Just a question that occurred to me today:

If you took just the four Gospels - the reported words and deeds of Jesus - as your whole Scripture, how would your beliefs and actions and worldview change?

Well, I'd be eating more fish....and doing more fishing....both of fish and men.....

you know, it occurs to me that fishing with non-christian men might be a good time to talk Christian talk to some guys...

If you only took the 4 Gospels, you would still be a Sabbath-keeping Christian. See all the references to the Sabbath and some that explicitly puts the Sabbath as the seventh-day of the week. [For example see Matthew 28:1 "After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb."]

We would also be looking for the return of Jesus. This is promised to us in John 14:1-3.

So we would be still Seventh-day Adventist Christians even though working only from the Gospels.

Agreed - although we might have a more nuanced understanding of the role and purpose of the Sabbath, given that a fair bit of the Gospels involves Jesus getting in trouble because He or his disciples weren't keeping it as others expected!

But that's a good point on the two headline issues of our faith. What else?

Baptism by immersion would still be a major player, as both John the Baptist and Jesus demonstrated Baptism. We would also possibly still have the "ordinance" service of washing feet and taking the bread and wine.

Good point. All of the major teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist church are to be found in the Gospels. Some people give Bible studies all from the Gospel of John. Doing it that way shows how Christ-centered all of our fundamental teachings really are.

Quote:

fishing with non-christian men might be a good time to talk Christian talk to some guys...

I have a friend, a minister, who does just that! He had 11 baptisms in a small country town last year! His is an amazing story of a young man with a country background, with little education, plus a slight speech defect, but, after his own conversion, a burning desire to become a minister. He was repeatedly told he would never make the grade. They hadn't counted on his determination plus God's help. With the backing of his wife, he went to Avondale --well, beginning with the high school, completing his basic education. Embarassed? No, he was on the way to becoming a minister! He graduated. He was eventually picked up by the WA Conference, and sent to 2 country churches. Right up his alley, as we say. He was only 50km from the ocean!

He made it a point of getting to know everyone in that area, and always just "dropped in while passing by". No religion -- unless, of course, they asked him a question, which he always answered, and steered the conversation to his wonderful God -- and left it at that.

He got his boat, and would set a date for the day's fishing, fill up his car (and a car or two of others)and head for the beach for a day's fishing.

He showed me the sign he had on his boat. I forget all of the details, but it was his "boat rules" --- no alcohol, no swearing, etc. etc., then the things they COULD do -- all the enjoyable bits, finishing with "you can ask me any Bible question that you like."

They had wonderful times fishing -- and inevitably, while they were eating lunch, someone would ask him some Bible question -- something they considered "really hard" -- but he was prepared for all of those questions he had asked before he became a christian. He would answer the question, and often the conversation would go on until it was time to hitch up the boat trailer, and make for home.

The town had its share of rowdy teenagers -- until they found out that if they behaved themselves, they would get a day out of his boat.

With God's help, that type of evangelism works!

Beryl

Awsome Beryl! I would love to meet that young pastor! His story should be told in the Adventist Review!

I'd be living the same as I am today.
Matthew 19:20 Go ye therefore and teach all nations.

I'd still go out into the world and build relationships
with people of all diversities, cultures and sub-cultures.

We'd learn much, but also miss a lot as the Gospels assume you know the Old Testament and it tells us how the Old Testament finally turned out. For one example, the book of John has a group of (I believe 7) signs, they are all based on Old Testament feasts and Hannukkah, While it does not all follow the same order, but they have the same ellements. Jesus picks aspects of the feast he wants to emphessise, says something about the feast focusing on the aspect he wants to emphessise, has an "I AM" saying focusing on the feast and the talk, and a sign illustrating the aspect of the feast Jesus wants to emphesise. If we are ignorant of the feasts we read the book of John but miss all the background.

Also, we'd be confused as to points where Mark and Luke dissagree with each other. One of these is in Mark no one knows who Jesus is until you come to the cross where a heathen, the Roman Centuran finally realized who Jesus is, and this guy who finally got it was so theologically ignorant that he expresses the truth with some horrible words that would send chills up and down the spine of any good monothiest. Luke on the other hand has everyone knowing who Jesus is, from Elizabeth before Jesus is even born, the shepherds, Simion and Anna etc. and when he gets to the centurian, instead of the centurian realizing that Jesus is divine (as in Mark) Luke only has him saying that Jesus was a good man, totally dissagreeing and down playing the climax of Mark.

With the whole Bible we realize that God works with problems like this and realize that while either Mark or Luke got their facts wrong, they both give different empheses on aspects of Jesus that we'd not have both aspects if we only had one of the two books or if Mark and Luke liked each other better and agreed with each other more.

Yeah, it's that spending some time together and being prepared to answer those hard questions....that is what 'hooks' a person on God...

Hmmmmmm....maybe I need to save up for a boat....

Would you believe that homosexuality is wrong?

Wrong, of course, can mean more than one thing. It can mean "a sin," or "not according to God's original plan," among other things. The second case is the result of sin, but not necessarily sinful in itself.

When challenged concerning divorce, Jesus enunciated this principle.

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Matt. 19:4-8. see also Mark 10. Luke 16.

"At the beginning. . . the Creator made" i.e., "This was God's original plan." This is Jesus' consistent teaching in the Gospels.


A child born with Down's syndrome is "not according to God's original plan," but that child is not sinful because born with an extra chromosome. In the sense that it was not God's design that a child should be born other than perfect, it is 'wrong' for a child to be born with Down's syndrome.

God's original design did not include homosexual desire. "Male and female" were designed to become one flesh, not 'male and male' or 'female and female.' Indeed, I think Biblically it is impossible for two persons of the same sex to become one flesh.

Since God's original plan did not include homosexual desire, it is, at least in that sense, wrong. IF it is true that homosexuality is solely inborn, not in any sense chosen -- God knows, I do not--then it is wrong in the same way that Down's syndrome is wrong.

And by extension, though this question was not asked, homosexual marriage is wrong, since it is not in accordance with the original plan that Jesus enunciated for marriage.

If homosexuality is in any sense chosen, then it is wrong in the additional sense of being an explicit sin, rather than the unfortunate result of sin.

Good Post Ich.

What do we do with this?

I would propose that since we do not really know the answers to your questions ... perhaps it would be safest not to judge a fellow Christian or non-Christian on this matter. Could we just let it be between them and God. We don't have to know and teach every detail of Christian life. We could depend upon the Holy Spirit to fill in the gaps.

Depending on what you mean by 'judge' I agree.

Something which seems extremely difficult for people to understand, is the necessity to separate the person from the behavior. We are not to condemn Gr. krino (often translated 'judge') individuals: "Neither do I condemn you. . ."

At the same time, we must evaluate behaviors. "Go and sin no more. . ."

Jesus did not condemn the person, but he did declare the behavior to be sin.

Does not the term "judge" carry two different meanings in the Good Book?

To condemn (as Ich rightly noted).
To discern.


oG

We don't judge the sinner ... we judge the sin.

Good and thoughtful posts, all of you.

In the process of convicting a person of his/her sin, we assume the job of the Holy Spirit. I just want to clarify the above process....Are we to lift up a standard ? When does this process of convincing a person that he is doing wrong [ie 'sinning'] and assuming one of the jobs of the GodHead?