Biblical Literacy and 2 Cor 3

[there buster]

Many people misunderstand me. My dedication is to a faithful rendering of the text, not to being "right."

Lots of Christians have "hobby horses" they ride and ride and ride--and ride roughshod over anyone who disagrees. When I do not yield to their tactics, they think I am just like them. And so the shouting begins. By now, you've no doubt noticed my mantra is "the text, the text, the text."

I believe that Paul was inspired--not verbally, because the Bible itself makes no such claim, and the internal evidence says otherwise. Paul, not his words, was inspired. And I'm not. So I don't know what he meant until I carefully read what he said--not what I wanted him to say or what it would be handy for him to have said--what he actually said.

I've learned to be careful, not giving a bit of ground on what the text clearly says, and not taking a bit beyond.

In this case, I should have checked the Greek sooner. That was my failing, not the failing of this method.

And, once again, I wish to point out that under better circumstances, this can be completed in reasonable fashion. I taught many a SS class where we pursued this process to the end within 40 minutes. It's difficult at first, but as people begin to understand what is happening and learn to contribute, exciting things happen.

Our church plant is in Marion, IA.

the HomePage, where people connect

[there buster]

Application: What is God's will for us in this passage?

The Letters the Matter

Paul does not claim that he had visions, or a special anointing, or even his credentials as a student of Gamaliel. His evidence is the faith built in the lives of the Corinthians.

What relevance does this have for us?

The authority of anyone, or their teaching, comes from its impact in our own lives. It doesn't matter how many they've baptized, what office they hold in the church, or their academic attainments. Neither is it a matter of cleverness, or even intelligence, or theological correctness. The question is whether it elevates our lives, gives us a deeper understanding of salvation, improves our relationship with God and with other humans.

Doug Batchelor, Mark Finley--no matter their prominence or attainment, their authority with me rests in what their teaching has done in my life.

The Preacher's Confidence

Paul's confidence does not come from the number of "baptisms" he can claim, or anything else, but from his understanding of the superiority of the New Covenant.

He has seen "the glory of the Lord" in his plan of salvation through Christ, and that makes him bold. To paraphrase Wesley, this understanding of the new covenant has set Paul on fire, and nothing can stop him from burning. This makes him incredibly bold.

The same will be true for us. When we truly understand the glory of Christ, it will make us unable to keep it to ourselves.

The Superiority of the New Covenant

All the theological points that Paul makes boil down to this: the New Covenant is in essence, infinitely superior to the Old. So much so, that the Old might as well cease to exist.

Those who don't understand this are essentially "blindfolded." The read the OT, and all they see is law and narrative. Those who understand the New Covenant view the NT through Christ, who becomes the lense that brings everything into focus. The blindfolded ones can't find Christ anywhere. For the Christian, the OT teems with types and prefigurings of Jesus.

When we really understand Jesus, we will be astonished at the beauty of his grace in the OT. The things of earth will indeed grow strangely dim, many OT disputes will fade into insignificance, when we see in Christ their true import.

That's the basics of what I get from 2 Cor 3.

[there buster]

Would someone like to suggest another passage for study?

[benherndon]

Ed,thanks for asking--I was about to ask you.

Here is another text that troubles me as an Adventist:

Galatians 3--particularly that part that says the Law came 430 yrs after the promise to Abraham (?) and that it was to last until 'faith' came.

See if your 'syntactical display' works for this text, too.

Ben

[there buster]

Three points.

1) The sytactical display is only one of the tools I use. Admittedly, because of its foundational position, it sometimes seems dominant. What it really does is focus us in on the nature of the text.

2)Much as I would like to take credit for it, I found it in this excellent book, Toward an Exegetical Theology, by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Several of the tools and techniques I employ come from there.

3)Another reason the syntactical display seems so prominent is that as a rule, Christians spend little or no effort on exegesis. Generally they start with a conclusion, and go looking for proof.

Or if they do start with a text, they read it until they find a word they think is key, and they begin a sort of free-association process of text linkage.

Everyone wants to "cut to the chase," but the shortcuts used to get there distort the outcome.

I'm doing a block diagram of Daniel 4 for tomorrow's dialogue (we don't call them sermons, and they function differently), but I'll look through my files. I think I've already done Gal 3 sometime back.

I'll put it on a new thread.

[Jeannieb43]

i've truly enjoyed this study, ed.

[sorry for the lower case typing... hand is in a cast.]

ready for another one, whenever you're up for it.

[Robert]

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Here is another text that troubles me as an Adventist:

Galatians 3--particularly that part that says the Law came 430 yrs after the promise to Abraham (?) and that it was to last until 'faith' came.

---

Here are some key verses:

Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

Acts 3:25 ….the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.’

Gal 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

Exodus 12:40 Now the time that the sons of Israel lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. 41 And it came about at the end of four hundred and thirty years, to the very day, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt…. 19:1 In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt—on the very day—they came to the Desert of Sinai....[in chapter 20 you have the law]

Essentially the giving of the law on Mount Sinai did not invalidate the covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. What was the promise? "AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED." What does this mean?

Gal 3:8 God...preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations shall be blessed in you.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. 10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”

[benherndon]

Maybe not quite so fast, Robert.

The Old Covenant, the Law of Moses is NOT the same as the covenant with Abraham which is referred to as the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant, sometimes referred to as the 'everlasting' or 'eternal' covenant, has been in existence since Abraham showed his belief/faith in God.

See Ps 105, 1Chron 16;16,17, Jer 32:38, Rev 14 ('eternal'?).

What we call the Old Covenant was not given to the forefathers of Israel, including Abraham---see Deut 5:2.

Also not Heb 7 where it says 'the Law' was established via the Levitical priesthood which didn't start until Sinai.

Ben

[Robert]

Quote:

---

The Old Covenant, the Law of Moses is NOT the same as the covenant with Abraham, which is referred to as the Abrahamic Covenant.

---

No kidding! Isn't that what the quotes I used stated?

Gal 3:8 God...preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations shall be blessed in you.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. 10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”

This quote if very clear….God preached the gospel to Abraham because through his seed “all nations would be blessed “ Why?

Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

The blessing of Christ and His righteousness came through Abraham’s seed. Hence Isaiah said, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

And again, “…the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.’ Acts 3:25

Gal 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

[:"red"]The law given on Mount Sinai was never given as a means of salvation. Yes, God did enter into the "old covenant" with Israel but it was for a specific reason.

For 400 years the Israelies were made to conform to heathen religions of the Egyptians. Since, by nature, man is legalistic and proud, these religions nautally became a part of their everyday lives.

Hence: ”The principle that man can save himself by his own works lay at the foundation of every heathen religion….” [DA 35]

To try to break loose the grip that pride and self-sufficient had upon their minds, God entered into the Old Covenant with Israel. Hence the intent of the O.C. was to open their eyes that heaven was not attainable through works. [/]

Exodus 12:40 Now the time that the sons of Israel lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. 41 And it came about at the end of four hundred and thirty years, to the very day, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt…. 19:1 In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt—on the very day—they came to the Desert of Sinai....[in chapter 20 you have the law]

Essentially the giving of the law on Mount Sinai did not invalidate the covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. What was the promise? "AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED." What does this mean?

Gal 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE JUST BY FAITH SHALL LIVE.”….13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE” — 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith….

[benherndon]

Quote:

---

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Old Covenant, the Law of Moses is NOT the same as the covenant with Abraham, which is referred to as the Abrahamic Covenant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No kidding! Isn't that what the quotes I used stated?

---

>>>I don't think your quotes show the difference between the Old Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant. I agree with you that the Abrahamic Covenant was a covenant of 'faith' and 'grace' and predicted the Seed. However Abraham thought of seeds(meaning many offspring), it seems to me instead of "Seed" meaning Christ. Maybe I am wrong but I think Abraham and his offspring thought of it in the same way. Even Sarah said if he wanted a child according to the promise he'd better sleep with her handmaid, Hagar.

In Gal 3 it says that "the Law" did not abrogate the 'promise' Abraham received in what we call the Abrahamic or "everlasting" covenant. SOOOOO, when we refer to 'the Law' we are referring to the Old Covenant that was given to Moses, which is referred to as the Book of Moses, Book of the Covenant, etc. And, once again, that was in addition to ("..the law was added.."!!) the Abrahamic ('everlasting') Covenant which was the 'promise'.

So indeed, Robert, it seems to me and the two covenants are definitely not the same. One is the Abrahamic, and the other is the "Old" Covenant "Law" that Galatians refers to when it says we are no longer under the supervision of it (the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses, the Book of MOses, etc)

At least this is the way I see the 'flow' about the Old vs New Covenant. The former is 'done away' in authority as is mentioned in the last verse of Heb 8 and also what we were talking about in 2Cor 3, this thread.

Ben

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

"

not

of the letter

but

of the spirit"

I see that "not/but" as a contrast between "a new covenant" and "something else." What do you see? How would you diagram/structure it?

What is another plausible reading?

---

Yes, Paul is making a contrast between the new covenant and "something else". Since Paul doesn't specify what that "something else" is, we should look for something that fits the context, or rather all of the contexts -- the context of the passage, the context of the situation Paul has been dealing with in Corinth, and the context of Paul's life and ministry.

In our modern context, it is easy to assume that the "something else" represents the old covenant. Christians today commonly have a negative view of the law of the old covenant-- that it is a burdon, opposed to freedom and grace. And since the "something else" in Paul's contrast appears to be negative also, the old covenant seems to fit well. However, scriptures indicate that the original Christians had a very positive view of the OT law, quite different from Christians today. Also, Paul was Torah-observant himself and he taught the believers to follow his own example. That alone would prevent Paul's original readers from assuming that the law of the old covenant represented something negative. We also have Paul's testimony that he agrees with everything in the Law and the Prophets (Acts 24:14), and the witness of the Bereans who found that Paul's gospel was in agreement with the OT scriptures (Acts 17:11). The overwhelming evidence of the OT Scriptures which Paul endorsed ("[:"blue"]All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.[/]") is that the Old Covenant is something wonderful and good. So if, as a result of reading this letter of Paul's, we were to conclude that the old covenant was bad, then we've misinterpreted something.

So we need to look at other options for the "something else" that Paul is contrasting against the new covenant. Since we don't know the details of the situation Paul was addressing in Corinth, it is possible that we might not figure out just what he was referring to, just as we sometimes never figure out what is meant when we hear only one end of a telephone conversation.

I don't claim to have the solution to what the "something else" is that Paul was contrasting in the passage we're discussing. There are some other possibilities to explore though.

Earlier in his discription of his new covenant ministry, Paul contrasts the two types of reaction to his ministry:

• [:"blue"]For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things?[/] (2 Cor. 2:15-16 NASB)

Here we have a good thing (Paul's ministry) evoking two contrasting reactions-- to those being saved Paul's ministry represented life, but to those who are perishing Paul's ministry represented death. So Paul was well aware that a negative reaction (the aroma of death) could be caused by something that was inherently good of itself (Paul's new covenant ministry).

In our passage where Paul contrasts the letter that kills against the Spirit that gives life, he could also have been refering to the two contrasting responses to something that is inherently good (the new/renewed covenant).

Or Paul may have been contrasting his credentials that were evidenced by the Spirit working in his students against the written credentials of his detractors that was resulting in something getting killed.

We should also examine the common assumption that something which "kills" is inherently bad. Isn't the ultimate death of the wicked a valid and good aspect of the Law of God? Isn't such a "ministry of death" a good and necessary thing for the Law to accomplish? What about the death of Jesus? Wasn't his death a good and necessary thing in God's plan of salvation? Apparently there was a "law" that required Jesus to die in order to redeem man? Is that law inherently good or bad?

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Isn't such a "ministry of death" a good and necessary thing for the Law to accomplish?

---

Those who choose to live life apart from God chose death....It is not that God kills, but that life outside Him is an impossibility!

"The curse of the law" is where God has to give you your choice....He has to abandon you because you have persistently told Him to get out of your life.

Remember the Bible says that "The wages of sin is death." Sin is unbelief in God....It is living your spotless life apart from God....In the end God will have to give the sinner his desires, but it isn't God who kills...in fact it's really not even the law. Sin kills...sin destroys....

As Ellen White states, "God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself. Everyone who stifles the admonitions of conscience is sowing the seeds of unbelief, and these will produce a sure harvest."

Quote:

---

What about the death of Jesus? Wasn't his death a good and necessary thing in God's plan of salvation?

---

As Ellen says, "Deity did not sink and die...humanity died." Whose humanity? Answer: Our humanity! We died "in Him." Our death was necessary so that the law might be satisfied.

Quote:

---

Apparently there was a "law" that required Jesus to die in order to redeem man? Is that law inherently good or bad?

---

There's no law against Jesus for He is not the sinner...you and I are....We had to die and we did, "in Him."

[there buster]

I don't have much time to waste on this, Ron.

Quote:

---

Paul is making a contrast between the new covenant and "something else". Since Paul doesn't specify what that "something else" is, we should look for something that fits the context,or rather all of the contexts -- the context of the passage, the context of the situation Paul has been dealing with in Corinth, and the context of Paul's life and ministry

---

Yes, and good practice means we start with the context of the immediate passage. You seem to think there is no guidance here, "Paul doesn't specify what that 'something else' is." Actually, it's pretty clear.

.........v2You yourselves

are our letter,

.........^written on our hearts,

.........|known and read by everybody.

...........v3You show that

you are a letter

............^from Christ,

............|....^the result of our [:"red"]ministry,[/]

............|written [:"blue"]not with ink[/]

..............^......^[:"red"]but with the Spirit of the living God,[/]

..............|[:"blue"]not on tablets of stone[/]

..............|[:"red"]but on tablets of human hearts.[/]

........|4Such confidence as this is ours

........|..........................^through Christ before God.

........|5Not that we are competent

........|..................^in ourselves

........|..................|to claim anything

........|..................|for ourselves, but

........v

our competence comes from God.

............................^6He has made us competent

..............................................^[:"red"]as ministers of a new covenant–[/]

..................................<-[new covenant–]

.........__________________________________^________________________

.........^[:"blue"]not of the letter[/] ......................^[:"red"]but of the Spirit;[/]

.........|[:"blue"]for the letter kills,[/]...................|[:"red"]but the Spirit gives life.[/]

............^.......................................^

............|7[:"blue"]Now if the ministry[/]...................|[:"red"]8will not the ministry of the Spirit[/]

..............^that brought death,..................|..^be even more glorious?

..............|which was engraved ..................|

..............|..^in letters on stone,..............|

..............|came with glory,.....................|

..............|..^so that the Israelites............|

..............|..|could not look steadily...........|

..............|..|at the face of Moses..............|

..............|because of its glory,................|

..............|.^fading though it was,..............|

..............|.....................................|

..............|[:"blue"]9If the ministry[/].....................|..vhow much more glorious

..............|..^that condemns men.................|[:"red"]is the ministry that[/]

..............|..|is glorious,......................| ..^brings righteousness!

..............|.....................................|

..............|[:"blue"]10For what was glorious[/]..............|

..............|..^has no glory now..................|

..............|..|<------------in comparison with-->| [:"red"]the surpassing glory.[/]

..............|.....................................|

..............|[:"blue"]11And if what was fading away[/]........|..vhow much greater is the glory

..................^came with glory,.................|[:"red"]of that which lasts![/]

syntactical display ©2005 by Ed Dickerson, all rights reserved

What Paul is contrasting could hardly be clearer, and we needn't go cavorting through the whole Bible to find out.

"ministry,

....|......written not with ink--------->but with the Spirit of the living God,

....|......not on tablets of stone------->but on tablets of human hearts.

....|

as ministers of a new covenant–

....|...........|

....|...........a new covenant

....|

....|..............|not of the letter --------->but of the Spirit;

....|..............|for the letter kills--------->but the Spirit gives life.

....|

Now if the ministry--------->8will not the ministry of the Spirit

the ministry that condemns men--------->the ministry that brings righteousness!

It could hardly be more explicit.

Paul's [:"red"]ministry [/]

has produced letters

not written with ink........but with the [:"red"]the Spirit[/]

not on tablets of stone.. . .but on human hearts

Paul is a [:"red"]minister[/]

of the new covenant

not of the letter............but of [:"red"]the Spirit[/]

the ministry of the letter brought death.....but the [:"red"]ministry of the Spirit[/] brings life

the other ministry brings death......but the new covenant ministry brings righteousness

The parallel construction gives these attributes to the "something else"

written with ink

written in stone

written with letters

brought death

condemns

no glory now

Perhaps you can't make the connection, but it seems nearly certain that Paul's audience could have figured out what was written with letters in stone, and what condemns them.

As far as bringing death, we know what Paul said brought death.

If it still isn't clear to you, then I can't make it so.

And I have other more pressing tasks.

[benherndon]

Good thinking, Ed! Thanks.

Either the English peer reviewed translations we have state the case like it is in regard Old Testament and New Testament OR it is absolutely useless to anybody trying to figure out what Christianity is all about and how to live. If G-d is trying to tell us about Himself and Ya-shua in English then we don't need some scholar to interpret it for us.

"Can you read English, or not?"

Ben

[Gerr]

Thanks for the detailed study, Ed. Now, from this syntactical study, I'm sure Ben would like to know unequivocably whether the 10c & the entire OT have been abolished, or as he puts it, "kaput", no longer applicable to the NT believer.

Gerry

[benherndon]

Dear Gerry----I have never used the word "kaput" except to deny that I've said it in regard to 'the Law'. It has always been your term about what I say--never mine! I do not equate "kaput" with 'done away'-, or 'abolished'-- in authority! Kaput has other meanings sometimes close to 'disrespect'.

The favorite SDA Bible is the KJV. Those words I use are the exact words of the NT part of the Bible---they are not my words. But the message is clear to me in 2Cor 3 WHEN I consider Gal 3 & 4, Eph 2, Col 2, and Hebrews ---all of it.

Ben

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Dear Gerry----I have never used the word "kaput" except to deny that I've said it in regard to 'the Law'. It has always been your term about what I say--never mine! I do not equate "kaput" with 'done away'-, or 'abolished'-- in authority! Kaput has other meanings sometimes close to 'disrespect'.

The favorite SDA Bible is the KJV. Those words I use are the exact words of the NT part of the Bible---they are not my words. But the message is clear to me in 2Cor 3 WHEN I consider Gal 3 & 4, Eph 2, Col 2, and Hebrews ---all of it.

Ben

---

[:"blue"]I have no desire to misrepresent your position whatsoever. If I have done that, then I apologize a thousand times.

But here is what you said in post #153709 of the other thread on 2 Cor 3.

[:"red"]"Dan 9 says that He will bring an END to sacrifice and offering ---let mre recall that sacrifice and offering was just about all there was to judaism!!! All the sins and all the wrongs they did was focused on brining a sacrifice and/or an offering to the temple, sanctuary, synagogue or whatever. Their whole life, entire life, was focused on those two things. What does the torn veil of the MHP mean---It means the Jewish system of relgion, ALL OF IT, was Kaput!! The Jewish era, the OT era of religion, the Mosaic era of religion was over--all meaning the same. Pick up your Jerusalem Bible and read the prelude to the letters of Paul, for example."

Post #153699

">>>>Well, I've explained my belief in what was FULFILLED in the previous post just filed. What has "passed away" is the authority over the Christian of the entire Jewish religious system---" [/] [/]

Gerry

[benherndon]

Pass me a napkin and I will wipe the 'egg' off my face. I guess the old noggin' is shrinking more than I thought. OK, you win. Your memory is far better than mine.

I hereby repudiate the word 'Kaput' because it is not used in any of the approx 20 versions I have. I apologize for its use by me.

However, do not misinterpret my confession of the wrong word used with a wrong interpretation of 2Cor 3 ('done away', 'abolished', 'faded'), Gal 3 (no longer under the supervision of the Law), Gal 4 (Hagar, allegorically representing the Old Covenant/Testament being 'cast out'), Eph 2 ("by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations."), Rom 8 ('one man considers one day...another man considers every day--{"TODAY"? Heb 3?}--Each should be fully convinced.."), Col 2 ("having cancelled the written code with its regulations.."--followed by rules for Holy Living), 1 Tim 1 ('law..not for good men but for lawbreakers and rebels, murderers..) etc., Heb 8("By calling this covenant "new", he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete.. will soon disappear.)----

>>>>all this nowhere says we Christians are obligated to observe "the Law of Moses". To 'force' it is Judaizing as is described in Acts 13 and 15---we should not Judaize!. Christ Himself told us how to live the Christian life and it is well explained in the NT better than in the Old Testament, actually, IMO.

Christ's chosen writer, Paul,also tells us we are not under 'the Law' for any reason (!)--we are under Christ's Law. Christ's Law is NOT the same as the Old Covenant, Law of Moses, Book of the Law, Book of the Covenant--OR, its contained Ten Cs.

Why might this be? IMO, because Christ shewed His acts of not observing 'the Law' in relation to the Sabbath or "the Law's" rules about 'clean/unclean in re: the lepers', for example. He also said He was Lord of the Sabbath, had authority over the Sabbath rules which He Himself disregarded somewhat---why? Answer: Man's needs were more important than the Sabbath---even that of the crippled man by Pool Bethesaida--crippled for 38 yrs!! (No emergency indications at all!)

It is essential that the Tow truck driver stand by for accidents which may happen on Sabbath as well as other days--and doing so should not block the Tow truck driver from benefitting from Christ's actions in reconciling him to the Father! The Towtruck driver should 'stand by' just like you and I did as 'doc's on call'---but you are being guided into thinking we doc's were more important than the Tow truck driver. I don't think that should be--if he's guilty of breaking the Sabbath, very plainly so were you and me. I believe people who in doing good on the Sabbath in any occupation that does good for mankind, are excuseable for his 'work' and should be accepted into the SDA church for baptism and fellowship. He will come when he can and his family also. It is wrong in my opinion to exclude him and his kind of people who also have to work on Sabbaths. None of 'the Law' applies to Christian workers. None of it as per the texts given above.

I hope someday you can see this---years of time and much discussion shows I cannot teach it to you. IMO, if you would limit your spiritual reading to the Bible you would 'see' more clearly---just so long as you refuse to limit your spiritual reading to the Bible it will be unlikely you will see this clearly. Well, read Rom 14 and it mentions a similar problem. Even so, both 'men' mentioned in Rom 14 will be saved. I like that information.

Ben

[Gerr]

Quote:

---

Pass me a napkin and I will wipe the 'egg' off my face. I guess the old noggin' is shrinking more than I thought. OK, you win. Your memory is far better than mine.

...........

...........

It is essential that the Tow truck driver stand by for accidents which may happen on Sabbath as well as other days--and doing so should not block the Tow truck driver from benefitting from Christ's actions in reconciling him to the Father! The Towtruck driver should 'stand by' just like you and I did as 'doc's on call'---but you are being guided into thinking we doc's were more important than the Tow truck driver. I don't think that should be--if he's guilty of breaking the Sabbath, very plainly so were you and me. I believe people who in doing good on the Sabbath in any occupation that does good for mankind, are excuseable for his 'work' and should be accepted into the SDA church for baptism and fellowship. He will come when he can and his family also. It is wrong in my opinion to exclude him and his kind of people who also have to work on Sabbaths. None of 'the Law' applies to Christian workers. None of it as per the texts given above.

I hope someday you can see this---years of time and much discussion shows I cannot teach it to you. IMO, if you would limit your spiritual reading to the Bible you would 'see' more clearly---just so long as you refuse to limit your spiritual reading to the Bible it will be unlikely you will see this clearly. Well, read Rom 14 and it mentions a similar problem. Even so, both 'men' mentioned in Rom 14 will be saved. I like that information.

Ben

---

[:"blue"]In case you have also forgotten,

I have repeatedly agreed with you that, yes, power plant people are needed to keep the electricity going. That yes, towtrucks may be called on for help on Sab. That yes, ambulance people are needed 24/7. That cooks are needed in hospital even on Sab. That plumbers maybe needed on Sab, etc. etc. That's the "ox in the ditch" principle that Jesus approved of. However, I did disagree about business as usual on Sab. And, as Greg pointed out, I think you are making a mistake of making as a binding principle the applications that some have made in the keeping of the Sab in the Bible. E.g. Sab in the wilderness, post captivity Sab keeping by Nehemiah. [/]

Gerry

[Jeannieb43]

Dear Dr. Gerry and Dr. Ben...

Please complete this sentence:

"Old doctors never die; they just lose their _____________."

[bTW, I enjoy reading both of you.]

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

[Bravus]

stethoscopes?

Dr Dave (a different kind...)

[there buster]

Please change the name of this thread to match its contents.

[benherndon]

To Gerry---if you say obedience to 'the Law' in the form of the Law of Moses is in any way binding for any purpose upon the 'believer', about the Sabbath or any other subject, it is my opinion that you do not believe what 2Cor 3, Gal 3, Eph 2, Col 2, Romans and Hebrews---all of what those references say OR, OR, OR, you don't understand what they are saying. That summarizes why we can't seem to get together.

I have told you why I think you seem to believe 'the Law' is still binding on the gentile, but I'm not successful in teaching you that.

I want to emphasize that agreeing with what I say those texts say is not necessary for yours or anybody else's salvation. Simple belief in the heart that Jesus is the Son of God, and was raised from death to reconcile us sinners to the Father.... and living like it was believed in the heart.... is all that is necessary. It is extremely simple to be saved--just like Phillip's Ethiopian friend and Paul's jailor! Very simple. Living the ideal is difficult but unless we practice the detestable things that show we are ignoring His instructions drastically --- that will lose us our salvation!---not so much that we did those bad things,(which was bad enough, true!) but that we didn't 'believe' in our hearts that HE is God that was raised from death to reconcile us sinners to the Father. If we just don't care to be 'good people' that believe and do good works in our lives when we know His wishes for us then...we might well be lost. But it will be Him who knows and Him who judges---not me judging others.

But if one is to teach the NT one should teach it properly. To teach that only those who do, or would have, subscribed to, the Sabbath Law will be saved is, IMO, not NT truth. (Yet I have always been a Sabbatarian from birth---and I believe Sabbath is the only day God ever chose for His people to 'keep'----I do not believe He ever told His people to observe Sunday---they chose it themselves in honor of the resurrection and to avoid being classed as Jews--that seems to be OK with Him and His NT writers.)

The urge to survive this life is strong and reasonable, IMO. The early Christians, including Paul, Peter and others apparently gave their lives for their belief in Him and His resurrection. Early Christians observed or received that information about deadly persecution, and, recognizing the Christian is freed from the burdensome Jewish parts of 'the Law' which was 'restated' also by Christ as Christ's Law, they chose another day, like a 'TODAY' to meet and break bread together and it was Sunday seemingly and it caught on!

I do not believe they thought they were following the Pope or ancient pagan Romanism. They believed and they 'loved' and they separated themselves from the Judaizers!

Why not let all who have to work sometimes on Sabbath join our church and let their families join and worship with us if they want to? In this economy many must work at many different occupations in order to support their families. "He who doesn't support his family is WORSE than an infidel!" I worked as a surgeon at nonemergent medical and surgical care most of the Sabbaths of my life! How can I tell somebody they can't be saved if they work on the Sabbath? I am not talking about working at 'gaming tables'---I would think that would not be very honorable whether it was Sabbath or any other day. But, thankfully, I'm not the Judge! If the 'gaming table' worker was a 'believer' too---well that's sort of a conundrum, huh? Hmmm! I'll think about that a little longer.

I hope I haven't said something that I will have to 'eat'later!

Ben

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Please change the name of this thread to match its contents.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

...or perhaps the conversation between Dr. Ben and Dr. Gerry could move to another room? a room of its own?