Archive through May 15, 2000 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 2 » LAW OF MOSES REPLACED BY LAW OF JESUS » Archive through May 15, 2000 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Bill Twisse
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2000 - 9:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

On Justin and Tertullian:

I believe that the quotations submitted by Bruce from Justin and Tertullian illustrate an undeniable fact: the so-called 'early fathers' were eloquent on issues of Christian ethics and the end of the law. However, they departed very far from the gospel. Although finer quotations than these can hardly be found on the end of the old law, the departure from the gospel evidenced in Justin and Tertullian is the foundation of later Roman Catholic theology. If one tends to doubt this, note carefully Tertullian's sacramental concerns regarding the dropping of a crumb of the host.

The 'early fathers' do not have the same gospel ring as Paul, John, and the rest of the New Testament. You would be hard-pressed to find one quotation from any of them that is truly passionate for the gospel. I agree that they are very passionate on the end of the law-covenant. For that they are to be commended.

As Cyril Richardson pointed out in his compilation of the 'Early Christian Fathers', even in 1st Clement (the earliest post-apostolic work we have) there is a shift from passion for the apostolic gospel to a primary concern for 'new covenant' law and order (versus old). This eventually led to gross sacramentalism and institutional Christianity. Thus we got a 'new law' system patterned after the levitical model from the old.

Bill Twisse
Plain Patti
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2000 - 9:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Perhaps you did not hear me, Ken. The law of God is not at all reflected by the law of Moses anymore than the law that governs your life as a citizen of your country is reflected by the things you teach your children: don't play in the street, don't throw your food, don't talk to strangers, etc. When you grow up, supposedly you throw off the "law" of your parents because you are capable of making your own decisions.

The law of God is the law of the universe, it includes all physical and spiritual laws. God's law cannot be broken, anymore than the law of gravity or centrifugal force or air resistance can be broken. His righteousness and grace is eternal. We cannot "break" His laws. We can only attempt to circumvent or ignore them and suffer the inevitable consequences.

Having said this, the "law" given by Moses--all of it--is not "God's law," or the "transcript of God's character," but it is like the rules set down from a parent to a child. When that child matures, in the sense of Christianity, when that child grows into the grace of Christ, he no longer needs a babysitter to guide his every move. The Holy Spirit comes to the one who is in Christ and "leads him into all Truth." We no longer need a schoolmaster.

Are there still moral principles on this earth? Absolutely. Are we saved by our morality? Absolutely not. Some of the most "moral" people on earth are the least kind and loving. The law of Christ replaces the law of Moses (which--and I haven't heard you address this yet--includes the Big Ten). What is the law of Christ? Come on, now. You can do it! That is right--to love one another as Christ loved us and gave His life for us. This and no other way, is how they will know we are in Him.

Another observation: When SDAs preach the importance of the law, they are referring almost exclusively to sabbath observance. Even Ellen holds this single commandment in higher esteem than all the rest. That, my dear SDA friend, is idolatry, a violation of the second commandment.

Now, please address some of our questions for a change.
Bill Twisse
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2000 - 10:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jude and Steve,

Thanks again for your input. Steve, I apologize for not recognizing your earlier post (in response to mine) with more enthusiasm. In wading through the recent massive posts, I got confused trying to remember who had said what.

I am going to respond to both of you (probably Sunday) in the discussion of Covenant theology. It is less 'busy' and more in-line with our subject.

To restate the issue: Is the New Covenant: 1) wholly promissory, or 2) conditional upon faith? Many post-SDA's (of prominent stature) believe and teach the second, I passionately believe that scripture teaches the first. Understanding the truth about this will clear up our minds on a lot of things and strengthen our love for Christ and the gospel.


--Twisse
Steve
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2000 - 10:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Bill,

Good information about the Early Church Fathers. I agree, we can go to them for clarification of issues related to the end of the Old Covenant, and some other things, but must be careful on issues that eventually led to the theology of the Roman Catholic church.

However, I think that, because of their eventual use by the RCC, some of us SDAs have been afraid to read them. I think it's a good exercise to read the ECF and learn from them. We don't have to learn their mistakes, but we can learn from them nonetheless.

Ken,

You claim that we're back in elementary school. I agree. After the damage some of us have allowed ourselves to be subject to, some of use need to go back to those elementary principles. But I fear that you mean it in a derogatory way. Shame on you. You can do better than take to attacking us on such an infantile level. Let's stick to the issues. And as many above have pointed out, you fail to address issues brought up to you, while at the same time, VOLUMES have been written for your sake in answer to the issues you have brought up. Can you afford us the same respect?

Some questions brough up earlier, relating to the giving of the Law in Eden. I was taught in "the church" that the ten commandment law was given in Eden, and will be in force for all eternity as it is a transcript of God's character (a problem in itself, but we'll leave it for now).

The sabbath is always used as an example to "prove" this. Some refer to a sabbath to be kept in heaven. But if the sabbath commandment is to be kept in heaven, then the other 9 commandments must be kept as well. If this is true, please tell me how we can murder immortal beings. Or, how we can commit adultery when there will be no marrying or giving in marriage in heaven. How could there be a sabbath day when God and the Lamb will be the light thereof?

I must admit that I'm a logical being. And this doesn't make sense to me logically. Can you shed light on this? One of your attempts at an answer was that the commandments are only until heaven and earth pass away (referring to Ephesians). So if that's true, then there will be no sabbath in eternity, which contradicts some of what I've been taught that the sabbath is for all time.

Now, if the Big 10 are a transcript of God's character, wouldn't it make sense that they'll be in effect for all eternity? But if that's true, we run into all the other problems associated with murdering, adultery, etc. in a perfect heaven.

Yes, let's go back to elementary school and learn again what the commandments were pointing to. And when we discover that (or should I say, "Him") then let's go to Him and allow the law to have served it's purpose.

God Bless,

Steve
Steve
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2000 - 10:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bill,

Looks like we were posting at the same time. That's fascinating about the New Covenant being either wholly promissory or conditional upon faith.

I admit that I haven't thought that through (I'm still SDA, but am reacting strongly to what I've been hearing over the years.) Although I used to refer to myself as an Arminian Christian, I have been slowly shedding that, and coming to more of a Calvinistic position (without becoming Ultra-Calvinist.)

From the very little that I know, I think that the New Covenant may have been wholly promissory. However, I am having a hard time identifying how a believers act of faith can be divorced from that.

Here's what I'm concerned about. The Ultra-Calvinists (if that's the correct term) would say that God has foreordained the Elect, and they have been predestined to be saved. Wholly promissory, as I understand it, and not depending upon faith. I think it was called "Irrestable Grace". If that's true, then what about those that are not the predestined Elect. Are they lost, even if they believe?

I hope you see my problem. I guess that I don't want to be Ultra-Calvinist, denying salvation for some, and at the same time I don't want to be a Universalist, saying that all will be saved, regardless of their faith, or lack of faith.

Your obvious study in this area will probably help me clarify some of these issues. Looking forward to more posts from you.

God Bless,

Steve
Maryann
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2000 - 10:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Guys and Gals,

Somehow I just got a "vision"! Did I hear the word elementary?

This brings to mind the Sherlock Holmes thing. What did ol' Sherlock and Watson do? Solved baffling crimes, had a very broad knowledge and was able to solve many mysteries.

Our cry aught to be of the SDAs; "Elementary, our dear FAFers, elementary. It is elementary! Good grief!

Happily elementary.......Maryann
Plain Patti
Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2000 - 11:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Steve,

I couldn't agree with you more!

You wrote:
Here's what I'm concerned about. The Ultra-Calvinists (if that's the correct term) would say that God has foreordained the Elect, and they have been predestined to be saved. Wholly promissory, as I understand it, and not depending upon faith. I think it was called "Irrestable Grace". If that's true, then what about those that are not the predestined Elect. Are they lost, even if they believe?

I cannot buy into "irresistable grace" either, Steve, for several reasons. In the first place, I believe it redefines grace, much as the Catholics do, to mean some kind of power inside the believer rather than the undeserved favor God shows to sinful humans. Grace originates in God, it is His great mercy, NEVER anything inside of us. So when hyper-Calvinists refer to irresistable grace, they seem to be speaking of a power that draws them to God rather than an objective pronouncement of sinful humans as justified, reconciled to God, in the sight of a holy God because of the salvific act of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, it is the flip side of legalistic exclusivism. The legalists on the one hand say they are saved because they have earned, at least in part, the favor of God. The hyper-Calvinists say they are saved because they were especially chosen (elitism) of God, to the exclusion of many other would-be Christians. This is an extremely repulsive idea to me. The results are the same: A hierarchializing of Christians. If I am missing something, I wish someone would explain it to me.

I hope you see my problem. I guess that I don't want to be Ultra-Calvinist, denying salvation for some, and at the same time I don't want to be a Universalist, saying that all will be saved, regardless of their faith, or lack of faith.

I agree. On the other hand, I see more scriptural support for universalism ("God so loved the world"; "God is not willing that any man should perish"; etc.) than for absolute election--that is limited atonement--that Christ did not die for the sins of the world; just for the sins of the elect. To me this is a very arrogant claim. I have heard sincere Calvinists cluck their tongues and say that this person or that person is obviously not one of the "elect." I find that elitest attitude most distasteful.

Comments?

Patti
Joni
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2000 - 6:52 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ken,
I am saddened at your arrogance. But then I shouldn't be surprised for I once had the sin of pride.

It was not until I started to pray for God's, forgiveness, mercy and truth, and that He would wipe out all trash from my mind that I started to see all that Jesus was.
One of the first things that I learned was that God wanted a relationship with me.

John 17:3 says "And this is eternal life that they may know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent"

Realizing that EGW was a false prophet and seeing so much harm done by her to so many of God's precious children, I knew I had to leave the SDA Church. However, I still thought that I needed to keep the Sabbath.

I went to a Messianic Church for a while, as it was on Sabbath that they worshipped. My eyes were opened to so much while I attended. I would like to post a quote from an answered letter to me by a highly respected person of the Messianic Jewish faith.

"Your question regarding the keeping of the Sabbath, the feasts, and other OT concepts is becoming a common problem among church members. Time and space do not allow for a full and complete answer to your questions. Suffice it to say that we are NOT required to keep those practices. Col. 2:16-17 makes it clear that we are not to allow people to condemn us or make us feel guilty because we do not keep these days and practices as they do. In Titus 1:14, Paul warned against paying attention to "Jewish fables" (myths, traditions, and commandments of men). Rom. 14 and 15 and 1Cor. 8 and 10 discuss the whole matter of Christian liberty, and teach that the only Bibical reason for restraining it is to protect a weaker Christian from stumbling. Do not allow leaglism to rob you of your liberty in Christ.

All these OT types were fulfilled in our Lord. We are no longer requried to keep the type when the Reality has come. If some wish to maintain those traditions as a way of retaining their Jewish culture, or of emphasizing how the type has been fulfilled in Jesus, then by all means they should do so. However, they should not judge others or make others feel guilty if they choose not to observe them. If they do that, then they are being deceptive if they say they are not keeping them because they have to. Their attitude proves that is exactly what they are doing.

A strong Bibical case can be made for why we are not required to fulfill these old covenant ceremonies.... Please continue to rest in the Lord Jesus and find your satisfaction in Him...."

Many of the cases have been presented here.

Another stepping stone in my relationship was realizing that the Holy Spirit is now my teacher. I rely on the Holy Spirit to teach me and give me disernment. The interesting thing is that by reading my Bible and studying it with a thirsty heart and a willingness to abide by what I was learning, amazing love and truth came. I learned a lot of the things that many of the people on this site have learned. They only confirmed it for me. So have you, confirmed what I have been learning. Thank you.

In order to be sealed with the Holy Spirit and to be taught by Him, you must be born again. Ken have you experienced repentance? Have you been pierced to the heart? Have you been born again? Has Jesus Christ taken the veil away from your face? Have you received the gift of the Holy Spirit? I would really like to hear your conversion story??

I think that in light of all you have written, you need to state your position in Christ to us.
I desire to know nothing of you except what you are in Christ.

Joni
Maryann
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2000 - 9:43 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Joni and Y'all,

Totally, absolutely, positively and thoroughly great post. That Messianic letter really amazed me. You FAFers never cease to amaze me!

On another thought. Ken, unless he's a total flake, (AND I DON'T THINK HE IS), is coming from where so many of us came from.

How many of us would have and did argue, fight, criticize and just plain have an attitude of pride and arrogance. We all did! We were all taught that!!!! We all learned well, didn't we?

You Joni and many others have posted very lovingly, straight and honest to Ken to try to get him to see that he's in the very same place so many of us USED to be in.

I figure this; as Jude said, Ken has lit up this Forum like no other person, EVER, and we need him.
We need him two ways. 1. To keep pushing and stretching us to higher and higher understanding. 2. To keep pressng on in the hopes that he will be WITH us someday. Can you imagine him on our side?! He'd cover territory like a class 5 hurricane!

Maybe our focus here should be to set aside a bit more time for specific prayer for Ken. Remember, he simply is held by the same vicegrip hold we were held in.

Remember the fear we had of letting go. In fact some of us still haven't totally let go. We, for the most part let go rather quietly and slowly in our own private homes and hearts and it was still horrifing. Ken's battle is even more difficult as he's in a very public atmosphere with us zeroing in on him in force. Just consided his fear!

I think we've given Ken to much to quick and need to concentrate on SHORTER more concise answers to him, and put the balance of time in special prayer for him. What do you think?

He needs the same security that we have in our "floating boat".

What I think is, this is so strange. I had no idea this was going to come out of my fingers!

Maryann
Bill Twisse
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2000 - 10:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Response to Jude

If this subject is not the right place to respond to questions that have been posted here, someone please let me know.

>Hi Bill,
>Nice to e-meet you.

>I've never been a pastor, but I do have an MDiv in systematic theology
>and Christian philosophy from the SDA Theological Seminary at AU.
>And I have spent a number of years as an SDA church professional in
>a different capacity, but one that brought me into regular contact with a
>great many SDA theologians as part of my job. I've also done a fair
>amount of study in the area of science and religion. I also know Jon
>Butler.

Fantastic! It is wonderful to realize that others have travelled a similar road. I attended
the seminary (M. Div.) for 3 quarters, left to intern for 2 years, then returned for
another 2 quarters. By the end of that second quarter back (Dec. 1980), the issues had
become white-hot. I had to meet with the 'conference' leaders due to my involvement
with some 'schismatic' agitators. We mutually agreed that I would be terminated
("placed on leave" as they termed it). I have never regretted that event--it was the best
decision of my life outside of believing on Christ!

So I never finished my M.Div. (boo hoo).

>My name is still on the SDA books, even though, for all practical
>purposes I ceased being a real SDA in 1984. Since that time I have
>attended SDA churches many times, often to an SDA church on the
>seventh day and a non-SDA church on the first. I was a Presbyterian
>for ten years, without dropping my SDA membership.

We all have our struggles and I sympathize. I dropped my SDA membership by
request in the summer of 1981. I am currently a member of a Presbyterian
congregation (PCA.) but it has caused me much grief. That is a whole different story.

>I am delighted you've decided to share with us. I knew that,
>theologically speaking, Adventism sprang from Methodism. But I was
>utterly unaware of the Irvingite connection. I was under the impression
>that the investigative judgment doctrine was a home grown heresy.
>Thanks for the new input. I'll have to look up the Irvingites and their
>ideas on this.

For the history of the Irvingites, see the books of Dave MacPherson (P.O.S.T., Inc.,
PO Box 1903, Simpsonville, SC 29681). He may have a website--I haven't checked.
Also, the classic work by Robert Norton ('Restoration of Apostles and Prophets')--
which chronicles the entire movement. You have to find it in a library.

>Perhaps you could share a bit more about it too. Such as, Did the
>Adventists pick up the heresy from the Irvingites AFTER the vision in
>the corn field by Hiram Edson? Or did they just reach back into their
>memories and pull it up, to use come computerese?

Plagiarism of ideas was very common in that era. The SDA's got the Sabbath from the
SDB's, who they otherwise condemned to hell for rejecting the 1844 date. The
'Morning Watch' publication of the Irvingites was pre-1844. Lacunza's book on the
second coming was published around 1800, which was a major catalyst in the British
Adventist movement. Millerism was a largely a reinterpretation of Irvingism. Ellen
White plagiarized her whole method of describing visions from the Irvingite
prophetess MacDonald. The 'pioneers' were very familiar with the Irvingite ideas and
publications. The SDA doctrine of the nature of Christ and perfectionism was almost
wholly Irvingite, which is a far more extreme viewpoint than the Methodism they
were accustomed to.

The early SDA's already believed in Irving's heresy on the fallen human nature of
Christ, thus our consequent ability to imitate him perfectly. This notion was
constructed into the 'investigative judgment' model in 1851--as an alternative to the
shut door heresy (which they still believed prior to that time). To the Irvingites,
perfection of character would result in a pre-tribulation rapture. To the SDA's, it would
result in passing the final pre-advent judgment.

>In the church I currently attend, a Trinity Evangelical Free Church,
>many people believe in the rapture. For some reason I don't see it as
>very important. I am familiar with the scriptural texts involved. But I
>think interpreting Revelation in that way overly reifies that Revelation
>of Jesus Christ in ways I cannot accept and in ways which -- if I
>believed the rapture -- would ruin some of the spiritual blessings to
>be found there for me. The very word apocalypse means to remove
>the covering from, say, a statue. One can do justice to the text by
>thinking of a just-completed sculpture of Jesus by a master artist: And
>now, at its debut, the artist (evangelist) removes the veil and reveals
>Jesus to the invited guests. If we try to make Revelation anything more
>than that say, removing the cover off of last day events, we are
>immediately adding to that precious book and thus violating the curse
>at its end. What are your thoughts about this?

Amen, brother! I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly if I wanted to. On the history of
the 'rapture' viewpoint, I would again recommend Dave MacPherson's books. They
are worth their weight in gold. When I took a class on Revelation at AU from Ken
Strand, he sharply criticized Dave and his findings. The motive is clear to me: if Dave
is right that J.N. Darby got his rapture view from the Irvingites, then the SDA pioneers
got their fallen nature of Christ & perfectionism heresies from the Irvingites! There is
no other conclusion.

Incidentally, the renowned scholar F.F. Bruce (British) totally endorsed Dave's
account of the Irvingite origen of the current rapture heresy. I firmly believe that F.F.
Bruce is right and Ken Strand is all wrong.

>You posted, I am simply stating that if we are really going to shed
>SDA theology, we need to look at the issue of Methodist (Wesleyan
>Arminian) teaching versus the gospel theology of the Reformation. Not
>merely freedom from the law-covenant.
>Can you enlarge a bit on this? How does Methodism diverge from
>Reformation theology?
>I did study Reformation theology at the graduate level, along with
>Roman Catholic theology including a thesis on the ecumenical
>movement using the resources at the Roman Catholic Notre Dame
>University, which is only 20 miles, or so, south of Berrien Springs,
>where Andrews is located. I also took a number of courses from Earl
>Hilgert, Edward Heppenstall, Ed Vick, Harold Weiss, Leona Running,
>Sakai Kubo, Kenneth Strand all of those bright lights, most of which
>were shot down shortly after I was graduated. And most of those
>who replaced them are, in my humble opinion, at least, theological
>dwarves.

You were there before my time, as the Hilgert 'apostasy' (?--I don't know the facts
about this) was already a matter of history when I was there. My only experience with
Heppenstall is that he got very angry and defensive--when I confronted him personally
at a campmeeting with his denial of Christ's divine consciousness in a book that he
wrote. I did take classes from Running and Strand & liked both from a personal
standpoint.

>Would you mind doing a study for us on Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8?
>I am taking a class at my main church, Trinity Evangelical Free Church,
>we are studying the covenants in a New Testament Walkthrough."
>And just last Sunday morning, the teacher, who happens to be the
>pastor's wife, who is finishing her Ph.D. in some area of Bible study
>(can't remember which), said exactly what you did: That all of the Old
>Testament covenants (Noachic, e.g.) are UN-conditional except for
>the Mosaic.

I will post several studies on my convictions about the New Covenant. I believe that
this issue lies at the heart of the gospel.

>Still, I think you are right about most former Adventists. And maybe
>that is why we need your help.
>And I personally have believed for nearly all my life, even while getting
>a bachelors in theology and a masters from SDA schools, that if
>SDAs and other Christians DO NOT preach the gospel to the ends of
>the earth, that the very stones would cry out. I even wrote a story
>about it which was published in one of my books.
>What we are really talking about here is the sovereignty of God! Are we
>not? I loved your final statement, God will fulfill his word no matter
>what we think or do. That is the mystery of the gospel.
>Indeed!

Amen! There is a lot about God's sovereignty that we could discuss here. All of us
have experienced a conviction that we didn't witness as we should have to someone
who passed away. The lesson: don't focus on the tragedy of what has been done in the
past--but rather on identifying those who we need to witness to right now--among the
living. God will not let his elect go to hell because we failed to say something when
we should have.

In Christian love, Twisse
Bill Twisse
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2000 - 11:00 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Steve,

I have stopped quoting from past messages (as that seems to be a problem on this board) and will simply respond to your thoughts.

I immensely appreciate your encouragement. I also look forward to continued
dialog. I will be posting ideas on the New Covenant. I will also say some things on
the impeccability of Christ and the concept of 'paradoxical truth', both of which you
have written on.

In the gospel,

--Twisse
Maryann
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2000 - 11:17 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Bill,

You asked:

"If this subject is not the right place to respond to questions that have been posted here, someone please let me know."

Any place is the right place. Though, if you like, you can start a new thread. Anything you think fits would be fine like, "Another Look At Our SDA Roots".

It's really great to have more people contributing. Your background, like Jude's adds a certain needed flavor to the rest of us flavors that makes for a great stew.

Thanks for joining in and hope you hang around for a long time.

Maryann
Bill Twisse
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2000 - 11:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

On Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism:

I do not believe that these terms are being used correctly by those who have recently posted messages. It is important that we correctly state the position of an 'enemy' before analyzing it. Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism are not the same thing.

Hyper-Calvinism is a branch of Calvinism that denies the free proclamation of the gospel and the accountability of all persons to the gospel. I have interacted with many 'hardshell' Calvinists who teach this: a person will go to either heaven or hell apart from any personal belief in Christ. God saves and condemns those whom he will, regardless of whether we believe in him or not.

That is a far cry from the godly doctrine of men like Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Knox, Whitefield, Edwards, Bunyan, Owen, Spurgeon, and a host of other great men of God who believed in God's sovereign election. Many of these assumed the 'Calvinist' label. These men all rejected with horror the revolving-door concept of salvation taught by Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Arminius, and Wesley.

--Twisse
Bruce H
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2000 - 3:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Marryann

---Ken, unless he's a total flake, (AND I DON'T
THINK HE IS), is coming from where so many of us
came from. -----

You are right Marryann and we all should remember
that
Bruce H
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2000 - 4:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here is a study that I believe is very interesting
read it very carefully.


All of us ExAdventist were raised with the
understanding that every time the bible mentioned
(In the New Testament) that it was the Ten
Commandments.
We were never taught that there was a NEW Covenant
that had its own commandments, but that it is just
one big Covenant or a renewed or revised Covenant
with some additions and subtractions that the
Church or Big scholars or better yet prophets have
the right to say were added or subtracted.

God has always given commands but there is
sometimes a problem and that is that sometimes we
make God1s commands more then God, the same way me
make animals he created god1s or religious symbols
something to worship like the serpent on the brass
pole. It is important what God has commanded but
even more important is what is he commanding.

Now let us go through the word of God and see what
we can find.

Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it
down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I
have power to take it again. This commandment have
I received of my Father.
Joh 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the
Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment,
what I should say, and what I should speak.
Joh 12:50 And I know that his commandment is life
everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as
the Father said unto me, so I speak.

Well here in these three texts we see that Jesus
gets commandment from the father, and He gives
them to us.

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That
ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye
also love one another.

Here Jesus gives us a NEW Commandment this is not
the Old Commandment in the Book of the Law look at
the difference (commandment 418 Deut 6:5).
This New Commandment is a New Commandment in the
New Covenant.

Joh 14:31 But that the world may know that I love
the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment,
even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one
another, as I have loved you.

Now look at your Bible notice that text John 15:12
is in RED (Jesus is saying it) so this is Jesus
Commandment and He calls it HIS COMMANDMENT.

Ac 1:2 Until the day in which he was taken up,
after that he through the Holy Ghost had given
commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

So Jesus gave commandments (New Covenant
Commandments ?) by the Holy Spirit to the
Apostles.

Ac 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain
which went out from us have troubled you with
words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be
circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no
such commandment:

So as you can see teachers of the Law always like
to add extra Laws, or bring in the Old Covenant.

1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a
prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that
the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord.
1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the
commandment of God our Savior, and Lord Jesus
Christ, which is our hope;

Here Paul is saying that his writings are the
Commandments of the Lord (New Covenant
Commandments?).

1Ti 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity
out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and
of faith unfeigned:
1Ti 6:14 That thou keep this commandment without
spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our
Lord Jesus Christ:

Now read those text carefully, which commandments
in which covenant are they.

Tit 1:3 But hath in due times manifested his word
through preaching, which is committed unto me
according to the commandment of God our Savior;

Again these are commandments Jesus.

Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the
commandment going before for the weakness and
unprofitableness thereof.

So the Old Covenant with its commandments going
before are annulled because of the weakness and
unprofitableness.

1Jo 4:21 And this commandment have we from him,
That he who loveth God love his brother also.

So who is the him, it is Jesus Christ and His
Commandments.

2Jo 1:4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy
children walking in truth, as we have received a
commandment from the Father.
2Jo 1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as
though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but
that which we had from the beginning, that we love
one another.
2Jo 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his
commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye
have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in
it.

So the Commandment it says, we had from the
beginning, this is Jesus1s commandments, and the
beginning was when he was here and probably it was
the mount of Beatitudes. Notice it is said ye
have heard well they were not alive when Moses
gave the laws to the people but a lot of people
were alive who heard Jesus talk Himself. They
heard him give His New Commandment.

Let us Look at the New Covenant Commandments from
the Mountain.

Matt 5:21-22 21 Ye have heard that it was said
by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and
whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the
judgment: (THIS IS OLD COVENANT COMMANDMENT #6 IN
DECOLOGUE AND # 34 IN BOOK OF LAW)
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry
with his brother without a cause shall be in
danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to
his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the
council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall
be in danger of hell fire.

So Jesus is saying that the Old Covenant Ten
Commandments is not good enough that the standards
are even higher so He compares the old
commandment
Ten Commandments and gives HIS New Covenant
Commandment. Notice that He is comparing it to
the Big Ten which are part of all 613 commandments
you will see as we go along.

Matt 5:27-28 27 Ye have heard that it was said
by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit
adultery: ( THIS IS THE OLD COVENANT COMMANDMENT
IN THE DECOLOGUE #7 AND # 35 IN THE BOOK OF THE
LAW).
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on
a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery
with her already in his heart.

So Jesus on the Mountain gives a New Covenant
Commandment, and raises the standard even higher
for it is a better Covenant with better promises.
(Heb 8:6). Notice that Again Jesus sets aside the
Ten Commandments and replaces it with a better
Commandment.

Matt 5:31-32 31 It hath been said, Whosoever
shall put away his wife, let him give her a
writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put
away his wife, saving for the cause of
fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and
whosoever shall marry her that is divorced
committeth adultery.

Jesus know goes after the Book of the Law to
commandment # 579 Deut 24:1. Again He raises the
standard in fact as you will see He rasis them all
the way. So Jesus replaces the Book of the Law
with his New covenant commandment.

Matt 5: 33-37 33 Again, ye have heard that it
hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not
forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord
thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither
by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool:
neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the
great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because
thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay,
nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of
evil.

Jesus again goes to the Book of the Law or Law of
Moses and picks commandment # 226, and #227 Lev
19:12. Know this one he does not raise the
standard but says dont make an oath at all. Could
it be because He knows that we cannot keep them (I
thought you hade to become perfect).

MATT 5:38-41 38 Ye have heard that it hath been
said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil:
but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,
turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and
take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile,
go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him
that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Here Jesus states the Old Covenant Commandment
which is Commandment # 524 in the book of the Law
and changes it also.

Matt 5:43-45 43 Ye have heard that it hath been
said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate
thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless
them that curse you, do good to them that hate
you, and pray for them which despitefully use you,
and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father
which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise
on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on
the just and on the unjust.

Jesus is referring to the Great Commandment which
is Commandment #243 in the book of the Law Lev
19:18, if you do not believe me look at the chain
reference in your bible. The context of the
verse, 3You shall not take revenge or bear a
grudge against your countrymen, but you shall love
your neighbor as yourself,2 suggests that love is
being commanded only toward one1s countrymen.
Leviticus 19:34 and Deut 10:19 command Israelites
to love the stranger, that is the non-Israelite,
as themselves but it is only toward those who live
among the Isrealit community. Also Commandment #
561-562-563-564, which is found Deut 23:3-10) I
will state it for you. 1) Against Ammonites and
moabites ever becoming Hebrews.
2) Against concerning oneself with their
well-being
3) Against hating Edomites and Egyptians.
4) In addition, there is the positive stipulation
that edomites and Egyptians can be admitted into
the Israelite community in the third generation.
He is know replacing this one and again raising
the standard.

So do you see the Big difference the Old says Love
your neighbor the New say that ye Love one
another. The Old say love as yourself the New say
as Jesus loved us.

Know here is the High Point and the point that
most Old Covenant Christians seem to miss. The
ultimate New Covenant Commandment.
Matt 5:48 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as
your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Wow you mean God is not kidding I have to be
perfect. YES. You may say well then nobody will
make it, and I say on your own right. But with
Jesus guess what,
Heb 10:14 14 For by one offering he hath
perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
So Jesus has perfected me forever even while he is
in the process of sanctifying me, YES.

So Jesus came to us and Gave us New Commandments
and these are the ones that the Apostles are
talking about in these texts

Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of
these least commandments, and shall teach men so,
he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the
same shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven.

Know Adventist will say How dare you say this is
the New Covenant Commandment (you see Old Covenant
people Love the Old Covenant, Mark 5:36-39
especially 39), but I will prove this is the New
Covenant Commandments because as we all know there
is no condemnation for those who are in Christ
(Rom 8:1) and what you have to understand you
cannot be in the New Covenant unless you die to
the OLD Covenant. Now notice what is says that
the one who breaks one of the least commandments
and teaches men so will be called what LEAST IN
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Know if you did this with
the Old covenant you would be executed. Also
notice where this text is it is right in the
middle of the Mountain of Beatitudes where Jesus
is giving HIS New Covenant Commandments.

1Th 4:2 For ye know what commandments we gave you
by the Lord Jesus.
1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if
we keep HIS commandments.
WHO1S COMMANDMENTS, HIS
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not
HIS commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not
in him.
WHO1S COMMANDMENTS, HIS
1Jo 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him,
because we keep HIS commandments, and do those
things that are pleasing in his sight.
WHO1S COMMANDMENTS, HIS
1Jo 3:24 And he that keepeth HIS commandments
dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know
that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath
given us.
WHO1S COMMANDMENTS, HIS
1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children
of God, when we love God, and keep HIS
commandments.
WHO1S COMMANDMENTS, HIS
1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep
HIS commandments: and HIS commandments are not
grievous.
WHO1S COMMANDMENTS, HIS
2Jo 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after HIS
commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye
have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in
it.
WHO1S COMMANDMENTS, HIS
Re 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here
are they that keep the commandments of God, and
the FAITH IN JESUS.
THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH IN JESUS ARE THE NEW COVENANT
COMMANDMENTS.
Re 22:14 Blessed are they that do HIS
commandments, that they may have right to the tree
of life, and may enter in through the gates into
the city.
WHO1S COMMANDMENTS, HIS

Well you might say well Jesus also gave us the Old
Covenant Commandments well let us see what Jesus
says about the Old Covenant Ten commandments and
Book of Law.

YOU HAVE HEARD IT WAS SAID, Matt 5:
21,27,33,38,43

So it was said but NOW I GIVE YOU A NEW
COMMANDMENT.
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments contained in
ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one
new man, so making peace;

Know let me close with this. The Holy Spirit who
indwells in us and is the one who gives us
commandment he is the one who teaches, sanctifies,
justifies and gives us eternal life so let us obey
God1s daily commands especially the ones in the
New testament.

Bruce Heinrich


BH
Jude the Obscure
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2000 - 4:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ken,

A couple of days ago you posted, "I feel a little outnumbered, but still will press on. I think it's unanimous that everyone here, except of course me, thinks that Moses's law and God's law are the same or interchangeable."

Not me, Ken. I'm with you on this one. I consider Jesus Christ to be God's Law. Period. Moses' law was only an imperfect and temporary STATEMENT of that perfect and eternal Law of God that is the person of Jesus Christ.

I would go a step further, though, and say that ALL STATEMENTS of it written in any human language -- be it Greek or English or any other -- are of necessity at least somewhat imperfect and temporary.

Example: Paul instructed women not to speak out in church -- oops, there goes Sister White out the door, since she spoke out often in church -- whereas today virtually NO church congregation keeps that law. But we should still keep all aspects of the perfect and eternal statement of the Law of God, who again is the person of Jesus Christ, especially as we perceive him in the Holy Spirit.

Hang in there with us, Ken. We like you.

And peace,

Jude
MUPPERGUY1
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2000 - 4:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

THE CHURCH HISTORY
OF EUSEBIUS
ABOUT 280 A.D. or about 100 years before the
Catholic Church.

Who else has commanded the nations inhabiting the
continents and islands of this mighty globe to
assemble weekly on the Lord1s day, and to observe
it as a festival, not
indeed for the pampering of the body, but for the
invigoration of the soul by instruction in Divine
truth?

And on the day called sunday all who live in
cities or in the country gather to one place, and
the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the
prophets are read as long as time permits.

and they who are well-to-do, and willing, give
what each thinks fit: and what is collected is
deposited with the president, who succors the
orphans and widows, and those, who through
sickness or any other cause, are in want, and
those who are in bonds, and the strangers
sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of
all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on
which we all hold our common assembly, because it
is the first day on which God, having wrought a
change in the darkness and matter, made the world;
and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose
from the dead. For he was crucified on the day
before that of Saturn (Saturday), and on the day
after that of Saturn, which is the day of the sun,
having appeared to his apostles and disciples, he
taught them these things which we submitted to you
also for your consideration.

There is a lot MORE.

BRUCE HEINRICH

BH
Steve
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2000 - 6:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Patti, Bill, and Others,

Patti, I agree that Universalism is more acceptable than hyper-Calvinism. At least with Universalism, the possibility of sharing the gospel is still open for all who will listen. With hyper-Calvinism, there are some to whom the door is simply shut (sound familiar?). However, I do believe in a hell where those who reject Christ will abide "forever". (Whether that forever lasts a moment or for as long as God exists, I don't know yet.) So I therefore, also reject Universalism (I don't think you were promoting that, just showing the greater possibilities with that than hyper-Calvinism.)

Bill, very interesting history on the Irvingites. I once picked up a book in a Christian bookstore that showed the Rapture as an invention of John Darby's. It showed how Darby and the Plymouth Brethren promoted that doctrine. It's been years, but the thrust of the book was that the Rapture was entirely non-Biblical.

Regarding Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. I think that folks like myself have tended to reject Calvinism because we have gotten it mixed up with hyper-Calvinism. I had always appreciated C. H. Spurgeons sermons (Bill mentions Spurgeon above). I read a quote of Spurgeon's once where he indicated that although he was a Calvinist he thought that Arminius had contributed to understanding Christianity. I guess I'm not clear on what he may have meant by that.

Perhaps in your future posts on this subject, Bill, you could clarify that position (if it's something you are familiar with).

Maybe there's a form of Arminiansm that would be best stated as "hyper-Arminianism". I don't know. Maybe there needs to be balance between the two. After all, if I recall, wasn't Jacob Arminius a student of Calvins? I once read some of Arminius' stuff (it's in storage now and I can't get to it) and he "seemed" more Calvinistic than most people give him credit for.

Hey Ken, if you're reading this. I agree with Jude above, "hang in there with us, Ken. We like you." Realize that although we may react to what you say, we do enjoy the interaction with you. We want more from you, too. Calvinists, Arminians, "Nomians", and antinomians (if that's the correct term) have all wrestled with the issues you're bringing. Keep with us.

Steve
Bruce H
Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2000 - 8:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

KEN CLARK

You did a very good Job trying to explain what the
book of the Law is and you showed me some texts
that say Book of Law.

If you could help me here and I mean that because
I have yet to get an answere from any Adventist or
Sabbath book.

Here is my questions.
1) Is the Book of Law the first five books of the
Bible.
2) If the Book of the Law is not the First five
books of the Bible is it IN the first Five books
of the Bible.
3) If it is not in the first five books of the
Bible where can I get it.
4) If it is in the First Five books of the Bible
where is it found (For instance is it Lev 6:12 to
Lev 15:7 and Deut 2:6 to Deut 13:4) Please be
accurate because I want to do all that the Lord
has asked me to do and I do not want to miss
anything just like you, and I know that my
salvation does not depend on this but I do want to
Know.
5) The Adventist encylopedia says there are 613
commandments in the Law, look up the word Law.
almost every dictionary and encylopedia says there
are 613 commandments are these the Book of the
Law?

I asked this question to Dr. Desmond Ford this
weekend and He could not give me and answere Just
one or two text that say Book of Law. I also
asked at Loma Linda University at the theology
Department and they could not give me an answere.
But you are the first one who is at leat trying to
show us.

Bruce
Jorden Archer
Posted on Monday, May 15, 2000 - 1:10 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Steve,
Saturday at 10:30 PM you asked what happened to those who were not the chosen, even if they believed.
If a person is a believer then we know that they are one of the chosen.
But, most of the people who have ever lived, have never heard of Jesus Christ. What of them?
You know the dead IN CHRIST rise first. Who are left dead? Besides those who never heard there are babies who died, retarded people, and old testament Israel.
We who were raised SDA have always been taught that the second resurrection is the resurrecion of the wicked. The Bible does not call it that. The Bible does not say that they all are cast into the lake of fire either. It says Rev 20:11-15,
that they are judged according to their works. Then it says that those whose names were not found in the book of life were cast in the LOF.
Then in rev 22:2 we see the rest of them in the new earth. The leaves of the tree is for their healing .

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