What have you understood about the charcater of The Ten Commandments??

[from scratch]

The Law was a way of life, not that many got stoned because they all grew up in godly morals.

But they stoned gentiles, and rightfully so- the world was barbaric then. To not kill was to be killed.
A lot of people today do not understand that reality.

God demanded that entire tribes be taken out, down to the infants themselves, so that there would be no act of revenge in the future- somebody raiding your entire establishment for the sake of vengeance.

God has preeminence over life, do not mistake that for a second. He is our Creator, so therefore, He governs who should die and who should live.

If you're talking about Israel, yes. If you wish to include the whole world, no.

 

[Sophrosyne]

You missed the point. It is the one commandments that takes an active conscious decision. Even those who never hear about the bible will tell you not to take that which is not yours etc., but to honor God by keeping His Sabbath does not come to mine that easily. It takes a knowledge of the fact, commitment and love to God himself. It is the only Commandment that receives opposition.

I'm not missing the point, you are purposely ignoring the point and using illogical arguments to support your position. Almost every time I refute your points with sound logic instead of refuting my logic you just make another illogical point and another and another never refuting anything just like a boat in the river saying it is attacking but instead moving around making smoke screens never making things clear or staying in one place long enough.
The Sabbath is not mentioned by new testament authors in any form or fashion that you continuously equate it as..... you are forced to use Old testament jewish specific scriptures to support it upon non jewish generic Christians.

 

[Elder 111]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

The premise that the Ten Commandments has no Jurisdiction over Christians can not be sustained by Scripture
​

Sure it can. And it does. And this has been pointed out to you scores of times. Many posts reside in this and previous threads you've simply ignored because you can't align your religious paradigm with what the Bible testifies.

No. It is because there make no sense or they directly contradict other Scripture.
It is not just quoting scripture but it is the right application that counts. Satan quoted scripture too. Luke 4:10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Ps: 91:
11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.
The scriptures say if we tell lies we will be lost, but you want to maintain that the Commandments that say thou shalt not lie is not for us, and then you want to tell us that we should not tell lies and that the same commandments that are removed are Holy. Your theology is that it is not but it is. That does not sound like my holy and wise God.

 

[Elder 111]

I'm not missing the point, you are purposely ignoring the point and using illogical arguments to support your position. Almost every time I refute your points with sound logic instead of refuting my logic you just make another illogical point and another and another never refuting anything just like a boat in the river saying it is attacking but instead moving around making smoke screens never making things clear or staying in one place long enough.
The Sabbath is not mentioned by new testament authors in any form or fashion that you continuously equate it as..... you are forced to use Old testament jewish specific scriptures to support it upon non jewish generic Christians.

It never had to be mention. It was a given fact. Both Jews and gentles were keeping the Sabbath. Acts 13:
43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. ( not Jews)

45But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

Not the only time either that Paul met on the Sabbath with Gentles. If the Sabbath was a problem it would have been addressed directly. It never was. Act 15 was a perfect opportunity, do you see it there?

 

[Sophrosyne]

It never had to be mention. It was a given fact. Both Jews and gentles were keeping the Sabbath. Acts 13:
43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. ( not Jews)

45But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

Not the only time either that Paul met on the Sabbath with Gentles. If the Sabbath was a problem it would have been addressed directly. It never was. Act 15 was a perfect opportunity, do you see it there?

I'm sorry but this is no proof of gentiles keeping the Sabbath. One could easily conclude that the gentiles were interested in Jesus and Paul and came to where he was speaking to the Jews on the Sabbath.
Again. NO PROOF here a gentile was keeping the Sabbath..... AT ALL.

 

[Sophrosyne]

One isn't keeping the Sabbath by going to church on Saturday.....

 

[VictorC]

No.

Yes. How far back into the Memory Hole do you want to go? Each time Scripture testifies of our deliverance from the old covenant (the Ten Commandments, as Moses named it) and someone posts the Biblical texts for you, you replace Scripture's testimony with this:

It is because there make no sense or they directly contradict other Scripture.

Instead of Scripture, you need to replace Scripture with your admission that it "makes no sense". Did you think we were the first to encounter this empty excuse?
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
2 Corinthians 4:3-4
But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

It is not just quoting scripture but it is the right application that counts. Satan quoted scripture too.

Your premises have been dependent on select sound-bites that can't be reconciled with other passages, or even the context your sound-bites came from.

The scriptures say if we tell lies we will be lost, but you want to maintain that the Commandments that say thou shalt not lie is not for us, and then you want to tell us that we should not tell lies and that the same commandments that are removed are Holy. Your theology is that it is not but it is. That does not sound like my holy and wise God.

But it sure sounds like your posts! You've been alternating between insisting the Law isn't holy, and yet is! And I caught you regurgitating Ellen for her heretical 'sabbath test' you now know there isn't a shred of Biblical support for. Do you need to visit the Memory Hole to see how many times you've borne false witness on this thread alone?
Your posts are consistent with the SDA church's attitude concerning Ellen White:

"The Bible is an infallible guide but it needs to be infallibly interpreted, to avoid confusion and division. When will the people of God cease trusting in their own wisdom? When will they come to the place where they will cease to measure, construe, and interpret by their own reason what God says to them through His appointed channel? When we come to the place where we place no trust in man or in the wisdom of man, but unquestionably accept and act upon what God says through this gift, then will the spirit of prophecy as set before us in the Bible and confirmed among us and become in fact a counselor, guide and final court of appeal among God's people." (Adventist Review, June 3. 1971, page 6, The Source of Final Appeal, By Roderick S. Owen)​

The Bible isn't the final arbiter of truth in Adventism - Ellen is.
And what is Ellen's attitude to the Bible?

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {MR760 19.2}​

Now look at the key sentence in this quote above: "And while the Scriptures are God's Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake." The problem is that this ad hominem response to Elder Ballenger's critique of the Sanctuary Doctrine wasn't able to demonstrate that the pillar Adventism relies on was supported by the Holy Spirit - so this is a qualifier presented in a sentence that has no meaning. It is merely an extra-Biblical opinion used to avoid the Bible.

To clarify that, here is that same sentence minus Ellen's mistaken qualifier:

And while the Scriptures are God's Word, and are to be respected, the application of them is a great mistake.

"Respect", coincident with abject rejection of the very authority "respect" is directed toward, explains the tenor of your posts.

 

[VictorC]

I'm not missing the point, you are purposely ignoring the point and using illogical arguments to support your position. Almost every time I refute your points with sound logic instead of refuting my logic you just make another illogical point and another and another never refuting anything just like a boat in the river saying it is attacking but instead moving around making smoke screens never making things clear or staying in one place long enough.
The Sabbath is not mentioned by new testament authors in any form or fashion that you continuously equate it as..... you are forced to use Old testament jewish specific scriptures to support it upon non jewish generic Christians.

Once again a prescient point made sails over the recipient's head.

 

[Elder 111]

It has been pointed to repeatedly that the body is dead because of sin. No amount of law keeping is going to change that conclusion.

The LAW stands secure in the determination that 'all' have been concluded to be under sin. That conclusion is not going to change by any amount of law applications.

We bear what we bear in a dead body corrupted by SIN, period. If a man keeps the law, he does so with sin remaining in his flesh regardless, ever seeking to declare itself righteous on a contrived basis.



s

You are correct but no one is seeking salvation by keeping the law. Do not take it that the reason for being obedient to God's holy law is about seeking Salvation by works. It is about accepting Christ as our Lord and saviour and living with the power of the Holy Spirit to do the will of God including obeying His sanctified Ten Commandments. Why add more sins to our account after coming to Christ.

 

[Elder 111]

There are several witnesses in the Old Testament that sin is wrong before the law. You seem to be tell me that one can't know about sin unless they get it from the law. Romans says this simply isn't true.

Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

 

[squint]

You are correct but no one is seeking salvation by keeping the law.

Of course you are. Every legalist I've ever engaged say that if anyone violates the law and does not followup with some prescribed methodology or ritual or combination to put it right, they are in fact lost, should they happen to pass before they get (whatever prescription) done. That's the fear that holds most of these groups together. And let's also face the fact that some 'leaders' get a perverse kind of kick out of sitting on top of the 'forgiveness' pile, prescribing the cure that ails ya.

Do not take it that the reason for being obedient to God's holy law is about seeking Salvation by works.

I've never said that believers can sin against the law. I'm even pickier about the law than the SDA, recognizing that even the mere thought of sin is sin.

What is superabundantly clear to anyone who is honest about the law is the simple fact that we have sin in thought, word and ultimately if not kept in check DEED. Deed is merely the final showing. It starts much earlier than that, just as Jesus shows us, from within. Evil thoughts factually defile the man.

So, if you want to be accurate about Jesus' Factual Presentations you could at least acknowledge that.

So a legalist doesn't commit adultery? Big deal. Every last one of us who is honest and genetically inclined are assaulted along the lines of lust continually and INTERNALLY. And yes, those thoughts are SIN because they are EVIL and DEFILING.

If you want to be a legalist, at least be a good and honest one and take what Jesus said about these things as a fact. Judging by the outside of the cup is worthless drivel. God assuredly sees well past that and directly into our INNARDS. He is not fooled either.

Not one bit. Not one time.

s

 

[Elder 111]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

It never had to be mention. It was a given fact. Both Jews and gentles were keeping the Sabbath. Acts 13:
43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. ( not Jews)

45But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

Not the only time either that Paul met on the Sabbath with Gentles. If the Sabbath was a problem it would have been addressed directly. It never was. Act 15 was a perfect opportunity, do you see it there?
​

I'm sorry but this is no proof of gentiles keeping the Sabbath. One could easily conclude that the gentiles were interested in Jesus and Paul and came to where he was speaking to the Jews on the Sabbath.
Again. NO PROOF here a gentile was keeping the Sabbath..... AT ALL.

42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
The gentles were meeting Paul not Paul with the Jews.

 

[Elder 111]

Of course you are. Every legalist I've ever engaged say that if anyone violates the law and does not followup with some prescribed methodology or ritual or combination to put it right, they are in fact lost, should they happen to pass before they get (whatever prescription) done. That's the fear that holds most of these groups together. And let's also face the fact that some 'leaders' get a perverse kind of kick out of sitting on top of the 'forgiveness' pile, prescribing the cure that ails ya.

I've never said that believers can sin against the law. I'm even pickier about the law than the SDA, recognizing that even the mere thought of sin is sin.

What is superabundantly clear to anyone who is honest about the law is the simple fact that we have sin in thought, word and ultimately if not kept in check DEED. Deed is merely the final showing. It starts much earlier than that, just as Jesus shows us, from with. Evil thoughts factually defile the man.

So, if you want to be accurate about Jesus' Factual Presentations you could at least acknowledge that.

So a legalist doesn't commit adultery? Big deal. Every last one of us who is honest and genetically inclined are assaulted along the lines of lust continually and INTERNALLY. And yes, those thoughts are SIN because they are EVIL and DEFILING.

If you want to be a legalist, at least be a good and honest one and take what Jesus said about these things as a fact. Judging by the outside of the cup is worthless drivel. God assuredly sees well past that and directly into our INNARDS. He is not fooled either.

Not one bit. Not one time.

s

What gives you the idea that SDA's do not accept that sin starts in the mind? Again I give you credit for that fact.
What is the fear, the evil, in saying that one should not have idols as a Christian? How can that be legalistic? Because I do not steal I am legalistic?

 

[squint]

What gives you the idea that SDA's do not accept that sin starts in the mind? Again I give you credit for that fact.
What is the fear, the evil, in saying that one should not have idols as a Christian? How can that be legalistic? Because I do not steal I am legalistic?

Paul was very clear that the law prompts the activity within and in everyone who is honest they will A C K N O W L E D G E this fact before God and other believers in H O N E S T Y.

Those thoughts are evil and they are D E F I L I N G.

Hence Paul's conclusion in Romans 7:21.

Any 'honest' believer will come to the identical conclusion. That evil is in fact present with us.

Measuring these matters only in external fashion is worthless. So says Jesus.

Anyone can claim they are not stealing on the outside and therefore obeying the LAW. It is a totally different matter when acknowledging what happens inside of us when indwelling sin meets LAW.

Only an honest man, LED of the SPIRIT can come to an honest conclusion.

Most will continue to ply their legalism only on the outside of the CUP in classic blinded Pharisee fashions.

s

 

[SwordFall]

What gives you the idea that SDA's do not accept that sin starts in the mind? Again I give you credit for that fact.
What is the fear, the evil, in saying that one should not have idols as a Christian? How can that be legalistic? Because I do not steal I am legalistic?

Protestants idolize the Bible in the same way they condemn Catholics for doing with actual, living, saintly people in the realms above.

 

[squint]

Every person in this thread merely excuses their evil defiling thoughts.

Nothing new about that action. Been going on from day 1.

s

 

[VictorC]

One isn't keeping the Sabbath by going to church on Saturday.....

It was a diversion, Precious. Don't fall for this common substitute for an answer that never came.

 

[SwordFall]

I wish a person would confront me about the Sabbath day being Saturday, so I could tell them how ridiculous they are.

If Sunday was not legitimate, it wouldn't have worked the past thousand years. If you actually found something more holy in Saturday, please do let me know.

 

[Sophrosyne]

It was a diversion, Precious. Don't fall for this common substitute for an answer that never came.

yup.... nothing like diversion and evasion instead of direct confrontation

 

[SwordFall]

yup.... nothing like diversion and evasion instead of direct confrontation

The last time I checked, God confronted Moses full on with the Commandments. He was so Holy, he came down the mountain blinded, with his face burnt.
(if anything, imagine the trip back )

Seems legitimate enough for me- the Ten Commandments are still in effect
God went out His way to expound on these points of Godliness. They are even literally set in stone.