| Author | Message | ||
| Hrobinsonw Registered user Username: Hrobinsonw Post Number: 106 Registered: 7-2004 |
Do SDA consider that which God gave Moses to be ritual law. I realized last night that the sinai accord starts with Exodus 19 and ends with the last verse in Exodus. I assume that all of that would be considered what God gave Moses personally. So why would that be disregarded. And oh, hello to all. I have been enjoying married life and have been distracted. But I missed you all. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 80 Registered: 8-2004 |
I don't think SDAs consider it 'ritual' law. I think it is considered to be divided into ceremonial, moral, legal, health, and probably some other divisions. And at least some of them think that the only law done fully away with was the 'ceremonial' parts. I could be wrong. This is just how I've understood them to teach it. helovesme2 | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 273 Registered: 7-2004 |
Oh, Rob...I was so happy to see your name and that you had posted. You have been missed and I have been praying for you, your little family, and your new extended family. Trust me...you are not out of sight, out of mind!! Thanks for the update and I am thrilled you are enjoying married life. I have never heard SDA claim "ritual law". As Loves says above...there are pet laws. The very ceremonial laws they say were nailed to the cross are the very ones they find as still a part of God's Remnant...the health laws. | ||
| Hrobinsonw Registered user Username: Hrobinsonw Post Number: 107 Registered: 7-2004 |
I was wondering if any of them attack that part of the law that was handed down to Moses on sinai. If not, therin lies many other laws that should be upheld that SDA's don't uphold. If so, then are they tring to say that not all that God passed down to Moses is worth listening to. Oh, and thanks Dd. It feels great to be back. | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 644 Registered: 7-2003 |
Hrob, I think you've got it. Some of what Moses wrote down was credible, and somehow the rest of it isn't. And Exodus is more credible than Deuteronomy. I can't make sense of it. You can trust Moses to write Ex. 20, but not the rest.... | ||
| Hrobinsonw Registered user Username: Hrobinsonw Post Number: 108 Registered: 7-2004 |
I was wondering because I always thought that what God handed directly down to Moses was considered LAW more than any other part in the Old Testament. That only streteches from Exodus to Leviticus which are just two books. Deuteronomy comes later. But even in those two books are more commandments than just the ten commandments. Espcecially in Leviticus commanding Israel to keep the sabbaths plural. The other sabbaths are also outlined in Leviticus as well as statutes of clean and unclean living. So since the Bible designates that as part of the LAW given to Moses on mt. sinai it should be upheld if you are going to bind yourself to it. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 81 Registered: 8-2004 |
I think the sdas regard the part that God 'spoke' to the children of Israel as the part that is what 'God handed directly to Moses'. I don't know if they note that it was the people who asked God to give the rest to Moses rather than God saying 'this part I'll tell you, the rest you'll get from him'. I don't exactly understand how they come to that conclusion, but I thought they were right for many years. helovesme2 | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 275 Registered: 7-2004 |
I can't remember which thread Jeremy gave a great deal of information regarding the Law of Moses and the very fact that it is NOT a two part law. SDA really want to made a distinction for the very argument of why Passover/Sacrifices is no longer but that the Sabbath of the 4th commandment is very important...He had some excellent verses and quotes. I will try and find them and let you know where it is, Hrob. It was very good. | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 277 Registered: 7-2004 |
Hrob, Here is something I wrote down in my notebook. I cannot say where I wrote it from to give it proper credit. "It must be understood that the Mosaic Law is viewed in the Scriptures as a unit. The word, Torah or "Law," is always singular when applied to the Law of Moses, although it contains 613 commandments. The division of the Law of Moses into ceremonial, legals and moral parts is convenient for the study of different types of commandments contained within it, but it is never divided this way by the Scriptures themselves. Neither is there any scriptural basis for separating the Ten commandments from the whole 613 and making only the Ten perpetual. All 613 commandments are a single unit comprising the Law of Moses." We had an interesting "debate" with a SDA man this last week here on the forum. The man was trying to make the very point/argument that you are trying to make sense of and it just didn't fly. Look at the thread - "The 10 Commandments Were a Covenant With Old Israel". I think this is what I was thinking about in my post above where Jeremy, Chris, Colleen, Ric, Melissa (and others) had some wonderful things to say regarding some of your thoughts above. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 1131 Registered: 12-2003 |
Good to see you back Hrob! I'm glad to hear you're doing well. How are things going with your wife and Adventism, Jesus, and her relationship to them? How is the pregnancy? Keep us posted! Colleen | ||
| Truthseeker2004 Registered user Username: Truthseeker2004 Post Number: 51 Registered: 12-2004 |
At the time God personally spoke and wrote the ten commandments at Mount Sinai, He gave the Israelites, through Moses, another body of law - a law consisting of many and varied ordinances....In Deuteronomy 33:2-4, notice that two different laws are referred to: "De 33:2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM.De 33:3 Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words.De 33:4 MOSES COMMANDED US A LAW, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob." The "fiery law" that went from God's hand at Mount Sinai was the Decalogue. The proclamation of this law was not given by Moses. From the sumit of the mountain, God Himself, amid lightnings, and thunders, and flames of fire, spoke the ten commandments to His people. (Ex 19:16-25, 20:1-20, Deut 4:10-13, 5:4-25) If anyone should think that more was added or included with that proclamation of the ten commandments, read Deuteronomy 5:22.....when after God gace the ten commandments He "added no more.".....De 5:22" These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: AND HE ADDED NO MORE. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me." The supernatural phenomena attending the proclamation of the ten commandments terrified the people so much that they begged Moses to ask the Lord to speak no more, lest they perish. As a result, God commanded Moses "De 5:30 Go say to them, Get you into your tents again. 5:31 But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, AND THE STATUTES AND THE JUDGEMENTS, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it." This second body of law, which Moses was instructed to give to the people, consisted of many ordinances apart from the ten commandments. Deuteronomy 4:13 tells us that "De 4:13 And he declared unto you HIS COVENANT, which he commanded you to perform, even TEN COMMANDMENTS; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." In the next verse Deut 4:14, it says "De 4:14 AND THE LORD COMMANDED ME AT THAT TIME TO TEACH YOU STATUTES AND JUDGEMENTS, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.". So the ten commandments were given directly to the people by God, and the "statutes and judgements" were given to the people by God through Moses. The bible recognizes a clear distinction between the ten commandment law and the law consisting of "statutes and ordinances" that God gave through Moses. God says in 2 Kings 21:8 "2ki 21:8 Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I HAVE COMMANDED THEM, and according to all the law that my servant MOSES COMMANDED THEM." Also..........2 Chronicles 3:8 says "2ch 33:8 Neither will I any more remove the foot of Israel from out of the land which I have appointed for your fathers; so that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law AND the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses." It is clear to see that there is a distinction between the covenant or commandments of God and the statutes and judgements(ordinances) by the hand of Moses. The law consisting of statutes and ordinances given to Moses was voluminous and written in book form By Moses. The writing of it required considerable time, and it was not all done in one sitting. Also...as I had mentioned before...the covenant was kept separate from the book of the law......1 Kings 8:9 tells us that at a later time, the only thing inside of the ark were the ten commandments. "1kings 8:9 There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt." 2ch 5:10 confirms this " There was nothing in the ark save the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of Egypt."...So whatever had previously been in the ark with the tablets of stone was removed at a later time. The body of laws that Moses wrote by God's direction for the administration of the Hebrew theocracy consisted of civil statutes for the prevention of social injustice, the control of sanitation, the preservation of health, and laws pertaining to the earthly sanctuary, the priesthood, the religious services with their attendant rites and sacrifices, and the various festivals to be observed throughout the year. A large portion of them formed what is commonly referred to as the ceremonial law. Many pertained to things ritually and prophetically foreshadowed various aspects of Christ's work for the redemption of man. For example, the animal sacrifices pointed forward to the death of Christ as the "lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." The sacrifice of the Passover lamb represented "Christ, our paschal lamb, who was "sacrificed:...I Cor 5:7. When the Saviour died on the cross at about the hour of the evening sacrifice, the veil of the temple was rent in two, from top to bottom..The significance of this was that at Christ's death type met antitype and there was no longer any need for an earthly sanctuary with its ordinances and rituals....Daniel 9:27 tells us that He would cause the "sacrifice and oblation to cease".Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Sorry for the lengthy post!!!! It always ends up being more than I intentionally started out with. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 128 Registered: 7-2004 |
Just as the law that was spoken by God contained a combination of elements that were moral in nature and other elements that foreshadowed Christ, so did the 10 Commandments. The Sabbath foreshadowded the rest that would come in Christ (Heb 4:1-11) Heb 4 NASB 1 Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST," although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS"; 5 and again in this passage, "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST." 6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS." 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. 9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. 11 Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience. The Sabbath day was a foreshadowing of the free gift of salvation. We can rest in Christ for our righteousness rather than "working" for it. It is clear from this passage that Israel didn't enter God's rest through keeping the 7th Day. They could only have entered by trusting and resting in God's grace. SDAs frequently ask why it isn't OK to steal and OK to murder but it is OK to ignore the 7th day Sabbath. This is the reason. It was a promise of the grace that would come through Christ. Now that the Lord has come, the shadow is no longer needed. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 129 Registered: 7-2004 |
The ability to rest in the gift of God's grace is utterly foreign to those who are in a church teaching that our own effort is an important part of salvation. The IJ is premised on our effort. While the popularity of the phrase "Do your best and God will take care of the rest" has diminished within SDAism in recent years, the doctrinal beliefs behind that phrase remain. EGW's statements on the topic clearly demonstrate the belief in "our effort" rather than our resting in His work.
Not only must we have characters that are perfect, but "it is left to us to remedy" our sinfulness. If this isn't a clear demonstration of works based salvation, I don't know what is.
Until someone has broken totally free from the influence of their works forming any part of their salvation, the rest described in Hebrews 4 will be elusive. Like Israel before them, they might "keep the day" while never entering the rest. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 131 Registered: 7-2004 |
John, this is from a post I had made several months ago, but applies just as much to your comments. I hope no one mind me reposting parts of this post: As SDAs we had always been taught just as you spoke today. That there were two laws, one moral (i. e. the Ten Commandments) and one ceremonial (feasts, sacrifices, and such). And that Col 2:14 spoke of nailing the ceremonial to the cross due to Christ's fulfillment of the shadow seen in the sacrificial system and feasts (granted a growing number of SDA theologians are disagreeing with this understanding of Col 2:14; but since EGW applied that understanding it is hard for the SDA church to abandon it completely. Nor is it the only verse that I am discussing here as part of understanding the nature of "Law" in Paul's writings.) A careful look at Col 2:13-14 makes it clear that it could not be the ceremonial law being spoken of here. Col 2:13-14 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. One's transgressions could never relate to the ceremonial aspects of the law. Our debt that was cancelled is based on our sinfulness. Is sinfulness established by the ceremonial statements in the law? Hardly, only the moral commandments in the law could establish our sinfulness. Therefore these verses can not be speaking of nailing the "ceremonial law" to the cross. What is the Scriptural basis you use for splitting the law into moral and ceremonial? I have never been able to find one. What Law did Paul suggest he had died to in Gal 2? Again using "ceremonial" here doesn't allow the link to "sinnners" and is realy weak if trying to talk about 'justified by works of the Law". Gal 2:16-19 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! "For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. And while I could probably continue on this topic for pages, I will end with some questions from Galations 3. Gal 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. Does this tell us the Law is eternal, or specific in time? Clearly Abraham understood conducting sacrifices, so it seems odd to suggest that the Law referred to here is just ceremonial. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. 19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. 21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. When we speak about righteousness coming from keeping the law, we generally take that to mean moral righteousness rather than something ceremonial. But arguing for a split law, in which only part has been done away with, would require that this is the ceremonial law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. In what way is the law a tutor leading us to Christ? Is it because the Law shows us our sinfulness (think Romans)? In which case, this can't be just ceremonial. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. | ||
| Truthseeker2004 Registered user Username: Truthseeker2004 Post Number: 52 Registered: 12-2004 |
Ric.Always interesting to here your own spin or interpretation of what YOU say the bible says....I should get used to the fact that any responses here are deflected so far from the intended topic that the answers never make any sense. ....If you consider resting on the sabbath "working for it"...then I can certainly understand why you left adventism..Your thinking is all wrong, and you, my friend were the one who lost sight of what living in God's grace really means. Living in His grace is a perfect balance....God supplies our every need...His love and grace is sufficient for us.....and we walk in His will.....His will is not for us to see Him as some wishy washy Deity that overlooks our habitual sins and says "well..its ok for them to sin as much as they want...my grace will cover it..God wants us to be fully...100% yielded to His will...not some lukewarm benchwarming people who feel all fuzzy and warm inside..relying on emotions as opposed to walking in faith. My wife and I enjoy the sabbath and find it so much more pleasurable than when we rested on sundays, as we did for most of our lives...Don't ask me why because we have asked ourselves and have no clue...so we just enjoy His rest when we have that one day a week to set everything aside...If you lost your joy, by attaining righteousness through your own works, then that is between you and God... dont go accusing everyone else in the sda church of doing the same because you don't stand in judgement of each soul...There are alot of people who rest on the sabbath in God's grace...but you seem to think that anyone who chooses to rest on the bible sabbath is attaining salvation by works... Again..as usual..you formers start spouting ellen white again rather than sticking to the bible and the bible only..as I presented to you this morning..You all have a hatred and obsession with the sda church..yet say at the same time that you are free from it and living in grace....if you are truly "free" from the sda church..then why do you still read and refer to their publications? It should not be surprising that God's people today show Him the same lack of respect due Him...The Israelites did the same thing...One moment they were terrified of the Lord who was giving them His covenant...and the next they were setting up an idol to worship their own false perceptions of who they thought God should be. | ||
| Truthseeker2004 Registered user Username: Truthseeker2004 Post Number: 53 Registered: 12-2004 |
You quoted from Colossians: Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Paul wrote the above statement to the church at Colosse concerning the mission of Christ. What exactly does Paul mean when he speaks of the "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross? Does it mean the ten commandment law was nailed to the cross, and that the Christian is free to worship other gods, adore and serve senseless images,profane the name of God, desecrate His sanctified day of rest, dishonor and disobey their parents, murder their fellow men, steal what belongs to them,commit adultery and fornication, lie and deceive and cove what belongs to someone else? I doubt any of us would agree that Paul is saying that!! The new testament teachings concerning the law of God are very plain. Paul decalres that " where no law is, there is no transgression," and that "sin is not imputed when there is no law"(Rom 4:15,5:13)....In harmony with that doctrine, John writes "Whoesoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law:for sin is the transgression of the law"...To sin is to do something that God forbids by law, "for by the law is the knowledge of sin"(Rom 3:20).......God's law was given to regulate man's realtionship with his Creator and his fellow man. Paul answers the question, What law regulates man's relationship to God and man?.. "I had not known sin, but by the law:for I had not known lust, except the law had said,Thou shalt not covet".Romans 7:7........Here the apostle quotes the tenth commandment of the decalogue to show that it is the law of the ten commandments that we transgress when we sin. James teaches the same truth:Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." In this passage the apostle quotes the sixth and seventh precepts of the 10 commandments, showing that the law men violate when they comit sin is the decalogue.The law of the ten commandments is not "against us" or "contrary to us".......It was given for our good. It was for this reason Paul states after referring to the tenth commandment of the moral law..."Ro 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." In emphasizing the need of fulfilling our moral obligations to our fellow men, Paul shows that such is the duty required of us by God in the 10 comm....He says "Ro 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. Ro 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Ro 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Christ's mission was to save men, not from obedience to God's law, but from sin, which is the transgression of it. Like the angel said in Matthew "Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." The plan of redemption under the new covenant shows that it was never enough for God's people to have His precepts written merely on tables of stone. for His promise is "Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.." Because this is true..Paul then asks the rhetorical question"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Rather than making God's law void, faith in Christ establishes it in the mind and heart of the repentant sinner, who, forgiven and cleansed of his gulit, is led to live in obedience to the divine will. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 132 Registered: 7-2004 |
My indictments about SDA doctrine are directed towards the teachings of the church, not towards the salvation of any individual person.
IF you spent any time reading posts by the various participants here you will have seen that I have been a defender of people who choose to continue worshipping on Sabbath. I only disagree with those who promote that it is a Biblical requirement for everyone.
The EGW quotes were to demonstrate the teachings underlying the SDA church. As long as the SDA church maintains that EGW's writings are an authoritative source of truth, her writings reflect what the SDA church believes. What you fail repeatedly to address are the many Biblical arguments that we formers have posted to your statements. Any objective look at my 3 posts above should see an abundance of Biblical quotes. And a focus on passages, rather than single verse proof texts. You question whether we are "free" from the SDA church. I think the answer is "yes" and "no". I think that is one of the reasons for this site. The cult-like beliefs and practices of the SDA church have a lasting emotional influence on people even after they come to understand the doctrinal errors. The chance to discuss these experiences with other who have similar experiences provides an opportunity to better understand our own experiences. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 133 Registered: 7-2004 |
John, Allow me several posts to discuss each of the points that you have made.
But you fail to answer the most basic question that I asked, how is it possible that the ceremonial is against us. As I said in my previous post--One's transgressions could never relate to the ceremonial aspects of the law. Our debt that was cancelled is based on our sinfulness. Is sinfulness established by the ceremonial statements in the law? | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 134 Registered: 7-2004 |
Continued Response--
SDAs are so consistent about using proof texts without regard to their context. Letís look at the context of Rom 3:20 for example (of which you only quote a part of the verse in your proof). We will find that faith is being compared (dare I say contrasted) to the works of the Law: Rom 3 NASB 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Next letís look at the context of the partial verse you quoted from Romans 4, which when read in context is making the point that the promise was not based on the Law. 13For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. And next Romans 5, where the context is a comparison of sin entering all men through Adam (even though the Law didnít exist) and grace entering through Jesus Christ. The disobedience of Adam is contrasted with the obedience of Christ. 12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinnedó13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. When SDAs quote snippets of texts strung together, their argument sounds so compelling and so Biblical. When these same texts are read along with the texts surrounding them, it becomes clear that they are being ripped away from their context to support the doctrines of SDAs. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 135 Registered: 7-2004 |
Continued
So interesting that you would quote part of verse 7, but ignore what prompts the questions in verse 6. And you twisted the question that Paul asked. What he asked rhetorically was whether the law itself was sin. And Paul points out the Law showed him what sin was. But by changing Paulís question, you give a different meaning to his answer. 6But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. 7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
Perhaps we should look at the verses in James 2 leading up to your quote (at least you finally quote a full verse rather than a snippet). James 2 is about showing partiality. James says that if we show partiality we have sinned. We have broken the royal law (vs 8). The 10 Commandments do not make it a sin to show partiality, but James does here based on Jesus commandment to love one another. James 2 NASB 1 My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. 2 For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes,3 and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, "You sit here in a good place," and you say to the poor man, "You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool," 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? 5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? 7 Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called? 8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well. 9But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. |
