The God of Justice Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 2 » The God of Justice « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through July 2, 2001Kelly20 7-02-01  4:23 pm
Archive through July 4, 2001Graceambassador20 7-04-01  8:36 am
Archive through July 8, 2001Graceambassador20 7-08-01  9:04 pm
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Colleentinker
Posted on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 12:37 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hannah, I understand your shock and horror, if that's not too strong a word for what you experienced! Richard and I (and many of our fellow formers) have begun to see that the new covenant is really not well-understood by a huge percentage of Christians. They still teach the Ten Commandments, but they say to pick whatever day you want to rest.

I agree with Grace Ambassador above--point out Hebrews to your husband, and also the book of Galatians.

Regarding your pastor, it might actually be a good idea to take him Clay Peck's book and even Dale Ratzlaff's book "The Sabbath in Crisis", explain to him where you've come from, and ask him to read the books. We have had conversations with our pastor and have given him "the books" so he would understand us. To his credit, our pastor has actually studied Adventist doctrine, and he is really sensitive to Adventist teachings and has literally rethought and changed some of his previous automatic understandings of the law, most noticably the Sabbath.

Today, in fact, he preached from Revelation 1 and said that the modern Greek word for Sunday is the Greek word for Lord's Day used in Revelation. But I digress.

You might even suggest that your pastor talk to our pastor, Gary Inrig, who is pastoring the Trinity Evangelical Free Church in Redlands. You can get his email and phone number on the Trinity Website, trinityonline.org. Gary is actually quite well-known in the E V Free community, and your pastor may even know of him. There is a LARGE number of former Adventists and people transitioning out of Adventism at our church, and Gary would probably be very helpful to your pastor.

There are people everywhere who are still legalistic. I think one of the ways God redeems our past as former Adventists is by giving us a clearer-than-usual understanding of grace and the new covenant. It's kind of like Paul--he was a completely arrogant, educated Pharisee, and after Jesus transformed him, he wrote the best, most pointed descriptions of how the law was temporary and we now live by the Spirit instead of by the letter of the law. I think God often calls us to help other Christians see the truth about the new covenant.

Praying for you and your husband,
Colleen
Graceambassador
Posted on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 8:10 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Hannah and all:

I was rehashing some of my old sermons and came up with one that I preached July 26 1992 when I served as a pastor in a Church in Maryland. This sermon speaks about law and Grace. I will publish some highlights here since it is pertinent to your concerns.

There is no intention to criticize any pastor referred in your post. This is only an insight that may be helpful to you.

Romans chapter 7 verses 1-3:

The basic thrust of this scripture is to compare our relationship to Grace as a marriage.
The interesting thing in this text is that it talks about a former "spouse" who died. Such is the Law. We were obligated to the Law while the Law was alive and we were married to it. Now that the Law died, we are married to Grace. However we if we continue to "sleep" with Grace and fantasize about the law, WE ARE COMMITTING SPIRITUAL ADULTERY!

Today, many preachers still feel that they can have and preach a little bit of legalism and still enjoy Grace. They believe that legalism gives them a "comfort zone" and maintains some degree of control of our own relationship with God. As such they go around preaching this and that aspect of the law that we should keep and present all the logical reasons for us to keep, including the fact that we should rest, or pick a Sabbath to dedicate it to God. From such an assertion, they progress into a legalistic stance that those who have to work more than the normal hours to survive are somehow "lesser" of a Christian than those who are capable of separating such "Sabbath" type of time.

People are vulnerable to this kind of preaching for different reasons; some because of their former dependency on the Law. Others because they finally found a little bit of the Law they can live with without interfering with their living in Grace.

One of the things that people who live the above do not realize is that Grace is unique! Grace demands exclusivity. It is almost an oxymoron to say "Grace demands" but for lack or a better term, I will say that the main characteristic of Grace is that it requires exclusivity. Paul calls such exclusivity in Romans 7 "to be free from the Law to marry another man". This means in practical terms: "to live with Grace without committing adultery". Obviously, the reverse here is true. If one is married to Grace but still has dreams about living in the Law he is an adulterer!

Matt. 16:6

In this passage, Jesus tells us to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. This is a NEGATIVE use of the term "leaven". I went to find out why. Here are my findings:

1. The cooks of those days used to cause the dough to SWELL. Growth and swelling are different words. The leaven of the Law (Pharisees and Sadducees) causes PEOPLE to SWELL IN PRIDE and makes them believe that they are GROWING IN GRACE. NOT SO!
2. Leaven was a little bit of the old decomposed dough mixed with the New Dough. What can be clearer about the old DECOMPOSED LAW inappropriately mixed with the NEW COVENANT IN JESUS?
3. Leaven did not change the consistency, the taste or the quality of the dough. Again, it only caused the dough to swell. SWELLING IS THE ONLY OBJECTIVE HERE! Legal incursions in the Grace message have one purpose only: CAUSE PEOPLE TO SWELL IN PRIDE!

Pastors who preach this "apparently innocent" return to legalism from the pulpit do not realize the devastating potential that such messages have. Grace must be boring to them! Thus, a little bit of legalism will excite some people! What a tragedy! It is like trying to cross the rapids with two canoes at the same time, keeping one foot in one and the other in the other! It is impossible! It will take us to the bottom!

The tragedy is that Paul said in Galatians "if we sow in the flesh, FROM THE FLESH WE SHALL REAP CORRUPTION". The context of Galatians is returning to dependence upon the Law. We start depending upon the Law, even in the slightest, we will be amazed by the corruption it causes. We will be so disappointed that in the end it will appear that nothing in our "spiritual" lives works. Indeed, it is not "spiritual" at all!

Here we have it! In one side, we see a potential for "theological adultery". In the other, we have the potential of "reaping corruption and disappointment". Why play with fire!

Many will say that I preach "lawlessness". NO! First let me say that I believe that the first ACT OF OBEDIENCE of a Christian is to recognize that in and of themselves they CANNOT FULFILL THE LAW! We have to surrender to Jesus SUFFICIENCY IN FULFILLING THE LAW ON OUR BEHALF, OR TO OUR CREDIT!
It is NOT lawlessness! It is GRACEFULNESS! Grace will WARD OFF THE DEVILISH ATTACKS TO GO INTO LAWLESSNESS (WARD OFF is the Greek term for "sufficient" when Paul hears from God "MY GRACE IS SUFFICIENT". The message of Grace is as if handling so many good dollar bills that when the "fake" one comes up WE WILL IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZE IT. As we learn Grace increasingly, also, increasingly we will be identifying "false grace" which will lead us into lawlessness. To claim that I preach lawlessness is the same as to say that by teaching my children how to identify fake dollar bills just by allowing them to handle GOOD ONES, then, I am teaching them to be forgers, or counterfeiters. It does not make sense!

I pray that we (preachers) will take a serious look at Grace! I pray that we will stop looking for WIGGLE ROOM between some degrees of "legalism" ans still enjoy Grace. This is wrong and impossible! I pray that we stop the "leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" and quit committing "theological adultery". I pray that if I have practiced this, the Holy Spirit will bring me to repentance.

AMEN

I hope this helps someone!

Grace Ambassador
Doug222
Posted on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 8:28 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Not much can be added to what has already been said, but what was expecially enlightening to me was Dale Ratzlaff's (Sabbath in Crisis) analysis of the Jubilee Sabbath and his linking it to Jesus' entrance into ministry.

I agree with Colleen that Seventh-Day Adventists are sitting on a gold mine when it comes to the Sabbath. If they can ever get past the veil of the law, we have an understanding of grace that is unsurpassed.

As Peter said, God has provided everything that pertains to life and Godliness. The Sabbath is no exception. Unfortunately, most SDA's can't get beyond the shadow, and many other Christians are so quick to throw it out, that everyone misses something absolutely wonderful.

As far as your husband is concerned, I would just take it one step at a time. Don't overwhelm him, but just chip away little by little at his misconceptions and misgivings with the chisel of grace, tempered with lots of prayer.

In His Grace

Doug
Sherry2
Posted on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 1:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well Hannah, if it is any comfort to you, it just takses time. I suggest praising the Lord first and formost for the fact that he is going with you to church at all. For you and me who live closest to the situation, we can hardly see the blessings coming our way, and it takes talking to others to see what God is doing in our husbands' lives. Listen to what your friends see and spend a lot of time praising the Lord through song, prayers, and whatever other methods of worship you use. I speak this as to myself as I say this as well, Hannah. We've got it easy in the US. If we were Muslim wives turnd Christian there's a good chance our hubby's could have us legally killed. So there is much to be thankful for. Bathe it in prayer. Ask for the Holy Spirit to fill you and speak through you when he's got something to say. I've been bold to my husband at times when appropriate and I felt led. Other times I've spoken purely from frustration and the flesh....and let me tell you there was a difference between how my husband responded to the flesh vs the Spirit. God promises to guide you and so He shall. Believe what He says is true. He is not a liar.

I've been on my own going to church alone a greater portion of the time. It's been over a year since May now that I left the SDA church. I don't regret it one little iota. I am so thankful to God for His leading. The changes in my husband have been slow, and continue to be, but they are also big. Just this last month, after 15 weeks of not attending his own church (but who's counting? :) ) we are finally deciding where to go as a family together. I attended Calvary Baptist for a greater portion of this last year and was plugged in to an ABF (Sunday School) and have had lots of people praying for me and my husband. About Jan. I felt like the Holy Spirit didn't want me there any longer, and I didn't understand that. Was it the devil? Was it God? But I had no peace, and I was sure it was God's will for me to withdraw. Finally after 4 months of struggling I submitted and withdrew entirely letting people know in our class why I was no longer attending.Now I was praying like crazy at home, ok God, where on earth do you want me to attend? No answer, but one thing I did have was peace. I knew I was in His will, but didn't have a clue what was next, and that waiting time was the frustrating time. More often then not I went no where on Sunday but spent time with my husband. Once in a while we went together on Sat. nights to a non-denominational church with a great band. We had fun. My husband commented a couple weeks ago about how he did not think it was wise that our neighbors had purchased a car with only one spouse making that decision. Then it hit me. I knew that the reason God withdrew me was to give my husband another shot at doing this together. Well the following week we started having worship together again in the evening. And about 4 days later I got bold, and I believe with the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, translated that story of the car back to him, and asked him if he remembered his feelings about that - how it was unwise of them. And then I told him "Jon, I know this is hard to hear, but I am sure of it now. The reason God had me withdraw from CBC was to give you another chance to be spiritual leader in our home, and to decide as a family where we will go to church. Just like our neighbors, it isn't wise for only one of us to make the decision on a church, which is far more important." Silence. We had prayer and let it stand. Three days later (the day before Sunday) I asked him if he had thought about it any and could he come to a decision..whether we would decide on a church family together or whether he wanted me to go it alone for a while longer. He struggled in his facial response, and I told him I knew how hard it was, but I needed to know. He finally said we will decide together. So for the last 2 Sundays we have fellowshipped together where he wanted to be (which was CBC). Next week I hope to talk to a few more people about what is going on since they are wondering why we are back. It is hard for him. He has made a difficult decision, but over time, and through the Holy Spirit continuing to work on his heart, I do not believe he will regret it. We will always remain open to building relationships with our SDA friends. But things are different. And God's timing is not ours. I've learned alot about depending on Him, trusting Him, and letting Him grow me where He planted me. Our next event will be an Emmaus walk in January, which I pray will be a transforming experience for Jon and myself. Many of you have faithfully prayed for Jon and I. You have stood in the gap when I was too worn, too tired, and too close to pray myself. And I thank you so much! Let us continue to pray for one another!

Blessings,
Sherry
Dennis
Posted on Monday, July 09, 2001 - 9:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Windmotion,

Our Senior Pastor, at First Evangelical Free Church, here in Lincoln, Nebraska had a ten-week sermon series on the Ten Commandments. At first, I was surprised with such an emphasis on the Old Covenant. However, nine of the Ten Commandments are reiterated in the New Covenant. Actually, the fourth commandment is especially important for New Covenant Christians as a shadow of the True Sabbath, Jesus Christ. I think the reason why many Christians commonly cite or refer to the Ten Commandments, is because it is a convenient, simple list of basic morality that is compatible with New Covenant theology. Our pastor was careful to say that the fourth commandment was different from the other nine. I wasn't there to actually hear his sermon on the fourth commandment, but he told me that he probably didn't do the best job on it. So, I gave him a gift copy of SABBATH IN CRISIS (he said he would read it). Recently, a veteran Sunday School teacher, at our church, told us how she teaches the fourth commandment to kids. She tells them simply that Jesus fulfilled that shadow (Jewish Sabbath being a visual aid in miniature form).

All in all, I think we can be over-sensitive to some details due to our legalistic background. Even though the Decalogue does not contain by far all the laws of Christ in the New Covenant, it is nevertheless a significant part. The Ten Commandments are universally known and respected; they make a convenient, quick (although incomplete) reference guide for Christian living. Indeed, technically and theologically speaking, the Decalogue is a part of the obsolete Torah. Having said that, however, I find nothing really objectionable in the Ten Commandments when used as a convenient, handy reference list of basic moral values.

It is to our disadvantage to belittle the Ten Commandments, even though they are far from being complete guidelines for Christian living. Point out to your husband the many things not condemned by the Decalogue alone(i.e., drunkenness, boisting, jealousy, polygamy, gluttony, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc.). Adventists commonly teach that the Decalogue is an all-inclusive list of do's and don'ts. Certainly, New Covenant believers are not without rules or guidelines for holy living. Sanctification is the inevitable result of justification. We can trust the indwelling Holy Spirit to direct every facet of our lives. A brief visit with your E-Free pastor would certainly enlarge his understanding that law and grace do not mix (like water and oil).

In His grace,

Dennis J. Fischer
Graceambassador
Posted on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 1:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hannah and all:

We can certainly deal with the problem of preachers injecting "legalism" in the message of Grace, thus transforming true Grace in a small limited "grace", in a few different ways:

1. It is just to cite the guidelines for morality in the New Covenant
2. It is just to point out how impossible it is to fulfill it without Christ's vicarious sacrifice
3. It is an intentional attempt to make people feel that somehow "knowing" causes "doing", or that knowing requires "doing".

Numbers 1 and 2 are quite understandable, acceptable, and COMMENDABLE; Number 3 however is dangerous and unfortunately, in the circles that I minister (which is not a receptive audience to pure Grace) it is the most common motive.

Many preachers still insist in bluntly preaching, or subtly injecting the Decalogue in their messages as if demanding their people to fulfill it to the letter. I inquire of them if it would not be better to use the Decalogue to show people WHAT A GREAT SALVATION we have in Christ, since HE not only went to Mount Calvary for us BUT FIRST WENT TO MOUNT SINAI FOR US AS WELL AND FULFILLED ALL THE LAW ON OUR BEHALF, AS A SUBSTITUTE. I am surprised to see that some ministers have not even considered that Jesus Christ did follow the law not only to be the perfect Lamb of God, but He also followed the law in SUBSTITUTION for our impossibility to fulfill it. It does seem to me that messages about the Good News are a bit insipid, dull and inodorous to some of these preachers. It is always easy to find a unit of measure whereby we measure someone else's "faith". The "how much of the law we are able to keep" seems to be this absurd "unit of measure". I speak of the Decalogue and other "rules and regulations" imposed by denominational requirements.

Again, without judging even in the slightest the minister you mentioned, let me submit to you in GENERIC terms, there is still a soft and comfortable bed laid up by preachers to many who are "fulfilling the law" to "gain" favor from God. Sadly, many have lied on such a bed only to find out that the same bed that will ultimately support their tired spirits: tired of trying on their own, tired of trusting in self, tired of trusting in self righteousness and tired of short lived results (if any). I know it! It happened to ME!

Only the message of Grace, in its purity: No Sabbath, NO CEREMONIES (I speak about the ceremonial Law, since God's moral law never changed), can really provide the kind of rest for which the legal Sabbath could only be a "shadow".

I am sure God will take care of your husband that he will not be tempted to lie in such a deceiving comfortable bed!

The Psalmist cried out:

I lift mine eyes unto the mountains. From whence comes my help?

Help will not come from Mount Sinai, Mount Horeb, or Mount Carmel. Help can ONLY come from Mount Calvary because it is there that God, who made the heavens and the earth PROVIDED US HIS ETERNAL, ONCE-FOR-ALL HELP!

Grace Ambassador
Doug222
Posted on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 8:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

GA,
How do you distinguish between the moral and the ceremonial law? Can you provide scripture references?

In His Grace

Doug
Colleentinker
Posted on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 10:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sherry, Thank you so much for sharing your story! I really do praise God for what he's doing in your husband, and for your obedience to the Holy Spirit. How awesome! He is healing your family--in his time.

My prayers for you both continue!

Colleen
Sherry2
Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 6:13 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks Colleen! You've been a big help for me.
Last night Pastor Colburn stopped by to visit. I guess he had asked Jon why he wasn't coming before I came outside so I didn't hear that conversation, but Jon summed it up that he simply doesn't like to go by himself - he's lonely - so he's chosen to join me at CBC. Now Jon says he doesn't think Pastor insuated anything by this and thinks I'm bent out of shape, but when he was about to leave he questioned me about why I wasn't coming - just because I wasn't a member, didn't mean I couldn't come. I told him I was really happy where I was at at a different church, and just like going to any other church, you let ties go with your old church. Then he sort-of approached Jon about coming again. Jon said that doing things together as a family is important. Then the pastor states how Yes that is important...the Bible gives strong words about family, that those who don't care for their family are worse then an infidel, but then on the other hand Jesus said that father will leave mother, and brother will leave sister(or however that verse goes - you know the one) to follow God's principles and truths. Now that is what upset me...to me it sounded like he was insuating to Jon that he may need to leave me to follow God's truths. What do you think? I personally couldn't believe he said that, and do you think he looked at me when he quoted that verse? Nope, straight at Jon. Well for me that is what I heard. And it wrenched my heart. After the pastor left, I just went alone and sobbed some...for me it reaches to the very depths...it's still a grief process sometimes, and I feel the tremendous remembrance of the fear I had to ever leave the SDA church, the knowing it was the right thing to do, and the grief that many people who I've spent 20 years of my life would now consider me astray or lost. It hurts like H#%@# sometimes. :) (I don't say that angrily...i say it truthfully yet lightly).
Graceambassador
Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 8:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Doug:

Thank you for the opportunity.
I really love when others ask of me question such as yours. I have a theme in my teaching ministry: "you asked my knowledge you get my SALIVA along with it". This simply means in "humorous terms" that I will always be opinionated even AFTER I have established my point. Therefore, please, be kind with me if I insert my opinions in this answer. I will post them in generic terms and I do not expect them to offend anyone.. I did not direct to you my lengthy elaboration. Many readers of this forum are lurkers still entangled in the Web of false teaching. I pray that my work here helps them to find Christ!


NOW YOUR ANSWERS:

The MORAL LAW OF GOD relates to His attribute of HOLINESS. These Laws have never changed. The immutable and Sovereign God decided that which He calls SINS and this WILL NEVER CHANGE. Even in the New Testament, we have a list of these SINS that God would consider it to be this way forever:

Murder
Homosexuality
Adultery
Lying
Theft
Idolatry
Whoremonger
Unclean person
Covetousness

Read Ephesians 5:5 and its chain of references.

The CEREMONIAL LAW OF GOD relates to His attribute of JUSTICE. It is how God DEALS with the SINS described above and how he atones for it, which is TEMPORARY. God has revealed these laws and changed them in the "fullness of time". Yea, if there is a fullness of time there is a time when fullness was still progressing into "fullness". During this progressive time, God demanded from his ELECT PEOPLE OF ISRAEL the fulfilling of this CEREMONIES, not ONLY FOR FORGIVENESS (MERCY) BUT ALSO FOR SANCTIFICATION (CONTINUATION OF THEIR LEGAL STATUS). These are:

Special Washings
Special Days and Festivals
Special Garments
Special Offerings
Special Priesthood
Special Diets
Special day to atone for SINS (plural, since the Law did not deal with our SINFUL
NATURE, but only with its "by products" we called SINS (plural)
Special curtains between us and God

I believe for scripture reference on these Laws I can give you the Pentateuch.
The entanglement in Legalism must be strong for one not to catch the idea above from the Bible itself: God maintained HIS MORAL CHARACTER thus maintained that which He called SIN (singular) which produces SINS (plural). God had to deal not only with SINS (plural) but also with the SIN (singular, or OUR NATURE). The Law could not do it! Ceremonies could not do it! To illustrate: to kill the spider was imperative in order to get rid of the spider webs! Sweeping it away every day, or every year alone, would not do it!

To deal with the dual problem above God sent Jesus who:

WASHED US BY HIS BLOOD - no need for "washings": He said even before He died that we were clean by His word: John 15:3. The passage of the woman with the "issue of blood is a proof that Jesus could not care less about being "ceremonially clean".

DAYS AND FESTIVALS - In the Day that Jesus died for us and cried out "It is Finished" or "Mission Accomplished" He fulfilled it all for us: John 17:4 and John 19:30. Jesus Himself pointed that the Sabbath and the year of the Jubilee, as one of the "special days" pointed to him: Luke 18:19, Matthew 12:8, Matthew 11:28. Jesus performed a "healing" on the Sabbath considered by the Jews as regular work. The Jews are better judges of "disrespecting" or "breaking" t the Sabbath than any "sabbatarian" denomination today! Later Paul confirmed such a "passing" in Colossians 2:16.

SPECIAL GARMENTS - Now we have Garments of Praise, The Robe of Salvation and Righteousness! In addition, we are clad with the ARMOR OF GOD!

SPECIAL OFFERINGS - Jesus is the ONLY OFFERING GOD ACCEPTS TODAY

SPECIAL PRIESTHOOD - Jesus is our High Priest. He also made us to be Kings and Priests. Moreover, first Peter tells us that we are "a royal Priesthood".

SPECIAL DIETS - You can compare Acts 15, "the council of Jerusalem" with first Corinthians 8; check also Peter in Acts 10: 14:15.

SPECIAL DAY OF ATONEMENT - Christ accomplished this day at Calvary. Read the Gospels and the Book of Hebrews compared with the Book of Leviticus.
Christ accomplished what John said of Him: "Who TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD". Furthermore, Christ accomplished the final work of dealing with our SINFUL NATURE: Read Romans 6 and 2 Corinthians 5 with special attention to verse 17, which literally in the Greek it means "new creation". Praise God, not only our SINS are forgiven - passive voice purposeful - (not: CAN BE FORGIVEN SINCE THIS IS NOT A "POSSIBILITY" BUT AN ASSURANCE), BUT ALSO OUR SINFUL NATURE HAS BEEN REPLACED BY A NEW CREATION! Our SINFUL NATURE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH! (passive voice purposeful). We were dead in our trespasses and SINS ("going beyond God and coming short of God). He made us alive in Christ (Ephesians 2) and now we DIED IN CHRIST and are resurrected with Him, Colossians 3.

A SPECIAL CURTAIN BETWEEN GOD AND US - TO FIND HELP IN TIME OF NEED: now we can approach the Throne of Grace BOLDLY(in the Greek FREEDOM OF SPEECH). No more curtains, no more walls of separation, no more priests! Matthew 27:51, Ephesians 2:14, first Peter 2:9, Hebrews 4:16.

I hope I have established that the MORAL LAW OF GOD remains. A current SDA who is a "touch and go" in this forum quoted me Revelation saying that those who are in heaven are those who have fulfilled the Ten Commandments. Unfortunately, as every "touch and go" person in Internet forums, they disappear not allowing you to engage them. I responded anyway and pointed to him that we ALL HAVE FULFILLED THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN CHRIST, and by CHRIST! Contextually this is what the Bible says when it refers to us as RIGHTEOUS!
I THANK GOD for such a PERFECT PLAN and a WONDERFUL GOSPEL!

NOW MY OPINION (I CANNOT RESISTÖ)

The reason why many preachers today go back to the Ceremonial Law, item Special days, specifically the Sabbath is that they want to inject their own Law, or denominational rules and use as arguments that Grace is not without boundaries.

I heard a prominent preacher on the radio saying that James "limited" Grace by not allowing the Gentiles to eat "meat sacrificed to idols". Perhaps this preacher did not read first Corinthians 8, where Grace's only frontier is "offending our brother". God puts a premium in our relationships with each other The Book of John speaks of that and Ephesians as well. This preacher's agenda was to begin a series in "do's and don'ts" that apparently were supported in the Bible, but the intention was to bring a "NEO-LEGALISM" to the Body of Christ. Why don't we just teach that JESUS IS SUFFICIENT FOR US TO BE ACCEPTED BY GOD! Why we would remove our eyes from Jesus and place it in our own self-righteousness? Our righteousness will always be BY JESUS AND THROUGH JESUS, OR ELSE IT IS ONLY A FILTHY RAG.

To me the intention is clear: The injections of legalistic concepts points to their rules and regulations for membership in that it refers to "dress code", "contributions", days to attend their special occasions, reverence to their "priests" and others. It may sound wise, but as Paul said, these things have only an appearance of wisdom. If we impose these things as "sine qua non" conditions for one to belong to a "church", then what else could man not inject to impede our direct relationship with God. We must teach morality, this is good! To teach whether a woman should shave her armpit to show holiness, it is not good (then only the French women would be holy). This is my point as ridiculous as it may seem and it may be stated! After all EVERY MAN'S RULE intended to keep the "wall of separation" between God and us still erected is RIDICULOUS!

Grace Ambassador
Joni
Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 9:13 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Sherry,
I too had a similar experience. I just got tired of making the spiritual decisions in our home. So I asked God to help me to stand down. I told my husband that I was just tired and overwhelmed by it all. (Us leaving the sda church. etc.) And so I asked him to make the decision of what church to go to.

This experience was a very learning one. Since than he has grown tremendously in the Lord. And I have learned to trust him and his decisions. I have grown since also. It was like an explosion of growth for both of us.

I love it. I love that our home is his responsibility. Not that I do not take part in decisions, as he always wants my imput for everything we do and I would never make a major decision without him. I do make decisions. I am not a carpet. I just trust that we work as a team. He trusts me and I trust him. I totally respect him.

I am at peace and a huge burden has lifted and I am doing God's work. I love it. So praise God for you.

I continue to pray for all of you and Sherry God blesses His own. His eyes move to and fro to bless those who love Him and serve Him.

God bless
Joni
Sherry2
Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 3:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Your comparison above, GA, was very helpful. I hadn't thought about how the special garments aspect was fulfilled. It was all very helpful to me. Thank you for laying it out very simply. Sherry
Sherry2
Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 3:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you Joni for words of encouragement. I look forward to the day my hubby leaves SDA in his heart as well. The main reason he has chosen to decide as a family is because he is lonely and will not attend his own church alone. He accepts responsibility in that, and doesn't blame me for it. But does not want to attend alone at all, so is willing to attend somewhere else as a family.
Graceambassador
Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 3:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sherry
I say thank you for your words.
By the way, the reference for garments (I forgot to post) are:
Isaiah 61:3
Isaiah 61:10
Ephesians 6

Again, thank you for your kind words!

Grace Ambassador
Colleentinker
Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 5:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Grace, Ambassador, Thank you for that clear explanation of moral and ceremonial law. It was wonderful.

I'd like to add a comment to that; in Galatians Paul says that the law was added 430 years after Abraham UNTIL the Seed would come. That Seed was Jesus.

And now I will refer to something my 18-year-old son said on Monday of this week that explained this conflict between law and grace perfectly. Jesus did not destroy the law--(not one jot or tittle shall disappear until all be fulfilled...)--but when he fulfilled the old covenant by dying and rising, he SET THE LAW ASIDE. There is now a new way to the Father. The law still exists--Paul even says if anyone remains under the law, he remains under its curse. But now we have the new covenant of life in the Spirit. That has replaced the law--the Ten Commandments as well as the ceremonial law--in the hearts of believers. The Spirit holds us accountable for far more than the law did.

Now here's the part of what my son said that really took my breath away. The big difference between the law and life in the Spirit is surrender. The law never addresses surrender. It's all about how we act and are to be; it does not directly address the heart. The new birth, on the other hand, asks us to surrender everything in our hearts to God. The Spirit asks us to give Him even our dreams, goals, fears, and plans.

For example, Roy said, just last week he realized he had always promised himself he would never be a doctor. "I don't see God leading me in that direction," he said, "but I had to give that refusal to God. I have to be willing to know what He wants for me."

Wow. I've learned so much from Roy.

While faith is always and has always been the bottom line, the reality of surrender was not clear until Jesus had paid the price for sin and could reconnect us with God through the Holy Spirit. Surrender really is not possible without the Holy Spirit's prompting and transformation.

Sherry, I understand your hurt and frustration and helplessness at the pastor's comments to your husband. They were an indictment of you, and you also aren't sure just how your husband will react since he's vulnerable and struggling in his spirit.

I thank God that your husband is willing to go to church with you even if his reason is that he gets lonely and wants to be with the family. In fact, I suspect that his loneliness and need for connection is part of God's way to his heart. We all have different emotional breaking points, and all of us have different triggers that bring us to those breaking points. Knowing how deep and unconscious our Adventist attachment is/was to the Sabbath, the fact that he will opt to be with the family over Sabbath mean he is choosing to stay with Love instead of intellectual self-righteousness.

Also, your following the Holy Spirit's prompting to let him make the decision has honored him and shown him respect. (See Ephesians 5) For him to actually take the lead and make the decision--even to defending it to the pastor--means he is beginning to walk with the authority God wants him to have in Him.

I know he's still conflicted and uncommitted, but God is working on him. He has chosen to go with you to a fellowship where he can be spiritually fed and loved. He is choosing to walk toward truth, even if the only thing he can see clearly is the truth that he wants the family to be together.

Sherry, I praise God for this, and I'm praying for you and him!

I praise God for putting us into each other's lives and for glorifying Himself through his Spirit in us!

Colleen
Graceambassador
Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 6:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen:
I sincerely thank you for your words. I ask permission to use your testimonial addition in my next preaching appointment Sunday 22nd in a small church in Pontiac-MI. I will be preaching about Law and Grace using the same basic thrust of my post.

Your comments are very much in line with the kind of Grace I believe God called me to preach. The surrender part of your comments in contrast with the "formal" fulfillment of the Law is also tremendously inspirational. I use "contrasts" all the time as a teaching tool and now through your comments, I learned one more that is of utmost importance. Thank you!

At this moment, even as I write, as a benefit of your comments, God is placing upon my heart all the "hints" in the New Testament where the ceremonial Law was fulfilled "formally" and feasts became so formal that their names are not even mentioned. John 5 is an example where one has to find a good Bible commentary to find an explanation of what specifically is the "feast" in verse 1.

The point is clear that while the Jews were in the "feast" fulfilling their religious obligation, Jesus was AMONG A GREAT MULTITUDE of IMPOTENT FOLK, OF BLIND, HALT, and THE WITHERED. All the while, others were fulfilling a FORMALITY, but Jesus was FULFILLING HIS MISSION! HE WAS AMONG US! Praise His Name!

This shows how "formality" and plain "religiosity" contrasts with the great opportunity we have in JESUS to BOLDLY AND OPENLY have relationship directly with the FATHER, because IN FACT HE IS THE ONE WHO IS AMONG US SINCE HE CAME TO AND FOR US. And when we surrender to the promptings of His Spirit, the joy He brings to us is above any feelings we may derive from a formal "feast"! It is joy unspeakable and full of Glory. Praise His Name!

I do not know if this is pertinent, but surely, your comments about "surrender" triggered in me these thoughts! I just have to preach on that!

Grace Ambassador
Doug222
Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 8:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

GA,
If you say that the "moral" law still exists, then is there not a requirement to adhere to it for salvation--thereby negating the fact that we are saved by grace and not by the works of the law?

On the other hand, if you are saying that the moral law has consequences (in the same way that the natural laws do) but not condemnation, then I can accept your premise. However, if I accept that premise, I cannot call the ten commandments God's moral law because Romans 5:13, 14 tells me that

"UNTIL the law (speaking of the ten commandments and the book of the law), sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is NO LAW. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the simultude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him to come."

I bring this point up only because I thought I heard you say that the Sabbath was part of God ceremonial law, but the other nine commandments were God's moral law. I would suggest that it is all "law," and even God's "moral" law (as you call it) does not fully express the character of God. (Matthew 5:21,22 and following).

Maybe this is a minor point, but based on the indoctrination I am endeavoring to break free from, the hair stands up on the back of my neck anytime I hear someone make a distinction between the moral and the ceremonial law--especially since the scripture does not explicitly make that distinction. If I am off base, let me know.

In His Grace

Doug
Windmotion
Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 9:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you everyone for your thoughts on my pastor's Sabbath comments!! I have decided to call him on Friday, which I have off from work this week and try to explain what I see to be the discrepancy.
Sherry, thank you for sharing your personal experience with your husband. I will be praying for you both. My situation is different from yours in that I quit going to church b/c I was lonely, and my husband quit going to the sda church b/c he didn't think he was good enough. Now I feel like he is trying to give God another chance in his life, which is why this upset me so.
GA, a few comments on your posts. I don't think the pastor brought up keeping a day of rest as a law that must be kept to earn heaven. He said its purpose was to strengthen our relationship with God, just as having daily devotions would. It is something he has tried to do and apparently it has worked for him (although his Sabbath keeping includes at least mowing the lawn while meditating on Scripture verses and watching an occasional movie)I don't think he was, as you say, adding to grace. He never even said it was a sin to break the Sabbath; he said it;s a good thing to keep because its commanded in Exodus.
Colleen, I feel like I absorb strength and understanding from your comments. Thank you so much for everything you say!!!
Sincerely,
Hannah
Graceambassador
Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 10:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Doug:
You raise good points. Some of your assertions do reveal a "searching heart". I submit to you, however that you have found what you are looking for.

It is hard for us to teach a course on any "division" of the Law in a forum or even over the limitations on the Internet.

I understand that the system from which you are trying to depart maintains, whether implicitly or not, that the "fulfillment of the law, whether ceremonial or moral" is what brings Salvation. I am saying that such a Law is impossible to be fulfilled, especially if we broaden its meaning as Jesus did, hence OUR NEED TO FULLY RELY UPON THE SUFFICIENCY OF JESUS. This clearly means that JESUS BRINGS SALVATION and not the workings of the Law, neither the fulfillment thereof.
This is pure and simple soteriology.

Allow me to comment in one of your statements and explain in the way I see Paul explaining it to us:

On the other hand, if you are saying that the moral law has consequences (in the same way that the natural laws do) but not condemnation, then I can accept your premise. However, if I accept that premise, I cannot call the ten commandments God's moral law because Romans 5:13, 14 tells me that

"UNTIL the law (speaking of the ten commandments and the book of the law), sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is NO LAW. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the simultude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him to come."

I bring this point up only because I thought I heard you say that the Sabbath was part of God ceremonial law, but the other nine commandments were God's moral law. I would suggest that it is all "law," and even God's "moral" law (as you call it) does not fully express the character of God. (Matthew 5:21,22 and following).


Paul expresses this point very well throughout his entire body of writings. Paul often says that there will be consequences if one would not be "morally" fit before God. There is confusion whether this means an outright loss of Salvation, but if the Law cannot save, it will not "unsave" as well. You have shown a good ability to find biblical reasoning for yourself and you will be able to find this one as well.

I wrote a number of posts on Godly discipline and how God uses to "train" those who break his moral law. You must not understand any of the scriptures I quoted as loss of Salvation. I trust that I understand your point. Again, the Law did not give us Salvation, and the Law cannot take it away!

I pointed out in my post about Godly discipline that the worst kind of discipline is not to be disciplined since God said that He will (no ifs or buts) discipline those whom HE LOVES. This is how God deals with the breaking of His Moral Code.

I believe this explains the issue of "consequences" and "condemnation", speaking of eternal condemnation.

THE DISTINCTION

You are correct that the Bible does not make a clear distinction on the moral and the Ceremonial Law of God. It is clear, however, that there were ceremonies to be followed by the Jews and that they have a very strict moral code. They do not fully express the character of God and there is no demand to understand fully the character of God other than what the Bible says about it. I can only know about the character of God by the examples given in the Bible. When His people sinned in the O.T. certain tragedies such as wars and famine, including captivity would occur. This indicates God's legal requirements.

In the other hand, when Uzzah, (I think you brought him up in another thread) touched the ark, God spoiled the party by killing him. The CEREMONY to transport the ark, the protocol and who should carry the ark had been INSTRUCTED BY GOD IN FULL DETAIL and David and the Levites knew it very well. They broke the CEREMONY (or the rule or law about the ceremony) and God immediately administered punishment. Levites were to take the Ark in their shoulders and not in a MAN MADE CART! This points to a future way in which God will manifest HIS PRESENCE in the New Testament.

The above paragraph speaks of God punishing His people for not following His moral code. It was not immoral, although as devastating as immorality, to carry the Ark of God with an improper protocol. We only know that because God killed Uzzah and spoiled the party! If Uzzah would not die, the Israelites would take forever very lightly an important "protocol". Now, God administer Godly discipline to those who break the Moral law, thereby teaching us (training us) to follow it, but ALL the ceremonies were fulfilled and done away with, including the keeping of the Sabbath, AS THE JEWISH PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD THE SABBATH. (SDA's cannot even call themselves sabbath keepers compared to the Jews). Jesus became our SABBATH!

This CEREMONIAL LAW, so to speak, is NOW PAST since God by the Holy Spirit chose to abide in US. He no longer abides in temples or in "arks" made by man's hands but he abides in US! His presence among us is NO LONGER represented by the Ark but it is MANIFESTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.

This is the distinction many Bible students make between the Ceremonial Law and the Moral Law: The part of the whole Law, six hundred and some laws, that POINTED TO A FUTURE fulfilled in the "fullness of time" by Christ.

The Sabbath is included in the above because other than the other nine, God established to point to a future eternal enduring Sabbath, which is the Lord Jesus Christ.

When Jesus walked this earth, He expanded in the "moral" Law of God and demonstrated the impossibility of fulfilling it and the hypocrisy of those who claimed to fulfill it. For example, Jesus proclaims often "Moses told you, I therefore tell you..." Example: You were told "you shall not kill. I tell you however, call your brother Racca (stupid devoid of Religion and unworthy of God - according to Dakes) and you just killed him!" What Pharisee, what Jew had not ever pronounced such words? Jesus continues, "you have been told thou shall not commit adultery. I tell you however, anyone of you who so much as look to a woman with sexual desires HAS ALREADY COMMITTED ADULTERY WITH HER". What Jew, Pharisee or Sadducee has never looked upon a woman with desire? This is what I call the Moral Law, impossible to fulfill. I can actually sin without ever physically be involved in committing it.

It is quite different than the value Jesus placed in CEREMONIES. He said, repeating the O.T., Hosea 6:6 and Matthew 9:13. Here the sacrifice and the burnt offerings were secondary to the knowledge of God and merciful unto sinners.

NOTE THAT JESUS UPGRADED, THE MORAL LAW AND ACTUALLY DOWNGRADED THE CEREMONY. JESUS COULD DOWNGRADE THE CEREMONY BUT NEVER THE MORAL CODE OF GOD

Again, the distinction between "Moral Law" and "Ceremonial Law" is that which is still a code valid in the New Covenant. Anything other Law or protocol that was a shadow of Christ, or has been fulfilled in the N.T. by any form of manifestation is what I call Ceremonial Law.

All the above is only valid if I understood your point!
Above all, be at peace: The Law cannot save and cannot "unsave".

Grace Ambassador
Colleentinker
Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 12:25 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Grace Ambassador, I believe I understand your point. I think, however, that all of us "formers" have a powerful visceral reaction to talk of the moral law being separate from the ceremonial.

Actually, you are right that God's moral code is eternal. My contention, however, is that the Ten Commandments isn't really God's moral code. It certainly REPRESENTED his moral code, but it is by no means complete.

The Jews perceived the whole Pentateuch to be the law. Both ceremonial and moral laws were part of it. In fact, Leviticus is full of laws that explain how Israel was to keep the Ten Commandments. Those laws certainly could qualify to be part of the moral law.

I understand that the Ten were the only laws written by God on stone. They outlined the way a true Israelite's life would/should look. But they technically aren't God's moral law. They were derived from it, but the moral law is really IN God. That's why life in the Spirit is so much more demanding and transforming and fulfilling than life by the law. We have the Living Law, the true Moral Law, living in us. There is no more need for the written code, for the Ten Commandments or the ceremonies.

The Ten are not bad; they are just not the whole picture.

I'm not saying this, Grace Ambassador, to take you to task or to disagree with you. I think, actually, that we are both ending up at the same place. I'm saying this simply to try to express this concept in a way that those who grew up chained to the law can think of it without choking on the terms!

I praie God for living in us and giving us grace!
Colleen
Doug222
Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 12:46 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

GA,
Thanks for your response. I "think" I understand your point. Maybe we're saying the same thing, but coming from different directions. My present understanding (everything seems subject to change these days)is that the entire law (all of it) was completely fulfilled in Jesus--to believe otherwise would require me to have to read additional meaning into a plethera of texts in the New Testament that speak about the disposition of the "law." Even the "moral" law (from the Old Testamant), as you call it, pointed forward to Jesus in the sense that it was given to reveal man's need for a Saviour. The focus of the Old Covenant was not the law, it was the lamb which represented the coming Messiah. After Jesus came, the need for the law was made obsolete because He fulfilled (performed or satisfied)the requirements of it and gave me credit. In addition, He established a New Covenant, not written on tables of stone, but on the fleshly tables of my heart. As a result, the Spirit now guides and motivates my actions. If al of this is true, I see no value in going back to the Old Testament to see which laws continue to be valid and which ones aren't. In fact, if I do, it seems as though I run the risk of becoming like the Jews (and SDA's) who to this day continue to have their vision clouded by the vail of the Old Covenant. By doing that, I (maybe subconciously) am asking the question, "what does God require of me?" "What is my part?" In asking those questions, I am in effect negating his complete atonment at the cross by adding my contributions. Either His blood was sufficient or it wasn't.

Now, before you jump on me and suggest that I am advocating anarchy, I must add that I also believe the Spirit will now guide my steps ("the love of Christ constraineth me"). As you said, because of His great love for me, God will chasten me the same way a parent corrects a child. The purpose of this chastening is to to enable me to experience the abundant life. And sometimes I will just flat out suffer the consequences for my actions (like reaching up to touch a hot stove) without having anything to do with chastening. In any event, none of this has to do with my salvation.

As I said, I think we might be arriving at the same conclusion, but have used different roads to get there. I welcome any feedback.

In His Grace

Doug
Graceambassador
Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 6:10 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Doug:
You say:
Now, before you jump on me and suggest that I am advocating anarchy,...

I say:

Why would I suggest the same thing that is suggested about me when I teach about Grace?
I am often called "gracemonger" which I almost took it as a Net nickname!!!

Once, when I defended a fallen preacher using many Biblical examples, arguments and some of the things we are discussing here, someone told me in a rather "accusing" tone:

PASTOR MILTON... "You are drowning in Grace!"

I answered: "What a way to go!"

COLLEEN AND DOUG

Yes we're speaking the same thing and perhaps the fact that we speak from two different perspectives is good and wholesome for the establishment of a belief. Note that the FOUR GOSPELS are synoptic but to Matthews Jesus is the King, to Mark He is the servant, etc. Through these different perspectives about the same person God brought us the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

I believe the "same thing" under different perspectives is far better than the normal confusion we have going on today in Christianity and more akin to God's will. As we recently discussed, NOW WE CAN ONLY SEE THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY.

It is also to the benefit of the Body of Christ!
(My opinion only).

Grace Ambassador
Doug222
Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 8:08 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

GA (or should I say GM),
I apologize for suggesting you were anything but a proponent of Grace. The example you just gave reminds me of a statement I read in a book recently that said that "anyone who truly preaches the gospel of grace, must run the risk of being accused of being too permissive. If you aren't receiving these accusations, you might want to go back and look at your message." (my paraphrase). My statement about being "jumped on" wasn't so much directed at you personally as it was a universal "you" for others who may be lurking.

Colleen, I didn't see your post until this morning. It was reassuring to me to see you post almost the exact words as mine. The Spirit used you to provide confirmation for me. Thank You.

In His Grace,

Doug
Graceambassador
Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 9:25 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hey Doug:

No apologies at all. Indeed, I never felt that you directed your comment at me!

I am the one who should apologize to ALL THE FORMERS in this forum since my "sensitemeter" for SDA's feelings towards the law malfunctioned!

If I should, I will and I do apologize!

Once I read yours and Colleen's post, it was as if someone had stricken a blow to my "sensitemeter" and the dial began to work and went way down showing that my sensitivity was really low.

I will keep an eye in this "dial" right now and be more understanding of the "visceral" and "back of the hair raising" JUSTIFIABLE feelings the assumed distinction between Moral and Ceremonial Law causes in former SDAs. On that note, let me say that I have a new understanding for the issue due to yours and Colleen's courtesy in responding to MY lack of sensitivity. I mean it before the Lord!

Grace Ambassador
Darrell
Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 12:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen, I appreciate Roy's and your insights regarding Matthew 5. You and Richard may remember from previous discussions we have had that I thought that if the law (Torah) was to "pass away" at the cross Jesus would not have included the phrase "'till heaven and earth pass away" in His statement. I still believe this is true, but I have found that this arguement cannot be used to support the Sabbath if you consider its implications.

Take for example the subject of circumcision. This was a huge issue in the new testement church as you can see from all the words Paul used addressing the Galatians and other recipients of his letters about this subject. So certainly this was more than a "jot or tittle" in the law. Yet Paul and the Jerusalem council concluded that circumcision counts for nothing. What matters is a new heart.

If Paul, Peter, James, and the rest of the apostles could agree, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, that a requirement of the Torah is not binding on Christians, then we cannot use Matthew 5:17,18 to defend other requirements of the Torah as binding.

So the law has not passed away. It is still there for us to read, and to understand how its shadows have become realities in Jesus Christ.
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 8:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I understand what you are saying, Darrell. As I've read through different texts and how some things are supported from the law, others not, and the passage about fulfillment....it is true that some things have been fulfilled through Christ, and are there for our understanding how every reality fits into pointing to Christ, and there are other parts that have to do with His reigning as king that have not been fulfilled, so all in all between understanding old and new covenant, fulfilled and not, it weaves a beautiful tapestry. Jesus is definitely the center of it all!
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2001 - 8:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen, you always give me perspective! Thanks a million! ;) You know, it is true too that after the pastor quoted those texts, Jon did say "well it's not like she's joined the church of Satan or something." which was good of him. And now having talked some more he is just as committed on us going together still at CBC. I am so thankful. I was too upset at the time to appreciate his words but when we talked after the pastor left about his words, Jon told me "Well what do you care what he thinks anyways? It's just his opinion. And opinions are like asses (excuse the french - i quote him directly)everyone has one." Now I think that was pretty funny. It is good to see him totally unbothered by his visit at all, and still on with what we've got going. That is a celebration indeed.

I enjoyed Roy's words too that you shared. There's alot to be learned from that. :)
Colleentinker
Posted on Friday, July 13, 2001 - 10:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Darrell, really great point. You've really explained the problem with the old argument about the law not passing away. And Sherry, thank you for pointing out that there are statements about the kingdom that are still apparently unfulfilled. Both of you have added clarity to this passage in Matthew.

Thanks!
Colleen

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

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