| Author |
Message |
Grace_alone
Registered user
Username: Grace_alone
Post Number: 251
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 5:47 pm: |     |
Denise and Susan, thanks for the info! I've had a real yearning lately to dig into a deep Bible study, but wasn't sure which way to go. I'll go into the site and see if I can join up.
 Leigh Anne |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 2213
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 5:56 pm: | |
Dennis,
Thanks for the perspective that you brought in your last post.
As Paul said the Law is holy, just and good in Romans 7.
Once I realized that the Sabbath is clearly a ceremonial law meant only for Jews, then it is easy to agree that the Decalogue carries basic moral imperatives that are binding on all mankind.
But it can be clearly shown that the Sabbath is ceremonial in Leviticus 23 as well as in Numbers 15 where the Sabbath breaker was stoned to death.
Susan,
You indicated that you go to a PCA church. One big reason I stayed away from that church for years despite an affinity to Reformed theology, was the issue of Covenant theology and the Law. I am finding that there is no obstacle here on this issue. The doctrines of sovereign grace are so overwhelming that obedience to God becomes a joy, rather than a burden as it did in in Adventism.
Stan |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 853
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 7:36 pm: | |
Susan,
Thank you for your comments. Yes, there are many other moral laws in the Torah besides those in the Decalogue as you correctly cited several of them. The Ten Commandments were not a sufficient moral compass for the Jews. If the Ten Commandments are really a SUMMARY of the 613 laws of the Torah, as Adventist apologists claim, then they would need to contain a ceremonial law as well. Therefore, it should not surprise anyone to find a ceremonial law in the very center of the Decalogue. Moral laws are in effect 24/7 (every nanosecond of time), and not merely once a year, season, month, or week. In other words, moral laws never cease being in effect. They never take a break. Furthermore, the Fourth Commandment contains a sacrificial element that the other nine commandments do not have. True Sabbath observance involves sacrificing animals.
You are correct in stating that we are under the New Covenant and not under the Old Covenant. However, the timeless, sacred moral laws have been transferred from one covenant to another throughout redemptive history. Moral laws are a part of God's holy character. Of course, all the covenants of grace involve the same Triune God. Consequently, we see both the commonalities and the distinctives between them. Yes, Jesus expanded some commandments, but the basic foundational commandment remained in place (i.e., murder is still murder, stealing is still stealing, et cetera). Wow, it has been many years since we exchanged biblical ideas. It is encouraging to see you love the Lord more than ever.
A former North Carolinian,
Dennis Fischer
|
U2bsda
Registered user
Username: U2bsda
Post Number: 295
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 8:20 pm: | |
One thing to consider whether or not one believes the moral laws of the OT transferred to the NT is that the Holy Spirit resides within a believer. People in the OT did not have this. They needed written principles to follow because they had no guidance from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit within a believer will convict of sin and teach us all things. Murder, of course, is wrong. But having the Holy Spirit within a believer takes that law and blows it out of the water. As a Christian the Holy Spirit will not only convict us that murder is wrong, but that we should not hate our brother. It goes from obeying the letter of the law to having a heart of love. Love in essense covers all moral principles. If you love your brother you will not murder or commit adultery or steal.
I believe the New Covenant has opened up a new way - the way of love. Love goes far beyond keeping moral principles. Love is God's will in action. |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 447
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 8:34 pm: | |
Dennis, I agree with what you wrote wholly. I want to quickly vent on one expression, but I want you to know before I do that I agree with what you wrote and my vent isn't about what you wrote really...
Okay, what is with this idea throughout Christendom--particularly Christendom that is not very educated about the New Covenant--what is with this idea of "moral laws" being "God's holy character"?
In Adventism (before leaving) I began to grow so, so sick of hearing "The Ten Commandments are the character of God", and I wondered where in the world people got that idea!
Yes, God is holy. Yes, He is perfect. Yes, He is holy and different from us. But why do we continue to define His "character" by the Law---and I mean "moral laws"? In other words, why do we continue to define His character by "sin"???
The New Testament tells us, so, so so much more! God is LOVE! Agape love! God is the One who invades the unholy world. He is the One who is so holy that He HEALS those who touch Him. He is the One who forgives! He is the One who became sin so that we might become the righteousness of God!
Surely these things are also "His character"??
Come now, when we think of "God's character" and think "morality", aren't we thinking less like the Father and more like the older brother in the prodigal son story?
We talk about "moral laws" when policing others, and we do it as if we know the "character of God". Yet we seem at times almost wholly unfamiliar with the Father! We define His character by "do not" and by "sin", but my goodness, isn't this a tad bit shy of completely missing His true charcter? And isn't it a tad bit askew of our mission to love all as Christ has loved us?
Yes, He hates sin. But my goodness, I would hate to have people think they know "my character" simply by listing the things I hate or the things I "don't do"... they would not know "me" at all!
I trace all this back to our old practice of focusing on the Law, on the Ten Commandments. We find it easier to focus on "do not". We were all born legalists. (And Satan is a legalist, too!) We were all born seeing sin. "Do not" is the language of the Law. And at times it is necessary. But my goodness, "do not" spells out more of the character of SIN than it does of God's character.
What is God's character? God's character is one that does not overlook sin. Yes, He is holy. He is set apart. He is pure. But this God, this GOD of ours! He doesn't leave things that way! No, He bridges the gap! He sent His Son to bear the penalty for our sins! To touch the unholy and make them holy! This is our God's character!
End of rant. |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 856
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 9:34 pm: | |
U2,
The Spirit-led life does not shun or negate God's written Word. The Bible is God's voice speaking to us!
Agapetos,
Humankind is the living, personal image of God. The Lord longs for his people to live in his image, and to that end he has given them his holy, moral laws. Moral laws are not merely a reflection of God's essence, but they are an attribute of God Himself. The concept of law is seen nowhere more clearly than in the continuance throughout the Bible of the same pillars of true religion: grace and law. For the purpose of God remains the same, the obedience of his people, and it remains true that those who thus walk in the light find that the blood of Jesus Christ keeps cleansing them from all their sin.
Dennis Fischer |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4869
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 11:22 pm: | |
RK McGregor Wright wrote a wonderful article in the July/August Proclamation, 2005, called, "The Unity of the Law: What Was Nailed to the Cross?" You can access is here:http://rtinker.powweb.com/Proclamation2005_JulAug.pdf
In it he (a reformed theologian himself) describes the segmenting of the law into moral, civicl and ceremonial "sections" during the early centuries of the churchóaround the 4th century. This segmentation came as a consequence of the prevailing Greek philosophy that all literautre (including the Bible) has many "senses". Wright describes these "senses" and the porcess of segmenting and dissecting Scripture that occurred during those early years.
His point is exactly what many of us have also concluded: the Bible clearly teaches that the written law was nailed to the cross in the body of Jesus who was the Living Torah, or the Living Word. (Wright also explains that the meaning of the Hebrew word behind "Torah" has the same meaning as the Greek work Logos which underlies "word". Both represented God's seminal "word".)
When Jesus was crucified, the Law, or the Torah, was crucified in Him. On this side of the resurrection, we have the True Law living in usóthe Holy Spirit.
Lest anyone begin thinking, therefore, that one's morality is individual and subjective, Wright points out that as new covenant believers, we still have a written "guide" for moral behavior: the entire text of the New Testament. We are no longer under the lawónor do we look to the law for our moral compass. Now we look to Jesus, the true Word of God revealed to us by His Spirit indwelling us, and we learn from Him the meaning of true obedience and holy living from the text of the New Testament which interprets the Old.
Morality emanates from God Himself and is far more demanding and exact than the Law.
Praise God for Jesus!
Colleen
|
Susans
Registered user
Username: Susans
Post Number: 58
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 5:22 am: | |
Yes, Dennis, it has been many years and in those years I missed our conversations!
I do love the Lord more every day and love to obey the gospel as He fills me with His Spirit and shows me what pleases Him.
Thank you, Colleen, for placing into words exactly what I believe but could not express adequately.
Jesus is our all in all!
Susan |
Aliza
Registered user
Username: Aliza
Post Number: 33
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 6:06 am: | |
Colleen, you said so eloquently exactly what I've come to believe. I fear that part of the charge of being an antinomian comes from us not being able to clearly articulate what replaced the Torah. Partly, I believe it's because if you don't have a proper understanding of walking in the Spirit (and I most certainly didn't as SDA) then it appears that it's just an excuse to accept lawlessness.
I'm seeing more and more of you who are adhering to the Reformed faith. But I have to wonder how you adhere to something like the Westminster Confession and it's understanding of law when I find this type of statement:
VII. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him:[34] which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week: and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week,[35] which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day,[36] and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.[37]
Since this is becoming important as I'm looking for a congregation in my new area, I'm just wondering how this plays out in your local churches?
Aliza
|
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 595
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 6:17 am: | |
That's exactly why one of our criteria in looking for a church home was finding one that did not subscribe to the Westminster Confession.
In researching this, I found it interesting that the Augsburg Confession was written earlier than the Westminster Confession, and they actually "get it" that the Sabbath was for the Israelites, and as Christians we have freedom to worship any day, and do not have to "keep" any day. The reason that was so interesting to me is that a lot of people seem to think those with a New Covenant understanding have come up with some new interepretation. We didn't dream up some new, strange thing--it's right there in history (and the Bible!) |
Susans
Registered user
Username: Susans
Post Number: 62
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 6:33 am: | |
For myself, I have stated that I am not totally Calvinistic or Arminian, but that I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.
My husband and I are attending a PCA church now as a compromise between us. We find the Holy Spirit there and are edified by the pastor's sermons. We have only been going a couple of months, and I have not heard the idea of a "Christian Sabbath" talked about. So, I cannot say. I do know that we see many members of the church eating out afterwards (as we do) so how closely they bring the requirements over into the present is hard to say. I also had mentioned on another thread that neither my husband nor I agree on infant baptism, but both thought that was not an important thing for us, thinking if later in life that person actually was born again, there would be some sort of baptism. Perhaps not, and I will have to look at that as well.
I have to admit that I have not read the Westminster Confession and in this point I do not agree. I have not read it yet, because I have not considered at this time joining the PCA church.
I also have stated that I am not sure I could ever be a member of a church again. One of the reasons is the example just given. Thank you, Aliza, because I do not hold to the idea of a "Christian Sabbath".
It's certainly something to think about, and pray about, for me. I do not believe I'm at the end of my journey with the Lord. I do know that He will guide me, as I listen to His voice.
Susan
(Message edited by SusanS on October 30, 2006) |
Esther
Registered user
Username: Esther
Post Number: 356
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 12:30 pm: | |
I too have had the antinomian accusation directed towards me by an SDA pastor/relation. Although they go on to deduce that it's the direct result of gnosticism in our present age
I agree Aliza that maybe we can't always articulate the transcendents that happens between the old and new covenant. However, part of that inablility comes from Adventists who are in no way able to understand that there's life in the Spirit. No matter how many pages and pages of texts I used to promote Godly living from the NT, this person still believes that I'm "antinominan/gnostic" for my "disbelief" in the 10 c's. (and for those who might jump to my defense on the actual meaning/beliefs/origins of gnosticism, I've been through all that too. how I managed to get lumped into that group I have no idea...other than my belief of no 10c's) |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 858
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 12:37 am: | |
It is important to notice that ceremonial (ritual) laws are not reiterated in the New Testament. I wholeheartedly agree with Dale Ratzlaff in his book, SABBATH IN CHRIST, that there is "a marked difference in the way Jesus treated the moral laws of the old covenant in contrast to the way He regarded the ritual laws." (page 113) In fact, Dale has an entire chapter in his book about MORAL laws and another chapter on RITUAL (ceremonial) laws. With very few exceptions, bibical scholars agree on the distinctive differences and functions of the ceremonial, civil, and moral laws among the 613 directives found in the Torah.
There are many moral laws reiterated in the New Testament from outside the Decalogue as well (i.e., prohibitions against homosexuality, drunkenness, incest, et cetera). Classifying laws as ceremonial shadows or moral obligations is an indispenable process to understanding the New Covenant teachings of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the Spirit-led life does not shun nor negate the timeless, written moral laws recorded in Scripture. As I mentioned earlier, the Bible is God's voice speaking to us. Indeed, it is "God breathed" as God's penmen were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Dennis Fischer |
Susans
Registered user
Username: Susans
Post Number: 77
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 8:17 pm: | |
Dennis,
I will respond tomorrow evening as I'm just home from a LONG day at work.
Blessings!
Susan |
Javagirl
Registered user
Username: Javagirl
Post Number: 310
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 8:30 pm: | |
Denise and Susan,
I have had similar issues regarding covenant stuff in my CBS (Community Bible Study)lessons.
Despite that, I highly recommend a regular bible study group. I spent six years in bible study with CBS---- five of which I spent watering down or defending the SDA doctrines----. The last year, the study of John, was the gate to freedom in Jesus. From the first year though, of being in His word daily, I began to see cracks in my religious wrappings.
ANyway, I too, have been accused of antinomianism, by my family in particular. I just dont get that argument.
I want to scream, "no, I do not think it is okay for me to go out and murder someone!!!". The miraculous part is the rest of the story....the elevation of the priciples for living.
It is no longer okay for me to stay angry at someone. The REASON or motivation for that is not a law. I can't stay angry at someone now, because when I do, I am unable to sense God's presence. (Yes, I know He is always with me), but when I stay angry, it interferes with my communion with God.
I cannot stand that feeling. I have to keep the connection clear. Sin separates me from my father. It hurts the relationship.
This is a totally different paradigm. A completely different reason for obeying. And so completely superior. He really does change our hearts. I am in awe of that miracle.
JavaGirl |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4885
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 9:30 pm: | |
JavaGirl, I agree. The paradigm is completely different, and it's impossible to describe to someone who hasn't experienced the new birth. God changes us!
Colleen |
Leigh
Registered user
Username: Leigh
Post Number: 134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 8:01 am: | |
Lori,
I know what you mean. Our pastor has been preaching on the book of Ephesians for the past several weeks and we are on chapter 4 getting into sanctification. He first makes a point to preach justification each Sunday before he gets into sanctification so there is no confusion. We've gone over getting rid of bitterness, wrath, anger, malice, etc. (verse 31) I don't want to hold on to these things even though I seem to think I need to brood over something someone has said or done to me in the past. It gets in the way of my experiencing true joy in the Lord. This study of true sanctification is so much different than what I thought was sanctification as an SDA - keeping the Sabbath better, and moving toward a vegan diet. |
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 365
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 10:23 am: | |
I will try to explain the difference between paradigms, even if it's so hard.
The great obstacle in understanding this difference is in the fact that former adventists still live a life which looks from the outside as a life under the law. We have not become professional liers, thiefs, murders, and so on. We look as people who pay a great respect to the law, even if we classified it as a yoke of bondage, the letter which kills, ministry of death. This may look as a personality disorder, to use WOW terminology.
But there is a great difference. Living under the law means in a word that the law has claims on us. It demands obedience, perfect obedience, and every time we look at the law, we look in a mirror which tells us that we are BAD. Every time the laws tell us that it is our duty to keep it, and we are always in debt for not keeping it as we should. Living under the law means to have the mirror-law in front of us.
And this is indeed a bondage, because as long as w e are not perfect, we will see in the mirror our ugly face. We will feel condemned by the law, and by God.
We need another mirror. This mirror is Jesus Christ, his face full of grace. We know that before Jesus Christ we stand as condemned as before the law, because His moral requirements are as demanding as are the moral requirements of the law. But in our new mirror, Jesus Christ, we see something more which makes us not feel condemned, this is His grace.
Grace makes the difference. Our failure to rise to the level of holiness God demands from us crushes us when we live under the law. But the same failure under grace is redeemed exactly by Christ's grace.
Under the New Covenant, we are honoring God's holy demands but without the condemnation which comes from our inability to honor them as we should. We are looking in the face of Christ when we see both God's majestic holiness, and God's healing grace. Like apostle Paul said, we are looking now at a greater glory in the face of Jesus. This glory encompasses the former glory and has something more, that makes us to delight in our great God Lord Jesus Christ.
This is how I understand 2 Corinthians 3 |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4890
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 1:11 pm: | |
Jackob, what a wonderful explanation of the difference between being under the law and under Grace! You explain things so well, in such detail. Thank you.
One of the facts about grace that has impacted me lately is that in order for grace to be REAL, someone has to pay. For example, letting someone "off the hook" for a misdemeanor is not grace. Grace is only grace if someone absorbs the consequences and sets you free.
The problem with so many of the current "grace-based" Adventist churches is that they teach a grace which never really demands that a person acknowledge his own intractable sin for which there is NO CURE. They present Jesus' death as a sort of representative death which then frees people to be in grace.
NO! People do not live in grace unless they recognize that they are fatally flawed and desperately wicked by natureóand internalize the fact that Jesus BECAME their sin (2 Cor 5:21) and BECAME a curse for their own sake (Gal 3:13). Unless they accept Jesus weighty death and offer of forgiveness for sin which they acknowledge is theirs, they are not living in grace.
People are not born into grace. People are born into the domain of darkness and move into grace when they accept the eternal debt of Jesus' sacrifice on their behalf.
Grace without substitionary sacrifice is not grace. I once knew an educator who was long on ''grace" and short on discipline. In the name of "grace" some students were allowed to be forgiven for cheating on final exams without suffering any of the normal consequences, substituting perfunctory, figurative "wrist slaps" for the consequences in the school policy. Such lenience is not "grace".
For grace to be grace, someone must pay the requirement demanded by justice. Without a personal acceptance of one's debt to Jesus and and His substitutionary sacrifice, one is not living in grace.
Colleen |
Susans
Registered user
Username: Susans
Post Number: 78
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 5:22 pm: | |
Hey Dennis,
In my mind, I believe we agree that God has moral standards that are eternal. I believe that those laws are written on the heart of the believer, as He promised when God said He would write those laws on our heart.
While I believe there are differences in how we categorize the different aspects and functions of the Law, the evidence, in my study, points to there only being one unit of Law, as you said earlier. That unit of Law was nailed as a whole to the cross of Christ. For the Christian, it was abolished, and it passed away.
I no longer live under that OT law, as Christ is the end of that Law to all who believe. To all who do not believe, the Law still serves to condemn them. I live under the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus.
I live in the New Testament teachings of Christ and the apostles. The teachings of the NT are more encompassing than the 10 commandments, and they pierce to our very soul. They teach us that it's the spirit, and not the letter, that is important (You have heard it said, do not commit adultery, but I say every man who looks on a woman with lust in his heart has committed adultery already {my paraphrase})
Everything we need to know for salvation and walking in the Spirit since we have been made alive in the Spirit and crossed from death into life is in the New Testament. Yes, there are many similarities in the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, but this does not mean that they are in any way connected. They are two completely separate covenants. We are New Covenant Christians. We don't look back to the Old Covenant. That Old Covenant is for sinners who have not recognized their need of a Saviour. The sinner does not yet follow Christ, so does not follow His teachings. That's why (in my mind) I believe the 10 commandments are succinct. But all they do is point out our sin and drive us to the Saviour.
So, even though I do believe in my heart that we mean the same thing, it doesn't come out the same way. When we say "pick this out of the moral law, because it's obviously ceremonial, go here to find more moral laws that we are bound by as Christians, in my mind, it's very confusing.
The simple message of the gospel is "The OT law was nailed to the Cross and has passed away. There is no transference from one covenant to another (I know it's part of covenant theology but I am not sure I agree with that entire theology).
Jesus didn't say "I'm altering the Covenant made with the Children of Israel to now be this". He said "This is the NEW COVENANT"
Leave the old law and all it's parts behind. Live in the New Covenant and you find all you need in the New Testament (or covenant) to know what pleases God.
As Javagirl said, it's the elevation of the principles. I once heard an Adventist pastor say that you CAN meet the letter of the 10 commandments and in turn, feel pretty self-righteous about it and think you are ok and will be saved. But Jesus taught the deeper meaning and we understand that deeper meaning through reading the New Testament.
As an Adventist, once I tried to give a co-worker a Revelation Seminar brochure. She took one look at it and said, "I'm not interested in that. I'm a New Testament Christian." In my mind, I thought...you need to know what the OT says in order to understand the New. I believe now it's exactly opposite. You need to interpret the OT BY the New. Now, I understand why she said that to me.
That deeper meaning makes us even MORE appreciative of the grace of God!
I've made no sense, I'm sure. I'm really too tired to have my thoughts organized. I pray the Lord will take my jumbled words and give understanding as to what my heart is trying to say.
Susan |
Susans
Registered user
Username: Susans
Post Number: 80
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 5:46 pm: | |
Exactly, Jackob. That was a beautiful illustration. |
|
