Why dont SDA's and Sabbath keepers also keep the Feast Days of Leviticus 23 too???

[Lollerskates]

So why are you participating on a Christian forum?

I am glad I ignored what seemed to be a goading under the guise of "teaching" you something about circumcision of the heart, because this remark is quite ignorant (literally ignoring.)

I gave you my specific belief, creed and what I have faith in. So, with that, ask yourself that question again. I don't like that something that is supposed to represent unity (the Church) has almost 200 denominations of DISUNITY - fighting over trite details of the bible, and traditions. That is why I would rather just give my creed and not wear the title "christian," as it were. I participate on here because there are scores of individuals that I learn from and fellowship with - both people I agree with and disagree with (even feverently.) But, those people I speak to don't try to goad a slick response, they don't use sarcasm so insultingly as many do here, and they most certainly do not insult my salvation, and suggest that I am some kind of harlot or preacher of evil doctrine because they disagree with me.

After you reconcile that, then determine how objective profitable that question was by recalling if you asked all of the atheists, agnostics, deists, pagans, muslims, etc. why they participate here.

 

[Lollerskates]

In light of the Apostle Paul's observation in Galatians 6:13 "not even those who are circumcised keep the law", it isn't hard to see through the fiction in your claims. You've already dismissed this essential entrance fee into the Law.

Please do not be concerned about others calling you a Christian. Old-covenant 'christianity' is a oxymoron that doesn't exist.

You continue to ignore everything I said - down to my faith decree I specifically gave you.

So, who is really lying? I told you everything, and you still insult me.

Peace to you.

 

[mmksparbud]

Please don't construe someone waiting for an answer with being upset. This is what I wrote before:

Simply put, you aren't conversing. Before you were stuck in a pit you dug, hollering epithets at those asking you questions. You're still in a pit of your own making. To wit:

Why don't you apply this to the entire Law Christ fulfilled? You've already reached a point where you forced the conclusion that the Sabbath came to an end. Here you attribute the same conclusion on (some of) the annual Sabbaths, and you aren't consistent with yourself. And, it is in variance to an argument you earlier appealed to whereby not one jot nor tittle of the Law will expire until after heaven and earth pass away (a poor interpretation of Matthew 5:18 that also denies the fulfillment of prophecy), and it was your claim that the first covenant wasn't made obsolete and taken away, but just moved to another location into your heart.

Changing your argument without conceding the many errors you posited and now contradict doesn't answer anything in preceding conversation.

Out of my whole post that is the only thing you have to say???!!---If you're waiting for me to say that the 10 commandments were done away with at the cross, you'll be waiting till Christ comes--which, I hope, won't be too much longer. It's not possible for the 10 commandments to have been done away with. God did not say He would wipe out the laws, He said He would write them in our hearts. They are no longer a set of rules that you follow with certain rituals in order to be saved--but come from a heart that has been turned from stone to flesh. It is still the law that is written in our hearts--and are followed because you love God.

2Co 3:3 You show that you are a letter from Christ that he sent through us. This letter is not written with ink but with the Spirit of the living God. It is not written on stone tablets but on human hearts.

Eze 11:19 I will bring them together and make them like one person. I will put a new spirit in them. I will take away that heart of stone, and I will put a real heart in its place.

Eze 36:26 I will also put a new spirit in you to change your way of thinking. I will take out the heart of stone from your body and give you a tender, human heart. Why are you making up stuff like that??


I have not been hollering--you got a mike hidden in my sewing room (that's where I keep my comuter)??
You are making up conclusions that I have come to when I haven't. At no time have I said that the sabbath has come to an end. At the cross Christ nailed all animal sacrices to the cross--you are jumping from one thing to another and it makes no sense. You guys have said that the disciples kept all the feasts and stated scriptures to "prove it".--I quoted the same scriptures and showed they weren't. That in no way shows they were not keeping the sabbath. They were. You are all saying that Sunday is now to be kept because the disicples did, when they did not. That's been proven over and over. and before any changes made to the law could be done, it would have had to be stated before the death of Christ--He wrote them, He alone could change them and He did no such thing. The old covenant was done away with, no more animal sacrifices--done, broken, done away with--you keep running around in circles and saying that I said the old covenant was not broken but changed location--the now covenant did not change location--I never said that--the new covenant is no more animal sacrifices and the laws are written in our hearts--that's what the bible says--if you have a problem with that than you need to discuss it with God as He's the one that said it! As in the new circumcision is of the heart.

Daniel 9:26 says the Messiah's death would confirm or seal (ratify) the covenant - the same covenant mentioned in verse 4 and in 11:22 - the covenant of Sinai, which itself was identical with the Abrahamic covenant.
​

A close study of the covenants solves this issue also. Galatians 3:15 and Hebrews 9:16, 17 stress that nothing can be added to a covenant after the sacrificial death which seals it. Thus Sunday was three days too late to become part of the New Covenant. For this reason also, baptism was included by Christ's own example prior to Calvary.

In the same article is this:

Obedience to the Nine
In gospel ranks at the present time, there are some of our friends (we do not use that term loosely), offering an explanation of the covenants that, in practical terms, leads to obedience to nine commandments of the Decalogue, but not to that one which is central, the longest, and solely prefaced by "remember."
It is an exaggeration to say that such are nine-tenths under law and one tenth under grace, but it's an understandable criticism
​

The above in red is what Desmond Ford wrote--A man you said hates SDA's as he used to be one--how come you guys quite talking about him after I gave you the link to his magazine where he states that he still keeps the sabbath??

I expected someone to attack his comment on the 2 covenants and that Sunday would have had to be instituded before Christs death not after.

The problem that you all have is that you do not believe that Christ was fully human and fully divine. According to you--He was only divine and therefore that is why he did not sin--The bible says He is fully divine and fully human--His divinity flashed through when He wanted it to--otherwise He lived and acted human, and in His humanity He kept the the sabbath, He kept all the laws, (the Pharisees accused Him of breaking the sabbath, He did not break the sabbath that was written in the 10 commandments--He broke the endless burdens that the Rabbi's had implemented, never the law of God. As a man He was sinless--this is what you can not believe. And you do not believe it because He is our example and that means that using God as our source of power, as He did, we also can be sinless. And that you do not want to face. If we do sin, we ask for forgiveness and we turn away from that sin and God forgives us and we are once again sinless as God forgives and forgets.--it is a life time process. We are to love God with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all our soul and our neighbor as ourself.
As we encounter areas in our life where we do not love God or man we wse should, then we ask forgiveness and His help to overcome all that keeps us from doing so. The more we read His word, the closer we draw to Him and the more His Holy Spirit guides us.

And I have never heard any minister tell anyone that they are not to read their bible except for what they are told to read--quite the opposite. We take our bibles to church, and we open them and we read whatever verse he is reading to make sure he is reading the right one and we are always instructed, have been throughout our school years, to read the verses before and after, and if needed, the chaper before and after to get the whole context. I would never listen to anyone who tells me to only read what he says to read. It's was pounded into us to read before and after, and to read all the bible--over and over, both old and new, every word. That has not changed. If someone has encountered a pastor that teaches otherwise then he needs to report him to the higher ups and take a stand against him. That is what these cult leaders do--you have to read only what he says, the way he says--that is contrary to all that SDA's have taught. The woman who I learned to love as a mother since I was 14 and I met at an SDA school memorized whole chapters, whole books of the bible, even. She was awesome, and though she knew I was not in the church, she never said anything derogatory to me about it and till she died at 96 she prayed for me and my whole family--none of whom were in the church (except for my stepmom--and she was the same way). When cleaning out my stepmoms home after her death, I found tons of little scraps of paper with verses, several bibles all highlighted and notations everywhere. Both these women always told me to always research anything I was told--biblical or wordly.

 

[BobRyan]

The old covenant was done away with, no more animal sacrifices--done, broken, done away with--you keep running around in circles and saying that I said the old covenant was not broken but changed location--the now covenant did not change location--I never said that--the new covenant is no more animal sacrifices and the laws are written in our hearts--that's what the bible says--if you have a problem with that than you need to discuss it with God as He's the one that said it! As in the new circumcision is of the heart.

Daniel 9:26 says the Messiah's death would confirm or seal (ratify) the covenant - the same covenant mentioned in verse 4 and in 11:22 - the covenant of Sinai, which itself was identical with the Abrahamic covenant.
​

A close study of the covenants solves this issue also. Galatians 3:15 and Hebrews 9:16, 17 stress that nothing can be added to a covenant after the sacrificial death which seals it. Thus Sunday was three days too late to become part of the New Covenant. For this reason also, baptism was included by Christ's own example prior to Calvary.

In the same article is this:

Obedience to the Nine
In gospel ranks at the present time, there are some of our friends (we do not use that term loosely), offering an explanation of the covenants that, in practical terms, leads to obedience to nine commandments of the Decalogue, but not to that one which is central, the longest, and solely prefaced by "remember."
It is an exaggeration to say that such are nine-tenths under law and one tenth under grace, but it's an understandable criticism
​

The above in red is what Desmond Ford wrote--A man you said hates SDA's as he used to be one--how come you guys quite talking about him after I gave you the link to his magazine where he states that he still keeps the sabbath??

I expected someone to attack his comment on the 2 covenants and that Sunday would have had to be instituded before Christs death not after.

That is a pretty good point.

Well done!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Passover and unleavened bread was discussed by Bob--And just a note--Passover (now called Communion) was celebrated without leavening--of any kind--which means that the "wine" could not be fermented--no yeast anywhere permitted.

Feast of Tabernacles: Acts 18--Paul spent 1 yr and 6 mths in Corinth and then he went to Syria with Priscilla and Aquila then he went to Ephesus and "reasoned with the Jews." They wanted him to stay longer, he said no as he had to "keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem"--What feast?? !

Indeed and in Acts 21 Paul is adamant that he is an observer of the Law.

In Romans 14 Paul points out that some people do not keep all the Bible holy days listed in Lev 23 and some do.

But in Hebrews 10 the basis for them is removed - in that the sacrificial system is ended.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[LarryP2]

Indeed and in Acts 21 Paul is adamant that he is an observer of the Law.
In Romans 14 Paul points out that some people do not keep all the Bible holy days listed in Lev 23 and some do.
But in Hebrews 10 the basis for them is removed - in that the sacrificial system is ended
in Christ
Bob

Many choose the destroying of the law as what Paul is intending. The gospels say differently. It isn't a Christian thing to want to destroy the law, it is a pharisee and scribe thing.

I will harmonize these two opinions on Paul's actual view of the Law.

First and foremost, Paul makes it absolutely crystal clear that any effort on his part to follow the Mosaic Law was done only to assist in the evangelizing the Jews. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23:

"19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

You have absolutely missed the point on why Paul was so adamant about not binding Christians with the Old Testament Law. Paul realized that ANY thought, however brief and fleeting about the Old Testament Law was at best, a severe, crippling and utterly useless distraction from living and implementing the New Covenant. At the AD 50 Council of Jerusalem, which had MANY more Apostles involved than only Paul, Gentiles were given just a handful of rules (about 4 by my calculations) that roughly corresponded to the Pre-Mosaic "Noahide" laws. NONE of the Mosaic Law would apply to the Gentiles. There is no ambiguity there. NONE.

Christians were totally under the New Covenant Law of "Grace," and Grace Only. The New Covenant "Law" is allowing the Holy Spirit to write Christ's Two Great Commandments on our hearts, and guide and advise us - and most of all, give us unlimited power - as we went about implementing the Law of Love as Christ set it forth. That's it. ANYTHING you add to that can only harm it. The sole point of the Old Testament law that should concern the Christian is to demonstrate that Christ is who he said he is. It gives solid historical precedents that he is who he said he is. Outside of that purpose, the Mosaic Law is toxic and scandalously worthless. It is not worth the paper it was written on.

Late-first and Early-Second Century writers like Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr, both of whom were close disciples of John the Evangelist (NOT PAUL) stressed the absolute and complete incompatibility of the New Covenant with the Old Covenant. The Law, having served its function and "pointed," is now utterly pointless. Ignatius taught that ANY effort to follow any of the Mosaic Laws simply indicated a complete lack of Salvation. Back to the drawing board for the errant Christian who wandered down that heretical road:

"Do not be led astray by wrong views or by outmoded tales that count for nothing. For if we still go on observing Judaism, we admit we never received grace. The divine prophets themselves lived Christ Jesus’ way. That is why they were persecuted, for they were inspired by his grace to convince unbelievers that God is one, and that he has revealed himself in his Son Jesus Christ, who is his Word issuing from the silence and who won the complete approval of him who sent him.

9 Those, then, who lived by ancient practices arrived at a new hope. They ceased to keep the Sabbath and lived by the Lord’s Day, on which our life as well as theirs shone forth, thanks to Him and his death, though some deny this. Through this mystery we got our faith, and because of it we stand our ground so as to become disciples of Jesus Christ, our sole teacher. How, then, can we live without him when even the prophets, who were his disciples by the Spirit, awaited him as their teacher? He, then, whom they were rightly expecting, raised them from the dead, when he came." St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesiums
http://silouanthompson.net/library/early-church/ignatius/to-the-magnesians/

As far as any specific "Law" that both Ignatius and Justin Martyr repeatedly stressed, it was the duty of Christians to take care of widows and orphans, which both saw as essential. It is no wonder Ebionite Judaizers ignore these Saints and heroes. They didn't just talk idly about abstract themes of the Old Testament Law schemata: They daily put their lives and necks on the line to really live the New Covenant.

The Ebionite Judiaizing heretics that denounce this approach commonly thunder the following fantastically shallow and ignorant argument: "Does this mean you are free to murder, steal and commit adultery, then? After all, you have rejected the Ten Commandments," they trumpet triumphantly.

What a sick, vicious and ignorant thing to say. This argument indicates a complete and willful absence of knowledge of the history of the Early Church. Not only were the Early Christians typically giving away ALL of their wealth to support widows and orphans, they were getting viciously slaughtered WHOLESALE by the Roman Empire, and they were happily and joyously and at complete internal peace being fed to the Lions, savagely shredded and ripped limb to limb in front of thousands of spectators at the Coliseum. Their bloody bones would then be returned to their home church as a holy relic. Both Justin Martyr's and Ignatius of Antioch's bones were returned to their respective churches this way; Ignatius's featuring many obvious lion tooth nicks and Martyr's shredded skin showing the results of being savagely beaten to death before he was beheaded:

"In 107, during the reign of the brutal Emperor Trajan, this holy Bishop [Ignatius of Antioch] was wrongfully sentenced to death because he refused to renounce the Christian faith. He was taken under guard to Rome where he was to be brutally devoured by wild beasts in a public spectacle. During his journey, his travels took him through Asia Minor and Greece. He made good use of the time by writing seven letters of encouragement, instruction and inspiration to the Christians in those communities. We still have these letters as a great treasure of the Church today."
......
"I know what is to my advantage. At last I am becoming his disciple. May nothing entice me till I happily make my way to Jesus Christ! Fire, cross, struggles with wild beasts, wrenching of bones, mangling of limbs-let them come to me, provided only I make my way to Jesus Christ. I would rather die and come to Jesus Christ than be king over the entire earth. Him I seek who died for us; him I love who rose again because of us."
https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=677

And here's Justin Martyr's ending, he apparently lacking any keen interest in discerning nuances in the Old Testament Law, and thereby living and dying without virtue according to the Ebionites:

"The Prefect Rusticus says: Approach and sacrifice, all of you, to the gods. Justin says: No one in his right mind gives up piety for impiety. The Prefect Rusticus says: If you do not obey, you will be tortured without mercy. Justin replies: That is our desire, to be tortured for Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and so to be saved, for that will give us salvation and firm confidence at the more terrible universal tribunal of Our Lord and Saviour. And all the martyrs said: Do as you wish; for we are Christians, and we do not sacrifice to idols. The Prefect Rusticus read the sentence: Those who do not wish to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the emperor will be scourged and beheaded according to the laws. The holy martyrs glorifying God betook themselves to the customary place, where they were beheaded and consummated their martyrdom confessing their Saviour."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm

There is a absence of record of anyone declaring: "Think of what a wonderful witness those two would have been, had they properly kept the Sabbath." Both Ignatius and Martyr wrote scathing, acid-dipped bromides against the comfortable Ebionites, who imagined they could follow Christ by keeping the Jewish Sabbath!

Guys like that needs the Ten Commandments to tell them the moral way to live? REALLY? They avoid murdering people and having extramarital affairs and shoplifting expeditions only because the Ten Commandments ordered them not to? REALLY?

Ebionites have the treacly, unctuous, and gloating self-righteousness to pretend themselves as real heroes for pretending to keep their vapid, anodyne Americanized Sabbath, or some other absurd and extinct holiday of Judaism! They think they are wonderful for indulging in gluttony at a big potluck dinner and snoozing on the couch afterwords. That's it! These hypocrites actually lack the guts to really follow Christ the way the Early Christians did. They take the EASY way out, and comfortably fixate on various enjoyable succulent feasts and lazy days off: only wading but not swimming.

No need to have your bones shipped back to the Church with lion tooth nicks in them, or shards of your skin demonstrating the horror of how you were beat to death before you were beheaded; when you can easily keep all Ten Commandments loafing on a Lazy-Boy Recliner and sleeping off and burping over a big lunch without breaking a sweat.

How on earth did the Ebionite Heretics get to have such status today, as they comfortably and unhurriedly leaf through the Old Testament, parsing unrelated sentence fragments, for their latest hair-brained notion of which of the obscure Mosaic Laws are worth some contemplative navel-gazing over?

"Maybe I can get away with touching a pig-skin football, as long as I wear gloves."

 

[VictorC]

Out of my whole post that is the only thing you have to say???!!---If you're waiting for me to say that the 10 commandments were done away with at the cross, you'll be waiting till Christ comes--which, I hope, won't be too much longer. It's not possible for the 10 commandments to have been done away with. God did not say He would wipe out the laws, He said He would write them in our hearts. They are no longer a set of rules that you follow with certain rituals in order to be saved--but come from a heart that has been turned from stone to flesh. It is still the law that is written in our hearts--and are followed because you love God.

Yes, that's all I got from your post. I even asked you a question: Why don't you apply this to the entire Law Christ fulfilled?

Your response? Nothing.

I quoted Ellen White, who claimed that your soteriology is dependent on keeping the Sabbath holy. That takes you right back to the burnt offerings and the animal sacrifices.
I quoted M. L. Andreasen, who endorsed Ellen's soteriology and flatly forced a conclusion that Christ isn't coming back - ever.

Your response? Nothing.

You are making up conclusions that I have come to when I haven't. At no time have I said that the sabbath has come to an end. At the cross Christ nailed all animal sacrices to the cross--you are jumping from one thing to another and it makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense to you because you're contradicting yourself. If you posit that the animal sacrifices came to an end, this means that the ordinances that demanded them came to an end - and this includes the Sabbath.

You guys have said that the disciples kept all the feasts and stated scriptures to "prove it".

No. This wasn't claimed by any of us. This is what the Law demands if you're to keep the Sabbaths codified in it.

That in no way shows they were not keeping the sabbath. They were.

No, they weren't. Their example or lack thereof isn't germane to your appeal to the Law, and this is what the OP addresses. You've come about full circle, nullifying your previous post and still unable to produce a coherent answer regarding your inconsistent rejection of the Sabbaths. The SDA church's appeal to Exodus 35:3 and Leviticus 23:3 has already been pointed out to you, to show that they aren't making the division in the Law consistently as you suppose they do.

You are all saying that Sunday is now to be kept because the disicples did, when they did not.

This is a straw man that has been repeatedly struck down. We don't keep Sunday nor any other repetitive shadow codified in the Law.

The above in red is what Desmond Ford wrote--A man you said hates SDA's as he used to be one--how come you guys quite talking about him after I gave you the link to his magazine where he states that he still keeps the sabbath??

This is another straw man. I haven't mentioned Dr. Desmond Ford in any of my posts up to now. I quoted Ellen White and M. L. Andreasen, both of whom it seems you've rejected via omission. Dr. Ford rejected the Sanctuary Doctrine, Glacier View is in my back yard, and your appeal to Dr. Ford as an authority mandates that you reject SDA Fundamental Belief #24. As I mentioned before, the Investigative Judgment is the leading doctrinal contention that drives SDA members out the door. Dr. Ford is just one of those who has attempted to bring reform and Biblical coherence to the SDA church. Same with Dr. Raymond Cottrell. I don't think either of them got far enough to address the Sabbath in their discussions, which focused on just one major topic. I remember your responses given in More Coffee's Great Controversy thread, and I hope you don't need me to remind you of your devotion to Ellen.

But on the flip side, you've rejected Ellen's soteriology, as was quoted for you. Along with this, you've rejected the Sabbaths without giving any valid reason for doing so. Your posts can't be reconciled with your own posts.

 

[VictorC]

You continue to ignore everything I said - down to my faith decree I specifically gave you.

So, who is really lying? I told you everything, and you still insult me.

Peace to you.

Scripture doesn't lie, and what you've posted can't be reconciled with God's Word. This becomes an insult to you, and the only one who you're kidding is yourself.

 

[VictorC]

Old-covenant 'christianity' is a oxymoron that doesn't exist.

I respect your thinking a lot, and am intrigued by the statement, so I would appreciate a more in-depth explanation here. Just to get the ball rolling, I will disclose that I just today read Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" and Ignatius of Antioch's "Epistle to the Magnesiums."

Thanks.

You have a way of opening a can of worms with a simplistic appeal. It is another way of saying that Judaism and Christianity aren't compatible, as the latter declares our redemption from the former. In simplest form, speaking of what Jesus has done in inaugurating the new covenant in His Blood, Hebrews 10:9 declares in part "He takes away the first that He may establish the second", showing His disposition of the first covenant from Mount Sinai - it is incompatible with the new (second) covenant.

 

[BobRyan]

Everyone agrees that in Heb 10 Christ took away the sacrificial system.

What is unclear is that the TEN Commandments are only applicable to animal sacrifices. And sure enough in Jer 31:31-33 we find that even under the NEW Covenant the "LAW of God" is written on the heart and mind.

No wonder Paul declares the saints to be a peace with the Law of God in Romans 8:6-8 and the lost to be at war with it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[drstevej]

HINT: Moral Law not Civil Law

 

[LarryP2]

HINT: Moral Law not Civil Law

See my last post. "Moral Law" emphatically does NOT mean sleeping off a big Sabbath potluck in a Lazy Boy Recliner, or only wading in water just past your ankles. Not swimming.

Following the "Moral Law" at one time came to be widely understood as having your bloody bones, nicked up by Lion's teeth; or having shards of your skin evidencing how you were beat to death before you were beheaded; to be kept as holy relics to inspire the other Early Christians.

Real Christians are highly unlikely to need petulant instruction on the Old Testament's "Moral Law" minutia to comprehend they should avoid extramarital affairs, or Walmart shoplifting expeditions. They do not need to luxuriously contemplate the command against murder to deter them from a career as a serial killer. Apparently once upon a time, they were too preoccupied getting eaten alive by Lions, or having their skin beaten to a bloody pulp with a cat o' nine tails to entail any risk of inadvertently gazing at internet pornography.

That may well be why their was so little super-hypothetical parsing of obscure Old Testament texts during the first 3 centuries of Christianity in order to divine appropriate Sabbath-keeping techniques.

 

[IchoozJC]

When we talk about the 2 commandments to love God and neighbor, do you see these summaries as still under Law, or not?

I often quoted these as some kind of litmus test for Christians, but I'm seeing them now as still just law reminding us that we can't measure up. I've honestly yet to love God "with all..." Or my neighbor just as I do myself.

 

[LarryP2]

When we talk about the 2 commandments to love God and neighbor, do you see these summaries as still under Law, or not?

I often quoted these as some kind of litmus test for Christians, but I'm seeing them now as still just law reminding us that we can't measure up. I've honestly yet to love God "with all..." Or my neighbor just as I do myself.

That would be true, absent the explicit written guarantee (with no fine print hedging) of the Holy Spirit writing those two commandments on our hearts, and giving us the superhuman power and guidance and support to carry them out. Those two laws are not "outside" of you, or external codes that can written on a blackboard and objectively and dispassionately studied. They are a living, breathing invisible power, greater than you. Which, as the Bible makes clear, is the only way that anyone can abide by them in the first instance. The Holy Spirit is the real deal breaker. It is simply unavailable for complying with the Old Testament Law. Any of it.


Let me rephrase and repeat what I just said so that I won't be misunderstood: "The Holy Spirit is NOT available to assist in keeping ANY part of the Old Testament Law, including the Ten Commandments."

Justin Martyr was an early second-century Christian thinker who was later beat to death and beheaded for refusing to denounce Christ, and wrote at length about the complete incompatibility between the Old and New Covenants. His writings were inspired and guided by his time as a disciple, sitting at the very feet of the Apostle John. Here's how he unequivocally and scathingly denounced the dead and obsolete Old Testament Laws and anyone obtuse and dense enough to try to understand and keep them:

"For we too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you,--namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts. For if we patiently endure all things contrived against us by wicked men and demons, so that even amid cruelties unutterable, death and torments, we pray for mercy to those who inflict such things upon us, and do not wish to give the least retort to any one, even as the new Lawgiver commanded us: how is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites, I speak of fleshly circumcision, and Sabbaths, and feasts?"
.....
"Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned, though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses, under whom your nation appeared unrighteous and ungrateful to God, making a calf in the wilderness: wherefore God, accommodating Himself to that nation, enjoined them also to offer sacrifices, as if to His name, in order that you might not serve idols."
......
"Do you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths? Remain as you were born. For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or Of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham."
CHAPTER XXIX -- CHRIST IS USELESS TO THOSE WHO OBSERVE THE LAW.
.....
"What need, then, have I of circumcision, who have been witnessed to by God? What need have I of that other baptism, who have been baptized with the Holy Ghost? I think that while I mention this, I would persuade even those who are possessed of scanty intelligence."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

The early Christians, who lived the heroic and selfless lives they were explicitly taught to live straight out of the mouths of the Apostles, brooked no ambiguity.

Choose Christ. Or Choose the Law.

Choose wisely.

 

[from scratch]

When we talk about the 2 commandments to love God and neighbor, do you see these summaries as still under Law, or not?

I often quoted these as some kind of litmus test for Christians, but I'm seeing them now as still just law reminding us that we can't measure up. I've honestly yet to love God "with all..." Or my neighbor just as I do myself.

No!

 

[from scratch]

I am glad I ignored what seemed to be a goading under the guise of "teaching" you something about circumcision of the heart, because this remark is quite ignorant (literally ignoring.)

I gave you my specific belief, creed and what I have faith in. So, with that, ask yourself that question again. I don't like that something that is supposed to represent unity (the Church) has almost 200 denominations of DISUNITY - fighting over trite details of the bible, and traditions. That is why I would rather just give my creed and not wear the title "christian," as it were. I participate on here because there are scores of individuals that I learn from and fellowship with - both people I agree with and disagree with (even feverently.) But, those people I speak to don't try to goad a slick response, they don't use sarcasm so insultingly as many do here, and they most certainly do not insult my salvation, and suggest that I am some kind of harlot or preacher of evil doctrine because they disagree with me.

After you reconcile that, then determine how objective profitable that question was by recalling if you asked all of the atheists, agnostics, deists, pagans, muslims, etc. why they participate here.

Your response contains nothing that I asked about IMHO. There was and still is no intention to slam you. So sorry that you take it that way.

You can also see that I could have some of the same view points as you by my faith icon. To many here are arguing religion. My concern is for the soul and not the defense of a particular religious snot club called a church.

 

[from scratch]

Out of my whole post that is the only thing you have to say???!!---If you're waiting for me to say that the 10 commandments were done away with at the cross, you'll be waiting till Christ comes--which, I hope, won't be too much longer. It's not possible for the 10 commandments to have been done away with. God did not say He would wipe out the laws, He said He would write them in our hearts. They are no longer a set of rules that you follow with certain rituals in order to be saved--but come from a heart that has been turned from stone to flesh. It is still the law that is written in our hearts--and are followed because you love God.

2Co 3:3 You show that you are a letter from Christ that he sent through us. This letter is not written with ink but with the Spirit of the living God. It is not written on stone tablets but on human hearts.

Eze 11:19 I will bring them together and make them like one person. I will put a new spirit in them. I will take away that heart of stone, and I will put a real heart in its place.

Eze 36:26 I will also put a new spirit in you to change your way of thinking. I will take out the heart of stone from your body and give you a tender, human heart. Why are you making up stuff like that??


I have not been hollering--you got a mike hidden in my sewing room (that's where I keep my comuter)??
You are making up conclusions that I have come to when I haven't. At no time have I said that the sabbath has come to an end. At the cross Christ nailed all animal sacrices to the cross--you are jumping from one thing to another and it makes no sense. You guys have said that the disciples kept all the feasts and stated scriptures to "prove it".--I quoted the same scriptures and showed they weren't. That in no way shows they were not keeping the sabbath. They were. You are all saying that Sunday is now to be kept because the disicples did, when they did not. That's been proven over and over. and before any changes made to the law could be done, it would have had to be stated before the death of Christ--He wrote them, He alone could change them and He did no such thing. The old covenant was done away with, no more animal sacrifices--done, broken, done away with--you keep running around in circles and saying that I said the old covenant was not broken but changed location--the now covenant did not change location--I never said that--the new covenant is no more animal sacrifices and the laws are written in our hearts--that's what the bible says--if you have a problem with that than you need to discuss it with God as He's the one that said it! As in the new circumcision is of the heart.

Daniel 9:26 says the Messiah's death would confirm or seal (ratify) the covenant - the same covenant mentioned in verse 4 and in 11:22 - the covenant of Sinai, which itself was identical with the Abrahamic covenant.
​

A close study of the covenants solves this issue also. Galatians 3:15 and Hebrews 9:16, 17 stress that nothing can be added to a covenant after the sacrificial death which seals it. Thus Sunday was three days too late to become part of the New Covenant. For this reason also, baptism was included by Christ's own example prior to Calvary.

In the same article is this:

Obedience to the Nine
In gospel ranks at the present time, there are some of our friends (we do not use that term loosely), offering an explanation of the covenants that, in practical terms, leads to obedience to nine commandments of the Decalogue, but not to that one which is central, the longest, and solely prefaced by "remember."
It is an exaggeration to say that such are nine-tenths under law and one tenth under grace, but it's an understandable criticism
​

The above in red is what Desmond Ford wrote--A man you said hates SDA's as he used to be one--how come you guys quite talking about him after I gave you the link to his magazine where he states that he still keeps the sabbath??

I expected someone to attack his comment on the 2 covenants and that Sunday would have had to be instituded before Christs death not after.

The problem that you all have is that you do not believe that Christ was fully human and fully divine. According to you--He was only divine and therefore that is why he did not sin--The bible says He is fully divine and fully human--His divinity flashed through when He wanted it to--otherwise He lived and acted human, and in His humanity He kept the the sabbath, He kept all the laws, (the Pharisees accused Him of breaking the sabbath, He did not break the sabbath that was written in the 10 commandments--He broke the endless burdens that the Rabbi's had implemented, never the law of God. As a man He was sinless--this is what you can not believe. And you do not believe it because He is our example and that means that using God as our source of power, as He did, we also can be sinless. And that you do not want to face. If we do sin, we ask for forgiveness and we turn away from that sin and God forgives us and we are once again sinless as God forgives and forgets.--it is a life time process. We are to love God with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all our soul and our neighbor as ourself.
As we encounter areas in our life where we do not love God or man we wse should, then we ask forgiveness and His help to overcome all that keeps us from doing so. The more we read His word, the closer we draw to Him and the more His Holy Spirit guides us.

And I have never heard any minister tell anyone that they are not to read their bible except for what they are told to read--quite the opposite. We take our bibles to church, and we open them and we read whatever verse he is reading to make sure he is reading the right one and we are always instructed, have been throughout our school years, to read the verses before and after, and if needed, the chaper before and after to get the whole context. I would never listen to anyone who tells me to only read what he says to read. It's was pounded into us to read before and after, and to read all the bible--over and over, both old and new, every word. That has not changed. If someone has encountered a pastor that teaches otherwise then he needs to report him to the higher ups and take a stand against him. That is what these cult leaders do--you have to read only what he says, the way he says--that is contrary to all that SDA's have taught. The woman who I learned to love as a mother since I was 14 and I met at an SDA school memorized whole chapters, whole books of the bible, even. She was awesome, and though she knew I was not in the church, she never said anything derogatory to me about it and till she died at 96 she prayed for me and my whole family--none of whom were in the church (except for my stepmom--and she was the same way). When cleaning out my stepmoms home after her death, I found tons of little scraps of paper with verses, several bibles all highlighted and notations everywhere. Both these women always told me to always research anything I was told--biblical or wordly.

Nice emotional based post. Bout all I can say is we must have different Bibles.

 

[from scratch]

Yes, that's all I got from your post. I even asked you a question: Why don't you apply this to the entire Law Christ fulfilled?

Your response? Nothing.

I quoted Ellen White, who claimed that your soteriology is dependent on keeping the Sabbath holy. That takes you right back to the burnt offerings and the animal sacrifices.
I quoted M. L. Andreasen, who endorsed Ellen's soteriology and flatly forced a conclusion that Christ isn't coming back - ever.

Your response? Nothing.

It doesn't make sense to you because you're contradicting yourself. If you posit that the animal sacrifices came to an end, this means that the ordinances that demanded them came to an end - and this includes the Sabbath.

No. This wasn't claimed by any of us. This is what the Law demands if you're to keep the Sabbaths codified in it.

No, they weren't. Their example or lack thereof isn't germane to your appeal to the Law, and this is what the OP addresses. You've come about full circle, nullifying your previous post and still unable to produce a coherent answer regarding your inconsistent rejection of the Sabbaths. The SDA church's appeal to Exodus 35:3 and Leviticus 23:3 has already been pointed out to you, to show that they aren't making the division in the Law consistently as you suppose they do.

This is a straw man that has been repeatedly struck down. We don't keep Sunday nor any other repetitive shadow codified in the Law.

This is another straw man. I haven't mentioned Dr. Desmond Ford in any of my posts up to now. I quoted Ellen White and M. L. Andreasen, both of whom it seems you've rejected via omission. Dr. Ford rejected the Sanctuary Doctrine, Glacier View is in my back yard, and your appeal to Dr. Ford as an authority mandates that you reject SDA Fundamental Belief #24. As I mentioned before, the Investigative Judgment is the leading doctrinal contention that drives SDA members out the door. Dr. Ford is just one of those who has attempted to bring reform and Biblical coherence to the SDA church. Same with Dr. Raymond Cottrell. I don't think either of them got far enough to address the Sabbath in their discussions, which focused on just one major topic. I remember your responses given in More Coffee's Great Controversy thread, and I hope you don't need me to remind you of your devotion to Ellen.

But on the flip side, you've rejected Ellen's soteriology, as was quoted for you. Along with this, you've rejected the Sabbaths without giving any valid reason for doing so. Your posts can't be reconciled with your own posts.

But that's what makes them so fun.

 

[from scratch]

Everyone agrees that in Heb 10 Christ took away the sacrificial system.

What is unclear is that the TEN Commandments are only applicable to animal sacrifices. And sure enough in Jer 31:31-33 we find that even under the NEW Covenant the "LAW of God" is written on the heart and mind.

No wonder Paul declares the saints to be a peace with the Law of God in Romans 8:6-8 and the lost to be at war with it.

in Christ,

Bob

Jeremiah doesn't say the covenant issued at Sinai is written on anyone's heart.

"Not according to..." has nothing to do with place or stone tablets.

 

[LarryP2]

Jeremiah doesn't say the covenant issued at Sinai is written on anyone's heart. "Not according to..." has nothing to do with place or stone tablets.

How anyone could read that text and claim that it promised that the 10 commandments would be written on our hearts is just unbelievable:

Jeremiah 31:31-33
New International Version (NIV)

31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenantwith the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to[a] them,” declares the Lord. 33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts and I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Plainly Jeremiah was predicting something that was going to happen in the future. Clearly Jeremiah is prophesying a New Covenant that would be written on people's hearts. It will not be like the covenant
"I made with their ancestors." That is so obviously referring to the Mosaic Law and the Ten Commandments.

ALL of the early Christians completely understood the fact that the Holy Spirit is simply not available to assist, guide or give us power to keep the Old Testament Law, including the Ten Commandments. Those laws are deader than a door nail. They are defunct. Kaput. Sayanara.

There just was no dispute among the Apostles and the Early Christians on this issue. It truly is amazing when you study Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch, two Church Fathers mentored by the Apostles John and Peter.

Choose Christ. Or Choose the Law.

Choose wisely.