| Author | Message | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 499 Registered: 7-2004  |
Pheeki, This topic was recently discussed on the "Ellen White revisited" thread, found here: http://rtinker.powweb.com/discus/discus/messages/11/4417.html?1151577484#POST58116 | ||
| Pheeki Registered user Username: Pheeki Post Number: 806 Registered: 1-2003 |
oops...sorry!!! | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1826 Registered: 3-2005 |
Dennis, Thanks for posting that Greg Bahnsen article. Here is just a small excerpt: "When God promulgated His moral will through the Mosaic law, how much of mankind did He consider accountable to keep that law? From Paul's standpoint the answer was obvious: "Now we know that whatever things the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped and all the world maybe brought under the judgment of God" (Romans 3:19), God declared His righteous standards to Israel, and through Israel to all the world, thereby stopping every mouth and bringing all men, Jew and Gentile alike, under judgment. "Whatever things the law says," therefore, it says to the whole of mankind. Precisely for this reason Paul could "lay to the charge both of Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.... There is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (vv. 11,23). Considering the nature of God and the nature of His righteous standards, the preceding Pauline perspective ought to be self-evident to us as Christians. But we live in a confused day where even the obvious is obscure to many believers. Theological opinions are poorly thought out or accepted with little thought at all. Viewpoints which would have bewildered the apostles are conveyed and readily endorsed as gospel truth in churches and Christian organizations all the time -including the idea that God's law was never intended for the Gentile world. Such thinking solicits scrutiny". Dennis, that is just what we need to hear today. Even though Christians live by the New Covenant of grace, we must emphasize to the sinner what he is being saved from. The whole integrity of the penal substitution atonement that the bible clearly teaches is that we serve a Holy and righteous God. He takes His moral law very seriously. Sin is a stench in the nostrils of a Holy God. All of us have broken God's law. The whole discourse of Paul from Romans 1 through Romans 3 is all about how the world stands condemned before a Holy God. But then--Righteousness, the good news of the gospel!! Greg, Thanks for your post. I don't think Paul in Titus 3:9 : "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, becasue these are unprofitable and useless" (Titus 3:9). was talking about how we use the Law to evangelize the unsaved who are still under the law of sin and condemnation. I believe this topic is of extreme importance, especially when it comes to evangelizing the lost sinner, but also in being able to point out to SDAs that even though they think they are keeping the fourth commandment, they are really not keeping it at all. Plus, SDAs have no regard for the second commandment, as this commandment even prohibits pictures of God. No one keeps the decalogue. We are all under condemnation except for the gospel of grace. Praise the Lord for His deliverance through the gospel! Soli Deo Gloria, Stan | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 270 Registered: 7-2005  |
I cannot understand: because Christ fulfilled the Sabbath, it's not a sin to break the sabbath. The fourth commandment no longer has the function to point sin. Are we going to point people's sin by using the law as a contemporary tool of revealing sin, but at the same time saying "If you break the fourth commandment, you are innocent"? | ||
| Jerry Registered user Username: Jerry Post Number: 492 Registered: 6-2002 |
If you are under the Law of Christ, you are no longer under the Law of Sin and Death. You cannot "break" a law that does not apply to you. If you kill someone does that reflect the love of Christ? No. No matter on what day it happens it is of the flesh and sin. If you worship God on all days, but gather with others to worship together on Tuesdays, does that mean you must hate God on Saturday? I don't think so. Again, you cannot "break" a law that does not apply to you. And yet, the Sabbath shows how those who were under the Law could not even keep a command to REST on one day per week. We must rest in Christ. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 568 Registered: 7-2004  |
Would we need to conclude that those who do not rest in Christ's finished work, but try to add their own efforts, are "breaking" the New Covenant application of sabbath? If you are not "in Christ" does the law of Christ apply to you? Can you be expected to live by the Spirit if you haven't been born again of water and the Spirit? I agree with Colleen that people can be led to understand their sin and their need for a Savior with using the law. I think we should approach it much like Paul. For those who know and talk about the Ten Commandments, use the law to discuss how we all have sinned and need a Savior. To those who have never been around teaching of the law, turning to the Ten Commandments might make no sense at all. My point was that we shouldn't be afraid to use the law as a tool of evangelism, not that it was the only tool. | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 110 Registered: 1-2004  |
To say that the 10 commandments were intended for Gentiles to keep goes against alot of what I thought was the basis for us not keeping the Sabbath today. I thought there was a distinction between what God expected of Jews and what God expected of Gentiles. At least in Jewish thought? Or was it that before Christ, you had to become a Jew in order to be saved. Jeremiah | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 770 Registered: 4-2000  |
Jacob, The weekly Sabbath never was a moral law--even under the Old Covenant (see Lev. 23 for a listing of the seven, ceremonial convocations given to "the sons of Israel"). Importantly, moral laws are in effect 24/7, every nanosecond of time--not just once a year, season, month, week, or even hour. The right use of the Law today does not include the ceremonial laws of Moses. Since the law of Christ is written on the hearts of the saved and the Holy Spirit does not indwell the lost, the external law of Moses (although vastly insufficient in light of the law of Christ) is an effective evangelistic tool in leading an unbeliever to trust in Jesus Christ. The Decalogue provides a simple, basic list of moral obligations. For true seekers, this well-known "ministry of death" is an effective catylst to bring the unconverted to their knees in their desperate need of a Savior and Substitute. Once the Law has led us to Christ, it has done its job. Paul declares, "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law" (Gal. 5:18 NASB). However, if we continue to depend upon the law of Moses as a moral guide, this shows that the Law has not completed its work in us; specifically, to lead us to Jesus and to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Once in Christ, the Holy Spirit then becomes our moral compass that leads us into all truth and convicts us of all sin. "Under law, a man works in order to be accepted by God. Under grace, a man serves because he is ALREADY accepted by God!...Law and grace are opposing principles; they cannot be mixed. When you try to mingle the two, you find that you have ruined both of them: Law is robbed of its terror and condemnation; grace is robbed of its freedom and joy. You end up with a gray no-man's-land where neither can produce that for which it was created...Law is the realm of what you EARN by your peformance. Grace is the realm of receiving a FREE gift. How could you ever mingle the two?" (Excerpts from CLASSIC CHRISTIANITY by Bob George; pp. 124, 132) In awe of His grace, Dennis Fischer | ||
| Randyg Registered user Username: Randyg Post Number: 215 Registered: 12-2004 |
Dennis, thank-you for that insightful post. Again, reaffirmation of the good news of the Gospel. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 569 Registered: 7-2004 |
Excellent post Dennis. Thank you. | ||
| Dinolf Registered user Username: Dinolf Post Number: 47 Registered: 8-2005 |
I found a quote from the Amazing Fact website. This is the point of Doug Batchelor: Quote: "Q. Can somebody be truly saved if they don't keep the Ten Commandments? Can a person be saved without keeping the Ten Commandments? The answer is yes. Of course, there are going to be many people saved, and no one is saved by keeping any law. We are saved by grace alone. However, at the same time, nobody will be saved who willingly disobeys. The Bible says, "If we continue to sin willfully after we know the truth, then there is no sacrifice for sins" (Hebrew 10:26). So at that point it is open rebellion against God. And how can God accept that into heaven?" End of quote. So what is the fruits of a advice like this? Fear? Who can stand against a argument like that without a bad conscience? Is there any love involved for the rebellious person? Is there any reference to the new covenent and the law of Christ? Who it the person that can tell what people God want in Heaven? Who have the mandate to tell the "facts" of the Bible? What will be the focus of mission for the people saved by Batchelors advice - selfcentered or...? During the coming weekend I will meet people who are feed by a message in the Batchelor direction. Any advice would be helpful what is the easiest way to express the point that God is not that kind of God that Batchelor describe! Thanks Dinolf | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 138 Registered: 10-2002  |
Hi Dinolf, For Adventism (and other law-based Christians), the question always at the forefront of their religious life seems to be "to obey or not to obey"... life is all about the law. Either you be good, or you sin. The problem is that there is something wrong, something far deeper inside of us, something that wants to sin. You can know all the right stuff to do, and still something inside will want to do wrong and will enjoy it. That is sin, and that is the problem. And that is why Jesus died and set us free. But not only did Jesus die, He also nailed the Law to the cross in Himself. In Himself---in other words, He kept the Law perfectly for us. He passed the test for us! He is our righteousness (Jeremiah 23 & 33) It is His obedience that gets us into heaven and makes us saved. (My friend Haroldo Camacho wrote a good example of that, and I made a picture of it here: http://art-for-jesus.blogspot.com/2005/06/champion.html ) The Ten Commandments were part of a Covenant that God made with Israel (Exodus 34:29, Deuteronomy 4:13, etc.)... an old covenant that was made in order to show the Israelites they were unable to be perfect, they were unable to be good (this is the message of Galatians 3 and Romans 7). The Ten were not an eternal standard that God placed at the gates of heaven. There are higher moral principles than the 10 (love your neighbor, love your enemy, etc.), but again, the only one who truly passed the test was Jesus Christ, and He passed it on our behalf. He was our representative in the New Covenant! I'm praying for you and those whom you'll be talking to... let them know that Jesus passed the test for them. It's all about Him. Some will have trouble believing that because they'll want to rush onto asking "Well, then can I go out and keep sinning?" But that's not the point at all. Whether you go out and be perfect or go out and sin, neither will be good enough for you to get into heaven (and you can't be perfect anyway). The Christian life is one that realizes Christ is our life---we have no other plea but the blood of Jesus Christ. The true Sabbath-rest is when you lay down your works---not only your bad works, but especially your good works which you think will help you become more loved by God. Sabbath-rest means you rest in Jesus' finished work. Just like at creation, He finished the work and put us in the Garden. Now once again, He has finished all the good works necessary for our salvation, and we enter His Garden (paradise!) by no merit of our own. He has done it! What did "work" mean to Adam & Eve? They didn't have to labor and toil like we do now---there were no thorns, no thistles, no need for a fire, money, or anything we find indispensible today. Their "work" is something entirely different than our "work". In the same way, the "work" God calls us to do after salvation is something that we cannot imagine prior to entering His rest (that is, prior to giving up the hopes that our good works will endear us to Him). Until we truly let go of our works and rest in Him, we will still be "working" to "get into Eden" instead of letting Him take us there and teach us what His works for us are really like. We must fully enter and understand Step #1 (resting in His righteousness alone) before we can even begin to understand Step #2 (the works He calls us to do, and how to live in the power of the Spirit which conquers sin in our lives). Blessings in Him! Ramone | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4259 Registered: 12-2003  |
Great insight, Ramone! Dinolf, Batchelor's answer is confusion. Adventists use that Hebrews passage to make a case for the necessity of Sabbath-keeping. Yet that passage is not about Sabbath-keepingóor about the lawóat all. It is referring to rejecting the sacrifice of Jesus. This passage is talking about people like those in the Matthew 13 parable of the sower and the seeds. The seeds that landed on rocky ground sprang up and looked like healthy plants, but they withered and died in the heat because they had not roots. Judas was such a man. When a person dabbles with Jesus, is drawn to Him and is drawn to the fellowship of believersóbut does not submit his entire life to Jesus, he has a divided heart. He is not submitting Himself to the Holy Spirit' transformation and to the new heart He brings. He has an intellectual assent to the gospel, but not a true submission to Jesus. These kinds of peopleówho claim Jesus and experience His power as Judas didóyet refuse to surrender the parts of themselves the Holy Spirit nudges them to surrenderóthere is no sacrifice for sin for these people. This verse isn't talking about law-keeping. It's talking about sumbission and obedience to Christ. Adventism typically does not make this distinction. Because they insist on holding onto the law, they can't even see that issue is not lawóit's Jesus. Jesus has completely fulfilled and replaced the law in our lives. The Hebrews warnings are about rejecting Him and His nudges to us to obey. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1844 Registered: 3-2005 |
Judas is a great example of so many today who are found in churches, who partake of the things of the spirit, and the blessings, but, they have never been born again. An unregenerate man can never submit or surrender any part of their lives to Christ, because they are spiritually dead. That Hebrews 10:26 passage is definitely misunderstood, but Doug Batchelor is not unique in his interpretation. I have heard the same arguments used in my previous non-SDA church that I attended, but other churches where this is taught don't emphasize the Sabbath commandment the way Batchelor does. But, techically, Batchelor's quote above: "Can a person be saved without keeping the Ten Commandments? The answer is yes. Of course, there are going to be many people saved, and no one is saved by keeping any law. We are saved by grace alone. However, at the same time, nobody will be saved who willingly disobeys. The Bible says, "If we continue to sin willfully after we know the truth, then there is no sacrifice for sins" (Hebrew 10:26). So at that point it is open rebellion against God. And how can God accept that into heaven?" This statement is still within the broad definition of orthodoxy that exists today, and that is why Batchelor's radio program is carried on so many evangelical radio stations today. I don't see the above statement as being true to the Biblical gospel. But it is true, that when a person is truly born again, our hearts are changed miraculously to want to obey God. So those who willfully disobey continuously are probaly not born again. Batchelor represents a lot of theological teaching out there today, that is not Biblically precise, and is confused. A lot of people don't understand that the new birth is something God does miraculously, and when His spirit is joined to our spirit-we become part of the bride of Christ. And "what God has joined together, let man not put asunder". We are permanently His! Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4266 Registered: 12-2003 |
The problem I have with Batchelor's statement is not the literal statement. It's that I KNOW what underlies the statement. It is another obfucation of the double-talk that says "We are saved by grace through faith alone" all the while saying to those already inside "You must keep yourself in Jesus' hands and obey his law, or you prove you are not saved." This command always includes the Sabbathóand the often unspoken belief there is that the Sabbath is linked to being "safe to save". Batchelor sounds almost innocuous when he makes his statement above, but he doesn't mean what the rest of Christianity thinks he means. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1375 Registered: 10-2004  |
What bothers and frustrates me is that Batchelor in the quote above and other SDAs (especially those wanting to be thought of as "evangelical") will give you the Christian-sounding answer first, and then give you the contradictory Adventist answer. First, he says that we are saved by grace alone, not by keeping the commandments. Then, he says that we have to keep the commandments in order to be accepted into heaven and be saved. Of course, what he really means is that those who have not "had the light" of the Ten Commandments will be saved without keeping them. But "nobody will be saved who willingly disobeys" (meaning those who "have the light" about the Ten Commandments and still don't keep them). Also, did you notice that he just makes up his own translation? The verse doesn't even say what he says it says. Especially the part that he deletes from the verse near the end is significant and alters the meaning of the text. I agree, Colleen, that Christians listening to him say something like that probably would not understand what he is really saying. It is totally a false gospel of salvation by works, though, and especially from the context of that verse people should be able to realize that what he is teaching is false. The context of this verse is so important, as Chuck Smith points out in his commentary on this passage: "v.26-29 These verses should be read carefully. Verse 29 defines "willful sin." The only sin that will condemn a man is the sin against God's love and His provision for our salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross (Matthew 12:31,32; 26:39; 7:14; John 10:7; 14:6) The only sacrifice God will accept for our sins is the sacrifice He prepared for us in Jesus. We need only to accept the sacrifice of Jesus as our salvation." (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/chuck_smith/sg/hebrews.html) Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on July 06, 2006) | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 127 Registered: 11-2005 |
Stan - you said, "But it is true, that when a person is truly born again, our hearts are changed miraculously to want to obey God. So those who willfully disobey continuously are probaly not born again." Adventists use this same argument for keeping the law. If we know the "truth", and are truly born again, then we will want to follow the truth and therefore not disobey the Commandments. If our actions do not fall in line with the Commandments, then we have to question our "born again" experience. There are lots of people in my life right now who not only question whether I've been "born again", but actually think that I'm bordering on the unpardonable sin. About a month ago, I was told, "Grace, honestly I'm worried about you. Hanging onto those 'cherished sins' [breaking the Sabbath], will ultimately be eternally devastating for you because by doing so, you are continually choosing to ignore the truth." Adventists have no concept of what it's like to follow the Spirit rather than a list. They can't grasp what it's like to be sensitive to the Spirit, and what it's like to be guided by the Spirit to obedience. All in all, I don't believe they trust the "Spirit" at all, and would be scared of it if really confronted by the Holy Spirit. Following the Law is so much more impersonal and takes little to no faith. In a sense, it's easier. Deceptively easier, but in reality depressing when you realize how hard it really is, and impossible by our "own might". As time goes on, I grow more and more frustrated with the deception of Adventism. My heart breaks for those still under it's hold. They don't realize how much they are missing out on. | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 553 Registered: 8-2004  |
Amen Snowboardingmom! | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1845 Registered: 3-2005 |
Grace, There is a big difference in what I said and meant, than what Doug Batchelor and your SDA friends and family are saying. I believe the Bible teaches that we are born again by a miraculous act of the Holy Spirit. Our hearts of stone are turned into hearts of flesh. We are new creations in Christ. Once we become members of His family, he changes our hearts, He changes our wills, and as we walk according to the new way of the spirit, and not of the old way of the written code, it will be our desire to obey the law of Christ. But our obedience springs from the fact that we are already eternally saved. We obey not to keep our salvation, but because we are saved and we want to please God. In Adventism, and some other legalistic churches, there is the gospel of fear and guilt. For example in traditional Adventism, salvation is taught as a process. If we don't reach a certain standard of righteousness, then we may lose our salvation when the "Investigative Judgment" starts. This doctrine causes fear and guilt, and as we talked about last Friday, guilt is not from God. Now when your SDA friends and family say you are lost because you are not keeping the Sabbath, then point them to the book of Galatians where the apostle Paul condemns this "gospel" in no uncertain terms. Also show them Col 2:16,17 and Romans 14:5,6. I have had to re-read these scriptures many times. Shortly after I left Adventism, I also had these kind of challenges, and doubts would come to my mind, but when those doubts came, I was glad that those scriptures were still there, in addition to Ephesians, and Hebrews. Hebrews 9 and 10 are two chapters that absolutely disprove the SDA false doctrine of 1844, and the IJ. If those doctrines are proven false, then the Sabbath doctrine--which is tied directly in EGW's visions of the sanctuary--can also be shown to be false. Stan | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 128 Registered: 11-2005 |
Stan, I know you what you said and meant was different from my SDA friends and family. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were saying the same thing. I completely agree with you. I was just using an example of how, once again, Adventists and evangelical Christians can use the same words, but actually have totally different meanings behind them. For instance, I can see my Adventist friends nodding at your above statement, "But our obedience springs from the fact that we are already eternally saved. We obey not to keep our salvation, but because we are saved and we want to please God." I completely agree 100% with your comment, but my Adventist friends would say they agree too. It basically comes down to a difference in believing 'what we obey'. Recent Adventism (although the core is still the same), has become a lot more subtle. What I hear now vs what I heard growing up sounds a lot more evangelical. But when you get to the meaning behind their evangelical words and phrases, you see how it's the same old false gospel coming through. I actually worry more about young people growing up in "today's" Adventism rather than "old school" Adventism. Had I grown up under Southern CA influence (which is far more "loose" in their theology than MI), or in the seemingly evangelical youth groups and new approach to reach young people (which seems to be present all over the US, not just liberal CA), I think I wouldn't have been as motivated to leave the Adventist church because it wouldn't have seemed to be that big of a deal. Even with it being glaringly obvious -- I still struggled! How much harder would it have been to hear the evangelical side of Adventism? Then you add the fact that the Clear Word Bible is being used more in the SDA church schools, and...oh boy! It's bad enough I sometimes can't tell whether a "fact" is from the Bible or EGW's writings. How much more confusing will it be for those when all they know is from the "Bible"? It's frightening... |
