| Author | Message | ||
| Valm |
Wonderful testimony Jtree! Valerie | ||
| Jtree |
Max, as using some of your material here, on another place, and discussing some of the points. I will quote this FRIENDS response. This is from the archives of this present DISCUSSION. See how he avoids the questions asked? But able to HIT AND RUN on other points? "I see that you have still been unable to come up with a clear thus says the Lord in reguards to your view on Sabbath keeping. I am not surprised. You do continue to use twisted human logic with very poor effect. Being unable to aply the weight of scripture to your argument you chose a couple of texts and twist their meaning to fit your purposes. This is the same tactic that the devil took while tempting Christ in the wilderness. (I USED ONE TEXT, and ONE TEXT ONLY, Col 2:14-17. You said " I believe that the cancellation of "the written code," the nailing of it "to the cross" represented the finished fulfillment of the deeds of the Torah law -- which includes the Ten Commandment law, which includes the Fourth Commandment, the Sabbath Commandment -- by Jesus Christ's life and death. " and "I believe that "the written code, with its regulations" was the law of God as found in the first five books of the Bible or Torah." I find it funny that you would make a "I believe" statement with no scriptural referance, but then again you won't find one for that belief will you? If as you say the written code that was nailed tothe cross includes the first five books of the Bible (the Torah), you would have to throw away the story of creation, the flood, the exodus, among a whole lot of other things that all Christian faiths have maintained. It would make your Bible more portable though. People who want to throw away the Sabbath by saying that it was nailed to the cross, don't want to throw away the rest of the ten commandments with it. They want to carve out one of the commandments and leave the others intact. If the whole law was nailed to the cross along with the first five books of the Bible, then I can see that we are no longer under the law when it comes to murder and adultery and theivery. I think that this would come to a surprise to any person who claims to be a Christian. please don't come up with a arguement about under) you said "You may or may not know that your own scholar Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi in his book, FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY (pp. 6, 339, 358-360), AGREES with me and DISAGREES with your own SDABC. On page 359, for example, Bacchiocchi writes, "It is therefore linguistically impossible to interpret the latter ["Sabbath day"] as a reference to the Day of Atonement or to any other ceremonial sabbaths." Now how do YOU interpret that term? Annual or weekly? " I to have the book From Sabbath To Sunday by S Bacchiocchi. I have read the whole thing though. you could at least finnish the chapter that you referred to. By the way, he loves e-mail, why don't you ask him what he means in that chapter if you can't understand it for yourself. you said"Question: Doesn't Ellen G. White contradict both Jesus and Paul? And in so doing declare herself to be a false prophet? If not, can you explain clearly why not? The point is not that Christians should eat honey baked ham. The point is that Christians are not to let Seventh-day Adventists tell them something contrary to what Jesus and Paul tell them." It is not a sin to eat ham, it is unhealthy. That is why a person was unclesn after handling it and not stoned to death. Gods point is that to abuse the body with unhealthful practices while knowing that it is hamful is a sin." | ||
| Jtree |
Ruled By Law Or Led By Spirit? Galatians 5:18 We might think that, by this time, Paul has left behind him the debate about the law and moved on to the quite different subject of practical holiness. Certainly, Galatians is often read as if this were the case. Butif this were so, it would be impossible to explain the verse that now follows: 'But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law' (5:18). Here the apostle defines the relationship of the believer to the law in the context, not of justification, but of personal holiness. What connection is there, then, between righteous living and freedom from law? This verse has important implications. It strengthens the view, expressed earlier in this commentary, that Paul's concern was not only with apostate legalists, but also with the threat which the law, when misapplied, poses to genuine believers. Commenting on this passage, Longenecker writes, 'The phrase ... "under the law" is undoubtedly to be read, as elsewhere throughout the Galatian letter... as referring to the nomistic lifestyle advocated by the Judaizers... what, then, is the apostle telling us? Very simply that, for the believer, the indwelling Spirit has supplanted the external law as the controlling principle that guides his conduct. Had Paul intended to teach that the law, or any part of it, should be the Christian's 'rule of life', here was his opportunity to do so. What does he say? He tells us that those led by the Spirit are not beholden to the law with respect to righteous living. Indeed, he seems to go further; being led by the Spirit and being ruled by the law are mutually exclusive in the area of Christian conduct. Of course, as we have already seen, those who are Spirit-led will fulfil the righteous requirements of the law. They will love God; THEY WILL NOT HATE, MURDER, STEAL or LIE; THEY WILL NOT COVET. But this will not be because they subject themselves to the law, but because they are guided by the inwelling Spirit in conformity to the whole of God's Word and the example of Christ. the 'love affair' between the flesh and the law. Unregenerate human nature craves law, for law slaves the conscience and feeds the pride of man. Witness the self congratulations of the Pharisee in Luke 18:11: 'God, I thank you I am not like other men... I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' On the other hand, the absence of law leads the unregenerate to sin without constraint, although even they have consciences which, in the providence of God, restrain their worst excesses and allow stable societies to exist. But the Christian ethic is not a middle way between law and licentiousness. It is a higher way that avoids both errors. Led and empowered by the indwelling Spirit of God, and taught in the objective principles of Holy Scripture, the believer seeks to conform his life to the will of God. FREE IN CHRIST The Message Of Galatians Joshua of the Rock! | ||
| Max |
JR, You're like the chinook -- the warm moist southwest wind of the coast from Oregon northward -- ending winter and signalling spring. Welcome back! You stay away too much. We MISS you, dude! At least I do! About your messages: I'm going to post some possible replies which you may choose to use however you wish as -- wearing the whole armor of God -- you stand at Armageddon and battle for the Lord! ^^If as you say the written code that was nailed to the cross includes the first five books of the Bible (the Torah), you would have to throw away the story of creation, the flood, the exodus....^^ False anaology. As the Lord answered Job out of the storm, "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? [Job 38:2]." For it was not Joshua of the Rock who "forgave us all our sins," who "canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us," who, "took it away, nailing it to the cross," disarming "the powers and authorities," and making "a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross [Colossians 2:13-14]." It was Jesus Christ Himself! | ||
| Max |
^^People who want to throw away the Sabbath by saying that it was nailed to the cross, don't want to throw away the rest of the ten commandments with it. They want to carve out one of the commandments and leave the others intact. If the whole law was nailed to the cross along with the first five books of the Bible, then I can see that we are no longer under the law when it comes to murder and adultery and theivery.^^ Again, it was not Joshua of the Rock who omitted the Fourth Commandment of the decalogue from the New Testament yet retained in an infinitely improved form the other Nine. It was the New Testament writers themselves. Argue with them. | ||
| Max |
^^It is not a sin to eat ham, it is unhealthy. That is why a person was unclean after handling it and not stoned to death. God's point is that to abuse the body with unhealthful practices while knowing that it is hamful is a sin.^^ Ye know not the Scriptures. 1. Nowhere in the Old Testament or the New is there so much as a hint that swine's flesh is unhealthy. 2. The term "unclean" was a religious, ritual designation, not one of scientific health and medicine. The two leading Jewish organizations in the U.S. -- Orthodox and Reformed -- both say on their websites and in their other publications that this is the case. 3. Mark 7:18-19 NIV: "Are you so dull?" [Jesus] asked [his disciples]. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside [such as hoone baked ham] can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") 4. Acts 10:11-17 NIV: [Peter in a trance] saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles [trurtle soup!] of the earth and birds of the air. then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second tie, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." This vision from God to Peter does not mean that God was forcing Peter personally to eat honey baked ham. It does mean, though, that Peter was: 1. Not to exclude honey baked ham or any other food from the agape feasts. 2. Not to exclude from fellowship or to disfellowship Gentile Christians who ate it. 3. Was to eat it when it was put before him without asking any questions of conscience. | ||
| Jtree |
MC (HAMMER TIME) :-) I'm here DAILY, just that I do work alot, last night was first day of REST I had since the beginning of the year. I'm getting ready for vacation, and I WORK alot, sometimes so heavy, 12 hour days, 6-7 days a week. I come I read, sometimes I don't have time to imput as I did last night, I'm here though, the whole week-end, (Sabbath and Lords Day). :-) At least someone loves me and misses me here. I'm very warm for your reply to me today. Thank you BROTHER! Joshua of the Rock.. | ||
| Max |
^^I to have the book From Sabbath To Sunday by S. Bacchiocchi. I have read the whole thing though. you could at least finnish the chapter that you referred to. By the way, he loves e-mail, why don't you ask him what he means in that chapter if you can't understand it for yourself.^^ It isn't Joshua of the Rock who can't under- stand what Bacchiocchi meant in his book From Sabbath to Sunday. | ||
| Cindy |
Joshua, Good Morning! :-)) I've loved those contrasts of the Law versus the Gospel that you posted above; the first place I read them was in Hannah Whitall Smith's little book "The Christian's Secret of a Happy Life." I found this treasure back in 1992 in an old, used book store in Pennsylvania. She has this in a chapter entitled "Bondage or Liberty",,, which is very good! What amazed me is that she was a contemporary of Ellen White; this book was written in the 1880's! I'm reading more of Charles Spurgeon once again lately. What a man of God, a great preacher in London, in the 1800's... also a contemporary of EGW! Growing up Adventist, I was totally UNAWARE that there were people like this outside of Adventism! I thought we had "the truth"! and of course, the required, subsequent, TRUE holy living (keeping the "commmandments of God", which included resting on the "right day");... all of this was confined within our denomination. Those so called "Christians" outside of Adventism were always "suspect" because they kept the "wrong" day. Well...we did acknowledge some of the great reformers like Martin Luther in the past, but mainly God's presence and workings had all started again in the 1844 message with EGW and her visions and message... I know that NOW the more "evangelical" mindset of Adventism dialogues with other denominations, even inviting key pastors or teachers to preach at their designated "Ministry" magazine-sponsored events. (See the Advertisement on the back of the January 8, 2001 issue of "Christianity Today"). Still, this is for the purpose of getting people into the ADVENTIST church! They would not like those who attend to STAY in their denominations or to join other denominations besides Adventism. :-)) In fact, these seminars are specifically geared towards Pastors of other denominations! Reading Chuck Swindoll's book, "The Grace Awakening" back in the early 1990's was a real "awakenening" to me, also. The absolute wonderful message of GRACE jumped out at me; and again I was amazed to realize a vibrant Christianity outside of Adventism! I am so grateful for this now... Some thoughts in regards to the person you are dialoging with on the other forum: First, Bless you for you witness, Joshua! Perhaps the seeds you plant will germinate in his mind for a while and bear fruit later, (in God's timing). :-)) Right now there really is a "veil" over this persons' eyes, as 2 Corinthians 3: 7-17 so wonderfully describes....I love this passage! "Now if THE MINISTRY THAT BROUGHT DEATH, WHICH WAS ENGRAVED IN LETTERS ON STONE, came with glory, fading though it was, will not THE MINISTRY OF THE SPIRIT BE EVEN MORE GLORIOUS?" "If THE MINISTRY THAT CONDEMNS MEN IS GLORIOUS, HOW MUCH MORE GLORIOUS IS THE MINISTRY THAT BRINGS RIGHTEOUSNESS!" "For what was glorious has no glory now IN COMPARISON WITH THE SURPASSING GLORY." "And if what was fading away came with glory, HOW MUCH GREATER IS THE GLORY OF THAT WHICH LASTS!" "THEREFORE, SINCE WE HAVE SUCH A HOPE, WE ARE VERY BOLD." "We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away." "But THEIR MINDS WERE MADE DULL, FOR TO THIS DAY THE SAME VEIL REMAINS WHEN THE OLD COVENANT IS READ." "It has not been removed, because ONLY IN CHRIST IS IT TAKEN AWAY!" "EVEN TO THIS DAY WHEN MOSES IS READ, A VEIL COVERS THEIR HEARTS. "BUT WHENEVER ANYONE TURNS TO THE LORD, THE VEIL IS TAKEN AWAY. NOW THE LORD IS THE SPIRIT, AND WHERE THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS, THERE IS FREEDOM." "And we, who with UNVEILED faces all REFLECT the LORD'S GLORY, are BEING TRANSFORMED INTO HIS LIKESNESS with ever-increasing glory, WHICH COMES FROM THE LORD WHO IS THE SPIRIT." Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Max |
Have a great vacation, JR. And I'm not the only one here who loves and misses you. ALL RIGHT, YOU FAFFERS, HERE'S YOUR CHANCE: WHAT DO YOU THINK OF JOSHUA OF THE ROCK? CHIME IN! (And it better be good or you're gonna deal with ME. Just kidding.) Max of the Rock Ps. No, Maryann, I didn't misnomer myself. | ||
| Cindy |
Hey Joshua! I miss you.. and love you here too!! :-)) What a great post you put above on "Ruled by the Law... or Led by the Spirit! I must repeat it below! :-)) "The 'love affair' between the flesh and the law. Unregenerate human nature craves law, for law slaves the conscience and feeds the pride of man. Witness the self congratulations of the Pharisee in Luke 18:11: 'God, I thank you I am not like other men... I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' On the other hand, the absence of law leads the unregenerate to sin without constraint, although even they have consciences which, in the providence of God, restrain their worst excesses and allow stable societies to exist. But the Christian ethic is not a middle way between law and licentiousness. It is a higher way that avoids both errors. Led and empowered by the indwelling Spirit of God, and taught in the objective principles of Holy Scripture, the believer seeks to conform his life to the will of God." I agree! The Christian way is not a middle way between law and licentiousness. It is a higher way that avoids both errors! The UNREGENERATE are the ones who remain "under the Law"... We, who are gratefully regenerated by Christ's death and life ALONE!! are the ones who now are LED BY THE SPIRIT! Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Cindy |
Morning Max...:-)) Great replies above! All of them! I totally agree on the "ham-unclean food" issue...although I would really have a hard time actually chewing into a pig!! :-)) I even have difficulty with the so-called "clean" meat! :-)) I mistakenly got a "Burrito Supreme" (with beef in it!) at Taco Bell a few weeks ago; instead of my usual bean "7-layer" one. But I was on the road, and starving! So I bravely ate it! :-)) :-)) And survived! :-)) They probably fry those beans at Taco Bell in lard/ham too, but I've never asked! :-)) Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Jtree |
Cindy, do you know that Taco Bell, is the Mexican Phone Company? JUST KIDDING MY MEXICAN FRIENDS. | ||
| Cindy |
Joshua, that was funny....:-)) I first thought you meant the parent company that owned Taco Bell was the Mexican Phone Company! I'm kind of 'slow' with jokes...:-)) Enjoy your rest, Joshua! Are you watching the events in D.C.? Seeing the Capitol and adjacent areas makes me somewhat homesick for the East coast today...:-(( D.C. is fascinating with the Monuments, the Smithsonian museums, and, of course, the cherry blossoms in the spring! An Italian restaurant in Georgetown was the place of my first date with my husband many, many years ago... I remember walking around all those monuments with my dog a few years ago. He was appropriately respectful walking by the Vietnam Memorial and waiting while I read many of the names... :-)) Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Max |
Morning Cindy, I agree of course that there is no balance between faith and works. That's just another one of White-ism's errors. She loved the anti-scriptural rowboat illustration: a "faith oar" on one side and a "works oar" on the other. Baaaad! Super-ugh! One of the unique beauties of Christianity is exactly that it goes beyond any balancing act. Faith works. Bill Twisse said in FAF meeting last night that in his life experience he went from "working toward victory" to "working from victory," meaning from the vantage point of victory, Christ's victory. Maryann says, We obey not to get saved, but because we are saved. Luther says, We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. James says something very similar, "Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do." Its true that Luther had difficulty with James. But his attitude can be explained: He was understandably over-reacting to the Roman church's misuse of Scripture, such as James, to desperately retain its profitable hold on people's lives. And because of their prisoner- mindset he, Luther, was trying to set them free in Christ. In its attempt to retain members in Germany and elsewhere in northern and western Europe and the British Isles, the RCC was combatting Luther and Calvin with its you have to work for the church arguments. In RCC theology the Roman Catholic people are NOT a part of the church. The church consists ONLY of the fathers or the priest- hood. The priesthood includes only the parish priests, monks, abbots, bishops, cardinals, pope.... -- all who are ordained priests. No woman can be a part of "the church." No Roman Catholic person who is not an ordained priest can be a part of the church. The pewsitters are merely the faithful. Meaning faithful TO "the church." The Reformation counter battle-cry to this doctrinal and practical reality was the priesthood of all believers. That was also a cutting issue then. But the bottom-line issue was: socioeconomic control of peoples lives. By works of the people the RCC was obtaining and retaining money; lands; buildings such as basilicas, cathedrals, monasteries, nunneries, palaces for bishops to inhabit; costly works of art such as those of Michelangelo; even businesses such as vineyards and wineries (best in the world then) run by vow-of-poverty monks and schools taught by vow-of-poverty nuns. The Reformers were challenging that system with its you are saved by grace alone message. It threatened the RCC's socio- economic stranglehold. Horribly threatened, it fought back with everything it had, including fire and the sword. And by quoting such Scriptures as James: "Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do." Meaning, by what you DONATE to the church (such as money and skilled-and-unskilled labor to build a cathedral) or BUY from the church (such as indulgences, wine, school for your kids, etc.). Eventually it becomes very obvious why Luther took the attitude he did about James. He had to -- because of the slave mind-set of the people. I would probably have done the same. But we live in a different time now. A Luther of today would -- like Bonhoeffer (also German) did in Nazi Germany -- thunder AGAINST cheap grace and FOR costly grace from every mountain top and molehill (his name- sake, Martin Luther King, Jr.). Else he would not be Luther. "Lest we forget" -- Hitler was THE quint- essential "cheap grace" Christian who led a nation of "cheap grace" Christians to you- know-where. Did you know that you can still obtain indulgences from Rome? I heard that on Catholic Radio just a few days ago. I don't know if they still sell them, though. Would be interesting to find out. In other news: I went to rootsy-snootsy coffee shoppe The Daily Grind (909.793.9149) in Redlands Thursday last to buy kona coffee beans to keep in my freezer for grinding-my- own. $39.99/lb. Gulp. As they say on Rodeo Drive, "Amani or your life!" Kid such a delightful person as you, I would never. Saving grace: The young lady who clerks there glows with the aura of the kingdom of heaven. Customers call her Smiley. She reminds me of Paul: I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:33-11:1 NIV). For us formers for whom Christ has founded the kingdom of heaven under our feet as well as over our heads, we walk on its holy ground wherever we go. Our behavior -- our inter- actions with others -- is the truest form of missionary faithwork. MC | ||
| Cindy |
Max, Good afternoon/evening! :-)) Interesting about the history of the "priesthoood of all believers" versus the RCC. As far as "indulgences" go, I remember being in Rome (one of my favorite cities!) and visiting the Church of St. John, the Lateran, place of the Scala Sancta (or Sacred Stairs). These are said to be the stairs Jesus climbed at one point during his trial (and then transported to Rome). Also I think Martin Luther climbed these...although there was no mention of Luther at the church. :-)) Regardless, there were many sincere devotees there climbling the Stairs--on their KNEES. There was a sign there that I took a picture of which said: "The devotion of the Scala Santa is practised by going up on one's knees from one to the other of its 28 steps, meditating meanwhile on the Passion of our Lord, on reciting vocal prayers in memory of His sufferings. AN INDULGENCE OF NINE YEARS APPLICABLE TO THE SOULS IN PURGATORY IS GRANTED TO THOSE WHO PERFORM THIS PIOUS EXERCISE WITH A CONTRITE HEART (Pius VII, 24 Oct. 1819." "His Holiness" Pope Pius X continued this papal decree, autographed by him on February 26, 1908. Not sure if this has continued throughout the other Pope's reigns... It was very interesting to see... Obviously, many people believed in these papal pronouncements! (I didn't try to ascend on my knees, but did walk up to the top. :-)) Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Max |
Any indulgence time applicable for climbing on feet instead of knees? Actually, I love to go to empty Catholic churches, the more ancient the better, and kneel in prayer and meditation there. One doesn't have to agree with RCC teachings to worship there. And the RCC people, including priests, with whom I've had contact have always been super-nice. All you have to do is to show respect. Not tough at all. In kingdom with you, MC | ||
| Denisegilmore (Denisegilmore) |
Here is part of what Martin Luther says about the Law: Paul manhandles the Law. He treats the Law as if it were a thief and a robber He treats the Law as contemptible to the conscience, in order that those who believe in Christ may take courage to defy the Law, and say: "Mr. Law, I am a sinner. What are you going to do about it?" Or take death. Christ is risen from death. Why should we now fear the grave? Against my death I set another death, or rather life, my life in Christ. Oh, the sweet names of Jesus! He is called my law against the Law, my sin against sin, my death against death. Translated, it means that He is my righteousness, my life, my everlasting salvation. For this reason was He made the law of the Law, the sin of sin, the death of death, that He might redeem me from the curse of the Law. He permitted the Law to accuse Him, sin to condemn Him, and death to take Him, to abolish the Law, to condemn sin, and to destroy death for me. This peculiar form of speech sounds much sweeter than if Paul had said: "I through liberty am dead to the law." By putting it in this way, "I through the law am dead to the law," he opposes one law with another law, and has them fight it out. In this masterly fashion Paul draws our attention away from the Law, sin, death, and every evil, and centers it upon Christ. This can be found at: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/gal2-17.html | ||
| Denisegilmore (Denisegilmore) |
Wow,,,nobody coming from a legalistic or cultic or cult background is interested in this???? How baffling to me since we all seem to talk about the law at length in so many other threads... Ah well, it's here in case anyone's curious. Blessings, Denise Gilmore | ||
| Pheeki (Pheeki) |
HERE IS A REPLY FROM MY MESSIANIC JEWISH, FORMER SDA FRIEND. I THINK SHE IS DEAD WRONG ABOUT THE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM BEING REINSTITUTED. THAT IS DENYING THAT JESUS' ATONEMENT WAS SUFFICIENT. READ IT PLEASE AND SEE WHAT YOU THINK. I AM GOING TO HAVE TO PRAY ABOUT HOW TO ANSWER THIS ONE. The problem with the idea that Yahshua superceded the law is that it is not Scriptural. No where in the Torah or the Prophets does it say that the Messiah would abolish Torah and institute a new law. The only prophecy that shows someone claiming to be the Messiah and then changing the Torah and the appointed times (yearly feasts) it is talking about the anti-Christ/ anti-Messiah. To the contrary the Tanakh teaches us that when the Messiah sets up His millennial kingdom that: · He will personally teach the Torah to all of the nations. Isaiah 2:3 · He will require everyone to keep the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) Zech.14:16 · He will choose a Levitical priesthood Isaiah 66:21 · Sacrifices will resume Zech. 14:21 · Everyone will be required to keep the Shabbat and New Moons. Isaiah 66:23 I know this is totally contrary to the SDA's idea that we will be living in some far away paradise called heaven, while the wicked people's dead bodies are eaten by birds here on earth. But then SDA's tend to ignore a great deal of prophecy that contradicts their view point. Contrary to many SDA's theology, and many other Christian's theology not all of the prophecies concerning the Messiah have been fulfilled. There are still many prophecies yet to be fulfilled during His millennial reign. The heaven and the earth do not disappear until all has been fulfilled and this is also when the Torah will disappear as well, according the teaching of Yahshua in Matthew 5:18. Most Christians will at least acknowledge that there are still Old Testament prophecies to be fulfilled. Any SDA who tries to quote Isaiah for a picture of heaven, is admitting that this is yet to happen. |
