Contents

1. Introduction
2. The Spirit and the Principles of Law
3. Discerning the Spirit in Messengers
4. Applying the Tests
5. Warning Flags
6. Conclusion

Hold Fast

Introduction

Abraham: Dear Father in Heaven, we bow ourselves before you in Yahshua’s name.  We are thankful to be here again, kept by your merciful hand, for which I thank you.  As we join for this discussion this New Moon, bless us.  I pray that by your holy spirit you would so direct our time together that each of us would receive a blessing, and also be a blessing to others as a result.  I pray in Yahshua’s name, Amen.

Zahakiel: Amen.
Qinael: Amen.
Peterson: Amen.
Crystle: Amen.
Guerline: Amen.
Naraiel: Amen.
Ye: Amen.

Zahakiel: Today’s study is called “Hold Fast,” and the title is taken from the following verse: “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering (for He is faithful that promised).” (Heb 10:23)

The phrase itself, “hold fast,” appears in several verses other than this one, such as, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1Th 5:21)  “Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go.  Keep her; for she is thy life.” (Pro 4:13)  “Seeing then that we have a great High Priest that is passed into the heavens, Yahshua the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.” (Heb 4:14)

The popular religions of today all teach their members to “have faith,” and to “cling to Jesus,” and to “stand firm” on their faith.  That all sounds very good, but all too often, even for that second one, we find that those words themselves mean little, for they are not given a context.  We read in the Scriptures, of course, that “the devils also believe, and tremble.” (James 2:19)  We know that they believe in the power of Yahweh, and acknowledge Yahshua as His Son.  In fact, it was the demons, before anyone else, who first acknowledged Yahshua as such during the course of His public ministry.  There were a few individuals who realized it as He was growing up, but the Messiah’s opponents were the ones who first declared it aloud.  In the first passage of the New Testament where the phrase “Son of God” appears, it is from the mouth of Satan. “And when the tempter came to Him, he said, ‘If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.’” (Mat 4:3)  And then in terms of the public confession of it, we first read that first here, “And when He was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.  And, behold, they cried out, saying, ‘What have we to do with thee, Yashua, thou Son of God? Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?’” (Mat 8:28, 29) 

So then, the devils believe in the Father and Son, and admit that Yahshua who was crucified is that Son of whom the Scriptures speak.  They are unlikely to change that viewpoint, having borne witness to these things themselves, so they will “stand fast” in their faith.  So what is it exactly the Scriptures instruct us to do regarding holding fast?  We read another verse that gives us some more precise instructions: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3)

Now we have some more understanding; we are not only to hold fast to “our faith,” whatever that may happen to be, but to a specific faith, to “the faith” that was given to the holy ones of Yahweh.  “Our faith” is anything that we happen to believe and, even for the remnant Church, some of the things we happen to believe might just be wrong.  I am not speaking here of doctrines necessarily.  We are not going to receive any more Scriptures before the end; as Jude writes, in fact, the faith was “once delivered” to the saints. It is a completed process, and we currently have “the faith” delivered to us.  I do not, of course, mean that inspiration ceased at that point. The Book of Revelation, for example, was written after Jude; but the Gospel in its core, essential teachings, was already provided by the apostles during their early work following Pentecost.

What we must do is make sure that “our faith” and “the faith” are the same.  In the things that we believe as individuals, personally, it is our task as we prepare for Heaven to ensure that the things we accept as true are those things which Yahweh Himself has declared as truth.

This is the reason why, in the verses I began this study with, we are not merely told to “hold fast,” but to hold fast to something specific.  We are to guard carefully, and even contend for, “that which is good,” and “instruction.”  The first and last verses, both from Hebrews, gives us an interesting exhortation, to hold fast to “our profession,” that is, “the profession of our faith.”  And what does that mean?  The word “profession” means, not only the things you believe, but also the things you say you believe.  In other words, it is your “testimony.”  And looking at all those verses, thus seeing a more complete picture of what the Bible is instructing us to do, we see that we are not merely to cling to our faith, or to keep our testimony consistent, but we must first learn what the truth as it is in Yahshua is, and then firmly hold fast to that truth, professing it, or testifying to it openly, without wavering.

The Spirit and the Principles of Law

Zahakiel: Now, this may seem like a very basic teaching so far, but as you witness to others, you might find yourself being surprised by just how novel that idea is to some people.  There are those who believe that it does not really matter what you profess; as long as you are faithful to it, you are okay with God.  And while there is some truth behind such statements – and this is key – that is not the whole story.  We read in Romans 1, “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;  (for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.  For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” (Rom 2:12-16)

Say when you have finished with that.

Qinael: Finished.
Naraiel: Done.
Guerline: Done.
Happy Rock: Done.
Ye: Done.
Crystle: Finished.

Zahakiel: What that passage is saying is that God will judge fairly.  Paul explains a little bit about how it is that Yahweh can judge fairly, even though not all have heard the same information, and not all have borne witness to the same truth and knowledge in their lives.  The Gentiles, he says, have not had the law, but if they do by nature those things that God considers good, (we would say through a willingness to be led by the Holy Spirit) their consciences become a “second witness” to their lives, and they are judged only according to that light which they have had.

But there are two things to consider here: First, it does not say, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do those things which they think are right and proper.” What he says is that they, “do by nature the things contained in the law.”  They must still act according to the principles of the Law, and this is why, even though Yahweh judges all fairly, evangelism (teaching people the truth) is still of eternal consequence.  Notice, though, I didn’t say the “letter” of the law, but the principles of the law, and for a good reason.  If someone sincerely believes, for example, that the Sabbath is on Sunday, we have never taught that such a person would be condemned by having the day wrong – although we do teach that the day itself is blessed, as the Scriptures mention a number of times, and they might miss a necessary blessing.  But if they read the principles of what the “Sabbath” is, however, and apply it faithfully, they will not fail to receive some blessing nonetheless. So that is the first thing, even if they have not heard the Law, the Spirit may still attempt to lead them into the principles (if not the actual letter) of the truth.  But again, it is not truth as dictated by conscience alone, for some consciences are corrupt; (1Tim 4:2) it is the truth as God declares it, and their consciences may follow after and witness it.  That is the first thing.

And the second thing is that Paul writes, “… the Gentiles, which have not the law…”  He does not say, “…the Gentiles, which have rejected the law…” or “…the Gentiles, which have ignored the Law…” or even “… the Gentiles, which do not desire the law…”  The difference there should be plain.  Those who have the opportunity to learn the truth about Biblical doctrine, but do not desire it, or are not interested in progressing, are still held accountable, because they have failed to come into conformity with the principles of the law. And it is for the same reason as above, because they have rejected the leading of the Spirit. In the first case, the Spirit attempts to lead them directly, for there are no available human agents to convey the information, and in the second case the Spirit attempts to lead them the preferred way, through a messenger.  The result is the same: they cannot “hold fast,” as the Bible instructs, because they do not have the thing they are supposed to hold fast to.

Are there any questions so far?

Naraiel: No.
Ye: No.
Happy Rock: No.
Crystle: No.
Guerline: No.
Qinael: No.

Discerning the Spirit in Messengers

Zahakiel: In this matter we need to be careful.  The Word instructs us, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1John 4:1)  In fact, I have already written an article that speaks about how to tell false prophets from true ones.  With the principles that have already been laid out, one can tell who is a true messenger of Heaven and who is not.  But then, some of these ideas cannot always be applied in every situation. For example, the CSDA Church produces books, booklets, pamphlets and so on, and we hand out literature when the opportunity presents itself.  But the purpose of these things is to give information to large amounts of people because of the fact that we can’t personally speak to everyone one-on-one.  Some of the means by which we can tell a true messenger from a false one involves dealing with the person directly, so then, how can we know if something that we read, or a letter, or an email, contains light that should be pursued?  These are things we could all benefit from examining.  So what I would like to do, for the remainder of this study, is go over my previous list of concepts discussing the examination of divine (vs. self-sent or worldly) messengers, and then see what can apply to non-personal contact, and if perhaps there are other methods we can use for written messages.

So, to summarize the main points from my previous work on this matter, an article entitled “Standing In The Rain,” we find these four ideas:

1)      The purpose of a prophet (or messenger in general) is to reveal Yahweh to the people.  We read, “Surely Adonai Yahweh will do nothing, but He revealeth his secret unto His servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7)  Divine messengers receive knowledge of what Yahweh intends to do, and then they reveal them to others. Prophets are a special sub-section of this group, because they receive insight directly form Yah, often when there is no alternative way to have learned of His actions.  Messengers in general may learn of Yah’s will by other means, such as Bible study. William Miller is a well-known example to Adventists of an individual who did not claim any direct prophetic revelation, but came to knowledge of an important message for the Church as a result of prayerful Bible study.

2)      A messenger will speak accurately.  This one ties into prophecy fairly intimately, because the prophets office included, at times, foretelling future events.  “And if thou say in thine heart, ‘How shall we know the word which Yahweh hath not spoken?’ When a prophet speaketh in the name of Yahweh, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Yahweh hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not be afraid of him.” (Deu 18:21, 22)  I point out in the article that “accuracy” and “infallibility” are not the same, neither is it the same as “predictability.”  In other words, there were times when prophets such as Jonah, Nathan, Samuel, and Ezekiel made predictions that did not come to pass – at least not as originally declared.  Prophecy is conditional, but at the same time, the conditional nature of the word spoken does not detract from its accuracy. In other words, if Nineveh does not fall, but we find that the people repented, we can understand why the prediction was not fulfilled.  We can find the cause of conditionality.  If Jonah had said, “In forty days, Nineveh shall fall,” and it did not fall even though nothing changed, then we would have to conclude that Jonah’s gift was false.  Does everyone see how that works?

Guerline: Yes.
Ye: Yes.
Naraiel: Yes.
Crystle: Yes.
Qinael: <nods.>

Zahakiel:

3)      Another one, and it’s the one that Adventists bring up a lot, is that the messenger will speak according to the “Law and the Testimony.”  We cite, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isa 8:18-20)  This is normally applied to warn people about Sunday-keeping preachers, but really it has a much broader applicability than simply convincing someone that the Sabbath is on Saturday.  The Law teaches us about the character of Yahweh. The law teaches us about Agape-love, and how this is expressed toward both the Almighty and our fellow man.  As Christ taught, these are the two most important teachings. (Mat 22:37-40)

4)      A messenger will preach repentance.  This one is just about absolute; if a messenger does not speak of repentance, he or she is not a true messenger.  And the reason why this is true is obvious: Yahweh seeks to impose as little as possible upon human freedom, and for the sake of His natural majesty, He must cloak Himself in obscurity.  This is a concept we examined last feast when we were reviewing the Araphel study.  As a consequence of this, if a messenger does appear, it is because things are not going well, and the message will consist of a call to repent, to turn around and either find or re-enter the right path.

The way I have explained it here, these four ideas are roughly in order of importance.  The first test is somewhat reliable, because it assumes that the one who is doing the evaluating already knows Yahweh’s character.  The second one is based on conditionality, and is not an absolute test either.  The third and fourth ones, however, are extremely important.  While a new message may not immediately sound like “the law and the testimony” as we’ve received it so far, the principles must always be shown to line up with what has come before. And the fourth one is pretty clear-cut; repentance will always be a part of Yahweh’s messages for those who live in this age.

Applying the Tests

Zahakiel: So now that we have seen these tests, let’s sort them a little in terms of applicability to written messages, and they do all apply to one degree or another.  But before we do that, I’d like to point out some differences between evaluating a person and evaluating an object, like an email, letter or book.

First, clarity may be more of an issue.  You would expect that written communication would be clearer, because the author has time to plan out the words, set them in order, think about them and proofread the final product.  At the same time, it also has the disadvantage that if something is misunderstood, you can’t always discuss it with the writer to get clarification.

And second, written words do not convey emotion as easily as speech, and you do not have the ability to look at the speaker, which sometimes provides insight into their sincerity, intelligence, and other factors that might influence how you view the material, at least initially.

Going over the list I just gave, the first point, revealing Yahweh to the people, is not always something that you can immediately tell from a written work.  If someone writes an email or letter to you (or if you write one to somebody else) it is not necessarily going to include the basics of the Gospel: victory in Yahshua, the work of atonement on the cross and the Heavenly Sanctuary, the investigative judgment, the three angels’ message.  It will align with their principles, naturally, but sometimes specific teachings are required, or documents are produced to address specific errors.  As such, you can’t always apply every Biblical test of revelation.  For example, John writes, “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” (1John 4:2, 3)

It would be artificial, and legalistic to the point of idiocy, to include the phrase, “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” in every one of our emails and letters.  It isn’t that this is not true, but it’s not proof that we are speaking for God; and its absence is not evidence that we are NOT speaking for God either.  The worst apostates will confess this idea, and all that does is demonstrate that they are not anti-Christ in the specific matter that John was addressing in that epistle: the heresy of Gnosticism.

So then, what we can do is to see if the teachings set forth in the written work reveal the character of Yahweh in the specific point being addressed, although sometimes the point being made is so precise that this is not necessarily a cut-and-dry issue.

Any questions here?

Qinael: No.
Happy Rock: No.
Naraiel: No.
Ye: No.
Guerline: No.

Zahakiel: In regard to the second point, accuracy, clearly the written messages must be “accurate” in the same way that a person would.  We do not forbid our members to read other religions’ materials, as some do.  We only seek to ground them first in the truth so that they might properly know how to “refuse the evil, and choose the good.” (Isa 7:15) as Christ did growing up.  Remember, we must hold fast that which is good, and for this reason, accuracy may be even more of an issue when trying to evaluate the written word, rather than an individual’s speech.  As I mentioned, one who speaks verbally may change in response to a further revelation of truth, but if Yah has instructed someone to write something down, it is generally to preserve a record of it for some reason.

When Paul was speaking in regard to remaining single in response to “the present distress,” (1Cor 7:26) he believed that the end was about to come in that generation.  Whether it could have or not, we note that he was careful to include, “I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.” (1Cor 7:25)  And then he concludes by saying, “I think also that I have the Spirit of God.” (verse 40)  There is, after all, such a thing as “inspired opinion.”  It is something that we may think, or believe, in response to our understanding of the right principles, but it is subject to change based upon circumstances. This is why we say of inspired writings that are not the foundation for doctrine (such as Ellen White’s words) that we must learn to “read for principle,” and not necessarily for the “letter.”  But do not take this to mean that the letter is unimportant either.  If a messenger comes to you and says, “I heard the voice of Yahweh concerning you, and He bids me instruct you to do X, Y and Z,” it is generally not a good idea to ignore this specific instruction and stand there idly wondering, “Now, what did that message really mean?”  If Noah had wondered what Yah had “really meant” when He instructed him to build the ark…

So written messages, which are rarely circulated for the purpose of giving opinions that are described by the authors AS opinions, should be checked carefully for accuracy in all things.  And, I would say, if they are designed for public education, such as a pamphlet or book describing doctrine, it should be held to even higher scrutiny than the words of someone with whom we are discussing our beliefs in person.

Does everyone understand this point?

Qinael: Yes.
Guerline: Yes.
Naraiel: Yes.
Ye: Yes.
Happy Rock: Yes.
Peterson: Yes.

Zahakiel: Ok, now the third criterion, “to the law and the testimony,” I would say that this one is equally applicable to the written and spoken word.  I don’t think I need to say much on this topic, but I’d like to point out that even if the issue the writing addresses is very narrow, and even if it seeks to express only inspired opinion, we can still discern an error if it is actually contradictory to the doctrinal statements of the Bible.  For example, if we are reading a book that speaks about the workings of the Almighty in human history, but it makes frequent references to the spirits of the departed being in Heaven or being tormented endlessly in a presently ongoing “hell,” we would be inclined to look skeptically upon the work as a whole.  If there is any benefit to be drawn from it, it’s probably more a coincidence than the result of any direct inspiration, although this is a hard thing to swallow for many nominal Christians who have come to respect the numerous popular preachers out there today.

I was speaking to one individual some time ago about the Sabbath, and she understood all that was shared.  She saw in the Scriptures that it was a blessing ordained by Elohim before the Mosaic Law, was kept after the cross, and will be kept even in the renewed creation. She had no issue with that, but then she said, “Well, what about all those godly men such as (I think the guy’s name was Charles Stanley) who keep Sunday as the Lord’s day?”  And I said, “Well, we have to be careful with people like that. We do not need to question their sincerity, but I do not think I could describe someone as ‘godly’ if they do not even know the Father and Son well enough to understand, see the benefits of, and obey ten simple instructions.”  She had a hard time accepting that, because his sermons were so “inspiring,” and filled with what was – to her – obvious truths. And many of us, once we have learned the truth, have had experiences where we’ve gone back and listened to the things we once thought were so brilliant, and they now seem so basic compared to the narrow path that has been set before us that stretches off into eternity.

The fourth item in the list was: Repentance.  Like the first one, this may be difficult to discern in written works, because while they are generally written to correct some issue, everyone who has an opinion to offer, some new doctrine to teach, new light, (however false these things may be) is going to say, “Everyone else is wrong, and they need to change their minds so that they agree with my findings.”  They’re going to ask you to repent of something, even if that something is sound Scriptural doctrine.  Now, if they specifically say, “repent of your sins,” and they properly define sin as, anomia, the Biblical word that means, “A state of disharmony with, or rebellion against, the law,” then they are on the right track, to some degree.  But it is not enough to simply say, “Stop sinning.”  Just about all Churches teach that we must, or will, or should.  The truth tells us  that if we are born again, we “have ceased” from sin.  At the time of that new birth, in fact, at the time the new life within you is conceived, if you want to be very specific, that new life is a union of divine spirit and earthly flesh – just as Yahshua was – and that life is led by that spirit to deny that flesh.  It is a life that is free of all known sin, and can be no other way if it is the true life from Heaven.

So, not only must the message from Heaven preach “repentance,” but “full repentance,” and thus true and complete conversion.  As I said, like the first, the email or letter may not directly address this issue, for it may be targeted at a specific matter, but by no means must it every state or even imply a contradiction to this central Gospel concept.

Warning Flags

Zahakiel: Now, we’ve seen that all four of the criteria I gave are applicable to some degree when trying to decide of a written message is worth absorbing.  And there are many signposts that may be given regarding what a “good” letter looks like.  For the purposes of this study, however, I think it might be easier to speak briefly of danger signs.  When we are discussing matters of truth and doctrine, we have often accurately said that it is better to teach the truth, rather than spending time dwelling on the numerous errors that “might” exist.  If we teach people how to recognize true doctrine, they can eliminate the false ones merely by comparing it to the truth.

In terms of evaluating written works that claim to be from messengers of God, I think the four things I named above go a long way toward that.  At the same time, it may be helpful to look at specific errors that may be missed while applying those four criteria, and so I will provide a list here, taken from my memory of the emails and letters I have received over the years.  Most of these are pretty obvious, and they won’t require much explanation, which is a good thing, because there are twelve of them.

  1. A false letter is often hung up on one theory that is peripheral to the Gospel.  If they spend a lot of time trying to convince you of a matter that really doesn’t change anything regarding the instructions that Yahweh has given to man, it is evidence that someone is merely trying to get attention for a “pet” theory they have accepted or developed.
  2. Faulty religious writings are sometimes overly complicated, and do not acknowledge that.  The truth is always very simple. There are sometimes topics that appear complex at first, because they may be very new to the audience, but a self-aware author will acknowledge, “This may be new light to some people,” and take the time to try and set it out carefully, instead of plunging ahead and expecting everyone to be able to keep up.
  3. Erroneous writings sometimes start to cover an objection, but do not finish the thought. Brother Luke and I spoke for a while with some individuals who had accepted a concept called the “Lunar Sabbath.”  What this doctrine teaches is that the Sabbath is not a weekly event, but rather that the first of every lunar month (a New Moon) is the first Sabbath of the cycle, and then we count every 7 days from that until the next New Moon, where the cycle resets itself.  This is ruled out conclusively by a number of teachings.  The calculation method given for Pentecost, in which 7 Sabbaths is described as forty-nine days, with the convocation falling on the fiftieth (Lev 23:15, 16) can only work if the Sabbath is understood to correspond to a common calendar week.  The same is true of the pattern for the Jubilee year, “And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years.” (Lev 25:8) 

This, by the way, gives a seldom-used bit of evidence for the day representing a year in symbolic prophecy.  The Lunar Sabbath folks teach that the “right” way to keep the Sabbath day was lost during the Babylonian exile which, to me, seems ludicrous, since Christ, the “Lord of the Sabbath,” was keeping the Sabbaths exactly as we do today – AFTER the Babylonian exile.  There is no evidence that there was any change in the method of weekly observance from that day to this.  In one email we were sent by the supporters of this doctrine, the email said, “Some object to this method of calculation by pointing out that 7 Sabbaths and a day is called ‘fifty days’ in Leviticus, but is this sound reasoning, or just a distraction from what the Spirit is trying to tell us?”  I’m not sure if that’s the exact wording, but it’s very close, and it is an example of this third flag, because it doesn’t actually address what is said, it merely tries to raise doubts in what people have accepted, and accepted for good reason.  This brings us to the next warning sign…

  1. Letters that are not from Heaven will often raise questions about your faith that it does not clearly answer.  It just tries to cause doubts, without much or any support from the Scriptures, to get you to feel uncertain, so that maybe you’ll buy the new idea.  Three and four are closely connected, so you should see what I mean easily enough.
  2. Yahweh is not the author of confusion, (1Cor 14:33) and so you can identify those works that are not from Him if they fail to make logical arguments.  I’ve seen so many examples of this one over the years it is hard to choose a single example.  I do recall one where an individual sent me an email listing a number of reasons why male Christians should always have beards.  A few of them seemed, at first glance, almost reasonable, but as I went down the list, I realized that the author was just throwing in anything he could think of, and some of the reasons from the lower part of the list actually contradicted some of the reasons from the upper part.  But one of the reasons that was provided, and I kid you not, went something like this, “When men are castrated, they do not produce testosterone, and have a difficult time growing beards.  With this in mind, Christian men should wear their beards proudly, or people might think they were eunuchs.”
  3. An obvious one is that a faulty document does not quote Scripture to support its points.  Now, there are times when Christians, speaking to each other, will merely say something to encourage or correct others.  They aren’t necessarily going to say, “Well, as it says in the book of the prophet X, you really should brush your teeth on a regular basis.”  Some things just don’t require that kind of direct support to be meaningful.  I’ve given a sermon where I didn’t quote a single Bible verse… but then again, that was a sermon, not a Bible study, and if you heard my talk to the Church a couple weeks ago, you should know the difference between those two kinds of presentations.  And even then, I would not publish that sermon as a indicator of a “typical CSDA teaching.”  It was simply not written for that purpose.
  4. Clearly, an erroneous statement of doctrine will misquote, misapply and mangle the Word of God.  I used to, and sometimes occasionally still, watch History Channel documentaries about Biblical topics. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with such documentaries, and I think our Church library has several of them on tape… but one of the things that annoys me about them is that for a number of topics, they wheel out the same set of three people (usually a minister, a priest and a rabbi, like the old joke) and they will consistently misquote the Bible on the matter being discussed.  Sometimes they will say things like, “Well, we really don’t know why the prophet said this,” or, “We can’t be sure just why this individual took such an action,” when the reason is given right there in the passage under discussion.  These are documentaries, not doctrinal letters or emails, but you can get the idea pretty easily of what I am talking about.  And here again, there are so many examples I could cite.
  5. The author of a religious document is clearly clutching at straws in an attempt to support his or her point when there is a reliance upon obscure translations of the Bible.  CSDAs generally use several versions, but rely upon none for doctrine.  Many of us prefer the King James’ Version for study, but this is very much a matter of personal taste, and it is done with an intelligent awareness that we sometimes do need to go to a concordance, or a lexicon, or do some word comparisons, to see the consistency in the voice of the Spirit across different passages in different translations. But the issue here is when a doctrine depends upon a translation that is far from the mainstream, and the writer gives no explanation – or at least, no convincing explanation – as to why that translation is the best one for that job.
  6. Similar to No. 8, if an author spends an inordinate amount of time trying to parse out the meaning of the original languages, this is a warning sign.  I do sometimes look at the Hebrew or Greek words in my studies, and usually as a way of confirming what may be understood from the English, but I don’t like to spend a lot of time doing that, because we are not trying to give the impression that one must be able to speak the authors’ languages in order to make Bible study worthwhile.  There are a few places in which it is helpful to know the connotations of the original words, and to use the context to understand which of the several related meanings are the most suitable, but again the doctrine should not strictly depend upon such things.
  7. If an author makes frequent appeals to emotion, and presents opinion as if it were fact, that’s a dangerous work being considered.  I think I have mentioned this before, but I bought a book called Rapture Under Attack, and it was designed to support the teachings embraced by the authors of the “Left Behind” series, which depends upon the concept of a pre-tribulation rapture to drive its plot.  I wasn’t very interested in the stories, but I was curious about how they supported the doctrines.  And, it was a terrible book.  In one place, the author went so far as to give this as one of the reasons why he believes in the pre-tribulation version, “Well, even if it’s not absolutely going to happen this way, at least it seems like a reasonable thing to believe.”  I think it was that statement, more than any other in the book, that prompted me to write the three articles on my website discussing the rapture teaching.  It is not reasonable to believe that Christ removes us from the very thing that He told us twice to “watch” for as Christians, and that Peter exhorts us to prepare for in his letter – and that’s just one of the many reasons I present.
  8.  Appeals to group authority, or really any human authority, are generally a very bad sign. The majority is almost invariably wrong on religious matters, and this is why the true path is called the “narrow road,” while the false one is called the “broad way.”  The statement, “But don’t believe me, just ask your Church members, or your pastor,” is not going to convince any committed Protestant Christian that has a consistent, healthy prayer life and a rewarding Bible study routine.
  9. Another issue I had with the Rapture book I mentioned above was its tendency to insult and attack opponents of the theory.  It is very possible, and sometimes necessary, for religious writings to criticize and admonish those that stand against the truth, but when it begins to border on slander, and to get personal about it, this is not the product of divine love that the Holy Spirit inspires.

Now, are there any questions about these?

Naraiel: No.
Qinael: No.
Happy Rock: No.
Ye: No.

Conclusion

Zahakiel: In conclusion, I’d just like to restate the positive signs to look for when evaluating a written work that claims to be inspired, or spiritually beneficial.  First, it should reveal the character of Yahweh, even if only incidentally when discussing a specific topic.  Second, it be accurate in all that it states.  Third, it absolutely must line up with the Scriptures, and even if it seems new and different from what has come in the past, it should acknowledge this, and show why the apparent deviation is true.  And finally, it should be in harmony with a proper understanding of repentance from sin.  Even if this is not the main topic that the writing is presenting, it absolutely must not contradict it in any way, or the author does not know the Gospel, that he or she might help to properly present it.

By looking to these four main signs, and being critically aware of the twelve “warning signs” that I have listed, I believe that we have a set of very useful tools for evaluating the books, letters and emails that come to us on a regular basis as members of the Bride of Christ.

Are there any last thoughts or questions before we close?

Peterson: No.
Crystle: No.
Qinael: No.
Naraiel: No.
Happy Rock: No.
Ye: No.

Guerline: How about books and compilations of offshoot Adventism and so on?

Zahakiel: Well, those would be subject to the same ideas I presented above. To be fair, we’d have to evaluate everything exactly the same way.

Guerline: Ok. Thanks.

Qinael: Our most holy and loving Father in Heaven,

We thank you for this time of self-examination and cleansing for your Body. Thank you for the study this afternoon, teaching us principles of how to examine things to come to us as that Body seeking to convince us of various things.  We know that there are many false teachers in the world, and yet that not every “new” thing is false.  We thank you for a clear instruction in your Word of what the truth is, and sound principles for how to discern it.

We ask your blessing on us as we dismiss from this meeting, in Yahshua’s name, amen.

Peterson: Amen.
Crystle: Amen.
Guerline: Amen.
Zahakiel: Amen.
Ye: Amen.
Happy Rock: Amen.
Naraiel: Amen.