| Author |
Message |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 208
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 12:03 pm: |     |
John,
quote:For example....when Jesus says "If you love me, keep my commandments.".....are we not adding to that if we debate on which commandments He is speaking of?
We are adding to that if we add the word "Ten," yes! We should take "MY commandments" to mean just that, HIS commandments, JESUS' commandments. Those which He had given to His disciples. And, as Rick pointed out, Jesus makes this absolutely clear if you just look at the context!
"For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." (John 1:17 KJV.)
Regarding the way people view the Ten Commandments changing:
I think the quite popular Prostestant view of the Ten Commandments being God's Moral Law that we are supposed to keep, is a left-over teaching from the Roman Catholic Church. The early church before Roman Catholicism did not believe or teach this, except for the heretics and Judaizers that Paul rebuked in Galatians, etc. So if Prostestants are finally starting to reject that Catholic teaching, that is something good, and the Reformation is making further progress!
Jeremy |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 840
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
I finished reading Galatians for the third time and love this book. Every time I read it I learn some thing new. After reading it this time I understand better about the promise given to Abraham and the 10 commandments. The verse that stands out for me is Gal 5:18. Prior to that verse Paul is talking about behaving in a spiritual way. V18 says "But if you are guided by the Spirit, then you are not under the Law." In chapter 3 Paul writes about children needing a custodian until they come of age and no longer need that custodian. The Law was our custodian until Jesus came. With faith in Jesus we become of age and are no longer under the law because we live by faith.
Gal 5:14, 15 reads, "because the entire Law is summed up in this one statment, Love our neighbor as yourself". The Holy Spirit is not going to lead us to hurt ourselves or our neighbors. At the end of the chapter it talks of the fruits of the spirit which are love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, generosity- V23.
Truthseeker, please read this book and ask God to guide and teach you with his Holy Spirit. God loves each of us and is not willing that any should perish.
He is truly awesome.
Diana |
Truthseeker2004
Registered user
Username: Truthseeker2004
Post Number: 44
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 1:12 pm: | |
Hello ric...thanks for attempting to answer my question....You said "I don't think that the traditions of our grandparents has any particular value in what we believe today..."
To the contrary....the steps from catholicism to protestantism traced through our genealogies has indeed been a major factor in what we believe today....The message of God's grace and salvation and forgiveness of sins through Christ alone was revealed to many through the actions of those who went before us.
I think that many in the church today take for granted the truths that our forefathers so dearly held onto. Of the ten commandments, John Quincy Adams, the 6th president of the United States once said ""The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal [code] as well as a moral and religious code. These are laws essential to the existence of men in society and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws." He added that "Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of [secular history] . . . to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis of morality as this decalogue lays down."
James Madison, the 4th president of th United States, once said "ìWe have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. Weíve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacityÖto sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.î
The founding fathers of this great nation believed with great conviction that the moral law of God was crucial to the success of this nation...and they were not the only ones.....If you would step back 100 years ago.....the moral law would not have been called the ten suggestions like it is today.....Now...to finish the rest of your statement...You said " I am far more concerned with trying to understand what Scripture has to say." Are you saying that our founding fathers, our great grandparents and great great grandparents did not have an understanding of scripture as you do today?
My wife and I attended lunch today with family..They had just returned from church and we were sitting around waiting for dinner...My wife picked up their church bulletin and was browsing through it when she came across a notice..It said " Support the ten commandments.In the back of the foyer, you can purchase a ten commandments sign to place on your front lawn.".....She looked at me in surprise and then looked at her mother and said "Why would anyone in the church want to purchase a ten commandments sign in favour of supporting them if you think that they are done away with?".....Her mother didnt have an answer.
Modern Christianity views the ten commandments today as an icon rather than a standard to live by. There are hundreds of ten commandments signs plastered on people's lawns in this town..and likely throughout the US....as people seek to reinstate them in places the government seeks to remove them from. Sadly and ironically though..the strongest proponents also say they are done away with and no longer needed as our standard of obedience.
Christianity today is spouting out of both sides of its mouth....In one instance..all of Christian america is up in arms about the ten commandments being removed from schools and public buildings..They are outraged that such a thing could happen.
The irony here though is that the same people that hold so strongly to their belief in the ten commandments, trample on it and say they are no longer needed..they are done away with.
These types of issues bring up alot of questions in my mind as to the validity statements like "God has really done away with the law."....
|
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 122
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 2:10 pm: | |
John,
You can turn to human tradition all that you would like to support your beliefs. I have no response.
You can turn to the inconsistency of people's behavior all that you would like to support your beliefs. Again, I will have no response.
At some point perhaps you would like to respond to the Scriptural statements that many here have provided rather than looking at tradition and behaviors. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 123
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 3:07 pm: | |
John,
Earlier in this thread you had posted:
quote:I also heard..maybe its a rumour...but I heard that she never considered herself to be a prophetess.....that she wasnt elevated to where people esteem her until after her death..Is this right?
This seems to be a popular "defense" of the clear fallibility of EGW in recent years, but this defense is seriously flawed. While she may have worked to avoid saying directly that she was a prophet, her many statements leave no other conclusion. A large compilation of EGW quotes demonstrating this is available at:
http://www.ellenwhite.org/egw29.htm
Some of the very clear statements from her own pen include:
"God does nothing in partnership with Satan. My work for the past thirty years bears the stamp of God or the stamp of the enemy. There is no halfway work in the matter. The Testimonies are of the Spirit of God, or of the devil. In arraying yourself against the servants of God you are doing a work either for God or for the devil.î (Testimonies, vol. 4, p. 230.)
"My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there." (Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 36, 1906)
"I beg of you for Christ's sake to consider what I say; for I say it not of myself. It is the word of God to you." (Letter 25b, 1895, pp. 1-3, to Brother and Sister Hare, April, 1895)
"In the night season the Lord gives me instruction in symbols, and then explains their meaning. He gives me the word, and I dare not refuse to give it to the people." Ms. 22, 1890. {VSS 398.2}
Ellen did not believe herself to be just another inspirational Christian author. SDAs who treat her that way ignore both her own warnings to the contrary as well as the Biblical warnings regarding false prophecy. Given her claims of visions and direct statements from God, there isn't room to be honest to Scripture and take a middle ground about her writings. |
Stardoc57
Registered user
Username: Stardoc57
Post Number: 3
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 11:41 pm: | |
John,
I am new to this discussion forum, and don't presume to represent the views of others in the group. I can only share my own experience with you. John, I feel for you and understand the passion you seem to feel in discussing your perspective. A year ago I would have been right there with you arguing for the permanance of the 10 commandments and giving you an atta-boy for the proof texts that you quote. In fact, I have used many of them myself in discussions with my Sunday-keeping Christian friends.
I have for many years considered myself a Sabbath keeping Christian since I could no longer be a part of the SDA organization that would not come clean about the facts of EGW. Plagerism (with cover-up)is not a tool that God's servant would use. Plagerism was illegal since the early 1800's. Many people had been prosecuted before EGW. By her time, the laws included not only written works but also pictures and music. Even if it was not illegal it would have broken God's moral law by stealing another's work. A true follower of God would not do this.
During the past year, I have done some study that has led me to another conclusion about the sabbath (and the 10 commandments). I did not study with those on this group and did much independant research including my Greek and Hebrew reference material on my computer. I was always uncomfortable with the SDA explanation that Col 2:14 (and others in Rom, Heb and Gal) refered to the "ceremonial laws" being nailed to the cross. The scriptures do not bear that out.
PTL that He led me to study another perspective. The light cracked through my thick skull when I did a study of the covanents that God made with the patriarchs especially the covanent with Moses. I also wanted to prove the permanence of the Sabbath and carefully read Gen-Deut. I discovered to my surprise that there is no evidence of any person honoring a Sabbath until the Exodus from Egypt. Also, God described the Sabbath as a sign between Him and the Children of Isreal. I also found a chronology of the Isrealites in Neh 9 which clearly stated that God "made known" his Sabbaths at Sinai. The Hebrew word is yada` (to reveal or make known). It is nowhere used to indicate a reminder.
Once I was willing to re-examine my 45+ year ingrained beliefs, the pieces began to fall into place. I began to understand how it is that the Old covanent (including the 10 commandments) were fulfilled in Christ. The texts indicating that the Sabbaths were no longer an issue for new covanent believers began to make sense and I no longer needed to twist my brain to make them fit my SDA training.
Several of the posts that I have read suggest that you do a study of the New covanent. I could not agree more since that is what freed me from my obsession with the 10 commandments and allowed me to see Christ more fully. I have never heard a study on the New Covanent in the SDA schools and churches I attended. Take as long as you need to study in order to truly understand. I will pray as I'm sure that you will the the Holy Spirit will continue to guide your study.
If I can presume to speak for the group, I think that most of us understand your arguements and conviction. I think that it would be a more productive discussion if you could try to at least understand our perspective and why we have arrived here. You don't need to agree, but please try to look at the issue from another direction.
Respectfully and prayerfully yours, Stardoc |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1117
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 11:54 pm: | |
John, you asked, ".....are we not adding to that if we debate on which commandments He is speaking of? How can we absolutely know for certain what Jesus was saying without adding our own interpretation to it?"
As has been mentioned earlier, if one goes to the Greek, the meaning is clear, with no guessing or interpretation. The word "nomos", used in the context of Jesus saying to keep His commandments, is clearly not the word for "law". It is the word for sayings, or instructions--the words He had been speaking. The Greek word "entole" has the meaning of "law".
I believe I can explain to you why, when you found Adventism, the Bible seemed to make sense for the first time to you--and then I can explain why that understanding is flawed.
Adventism, unlike much of the Pentecostal tradition, emphasizes both Old and New Testaments. In fact, I believe many Christians ignore the Old Testament to a great degree. That ignorance yields theological shallowness. Further, if one looks only superficially at the New Testament, one can really miss the full scope and power of the gospel and the absolute centrality of Jesus.
In his book "Keep In Step With the Spirit," J. Packer reports his research into the charismatic movement. He concluded that while the Pentecostals and charismatics of various denominations were essentially correct in their doctrines, their greatest weakness was their lack of Biblical, theological depth. Further, they often place a greater emphasis on the power of the Spirit than on Christ. Adventism, John, gave you more depth. It introduced you to the Old Testament and then proceeded to interpret for you how the New Testament fit with the Old.
The problem is that Adventism looks at the Testaments backwards. They interpret the New Testament through the symbols of the Old instead of interpreting the Old Testament symbols through the revelation of Jesus. It's kind-of like looking through binoclulars through the wrong end; you'll see what you're aiming at, but it's tiny and far away, and the details are obscured.
Here's an analogy of Adventist interpretation. Before an animated movie is made, artists draw detailed still pictures called "cells". (At least that's what they did before computer graphics!) These cells are complete and intricate, and they clearly reveal the skill and style and personality of the creating artist. In fact, these cells are often collectors items, and people frame them and display them as independent works of art.
But these cells are not the whole story. Only when they are all put together as frames in a movie and enhanced with a sound track do you see the whole story. The cells are beautiful and worthy of study, but not as a complete revelation. One must watch the movie if one is to understand the purpose and function of those cells. Those cells, in fact, lose their individual identities in the movie. They become part of a whole reality that is much greater in scope and purpose than any single cell.
Adventists' interpretation of the Bible is the equivalent of studying the cells to understand the movie. They have the rare and complete collection of all the cells, and the have the movie available, but instead of watching the movie and then seeing how the cells work, they study the individual cells and try to explain how the movie will look based on explaining the cells. They focus on the preliminary revelation of the creator's idea instead of on the full revelation.
Studying the cells will never show one how the movie looks--and even more significant, those cells will never reveal the sound track. Only after one sees the movie will the cells be fully understood. One may study them for years, but the study of the cells will never reveal the movie.
Adventism sounds deep, and it connects the Old and New Testaments in ways your previous religious experience may not have done. But they connect the Testmaents backwards. You can never see the full picture of Jesus as long as you make the study of the Old Testament equal to the study of the New. One MUST see the New Testament as the revelation of the meanings of the Old Testament, not the other way around. Jesus revealed and fulfilled the purpose and the promises of the law and the prophets.
The law is like some of the cells of the incredible movie that is Jesus. One cannot say a collection of individual animation cells is equal in permananece and effect to the entire movie. Trying to study and honor the law while simultaneously studying and honoring Jesus as equally eternal and significanct is like placing a preliminary sketch of DaVinci's "The Last Supper" on the wall beside the final painting and calling them equally important, eternal, and revealing. In reality, one can only understand what DaVinci had in mind when he did his sketch when one examines the final painting.
John, you CAN know what the Bible really says, but you won't find it in Adventist evangelists' commentaries. Furthermore, you won't find it in anyone's commentary. You will find it when you as God to reveal Himself and His truth to you through Scripture and become willing to jettison all you've learned and admire in favor of being taught by the Holy Spirit and God's word.
To "level the playing field," so to speak, I second the recommendation that you read Greg Taylor's study. Then stop reading all commentaries and immerse yourself in the Bible. Because you've had an Adventist bias, you need to immerse yourself in the New Testament. Read Galatians every day (it's only six chapters!) for a month. Ask God to teach you.
He is faithful; He will show you the truth when you really want to know it!
Colleen |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 124
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 4:47 am: | |
John,
You said previously:
quote:I have talked to folks from virtually every denomination out there..many of them cults and even the odd satanist...... to understand their reasoning for what they hold fast to....Coming to this forum is no exception.
Perhaps you would care to explain how you view your reason for coming here to discus beliefs any differently than your earlier "discussions" with satanists? Were you honestly considering satanist beliefs? |
Truthseeker2004
Registered user
Username: Truthseeker2004
Post Number: 45
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:12 am: | |
Hello ric...No..I most certainly would not consider the idea of joining forces with satan...but I do like to listen to what people have to say..I am curious to understand their convictions and what leads them to that point at which they are at...as convoluted and twisted as it may be. I find that listening to what others have to say opens up a door for dialogue. This then allows the opportunity to share the gospel with them, as they allow me to have a turn and share my convictions as to why I believe as I do..I find this to be a great way of bringing Christ into a conversation. I am sure that everyone here knows that it is easiest to share the gospel message with those who have never picked up a bible because they have no preconceived ideas of false biblical interpretation.
All of this discussion on the ten commandments and whether or not they are relevant today has got me pondering something...I am curious to know why the sabbath is for those in bondage to the law while sunday is for those who claim to be free from it? Who declared that resting on sunday makes one more free than the sabbath? Jesus said the sabbath was made for man to enjoy.....man wasn't made to create and name their own sabbath...Mr 2:27" And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath "
John Wesley, one of the great reformers of protestantism once said in one of his sermons of the ten commandments:
In the highest rank of the enemies of the gospel of Christ, are they who openly and explicitly "judge the law" itself, and "speak evil of the law": who teach men to break (to dissolve, to loose, to untie the obligation of) not one only, whether of the least, but all the commandments at a stroke. The most surprising of all the circumstances that attend this strong delusion, is that they who are given up to it, really believe that they honor Christ by overthrowing his law, and that they are magnifying His office while they are destroying His doctrine!
Yea, they honor Him just as Judas did when he said, "Hail, Master," and kissed Him. And He may as justly say to every one of them, "Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?" It is no other than betraying Him with a kiss, to talk of His blood, and take away His crown, to set light by any part of His law, under pretense of advancing His gospel. Nor indeed can anyone escape this charge, who preaches faith in any such manner as either directly or indirectly sets aside any branch of obedience: who preaches Christ so as to annul, or weaken in any wise, the least of the commandments of God."
Wesley's Works,
Sermon 95.
|
Praisegod
Registered user
Username: Praisegod
Post Number: 173
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:42 am: | |
John, you again are demonstrating that you haven't been listening to what people have been saying in this forum. As Rick pointed out, you are going back to the traditions of men.
Until you study out the New Covenant, for yourself, you will not grasp what we've been telling you. One answer is in Hebrews 3 and 4. The seventh day Sabbath was fulfilled in Jesus. Our Sabbath is Today, resting Today 24/7 in Jesus. Itís never been changed to Sunday and I suggest every one posting on this forum is wise to that straw man argument.
You said, "I find that listening to what others have to say opens up a door for dialogue. This then allows the opportunity to share the gospel with them, as they allow me to have a turn and share my convictions as to why I believe as I do..I find this to be a great way of bringing Christ into a conversation."
Does that let me know that we are simply a ìmission projectî for you?
Praise GodÖ
|
Truthseeker2004
Registered user
Username: Truthseeker2004
Post Number: 46
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 7:18 am: | |
Everyone says that the old covenant was for Israel and the new covenant is for us..Then why does the bible say that the new covenant is for Israel as well? Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah."
Is the law done away with under the new covenant? The next verse says no....Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people....." If God is going to put His law in our inward parts.......doesn't that go against the very teaching that the law is done away with and we don't need it? What is the purpose of God putting the law in our hearts and minds if it has become obsolete? Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them After those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws on their heart, And upon their mind also will I write them; [then saith he,]Heb 10:17 And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
If the covenant mentioned in the Old Testament, from Sinai to Malachi, is none other than the everlasting covenant(Ge 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.".... and..... Eze 37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. , why should there be need for those days spoken of by the prophet Jeremiah, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel"? Jer. 31:31. Surely this indicates that the covenant existing in Jeremiahís day is to be abrogated by the coming of the new covenant. Otherwise, why not continue with the same covenant found all the way through the Old Testament? What is the force of Paulís words: "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Heb. 8:13.
The answer is contained in the correct understanding of the term "new covenant" and the reason for its being called new.
In the first place, the established interpretation is that it was ratified by the blood of Christ at the cross. Daniel says of Christ, "He shall CONFIRM the covenant with many for one week." Dan. 9:27. The word "confirm" means to cause to prevail. During the brief period of His earthly ministry, Jesus fulfilled the terms of the ancient covenant made with the seed of Abraham. Paul says of this: "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to CONFIRM the promises made unto the fathers." Rom. 15:8. Thus Christ secured the benefits of the ancient covenant to "many," that is, to the believers in Israel.
In the second place, this covenant is called new because Godís everlasting covenant had been so completely lost sight of that it appeared to be an entirely new covenant. This text acknowledges the fact that while both God and His servants the prophets thought mostly in terms of the everlasting covenant, the nation of Israel thought in terms of the old covenant of works.
The Jews had lost sight completely of the everlasting covenant. The new covenant was to write the law of God in their hearts, but writing the law in the hearts of men was not new. Isaiah spoke of it as sealing "the law among my disciples." (Isa. 8:16.) The whole of Hebrews 11 is a historical record of it.
The latter of the prophets and the New Testament writers were obliged to deal with the utterly mistaken conceptions concerning the Sinai covenant. The Judaism of Christís day represented a perversion of the testimony given by God to Moses. It is to offset these misrepresentations of the old covenant idea that the gospel writers are strong in their assertions of an opposite intent and direction. This swing away from Judaism in the New Testament has been falsely interpreted as the abrogation of the law of God. The New Testament writers are compelled under the circumstances to press home the differences on account of Jewish errors and their hardness of heart. The real battle of Christ, John, and Paul was to deliver the church from every shred of Jewish legalistic bondage that had been fastened on Israel during the previous fifteen hundred years.
The use of the term "new covenant"(which incidentally is mentioned in both the old and new testaments) is occasioned by new revelation that came with Christís incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. Progressive revelation is an important part of the Bible record.
The new covenant does not abrogate or abolish the moral law of God..It confirms it...If the law were done away with would Paul have said "So then I of myself with the MIND, indeed, serve the LAW of God."?
|
Truthseeker2004
Registered user
Username: Truthseeker2004
Post Number: 47
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 7:54 am: | |
Just to add to my last post...
God's people realized that the everlasting covenant under the law of Moses as exemplified in the earthly sanctuary and animal sacrifices was a heavy burden to them.....The ceremonial laws regarding animal sacrifice and the earthly priesthood were a looking forward to something better that was to come....This was the old perspective of the everlasting covenant between God and man.
The everlasting covenant of God was confirmed by Christ(Daniel 9:27)....The covenant was not replaced but changed to show that the new perspective of the everlasting covenant is not a looking forward to something better than animal sacrifice and earthly priesthood..but to faith in the completed work of Christ at Calvary....The new, changed everlasting covenant allows us to enter into that most holy place to commune with God..clothed in the righteousness of Christ.
The new understanding of God's everlasting covenant that He placed on our hearts and in our minds was that the earthly sanctuary and ceremonial services were no longer needed..but were done away with.....The temple veil torn from top to bottom testifies of this change...Daniel 9:27 testifies of the change as well when it says "he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease."....This was the change to the everlasting covenant.....The yoke of this bondage was dropped from God's people.
The new understanding of the everlasting covenant is that now there is a priesthood in heaven......Heb 9:11 But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, Heb 9:12 nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. Heb 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh: Heb 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Heb 9:15 AND FOR THIS CAUSE he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance |
Stardoc57
Registered user
Username: Stardoc57
Post Number: 4
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 8:56 am: | |
Hi John,
I don't think that arguing scriptures will change any minds, ours or yours. I do know that we all are led by God's spirit when we open up to allow it. I understand your arguements and previously used them myself. Only by your studying the many (there are several) different covanents made with the patriarchs will you be able to understand why we arrived at our view. Your previous post mixes parts of different covanents.
I believe that God led you to this forum for a reason. There are two possibilties that come to my mind:
1- you were sent to evangelize us (you are effectively presenting forceful arguments, but havn't yet appeared to make any converts)
2- you were sent to learn from us (I hope that you will consider this possibility as well)
Respectfully yours,
Stardoc |
Truthseeker2004
Registered user
Username: Truthseeker2004
Post Number: 48
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 9:54 am: | |
Well....I have to say that I have never in my life seen so many complicated twists and turns when it comes to understanding the bible!!
Two verses tells us everything we need to know, and it doesnt have to be complicated at all, unless we choose to make it so.
"Eph 2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; Eph 2:9 not of works, that no man should glory."
Through faith(the dictionary defines faith as "confidant belief in the truth")........we receive God's grace(the dictionary defines grace as "undeserved mercy, clemency or pardon)and as a result we are saved.
Why do we receive God's grace? We receive God's grace or unmerited favour through His Son Jesus Christ and His sacrifice at Calvary not because we are deserving of it in the least bit, but because God has compassion on us and knows fully of our hopeless fallen state of sinfulness, of which we are unable to extricate ourselves from. Apart from His grace..we would be destined to die in our sins..The bible says " Ro 5:20 And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly..."
Because of our sinful nature...and our inability to become righteous through works...by His grace we can become clothed in the righteousness of Christ and by Him we are made righteous......So sin is at the heart of this issue.....But what exactly is sin? The bible says it so plainly " 1jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."....If sin is defined as transgression of the law..then what law is it referring to? Paul tells us when he says "So then with the mind I myself serve the LAW OF GOD"...but in order to serve the law as Paul says he does..what mind must we have? The bible says "1co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But WE HAVE THE MIND OF CHRIST."
Now verse 9 of Ephesians 2 reminds us that we have not received grace through our own works....attempting to please God through works will cancel out His grace....Obeying the law of God without acknowledging His grace is futile indeed......On the other hand....accepting His grace for our sinfulness....His work can and will be made complete in us as we put on the mind of Christ which will as Paul tells us....cause us to automatically serve the law of God.
Paul clearly admitted that he followed the law of God..He said so himself. He didnt say the law was void..Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
I think I have done this topic to death and won't dwell on it anymore....I have to say though that in all of the study I have done in the past week on the law and grace..and on the everlasting covenant that I am more firmly grounded in the belief that we do serve a God to whom we are accountable for our actions....The price paid for our transgression of His law could be no higher...What a sacrifice He made.
I am convinced that the new covenant was called a new covenant because it pointed to a new sanctuary, a new sacrifice and a new priesthood in heaven...Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
|
Truthseeker2004
Registered user
Username: Truthseeker2004
Post Number: 49
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:01 am: | |
Hello...just wanted to add one more thing..I realize this forum is for those who are former sda's and so I say thankyou to the moderator and everyone for listening to what I had to say while also offering me your points on this topic.You were gracious in allowing me to post although it went against what your website is intended for...So for that I am greatful. As a result, I was able to put my research paper together and will keep it for future reference.
Your patience was greatly appreciated...God bless all of you!!!! My research is done.
If anyone does have anything further to add..please feel free to email me anytime at leaffan40@yahoo.com.........In Christ...........John |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1122
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:18 am: | |
John, you must realize that our resopnses to you were not primarily to change your mind, because we can't do that. They were primarily to give our answers to typical Adventist arguments so those lurking and truly desiring to understand the confusion they've experienced would learn the amazing truth that Jesus alone reveals truth and fulfills the Old Testament.
You may feel that you used us for your research purposes, but God used you to provide a discussion in which those of us who have been set free from bondage could express and confirm our own understandings and simultaneously share the amazing reality of Jesus' fulfilling and transforming power with an unseen audience of lurkers.
God is sovereign; He wastes nothing and redeems everything we submit to Him. I praise Him for being Lord even of this forum!
Colleen |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1246
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 10:29 am: | |
Truthseeker, You have asked many thought provoking questions. You have been responded to with many scripture references. I hope you take the time now to look them up. You ask people on here how come the believe what they believe. The folks have been sharing this with you. You said you have asked many people of different denominations what they believe and why. Generally I don't ask Christians, even of different denomantions what they believe because I assume they believe basic Christianity as set down in the Bible. Many denoinations have different customs, different forms of worship, even some different practices such as how and at what age to baptise but they stll teach basically the same about Jesus, grace, the virgin birth, salvation, forgiveness, and some other topics. I am a member at a local Lutheran church. The Lutheran denomination is dwindeling in membership. However, Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds. Our bishop presented a talk on this recently. He told us Lutherans to not be brokenhearted to our denominations loosing. That traditionally the Lutheran church increased in membership because Lutherans had lots of babies. Well, that just isn't happening any more. But, Christianty is growing rapidly and that is reason to rejoyce. He told us Christianity is moving from churches which practice a very soloume service to churches that are more lively, the charasmatic type of service, that maybe God has His hand in this and is drawing more people to Him in a type of service more to those peoples personalities. The point was though that no matter how much the Lutheran denomination fizzles out as Christians first we are to rejoyce, first in Jesus and what He's done for us and then that more people are coming to and giving their lives to Jesus everyday. He didn't want us Luthrans to dispare over the denomination loosing numbers. He wanted us to rejoyce that Christanity is gainng numbers. As I sat in the pew listening to this I just kept thinking what a contrast this was than what one would hear at the SDA. At the SDA one does not hear about Christianity. One hears about SDA this and SDA that and only SDA. When Christianity comes into the discussion it is as SDA's we need to be fearful of the Christians because they are going to persucate us and make us worship on Sunday. I hope you go to Dirks website and read the book he wrote on the SDA idea of a Sunday law. It's an awsome book. And, maybe it will have even more weight with you knowing that Dirk does observe the 7th day Sabbath just as the SDA's do (although he is not SDA). A bit more about learning about others religions. I recently took an eight week world religions class over at the local Catholic church. It was very interesting. One week was on Jewish, one week Moslem. there was Hindu and Buddhist. The last week was Christianity. I figured out right away the Sister teaching the class wasn't much of a fan of Martin Luther but having the class given at the Catholic church and being taught by the head nun I would expect they would present Christianty and Catholic as the same. And, by the way, most every chance I get to attend the Hare Krishna servces I go. I totally love going to the Hare Krishna gatherings. They totally boogie down and at the end they feed everyone with an awsome vegan feast they use dairy (no meat or eggs). The all know I'm Christian but they are nice people and make me feel welcome, one Krishna man even offering to bring me and take me to the gatherings. Then on the drive home him and I will discuss what the guru said and I'll tell him how Christianiy would undestand the topic. Frankly, I think it is good to learn about "where different people are coming from". This forum though is geared towards those who used to be SDA or are courious about SDA. Just as I am not about to infilterate a Mormon or a JW (if there is such a thing because I believe the WT organzation has banned its people from using the Internet saying it's of satan but maybe I got that wrong) website to prostalize them to embrase Christianiy as I understand Christianity I am hoping that your purpose on here is really as stated and that it is to learn. |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 640
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:05 am: | |
John, I think you're preaching to the wrong people. Most of the people here have lived in the religious tradition you now embrace. They know the arguments and the proof texts as well as you do, if not better. But at some point, they read the Bible for themselves without the SDA interpretations...they let the Bible speak for itself. I know you think the SDA pastor who "taught" you how to read the Bible did you a favor, but I think he was in error. Further, I think your addition of the word "ten" and selective omissions of Roman 14, Col 2, Hebrews 3-4, Galatians from your study is hindering your ability, if not your interest in hearing what has been said here.
If you are here to understand "our" perspective, hear us. If you're here to convert us, it's highly doubtful you'll succeed. Most of us embrace people who love Christ with differing views on many topics. We are all equal brothers and sisters regardless of where our walk has brought us or where we are in our journey. You talk grace out of one side of your mouth, but tell us our salvation is not complete with the sabbath on the other. You write long essays that jump from book to book, and testament to testament to weave together your position and then accuse us of "twisting" scripture. Hebrews is blatantly clear that there is "another" day for rest, and it is today...any day. We don't "keep" Sunday, and I rest more on Saturday than any other day of the week...I just don't usually go to church on that day. And the day I worship is your issue, not my "rest" or how I serve God in any other perspective.
I would agree this topic has been exhausted, and hope we can leave it unless our point is considered as well. As has been said, most people here have been where you are. |
Dd
Registered user
Username: Dd
Post Number: 271
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
John, if you are still lurking...prove us wrong! There are no twists and turns. God's Word is SOOOOO straight forward. That's the beauty of real freedom in Christ. THere is NOTHING to do!!! He does it all!
I challenge you...don't listen to us...don't listen to SDA religious beliefs...don't read a non-SDA book...
First -- Claim the promises of John 14:26 and John 16:13
Second -- Pray and tell God to direct your thoughts while you read His Word
Third -- Read the book of Galatians and Hebrews
God is in control - trust His leading! |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 125
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 1:01 pm: | |
I wish that I could say I am surprised that an SDA mis-represented their reasons for wanting to engage in a conversation. But deception is such a common theme among SDAs that is somehow seems normal. SDAs even base their beginnings on God practicing deception (teaching that God was deliberately hiding the truth from the Millerites in order to give birth to SDAism). |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 209
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 1:10 pm: | |
Stardoc57,
Just in case you haven't come across it, I wanted to share Ezekiel 20:10-12, which also says, as does Nehemiah 9, that the Sabbath was given after Israel was taken out of Egypt.
"So I took them out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness. I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live. Also I gave them My sabbaths to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them." (NASB.)
Of course, the Ten Commandments itself in Deuteronomy 5 implies the same thing.
Jeremy |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 641
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
I have to say, I'd never taken the time to read all of Deuteronomy in a short time period together. It's a long book, and all that stuff.... Anyway, the last week, I've been reading several chapters each night. What I was struck by reading the whole thing together is that the law was given as a whole. Repeatedly, Moses says to the effect of observe all my statues, ordinances and commandments.... The book never reiterates the 7th day Sabbath anywhere in the book besides it's place in chapter 5. Not in a single summary has the importance of that one commandment, over the rest of them, been highlighted. If anything, it would appear that the first commandment Moses recounted was as important as the last. It also seemed that the book of Deuteronomy was the one that was to be read every 7 years, though I guess you could say all Gen - Deut was to be read every 7 years. Deuteronomy looks at the time of the giving of the law as a historical event....one that took place at Sinai, not Eden. I'm at the song of Moses right now, so not far from the end. When you read the book as a whole, I don't know how you can see some magnifying glass over the 10 or even one of the 10. The book certainly appears to show the law as a whole unit together, not pieces to be parcelled out. Given the discussion on this thread, I thought it was quite fascinating to take the step back and read the whole book in its entirety and see what God really had to say just before they crossed into the promised land. |
Freeatlast
Registered user
Username: Freeatlast
Post Number: 252
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
Interesting how we formers are surprised to make these discoveries, isn't it? In a way, I find myself thankful at times that I was deceived by Seventh-day Adventism because that experience turns these simple, everyday truths that are otherwise common-knowledge among mainstream Christians into precious jewels of grace for me.
If you read the Deuteronomy 5 version of the 10 commandments, it is crystal clear that they were for Israel. The SDA's stick like glue to the Exodus version in all their proofs. Is it any wonder? |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 642
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 2:39 pm: | |
I had B flat out tell me that Deuteronomy wasn't the law, Exodus was. I had never heard such a thing, but he refines it even further to just Exodus 20. On into Exodus it says some of the same things as Deut, but it's not the law either, according to him. Selective reasoning, I guess. I hate to be critical, though, because I know he is desperately holding onto what he has been taught is truth. Ya'll know better than me what it's like to have that foundation shaken away from you. I try to empathize sometimes. |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 85
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 8:04 pm: | |
Dear Truthseeker,
I don't know if you are still here seeking, but I want to point out something to you that you seem to be passing over in your posts. We tell you that the law was FULFILLED in Christ. You keep asking us to tell you where the law was done away with. We have never told you that the law was done away, we tell you that, as part of a covenant, it was fulfilled. There is a lot of difference between those two terms. If a covenant is a debt and you try to do away with it, the debt is still owed. If a covenant is fulfilled, the debt is paid. Jesus paid the debt in full. The New Covenant is now a covenant between the Godhead, and the only requirement for man is that we love one another. The perfection of the ten commandments has never been in question. It is, and has been, the foundation of many man-made laws, and rightly so, but it has been fulfilled as far as something that mankind has to do as a salvational issue. If you want to follow these laws because it gives you a sense of personal balance, please do so, just remember that it is no longer a salvational issue. Jesus bought your salvation, completed, at the cross.
Belva |
Stardoc57
Registered user
Username: Stardoc57
Post Number: 5
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:32 pm: | |
Thanks Jeremy, that confirms my previous research. Great isn't it how the bible fits together and confirms itself!
|
4drian
Registered user
Username: 4drian
Post Number: 34
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
John,
Here are several mistakes you are repeating over and over:
1. You study the New Testament (NT) as a continuation of the Old Testament (OT). In fact the NT is not only the culmination of a story that started in Genesis but it is the culmination of THE STORY of redemption. The NT reveals Christís will for humanity. The NT reveals many things that were not revealed under the Mosaic Covenant. ONLY by studying the NT can you discover the New Covenant and ONLY by studying the NT can you understand what the Mosaic Covenant was designed for. In order to understand Christianity, and not Judaism, we must study the OT through the text of the NT. Otherwise, we will understand about as much as the Pharisees in Jesusí day understood.
2. In order to understand the Bible you MUST read books in their entirety and you must quote verses in context. Prooftexting is NOT a proper way to study or discuss the bible. Because you insist on using this terrible method, you continue to make the same mistakes over and over. Here are a couple of examples. A) Whenever you see the word covenant in the bible, you immediately think that this is referring to a single covenant. If fact, if you were to read the Bible in context, you would realize that there are many distinct and independent covenants; starting with the Adamic Covenant and ending with what we call the New Covenant. B) Whenever you see the word ìcommandmentì or ìcommandments,î you automatically assume a reference to the 10 commandments. In fact, if you read the Bible in context, you will see that most of the time these words refer to quite different things; especially in the NT. A study of the original Greek will also help in this regard.
3. You rely on tradition, instead of the Holy Bible to guide you in your understanding of Christianity. Furthermore, the tradition you rely on is so far removed from the source of Christianity, Jesus Christ, that it has little to no significance in evaluating the Bible. If you must, please read the tradition left to us by the early Christian fathers, those who lived only a few tens of years after Christís death. Hereís a link: [http://www.ccel.org/]. Now please understand that even the early Christian fathers are NOT more important than the Bible itself. But if you want to use tradition in your study, I commend you for it. Just remember to start from the beginning, with the earliest Christian tradition, and to always test everything against the scriptures.
4. You continually disregard what others are saying and change the subject so that you do not have to carry on a prolonged discussion about any one verse or book of the bible. Please stay on track.
Thatís all for Now. Iím sure others could add to this list.
-Adrian (vlad) |
4drian
Registered user
Username: 4drian
Post Number: 35
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 10:33 am: | |
John, I have one more request:
The next time you read the books of Acts, Romans, Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews, please try to read them in one sitting. Thatís right! The whole book at once. If you find you are loosing your concentration you can take a break of course. Once you are done please ask yourself these questions: What does this book say about the law? What does this book say about salvation? How does this book say a person is saved? What duties does this book say a Christian has? In the same way, the next time you read the book of James, ask yourself the following questions: What does this book have to say on the subject of salvation? Does this book in fact talk about salvation? Does this book discuss requirements of becoming and remaining a Christian or is it a guidebook for Christians? Now remember you can only answer this questions if you have read these books as a whole and made an effort to understand their meanings. The apostles did not write a series of texts. They wrote letters that were meant to be read in their entirety. Whenever we read the bible as a series of texts, rather than as a series of letters, there is a VERY HIGH chance that we will misunderstand and misinterpret it.
Once you have read the NT in this manner, you can start doing the same for the OT. (Psalms and Proverbs are exceptions of course).
-Adrian (vlad)
|
|
