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

[mmksparbud]

We last left this conversation with two Adventists searching for the Sabbath conveyed to the Gentile Christians in Acts 15. Both have apparently abandoned their search. We also left them showing that they have no intention of keeping the Sabbaths -any of them- and they're deficient in terms of meeting Ellen White's formula for 'salvation'. No reason has been given with respect to the OP asking for a valid reason for rejecting the Sabbaths ordained in the old covenant after some 600 posts on this thread, and I consider vacuum left in the wake of excuses to provide the final answer.

Vacuum? What vacuum??----"They're baaaaaack!!"

I took some time off for speculation and prayer and further studies. Obviously my words were not conveying what I think they are. Or, more likely--they are quite simply ignored and, again, being manipulated to say something that I never did. The OP has been answered countless times. Yet, still, you can not get it--so I will try using the words of others--Maybe, in the meantime, someone can answer why the heirs of a will (covenant) chose to change the will after the death of the will maker. Such as, If Christ had changed the 7th day to the 1 day, why didn't He say so before He was crucified as He did with the Communion feast? As has been said before, the 1st day of the week being the new Lords day of worship, was instituted 3 days after His death--(though not by the Apostles)--no man can change what God has done.

"But Jesus also demanded good works to go along with faith. A man came up to Him with a question about eternal salvation. “Teacher,” he asked, “what good deed (ti agathon) must I do, to have eternal life?” Jesus did not send him away or correct him. He didn’t say: “You are asking the wrong question; you need only to believe in me and you will be saved.” Rather Jesus said to him: “Keep the commandments . . . You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself” (Mat 19:16-19). Rather than separate faith and works, Jesus closely united the two as being definitive to Christian life. That’s the undeniable implication of His great discourse we call “Sermon on the Mount.” The Sermon contains a vast amount of teachings and exhortations Christ expected His followers to learn and live by (Mat. chaps. 5-7). “Do not bear false witness . . . Love your enemies . . . Seek first God’s kingdom and His righteousness . . . Judge not, that you be not judged” (Mat 5:33, 44; 6:33; 7:1). Jesus set down these teachings as the necessary standards of moral righteousness. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount He denounced the kind of faith that is only lip service. He said those who relied only on faith risked the loss of eternal salvation. He warned: “On that day many will call out to me ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy and cast out demons in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’” (Mat 7:21-23)."
Now, some will say that there is no mention of the sabbath when Jesus was saying to keep the commandments, therefore it does not need to be kept--He didn't have to list them all--He was still nameing the 10--It was understood that's what He was talking about. He did not mention coveting, not having other Gods,nor taking the Lord's name in vain. By that reasoning, then these things should be allright??



"On another occasion Jesus referred to faith as lifetime work. He urged a crowd not to “labor for the food that perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life.” They asked: “What must we do to be doing the works of God (Ti poiomen ina ergazometha to erga tou Theou)?” He replied: “This is the work of God (to ergon tou Theou): that you believe in Him whom God has sent” (John 6:27-29). The most pleasing work to God is the continuous exercise of faith in Christ as Savior and Lord throughout our lives. Christ promised us a continuous personal communion with Him, a continuous Easter experience, based on love, faith, and the keeping of His commandments. He said: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments . . . If a person loves me, He will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” (John 14:15-17, 23). Our “new birth” is given to us in Baptism according to the words of the Lord: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). And if we lose our way, heartfelt prayer, repentance, Holy Confession and Holy Communion provide personal occasions for spiritual renewal throughout our lives. How important for salvation the Eucharist is, we know from the words of Christ: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54). In these many ways, according to Christ, Orthodox Christians throughout their lives receive salvation and renewal through faith, works, and the sacraments of the Church."

Is it any clearer when said by anoher church??

Ellens definition of salvation?? You obviously don't know it--it's no different then that which is stated above. The dietary health laws, are just that--laws for a healthier body--trying to get back to God's original diet. He made us, He knows what's best for us. And it's been stated over and over by independent studies that SDAs live longer and lead more active lifestyles than any other group of people. The Japanese come a close 2nd--and those are the ones that are mostly vegetarian, beef is to expensive, seafood for those inland harder to get. I've had friends die of cancer--the first thing that the dr's told them was to eliminate sugar (and by the way--EGW said sugar is worse than eating meat and should be avoided) and then they told them go vegetarian, or at least avoid any red meat, and avoid alcoholo--and those Dr's were not in any way even remotely connected to the church.
There is no dispute that a healthy body usually equals a healthy mind, or at least healthier. Eating right, and exercise and drinking lots of water help more than our looks, it clears our minds by better oxygenation of the brain and the blood which helps all over. Even Eastern religions point that out. Yes--SDA's can be very far from the ideal--the potlocks are loaded with sweets--though they're getting better.
For those who like to quote her
:As I preach the gospel to the poor, I am instructed to tell them to eat that food which is most nourishing. I cannot say to them, “You must not eat eggs or milk or cream. You must use no butter in the preparation of food.” The gospel must be preached to the
poor, and the time has not yet come to prescribe the strictest diet.
The time will come when we may have to discard some of the articles of diet we now use, such as milk and cream and eggs, but my message is that you must not bring yourself to a time of trouble beforehand, and thus afflict yourself with death. Wait till the Lord prepares the way before you.
«Back «Hit «Prev. Pub. «Ch «Pg Pg» Ch» Next Pub.» Hit» Forward»
Manuscript Releases Volume Twelve [Nos. 921-999], Page 177-

But then, that's not the only thing they mess up on--EGW expressly said to not set down iron clad rules such as the "Fundamentals of 7th day Adventists" book--it was not to be done, and there was a lot of flap by the more traditionalists about it. But, contrary to popoular opinion, the Church has often not done as she said--and paid the price. She said to not make Battle Creek into that huge complex, warned and warned about it--it burned down. By not having those 27 fundamentals written down she meant to have a more "flexible" religion with room to grow as the Holy Spirit led.

The Remnant Church; Its Organization, Authority, Unity, and Triumph, Page 31

God does not open everything to one mind, but He teaches one, and another, and still another. Men are to stand in God, and without having the fear of criticism before them, they are to speak as God shall give them utterance, and to write as God shall dictate. After they have written their thoughts, let them be free to read their articles to their brethren, and let them receive any kindly word or caution that the brethren may see fit to offer in the spirit of brotherly kindness and love....
The cautions which God has given are to be regarded. Christ has said concerning His disciples, “All ye are brethren.” Every one is to give an account of himself to God.... Do not lay down any specified rules or prescribe any details as to how God’s agents shall do their work.... The Teacher said, “While you are so earnest to call to mind the details, the time that is of so great value has been consumed, ... and the minds of the workers have been called to dwell upon non-essentials which should have been left for workers in the field to plan for themselves.... Many things that are too important to be set aside have been lightly dwelt upon, and many things that are of little consequence have been largely dwelt upon, when there is no reason why men should dictate concerning the matters they have laid out in detail.”—Letter 53, 1894.

God's Amazing Grace, Page 252

How shall we know for ourselves God’s goodness and His love? The psalmist tells us—not, hear and know, read and know, or believe and know; but—“Taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8). Instead of relying upon the word of another, taste for yourself. Experience is knowledge derived from experiment. Experimental religion is what is needed now. “Taste and see that the Lord is good.”

Oooops!! The 2 first quotes in red are from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

 

[LarryP2]

Oooops!! The 2 first quotes in red are from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

The irony of your post is inescapable. You quote from the Orthodox, which actually could not be further away from Adventism in ALL of its fundamental beliefs. I can't think of one single Fundamental Doctrine of Adventism the Orthodox would agree with.

Second, Ellen white, with willful and premeditated deceit; completely omits mention of the Orthodox Faith in The Great Controversy. Knowing full well that the very existence of this 2,000 year old, 300 million member organization energetically and radically refutes her deceitful conspiracy theory of the Pope unilaterally changing "Saturday to Sunday." The very existence of the Eastern Orthodox makes the entire bizarre theme of the Great Controversy nothing more than an elaborate and deceitful fairy tale, top to bottom.

And The Great Controversy is the foundational text of the entire SDA movement.

NEVER, has ANYONE from the SDA organization addressed Eastern Orthodoxy's adamant contention they began worshiping on Sunday and celebrating Easter within the first year after the Resurrection, at the direct, explicit instructions of the Apostles. Lastly, the Great Controversy NEVER addresses Eastern Orthodoxy's adamant contention that it furiously battled from the beginning of Christianity the virulent anti-Christian heresy of Sabbath-keeping, also at the direct, pointed and explicit instructions of the Apostles.

The first Century Church unanimously and vigorously denounced Sabbath Keeping variously as the "Ebionite," "Gallatians," and the "Judaizing" heresy. There is a solid wall of history that supports the contention that Sabbath Keeping was the primary threat to Christianity in the First Century.

So your last post is fraught with immense and laughable irony on many different levels.

 

[from scratch]

Vacuum? What vacuum??----"They're baaaaaack!!"

I took some time off for speculation and prayer and further studies. Obviously my words were not conveying what I think they are. Or, more likely--they are quite simply ignored and, again, being manipulated to say something that I never did. The OP has been answered countless times. Yet, still, you can not get it--so I will try using the words of others--Maybe, in the meantime, someone can answer why the heirs of a will (covenant) chose to change the will after the death of the will maker. Such as, If Christ had changed the 7th day to the 1 day, why didn't He say so before He was crucified as He did with the Communion feast? As has been said before, the 1st day of the week being the new Lords day of worship, was instituted 3 days after His death--(though not by the Apostles)--no man can change what God has done.

"But Jesus also demanded good works to go along with faith. A man came up to Him with a question about eternal salvation. “Teacher,” he asked, “what good deed (ti agathon) must I do, to have eternal life?” Jesus did not send him away or correct him. He didn’t say: “You are asking the wrong question; you need only to believe in me and you will be saved.” Rather Jesus said to him: “Keep the commandments . . . You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself” (Mat 19:16-19). Rather than separate faith and works, Jesus closely united the two as being definitive to Christian life. That’s the undeniable implication of His great discourse we call “Sermon on the Mount.” The Sermon contains a vast amount of teachings and exhortations Christ expected His followers to learn and live by (Mat. chaps. 5-7). “Do not bear false witness . . . Love your enemies . . . Seek first God’s kingdom and His righteousness . . . Judge not, that you be not judged” (Mat 5:33, 44; 6:33; 7:1). Jesus set down these teachings as the necessary standards of moral righteousness. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount He denounced the kind of faith that is only lip service. He said those who relied only on faith risked the loss of eternal salvation. He warned: “On that day many will call out to me ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy and cast out demons in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers’” (Mat 7:21-23)."
Now, some will say that there is no mention of the sabbath when Jesus was saying to keep the commandments, therefore it does not need to be kept--He didn't have to list them all--He was still nameing the 10--It was understood that's what He was talking about. He did not mention coveting, not having other Gods,nor taking the Lord's name in vain. By that reasoning, then these things should be allright??



"On another occasion Jesus referred to faith as lifetime work. He urged a crowd not to “labor for the food that perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life.” They asked: “What must we do to be doing the works of God (Ti poiomen ina ergazometha to erga tou Theou)?” He replied: “This is the work of God (to ergon tou Theou): that you believe in Him whom God has sent” (John 6:27-29). The most pleasing work to God is the continuous exercise of faith in Christ as Savior and Lord throughout our lives. Christ promised us a continuous personal communion with Him, a continuous Easter experience, based on love, faith, and the keeping of His commandments. He said: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments . . . If a person loves me, He will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” (John 14:15-17, 23). Our “new birth” is given to us in Baptism according to the words of the Lord: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). And if we lose our way, heartfelt prayer, repentance, Holy Confession and Holy Communion provide personal occasions for spiritual renewal throughout our lives. How important for salvation the Eucharist is, we know from the words of Christ: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54). In these many ways, according to Christ, Orthodox Christians throughout their lives receive salvation and renewal through faith, works, and the sacraments of the Church."

Is it any clearer when said by anoher church??

Ellens definition of salvation?? You obviously don't know it--it's no different then that which is stated above. The dietary health laws, are just that--laws for a healthier body--trying to get back to God's original diet. He made us, He knows what's best for us. And it's been stated over and over by independent studies that SDAs live longer and lead more active lifestyles than any other group of people. The Japanese come a close 2nd--and those are the ones that are mostly vegetarian, beef is to expensive, seafood for those inland harder to get. I've had friends die of cancer--the first thing that the dr's told them was to eliminate sugar (and by the way--EGW said sugar is worse than eating meat and should be avoided) and then they told them go vegetarian, or at least avoid any red meat, and avoid alcoholo--and those Dr's were not in any way even remotely connected to the church.
There is no dispute that a healthy body usually equals a healthy mind, or at least healthier. Eating right, and exercise and drinking lots of water help more than our looks, it clears our minds by better oxygenation of the brain and the blood which helps all over. Even Eastern religions point that out. Yes--SDA's can be very far from the ideal--the potlocks are loaded with sweets--though they're getting better.
For those who like to quote her
:As I preach the gospel to the poor, I am instructed to tell them to eat that food which is most nourishing. I cannot say to them, “You must not eat eggs or milk or cream. You must use no butter in the preparation of food.” The gospel must be preached to the
poor, and the time has not yet come to prescribe the strictest diet.
The time will come when we may have to discard some of the articles of diet we now use, such as milk and cream and eggs, but my message is that you must not bring yourself to a time of trouble beforehand, and thus afflict yourself with death. Wait till the Lord prepares the way before you.
«Back «Hit «Prev. Pub. «Ch «Pg Pg» Ch» Next Pub.» Hit» Forward»
Manuscript Releases Volume Twelve [Nos. 921-999], Page 177-

But then, that's not the only thing they mess up on--EGW expressly said to not set down iron clad rules such as the "Fundamentals of 7th day Adventists" book--it was not to be done, and there was a lot of flap by the more traditionalists about it. But, contrary to popoular opinion, the Church has often not done as she said--and paid the price. She said to not make Battle Creek into that huge complex, warned and warned about it--it burned down. By not having those 27 fundamentals written down she meant to have a more "flexible" religion with room to grow as the Holy Spirit led.

The Remnant Church; Its Organization, Authority, Unity, and Triumph, Page 31

God does not open everything to one mind, but He teaches one, and another, and still another. Men are to stand in God, and without having the fear of criticism before them, they are to speak as God shall give them utterance, and to write as God shall dictate. After they have written their thoughts, let them be free to read their articles to their brethren, and let them receive any kindly word or caution that the brethren may see fit to offer in the spirit of brotherly kindness and love....
The cautions which God has given are to be regarded. Christ has said concerning His disciples, “All ye are brethren.” Every one is to give an account of himself to God.... Do not lay down any specified rules or prescribe any details as to how God’s agents shall do their work.... The Teacher said, “While you are so earnest to call to mind the details, the time that is of so great value has been consumed, ... and the minds of the workers have been called to dwell upon non-essentials which should have been left for workers in the field to plan for themselves.... Many things that are too important to be set aside have been lightly dwelt upon, and many things that are of little consequence have been largely dwelt upon, when there is no reason why men should dictate concerning the matters they have laid out in detail.”—Letter 53, 1894.

God's Amazing Grace, Page 252

How shall we know for ourselves God’s goodness and His love? The psalmist tells us—not, hear and know, read and know, or believe and know; but—“Taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8). Instead of relying upon the word of another, taste for yourself. Experience is knowledge derived from experiment. Experimental religion is what is needed now. “Taste and see that the Lord is good.”

Oooops!! The 2 first quotes in red are from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

The covenant wasn't changed, It was replaced as promised.

Jeremiah says cut a new stone. It doesn't say refurbish the old one. Read it for yourself. Of course I'm referring to Jer 31:31. Verse 32 reinforces this with not according to.... which you take to mean exactly like. Heb 8:6 says the New Covenant is based on promises and not law.

Being an entirely new covenant the command to do anything must be included. The 4th isn't included as a command in the NT (New Covenant).

 

[VictorC]

Vacuum? What vacuum??----"They're baaaaaack!!"

I took some time off for speculation and prayer and further studies. Obviously my words were not conveying what I think they are. Or, more likely--they are quite simply ignored and, again, being manipulated to say something that I never did.

Review what you wrote once again:

"The council of Jerusalem nixed the Sabbath command entirely!!???

This is in the form of a question, which does not accept the conclusions of the council's decision found in Acts 15.
We don't need to manipulate your posts. These are your words exactly as you wrote them. Your task was to find the Sabbath conveyed to the Gentile Christians, and you didn't even try to.

The OP has been answered countless times.

You have made it clear that you have no intention to keep the Sabbath -any of them- and have no interest in abiding by the old covenant. And yet you've been confronted with Ellen White's claim that you need to comply with the old covenant to attain 'salvation': "It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord".

The OP asked the question regarding why you dismissed the Sabbaths in the annual cycle. The responses have been so convoluted I don't think I want to bother quoting them.

Yet, still, you can not get it--so I will try using the words of others--Maybe, in the meantime, someone can answer why the heirs of a will (covenant) chose to change the will after the death of the will maker.

This faint allusion to Galatians 3:17 fails to take into account that the passage seeks to protect the covenant promise through Abraham given 430 years before the Law existed. It doesn't support your misuse of the passage to defend the Law that is contrary to God's promise.

Such as, If Christ had changed the 7th day to the 1 day, why didn't He say so before He was crucified as He did with the Communion feast? As has been said before, the 1st day of the week being the new Lords day of worship, was instituted 3 days after His death--(though not by the Apostles)--no man can change what God has done.

Who fed you the stupid myth that Jesus 'changed' any aspect codified in the old covenant?
Red herring.
Jesus didn't change the old covenant! He redeemed His elect from the old covenant. It isn't compatible with the new covenant He is Mediator of, the reason He took it away according to Hebrews 10:9.

Adventism doesn't recognize God's redemption of transgressions under the first covenant, nor His mediation of the new covenant - and Hebrews 9:15 has been presented to you repeatedly.

Now, some will say that there is no mention of the sabbath when Jesus was saying to keep the commandments, therefore it does not need to be kept--He didn't have to list them all--He was still nameing the 10--It was understood that's what He was talking about.

Of course. He was speaking to someone still retained by the bondwoman covenant from Mount Sinai He hadn't redeemed anyone from yet by His death.

Your argument continues with this mythology that Christianity 'changed' the old covenant and still abides under the Law. Applying this myth someone fed you is a red herring that doesn't even recognize the Gospel. Try working on Paul's summary in Galatians 4:4-7.

Is it any clearer when said by anoher church??

This is a good place to review Acts 15. The commandments of God conveyed to this -or any other- Gentile church don't include any mention of the Sabbath. And, neither did your quote from an extra-Biblical source.

Ellens definition of salvation?? You obviously don't know it.

I quoted it above, and I can quote it again: "It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord". And yet you have shown that you have no intention of keeping the Sabbath Holy. You don't seem to have a solution to this problem, which is found in the Gospel Christianity affirms in contrast to Ellen White's demand that you revert to the old covenant.

The Remnant Church

I pointed out long ago to LarryP2 that the first thing a cult does is claim its status as the 'remnant', and no longer a denomination of the Christian church. This remnant claim is codified in the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist 'church'.

Oooops!! The 2 first quotes in red are from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

And this takes us all they way back to the council of Jerusalem and its findings recorded in Acts 15. Why do you suppose this denomination abides by the commandments conveyed to them, and the SDA church doesn't?

We're going to call your post a used Dodge. It didn't even attempt to address the post you successfully quoted by me.

 

[VictorC]

The covenant wasn't changed, It was replaced as promised.

Exactly.

 

[Lollerskates]

The covenant wasn't changed, It was replaced as promised.

Jeremiah says cut an new stone. It doesn't say refurbish the old one. Read it for yourself. Of course I'm referring to Jer 31:31. Verse 32 reinforces this with not according to.... which you take to mean exactly like. Heb 8:6 says the New Covenant is based on promises and not law.

Being an entirely new covenant the command to do anything must be included. The 4th isn't included as a command in the NT (New Covenant).

The New Covenant wasn't changed or replaced. The vector for being a part of the covenant was changed - not the substance. Instead of a physical body being given a physical, written word to follow physically, we have been given a covenant that says God will write the Law on our hearts, so that we won't need a book, or stone to know His law: we will know it in our hearts, and will delight in it. It does not say anything about said law changing at all, not does it say anything about dismissal of Law of God.

The new covenant, if you pay attention, is a double portion of responsibility on our part, and a double portion of Mercy and Grace on God's part. Look at a woman to lust, you committed adultery (no physical needed, only heart-intentions.) Follow the law of God, your treasures are stored in Heaven.

Even if you do not follow God's Law to perfection, you are still justified by Christ's sacrifice and your faith in Him, and your love for God. That is the double portion of Grace and Mercy, and where the stipulation of "not being under the Law" comes from. You are not under the Law because if you sin, you are not necessarily going to Hell (no questions asked.) Works and propencity to follow Law is no longer the thing that qualifies your salvation: Christ's sacrifice is.

Now, does that mean we throw out God's law? Nope. In fact, the New Covenant/New Testament is about writing that law on our hearts so that we delight in His law, not so we vindicate our salvation. Moreover, faith and love are lukewarm when there is no obedience. And what did God say? Those who love me obey me. They will keep my commandmants (John 14:12-17.) Those commandments are the same commandments the Word of God gave to Moses, Malachai, Enoch, Jacob, Isaac, John, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, etc. Nothing of the word has changed unless He has said so.

The Passover is coming up soon. As I said, some of us do practice the Sabbath and Feast Days. And, I am not even a SDA.

 

[LarryP2]

The Ten Commandments were abolished for Christians. They do not even come remotely CLOSE to describing the duties of Christians under the New Covenant and carrying out the Great Commandments of Christ. No Christian could possibly look at the Ten Commandments for information about living the Christian life. They aren't remotely good enough. They aren't even good enough to indicate the bare minimum.

Adventists worry endlessly about the Ten Commandments being the only impediment between them going on a murder spree. If the Ten Commandments are not there, how on earth are they supposed to control themselves? Christians, especially the early ones, were worried whether their lives had been an inspiration to other Christians. Their goal was not to avoid murder: Their goal was whether their bodies - after they were shredded to bite-sized pieces of blooded bones by wild beasts at the Coliseum - could be useful to someone as Holy relics. Funny, none of the genuine Christian martyrs ever kept the Sabbath, or thought about keeping it.

Adventists worry that without the Commandment against stealing, they might not hesitate to go on a shoplifting expedition to Walmart. Real Christians sold everything they owned and made supporting the widows and orphans the Church's highest priority (30,000 of them were supported just by the Church at Constantinople in the 300's).

Adventists worry incessantly about perfect Sabbath Keeping. Christians go to the Death Row at the local prison, incessantly worrying that the condemned man who killed his entire family will be able to see one friendly face at their execution. Real Christians actively supported fugitive slaves and blew up their prisons with dynamite on the Sabbath to free them. Real Christians put their own wedding rings into the Sunday offering plate, to assist in ransoming slaves, never giving a thought about when the Pope may have changed Saturday to Sunday. Real Christians boxed up rifles to send to Kansas anti-slavery militias on the Sabbath.

Without the Commandment against Adultery, Adventists might want many girlfriends. Real Christians not only avoid Adultery, they insist on giving an unconditional level of love to the person who had an affair with their wife. Real Christians know that in certain situations, they are required to give up their own lives so that an unrepentant adulterer might live.

Adventists worry about coveting their neighbor's lawnmower. Christians worry about whether they have loved their neighbor enough to have given the neighbor their lawnmower.

Ten Commandment fetishists are pikers. You can keep the Ten Commandments merely by burping up on a green bean casserole overdose and snoozing away a sumptuous potluck in your Easy-Boy Recliner.

 

[mmksparbud]

I will first address this one thing about the sabbath and EGW---It has been brought up many times and each time totaly out of context and I am going to quote what she has written and not what somebody says she wrote: First, what she says about salvation.

We must learn in the school of Christ. Nothing but his righteousness can entitle us to one of the blessings of the covenant of grace. We have long desired and tried to obtain these blessings, but have not received them, because we have cherished the idea that we could do something to make ourselves worthy of them. We have not looked away from ourselves, believing that Jesus is a living Saviour. We must not think that our own grace and merits will save us; the grace of Christ is our only hope of salvation.
Gospel Workers 1892, Page 412

There is not a point that needs to be dwelt upon more earnestly, repeated more frequently, or established more firmly in the minds of all than the impossibility of fallen man meriting anything by his own best good works. Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone.
Faith and Works, Page 19


And now comes the oft misquoted line and the whole context under which it has been exctracted.

Here the discourse was broken in upon by questions from one who had kept the Sabbath a short time, but who had recently given it up. Rising in the congregation, he said, “This Sabbath question has been a great trouble to me during the last year, and now I would like to ask a question: Is the observance of the Sabbath necessary to my salvation? Answer, yes or no.” I answered promptly, This is an important question, and demands something more full than yes or no. All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light. But none will be held accountable for light which they have never received. I then quoted the words of Christ, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.” It was with the greatest difficulty, however,
that I made these remarks; for the questioner kept jumping to his feet, and interrupting me, and in the most excited manner and with the most violent gestures demanding that the answer be yes or no.
Several times while I was speaking he tried to restate my remarks, giving them just the meaning that he wished them to have, and that he has since given them; and as many times he was corrected by persons present who understood both French and English. [Notwithstanding the fact that his misstatements of my position were repeatedly corrected at the meeting, this man has since stated publicly that at first my response was evasive; but that as he insisted I became affirmative, then negative, as follows: “If the Christian is persuaded that he ought to keep the Sabbath, the Sabbath is necessary to his salvation. If he does not believe it duty to keep the Sabbath, the Sabbath is not necessary to his salvation.” This is a gross misrepresentation, as will be seen by comparing it with the facts as given above; but to just such misrepresentations will those resort who oppose the truth.] He then began to read and comment upon something which he had written in regard to the Sabbath. But he proceeded so rapidly that he gave little opportunity for his remarks to be interpreted, and therefore I could get but little idea of what he was trying to say. One statement which I did understand, however, was to the effect that Christ, instead of teaching the Sabbath, broke it. To this I felt that I must respond. I said: “I hope our brother will not place himself on the side of the Pharisees in their accusations against Christ; for if their charge of Sabbath-breaking could have been sustained against him, they would not have been under the necessity of hiring false witnesses to testify against him.” At this he became very much enraged, and charged me with calling him a Pharisee. This, however, was corrected by several persons present, and he said, “I beg pardon.”Historical Sketches of the Foreign Missions of the Seventh-day Adventists, Page 234-235

There is more said about this individual but this is the most repeated part--I will get to the other remarks later. I can only sit at the computer so long. That's why it takes me so long to get to these statements.
I sincerely hope tnhat these quotes are read as it has become obvious that most of my posts are not read completely, merely skimmed through and then twisted--Try and restrain the impulse.

 

[Lollerskates]

The Ten Commandments were abolished for Christians. They do not even come remotely CLOSE to describing the duties of Christians under the New Covenant and carrying out the Great Commandments of Christ. No Christian could possibly look at the Ten Commandments for information about living the Christian life. They aren't remotely good enough. They aren't even good enough to indicate the bare minimum.

Adventists worry endlessly about the Ten Commandments being the only impediment between them going on a murder spree. If the Ten Commandments are not there, how on earth are they supposed to control themselves? Christians, especially the early ones, were worried whether their lives had been an inspiration to other Christians. Their goal was not to avoid murder: Their goal was whether their bodies - after they were shredded to bite-sized pieces of blooded bones by wild beasts at the Coliseum - could be useful to someone as Holy relics. Funny, none of the genuine Christian martyrs ever kept the Sabbath, or thought about keeping it.

Adventists worry that without the Commandment against stealing, they might not hesitate to go on a shoplifting expedition to Walmart. Real Christians sold everything they owned and made supporting the widows and orphans the Church's highest priority (30,000 of them were supported just by the Church at Constantinople in the 300's).

Adventists worry incessantly about perfect Sabbath Keeping. Christians go to the Death Row at the local prison, incessantly worrying that the condemned man who killed his entire family will be able to see one friendly face at their execution. Real Christians actively supported fugitive slaves and blew up their prisons with dynamite on the Sabbath to free them. Real Christians put their own wedding rings into the Sunday offering plate, to assist in ransoming slaves, never giving a thought about when the Pope may have changed Saturday to Sunday. Real Christians boxed up rifles to send to Kansas anti-slavery militias on the Sabbath.

Without the Commandment against Adultery, Adventists might want many girlfriends. Real Christians not only avoid Adultery, they insist on giving an unconditional level of love to the person who had an affair with their wife. Real Christians know that in certain situations, they are required to give up their own lives so that an unrepentant adulterer might live.

Adventists worry about coveting their neighbor's lawnmower. Christians worry about whether they have loved their neighbor enough to have given the neighbor their lawnmower.

Ten Commandment fetishists are pikers. You can keep the Ten Commandments merely by burping up on a green bean casserole overdose and snoozing away a sumptuous potluck in your Easy-Boy Recliner.

"The ten commandments were abolished for Christians..."

What minister(s) is teaching this? Seriously, that is one of the most dangerous things to tell a believer.

My goodness, the Church...

 

[LarryP2]

"The ten commandments were abolished for Christians..."

What minister(s) is teaching this? Seriously, that is one of the most dangerous things to tell a believer.

My goodness, the Church...

That they are no remotely good enough? That is, if they teach them at all? The Ten Commandments don't even come close to meeting the standards of Christ's Great Commandments. At best, they are misleading. "Take up your cross and follow me" seems to stir the soul quite a bit more than "Thou Shalt not Covet."

The Ten Commandments are extremely low level. They provide a floor, not a ceiling. They are the bare minimum. If you are living at the pitiful level of the Ten Commandments, God help you. If you need the Ten Commandments to deter you from Adultery, you have obviously drastically misunderstood the Gospel.

 

[Lollerskates]

That they are no remotely good enough? That is, if they teach them at all? The Ten Commandments don't even come close to meeting the standards of Christ's Great Commandments. At best, they are misleading. "Take up your cross and follow me" seems to stir the soul quite a bit more than "Thou Shalt not Covet."

Who taught you that the ten commandments were abolished for Christians? What minister preahes that - that is what I want to know.

Nothing comes close to meeting the standards of Christ, but Christ's "Great Commandments" is no different from what God said as Law - because He is the literal breathing word of God.

Christ said:

1) Love God with all of your heart, might and soul.

That meant follow all the laws of God that connect Him with you - if you want to be strict (i.e. minus Law arguments inclusively,) then that includes the first four commandments.

2) Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

That is (again, minus LAw arguments inclusively,) is the last six commandments.

Notice how 4 is a spiritual number (of ten commandments,) and six is a number of man (of the ten commandments.) You can follow all of the Law - given to Moses in word or stone - from the 10 commandments, and Christ never changed anything about that. What He did was perfectly do what we couldnt - follow the Law 100% correctly. That is His fulfillment of the Law. He never abolished it. The 10 commandments are a cornerstone of how to worship and be obedient to God. God has other rules/laws, but the 10 commandments are foundations.

Taking up your cross means you struggle through the "thorn in your side" that doesn't allow you to be 100% sinless, and lets you know that you deserve death by Universal Law. The Grace is that you are no longer justified/under the Law, so not following the Law 100% perfectly like Christ does not disqualify you for being with God. Christ's sacrifice save us.


Does that mean we throw out the rulebook? Nope. Carry your cross; [try to] be perfect like your Father, and be obedient like Christ.

The Ten Commandments are extremely low level. They provide a floor, not a ceiling. They are the bare minimum. If you are living at the pitiful level of the Ten Commandments, God help you. If you need the Ten Commandments to deter you from Adultery, you have obviously drastically misunderstood the Gospel.

The new covenant gaurantees that no one has to live by the written law anymore, and that the Law of God would be on the heart of men who fear (revere) God. I don't need the ten commandments to tell me adultery is wrong. As a matter of fact, the Hebrews shouldn't have had to receive the Law from God, but because they were so far from Him in their hearts, they got it in written form/verbalized from the Source.

Adam did not need written Law to know what was right and wrong.
Abel, Seth and even Cain did not need the written law to tell them how to/compel them so sacrifice to God. They already knew. No one is "living for the 10 commandments." At the same time, it is quite ascinine to suggest that the 10 commandments are not to be followed, or were abolished as if they are no longer in function. None of God's law is abolished. All of His law is Universal - as in like Christ said, not one iota of the Law will pass until all has been fulfilled. That means His law will still be in effect when Christ brings the Kingdom here, resurrects us to perfection, and His people reign with Him. It will still be in effect when saints judge angels. It will be in effect until everything has been fulfilled: 10 commandments included.

 

[LarryP2]

Who taught you that the ten commandments were abolished for Christians? What minister preahes that - that is what I want to know.

Nothing comes close to meeting the standards of Christ, but Christ's "Great Commandments" is no different from what God said as Law - because He is the literal breathing word of God.

Christ said:

1) Love God with all of your heart, might and soul.

That meant follow all the laws of God that connect Him with you - if you want to be strict (i.e. minus Law arguments inclusively,) then that includes the first four commandments.

2) Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

That is (again, minus LAw arguments inclusively,) is the last six commandments.

Notice how 4 is a spiritual number (of ten commandments,) and six is a number of man (of the ten commandments.) You can follow all of the Law - given to Moses in word or stone - from the 10 commandments, and Christ never changed anything about that. What He did was perfectly do what we couldnt - follow the Law 100% correctly. That is His fulfillment of the Law. He never abolished it. The 10 commandments are a cornerstone of how to worship and be obedient to God. God has other rules/laws, but the 10 commandments are foundations.

Taking up your cross means you struggle through the "thorn in your side" that doesn't allow you to be 100% sinless, and lets you know that you deserve death by Universal Law. The Grace is that you are no longer justified/under the Law, so not following the Law 100% perfectly like Christ does not disqualify you for being with God. Christ's sacrifice save us.


Does that mean we throw out the rulebook? Nope. Carry your cross; [try to] be perfect like your Father, and be obedient like Christ.




The new covenant gaurantees that no one has to live by the written law anymore, and that the Law of God would be on the heart of men who fear (revere) God. I don't need the ten commandments to tell me adultery is wrong. As a matter of fact, the Hebrews shouldn't have had to receive the Law from God, but because they were so far from Him in their hearts, they got it in written form/verbalized from the Source.

Adam did not need written Law to know what was right and wrong.
Abel, Seth and even Cain did not need the written law to tell them how to/compel them so sacrifice to God. They already knew. No one is "living for the 10 commandments." At the same time, it is quite ascinine to suggest that the 10 commandments are not to be followed, or were abolished as if they are no longer in function. None of God's law is abolished. All of His law is Universal - as in like Christ said, not one iota of the Law will pass until all has been fulfilled. That means His law will still be in effect when Christ brings the Kingdom here, resurrects us to perfection, and His people reign with Him. It will still be in effect when saints judge angels. It will be in effect until everything has been fulfilled: 10 commandments included.

Once again, lets reaffirm some basic ideas:

1). The Mosaic Law is one seamless piece. There are 613 Commandments in it, all of them equally important and equally intertwined with each other. The Ten Commandments are not elevated above the other 603 Commandments. You are not allowed to pick and choose among them. If you keep one, you keep them all. All 613. You do not get to pick and choose. That is not how it was done....EVER. The Apostles well understood this issue. This is literally "Judaism 101. The following link gives a nice description that would have been on the Apostles' minds whenever a discussion of "The Law" was occurring:
http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm

2). Gentiles are absolutely prohibited by Mosaic law from keeping the Mosaic Law. Disobedience to this principle carried the Death Penalty. Gentiles who kept the Sabbath or read the Torah were subject to Death. There are many rulings from Rabbis in the Babylonian Talmud and in the Responsa writings stating precisely this. Judaism is crystal clear on this issue: The Mosaic Law is for Jews, and nobody else. Gentiles could achieve the afterlife by complying with the 7 Noahide Mitzvot. Several laws within the Noahide track the Decalogue. This distinction was plainly on the Apostles' minds at the AD 50 Council of Jerusalem.

The seven laws listed by the Tosefta (dated to 220 CE) and the Babylonian Talmud (dated to 300 CE) are

The prohibition of idolatry.
The prohibition of murder.
The prohibition of theft.
The prohibition of sexual immorality.
The prohibition of blasphemy.
The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.

Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3). The Decree from the Council of Jerusalem in AD 50 is similarly crystal clear: Gentile Christians would not be subject to the Mosaic Law. They were subject ONLY to approximately 4 of the Mitvot out of the 7 Noahide laws. That's it. THE REST OF THE MOSAIC LAW DID NOT APPLY TO GENTILE CHRISTIANS.
Council of Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4). In the Epistles, 9 of the 10 Decalogue Commandments were essentially reaffirmed for Christians, but NOT in the format of the "Ten Commandments." Additionally, Christians had MANY more requirements, including the Eucharist, Baptism, The Great Commandments of Christ, and sharing everything they owned to support widows and orphans. Nowhere in the New Testament are Christians required to keep the Sabbath, or to undergo circumcision, which is the first step in converting to Judaism so that the Mosaic laws applied. NEVER ARE CHRISTIANS REQUIRED TO UNDERGO CIRCUMCISION OR FOLLOW THE SABBATH. The Apostles were under no illusions: Gentiles could NOT keep the Sabbath unless they went through the complete conversion process to Judaism, including circumcision. There is no ambiguity in Acts 15. It says what it means and means what it says.

5). Lastly, from the very beginning, the Early Church had to forcefully battle a number of virulent and anti-Christian heresies, one of the worst of which was Sabbath Keeping. There were several heresies that promoted keeping some or all of the Mosaic laws. They were harshly condemned as the "Galatians heresy," "Judaizing," or the "Ebionite Heresy." Paul could not have made himself clearer: Christians were NOT subject to the Mosaic Law, unless those laws were specifically reaffirmed by Christianity.

The Sabbath wasn't.

Circumcision wasn't.

Throughout the first 3 centuries of Christianity, there is one unmistakable theme: a harsh, unrelenting condemnation of Sabbath Keeping and Circumcision as satanic heresies. And to a man, these early Christian Leaders who condemned these Judaizing heresies stated their commission to fight these heresies came straight from the Apostles.

 

[Lollerskates]

Once again, lets reaffirm some basic ideas:

1). The Mosaic Law is one seamless piece. There are 613 Commandments in it, all of them equally important and equally intertwined with each other. The Ten Commandments are not elevated above the other 603 Commandments. You are not allowed to pick and choose among them. If you keep one, you keep them all. All 613. You do not get to pick and choose. That is not how it was done....EVER. The Apostles well understood this issue. This is literally "Judaism 101."
Judaism 101: Aseret ha-Dibrot: The "Ten Commandments"

2). Gentiles are absolutely prohibited by Mosaic law from keeping the Mosaic Law. Disobedience to this principle carried the Death Penalty. Gentiles who kept the Sabbath or read the Torah were subject to Death. There are many rulings from Rabbis in the Babylonian Talmud and in the Responsa writings stating precisely this. Judaism is crystal clear on this issue: The Mosaic Law is for Jews, and nobody else. Gentiles could achieve the afterlife by complying with the 7 Noahide Mitzvot. Several laws within the Noahide track the Decalogue.

The seven laws listed by the Tosefta (dated to 220 CE) and the Babylonian Talmud (dated to 300 CE) are

The prohibition of idolatry.
The prohibition of murder.
The prohibition of theft.
The prohibition of sexual immorality.
The prohibition of blasphemy.
The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.

Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3). The Decree from the Council of Jerusalem in AD 50 is similarly crystal clear: Gentile Christians would not be subject to the Mosaic Law. They were subject ONLY to approximately 4 of the Mitvot out of the 7 Noahide laws. That's it. THE REST OF THE MOSAIC LAW DID NOT APPLY TO GENTILE CHRISTIANS.
Council of Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4). In the Epistles, 9 of the 10 Decalogue Commandments were essentially reaffirmed for Christians, but NOT in the format of the "Ten Commandments." Additionally, Christians had MANY more requirements, including the Eucharist, Baptism, and sharing everything they owned to support widows and orphans. Nowhere in the New Testament are Christians required to keep the Sabbath, or to undergo circumcision, which is the first step in converting to Judaism so that the Mosaic laws applied. NEVER ARE CHRISTIANS REQUIRED TO UNDERGO CIRCUMCISION OR FOLLOW THE SABBATH. The Apostles were under no illusions: Gentiles could NOT keep the Sabbath unless they went through the complete conversion process to Judaism, including circumcision. There is no ambiguity in Acts 15.

5). Lastly, from the very beginning, the Early Church had to forcefully battle a number of virulent and anti-Christian heresies, one of which was Sabbath Keeping. There were several heresies that promoted keeping some or all of the Mosaic laws. They were harshly condemned as the "Galatians heresy," "Judaizing," or the "Ebionite Heresy." Paul could not have made himself clearer: Christians were NOT subject to the Mosaic Law, unless those laws were specifically reaffirmed by Christianity.

The Sabbath wasn't.

Circumcision wasn't.

Blah blah "early church human said this, changed this time, etc." I don't care. What did God say?

And, no one is elevating the 10 commandments, certainly not me. All of God's law is what substantiates obedience, not picking and choosing. The Sabbath was before "Moses," before the "10 Commandments," and so on. God gave the Hebrew the Sabbath when they were wandering - before they were set up to receive the rest of the Law from Moses. It is not Moses' Law; it is God's Law. If it were Moses' law, then you could say it changes with time, because Moses is human and corruptible. God is not, and He doesn't change.

The Sabbath was before the "Law."

The Circumcision was the first agreement/compact God made with His people. It was for a generation of generations until the Word of God Himself made a new compact/covenant with His people. See, only God Himself can change His law - technology, progress, times, humans, or grievences don't change his law. You aren't in a position to wear 100% same woolen? That isn't His fault: how far are you willing to go to be obedient? Will you live in the big city and amend His Law, or will you reject "the world," and live according to the bible (to be extreme)?

The Church has been changing laws, times and rituals since the beginning. That is why I asked you what minister told you that the 10 commandments were abolished for christians.

 

[VictorC]

Who taught you that the ten commandments were abolished for Christians? What minister preahes that - that is what I want to know.

The word 'abolished' is the term applied to the Ten Commandments in the KJV rendering of 2 Corinthians 3:13. If a minister doesn't repeat the Apostle Paul's conclusion regarding the covenant from Mount Sinai, you should leave him/her as you would any other heretic.

 

[Lollerskates]

The word 'abolished' is the term applied to the Ten Commandments in the KJV rendering of 2 Corinthians 3:13. If a minister doesn't repeat the Apostle Paul's conclusion regarding the covenant from Mount Sinai, you should leave him/her as you would any other heretic.

Paul is not saying the Law of God is abolished, he is saying those who follow the Law of God with the intention of being saved and vindicated by the mere obedience of the Law is under a vail (of ignorance.) It is a one thing to teach that following God's law for the purpose of self-salvation is wrong and against Christ's teachings. It is another thing to insinuate in any way that God's law is abolished (i.e. void) in any way without proper context (as Paul had, and which is ignored.)

No minister would say God's Law is abolished and mean someone didn't have to follow His law, especially when God and Christ both explicitly state the opposite (several times.) Now, whether you are mistaken because you are erroneously parroting a biblical hero, or you are purposefully misleading people is no matter. Show me one place where God, or Christ says God's law is null, and no Christian or Hebrew should follow the "old laws" given by God to Moses.

 

[LarryP2]

Blah blah "early church human said this, changed this time, etc." I don't care. What did God say?


The Circumcision was the first agreement/compact God made with His people. It was for a generation of generations until the Word of God Himself made a new compact/covenant with His people. See, only God Himself can change His law - technology, progress, times, humans, or grievences don't change his law. You aren't in a position to wear 100% same woolen? That isn't His fault: how far are you willing to go to be obedient? Will you live in the big city and amend His Law, or will you reject "the world," and live according to the bible (to be extreme)?

The Church has been changing laws, times and rituals since the beginning. That is why I asked you what minister told you that the 10 commandments were abolished for Christians.

It is good that you have so sharply distinguished your beliefs from Christianity. It's a pity that more heretics are not as honest and forthright. Christianity has a rock-solid, seamless 2,000 year history of emphatically rejecting virtually everything you have stated in your post. Nearly every one of the points in your post has been, at one time or another, denounced as a vile, Satanic heresy by Christianity.That only leaves one question:

Why are you participating in a Christian forum?

 

[Lollerskates]

It is good that you have so sharply distinguished your beliefs from Christianity. Christianity has a rock-solid, seamless history of emphatically rejecting virtually everything you have stated in your post. That only leaves one question:

Why are you participating in a Christian forum?

I had this exact same exchange before; maybe it was even with you.

1) I believe the one called Jesus, (whose name is Immanuel, Yahoshuah, Christ and the Annointed One among other things,) is my Lord, Savior, and way to Life. He died for all of our sins without blemish, died in my place, and was resurrected to sit at the right hand of God to full glory. He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. With His sacrifice, I can have confidence that though I fall short of God's law, He has grace with me and will forgive me for my sins if I confess them to Him - in the name of our Christ. Christ is the Son of God, and He perfectly followed 100% of God's Law, something I or no human can do in our current state. He will come back to perfect those worthy, and He will restore our Life to the Life we are to have.

Without Christ's sacrifice, I would be DEAD. With Him, I can have Life.



Now, what about that is completely against Christianity - the entire collection of denominations? Or, did you mean that your particular denominational stance nowhere agrees with what I said? (This is why there are 180+ Christian denominations - all calling each other heretics in some way.)

2) You asked me why I am even on Christian forums...

Do you ask atheists, agnostics, muslims, Hebrews, pagans, wiccans, etc. the same question, with the same loaded reasoning? Certainly, they aren't Christian, so by your logic, why are they even here? Do you see how ridiculous that question is?

I gave you my creed in 1). You can either stop beating around the bush, and call me a heretic, or you can understand I just may not fit in your denomination. But, let's skip the circumlocution: say what you mean.

 

[VictorC]

I will first address this one thing about the sabbath and EGW---It has been brought up many times and each time totaly out of context and I am going to quote what she has written and not what somebody says she wrote: First, what she says about salvation.
...
Here the discourse was broken in upon by questions from one who had kept the Sabbath a short time, but who had recently given it up. Rising in the congregation, he said, “This Sabbath question has been a great trouble to me during the last year, and now I would like to ask a question: Is the observance of the Sabbath necessary to my salvation? Answer, yes or no.” I answered promptly, This is an important question, and demands something more full than yes or no. All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light. But none will be held accountable for light which they have never received.

The condition 'if' should be replaced with the condition 'when', for Ellen White's determination of the condition 'if' is time related to 1844.

Testimonies for the Church
Volume Two, page 693, paragraph 2
Chapter Title: No Probation After Christ Comes

As we have followed down the chain of prophecy, revealed truth for our time has been clearly seen and explained. We are accountable for the privileges that we enjoy and for the light that shines upon our pathway. Those who lived in past generations were accountable for the light which was permitted to shine upon them. Their minds were exercised in regard to different points of Scripture which tested them. But they did not understand the truths which we do. They were not responsible for the light which they did not have. They had the Bible, as we have; but the time for the unfolding of special truth in relation to the closing scenes of this earth's history is during the last generations that shall live upon the earth. Special truths have been adapted to the conditions of the generations as they have existed. The present truth, which is a test to the people of this generation, was not a test to the people of generations far back. If the light which now shines upon us in regard to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment had been given to the generations in the past, God would have held them accountable for that light. When the temple of God was opened in heaven, John saw in holy vision a class of people whose attention was arrested and who were looking with reverential awe at the ark, which contained the law of God. The special test upon the fourth commandment did not come until after the temple of God was opened in heaven. Those who died before the light was given upon the law of God and the claims of the fourth commandment were not guilty of the sin of violating the seventh-day Sabbath. The wisdom and mercy of God in dispensing light and knowledge at the proper time, as the people need it, is unsearchable. Previous to His coming to judge the world in righteousness, He sends forth a warning to arouse the people and call their attention to their neglect of the fourth commandment, that they may be enlightened, and may repent of their transgression of His law, and prove their allegiance to the great Lawgiver. He has made provision that all may be holy and happy if they choose. Sufficient light has been given to this generation, that we may learn what our duties and privileges are, and enjoy the precious and solemn truths in their simplicity and power.​

To show Ellen's dependence on 1844, I will include this quote from Early Writings, Pg 42-43:

Sabbath, March 24, 1849, we had a sweet and very interesting meeting with the brethren at Topsham, Maine. The Holy Ghost was poured out upon us, and I was taken off in the Spirit to the city of the living God. Then I was shown that the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ relating to the shut door could not be separated, and that the time for the commandments of God to shine out with all their importance, and for God’s people to be tried on the Sabbath truth, was when the door was opened in the most holy place in the heavenly sanctuary, where the ark is, in which are contained the ten commandments. This door was not opened until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the holy place of the sanctuary in 1844. Then Jesus rose up and shut the door of the holy place, and opened the door into the most holy, and passed within the second veil, where He now stands by the ark, and where the faith of Israel now reaches.

I saw that Jesus had shut the door of the holy place, and no man can open it; and that He had opened the door into the most holy, and no man can shut it (Revelation 3:7, 8); [see page 86. See also appendix.] and that since Jesus has opened the door into the most holy place, which contains the ark, the commandments have been shining out to God’s people, and they are being tested on the Sabbath question.

I saw that the present test on the Sabbath could not come until the mediation of Jesus in the holy place was finished and He had passed within the second veil; therefore Christians who fell asleep before the door was opened into the most holy, when the midnight cry was finished, at the seventh month, 1844, and who had not kept the true Sabbath, now rest in hope; for they had not the light and the test on the Sabbath which we now have since that door was opened. I saw that Satan was tempting some of God’s people on this point. Because so many good Christians have fallen asleep in the triumphs of faith and have not kept the true Sabbath, they were doubting about its being a test for us now.​

Ellen White's soteriology revolves around the Sabbath she failed to keep Holy according the Law that ordained it. This is evident in these quotes provided below that show the Adventist formula for 'salvation' to be compliance with the old covenant from Mount Sinai you don't acknowledge God's redemption from:

No one is saved who is a transgressor of the law of God, which is the foundation of his government in heaven and in earth. {RH June 17, 1890, par. 8}

It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." 1 Samuel 2:30. {6T 356.4}

But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4}

No one who disregards the fourth commandment, after becoming enlightened in regard to the claims of the Sabbath, can be held guiltless in the sight of God. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 14}

All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light.{HS 234.3}

As persons become convinced from the Scriptures that the claims of the fourth commandment are still binding, the question is often raised, Is it necessary in order to secure salvation that we keep the Sabbath? This is a question of grave importance. If the light has shone from the word of God, if the message has been presented to men, as it was to Pharaoh, and they refuse to heed that message, if they reject the light, they refuse to obey God, and cannot be saved in their disobedience. {RH, January 5, 1886 par. 2}

“God requires of all His subjects obedience, entire obedience to all His commandments. He demands now as ever perfect righteousness as the only title to heaven. Christ is our hope and our refuge. His righteousness is imputed only to the obedient!” (Review & Herald, Sept. 21, 1886)

"Christ does not lessen the claims of the law. In unmistakable language He presents obedience to it as the condition of eternal life—the same condition that was required of Adam before his Fall. The Lord expects no less of the soul now than He expected of man in Paradise, perfect obedience, unblemished righteousness. The requirement under the covenant of grace is just as broad as the requirement made in Eden—harmony with God’s law, which is holy, just, and good." (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 391)​

How much clearer does it need to be that the SDA church adopts a formula of 'salvation' by compliance to the old covenant? This is not a Christian organization that recognizes God's redemption from the covenant from Mount Sinai, and having one foot in the tenets of Judaism while giving lipservice to our Redeemer is their form of promoting adultery. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.

I sincerely hope tnhat these quotes are read as it has become obvious that most of my posts are not read completely, merely skimmed through and then twisted--Try and restrain the impulse.

We're still waiting for you to find the Sabbath conveyed to us in Acts 15.

 

[VictorC]

Paul is not saying the Law of God is abolished, he is saying those who follow the Law of God with the intention of being saved and vindicated by the mere obedience of the Law is under a vail (of ignorance.)

Of course this is utterly false, for if your opinion had any merit you would have quoted where Paul makes this qualification regarding what is 'abolished' from 2 Corinthians 3. Your opinion is contrary to Scripture, and you know it.

 

[LarryP2]

I gave you my creed in 1). You can either stop beating around the bush, and call me a heretic, or you can understand I just may not fit in your denomination. But, let's skip the circumlocution: say what you mean.

Okay, you are a non-Christian heretic. Is that plain and clear enough?

However, I DO commend you for your honesty. That is extremely rare, and I am very sincere in my compliment. And this isn't just a matter of a mere "denominational disagreement." Christianity has a rock-solid 2,000 year history of its definition of itself. There is has NEVER been any ambiguity on some very basic doctrinal issues:

1). Sabbath Keeping has ALWAYS been denounced as an anti-Christian heresy, in clear violation of the Decree of Jerusalem, as outlined in Acts 15. The Eastern Orthodox have adamantly asserted that Sunday worship and Easter Celebration occurred within the first year after the Resurrection, and was done so at the direct Command of the Apostles. This has NEVER been mentioned, let alone addressed, let alone refuted by any heretic insisting that Christians should keep the Sabbath. SDA Sabbatarians have had at least 160 years to refute this contention. By the time Dudley Canright's magna opus Seventh Day Adventism Renounced was published in the 1880s, the Seventh day Adventist Church had been on clear and unambiguous notice that the willful and knowing omission of the Eastern Orthodox Church's claims and history from the Great Controversy was a deceitful and deliberate fraud that completely demolishes the overall theory of the book. The SDA Church has NEVER updated the Great Controversy, even when placed on clear notice that its lack of discussion of the Eastern Orthodox church was a historically-dishonest fraud, based on this massive, unforgivable omission. The contention of Eastern Orthodox stands completely unrefuted, without even the feeblest ATTEMPT at discussing it It is PLAIN that if the SDA church were to update their basic texts with the necessary discussion of these now undisputed historical claims, the membership would immediately start "unraveling the doctrinal superstructure" of the Church. The church is founded on the massive deception of its membership. You pull on "one loose string" and the whole deceitful structure comes tumbling down;

2). Circumcision has ALWAYS been an anti-Christian heresy, in clear violation of the Decree of Jerusalem, as outlined in Acts 15;

3). Attempts to blend various ceremonies and prohibitions of Judaism with Christianity has ALWAYS been an anti-Christian heresy, in clear violation of the Decree of Jerusalem, as outlined in Acts 15.

I see that you are gradually squirming to the obvious inevitable conclusion when you state that nowhere does "Jesus or God" abolish the law. Is my perception accurate that you are gradually working yourself to public abandonment of Paul? If you are, then once again you are to be commended for your honesty, and for paying attention to recent theological trends. Seventh Day Adventist theologians have been quietly teaching for many years the necessity at ejecting Paul from the Bible.