I love the sound of silence.

H'mm ... and your documentation for that personal assessment is ...?

The link didn't work as given, but I went to the site to see what's there & assume you linked to a podcast -- and that's out of my reach due to a slow dial-up connection.

There are also those who preach fervently on Sabbath-keeping while transferring the Sabbath sacredness to Sunday.

Is it the words we speak or the actions we do that determine how seriously we take the "commandments of God" and the testimony of Jesus?

Sounds like spin to me. Who was writing about "paternity rights"?

Yes, it is supposed to link to a sound file. I also could not find the file but I found that the sermon is also aviable as a streamed video. This of course doesnt help your dial-up any.
I do not know neither you nor the man who preached the sermon on the link, all I have in both cases is the words that have been spoken. In neither case do I have reason to think that the words spoken are not reflected in actions done.

Perhaps Dietrich Bonhoeffers "Dicipleship" contains some of the same ideas.

Here is a good explanation by Walter Veith...

"When the Jewish nation rejected the Messiah, the gospel was to go to the Gentiles and all who would believe in the name of Jesus would become the spiritual descendants of Abraham. (Galatians 3:16; Romans 4:16; Romans 9:3,8)
And if ye be Christ’s, then ye are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:29
The apostle Paul speaks of Christians as the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16) and the “circumcision” (Phil. 3:3) The kingdom of God and the covenant promises associated with it were to be taken from the Jews and passed on to spiritual Israel - those who would permit Christ to transform them, to change their character as was the case with Jacob of old.
Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bearing forth the fruits of it. And whoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. Matthew 21:43,44

Jesus did not choose 12 disciples coincidentally. Just as the twelve patriarchs were the founders of ancient Israel, so these twelve men are the foundation stones of new Israel to which the Lord promised the kingdom (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30). The subsequent choice of seventy others is modeled after the choice of seventy elders by Moses in ancient Israel (Num 11:16). The real Israel of God is a remnant chosen by grace (Rom 11:5). There is a marvelous continuity between the old and the new Israel of God. In Romans 11:17-24, Paul speaks of the olive tree which represents Israel. The branches (Jews) were broken off because of unbelief and the wild olive shoots (Gentiles) were grafted in to share in the nourishment of the tree. The natural branches could be grafted back into the tree if they accepted the conditions. God is no respecter of nations or individuals. All who turn to Him will be accepted (Acts 10:34,35).
For there is no difference between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all that call upon Him. Romans 10:12 NIV.
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:26

The new Israel is the inheritor of God’s covenant promises. Those who have accepted Christ have become the chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God. (Compare 1 Peter 2:9,10 with Exodus 19:5,6) They were chosen to reveal God’s marvelous light to the world, (1 Peter 2:9; Matthew 28:19,20; Ephesians 3:10) a remnant, called out to shine the light of truth and prophecy of the end times, and are those that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

The human race is in desperate need of redemption, yet many reject his commandments and the faith of Jesus. God yearns to forgive and cleanse and never gives up trying. (John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4) Henceforth it is the role of the remnant or Spiritual Israel to carry Gods truth to the world..."

Inga, you should know the difference between the remnant and a segment. When you get to the remnant nothing else is left. The remnant is that which remains. As long as there are other groups around that belong to the same category no group can call itself the remnant.

Is it the words we speak or the actions we do that determine how seriously we take the "commandments of God" and the testimony of Jesus? [/quote]

Cool, thankfully Inga, you are telling me it's one or the other. And that works great for me, since now I only have to either speak correctly or act correctly, not both. Thanks for clearing that one up.

I can either say all the hyped-up-whatever in God's name, or I can do all kinds of "church" type religous things, and still be viewed by you as being serious about the testimony of Jesus. I'm glad that's all cleared up now, we'll move on.

I believe I do.
But who determines "the same category"?

I usually think of "remnant" in terms of a remnant of fabric. (Hey, I sew ... or used to. ) So the remnant is what is left of the original fabric -- no matter how many other pieces of fabric are lying around.

That's why the usual Adventist explanation has always made perfect sense to me.

Otoh, I think I understand what you're driving at -- that the "remnant" is not yet made up. And, believe it or not, I agree with you.

So, it is ludicrous and presumptuos for any group to call itself the remnant.