| Author | Message | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 739 Registered: 9-2006  |
P.S In the beginning thread I said " However the Christian who understands the law of love is free to use the law of the Ten Commandments in order to show the need of Christ to a lost and dieing world." I probably worded that badly, yes I believe we are free to use them, however I was referring to Timothy I 1:8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, Timothy I 1:9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, Timothy I 1:10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, What I had in mind was what both testaments speak of. I was not recommending anyone teach the old covenant. River | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1045 Registered: 4-2000  |
Colleen, Your concluding thoughts are very accurate, "I understand that most people won't react to these issues as we do." Having been abused by a festal shadow does not authorize any of us to dislike or ignore where we find God's moral commands in Scripture. This is nothing less than overreacting to our abusive past. This peculiar stance is truly "shocking" to the Christian community (as we see with this very thread). Furthermore, this antinomian stance compromises and limits our Christian witness to those we are desperately trying to reach for Christ. As I mentioned earlier, it simply turns people off. It doesn't even sound good to have an aversion to the moral directives in the Decalogue. We don't have to apologize or warn people about any moral law in any part of Scripture. We must not allow a ceremonial law to frighten us into taking this extreme position; specificly, not making any reference to the Ten Commandments in evangelism. Instead, we of all people should wholeheartedly welcome the opportunity to share our faith about Jesus being the reality of the festal shadows. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 151 Registered: 1-2006  |
Chris In an earlier post a couple days ago I noticed that I had badly mistyped the text for Paul's statement that " . . .through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses." The reference was Acts 13:38,39. You have stated exactly the same issue that I struggled with in considering what to do with the fourth commandment. I understand Acts 13:38,39 to state that we are freed from everything that was addressed (both moral and ceremonial) in the Law of Moses. That said, I find myself in agreement with Brian, who wrote: "If a new covenant saint commits adultery, he has violated Romans 13:9, not Exodus 20:14. . . To sum it up, the new covenant is not a postscript (P.S.), addendum, or codicil to the old covenant. The new covenant is a separate contract." With the change of the law clearly referenced in Hebrews 7:12, I think the burden of proof rests with those who would insist that parts OC law still apply. Dennis, although I respect your position, and especially your interest in not erecting barriers for Adventists, I must say that I see this differently. I think this issue is vital to helping people step out from under bondage to the OC law, and if people get it wrong (Adventists are particularly at risk here) they will quickly find themselves back under bondage. With such strong scriptural evidence as we have available as NC Christians, I prefer just hitting this head-on. I don't think it's a barrier for Adventists; I think it's an important key they need to finally be free. River, I praise God for you! What an incredible spirit you have. I truly praise the Lord for his work in our hearts and lives, and for your walk with the Lord. Bob | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 152 Registered: 1-2006 |
Dennis and all others in this discussion: I'd like to apologize for seeming a bit harsh in my post #149, earlier today. It's a slow healing process for some of us formers, and I sincerely apologize for the hot tone of that post. Bob | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 740 Registered: 9-2006 |
Bob, I did not see harshness in your post. “What we have here is a failure to communicate” (cool hand Luke). We communicate via this mode and we sometimes misunderstand each other but we clear it up and move on. There is always the potential for the enemy of our souls to try to use the ways we communicate against us, we must not let that happen. The vein of this thread has shown me that Colleen is very correct in that speaking the way I spoke at the beginning of this thread has a potential to cause confusion to the former Adventist, as I said I failed to remember your suffering and while I am innocent in intention, I am guilty of failure to remember what brought me here in the first place and what I found when I got here. Every one of us on here is at different stages of his/her learning and their walk with Christ. My original thread was not meant to bring confusion to the former Adventist nor to make your struggles more difficult and yet I may be guilty of that very thing. The fact is that I come from a much different background than you folks do and so we think differently. You folks came from living in the old covenant and stepped into the new, the difference is that I have never lived in the old covenants, tried to keep Saturday Sabbath, suffered under the Adventist regimes of meats, Sabbath keeping and influence of E.G.White and the IJ. Now if this was not so serious it would be amusing, when you speak to me about the covenants you are preaching to the quire. While to me and I would think, to most Evangelicals the question “But what do you do with the 4th commandment” is a none-issue, I am speaking from the view of a non-Adventist Evangelical. That is why I could not understand Chris and Chris could not understand me. It is just the simple fact that I have never been where you have been and you have never been where I have been. Again Chris, I apologize and I mean that with all my heart my brother and my friend in Christ. I understand perfectly what Dennis is saying, he had no intention of rancor toward anyone, what Dennis is saying is that “Hey folks, there is a world beyond former Adventist” does that about sum it up Dennis? However this forum is for former Adventist or folk with families in Adventism, you know, wives with husbands and husbands with wives, things like that, it says it right on the front of the page. It is for the discussion of problems these folk might be having, issues they struggle with and a place to come where they might not feel so alone. Now the next logical question is “Well River, then what the heck are you doing on this forum?” Well, just maybe God has a reason for me to be here, I won’t go into the going on five years that I have studied Adventism and crowing about that. To put it simply the place that I have been carried to has left me just as alone as many of you and with many of the same issues you face. My own Evangelical folk look at me like I got two heads, even my wife, and so I just don’t talk to them anymore about it. Maybe God lead me here because I needed you more that you need me. I cannot see the end of the purposes that God has for me or for you all I can do is try to walk in the light as he is in the light. Jesus talked a lot about light. In one place in the NEW TESTAMENT one of the disciples ask Jesus about the other disciple and Jesus answer came back “What is that to you, follow me”. I have just got to where I don’t question to much about why, I have come to the conclusion I just have to follow along he is not going to tell me anyway so I just follow along staying in the light as best I can. I capitalized the word New Testament for Chris, its an inside joke, I hope he gets it. Smiley. So Colleen, what you said is noted and understood and appreciated. Thank you again for bearing with this old non- Adventist, you have been such a friend. Hey, maybe this thread was the will of the Lord, maybe we needed lessons learned about each other so we could love each other more through better understanding, gee I don’t know I am doing half the time much less what God’s overall plans are. I am just guessing. River | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5812 Registered: 12-2003  |
River, your understanding is such a gift to all of us. I do believe this thread is God's will. This subject continues to plague people, and I know that those who have never struggled with the law really don't, at first, understand why we react to this. Again, Dennis, I just want to say again that what I am explaining in no way "throws out" the Ten Commandments. I'm only saying that I don't believe it's necessary to use the Ten Commandments specifically to convince people of sin. Certainly, when people are being deceived by Adventist-type evangelism, using the Ten Commnandments to convince them they are sinners tends to have the effect of putting them under the law instead of becoming freed from it. Again, approaching this subject from the perspective of Jesus having FULFILLED the law is very different from "throwing out" the law. It is not antinomianism to call people to holiness based on the the New Testament's minute description of sin. Law is not defined by the Decalogue but by God! River, I agree so much with your point about Jesus not revealing to the disciples the facts of the others' futures or personal instructions from Him. We are to do what He tells us to do, and He speaks to us personally, moment by moment. There is no formula for what to say or how to say it: there is only the consistency of One Savior who is the Way to the Father for each of us depraved individuals. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 741 Registered: 9-2006 |
Thank you for your kind words Colleen. By the way thank you or whoever for sending the donation envelopes, they help me keep organized, I just found the envelope in my pile and its already the 10th of the month and I haven't even sent in my article due the 15th. I would send you a picture of my desk but I would not want to alarm you needlessly. Now thats a scary picture! It even scares me to walk in here although I handle it bravely, I turn on my computer, look at the screen and ignore the mess. Yesterday I was hung in traffic, I left at six or so in the morning and spent most of the day in bumper to bumper. The next time they want an office meeting 90 miles away I think I will object most vigorously. Retirement is not what it used to be. Now I know your office is nice and neat and you have four sharpened #2 pencils all pointed in the same direction and exact alignment and you are sitting there sweetly in your Sunday best and of course Richard standing by to do your every beck and call.  River | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1303 Registered: 7-2003  |
Dennis, I will say this again, and again I ask you to imagine this with a loving tone. It is offensive to characterize the view I am presenting as antinomian. It is clearly not, as I have said in many different ways many different times that Christians are under the eternal transcendent law of God and are held to all that implies, the highest standard or moral holiness. I would again respectfully ask that you not mischaracterize the New Covenant position on this and thereby muddy the waters. As River has said, it is certainly okay to disagree on these things. It is not okay to mischaracterize another's position. Perhaps you are not doing so intentially, but you cannot cogently participate in a debate unless you at least grasp the point the other person is making (no matter how much you might disagree with it). To help you and others: 1. Understand the position that is actually being taken. 2. Understand that it is in no way an antinomian postion. 3. Understand that is not just a position taken by over-reacting former SDA, but by serious theologians. I would respectfully recommend an article by John G. Reisinger titled, We are Under Laws, but Not Under The Law". Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1304 Registered: 7-2003 |
River, I completely agree that we can disagree on and vigorously debate these types of non-essentials without dividing over them. You may feel that I in some way offended by the fact that we have a different take on this topic. I am truly not offended and hope that my posts to you do not carry this tone. If they do, please honestly tell me so and I will most certainly publicly apologize and ask your forgiveness. I am genuinely interested in discussion and loving debate on such topics and I truly wish to understand why others hold the position that they do. As long as all sides are loving, respectful, and strive to accurately comprehend the other's position, I believe this is a healthy exercise. I believe your attitude in the discussion has been exemplary. I appreciate you re-explaining your position to me and I believe that has helped me to grasp your view to a greater degree. In the area of non-essentials, understanding the other view may be more important than coming to agreement with it. Thank you, River | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1305 Registered: 7-2003 |
Bob, post number 151 was excellent. I agree with pretty much everything you said. I too love what Brian said. This was so excellent:
Chris | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1780 Registered: 10-2004  |
I agree, Chris. "New Covenant Theology" is not antinomian, and frankly it is very offensive for people to falsely accuse in that manner. What is so scary about "casting out" the Ten Words (as God COMMANDS us to do in Galatians 4:30) if we hold onto the New Covenant? Is the New Testament IMMORAL? As Chris pointed out, this not a "unique former SDA" position. Obviously, the vast majority of those who adhere to "New Covenant Theology" are in fact not former Adventists and have no background in Adventism. Also, it would not be a "peculiar stance" or "shocking" to the Christian church in the first few centuries. We should remember that the early church fathers all taught clearly (as was handed down to them by the apostles--including from the written epistles, etc.) what is today "nicknamed" "New Covenant Theology." Only since the middle ages is it thought of as "peculiar" by a large number of Christians. Jeremy | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1046 Registered: 4-2000 |
River, In summary, the deliberate nonuse of the Ten Commandments in evangelism would ill-prepare one for the next Adventist who may come knocking on their door. It is most essential to know the difference between a moral and ceremonial law. The notion of completely avoiding the Decalogue would clearly imperil those without any foundational knowledge of ritual law. Without the Law, there is no Gospel. Without the condemnation of the Law, the sacrifice of Jesus would have been totally unnecessary in our behalf. Admittedly, when I first left Adventism, I too enthusiastically believed in an antinomian stance for awhile (e.g., that the moral laws, as stated in the Ten Commandments, are somehow not binding upon Christians). Sadly, but true, this is often a normal response of those who have suffered legalistic abuse. In the grip of His grace, Dennis Fischer | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1306 Registered: 7-2003 |
Dennis, I am sorry that you believed this, but that is not what I or others who lean towards New Covenant theology embrace or teach. That is a misrepresentation of New Covenant Theology and a misrepresentation of what I am saying. I can only continue to ask as a Christian brother that you not misrepresent this position so egregiously. Please read the article I posted above. Reisinger, a non-adventist, makes it clear New Covenant Theology very much embraces God's laws and all of the moral directives and obligations there in. We also understand that these moral obligations are eternal. It seems irresponsible to continue to call a position "antinomian" (against law or without law) that clearly states time and time again that we are indeed under God's moral law. It is irresponsible, it is factually incorrect, and it is a misuse of a word that has a specific meaning. Chris | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1047 Registered: 4-2000 |
Chris, As you are fully aware, NCT is decidedly against the Decalogue having any role for the Christian today. Thus, it is most factual and proper to call this nothing less than "antinomianism" ("nomos" specifically refers to the Decalogue). Dennis Fischer | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 100 Registered: 8-2005 |
Then sign me up as an antinomian! Exodus 34:27-28 NASB Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." (28) So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments. Deuteronomy 4:12-13 NASB "Then the LORD spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but you saw no form--only a voice. (13) "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone. Deuteronomy 5:2-3 NASB "The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. (3) "The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today. Deuteronomy 9:9-11 NASB "When I went up to the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD had made with you, then I remained on the mountain forty days and nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water. (10) "The LORD gave me the two tablets of stone written by the finger of God; and on them were all the words which the LORD had spoken with you at the mountain from the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. (11) "It came about at the end of forty days and nights that the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant. Luke 22:19-20 NASB And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." (20) And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 NASB For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; (24) and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." (25) In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." Galatians 4:24-31 NASB This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar... ...(30) But what does the Scripture say? "CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN." (31) So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman (Old Covenant), but of the free woman (New Covenant). | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1048 Registered: 4-2000 |
Chris, Here is the summation of the article by Reisinger that you linked to:
The overall tenor of NCT is decidedly against using any part of the Decalogue as a moral compass. It draws too sharp a distinction among the covenants and largely dismisses the commonalities. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 101 Registered: 8-2005 |
Is this not a sharp distinction? Galatians 4:24-31 NASB This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar... ...(30) But what does the Scripture say? "CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN." (31) So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman (Old Covenant), but of the free woman (New Covenant). | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1781 Registered: 10-2004 |
Also, we are not "dismissing the commonalities" between American law and English law, when we only follow American law and not English law. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1782 Registered: 10-2004 |
As for the Greek word nomos, it does not at all refer to the Decalogue ("Ten Words")--it simply means "law." And when this word is used in the NT to refer to the OT law, it is referring to the entire Law of Moses (all 613 commandments). Never does it refer to the Decalogue only. (BTW, does that mean that those who only keep part of the Decalogue [9/10ths] or part of the Law of Moses, are partial antinomians?) Paul specifically disallows a person from calling New Covenant adherents "antinomians":
Notice that Paul says that he is not under the Jewish Law of Moses (OT Law, all 613 commandments including the Decalogue), but that he is under the Law of Christ, and that this position is NOT anomos (without law). Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on May 10, 2007) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1049 Registered: 4-2000 |
Brian, Galatians 4:24-31 is not saying you are a child of the bondwoman by honoring your parents or believing in the one and only true God of heaven. The Law in its totality is no longer in effect. Similarly, with the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments as a unit are ended. However, NINE of the Ten Commandments are reiterated in the New Testament--even several times. These reiternated laws from the Old Covenant are now a part of the Law of Christ. Yes, Jesus extended some of them, but murder is still murder and stealing is still stealing. God's holy and moral laws are always TIMELESS. Dennis Fischer |
