| Author |
Message |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1089
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 9:59 am: |     |
John, as I mentioned yesterday, in Romans 5:13-14 Paul clearly states that death reigned among mankind between the time of Adam and Moses "even over those who DID NOT SIN BY BREAKING A COMMAND, AS DID ADAM."
This passage also says sin is not taken into account where there is no law--nevertheless, all those people for all those centuries were guilty of sin and death even though they broke no law! But without the law, they could not be held accountable for specific sins. Even so, they were guilty because they were human, and they were doomed to death.
"The law WAS ADDED so that the trespass might increase." (Rom. 3:20) In other words, God gave the law as Sinai so people would begin to be conscious of sin, unlike all those who sinned without consicous awareness. The law was not added to STOP sin--quite the opposite. It was added to "increase" sin. As people were faced with the rules, they became aware that they were already habitually breaking them. Seeing the rules didn't stop them. They just became increasingly, frustratingly aware that they couldn't stop breaking those rules.
The purpose of the law was to cause people to know they were sinning and to actually sin consciously so they would realize they needed something outside themselves.
That "something" was Jesus. No Christ-follower believes he can be saved and then go on sinning. and it's not the law that convinces him. It's the presence of Jesus. I don't want to dishonor Him. I want to know Him, to love him more deeply. I want Him to glorify Himself through me. I want Him to soften and heal and change me.
The law was just for the sake of emphasizing sin. The law doesn't "create" sin--sin existed in people before there was a law to break, as Paul says. The law's purpose was to condemn people in a really vivid, in-your-face confrontational way so they could no longer deceive themsleves that they were just OK. They were not OK--the law was sent to point out that fact.
"Sin is the transgression of the law" is a declaration stating that now no one can be unaccountable for their individual sins, as they were before Moses. Everyone now KNOWS what sin is. It's clear. If I steal, I'm breaking the law. But the law does not define our original, inherent sin--the sin that keeps us from God. Our original, inherent sin is what causes us to commit sins--to transgress the law. Because of our sinful, dead spirits, we have no power to resist the sins of law-breaking. Only with the new birth is the power of sin broken--and that new life has nothing at all to do with keeping the law. It has everything to do with becoming united with God through the redemption of Christ's blood. (see Eephsians 2:1-10)
The law does not equal God's eternal morality. The law was just a written, temporary document. God's eternal morality governs and guards us all and holds us accountable. When we are in Christ, the inherited power of sin is broken. Our dead spirits come to life, and we are connected via the Holy Spirit with God's eternal morality.
Oh, no--we are not to go on sinning! We are to surrender to the Spirit and allow Him to transform us, not merely to make us obedient!
We now have a much higher standard and a much higher calling.
Colleen |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 184
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 10:05 am: | |
John,
Just a few quick points.
"I am not saying that the law saves us in any way cause it doesn't"
That is simply not true. You said above that if we don't believe in keeping the Law of Moses we cannot even call ourselves Christians! And you wrote: "If Lucifer was put out of heaven for breaking the law, we're not going in breaking it!"
That is salvation BY LAW-KEEPING!!!
quote:"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 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." "Till heaven and earth pass." If you think the law is done away with just look into the heavens and then stomp your foot on the ground. If both are there, so is the law!
Not at all. It does NOT say the Law won't pass till heaven and earth pass! Don't you see that after it says, "Till heaven and earth pass" it says "till all be fulfilled."?? If a father told his son "you will not eat dessert till heaven and earth pass till you eat your supper" that does NOT mean that heaven and earth have to pass before the son eats dessert--it just means he has to eat supper first! Jesus HAS fulfilled the LAW!! He said so Himself! Please see this web site: http://www.bible.ca/7-Mt-5-17.htm.
We do NOT believe that we can just go out and sin! You are completely misrepresenting us!!! You know we don't believe that. We have explained over and over that we believe that we are to obey an even higher standard than the Law of Moses--Jesus Himself through His indwelling Holy Spirit! We are under the Law of Christ--we are not under the Law of Moses (including the 10 Commandments).
We are under the Law of Christ Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9!
quote:the bible also says "2ti 3:16 ALL(not some or just NT scripture) scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.....................John
If you're going to use that argument then I can tell you that you have to keep the Passover, Feat of Tabernacles, New Moons, and all the other things in the Law--since ALL scripture is profitable for doctrine!!!!
John, please give me one verse that says that you don't have to keep the Passover feast. Give me just one!
quote:When we think of the law of God, we discover it is the only part of Scripture God did not trust man to write.
That is absolutely blaspheming God and His Word. It is all HIS WORD. This is exactly what Ric_b was talking about above!!!
Please see this web page which shows that the Bible is the VERBALLY INSPIRED WORD OF GOD: http://www.icr.org/pubs/dop/dp0410.htm#1
Jeremy
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 185
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 10:20 am: | |
Another couple of points. SDAs LOVE to say that the ONLY definition for sin we have is that it's the "transgression of the Law"! But that is simply not true. For one, a literal translation of 1 John 3:4 reads, "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." (1 John 4:3 NASB.)
Also, we are told in Romans 14:23 (NASB): "whatever is not from faith is sin."
Also, about your comment, John, saying, "When we think of the law of God, we discover it is the only part of Scripture God did not trust man to write."
The ONLY copy we have of the 10 Commandments is what MOSES WROTE DOWN!!! If we can't trust what MOSES wrote--then you don't even know that God DID WRITE the 10 Cs with HIS own finger--that's just what MOSES told us!!!! And GOD DID have MOSES write down the 10 Cs or else we wouldn't even have a copy, like I said--the stone tablets are LONG GONE--so much for being eternal!!!
Jeremy
|
Truthseeker2004
Registered user
Username: Truthseeker2004
Post Number: 19
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 11:33 am: | |
Jeremy..you said "We have explained over and over that we believe that we are to obey an even higher standard than the Law of Moses--Jesus Himself through His indwelling Holy Spirit."...Now I have to ask you..when you use the word "obey" what specifically are we to obey? If a person is told to obey something, it is usually a law or rule...What are you referring to without getting into more semantics.
In that same statement you gave the supreme example and you are right in saying that "We have explained over and over that we believe that we are to obey an even higher standard than the Law of Moses--Jesus Himself through His indwelling Holy Spirit! Did you know that Jesus gave us an example Himself of how we can show complete love for Him under the new covenant.The bible speaks volumes of His love for us..but here is one of the few examples of how we can show love for Jesus .Jesus said "If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in His love."......Here Jesus tells us that we ought to do even as He did with His Father.
I am sure you all know that the bible is littered with verses that show without a doubt that God's moral law is valid in 2004.
How can you explain or excuse away verses like : 1John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments."
"1John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments;and His commandments are not grievous."
"2John 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."...
John 14;15 If ye love me, keep my commandments."
"John 14:20-21 He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, He it is that loveth me:and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to Him."
I could go on and on with these verses that spell it out so simple that a child could understand.....How can these verses be twisted to say that you don't have to bother paying any heed to His commandments?
I know that there is the weak argument that ..well....."those arent the laws Christ is speaking of" or "now we live under the law of love"....but to understand truth we have to get more specific than that.......What is a new Christian supposed to think if they read a simple verse out of the bible and then older Christians say...ohhh..what Jesus said doesnt apply to us now.
When Jesus gave the two commands..they werent new....He said on those two commands hang all the law and prophets..Think of God's moral law..the 10 commandments as 10 fingers hanging from the hands which represent the two laws of Christ..They are the same.....The commandments to love God and our neighbour are nothing new for they are what the moral law is comprised of.
We are not supposed to interpret scripture at all but to let the bible be its own interpreter and if Jesus said our example of love to Him is to keep His commandments..then should we not take heed? How can we disregard and twist scripture like that?
Jeremy..regarding the tablets of stone that are long gone...Don't forget that God has written His law on our hearts and in our minds...which means they are here to stay until either we die or until Jesus returns.....Romans 2:12-15 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law:and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." and also "Hebrews 8:10 .....I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their hearts...
So we dont need a copy fo the orginal as we each have our own indelible copies.
If people acknowledged God's law..it would never have to be mentioned in Christian circles..It would automatically be kept....It is not really a big deal......Jesus said that if we love Him..we will keep His commandments..It's so simple.....There is no bondage in that at all...and if some see it as so..then the relationship is not right to start with...and any relationship that is lacking will always be our fault as the blame lies with us and not God.
|
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 72
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
Truthseeker,
When we are told to obey, is it usually a law or a rule? When I tell my children to obey, I usually meen obey ME not a particular law or rule. |
Truthseeker2004
Registered user
Username: Truthseeker2004
Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
helovesme.....to make the statement "obey"..implies obedience to something..I was just looking for clarification as to what that something is that jeremy mentioned. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 186
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 12:07 pm: | |
John,
I am simply letting Scripture interpret itself. You are the one ADDING to Scripture saying "commandments" means 10 Commandments. Nowhere does it say that!!!
John DOES define the commandments he's talking about!!
I alread showed you this and you seem to be avoiding it and avoiding quoting this text:
"And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment." (1 John 3:22-23 KJV.)
I am taking the Bible for what it says and how IT ITSELF defines "commandments"! I am not adding the word "TEN" before "commandments" as you are doing. We have no authority to ADD to God's word, but should let it define it's own terms. "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6)
When Jesus said "If you love me, keep MY commandments" that is exactly what He MEANT! HIS commandments, not the commandments in the Law, which all the Jews were keeping WITHOUT loving HIM!
AND Jesus DID say He was giving us a NEW commandment: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." (John 13:34 NASB.)
You asked what are we supposed to obey? I already told you--we are to obey the Holy Spirit--we are led by the Spirit and we are to walk in the Spirit. We are told to love one another AS JESUS HAS LOVED US! Also, we are given principles in the New Covenant to live by including how to love one another and God--these include not murdering, not stealing, being baptized, partaking of the Lord's supper, not lying to one another, not sinning by anger, bearing one another's burdens, not getting drunk, serving our masters (or bosses) as to Christ, wives are to obey husbands, we are supposed to lay aside bitterness, there are rules for churches and church leaders, requirements for bishops and deacons etc., and there are MANY OTHER THINGS. Read the New Covenant for yourself and see. But notice that Sabbath is not included anywhere in the New Covenant.
About the 2 commands you talked about: Jesus said on those 2 commands hang ALL the LAW and PROPHETS NOT just the 10 Cs!!! If you're gonna say that means we have to keep the 10, then you also have to keep the REST of the LAW.
As I said in my previous post, please give me ONE verse that says that you DON'T have to keep the Passover feast. Just one. Please.
Jeremy |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 493
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
John, you quoted a number of texts from the writings of John without examining context or word usage. In fact, you seem to have mentally inserted a word. Every time John says "commandments" you seem to have mentally inserted the word "ten" even though there is no contextual or grammatical warrant to do so. There is no justifiable reason to try to insert the Mosaic Decalogue into these texts.
When John refers to the Mosaic Law (inclusive of the the Decalogue) he usually uses the word "nomos". That is not the word John uses in the texts you quoted though. In all these texts John uses "entole". "Entole" is the word John normally uses throughout his writings to refer to the commands, instructions, and teachings of Christ.
Of course, you don't have to accept my word for what John meant. You can take John's definition of "entole" directly from him, in context.
John says:
"Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we recive from Him, because we keep His commandments [entole] and do the things that are pleasing in His sight." 1 John 3:21, 22
So what does John mean when he says, "keep His commandments [entole]"? We don't have to wonder because he tells us very specifically in the very next verse:
"This is His commandment [entole], that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another just as He commanded us." 1 John 3:23
That's pretty straight forward, John. If we put our faith and trust in Jesus and love one another in the way Christ commanded us (a tall order that must be Spirit empowered to be sure), then we are keeping His commandments. The next verse goes on to tell us that when we do this we are abiding in Him, He in us, and by the Spirit.
Why not accept the scripture at it's word? Why not accept the plain meaning of the context? Why try and insert something that's not here?
Can you present any contextual or linguistic evidence that demands the insertion of the word "ten" where it does not exist?
Can you present any contextual or linguistic evidence that demands John's use of the word "entole" should be interpreted as "Mosaic Law" or "Decalogue" in this particular context?
Can you present any contextual or linguistic evidence that word "Law" or "nomos" was actually intended here?
John, my critique of your use of these versus is not an exercise in "explaining away" these versus as you seem to suggest above. My critique is an attempt to look at what the verse actually says and what the author (Author) intended. It is the intended meaning that I wish to get out of the verse (exegesis) rather than reading my own biases or preconceived ideas into the text and trying to make the text fit (eisigesis).
John, when you mentally insert the word "ten" into texts where it does not exist and then interpret the text as if the word were actually there, it is eisigesis. You have changed the intended meaning of the text to fit a preconceived notion.
Just something to think about as you strive, along with the rest of us, to rightly handle the Word of God.
Chris |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 631
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 12:55 pm: | |
John, you have quoted the statement about "keeping the commandments" several times, but have yet to prove that the commandments referred to is the 10 commandments, just as you have not shown a single reference that says the 10 commandments are the moral law.
1 John says if anyone says he is without sin, he is makes God a liar. You can try to "keep the commandments" best you can, yet if you say you are without sin, you are calling God a liar. It has been posted elsewhere, but I'll repeat it again, Jesus' commandments were to love God and to love others. He never one time told people to keep holy days, yet he participated in many jewish festivals, including hanukkah. That doesn't make them mandated. I hear huge presumptions about the words "law" and "commandments". I would challenge you to study the "law of Christ", which is contrasted to the law from Sinai. Scripture can speak for itself without the SDA interpretations to re-clarify.
But really, I doubt there is a single word any of us could say that would help you understand "our" view. No matter how you protest, you are saying we are saved by keeping the law. The snippits of scripture you pull from context all point to the thoughts that if "we" don't keep the 10 commandments we are not real Christians. That simply is not true and scripture as a whole doesn't support it. You cannot take just the phrases from scripture that you have with the limited interpretation that you have. Jesus said if we confess him before men, he will confess us before his father. No "if you keep my commandments". We are told over and over to believe in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved....there is no condition upon that salvation. You have referred to 1 John. 1 John is a great book on love, especially when the whole thing is read together. But the book clearly defines what the commandments are that it is referring to when it refers to Christ's commandments...1 John 3:23..."And THIS is his commandment: that we should believe on the name of his son Jesus Christ and love one another, as he gave us commandment." Verse 24 tell us plainly that if we keep his commandments we abide in him and he in us...but that's not talking about the 10 Cs, it's talking about Jesus commandments to love one another and believe on Jesus. You can read the whole book, slice it and dice it, but if you can't legitimately make it a reference to the 10 commandments, it's just not in there. And it is an abuse of scripture to take verses out of context and try to make them say something they are not. 1 John says a number of things, but tying Christians to the 10 commandments is not one of them.
I can't think of anything else to say that would be considered respectful, so I will quit, but I will say your blanket generalizations about non-SDAs are not only insulting, they're false. And even if you do know a few people personally, well enough, you can honestly make those judgements about, to make it apply to the whole body (or even a majority of) is a mistake. Most of us are not here to justify murdering or stealing or any of the other things we are claimed to be doing. We are here to learn how to be more like Christ. It's a journey we share "together" in cyberspace because of a commonality in our lives. I have yet to be aware of anyone saying we can live any old way because we're not under the law. If I'm to love others, there are a whole lot of things I should NOT do, in the name of love. But God will convict me of those things individually. Paul talked about not using our freedom to be a stumbling block to others, and we need to work out those things with God in individual situations.
If the ministration of death brings you comfort and security, I guess you can cling to it. I'd rather cling to Jesus myself. He is all I need. |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 632
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 1:08 pm: | |
Ric, I was telling a friend from church (who is literate in Hebrew) about the SDA fascination with "written by the finger of God", and he asked me how the SDAs knew what was "written by the finger of God" and I told him about the Exodus law, etc. But he asked again, and I must have looked puzzled because he said it's all written in the Bible. We don't have the original tablets, so to somehow say we trust what was claimed to have been "written with the finger of God" more than we trust that Moses was capable of writing down what God said in the expanded law....we create quite an oxymoron. I thought your comments were in line with that same thought. Why is it Exodus 20 gets so much more weight than the rest of the law when it was recorded (for the most part) by the same man? |
Truthseeker2004
Registered user
Username: Truthseeker2004
Post Number: 21
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 1:39 pm: | |
Ok...First of all..we need to establish who the Lord is.....Jesus is Lord..There are many references to Jesus as Lord in the New Testament. Jesus is also the Word and He existed from the beginning.Jesus is the Creator of everything that was made (He is also Lord of the Sabbath)Without Him..nothing was made that was made..John1:1-3.
Why is He Lord of the Sabbath? Because He created it.Exodus 16:29"The Lord has given you the Sabbath...Exodus 20:10 The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God Exodus 35:2 a Sabbath of rest to the Lord Deuteronomy 5:14 The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God .Now establishing that Jesus is Lord..we need to establish what commandments Jesus told us to keep..John 14:15 If ye love me..keep my commandments.
We know that Jesus existed since the foundation of the world..We know that among many names..He is called Lord....We don't have to look far to find the commandments of our Lord....Exodus 24:12 says "and the Lord said unto Moses,come up to me into the mount; and be there and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them."....There are many other verses as well....Now keep in mind that before you say that this is a different Lord that the bible says "There is one body, and one spirit,even as ye are called in one hope of your calling,ONE LORD, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all,who is above all,and through all and in you all."
Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath because as the old testament testifies....the commandments come from Him.
In giving us the 2 commandments in Mark 12:29-31, Jesus even testified that "The Lord our God is ONE LORD.
The ten commandments belong to Jesus and it was by His authority that He said "All the law and prophets hang on these two commands.Matthew 22:40.
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 187
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 1:51 pm: | |
Jesus created the Sabbath??! Before, you said that it has ALWAYS EXISTED!
Again, what makes you think that you can ADD the word TEN before "commandments"??? You have no reason for doing that.
The obvious meaning of His own words to His disciples "keep My commandments" was to keep everything He taught them while on earth with them! As Chris pointed out, the word for commandments (entole) is NEVER used by John to refer to the Mosaic Law or Ten Commandments. It refers to the teachings of Jesus while He was on earth giving His NEW LAW (the Law of Messiah [Christ]) and His NEW COVENANT.
Jeremy |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 188
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
By the way, the OTHER commandments besides the 10 in the LAW were also THE LORD's commandments, and are even called the "LAW of the LORD"! MOSES DID NOT MAKE THESE UP--THEY WERE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD.
Jeremy |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1091
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
As you said, John, Jesus created the Sabbath. It is not eternal--it is a creation. Jesus is Lord over it in the same way He is Lord over the planets and the stars and even us. It is not an eternal institution which He has been given the task of guarding and protecting. He is not Lord of the Sabbath as Elizabeth is Queen of England. England is bigger than the queen or a king, yet the king is lord over the country.
Jesus, on the other hand, is bigger than the Sabbath. He is Lord over it because it is a creation of His. His Lordship is not like an earthly one.
If Sabbath is a creation, then we know from the Bible that it is subject to change, destruction, reworking, etc. We know God will destroy the heavens and the earth before He creates the new heavens and earth. The Sabbath is in the same category. It is a creation that is subject to change as God's revelation of Himself progresses.
Already Jesus has come to give us eternal rest in God. Already the Sabbath has lost is symbolism. It is a creation whose purpose has been served. The Creator of it has superceded it.
Colleen |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 494
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 2:04 pm: | |
John, I am honestly not sure what you are trying to communicate above. All Christians believe there is only God that eternally exist in three persons. The term translated "Lord" in English translations of the OT is actually the Hebrew tetragramatton "YHWH". This is the personal name of God and this name could be rightly applied to all three persons of the Godhead.
The term translated "Lord" in the NT is "kurios". It has a wider range of meanings depending on context. In most contexts the NT writers apply the title of "kurios" to Jesus in the same way that the translators of the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT in use during Jesus' time) used "Kurios" in place of "YHWH". However, we do see "kurios" used in other ways in the NT.
In short, if you're trying to point out that Jesus is YHWH, then we're certainly in agreement.
However if you are trying to make some sort of convoluted argument for Jesus' statement in Matthew 12:8 being a command for Christians to observe the weekly Jewish Sabbaths, then I have to say there is no reason to make such a complicated argument.
The context of the passage (12:1-8) is pretty clear: Jesus is greater than David. Jesus is greater than Mosaic temple Law. Jesus is greater than the priests. Jesus is greater than the temple. Jesus is greater than the sacrificial system. Jesus is even greater than the Sabbath.
Jesus has absolute authority over all these things and He completely fulfilled all these things. I personally believe that it is no accident that passage discussed above (12:1-8) comes immediately after this one:
"All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whome the Son wills to reveal Him. Come to me all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." Matt. 11:27-30
Chris |
Truthseeker2004
Registered user
Username: Truthseeker2004
Post Number: 22
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
As I said..the commandments belong to the Lord Jesus..Both old and new testaments testify to that..There is one Lord..one faith and one baptism....It is not for any of us to know when the Sabbath was created..although we do know that God blessed and sanctified it at the close of creation and that we will keep it in the new earth as the bible says.
I did not add ten commandments.....Exodus tells us and shows us that the Lord gave Moses ten commandments.....
How can one prove by scripture that Jesus was or was not referring to the decalogue given to Moses....The bible clearly shows us that the ten commandments are firmly entrenched in the two moral laws God gave us.....I guess it is up to each individual to choose or reject the bible's interpretation for their own.
Bottom line...the moral law is the Lord's and the Lord said "If you love me, keep my commandments." It seems pretty straight forward.
Every sin that man commits leads back to a breaking of the moral law..also to a breaking of our Lord Jesus' two commands as they are one and the same......and Jesus is the authority of both. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 106
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 2:36 pm: | |
Well, no the commandments are the same. The two commandments of Jesus are contained in the part of Moses law that you would say was done away with, the part that was written by Moses rather than God.
The principles of love are a more accurate reflection of God's character than anything written on stone. A point that SDAs have backwards through EGW's teaching of the 10C being the window into God's character.
Did Adam and Eve break the 10C's? No. Sin entered the world not through the breaking of the 10, but through disobedience to God's command.
Did the Priest and Levite break the 10C's when they passed by the man in the ditch? No. Neither did they practice love.
If Jesus was following the law, should He have sanctioned and even participated in stoning the adulterous woman? ABSOLUTELY! |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 495
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
John, you have not answered the questions I posed to you. As applied to the texts from John, 1 John, and II John that you referenced in post #19 above:
Can you present any contextual or linguistic evidence that demands the insertion of the word "ten" where it does not exist?
Can you present any contextual or linguistic evidence that demands John's use of the word "entole" should be interpreted as "Mosaic Law" or "Decalogue" in this particular context?
Can you present any contextual or linguistic evidence that word "Law" or "nomos" was actually intended here?
Even in your last post (#22) you again mentally inserted the word "ten" into the apostle John's use of the word "entole". This is a misuse of scripture. It's using smoke and mirrors and slide of hand to try and make a false point.
If you can linguistically or contextually present an exegetical defense of your position, please do so. It's not enough to keep insisting something is true if context doesn't support it. That approach will not convince anyone. Nor will "proof-texting" by taking assorted unrelated text out of their context and stringing them togehter to make a point.
Chris |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 107
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 2:51 pm: | |
John,
I do not wish to offend you, but I feel compelled to make this observation. I have talked (online and in "real" life) with plenty of SDAs with questions about their beliefs and with plenty of SDAs intent on defending their beliefs. Everything about the way you post "feels" like the SDA apologists rather than one with questions. You don't engage in discussions of the responses that are made to you. Instead you repeat a series of "proof texts" in spite of the answers that are posted to these texts. You appear to belittle those who do not agree with you. None of these are consistent with the humble spirit I usually find in those who are starting to have questions about their beliefs. Usually when one begins to question some of their long-held beliefs the result it is a very humbling experience. I, for one, have so many less answers now than when I "knew everything" as an SDA.
I hope that I am simply mis-reading your tone and intentions. I pray that God continues to bless you in your seeking for truth.
Rick
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 190
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 3:13 pm: | |
John, I have to agree with Rick, and wonder if you could let us know specifically your reason(s) for joining this forum. It might be helpful.
The front page of this forum states:
"This forum is intended for former Seventh-day Adventists, those Seventh-day Adventists who are seriously studying the validity of their beliefs, and their friends and families."
Are you seriously studying the validity of your beliefs, or are you just trying to defend them/argue them or trying to get us back into the "fold"?
Jeremy |
Truthseeker2004
Registered user
Username: Truthseeker2004
Post Number: 23
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
I think that we have a stalemate on the topic of law and grace and that there is absolutely no sense in pursuing this topic any further..and thats fine because we can agree to disagree....I believe the bible supports law and grace and you do not for your own reasons.
I was and even more so am firmly entrenched in my faith...as God has revealed His will to me through scripture. In life...we weigh the balances...we test the spirits and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit..we are led in the direction God desires us to be in. You have all chosen your path and I have chosen mine.
I said yesterday that I would not likely post again and I kinda changed my mind..but I will spare any of you the trouble to respond to my posts again by removing myself from your forum.
God bless you in your walk with Christ!!!
|
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1226
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 5:49 pm: | |
Dueteonomy 5:1-21--"Moses convened all Isreal, and said to them: Hear, O Isreal the statues and ordinances that I am addressing to you today; you shall learn them and observe them diligently. The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. Not with our ancestors did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all here alive today. The LORD spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the fire. (At that time I was standing between the LORD and you to declair to you the words of the LORD; for you were afriad because of the fire and did not go up the mountain.) And, He said, I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other Gods before me. You shall not take for yourself an idol, weather in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or is in he water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jelous God, punishing children for the inquity of parents, to the third and forth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth genertion of those who love me and keep my commandments. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the LORD your god commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work-you, or your son or your daughter, or your male ore female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day. Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you. You shall not murder. Neither shall you commit adultry. Neither shall you steal. Neither shall you bear false wittness against your neigbor. Neither shall you covet your neoghbor's wife. Neither shall you desire your neigbor's house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox or donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor. The New Revised Standrd Version |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 496
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 6:29 pm: | |
John, even in parting you seek to misrepresent the Christian position.
Christians believe that they are not under Law but under grace, not for thier "own reasons" as you state, but because scripture tells us so (Gal 3:23-25, Gal. 5:18, Rom. 6:14, and others).
Contrary to assertions that you made earlier, Christians strongly believe that they are called to Holiness, sanctification, obedience, and victorious living. Living by grace is not a license to sin (Rom. 6:15).
What we disagree with you about it the assertion that observance of any Jewish holy day is a Christian act of obedience, holiness, or sanctification.
You have not been able to produce a single instruction to any Christian believer, Jew or Gentile instructing them to keep a particular day holier than another and yet in an earlier post you made rather harsh judgements about those that don't observe the Jewish weekly Sabbaths. In doing so, you place yourself squarely in opposition to scripture.
4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
Romans 14:4-5 (NIV)
14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Col 2:14-17 (NIV)
Chris |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1227
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 7:07 pm: | |
My point of posting Deut. 5: 1-21 is this-it says all of Isreal was convened. The covenant was made with them at Herob. I am a Gentile. My ancestors did not stem from Isreal. Jesus came for the Jew first and then the Gentile. The Great Commission says to take the gosple of Jesus Christ unto all the nations. I hope I'm not jumping around too much on this post as I know what I mean but maybe I'm not conveying it too well. When Jesus came and the Gentiles were being converted those Gentiles had never observed a Sabbath. It was not a law to them, nor was it their custom. They converted to being Christ followers, to Christianity. Then we read somewhere in Romans and again in Corinthins that we are not to judge a person according to the day he observes as all are Christians. In fact, if there was still a Seventh Day Bptist church within driving distance to me that is where I would attend. However, that is not the point. The point is I am not Jewish. I am a Gentile Chistian and in the NT under the law of Jesus I have been given a 24/7 spiritual rest in Him. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 113
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 8:09 am: | |
Jeremy,
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, it is probably a duck. |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1243
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 6:47 pm: | |
On one of these topics Truthseeker asked about the unpardonable sin. Just a few minutes ago I finished reading an article in the current Signs of the Times on this very topic. I may have the quote slightly off but I hope I'm getting it correct word for word. If I'm not then I'm getting it very close. The author of the article in the current issue of the Signs defines the unpardonable as this way. "The unpardonable sin is the sin that we have failed to ask God's forgiveness of". Bottom of page 16. So, yes, this is how I was taught was a child growing up. However, this understanding of the unpardonable sin is opposite to the understanding of grace. It also could drive a person nuts having to try to remember to ask forgiveness for every sin committd and every sin committed by inaction of doing the right thing and failing to do so. It also leads to the SDA teaching of having to become and stay perfect if we are planning on spending eternity with Jesus. I think it is a blasphomous position because it undermines the saving grace we received from Jesus, His total forgiveness. In Th Christian Bibles studies I have taken in these past several years we have learned we are sinners. But, our salvation is secure and as such even our future sins have already been foriven because as Christians we are living with contrite hearts and are now in the age of grace. Please, I would like some discussion on this. I would especially like to hear if you others on here think this is as bad of a teaching as I think it is. Because, I think it is a very UN-Christian teaching and a very UN-Christian understanding of the unpardonable sin. |
Dd
Registered user
Username: Dd
Post Number: 268
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 8:15 pm: | |
"But they rebelled
And grieved His Holy Spirit;Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy,
He fought against them." ISAIAH 63:10
"...blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven." MATTHEW 12:31b
"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RENEW THEM AGAIN TO REPENTANCE..." HEBREWS 6:4-6
Susan, my understanding is turning completely from the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin. I agree with you...the unpardonable sin is not "forgetting" or failing to ask God for forgiveness. He knows our hearts and our motives. I am so thankful He is my Judge.
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 205
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 8:21 pm: | |
Yes, Susan, I agree with you. It is a very blasphemous teaching, and it undermines what Jesus accomplished for us on the cross--complete atonement for our sins. We are not saved by our "filthy rags" of "righteousness"! Here is a wonderful Bible verse about this: "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:5-7 NASB.)
The Bible gives us wonderful assurance of salvation. 1 John 5:13 (NASB) says, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life."
You're right Susan, all of our sins--past, present, and future--have been forgiven! That means we can't lose our salvation--we are sealed by the Holy Spirit "unto the day of redemption"! (Ephesians 4:30).
When Jesus saves us, He saves all of us--past, present, and future. He sees it all, He knows what we are going to do in the future, and He saves us anyway--by His grace! It's all "now" to Him, anyway.
Praise His name!
Jeremy |
|
