, he still would be a just and righteous person, cause God would justified him for his faith. isn't it? Anyway, we are all saved by the grace of God through faith, right? Whether by faith you may have sinless daily life r not, your salvation is assured.

The point is: to keep the faith, the flesh may be weak but God's grace would forgives all sins committed due to having this sinful body.

So, where is the main difference of our title to heaven and our ticket to heaven?

I don't agree at all if you said, just having the title of heaven could not made some one pass the gate of heaven.

In His love

James, like a shooting star you show up out of nowhere. Nice to see you again. Hope all is well with your soul and the soul's of your loved ones.

Above you wrote, "Whether by faith you may have sinless daily life or not, your salvation is assured." I'm sorry to say it, but I think this conclusion is terribly wrong. Jesus will save no one in their sins. He saves us from our past sins AND from present temptations. Perfection is automatic in AND through Christ.

Our salvation is based on what Jesus does for us AND through us. The sinlessness Adam and Eve enjoyed before they ate the forbidden fruit is available to us now in AND through Christ. What Jesus does for us is our "title" to heaven AND what He does through us is our "fitness" for heaven. Both are inevitable in AND through Christ. Both are required to enter the gates of heaven.

And yet, MM, you wrote that as long as our 'motives' are correct, we are counted 'perfect' whether we really are or not.

Unless we have accepted Christ's gift of righteousness there is no way our 'motives' to do right, even though we are not perfect would count as perfect or even come close to meriting anything.

You wrote: Please know your heavenly Father smiles upon you when you're motives are right. It doesn't matter to Him if your fruit is immature so long as you are growing and your motives are right. You and your words and works are perfect in His sight when you're motives are right.

Such can be true ONLY if we have accepted Christ's righteousness in place of our own and are now walking in humble obedience with Christ (which, though the motives are right is not perfect in and of itself)

MM.
You wrote:
“What Jesus does for us is our "title" to heaven AND what He does through us is our "fitness" for heaven. Both are inevitable in AND through Christ. Both are required to enter the gates of heaven.”

A justified man is some one that has the title for heaven and fitness for heaven at the same moment.

How can a man be considered JUST if he has only the title for heaven? A title that could not justify him to enter heaven.

When God justify a man for his faith, he is righteous at that moment, and he is FIT for heaven, otherwise he is not just at all.

In His love

I'm sorry I gave you this impression. I believe something very different. Perfection is the result of right motives.


Amen! In Christ, and like Christ, the righteous results of "humanity and divinity combined" are "righteousness and true holiness". Unlike Jesus, though, our fruits of faith merit nothing.


"Immature" fruit is not a sin. It is just as perfect as mature fruit. The difference has to do with depth and degree of righteousness not with depth and degree of sin. The fruits of the Spirit is not corrupt or stained with sin. The source of such fruit is the Vine, Jesus Christ. Is it right to label such fruit "corrupt and sin stained"?

John
15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
15:5 I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

Amen! You'll be happy to learn we are in total agreement on this point. And, oh happy day, we are in harmony with the SOP:

"God requires the entire surrender of the heart, before justification can take place; and in order for man to retain justification, there must be continual obedience, through active, living faith that works by love and purifies the soul. (FW 100)

"Every sin must be renounced as the hateful thing that crucified the Lord of life and glory, and the believer must have a progressive experience by continually doing the works of Christ. It is by continual surrender of the will, by continual obedience, that the blessing of justification is retained. (1SM 397)

Nicely said!

My question; is our salvation same like a yo-yo?

Now we have justification, one hour later when we sinned, it is gone. When we pray asked God forgiveness, he forgives us, and again we are just, then again we sinned, and again we are under condemnation.

A continual obedience only can retain our justification..????

In His love

James, our salvation is based on what Jesus does for us AND through us. He cannot save us if we sin AND refuse to repent. Justification means many things, one of them is Jesus must justify saving sinners instead of executing them. He can only save sinners who repent and abide in Him. "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not." (1 John 3:6) Salvation is not for unrepentant sinners or sinners who cling to their pet, darling sins.

If they are not abiding in Jesus it means they are abiding in sin, self, and Satan. There is no neutral ground where they are neither sinning nor being righteous. We are either all of His and free of sin or none of His and full of sin. "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Rom 8:9) "God will not occupy a divided heart or reign from a divided throne. Every rival that holds the affections and diverts them from the God of love must be dethroned. The Lord demands all that there is of us, and there must be no reserve.” (TMK 63)

When believers take their eyes off Jesus they thereby resurrect their old man and resume sinning. Most genuine Christians are shocked and horrified to find themselves in sin and immediately seek repentance and reconciliation through Jesus. Repentance gives God the legal right to pardon their sin and to restore the relationship their sin severed. They resume abiding in Jesus partaking of the divine nature, which is what empowers them to use their faculties of mind and body to grow daily in grace and to mature moment by moment in the fruits of the Spirit. This is what it means to be saved!

This is a good question!

So, what is your answer? Please share

In His love

James, just in case I didn't answer your question, here it is - Salvation is more like a light switch. We turn it on and off when we consciously choose to abide in Jesus and when we consciously refuse to abide in Jesus. Salvation is active while we are consciously abiding in Jesus. Otherwise, while we are consciously refusing to abide in Jesus, salvation is on standby.

OK, now please tell me what is maturing in the fruit of the Spirit?

A newborn believer is premature in the fruit of the Spirit compared to people you believe has reach the state of sinless.

But what is the difference between them? I only see that both are justified people by their faith. Both are FIT for heaven.

And what else we need, rather than God justify us?

In His love

I don't agree with this. I don't think someone looses salvation just because he/she was overcome by temptation.

I agree.

Do you think their salvation under these circumstances depends on whether or not they receive and experience the gift of repentance?

Jesus demonstrated growing in grace and maturing in the fruits of the Spirit as He progressed from childhood to manhood. As you know, such development does not involve outgrowing sinful habits. Instead, it involves recognizing and resisting sin, self, and Satan. It involves subduing, submitting, and subjecting hereditary tendencies to wrong to a sanctified will and mind. More than this, though, it involves becoming more and more like God (as opposed to becoming less and less like Satan). Newborn believers begin perfect or complete in Christ. And then they spend the rest of eternity maturing in the fruits of the Spirit. The difference between babes in Christ and seasoned saints is maturity not imperfection. Both are fit for heaven. They are justified and sanctified, both of which are requirements of salvation.

1 Peter
2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious.
4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of [his] time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

I don't think they lose salvation by their sin, and then God provides the gift of repentance so that they can return to salvation. I think they lose salvation if and when they don't accept the gift of repentance and forgiveness that God provides.

PS - Nothing I posted above should be taken to mean converted Christians are incapable of neglecting to abide in Jesus and reverting back to sinning. We are not free to sin until we are free from sin.

You seem to be suggesting that sinning does not forfeit salvation, that refusing the gift of repentance is what cancels the privileges of salvation.

Yes, otherwise salvation would be just like a yo-yo, as James said, or like a light switch, as you said. I see it more as an umbrella, and losing salvation as stepping out from under the umbrella by refusing to repent. Christ's righteousness still covers you until you have the opportunity to repent.

Moses would be a good example. Did he lose his salvation when he lost his temper and struck the rock?

The following passage is pertinent:

By a momentary act of will you may place yourself in the power of Satan, but it will require more than a momentary act of will to break his fetters and reach for a higher, holier life. The purpose may be formed, the work begun, but its accomplishment will require toil, time, and perseverance, patience, and sacrifice. (ML 322)

Tom, here ar some interesting insights regarding "inborn":


How does this compare to "inbred"?

Does sinning happen under the umbrella? Or, does it happen the moment we step out from under it? Can we commit a known sin while abiding in Jesus? For example, can we get angry at our kids and smack them while abiding in Jesus? Is anger and smacking kids the fruit of abiding in the Vine? The following insights are helpful:

Resisting sin, self, and Satan, and reproducing the character of Christ is not an easy matter. Ellen put it this way:

It is no easy matter to gain the priceless treasure of eternal life. {Mar 47.3}

To resist Satan’s desires is no easy task. It demands a firm hold of the divine nature from beginning to end, or it cannot be done. (1SM 342)

But it is not an easy matter to overcome hereditary and cultivated tendencies to wrong. Self is masterful, and strives for the victory. But to “him that overcometh” the promises are given. The Lord presents the right way, but He compels no one to obey. He leaves those to whom He has given the light to receive or despise it, but their course of action is followed by sure results. Cause must produce effect. (3SM 289)

The gaining of eternal life is no easy thing. By living faith we are to keep on reaching forward, ascending the ladder round by round, seeing and taking the necessary steps; and yet we must understand that not one holy thought, not one unselfish act, can be originated in self. It is only through Christ that there can be any virtue in humanity. . . . But while we can do nothing without Him, we have something to do in connection with Him. At no time must we relax our spiritual vigilance, for we are hanging, as it were, between heaven and earth. We must cling to Christ, climb up by Christ, become laborers together with Him in the saving of our souls. {TMK 21.5}

I was shown that Satan cannot control minds unless they are yielded to his control. Those who depart from the right are in serious danger now. They separate themselves from God and from the watch-care of the angels of God, and Satan, ever upon the watch to destroy souls, begins to present to such his deceptions, and they are in the utmost peril. And if they see and try to resist the powers of darkness and to free themselves from Satan's snare, it is not an easy matter. They have ventured on Satan's ground, and he claims them. He will not hesitate to engage all his energies, and call to his aid all his evil host to wrest a single human being from the hand of Christ. {MYP 60.1}

Those who have tempted the devil to tempt them will have to make desperate efforts to free themselves from his power. When they begin to work for themselves, then angels of God whom they have grieved will come to their rescue. Satan and his angels are unwilling to lose their prey. They contend and battle with the holy angels, and the conflict is severe. And if those who have erred continue to plead, and in deep humility confess their wrongs, angels who excel in strength will prevail and wrench them from the power of the evil angels. {MYP 60.2}

The warfare against self is the greatest battle that was ever fought. The yielding of self, surrendering all to the will of God and being clothed with humility, possessing that love that is pure, peaceable, and easy to be entreated, full of gentleness and good fruits, is not an easy attainment. And yet it is his privilege and his duty to be a perfect overcomer here. The soul must submit to God before it can be renewed in knowledge and true holiness. {3T 106.2}

By a momentary act of will you may place yourself in the power of Satan, but it will require more than a momentary act of will to break his fetters and reach for a higher, holier life. The purpose may be formed, the work begun, but its accomplishment will require toil, time, and perseverance, patience, and sacrifice. (ML 322)

Regarding "inborn," I see two instances. The first one speaks of an inborn love of freedom. I'm not sure what she had in mind there. I would lean toward here not having a technical meaning in mind, but implying something like this is a normal thing to expect.

In the second usage, she speaks of inborn tendencies which have not been restrained, immediately followed by "natural weaknesses." This usage sounds to me like a technical one, where she has in mind hereditary tendencies.

Are you saying "yes"?

What is abiding in Jesus? Can we sin while we abide in Jesus? Are we lost the moment we sinned, because we are no longer abiding in Jesus?

I see my self like a boat. I have anchored my anchor (faith) in Jesus, but the boat (I my self) some times faced heavy swells, strong wind or current (world temptation / desires of the flesh)and she must slacken / lengthen her chain in order her anchor would not be drag away. So, some times the boat is far away floating, drag by the wind, current and swells, but not lost because her anchor (faith)is still fix to the ground (Jesus). And one day, she will heave her chain and closing back to her anchor, entering again the relationship with Jesus.

We may sinned, we may fall from time to time, but as long as we repent and ask God forgiveness, he would forgive us, and we are still a just and righteous person.

1 John 1:8-10:
8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

In His love

Is the technical one different than her "inbred" statements?

I do not think Moses was abiding in Jesus when he struck the rock in anger. Do you agree? Or, do you think the fruit of abiding in Jesus includes sinning?

James, did you read this post? It first appeared on the previous page.

Abiding in Jesus is a biblical metaphor. It envisions converted Christians connected to Christ and producing the fruit of His righteousness. It does not envision them producing sinful fruit. If we are not abiding in Jesus we are not in a saved state.


If we fall into sin, do you think we are still "just and righteous" before we repent, before God forgives us?

Of course when we sinned we are no longer righteous. The moment we repent and ask God forgiveness, when he forgives, we are just and righteous again. And how many times a day we pray asking God forgiveness whether we sinned or not? I my self at least 5 x a day.

In His love

According to me, abiding in Jesus is by faith, and as long I kept my faith in Him, I abide in Him, no matter some times I drifted away from Him, but as long I repent and pray for God forgiveness, I be still in Him.

In His love

I believe Moses was always abiding in Jesus by faith. His faith was anchored in Jesus, he may sin stirred by the desires of his flesh, where sin resides. But he always remain in Christ by his faith.

In His love

Here's something from Waggoner:

Is this like a yo-yo? Sin and no longer righteous = not saved. Repent = forgiven = saved again? This happens at least 5 times a day, being in and out of salvation?

My question was, "Did he lose his salvation when he lost his temper and struck the rock?"

What's your answer? Is it "yes"?

Is sinning the fruit of salvation? Ellen describes it this way:


Ellen describes true sanctification and then follows it by saying, "We are not yet perfect." Here is how she described true sanctification: "True sanctification means perfect love, perfect obedience, perfect conformity to the will of God." Think about it. Her description of not being perfect is - "perfect love, perfect obedience, perfect conformity to the will of God". This is quite the opposite of what some people believe. Some people describe not being perfect in terms of sinning. Ellen's is just the opposite. Interesting.

PS - Did Moses' sin result in damnation? No, of course not. Moses is in heaven.

True, the sins we commit are not just and righteous. But it doesn't mean we are totally defiled and unholy in every way. One sin does not undo everything we have accomplished in Christ. The moment we receive and experience the gift of repentance, we pick up where we left off.

For example, when King David sinned, it didn't strip him of everything he gained in Christ. The traits of character he strengthened while abiding in Jesus retained their momentum. "The character is revealed, not by occasional good deeds and occasional misdeeds, but by the tendency of the habitual words and acts." (SC 57)

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to minimize the horrendous nature and consequences of sinning. Not at all. Sinning is horrible. It cost the life of our dear Friend and Savior. But occasional misdeeds do not reverse or nullify the headway we made in Christ. Things just don't work that way.

MM, regarding #122015, I don't see that you answered my question, which is, "Did he lose his salvation when he lost his temper and struck the rock? What's your answer? Is it 'yes'?" Please answer the question "yes" or "no," and then explain your answer.

Is this like a yo-yo? Sin and no longer righteous = not saved. Repent = forgiven = saved again? This happens at least 5 times a day, being in and out of salvation?

[/quote]

It become a yo-yo when as MM said, our salvation is like a on/off switch. But I don't feel my salvation is like a yo-yo or an on/off switch, because, I have anchored my faith in Christ and ask his forgiveness more than one time a day whether I sinned or not, thus, salvation for me is a fix and concrete thing. Anyway we are saved by the grace of God through faith. Which tome means:
1. An Objective truth, that Christ had saved me through his redemption death, that gives life to sinners
2. A subjective truth, that salvation is secured as long we anchored our faith in Christ.

"But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him. But we are not those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who BELIEVE AND ARE SAVED. - Hebrews 10:38, 39.

In His love

James, I'm asking this because you wrote, "Of course when we sinned we are no longer righteous. The moment we repent and ask God forgiveness, when he forgives, we are just and righteous again."

If we're not righteous the moment we sin, then how can we be saved? That would mean that one is saved, but not righteous. Is that what you mean to say?

It depends on the person. Judas sinned and was not saved. King Saul sinned and was not saved. And the list goes on. However, Moses sinned and was saved. King David sinned and was saved. And the list goes on. So, what makes the difference? Sinning is sinning, so there's no difference on that account. "All have sinned." And the wages of sin is damnation and death not pardon and salvation.

I believe the difference has to do with the person who sins. If it is in their heart to repent the moment they sin, if it is their habit to repent the moment they sin, then it stands to reason they do not forfeit their salvation when they sin. Technically, I suppose, they are lost while in the throes of sinning, but in practicality they are saved since inevitably they will repent. The same thing applies if they should die while in the throes of sinning.

If this is your view, then I'm confused for, according to this view, a comparison of salvation with a light switch does not make sense. It didn't work like a light switch for Moses, and it doesn't work like that for other sincere Christians.

Let me try asking the question another way. Had Moses hit the rock, and died, before having a chance to repent, would have he have been lost? I'm guessing you would say, no, he would have been lost, because God knew that had he lived, he would have repented. Is this right? If so, then doesn't it follow that Moses did not lose his salvation?

Tom and Rosangela, salvation is based on two things, namely, the imputed and imparted righteousness of Jesus. Sinning cancels the privileges of salvation. Experiencing the gift of repentance restores it. In the same way sinning would have disqualified Jesus, so too, sinning disqualifies us. Moses sinned and died in a save state because he repented.

Had he refused to repent he would have died lost. But it was his custom to repent. Had he died in the throes of sinning, I have no doubt God would have imputed repentance. "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." (Rom 4:7, 8) "All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death." (1 John 5:17)

“All that man can do without Christ is polluted with selfishness and sin; but that which is wrought through faith is acceptable to God. {FW 94.1} “While good works will not save even one soul, yet it is impossible for even one soul to be saved without good works. {FW 111.1} “Our good works alone will not save any of us, but we cannot be saved without good works. {AG 309.3}

“Faith and works go together, believing and doing are blended. The Lord requires no less of the soul now, than He required of Adam in Paradise before he fell -- perfect obedience, unblemished righteousness. {1SM 373.1} “Those who profess great faith, yet have not works, will not be saved by their faith. {2T 657.2}

“All who are saved must fight manfully as soldiers of Jesus Christ; then they will be registered in heaven's books as true and faithful. They are to work the works of Jesus Christ, fight the good fight of faith. {UL 377.6} “Keeping the commandments of God requires of us good works, self-denial, self-sacrifice, and devotion for the good of others, not that our good works alone can save us, but that we surely cannot be saved without good works. {TMK 334.3}

“All that man can do without Christ is polluted with selfishness and sin; but that which is wrought through faith is acceptable to God. {FW 94.1}

"Nothing less than repentance, confession, and forsaking of sin is acceptable to God. {1T 536.2}

"Only the service that is performed in sincerity, with a humble, contrite heart, is acceptable to God. {UL 73.5}

"We need to realize the necessity of exercising that faith which is acceptable to God -- the faith which works by love and purifies the soul. {UL 75.3}

"The root must be holy, else there can be no sound, healthy fruit, which alone is acceptable to God. The heart must be converted and consecrated. The motives must be right. {7T 248.3}

"In order to serve Him aright, we must be born of the divine Spirit. This will purify the heart and renew the mind, giving us a new capacity for knowing and loving God. It will give us a willing obedience to all His requirements. This is true worship. It is the fruit of the working of the Holy Spirit. By the Spirit every sincere prayer is indited, and such prayer is acceptable to God. {DA 189.2}

PS - Some say all such fruit bearing is unacceptable to God. The evidence suggests otherwise.

When we sinned we are no longer a righteous person, the wage of sin is death, we deserve to die, but Christ has died for us in order we may live. He had saved us unto eternal life, it is only a question of: could we maintain this salvation in our life? How? Through faith!

Does a person lost his salvation the moment he sinned? I think, NO! He is not lost yet, TILL the time God closed "the door of mercy" for him. Until then, he was still safe but not righteous, he becomes righteous again the moment he repent!!

In His love

How could a person repent the MOMENT he sinned? I never hear such thing!! He may repent but at least some minutes later, or maybe hour or days...

In His love

If God would have imputed repentance to Moses, then he didn't lose his salvation when he sinned. It seems to be clear this is what you believe. I don't understand your reticence in answering my question "No, Moses did not lose his salvation."

Just to be clear, this *is* what you believe, isn't it? Moses did not lose his salvation when he sinned.

Regarding how a person is saved, the clearest explanation I've seen of this, from the SOP, is the following:

We only lost our salvation at the day when our "door of mercy" is closed, while we are still a sinner. But when it closes while we are a righteous man, then we have succeeded in maintaining our salvation.

Anyway, Christ had saved us till eternal life in heaven and the new world, his work was complete and perfect. Nothing else could be added to what he has done for men, as a perfect free gift. The matter is only: Can we maintain this free gift in our possession till the end of our day or the end of time? How to maintain it? Through faith in Jesus Christ!

And during that time in our daily life, when we sinned, we are not lost, but we are not righteous anymore, till the time we repent and ask God forgiveness. The process of sanctification of a believer since the day he was made new, is not a perfect sinless life all the time, but a life that was messed with sins, some times very cruel sins. But he was not lost, not yet, only until the day God closed "the door of mercy" for him.

At least this is what I believe.

In His love

Any comment MM of my idea? Are we still in disagreement about salvation as an on/off switch? How about you Tom?

In His love

James, I disagree that one can be simultaneously saved but not righteous. However, I agree with you that salvation is not like a yo-yo, or an on-off switch.

Technically they repent a second after they sin. But anyone who waits minutes or hours or days to repent must explain to God why they waited, why they didn't repent immediately.

Moses didn't lose his salvation because he repented. Had he not repented he would have been lost.

You wrote, "We only lost our salvation at the day when our 'door of mercy' is closed, while we are still a sinner." I believe we can shut the "door of mercy" before we die or before probation closes for mankind. In this sense, we turn off the switch.

You also wrote, "And during that time in our daily life, when we sinned, we are not lost, but we are not righteous anymore, till the time we repent and ask God forgiveness." How can we be saved and unrighteous at the same time?

What I was asking is if Moses was lost *before* he repented. I was very clear about this. Before Moses repented, he hadn't repented, so you can't say he wasn't lost because he repented, because he hadn't. It sounded to me like you were saying earlier that God imputed repentance to Moses. Isn't this what you said? If this is the case, then Moses didn't lost his salvation, but not because he had repented, since he hadn't.

I don't believe God imputed repentance in Moses' case. I believe Moses was repentant the instant he sinned.

Before you wrote:



So if Moses had died in the throes of sinning, God would have imputed repentance, which is what I said. So, unless you're changing your mind, what I said was accurate.

At any rate, I reread some of the posts, and I think I'm understanding your thought. Your thought is that it was in Moses' heart to repent if he sinned, and as soon as he sinned, he started to repent. So Moses wouldn't have been lost had he dies as he was sinning, because had he not died at that moment he would have repented. So Moses was saved because of the condition of his heart, not because of what he was or wasn't actually doing the moment he hypothetically would have died. You would agree with this?

I don't take it, if we say "I believe". Let's see what the bible or SOP said, did Moses instantly repent the moment he sinned? Was he aware of his sin and repent the moment he sinned? Proof it!

In His love

I think it has more to do with God imputing the repentance Moses would have experienced.


Same answer.

I'm basing what I believe on the following insights:

Why do you think this makes sense? I can understand the concept that God would consider the condition of a person's heart, and make a decision regarding that, but to make eternal decisions based on what a person might have done in the future certainly isn't just.

You wrote, "So Moses was saved because of the condition of his heart . . ." had he died before being able to repent. This doesn't sound right to me. It's missing something. I think it's missing the importance of the relationship between repentance, pardon, and salvation.

No it's not. I understood you to say something like that Moses had it in his heart to repent, even as he was sinning. Given this was the case, his heart was such that he never wished to be separated from Christ. His fall was an aberration. As EGW put it elsewhere, it's not the occasional good deed or bad deed that sets the character, but the trend of the life. Everything about Moses demonstrated the condition of his heart, that he was a man of God, and right with God.

This makes more sense to me than the idea that God would look into the future and see what Moses might have done, and make a decision based on that (which is what I understood to be what you were saying).

Salvation is based on what Jesus does for us and through us. Repentance and pardon and righteousness are necessary. God cannot save us without them. If we should die before we are able to repent, whether sins of ignorance or known sins, repentance and pardon and righteousness are necessary for God to save us. God cannot simply ignore them and save us anyhow. He must, therefore, impute repentance and righteousness. He can do so if it is our habit to repent if we sin.

He can do so if it is our habit to repent if we sin because if it's in our habit to do so, that demonstrates our heart, or character.

There's no arbitrary requirement saying God has to have repentance. The issue has not to do with any needs on God's part, but on the simple reality of whether the person, if taken to heaven, would be happen.



This sets forth the reality. Those who reject God would find no joy in heaven. It would be hell for them (showing that hell is not a matter of physical fire, but of character). Why? Because of their heart, or character.

And whether heaven would remain a happy, harmonious place if the person entered. Sin brings disharmony and all the messy/painful conditions we see on earth. No one with a rebellious spirit will enter.

All the believer's plans and purposes need to come into harmony with heaven. When a sinner once beholds the love of God, as seen in the sacrifice of His Son, and yields to the divine influence, a change of heart takes place, and Christ becomes all and in all.

One rebellious, disobedient person, would spoil all the harmony of heaven.

Tom, who, more than A&E, was ready for heaven after they sinned? And yet their one sin made repentance necessary. Repentqance is prerequiste.

I said that.

Good. I'm glad we agree repentance is necessary. I also happen to believe God cannot save sinners without it. In those cases where death occurred before repentance happened, I believe God must impute repentance and righteousness in order to pardon and save them. You seem to disagree.

"Repentance" comes from the Greek words "meta noya", which means "after mind". The idea is that one used to think one way, but now thinks another. When one chooses the way of sin, one has embarked upon a direction, the end of which is death. God knows the end from the beginning, and warns of this end.

It is because sin involves a destination that asking if one sin is sufficient to cause one to die is a moot question. The problem is the direction, one contrary to God. The number of sins is irrelevant. If one chooses to direct oneself aligned with God, that's what matters. Of course, if one is directed against God, then this requires repentance.

You seem to be seeing that there is some arbitrary need for repentance in order for God to be able to repent, as if this were some sort of a rule restraining God's behavior. I'm disagreeing with this idea.

What I view as the important thing is that the believer has chosen to align oneself with God. Moses sinned in a moment of weakness, but as you yourself pointed out, this was not what was in Moses' heart. Actually, your words were that Moses repented the instant he sinned, which demonstrates that it was no in Moses' heart to act contrary to God's wishes.

Moses was aligned with God, or, to put it another way, in harmony with God, and this was the important thing. No need for imputed repentance!

My idea is when a man sinned, he is not lost at the moment he sinned. His salvation is granted and will be his forever as long he may hold his faith. He is only lost when God closed the door of mercy for him while he is in sin, because he has no more time for repentance.

We are only lost when we still have sins unrepentant when God closed our "door of mercy", before that we are still considered in a safe condition, because eternal life is still ours.

Christ had saved us once and forever, he had given us the right to live again even we must die because of our sins.

In His love

Do you agree he was not in harmony with God when he sinned? Assuming you do, do you also agree repentance was required?

What do you mean by "not in harmony"? Given what I understand your understanding of "required" to be, I would say no, Moses' repentance was not required. Given my understanding (as explained above, in post #122332) I would say it was.

I assume you agree with me that Moses was not in harmony with God when he sinned.

Do you agree Moses was not in harmony with God while in the throes of sinning?

What do you mean by "not in harmony"? What's your point?

Here's my point. Had Moses died when he struck the rock, he would have been saved, because of the condition of his heart (or character).



Moses had been revealing his character all along. A moment of weakness did not cause him to be lost.

I mean sinning is not acting in harmony with God's will. Do you agree?

My point is repentance is required. He could not be saved without it. Do you agree?

You're seriously asking this? Yes, I agree, sinning is contrary to God's will.



As I said twice, no, I do not agree, given how I perceive you to understood "required." As I understand "required," however, I would agree.

It sounds like you believe the condition of Moses' heart would have served as repentance if he had died before repenting.

No.

Interesting. Do you think the condition of his heart would have rendered repentance unnecessary?

It is because of the condition of his heart that he repented deeply and immediately.

I mean if he had died before repenting.

The condition of his heart was such that he repented deeply and immediately. Dying before repenting would not have changed this.

Dying before repenting radically changes things. It means sin was not repented of. Repentance is required. Here's how Ellen White explains it:

Those who have not humbled their souls before God in acknowledging their guilt, have not yet
38
fulfilled the first condition of acceptance. If we have not experienced that repentance which is not to be repented of, and have not with true humiliation of soul and brokenness of spirit confessed our sins, abhorring our iniquity, we have never truly sought for the forgiveness of sin; and if we have never sought, we have never found the peace of God. The only reason why we do not have remission of sins that are past is that we are not willing to humble our hearts and comply with the conditions of the word of truth. Explicit instruction is given concerning this matter. Confession of sin, whether public or private, should be heartfelt and freely expressed. It is not to be urged from the sinner. It is not to be made in a flippant and careless way, or forced from those who have no realizing sense of the abhorrent character of sin. The confession that is the outpouring of the inmost soul finds its way to the God of infinite pity. The psalmist says, "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." Psalm 34:18. {SC 37.4}

True confession is always of a specific character, and acknowledges particular sins. They may be of such a nature as to be brought before God only; they may be wrongs that should be confessed to individuals who have suffered injury through them; or they may be of a public character, and should then be as publicly confessed. But all confession should be definite and to the point, acknowledging the very sins of which you are guilty. {SC 38.1}

This clearly isn't addressing Moses' situation. For example:



This isn't Moses.

Moses' situation is that his repentance was immediate and deep. This is what was in his heart. If it was in his heart to repent, I don't see where you're seeing a problem.

There's also the statement that tells us that our destiny is set by our character, which is not determined by the occasional good deed or misdeed, but by the trend of the life. What was the trend of Moses' life?

And what of sin if people like Moses die before they can repent? Does God take it for granted that they would have repented?

I suspect that true repentance is a condition of the heart, invisible to man. Only God can discern the true condition of the heart. Even if someone openly repents for sin it may not be truely sincere. I also suspect that the physical act of confessing sin and asking for forgiveness is a fruit that results from repentance within the heart. Without any resultant fruit, the spirit of a repentant man is dead.

Is actual repentance necessary? That is, is it necessary to go through the motion of repenting? Or, does the condition of the heart count as repentance? And, if someone like Moses dies in the throes of sinning, before being able to repent, is God legally obligated to impute repentance to pardon and save them?

An excellent question. I honestly do not know.

It doesn't matter. God considers the person as they are (at the moment of death), and decides if the person would be happy in heaven or not. If so, the person is resurrected in the first resurrection. If not, in the second.



No, God isn't legally obligated to impute repentance to pardon and save them. There's nothing in the law which says this is necessary. Besides, the issue isn't a legal one, but a real one. That is, the legal system is a recognition of reality; it doesn't create any new reality. The law is a transcript of God's character. Even without the law, if a person were out of harmony with God's character, he would be unhappy in heaven. The law was given to convict people of sin, so they would see their need of Christ, so they could be reconciled to God. It doesn't constrain God in any way.

Tom, you seem to be saying repentance is optional not prerequisite.

PS - I'm referring specifically to the scenario articulated above.

JCS, yeah, I know what you mean. It makes sense to me to believe God imputes repentance in cases like the one described above. If Jesus can die on their behalf, if His righteousness can count for their righteousness, I don't see why He can't repent on their behalf.

In the scenario you outlined, as soon as Moses was resurrected, he would have repented. The character doesn't change when one is resurrected.



The question to ask is a simple one. Would Moses, if transported to heaven, with his character such as it was when he died, be happy? Or would heaven be torture for him? If the former, he would be resurrected in the first resurrection. Clearly Moses would be happy in heaven. Therefore the timing of his death is irrelevant.

People like Moses will repent soon after being resurrected. Interesting! My initial response is - I like it. But what about the pre-advent, investigative judgment? Is it assumed such people will repent? And is pardon written next to that sin? Or, does Jesus simply impute repentance knowing they will repent when they're resurrected?

I suggested Moses would have repented had he died when sinning because:

1.The character won't change when one is resurrected.
2.The thoughts will continue as they were when one died, so it seems very likely, besides thoughts of "where am I?" that Moses would be thinking about what he was doing when he died.

Regarding what needs to be done, it's simple! God looks at the person's heart (or character). That's all that's needed. Ask the question, "Would Moses (or whoever) be happy in heaven." If yes, include him in the first resurrection (or zap him up right away in the case of Moses); if not, in the second.

Would you mind answering my questions?

Regarding the investigative judgment, it's the same as with Moses. God knows the heart, and based on that, answers the question of whether the person would be happy in heaven or not, the same as I explained for Moses.

Thank you. But I'm still not sure what you believe about repentance. When do you think it is necessary to repent? That is, to actually say to God, "Lord, I have sinned against you. I failed to keep my eyes on Jesus and I was irritable and impatient with my wife just now. I am so sorry. I've made things right with her. So, please forgive me and empower me to stay connected to Jesus from now on so I can be kind and loving and patient like Jesus at all times, which is pleasing to you." When do you think it is necessary to repent like this?

Hi Mike,

Repentance is required, even for King David, a man after God's own heart.

Without repentance there can be no reconciliation, and even God leads us to repentance through His goodness. (Romans 2:4)

"The life we live is to be one of continual repentance and humility. We need to repent constantly, that we may be constantly victorious. When we have true humility, we have victory". 7BC 959 - MS 92, 1901.

"Repentance" in the Greek consists of the words "meta" and "noya" which means "after" "mind," the idea being that before you thought one way, but now another. One needs to repent when one is aligned in a different direction from God.

It sounds like you're saying repentance restores people to the mind of Jesus. What do you mean by "one needs to repent when"? Are people like Moses misaligned when they sin? If so, do they "need" to receive and experience the gift of repentance before the relationship their sin severed can be restored? If so, do you believe the following insights explain what you think "needs" to happen?

This isn't what I was saying, but I'm not averse to this. Sounds like a good thought.



I mean that if X is the case, one needs to repent.



Being misaligned is simply another way of saying one is rebelling. If one is rebelling against God, one needs to be stopped, in order to be restored to harmony with God.

Do you believe the following insights explain what you think "needs" to happen? (see quotes above)

Do people like Moses "rebel" when they sin?

This is talking about when a sinner first comes to Christ, which wasn't Moses' situation.



This is too vague a question to give a blanket answer. Moses, and people like him, have free will, so it's possible that they could rebel when they sin.

It sounds like you're saying pre-conversion repentance is different than post-conversion repentance. If so, how so?

The pre-conversion repentance described in the SC quotation you described is for someone who is not a child of God. Such a repentance involves an entire change of life. A child of God is born again, and may fall, but such would repentance would necessarily be of a different character, since the person already knows God, and is a child of God. Make sense?

Yes, it makes sense. But in what way does repentance differ before and after rebirth? Is it less concise, less specific, less heartfelt, less life changing, less necessary? Or, are all thing equal in these ways?

You should be able to answer these questions by experience.

Repentance deepens! But your unwillingness to answer my questions is less than endearing. I have no idea what you believe. It is my goal to understand your position.

I answered your questions. Except for this last one, I answered in my own words. This last one I answered by saying you should know by considering your own experience.

Regarding understanding my position, I stated it. Repentance represents a change of mind, a change of direction. That's it in a nutshell. I went in more detail in previous posts.

Since the title of this topic is “I have some questions”, now I’m stepping in a new question, please read these verses:

Matthew 16:19 – I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

John 20: 22, 23 - 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

SDA’s are keen to preach about the RC’s doctrines which are against the bible teaching, including me. We said that Jesus is the only mediator between men and God, and if we want to ask our sins to be forgiven, then we must ask directly to God, not to the pastor.

RC doctrine is that people must go to their pastor for asking God forgiveness, and we are greatly against it. But, read the texts above, didn’t they (RC pastors, pontiff’s) has the right to do it? We can not blame them for that, and making this as one of all other signs of the great Babylon.

What do you think?

In His love

This seems like quite a good explanation to me.

Tom, so you believe "repentance" is a "change of mind". Do you think it involves confession and forgiveness?

James, I agree with the quote Tom posted.

"Repentance" comes from the Greek words "meta noya", which means "after mind". The idea is that one used to think one way, but now thinks another. When one chooses the way of sin, one has embarked upon a direction, the end of which is death. God knows the end from the beginning, and warns of this end....

What I view as the important thing is that the believer has chosen to align oneself with God. Moses sinned in a moment of weakness, but as you yourself pointed out, this was not what was in Moses' heart. Actually, your words were that Moses repented the instant he sinned, which demonstrates that it was no in Moses' heart to act contrary to God's wishes.

Moses was aligned with God, or, to put it another way, in harmony with God, and this was the important thing. No need for imputed repentance!

(This is from post #122332)

Regarding whether it involves confession and forgiveness, I'm not sure what you're asking about on the forgiveness part. Do you forgiving others? Regarding confession, one would have repented will confess. The same could be said of restitution. Zacharius is an example.

Tom, here's how "repent" is used in Acts:

Acts
2:37 Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?
2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
26:20 But showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Do you think repentance is conversion, change of mind, change of direction, living in harmony with the will of God? Or, do you think it results in it?

Do you think post-conversion confession and forgiveness is unnecessary for people like Moses who sin?

Repentance comes from the two words "meta" and "noya" in the Greek, which means "after" and "mind." It means "after mind." That is, before you thought one way, now you think another. They heard the Gospel, it pricked their hearts, and they changed their minds, or way of thinking. Their new way of thinking led to new actions.

Tom, this topic still bothered me.

Can you help me by giving the name of weekly days in Greek of the 1st century. I want to make sure that when John wrote this revelation (+/- 97 AD), the name of the 1st day is not kuriake hemera.

In His love

hemera heli(o)u, hemera selenes, hemera Areos, hemera Hermu, hemera Dios, hemera Aphrodites, hemera Khronu. (http://www.cjvlang.com/Dow/dow1.html)

Starting with Sunday, and ending with Saturday.

This doesn't speak of the timing as to when "day of the Lord" started being used. The following does, however:



I think this quote is "from Sabbath to Sunday."

It sounds like you're saying the words repentance and rebirth mean the same thing. What biblical word do you use to describe people who specify how they sinned and express genuine sorrow? And, do you think doing so is necessary?

Did you mean, that when John wrote Revelation, at that time the name of the 1st day in Greek commonly used is "hemera heli(o)u and not "kuriake hemera"? If so, when the change happen? Is there any evedence, writings from those time about this change?

In His love

Samuel Bacciochi wrote a book, called "From Sabbath to Sunday" which goes into detail about how this change took place. As I stated, according to this book, this phrase first started to appear near the end part of the second century, or about 100 years after John wrote Revelation.

The book goes into the evidence.

Why do you think this? I just explained what "repentance" means, from the Greek.



Generally speaking, in Scripture, the "after mind" involves this. (one could repent for other things, such as God repented for having made man, but usually the context is man's repenting for having sinned.) That is, before one didn't see one's responsibility, or guilt, but after the light, or truth, is received, one sees one's responsibility/guilt, and this "after mind" results in godly sorrow.



I assume by "necessary" you mean a necessary part of being born again? If so, yes, it's necessary that we see our sin in its true light.

Tom, where does repentance happen in the sequence you described? That is, does it happen before or after they "changed their minds or way of thinking"?

And, is repentance required when people like Moses sin after "one sees one's responsibility/guilt" and experiences a "change of mind or way of thinking"? IOW, when is post-conversion confession and repentance necessary? Under what circumstances is it required (referring to people like Moses)?

And, do you think habitual real righteousness (as opposed to imputed), like people like Moses regularly experience, counts as confession and repentance when they sin (making it unnecessary to actually verbalize it)?

PS - It would be nice if you would elaborate on your answers so I don't have to ask the obvious follow-up questions. Thank you.

I wasn't aware of describing this in terms of a sequence.



I don't know what "it" is. I'm guessing perhaps you're talking about specifying sin (confession) and genuine sorrow. If so, obviously confession would follow repentance. Regarding genuine sorrow, that's part and parcel to repentance, in the context of conversion.



I don't think "required" makes sense in this question. I've addressed this quite a number of times on this thread.

It's not an arbitrary requirement.

As I already explained, repentance involved a change of direction. If one is aligned against God, it's necessary to change one's alignment in order to aligned with God. Or, to put it another way, if one is in rebellion against God, to be at peace with God, one must stop rebelling (i.e., one must repent).



When one has gone the wrong way.



Same answer.



I don't think in these terms. That is, "counts as confession and repentance." There's no arbitrary requirement for these things. There's no need for something to count as these things.



It would be nice if I weren't asked the same questions so many times. Usually I answer with more detail when the questions are first asked, but as the questions are repeated, I become briefer.

M: When is post-conversion confession and repentance necessary?

T: When one has gone the wrong way.

----

When people like Moses "go the wrong way" and dies before they can confess and repent, how does God handle that unconfessed, unrepented sin during judgment? Does He look at their life of habitual righteousness and disregard their unconfessed, unrepented sin? If not, what does God do about it in judgment?

MM, I explained things in terms of rebellion. Do you think Moses was in rebellion?

Let's try looking at it a different way. God will take anyone to heaven who would be happy there. Do you think Moses would have been happy in heaven had he died before he had a chance to repent?

MM.

I don't believe that God put to death some one who is happy to live and work for Him before this man repent from his sin.

God wants all men saved and have eternal life.

So, you and Tom are digging the possibilities if Moses died before he repents, whether he goes to heaven or hell, I think is just wasting time.

Sorry, for this idea coming up in my head.

In His love

God will take only those who are prepared for heaven, and they will rejoice and be happy to be there...the thief on the cross had a few moments to choose but he was ready...

It comes to the same thing, as only those who are prepared for heaven would be happy there.

James, it sounds like you believe God will not allow certain people to die before they can repent. Do you think repenting is necessary to be saved? Or, can God save people whether they repent or not?

Did A&E rebel when they sinned? When is sinning not rebellion? Did Moses know he was sinning against God? To answer your question, yes, I suspect Moses was in a state of rebellion when he sinned. I take it you don't.

To answer your other question, yes, I think Moses would have been happy in heaven had died before being able to repent. I take it you agree.

Now, please address my questions.

Yes.



When it's not done with the intent of acting contrary to God's will.



I think his sin was of the nature of a mistake, of not controlling his emotions, as opposed to a sin of intentionally acting contrary to God's will.



I said this before, so, yes, I agree with what I said.

Do you think Moses sinned ignorantly, that he didn't realize he had sinned? Or, do you think he knew what he was doing was a sin against God?

I think his sin was of the nature of a mistake, of not controlling his emotions, as opposed to a sin of intentionally acting contrary to God's will.

When he lost his temper, he, of course, realized he had done wrong.

Was it necessary for him to repent? Please explain your answer.

Necessary in what way? (i.e., to accomplish what?)

It was natural for him to repent. If you lose your temper with someone, don't you repent?

Yes, when I lose my temper I am quick to repent. Why? For two reasons: 1) I am genuinely sorry for misrepresenting Jesus and for offending God and the person or people affected, and 2) the law requires it.

Do you think the law requires people like Moses to repent? If not, why not? If so, why? Please explain your answer. Thank you.

What law are you thinking of here?

I think reason 1) is excellent, but reason 2) is a poor reason. 1) should be sufficient, right?

Tom, I believe the law demands, requires many things. The following passages articulates some of them. Please note the role repentance plays.

"Christ was to die as man's substitute. Man was a criminal under the sentence of death for transgression of the law of God, as a traitor, a rebel; hence a substitute for man must die as a malefactor, because He stood in the place of the traitors, with all their treasured sins upon His divine soul. It was not enough that Jesus should die in order to fully meet the demands of the broken law, but He died a shameful death. {5BC 1127.4}

"The many would not comply with the conditions required of them that they might be partakers of His great salvation. They would prefer sin and transgression of the law of God rather than repentance and obedience, relying by faith upon the merits of the sacrifice offered. {SR 48.2}

"Multitudes have been living in transgression of God's law, and now He in mercy calls them to obey its sacred precepts. All who will put away their sins by repentance toward God and faith in Christ are offered pardon. {PP 102.1}

"Christ satisfied the demands of the law in His human nature. He bore the curse of the law for the sinner, made an atonement for him, "that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Genuine faith appropriates the righteousness of Christ, and the sinner is made an overcomer with Christ; for he is made a partaker of the divine nature, and thus divinity and humanity are combined. {FW 93.3}

"By faith he can bring to God the merits of Christ, and the Lord places the obedience of His Son to the sinner's account. Christ's righteousness is accepted in place of man's failure, and God receives, pardons, justifies, the repentant, believing soul, treats him as though he were righteous, and loves him as He loves His Son. This is how faith is accounted righteousness; and the pardoned soul goes on from grace to grace, from light to a greater light. {FW 101.1}

"Does God turn from justice in showing mercy to the sinner? No; God cannot dishonor His law by suffering it to be transgressed with impunity. Under the new covenant, perfect obedience is the condition of life. If the sinner repents and confesses his sins, he will find pardon. By Christ's sacrifice in his behalf, forgiveness is secured for him. Christ has satisfied the demands of the law for every repentant, believing sinner. {AG 138.4}

" Jesus suffered the extreme penalty of the law for our transgression, and justice was fully satisfied. The law is not abrogated; it has not lost one jot of its force. Instead, it stands forth in holy dignity, Christ's death on the cross testifying to its immutability. Its demands have been met, its authority maintained. {HP 15.3}

"The gospel of Christ is the Good News of grace, or favor, by which man may be released from the condemnation of sin and enabled to render obedience to the law of God. The gospel points to the moral code as a rule of life. That law, by its demands for undeviating obedience, is continually pointing the sinner to the gospel for pardon and peace. {2MCP 563.2}

"God always demanded good works, the law demands it, but because man placed himself in sin where his good works were valueless, Jesus' righteousness alone can avail. {OHC 122.2}

"God demands of us perfect obedience to His law-- the expression of His character. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law" (Rom. 3:31). This law is the echo of God's voice, saying to us, Holier, yes, holier still. Desire the fullness of the grace of Christ; yea, long--hunger and thirst-- after righteousness. The promise is, "Ye shall be filled." Let your heart be filled with an intense longing for this righteousness, the work of which God's Word declares is peace, and its effect quietness and assurance forever. {3SM 202.5}

MM, none of these things you quoted is the law. These are all statements from the SOP. I'm asking you what law is it that you see that demands repentance.

When I see the expression "the law," I think of the 10 commandments. Did you have this in mind when you said the law demands repentance? Or something else.

I'm asking what you had in mind by "the law."

Please refer to the law named in the many passages I posted above. That is the law I'm referring to. Did you happen to notice the role of repentance as it relates to the law? Did you see where the law requires repentance? Or, do you think the passages above say repentance is not required?

PS - If the law requires love, is it difficult to believe it also requires repentance?

Perhaps the following passages can help clarify the role of repentance as it relates to the requirements of the law:

The sinner may err, but he is not cast off without mercy. His only hope, however, is repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the Father's prerogative to forgive our transgressions and sins, because Christ has taken upon Himself our guilt and reprieved us, imputing to us His own righteousness. His sacrifice satisfies fully the demands of justice. {FW 103.3}

Jesus suffered the extreme penalty of the law for our transgression, and justice was fully satisfied. The law is not abrogated; it has not lost one jot of its force. Instead, it stands forth in holy dignity, Christ's death on the cross testifying to its immutability. Its demands have been met, its authority maintained. {HP 15.3}

Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man's stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon. {AG 139.2}

God requires that we confess our sins, and humble our hearts before Him; but at the same time we should have confidence in Him as a tender Father, who will not forsake those who put their trust in Him. . . . God does not give us up because of our sins. We may make mistakes, and grieve His Spirit; but when we repent, and come to Him with contrite hearts, He will not turn us away. There are hindrances to be removed. Wrong feelings have been cherished, and there have been pride, self-sufficiency, impatience, and murmurings. All these separate us from God. Sins must be confessed; there must be a deeper work of grace in the heart. {AG 139.3}

PS - Repentance is required to restore sinners to obedience free of condemnation. Otherwise the law considers them guilty and worthy of death.

MM, what law do you have in mind? The 10 commandments? Or something else?

MM, regarding the passages you cited, I didn't see that any of them addressed my question to you. If you see that some quote does, you quote requote just that one quote, and explain how you see it addresses my question, although that's a bit of overkill, as I'm simply asking you which law you think it is that demands, or requires, repentance.

Tom, I am reposting this:

PS - Do you believe the 10Cs require love, obedience, conformity to the will of God? And, do you believe it points sinners to Jesus as their only hope of salvation? Finally, do you believe it requires sinners to repent and submit to the will of God?

Mike, I don't understand you're reticence to answer. Are you saying the 10 commandments require repentance?

Regarding love, the following comes to mind:



Notice that "love cannot be commanded."

Tom, I've posted close to a dozen passages that describe the requirements of the law of God. It is obvious to me they are speaking of the 10Cs. So, yes, I'm saying the 10Cs require many things of us - love, obedience, godliness, the fruits of the Spirit, repentance, etc. Regarding commanding love, Jesus said, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." Ellen White elaborated:

"The law of God requires that man shall love God supremely, and his neighbor as himself. When through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, this is perfectly done, we shall be complete in Christ. {AG 145.6}

"The divine law requires us to love God supremely and our neighbor as ourselves. Without the exercise of this love, the highest profession of faith is mere hypocrisy. {NL 32.1}

"Obedience to the law is essential, not only to our salvation, but to our own happiness and the happiness of all with whom we are connected. {NL 32.2}

"The obedience that Christ rendered God requires from human beings today. He served His Father with love, in willingness and freedom. {COL 282.3}

PS - Tom, please answer the questions I posted previously (see above on this page). Thank you.

Not as an arbitrary requirement, no. I see this being the case in descriptive terms. That is, the law of God does not specify that one needs to do a certain thing, like repent, or else one will suffer an arbitrary penalty, but rather, it specifies that certain types of behavior are self-destructive.

Remember that the law of God is a transcript of God's character, who is love. Therefore love is the fulfilling of the law, and the law can be seen as specifications as to what it means to love.

A way of looking at this is that nothing more or less is required with or without the law. The difference is that the law makes specific certain things, so that people will better understand God's character and more readily see their need for Christ.

I don't understand why you didn't simply answer my question the first time I asked it. It's difficult to recall a train of thought like this.

If you look at the Ten Commandments, there's nothing in there which specifies anything about repentance. Repentance is necessary just on the basis of common sense. If you are heading in one direction, and it's the wrong direction, given that your intended destination is in the other direction, you need to stop going the wrong way. This is what repentance involves; a change of direction, a change of thought, a change of heart and of mind. There's no need for a separate "requirement" for these things. Again, common sense dictates that one must repent if one hates God and the principles of His government. If not, how could one hope to be happy in God's presence and among those who abide by His principles?

Does common sense dictate that it is necessary for people like Moses, who love God and the principles of His government, to repent when they sin? And, why do you think the law of God (10Cs) excludes such common sense?

To the first question, yes. To the second, you're assuming a false premise.

So, repentance is necessary for people like Moses who sin. But, according to you, common sense, not the law, dictates that it is necessary. Is this what you believe? If so, why do you think the law fails to specify something so logical, so sensible as repentance?

More questions: Do you think the law requires something so logical, so sensible as love? And, do you think the law points sinners to Jesus as their one and only Savior? If so, where in the law does it say so? Also, do you agree the SOP says both the law and God require love?

PS - By "law" I am referring to the 10Cs.

"People like Moses"? I didn't say anything about "people like Moses."



I said common sense tells us if we're going one way, and we wish to go another, we need to change direction. What I'm reacting to is the sense I get from reading what you're saying that you are suggesting an arbitrary requirement of the law for repentance, as if the law didn't exist, it wouldn't be necessary to repent. I disagree with this. Even without the law, repentance would be necessary, for the reasons common sense tells us. The law adds no more requirement for repentance than already existed.



I don't think so.



You've read the 10 commandments. Which of these do you think speaks of repentance being necessary?



If you're going to use the word "require," then that sounds like you're looking at things in a narrow way, in terms of an arbitrary requirement, which wouldn't exist without the law, in which case, no. However, the law is spiritual, as Jesus Christ explained. It is a transcript of God's character. As such, it is "exceeding broad."

I think this is getting off the point, however. In terms of Moses, I believe that had he died, before having the chance to repent, that he would have been happy in heaven, so God would have taken him there. I believe God will take everyone to heaven who will be happy there.

I believe the law is a tool to lead us to Christ. That is its primary function. From Christ we receive life. The law helps make clear to us our need of Christ.

Yes you did. Please see your post above.


Can't you say the same thing about all 10 commandments? That is, wouldn't they still be necessary even if the law didn't exist? And yet the law demands obedience. Do you agree? And, do you agree the law demands, requires love? If so, do you think it also demands, requires repentance when people like Moses sin?


Do you think common sense, not the law, dictates that repentance is necessary when people like Moses sin?


The law as a whole requires it. It's one law, not ten. Do you agree?


Do you agree the SOP uses the word "require" as it relates to law and love and obedience? Please refer to the quotes I posted on the previous page.

Also, I agree with you that people like Moses will go to heaven if they sin and die before being able to repent. However, unlike you, I believe repentance is necessary and that God must impute it in such cases. It goes along with the reason why God must impute the blood and righteous of Jesus to atone for our past sins.

Do you mean this? "To the first question, yes. To the second, you're assuming a false premise." If so, that wasn't me, but you.



They would still be true, even if they hadn't been written down. Is that what you mean?



Not in the sense that I'm understanding from what you're writing. I see the law as descriptive, telling us how to live if we wish to have peace and life, and warning us of behavior which is self destructive. The Ten Commandments can also be seen as 10 promises of things which God will accomplish for us if we have faith in His Son. I don't see them as "requirements" in the sense that these are things we have to do because it says so. Even if these weren't written down, doing these things would still be the way to life and peace.



I think I've answered this. By the way, what law are thinking of? That is, which commandment did you have in mind?

Repentance is a change of mind, a change of direction. If we are in rebellion against God, and we wish to be at peace with God, we need to stop fighting against Him. Does this not make sense to you? I don't see what you think the law has to do with this. I'm not saying the law has nothing to do with this; I'm saying, I don't see what you think the law has to do with this. What I think the law has to do with this is it makes it evident to us that we are in rebellion.



Why do you think this? What specifically that is written down gives you this idea?



It's 10 Commandments. If I made the claim that the law required something, and somebody asked me which commandment said something, I'd be able to cite something to support my claim. Otherwise one could claim anything.



The law requires love and obedience in the sense that without love and obedience it is not possible to keep the law. But love cannot be commanded; it can only be awakened by love.





Impute it? That doesn't make any sense to me. Repentance is not something which is "imputed." It's experienced. Why do you think God must impute it?



I understand this to mean the same thing as our being clothed by the robe of Christ's righteousness. That is, God's imputing the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ to atone for our sins = by faith we are clothed with the robe of Christ's righteousness.

Do you think the law (10C) condemns those who sin? Do you think it points them to Jesus for pardon and salvation? If so, please show me where it says so.

"The Bible condemns every species of dishonesty, and demands right-doing under all circumstances. {FE 102.1} The law "points out our defects, and condemns us, but it has no power to save us. {RC 55.5} "The law condemns the sinner and drives him to Christ. It is God that justifies and pardons. {UL 377.4}

"The messenger should be able to say, "In the law is God's will; come, see for yourselves that the law is what Paul declared it to be--'holy, and just, and good.' "It reproves sin, it condemns the sinner, but it shows him his need of Christ, with whom is plenteous mercy and goodness and truth. Though the law cannot remit the penalty for sin, but charges the sinner with all his debt, Christ has promised abundant pardon to all who repent, and believe in His mercy. {1SM 371.1}

Regarding the first question, it says "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not." What do you think this means?

Regarding the second question, the Holy Spirit points sinners to Jesus Christ. He uses the law to help in this process. The law helps the sinner to recognize that he has done wrong and needs forgiveness.

I don't think the way God worded the ten commandments makes it clear the law condemns sinners or points them to Jesus for pardon and salvation. But elsewhere God says so very plainly, that is, He says the law condemns sinners and points them to Jesus for pardon and salvation. Similarly the law describes and demands love, faith, works, repentance, etc. "Thou shalt" and "thou shalt not" mean - While you're abiding in Jesus you will live in harmony with the will of God imitating the lovely example of Jesus. But the same law also condemns sinners to death. It does not and cannot pardon them. Instead, it points them to Jesus for pardon and salvation. And, yes, of course, the Holy Spirit helps them grasp the deeper and wider meaning of the law.

Again, though, do you agree the law requires people like Moses to repent when they sin and threatens condemnation and death if they don't repent and obey? Or, do you see the law as being more neutral, merely describing what it looks like when people are in harmony with the will of God, that it doesn't condemn them or require them to repent and obey?

This is their function, not their wording.



I agree with this completely.



Sure, in the same sense as what you just said. While one abides in Jesus, one lives in harmony with the law, imitating the lovely example of Jesus. This makes perfect sense, since the law is a transcript of God's character. By beholding we are transformed. So as we behold Jesus, we become like Him in character, which is tantamount to obeying the law.

Similarly, on the negative side, if we sin, we must die, since sin is based not on agape, but on selfishness, and selfishness can do no other but lead to misery and death.



The last points out the right way to live. The law is not a sentient being with the ability to pardon.



Not literally, but it performs this function, when the Holy Spirit uses it to bring about conviction of sin.



This looks like assuming a false premise here (e.g., that the truth must be one of these two things, or that these two things should be pitted against one another).

I think the law describes behavior which is in harmony with God's character. I think, on order to be like God in character (which is equivalent to saying obeying the law) one must know Christ (i.e. by born again/converted/pardoned/justified by faith; all synonyms), and repentance is a part of this process, as before uniting with Christ one must cease fighting against Him.

Tom, I'm glad we can agree on the points you named above. When Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments" I believe it means, If you love me I will be able to empower you to imitate my example of loving service and obedience.

I also believe the law of God requires people like Moses to repent when they sin. If they should die before being able to repent I believe God imputes the repentance they would have experienced had they not died. Since God knows the end from the beginning He knows with absolute certainty they would have repented. Such people will be holy and happy in heaven.

EGW wrote:



This is what I had in mind in regards to loving Christ and keeping His commandments.

Regarding God requiring people like Moses to repent when they sin, this is not a requirement on the part of God as if it's something God needs. Not at all. God, from His perspective, has already forgiven. It's a "requirement" in the sense that we cannot accept God's forgiveness unless we acknowledge that we've done something wrong and we need it.

I'm getting a feeling of deja-vu here.

There's no need for God to "impute" anything. Just as we don't need to impute anything to forgive someone else, neither does God. You either choose to forgive someone else, or you don't.

Whether a person would have repented, cut off from the chance to do so, can be seen from their character. Such people will be happy in holy in heaven because of their character.

Tom, taking your point a little further, is it possible to predict that such people will not sin when tempted, that they will imitate the example of Jesus and resist unto the honor and glory of God?

Assuming you're speaking of people who have died, yes.

Does it matter if the kind of people you described are dead or alive so far as predicting they will resist temptation and not sin? Or, concerning the living, do you think it is impossible to predict, based on character, they will not sin?

Yes, it matters. We know the character of the dead does not change after being resurrected. Therefore it must be possible to determine if they would be happy in heaven at the time of their death based on their character. This isn't necessarily the case for those who are living, although it could be (that is, some may have hardened their hearts and committed the unpardonable sin, and others may by like Job, whom God knows will not be shaken, no matter what happened).

What changes after people die that makes it possible to say with absolute certainty they will not sin after they are resurrected? And, why couldn't the same thing be said a month or two before they die?

Nothing changes *after* they die.



I said this might be possible.

Tom, do you think it is possible to postulate someone like Moses would have repented had they not died before being able to repent? And, do you think it counts as repentance? Or, do you think repentance in such cases is unnecessary? Also, do you think it is possible to postulate people like Moses will not sin?

Regarding the first question, I've said it's clear what Moses' heart (character) was. Regarding the second, I've said there's no need for anything "count" for repentance. Regarding the third, if Moses had died, no, no repentance would have been necessary (or possible, him being dead). Regarding the last, if you're talking about in heaven, yes, of course. Nobody in heaven will sin.

Here's how I see you answering the following questions:

1. Do you think it is possible to postulate someone like Moses would have repented had they not died before being able to repent?

T: Yes. People like Moses would have repented had they not died. Their characters make it possible for us to say, yes, they would have repented.

2. Do you think knowing they would have repented had they not died counts as repentance? Or, do you think repentance in such cases is unnecessary?

T: No to the first question, and yes to the second. People like Moses have characters that make repenting redundant. There is no need to repent when they sin because their characters make it clear they will be happy in heaven.

3. Do you think it is possible to postulate people like Moses will not sin?

T: Yes. People like Moses will not sin in heaven. It is also possible to say with absolute certainty, based solely on their characters, that people like Moses will not sin when tempted in this lifetime.

Ok.



Ok to the second question, but in regards to the first I don't think the concept of "counting towards repentance" makes sense, so I wouldn't answer it either "yes" or "no."



Ok.



But Moses did sin. So this is clearly false. So no, I wouldn't say this.

Do you really believe repentance is unnecessary for people like Moses? If so, what makes you think they would have repented had they not died died first? Why would they repent if it's redundant and unnecessary?


Why do you think, based solely on their characters, we can predict people like Moses would repent had death not taken them first, but then turn around and say we cannot predict they would not sin when tempted in this lifetime? Why do you think we can say they will not sin in heaven but we cannot say they will not sin here?

I think any sin, if it is to be forgiven, requires repentance.
After the "smitten rock" incident, Moses and Aaron did repent, didn't they?

"...they were not chargeable with willful or deliberate sin; they had been overcome by a sudden temptation, and their contrition was immediate and heartfelt. The Lord accepted their repentance, though because of the harm their sin might do among the people, He could not remit its punishment." (PP 419)

I've never said this. I don't know what you're asking either. What do you mean "people like Moses?" Repentance for what? Necessary in what sense?



I've answered this in regards to Moses. If you mean by "people like Moses" something like "people who would have done the same thing Moses would have done," then I answered this by answering the question in regards to Moses.



Why do you think I think it would be redundant and unnecessary? I don't.

So many of your questions, well over half, from my POV involve false assumptions. This makes it impossible for me to answer your yes or no questions yes or no.



The first question is presupposing that the person is on the point of death, and going to heaven. We know the person's character doesn't change upon death, therefore it's clear the person would have repented, as any person in heaven would repent. The second question is of a different order.



There will be no sin in heaven, or temptations in heaven, nor sinful flesh in heaven. Please note I'm not saying it's necessary that people sin here. I'm just saying we can't say that a given person won't sin; we just don't know. (unless you're talking about a special circumstance, like after the close of probation).

Tom, it sounds like you believe if people like Moses (people who love to live in harmony with God's will and way) who sin and die before they repent that God will simply dismiss it during judgment. Whereas, I believe God will impute repentance on their behalf.

Dismiss the sin? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I don't think it matters that a person committed a sin while dying, that they would have repented of had they lived.



I've said I see no need for this.

By dismiss I mean = ignore, disregard, treat as if it never happened.

I don't think it will be an issue, so if your definition allows for this, then OK.

Do you think God will treat such sins in judgment as though they never happened?

The sins that are important are ones that have an impact on the character.

Is there some reason one should think this does not encompass every sin?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes. Sins of ignorance would have little, if any, impact on character. For example, natives not keeping the Sabbath probably doesn't have an impact on their character. Or keeping the Sabbath mistakenly from 6:00 to 6:00

Ok. Thank you for clarifying. Do you believe Moses' sin was a "sin of ignorance" in this sense?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You're asking if Moses didn't know that losing his patience and getting angry, smiting the rock, was wrong?

Exactly. Is that not what this discussion of late has centered on as its primary example?

You are saying that some sins do not "impact on character." Would Moses' sin of smiting the rock be one in that category?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You didn't answer my question.

Tom, I am interested in your response to GC's questions.

Is there any possibility that Moses would not have know this was wrong? I don't understand why you're asking this. The SOP says his repentance was immediate and deep.



I said, "Sins of ignorance would have little, if any, impact on character." and gave the example of keeping Sabbath from 6:00pm to 6:00pm as an example.

Would Moses' sin of smiting the rock be one in that category?[/quote]

You mean be like keeping the Sabbath from 6:00pm to 6:00pm? Of course not. I don't understand how could this be a question.



I'm not sure what you're asking. God treats sinners as if they hadn't sinned. What do you mean by treating sins as if they hadn't happened? Do you mean treating sinners (or former sinners, if you're dealing with the period in time after the righteous have gone to heaven) as if they hadn't sinned? If so, I believe God will do that.

Tom, we're discussing people like Moses who sin and die before they can repent. Do you think God will treat those sins as if they never happened? Or, do you think He will pardon them as if they were repented of?

Tom, do you think since Moses knew he was guilty of a grievous, character impacting sin that if he had died before repenting of it that God would simply ignore it in judgment, treat it as if it never happened or as if it had been repented of? Does it matter if such people commit such sins under such circumstances that they didn't repent of it before they died?

MM, what do you think Moses' first thoughts would have been upon being resurrected? (in the scenario that he died while sinning, before he could repent)

I'm hoping you will answer the questions above. To answer your question, I believe he would have been relieved to discover Jesus imputed the repentance he would have experienced had he not died first.

This isn't that I was getting at.



Here's what I was getting at. Moses' thoughts would be running along the same lines when he work up from his sleep (i.e., was resurrected), so he'd be thinking something like, "Where am I? What happened? Oh, I died. I've been resurrected! Oh no! My last action before dying was I was angry and struck the rock! I shouldn't have done that! I'm so sorry!"

Something like that, right? So given this is accurate, what need would there be for God to impute anything?

I think this idea that's there a need to impute something is just confusing things. It makes the simple complicated.

The simple thing is that Moses would be happy in heaven. That's all that's necessary. Consider the following:



I've quoted this many times, although this is the first time in this situation, discussing the righteous. This text explains why the lost won't be in heaven. It's because of their characters. They have characters which are not in harmony with God or the principles of His government.

They love self and put self first. It's not possible for a person who has this mindset to spend eternity with God and those who love God. God explains this to the lost, goes through their live history, explains how He tried to reach them, explains what Christ did, so the lost can understand why they can't be in heaven, and what happened in the Great Controversy. The wicked agree with God, rendering their judgment that He has been fair and kind with them, always working in their best interests.

Moses, on the other hand, is not of the "me first" mindset. He learned to live for others, and primarily for Christ. He learned to love God and His principles. He had the part in bold. Therefore he'll be in heaven.

Now isn't this a simple and attractive way of looking at things?

The fact that Moses (hypothetically) lost his patience and died before being able to repent is totally irrelevant. There's need for God to impute anything.