Truth is not a matter of perspective. Truth, as we generally use the term, is something that Yahweh knows. It is something that is not dependent on human reasoning, or human experiences, and it is something that we ourselves can only know by trusting the Word of Yah when He says what truth is. We could probably do a worthwhile study of the words “true,” “truth,” and “truly” in the Bible, and perhaps one day we will, but this week I want to talk about truth from the perspective of principle.

For example, when the Scriptures tell us that the born-again experience is one that transforms the soul, so that deliberate sin is excluded entirely, and unknown sins are made known and then forsaken through the process of sanctification, that is “true.” If Christ had died and not a single person had converted, if not one person had genuinely become a Christian, that would not make the description incorrect. In reality, very few find the “way of life,” and Christ warned us that this would be so in Matthew 7:14. We would not expect an increase in the percentage as the days grow more wicked, therefore we can be sure it is “true” that few find the way of life, the Faith of Yahshua. Because many who believe themselves to be converted do not agree with the description above, because they have not been taught to believe in it, and therefore never accepted the faith that brings it about, for them, the concept of Victory over Sin “cannot” be true.

This is the reason why the Church of Christ has always been, and always will be, small to human estimation. This is why Christ told us, and thus why it is true that, “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Yahshua shall suffer persecution.” (2Tim 3:12) “Therefore said He unto them, ‘The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that He would send forth labourers into His harvest.’” (Luke 10:2) “For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Mat 22:14) “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!” (Luke 13:34)

I am painting a picture here. Well, the Bible is painting a picture, and we are invited to observe it. The reason why the picture is as it is, is because the enemy of the Gospel is Humanism. Some of us may not know that word. That is okay, most of the people who wrote and read the Bible did not know it by that name either. Humanism is not the love of humans, or we would embrace it as a good thing, and a fulfillment of the two greatest commandments in the Law. Humanism ends with an “ism.” Many words that end with an “ism” in English indicate that it is talking about worship, belief, or strong devotion. Not all of them, of course… the word “euphemism” is not about worship, but many are, and we probably know a few:

If human beings are the ultimate deciders of right and wrong, then the Bible cannot be the authoritative Word of God. If humanists are correct, there is no God to write a Word, and so what do we do with the Bible? Well, we subject it to the same process we apply to every piece of literature – we judge it according to our intellect, our understanding, and our experiences.

This is a particularly deadly trap, because it defends itself from correction. What do I mean by that? If I go to a humanist and say, “You should accept the Bible just as it reads, and ‘lean not on your own understanding,’” I am quoting the Bible. “Trust in Yahweh with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” (Pro 3:5) The problem with that is, I am quoting the Bible as an authoritative source of instruction; the humanist is not going to agree with the source of the statement at all, and therefore will not be bound by the power of the statement itself.

I could say to such a person, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2Tim 3:16) They would tear that argument apart, and rightly so. That verse was not written to convince a non-believer to accept the Bible. It was written to believers – part of a framework of spiritual instruction that relies on the hearer believing in God, in reproof, and in righteousness.

If an unbeliever were to appear to have an open mind, I wouldn’t begin with these verses, not Proverbs and not the writings of Paul to the Churches. That is not their purpose. Instead, I would go the Gospels, and probably the Gospel of John first, because it tells us that this is why it was written: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Yahshua is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His name.” (John 20:31) Once they begin to accept the accuracy and spiritual benefit of the Bible, I might then move to another Gospel, Luke; because again, we are told that this is the purpose: “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.” (Luke 1:3, 4)

Believe, and then trust what you have come to believe. This is what it means to not lean on your own understanding, but to let the Father and Son, through Their Holy Spirit, guide your understanding to “truth.”

As I said, such an experience is rare, and finding someone who is willing to have that experience is likewise rare. What is not so rare is finding someone who thinks they are having that experience, but in reality are “Christian Humanists.” They read the Bible, and quote the Bible, and follow many of its instructions regarding belief and behavior. But when it comes to a total acceptance of its teachings, they trip. They trip over translations. They trip over doctrines. They trip over disagreements with those who would be their teachers. They trip over the plain reading of verses that explain that this full acceptance is necessary.

“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” (Ecc 12:13) Adventists like this verse, because it talks about the commandments as involving the duty of “man,” not of Israelite, or of Old Testament believer. And yes, they are right to point this out… but unfortunately many of them limit the word “commandments” to the Decalogue.

Just a few chapters earlier, we read, “Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry, for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.” (Ecc 7:9) That is not a part of the 10 Commandments, at least not without some strong powers of derivation, but it is an important, inspired statement. It involves character, which the 10 Commandments were given to us to perfect. It is our duty, therefore, to “keep” this instruction as well.

And just… for the record, because we’ve been talking about “anger” off and on for the past few weeks, do note that the verse doesn’t condemn anger as sin. It says not to be “hasty” to anger and, if you become angry, don’t let it “resteth” in your bosom, or you’re acting like a fool. These are the dangers that pertain to wrath: the ease with which it arises unjustly, and the pollution of the soul that comes from harboring it.

Clearly, those who will trip, and begin to judge the Bible by their own understanding, and their own experiences, will fall short of victory over sin. They will not see their acceptance of its teachings as their “whole duty.” They will use even Bible verses, like the misreading of Romans 3:23, to claim that “all commit sin.” That’s not what the verse says. They will use 1 John 1:8 and 1 John 2:1, which we looked at last week in Bro. Luke’s study, to claim that the Bible permits the occasional, deliberate sin in the life of the convert. That’s not what these verses say, and in fact to accept this is to commit the transgression of “licentiousness.”

“For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” (Gal 5:13) That word occasion means “opportunity,” or “starting point.” Don’t let your understanding of God’s goodness, and your freedom, be any opportunity, even a “starting point” for the flesh. Those who understand this verse, and apply it, would never commit a known sin, and their purpose will be to serve others.

Unfortunately, because the Bible verses will seem, at times, to say conflicting things, the one that gives occasion to the flesh always wins in the minds of those who apply humanitarian principles to the Word. Have you noticed that? If you have two verses, one that appears to say that believers do not sin, and one that appears to say the believers have occasional sins, it is always the one that says sin is excluded that must be subjected to literary analysis, comparative theology, root-word-in-Greek evaluation, and just general skepticism, in order to be explained away.

So yes, even the Bible may be used as an occasion of stumbling. As it is written, “Unto the pure all things are pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.” (Titus 1:15) And of course, because of this defilement nothing, not even the Word, is a message of truth. This is done with the Bible, and this is done with Ellen White’s body of work. I want to talk about both of these, the Bible and Ellen White’s writings, over the course of the next few weeks… this week, I will talk about one way in which the humanism mindset ruins the ability to read the Bible effectively, and properly apply it. Next week, I want to take the unusual step of talking a bit about Ellen White’s writings. I try to avoid mentioning her too much in these Bible studies, but I think the point has been reached at which it is an essential understanding for us to have. The saints, the 144,000 are going to be Seventh-day Adventists one way or another, and we need to be able to understand and explain the use of those writings we consider to be gifts from our Father.

Let me get to my point for this week’s study, and explain the title, “Not a Big Deal.”

Humanism causes people to judge the Bible by their own, individual experiences. Because of this, it takes away the power of truth, and makes it something “subjective,” which means subject to each person’s judgment. It individualizes, and personalizes, the message that the Bible presents, and not in a good way, like, it speaks to our hearts according to our individual needs. No, what I mean is, if one person reads the Bible, and gets a certain understanding, they may take it upon themselves to judge everyone else’s understanding as inferior whenever there is a difference of opinion.

This is the reason why doctrinal debates don’t actually heal the heart. This is why arguments about Bible verses are almost always pointless. Unless one, or both, of the participants is trying to reach the heart, and not just “win,” or not justify his or her own experience, we see the same patterns over and over again.

Those on the “outside” of a certain doctrinal position tend to minimize the experiences or expectations of those on the “inside.” Look at what happened to the Millerites. They experienced a “great disappointment” because they were, in fact, wrong about what the “cleansing of the sanctuary” from Daniel 8:14 meant. They learned afterwards, and became Seventh-day Adventists, for the most part, but they first underwent a terrible blow to their expectations. What did others do? What did other Christians do? Few had sympathy, and ridiculed them a great deal. Why? Well, I think some of them may have been relieved that the Millerites were wrong. If Christ had come, they knew they would not have been ready, so the fact that they were still on earth to sin a little longer was cause for celebration.

But I think for most, there was a sense of vindication, that this little, fringe viewpoint was wrong. It wasn’t so much about their sins, but about their sense of being “correct.” This sprit continues to our own day, and about more and more subtle differences in opinion.

Look at the way a typical SDA discusses the Sabbath with a typical Sunday-keeper. Really listen to what they are saying. The SDA will say to the Sunday-keeper, “All you have are your Roman Catholic traditions. They aren’t important. What is important is what the Bible directly teaches you about the Sabbath.” Now, we would agree with the statement in essence, but look at the approach. Because the SDA is “outside” of the Sunday-keeper’s experience, he judges it to be inferior, and unimportant, while to the Sunday-keeper this tradition is a source of great authority, belonging and comfort. He believes he has inherited it from the apostles, or at least the apostolic church, and therefore is the truth for this generation. We would disagree with the reasoning, but we err if we judge it as being unimportant to the person who sincerely believes this. It is a form of humanism that insists, “I know the truth and you don’t; you should listen to me.”

It is not wrong to point out what the Bible teaches about the Sabbath, of course. In fact, it is an essential part of getting them to accept both The Commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus, the two elements of genuine Christianity. But if the mindset is, “Listen to ME, I am going to be your teacher in this,” especially before any trust has been established, we can expect rejection far more often than an open ear.

And look at the way the typical Sunday-keeper replies: “What does this even matter? God wants us to rest on a day, and I am resting on a day. Whether it is Saturday or Sunday, we are resting one day in seven. Does it really matter that much which day it is? How is that important to the Almighty God? It’s not a big deal.”

Now, they are minimizing something else. We would be on the SDAs side here, not just for doctrinal reasons, but because while the SDA is minimizing the opinion of another human being, the Sunday-keeper is minimizing something that the Bible directly says, that “Elohim blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.” (Gen 2:3) And again in Exodus, when the Sabbath commandment is given, this is cited as the reason: “For in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” (Exo 20:11)

Yahweh will not bless you because you rest one day in seven, even if that day happens to be Saturday. No, He put a blessing on the day itself; and if you can’t understand how a day can be blessed, well, I hope you have a “blessed day” so that you can understand it. But we are invited into this blessing, this blessing placed on a day… a blessing that has never been removed, not at the cross, not at Pentecost, and not some time after the most important city in Christianity moved from Jerusalem to Rome.

The Sunday-keeper employs a humanistic argument, minimizing something outside of his experience in order to maintain his own judgment. That is the goal of the humanist, to maintain his own judgment, his own superiority, because that is the highest truth. This is wrong when the Sunday-keeper does it, and it is wrong (or at least ineffective) when the Sabbath-keeper does it.

Let’s look at one more example, a more immediate one for our particular circumstances. What is the Mark of The Beast going to be? The traditional Adventist view, based on the writings of Ellen White and fairly consistent Biblical reasoning, is that it will be a Sunday Law that outlaws Sabbath worship in favor of Sunday observance, beginning in the United States and spreading out over the world.

The view held by CSDAs, and some who are outside of the GC SDA Church, is that it is another fulfillment of the principle that it arises from a union of Church and State. CSDAs specifically believe that the Trademark legislation enacted by the General Conference of SDAs is the relevant fulfillment for this final generation, and this is also based on the writings of Ellen White and consistent Biblical reasoning.

Those who hold the traditional view have an apparent advantage, because Ellen White explicitly describes the Mark of The Beast as a Sunday Law. However, this “obvious” interpretation does not take into account all the factors, including those in her other statements. I will talk more about this aspect next week and the week after. The “obvious” and broadly accepted interpretation of a revealed prophecy is actually very rarely correct, historically speaking, and the longer-ago the prophecy was given, the more dramatically its details change when it finally comes to pass, a fact seldom acknowledged by mainstream Adventists.

What is important, for this week, is that when we approach Adventists with this warning, it needs to be in the context of the Three Angels’ Message. It needs to be in the context of victory over sin, and a commitment to a genuine and clear understanding of the character of the Father and Son. If a person does not understand the character of the Creator, he won’t understand why the Trademark Law is a “big deal.” Because of the way things are, and how topics arise, sometimes the Mark of The Beast as the Trademark is the first thing of significance that some people come to learn about CSDAs. We generally try to lead them to Righteousness by Faith as the most important element of our difference from the worldly Churches, including what most of Adventism has become, but whatever we do, we are most effective when we avoid minimizing their experiences, including the weight they put on Ellen White’s writings, and their “traditional” Adventist interpretation of the Bible.

We need to understand that, generally speaking, what is big for Yahweh is not always what is big for the flesh. Something that may seem big might be actually rather minor. On the other hand, some things that are routinely minimized (like the day of worship, or how the actions of a Church’s leadership affects each individual member, or the name a Church uses as a testimony to the world) may be the very thing that Yah desires His people to bring into focus.

Seventh-day Adventists have a religion that Yahweh named after His Sabbath… something that most Christians don’t see as that big of a deal, yet forms the first part of the name. The fact that Adventism in general did not fully embrace a “pacifist” approach to warfare was worth splitting over for the SDA Reform movements. For some it is a matter of conscience, I won’t minimize that – but Yahweh did not give anyone permission to leave the Church because of this issue. Today, the “Trinity” controversy seems like a very big deal to many Independent Adventist groups – the biggest of all deals, and the Omega of Deadly Heresy. In truth, it’s not all that significant… not to Yahweh, not to our SDA Pioneers, and not to those of us who are committed to finishing the work of perfecting the character. The Feast days are not unimportant, but there are a number of issues I’d focus on with a newly interested soul before those were touched.

Nothing is unimportant. Nothing is to be minimized, certainly not the experience of another human being. There are things that may not be important to us, and are not important to Yahweh, but if we don’t treat it as it is: something important to them, we are not following the example of Paul, who made himself, “all things to all men, that [he] might by all means save some.” (1Cor 9:22) Sometimes people need some care, some healing, some “loaves and fishes,” (Mat 14:14, 19) before they will really pay attention to a testimony.

This is not about covering up or compromising the truth. The Standard is the Standard, and that is the goal for all who are converted. But don’t expect the priorities to be correct for those who are not yet walking maturely in the faith. Don’t expect too much from those who have been wounded by lies and deceitful teachers. Love them. Treat them with respect. Enter into their experience enough for them to feel comfortable entering into yours. This is the work of the evangelist. Maybe during our discussion section we can share our experiences, how we do this. You know, one of the benefits of these live sessions, over the articles and transcripts that these studies become, is that those who read afterwards don’t get the benefit of some sanctifying conversations that always follow. I know more people read the articles than attend with us on Sabbath mornings, and so I invite the readers to take the time and fellowship with the saints who are joyfully learning more about the Father and Son together.

Of course, this is a vast topic, and there is much more to say, but I want to conclude with this idea: Love your neighbor as you love yourself. Don’t think of him as foolish, or less worthy of dignity, because you consider him to be deceived. Test the spirits, not the doctrines, when determining if someone is honest and willing to learn. We can disagree on interpretations, even fulfillments of prophecy, but if our characters are right, if we remain teachable and communicative, and if we let perfect love wash away fear of being misled, fear of being wrong, fear of having to admit mistakes, we know we will get there... not because of wonderful teachers, and instructive Bible studies, and songs with the lyrics changed to match our faith (these are important) but because there is an Angel leading us. A messenger of Heaven, specifically appointed to lead Yahweh’s people, is among us, just as the Bible describes. An Angel was with those who were led out of Egypt. One like the Son of Man was with the three worthies in Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego. An angel appeared to Joshua before his battle. An Angel appeared to Peter in prison, and set him free. These are all, or almost all, Michael, Christ Himself in angelic form, and the Third Angel of Revelation 14 is leading out a people in these last days as well. Let us be careful, and listen to Him with humility.

We are called upon to warn people of soul-destroying errors. We are called to “sigh and cry” for the abominations that men in positions of spiritual authority practice and teach as acceptable. (Ezek 9:4) We are to restore genuine, Yahweh-spoken Christianity. Here is the reality: “Thus saith Yahweh, ‘Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.’ But they said, ‘We will not walk therein.’” (Jer 6:16) Here we see our mission, and also our challenge. Humanists say, “My way, my judgment. These old paths? We will not walk them.”

We will encounter such as this, and sometimes in the form of a Bible expert, a scholar, a pastor. We are called upon to try and correct them, but while we say they are wrong, we are not humanists about it. We never judge their experience through our eyes. We look at them through Christ’s eyes, and we see a sinner in need of love. They are not stupid because they were deceived. They lack knowledge, but that is not the same thing. We do not ridicule them for having the wrong beliefs, even if it is obvious to us that their conclusions are incredibly faulty, and yes, they may be foolish. But that is not our ministry, to prove that they are fools. That is what a humanist would do, but not a saint, because we don’t worship our own understanding. We have no need, or desire, to justify our own beliefs. Christ has told us the truth; we believe it, and we wish others to believe it as well. But more importantly than that, we want them to know Christ, so that they will believe it from Him, not because we were able to convince them.

Doctrines teach the believers how to live. They don’t make non-believers into believers. That is why the ministry of Eli-Yah is to turn the hearts of men back to Yahweh’s heart, not the works of men to conformity with the Law. (Mal 4:6) We are after the cause, not the effect, because our opinions serve us well, but they won’t serve anyone else. We invite others to enter into our experience, and to know Yah for themselves, then we will share a truth, and He who is Truth. That is how we love our neighbors, our deceived neighbors, as ourselves, and so may win the heart of a precious soul to the True God, who gives everlasting life.

David.

Home | Contact | More Articles