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

[from scratch]

No! Why should I be deliver from Holiness? Is that not what I am suppose to be by the grace of God?

Delivered from holiness? Really? Hey keep trying though. Who knows you may bring some of us wicked Christians into the SDA confession yet.

 

[from scratch]

The Chair is not broken. It is the table that the chair was at that is broken. It a new table in the corner.

unfortunately for you the Bible testifies against you.

 

[from scratch]

God have no need for the water or the wind part, except for keeping the hurricanes from these shores. But He has done the demon rebuke part for me a few years ago. If needed the water walking will happen.

Do you attend the synagogue with the Jews?

 

[from scratch]

:o
What is this? Telling that I should not steal makes me want to steal? Telling to worship God only makes we want to worship idols?

Anything works in order to down play and negates God Hold law.

If you're following the leading of the Holy Spirit you don't need a rules list.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Would literally be Jews and militant atheists.

But you probably defend Jews, hate Muslims, and morally live by atheists.

Very, very ironic. You may even qualify for the antichrist

I go by the scripture which equates there is only one way and that is Jesus.
I don't defend anyone that rejects Jesus for their actions as such and God has the right to have his wrath upon ALL in the next life such that he can choose to put it on Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and even those who profess to be Christians but are not by his standards. I don't hate Muslims or any people, I hate Islam and I hate the sins people do thinking they are doing right by their idea of God altogether. If that makes me the antichrist I suggest you may find yourself in the same category as me.... or perhaps instead in the category of those under his wrath after this life....

 

[Sophrosyne]

When I was younger I went every Saturday with my dad to synagogue... to hear the Torah read... The rest of Jewish community that could, did so.

It was later on that I became a Christian. I think you make snap judgements a bit too much.

Not really.... unless ALL those people who go to a synagog are keeping the Sabbath by the act of doing so.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Jesus was sent to the world and for the world. He was our example and set the example for us, including the Sabbath. Jesus did not do things simply because He was a Jew our was living with them.

No.... Jesus wasn't an outright example for us to BE, his life has way too many things in it we cannot even attempt to do. Paul NEVER said to follow Jesus by example instead he said follow ME as an example of being a Christian as I follow Christ. There has been thread after thread of examples of what Jesus did that you IGNORE and do not DO yourself but instead you PICK AND CHOOSE which examples of Jesus you want to do and REFUSE to do ALL that he did by example.

 

[Sophrosyne]

:o
What is this? Telling that I should not steal makes me want to steal? Telling to worship God only makes we want to worship idols?

Anything works in order to down play and negates God Hold law.

If you tell a child that isn't thinking about sneaking a cookie from the cookie jar against his parents wishes to NOT take a cookie from the jar is the child suddenly going to forget you was talking about cookies and not be now tempted to get one?

 

[VictorC]

Wonderful! Are you carnal as the inspired author proclaims he is in the present tense? Doesn't this personal contrast to the Holiness of the Law explain why we have been delivered from it, as verse 6 in the immediate context announces?
Yes.
Ellen's 'sabbath test' is a myth.

No! Why should I be deliver from Holiness? Is that not what I am suppose to be by the grace of God?

The Gospel is given to humans, and those like the inspired author who testify of their human condition. If this doesn't apply to you, please disregard this message, and the Gospel that you're exempt from.

However, your self-proclaimed exemption doesn't give you license to question God's deliverance from the Law. That is a fait accompli Romans 7:6 attests to as a completed fact. Maybe the reason you can't understand why God delivered us (who know the Law, v7:1) is because the Law doesn't apply to you any more than the Gospel does.

I had assumed there was a human behind the console at your end of the great Ethernet cable. I apologize for making assumptions I shouldn't make.

 

[VictorC]

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord

I am glad you qouted this. Then look and seen that the same law will be written on the heart not removed. Why would God place something in our hearts that He does not want the Holy Spirit to teach us or for us to keep?

Adventism demands leaving out the qualification that excludes the Mosaic covenant from God's "My law" He has placed into our hearts. It also leaves out the conclusion the inspired author of Hebrews 8:13 makes when he wrote In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Moving a broken covenant to another location doesn't make it 'new', any more than moving a broken chair from one corner to another effects repairs on the broken chair. The old chair is obsolete, ready to be disposed of.

The Chair is not broken. It is the table that the chair was at that is broken. It a new table in the corner.

Let me get this straight - you insist that the broken chair isn't broken, and you're just going to hide it under a table you introduced and pretend it isn't broken anymore. Instead of addressing the analogy I presented, you want to change the chair into a table.

No, let us address the chair instead, for it is the chair I introduced to represent the broken covenant from Mount Sinai, which Moses named the Ten Commandments.

Hebrews 8 describes the old chair:

• The old chair is faulty: if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
• The old chair was violated, i.e. broken: they did not continue in My covenant.
• The old chair is obsolete: In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete.
• The old chair is ready for disposal: Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Both Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 contain a narrative of God making a new covenant, or a new chair, that is not according to the pattern of the old chair: I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah - 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.

While you assert that hiding the chair under the table somehow made it new (which is absurd), the narrative you're confronted with tells a entirely different story: the old chair is disposed of, and God made a new chair of an entirely different design.

 

[freezerman2000]

Christ, in his two Great Commandments,boiled the entire set of rules down into two principles..Love God and Love others ...The principles of the Ten still stand in those Two.

 

[VictorC]

If you tell a child that isn't thinking about sneaking a cookie from the cookie jar against his parents wishes to NOT take a cookie from the jar is the child suddenly going to forget you was talking about cookies and not be now tempted to get one?

The child is going to be consumed with singular mission to obtain that cookie, which will not be satisfied until he/she is caught with cookie crumbs all over his/her face, floor, counter, busted jar knocked off the shelf, etc.

That is the fallen human condition. The example you introduced works just fine

 

[Sophrosyne]

The child is going to be consumed with singular mission to obtain that cookie, which will not be satisfied until he/she is caught with cookie crumbs all over his/her face, floor, counter, busted jar knocked off the shelf, etc.

That is the fallen human condition. The example you introduced works just fine

And at times the child would do it just to see if it would be caught, not doing it as much for the cookie itself but to get attention.
Some people like to do wrong to see if they can get away with it, if you tell them something is wrong they want to do it but if you tell them something is ok then they are not interested.
You could take the same kid and tell him he can have a cookie but not any cake and will the kid want a cookie or cake?

 

[VictorC]

And at times the child would do it just to see if it would be caught, not doing it as much for the cookie itself but to get attention.
Some people like to do wrong to see if they can get away with it, if you tell them something is wrong they want to do it but if you tell them something is ok then they are not interested.
You could take the same kid and tell him he can have a cookie but not any cake and will the kid want a cookie or cake?

Oh, come now! Confronted with an either/or situation you just posed, the typical 3-year-old will be reduced to a temper tantrum screaming on the floor! He/she will remain that way until you smother the screaming temper tantrum by plugging it full of cake

 

[squint]

Not a 'grace' adherent in this thread has came forth to allow sin under grace.

The most obvious conclusion? Grace is against sin.

The law is against sin.

The most obvious conclusion?

Both Law and Grace are against sin.

So what's to argue about?

Nothing. It's a pointless argument when viewed as both being against sin.

The Law and Grace are Perfect Accord in this direction.

Does that mean the Law is against us? Absolutely in regards to sin.

Does that mean Grace is against us? Absolutely in regards to SIN.

There isn't any getting around God being against sin on any basis of understanding.

s

 

[Sophrosyne]

Oh, come now! Confronted with an either/or situation you just posed, the typical 3-year-old will be reduced to a temper tantrum screaming on the floor! He/she will remain that way until you smother the screaming temper tantrum by plugging it full of cake

Exactly..... and the cookies would go stale in the jar all he would be having fits over would be cake.... nothing but cake on his mind.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Not a 'grace' adherent in this thread has came forth to allow sin under grace.

The most obvious conclusion? Grace is against sin.

The law is against sin.

The most obvious conclusion?

Both Law and Grace are against sin.

So what's to argue about?

Nothing. It's a pointless argument when viewed as both being against sin.

The Law and Grace are Perfect Accord in this direction.

Does that mean the Law is against us? Absolutely in regards to sin.

Does that mean Grace is against us? Absolutely in regards to SIN.

There isn't any getting around God being against sin on any basis of understanding.

s

I think those promoting the Law would disagree with you that Grace is against sin, instead they would contend that Grace ALLOWS free sinning and thus the Law is superior to Grace and trumps it.

 

[Rev Randy]

Not a 'grace' adherent in this thread has came forth to allow sin under grace.

The most obvious conclusion? Grace is against sin.

The law is against sin.

The most obvious conclusion?

Both Law and Grace are against sin.

So what's to argue about?

Nothing. It's a pointless argument when viewed as both being against sin.

The Law and Grace are Perfect Accord in this direction.

Does that mean the Law is against us? Absolutely in regards to sin.

Does that mean Grace is against us? Absolutely in regards to SIN.

There isn't any getting around God being against sin on any basis of understanding.

s

Grace against us? That would not be grace at all. We(mankind) may be against grace but never the reverse.

 

[squint]

Grace against us? That would not be grace at all. We(mankind) may be against grace but never the reverse.

Grace has authorized no sin the last time I checked Randy.

Care to go on record otherwise have at it.

s

 

[squint]

I think those promoting the Law would disagree with you that Grace is against sin, instead they would contend that Grace ALLOWS free sinning

That's how they see your position unless stated otherwise if you were listening. It would be important to say to any legalist that grace is in fact against sin. Grace IS against sin every bit as much as the law.

and thus the Law is superior to Grace and trumps it.

It's theologically impractical and improbable to pit the Word of God against the Word of God. People who employ that method are not only not credible, their constructs they use to arrive at that conclusion are usually ridiculous.

God never denied Himself or His Own Word.

Most who are heavily weighted to the grace equations often have heretical views of the Old Testament at their base. Modern Marcionism in many cases.

s