Archive through October 27, 2000 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 1 » Thoughts on Faith » Archive through October 27, 2000 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Max
Posted on Sunday, October 22, 2000 - 11:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Allenette again,

Kuchar's fundamental error is the same as
that of SDAs -- failure to recognize that Jesus
Christ is as much God as the Father is! Once
this realization is "plugged in" to his argument,
it falls in upon itself of its own weight and fails
to persuade.

Blessings!
Max
Posted on Monday, October 23, 2000 - 1:18 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lori,

Two more texts that suport the teaching that
God the Son IS the only perfect and complete
moral law of God the Father:

^^Christ ... is the image of God." 2 Corinthians
4:4 NIV.

^^Anyone who has seen me [Jesus] has seen
the Father.^^ John 14:9 NIV.

Be of good cheer!
Lori
Posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 10:26 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi, Max,

You may have to explain a little further why you are offering me further proof that Jesus Christ is God.......I agree with that completely.

I don't see "moral" and "representative" as interchangeable terms like you seem to be using them. The definitions of each word don't denote them as exactly synonymous........do they?

I've got a busy week, so it may be a few days before I can "check in" again, but I'll be back to read your answer........later.

Lori
Max
Posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 2:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Greetings Lori,

Of course we already know that Jesus is God.
Now we need to expand our ideas of what the
relationship is between God the Father and
God the Son.

1.The Son is the IMAGE of the Father.

NIV COLOSSIANS 1:15. ì[Our Lord Jesus
Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the
firstborn over all creation.î

NIV 2 CORINTHIANS 2:4. ìChrist ... is the
image of God.î

2. He is the HUMAN LIKENESS of the Father
in SERVANT FORM.

PHILIPPIANS 2:6-7. ì[Christ Jesus], being in
very nature God, did not consider equality with
God something to be grasped, but made
himself nothing, taking on the very nature of a
servant, being made in human likeness.î

3. He was the LIGHT of the Father illuminating
earth.

NIV JOHN 12:45-56. ìWhen [a man] looks at
me, he sees the one who sent me. I have
come into the world as a light....î

4. ALL THE FULLNESS of the Father (as well
as of the Holy Spirit) dwelt in him.

NIV Colossians 2:9. "In Christ all the fullness
of the Deity lives in bodily form."

5. He is the RADIANCE and the EXACT
REPRESENTATION of the Father

NIV HEBREWS 1:1-3. ìIn the past God spoke
to our forefathers through the prophets [for
example, Moses giving the Ten
Commandments], but in these last days [69
AD] he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he
appointed heir of all things, and through
whom he made the universe. The Son is the
radiance of Godís glory and the exact
representation of his being.î

6. The Father did HIS WORK through the Son.

NIV JOHN 14:9-10. ìAnyone who has seen me
has seen the Father. How can you say, ëShow
us the Fatherí? Don't you believe that I am in
the Father, and that the Father is in me? The
words I say to you are not just my own. Rather,
it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his
work.î

8. He even bore the Father's NAME.

NIV ISAIAH 9:6. ìHe [the son to be born] will be
called ... Everlasting Father....î

CONCLUSION

The point, Lori, is that our friends the
Adventists are using Ellen White's statement
that the Ten Commandments (and other Old
Testament laws) are the "transcript of God's
character" to enforce Sabbath-keeping,
tithe-paying, ham-shunning, jewelry-shunning,
wine-shunning and people-shunning (SDA
remnant doctrine) behaviors.

And, believe me, they would include
circumcizing also if Paul had not spoken out
so adamantly against it!

But nowhere in Scripture is the idea that the
Ten Commandments (and the other Old
Testament laws) are "the transcript of God's
character." Scripture makes a very different
case, as we have seen in the eight texts above
(and others).

The case that Scripture makes is that the Ten
Commandments (and other OT laws) are
NOT the transcript of God's character.

They are nothing more than imperfect,
incomplete and temporary SHADOWS
pointing the the perfect, complete and eternal
spiritual reality of Jesus Christ and His
Commandments.

In Scripture the closest we can come to the
prhase "transcript of God's character" is the
phrase "exact representation of his being."

Now I have nothing against Jesus Christ on
earth being the "transcript of God's character"
in human flesh, although I prefer the scriptural
phrase "exact representation of his being."

So if Christ -- not the Ten Commandments --
is "the transcript of God's character," then we
should look to Christ's Commandments
rather than the Ten Commandments (and
other OT laws) for guidance in our believer's
life of loving obedience to God.

For nowhere in the Commandments of Jesus
are found Sabbath-keeping, tithe-paying,
ham-shunning, jewelry-shunning,
wine-shunning, people-shunning (SDA
remnant teaching) and circumcizing
behaviors!

Therefore, if the Ten Commandments (and
other OT laws) do not completely, perfectly
and eternally represent God the Father, then
we should look to Christ rather than to them.

And if Jesus Christ and his Commandments
do represent "the transcript of God's
character," then Sabbath-keeping,
tithe-paying, ham-shunning, jewelry-shunning,
wine-shunning, people-shunning
(remnantizing), and circumcizing behaviors
are simply not on the true believer's
obedience list.

Many Adventists know they are in bondage
and may well be open to receiving this truth.
But being unaware of this truth, they accuse
us (FAF and other Christ followers) of doing
away with God's moral law.

And then, they say, "You can go out and do
anything you want," meaning lawless behavior
and the casting off of all moral restraint.

They need to be convinced by Scripture alone
that since Christ came, all lawful behavior and
all moral restraint are exactly and permanently
contained in Christ and His Commandments.
These the Holy Spirit has written on our
hearts. And we show them by our loving
behaviors toward one another.

In real grace,

Max of the Cross
Max
Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 3:15 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Patti, Cindy, Lori, Allenette, ... , and any I may
have missed, God bless you all! It's been
sheer delight trading Scriptures with you!

Max of the Cross
Terry
Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 9:40 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Max,
Are you saying that all 613 commandments of the Old Law deal only with mores? Just curious..not trying to start an argument, but many Christians say that the so-called "603" were just ceremonial.
We know that it isn't so, yet there were some that dealt with 'ceremonial' cleanliness. Are these to be considered moral commands, as well?

Just wanted to know your thoughts.
Terry
Max
Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 11:00 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Terry,

No I'm not saying that all 613 OT
commandments deal only with mores.

"Mores" has two definitions (and I'm not sure
which sense you're using):

(1) "the fixed morally binding customs of a
particular group," in this case "the Israelites."

This sense could include
ceremonial-religious laws, such as, "Do not
erect a sacred stone [to another god],
Deuteronomy 16:22. Imagine a law like that in
the USA today were there is separation of
church and state. For example, no Hindu
temples allowed in America? Personally, I'd
vote against any such law.

(2) "habits" or "manners" generally. In ancient
Israel there was a law, "Do not wear clothes of
wool and linen woven together," Deut. 22:11.
There is no obvious health or moral or
sacrificial or religious principle in operation
here. It seems to be simply a custom. Yet it
had the force of law, and observant Jews keep
it to this very day.

In ancient Israel there was no separation
between church and state, and so religious
laws were mixed in and mixed up with civil
laws.

Laws that are obviously health regulations
had the enforcement of God behind them. For
example:

NIV Deuteronomy 23:9 When you are
encamped against your enemies, keep away
from everything impure.
10 If one of your men is unclean because of a
nocturnal emission, he is to go outside the
camp and stay there.
11 But as evening approaches he is to wash
himself, and at sunset he may return to the
camp.
12 Designate a place outside the camp where
you can go to relieve yourself.
13 As part of your equipment have something
to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig
a hole and cover up your excrement.
14 For the LORD your God moves about in
your camp to protect you and to deliver your
enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so
that he will not see among you anything
indecent and turn away from you.

Imagine a law like that imposed on General
Patton and his mechanized 3rd Army when he
was storming from Italy to the German border
in WWII to rescue U.S. and British troops
pinned down in "the Battle of the Bulge"? It
boggles the mind!

These are enough of my thoughts for now.

What are your thoughts?
Bruceh
Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 7:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Terry

How About The Two Greatest Commandments.

Commandmnet 418 (of the 613 commandments) deut 6:5
You shall love the Lord God with all your heart,
with all your soul, with all your mind.

or Commandment 243 (of the 613 commanndments) Lev
19:18 You shall Love your neighbor as yourself.

Notice that the Two Greatest Commandments ar in
the Boobk of the Law or the 613 Commandments and
not a part the Big Ten Commandments.

There is no such thing as moral, cerimonial, and
civil Law, it is all THE LAW or the Torah or the
Whole Law. These distinctions are the works of
mans philosophy and thinking, if I am wrong show
me from the BIBLE where it say otherwise.

Bruce Heinrich
Max
Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 8:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree, Bruce. The Old Testament recognizes
no distinctions or separations among moral,
ceremonial and civil laws. All are intermingled.
For example, when sick you didn't go to a
doctor, you went to a priest! Nor does the New
Testament, when speaking of the OT "law,"
make any such distinctions. It was all a single
unit.
Bruceh
Posted on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 8:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Max

This has been a problem with the Church, we think
that civil matters should be settled in the
secular court rather then in the Church, that
healing should be done in the hospital and not in
the Church (I do not mean we do not need the
Hospital and medical sevices), that moral law are
determined by Government and not the Church. We
need to put these all back in the Church where
they belong.

Bruce Heinri
Lori
Posted on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 12:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I've never been taught that the 10 commandments represented the character or attributes of God. They were simply, THE LAW. I understand you wanting to point others away from the law and to Christ but I don't think that using terms, that aren't exactly the same, to get your point across is the right approach to use.

Christ being "the exact representation of the image of God"--and the subsequent conclusion that you are using the word "moral" as an equal to the term of representation--(Christ is the exact moral of the image of God(?)) These words aren't the same.

You never answered my question as how you could use the two different words--as one. Furthermore, it seems by reading what you did post(and also finding the same post in other discussions without the addition of my name, but otherwise the same) that you are only "leading" others for the strict purpose of accomplishing your own agenda. What is going on with you?

You can't "beat" an Adventist out of legalism. That's not the way you got out, is it? I know it's not the way I got out. Come on, Max, a "computer stick" just isn't going to do it.
Max
Posted on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 1:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Lori, I don't know for sure whether your post
was directed in my direction, but I think it was.
At any rate here's evidence from one of SDA's
all-time apologists and spokespersons: M.L.
Andreasen

^^The picture, then, is that of a court scene.
God's government is at stake. Satan is the
accuser; God Himself is the accused and is
on trial. He has been charged with injustice,
with requiring His creatures to do that which
they cannot do, and yet punishing them for not
doing it. The law is the specific point of attack,
but the law being merely a TRANSCRIPT OF
GOD'S CHARACTER, it is God and His
character that are the points at issue.^^

Source: "God's Demonstration,"
www.biblerevelations.org/cosmic_war/god_de
monstration

If you need more evidence of this foundational
SDA teaching, I'll be happy to provide it.
Max
Posted on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 1:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Lori,

I'm confused about your question:

^^You never answered my question as how
you could use the two different words--as one.

^^Christ being "the exact representation of the
image of God"--and the subsequent
conclusion that you are using the word "moral"
as an equal to the term of representation --
(Christ is the exact moral of the image of
God(?)) These words aren't the same.^^

I'm a bit confused as to exactly what your
question is, but I'll answer as best I can: No, I
don't believe "moral" and "image" are the
same. And I have never posted otherwise.
Max
Posted on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 1:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lori again,

I'm not wanting to point others away from the
law and toward Christ. I'm trying to point
others to the fact that the end of the law is
Christ, that the law is a shadow pointing to
Christ, that the law is a tutor (even babysitter!)
leading to Christ, that Christ fulfilled the law
completely and then some, and many other
similar points -- but never to point others away
from something that is pointing to Christ.
Max
Posted on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 1:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

To all:

THE TALL PALM TREE IN THE DESERT

Ever been out on a flat desert at sunrise and
seen the long shadow of a tall palm tree?
Even if you don't see the tree, you see the
shadow clearly and starkly. And if you follow
the shadow you arrive at the tree. Very simple.

You no longer need the shadow to find the
tree anymore once you arrive at the tree. Your
arrival doesn't mean the shadow disappears.
It's still there and it still points to the tree.

Nor do you need the shadow any more in
order to enjoy the tree's benefits -- drink the
juice from its coconuts (if it is a coconut palm)
or eat its fruit (if it is a date palm). But the
shadow remains, lifeless and unbeneficial.

Except for its pointing function, which remains
valid. For example, in case you got lost again
in the night, at sunrise the shadow would lead
you right back to the tree again.

Blessings to all!
Max
Posted on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 2:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

SDAs say: LAW = TRANSCRIPT OF GOD'S
CHARACTER


^^Everyone's life and character will come
before the judgement. The basis of the
judgement is the Law of God (Eccl. 12:13,14).
The Law of God is a transcript of God's
character. Its purpose is to reveal how we are
to love God and mankind.^^

Source: John W. Fowler, "The Fate of the Lost
and the Fires of Hell," It Is Written Prophecy
Seminar, Seventh-day Adventist Church,
posted July 13, 1998.
http://www.tagnet.org/fowler98/Meeting%2013
%20Notes.htm
Max
Posted on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 3:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

EGW: 10C = "Transcript of God's Character"

"We have only glimmering light in regard to the
exceeding breadth of the law of God. The law
spoken from Sinai is a TRANSCRIPT OF
GOD'S CHARACTER. Many who claim to be
teachers of the truth have no conception of
what they are handling when they are
presenting the law to the people, because
they have not studied it; they have not put their
mental powers to the task of understanding its
significance."

Ellen G. White, "The Relation of Christ to the
Law Is Not Understood," Advent Review and
Sabbath Herald, February 4, 1890, paragraph
1.
Max
Posted on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 3:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

EGW "Transcript of God's Character"
references equating the Ten Commandments
to it.

That I May Know Him, page 366, paragraph 2

Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, June 17,
1895, paragraph 3

Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Feburary
4, 1890, paragraph 1

Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, July 25,
1899, paragraph 10

The Signs of the Times, Feburary 13, 1893,
paragraph 1

The Signs of the Times, June 13, 1900,
paragraph 7

The Signs of the Times, November 30, 1904,
paragraph 6

The Signs of the Times, December 15, 1914,
paragraph 1

Manuscript Releases Volume Fourteen, page
347, paragraph 2
Cindy
Posted on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 4:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Max, Yes..., I have always heard that the 10 Commandments were the "transcript of God's character"... and I've been thru dozens of evangelistic "crusades" and "net" meetings as well as being surrounded by relatives who are or have been Adventist pastors.

Enjoyed your palm tree illustration!

Why do so many point to the shadow instead of the reality of Christ?

So many think we need to know specifics on how to live the Christian life...and that the 10 Commandment Law clearly spells it out! And they put so much emphasis in the fact that it was written by the finger of God, in STONE!

I think there is such a limitation to the Sinai Law. So much more depth is found in the New Covenant.

And the fact that the New Covenant will be written on our HEARTS is so much of a BETTER PROMISE!!

The promises in Ezekial 11 and 36 are great!! "I will give them an undivided heart"... "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you"... "I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh."

So what's so great about stone? The only wonderful One is the "stumbling stone"...JESUS!!

I love these words,

"You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire, to darkness, gloom and storm, to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, because they could not bear what was commanded: 'If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned.' The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, 'I am trembling with fear.'

But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. YOU HAVE COME TO GOD, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to JESUS THE MEDIATOR OF A NEW COVENANT, and to the SPRINKLED BLOOD that speaks a BETTER word than the blood of Abel." Hebrews 12: 18-24

We can come BOLDLY to the throne of GRACE because of Jesus' perfect and complete life, death, and resurrection for us! What a contrast these texts show!

Grace always,
Max
Posted on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 4:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lori,

I finally see what I think may be the problem
concerning use of the word "moral" and
"image."

In the first place I see now that you were
comparing "moral" with "representative," not
with "image," although that may be a
distinction without a difference, as the saying
goes.

I said, ^^God the Son IS the only perfect and
complete moral law of God the Father.^^

I said, ^^"Christ ... is the image of God." 2
Corinthians 4:4 NIV.^^

And I quoted, ^^NIV HEBREWS 1:1-3. ì.... The
Son is the radiance of Godís glory and the
exact representation of his being.î

Then you said, ^^I don't see "moral" and
"representative" as interchangeable terms like
you seem to be using them.^^

The terms I was using interchangeably were
"moral law" and "representation," not "moral"
and "representation."

"Moral," by itself, is an adjective in this context,
whereas "representation" is a noun. But
grammatically "moral law" functions as a
noun, and so I was using two nouns
interchangeably. I was not using an adjective
interchangeably with a noun.

Does this clear up the confusion?

Blessings only,

Max

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration