An attempt to eliminate God.

[VictorC]

Has God removed Himself from His throne? Why would God remove the principles of His government? Such as you should have no other god but me? It is a sick idea!

For once I agree this is a sick idea.
However, it is your idea based on attributing God's action to someone else. This has been explained to you several times, with no response of content on your part.

 

[Elder 111]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

Grace is not cheapen by the law. It is done so by the removal of the law!
​

So the righteousness of God is indeed a waste of time to Adventists.

Romans 3
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.​

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the Sabbatarians participating in this thread ignore the cross of Christ and His propitiation. I agree with that.

Grace means that it is a give that I can not achieve. If there is no law what do I need grace for? But for those who would see: with the law which all will confess we can not keep on our own, grace is given that we may be saved. The blood of Christ is presented on our behave because in our living we violate the law and would be guilty before God without Christ and Grace.
Romans 5:20 verifies that Grace abounds because of violating of the law. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

 

[VictorC]

You have no idea of what you are talking about. For the law spoken of here in Galatians is that concerning the earthly Sanctuary and sacrifices for sin etc. But with Christ there is no need of the sanctuary for Christ is the real thing. The high Priest and minster of the true sanctuary. Hebrews 7-10.
The law of the ten commandments could not be referred to Here for the same Hebrews 11 speaks of faith being in existence from the beginning even with Abel. The bible also demonstrates that the Ten commandments ever existed also.
It is great to know the truth indeed it sets you free! Not burdensome but free.

Your comments come only as an excuse to reject the epistle to the Galatians. Changing the Law Galatians refers to ignores it addressing the covenant from Mount Sinai in Galatians 4:21-30 - which as Moses testified was the Ten Commandments. Your confusion stems from Ellen White, who herself demonstrated her desperation concerning this epistle.

Ellen White's difinition of the Law mentioned in Galatians 3:24, which says "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ."

In 1856 Ellen White identified that law as the ceremonial law system of ancient times, and specifically not the Ten Commandments.
White, Letter to E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones (Letter 37, 2-18-1887). J. H. Waggoner, The Law of God, an Examination of the Testimony of Both Testaments, Rochester, N.Y., The Advent Review Office, 1854, pp. 70, 108. In 1856 James and Ellen White and others met for two days in Battle Creek, Michigan, and decided that Waggoner was wrong in identifying the law in Galatians as the Ten Commandments. James White withdrew the book from circulation.

In 1883 she again identified that "law" as "the obsolete ceremonies of Judaism."
White, Sketches from the Life of Paul, pp. 188-192.

In 1896 she wrote: "In this Scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law."
Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 234.

In 1900 she wrote: "I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. ... I answer: both the ceremonial and moral code of Ten Commandments."
Selected Messages, Book 1, p. 233.

In 1911 she again identified the law in Galatians as exclusively "the obsolete ceremonies of Judaism."
Acts of the Apostles, pp. 383-388.​

The fact is that Galatians addresses the whole Mosaic covenant, including the Ten Commandments.
The epistle to the Hebrews is also specific when it concludes the first covenant of the Ten Commandments came to an end.
Your final insult comes by rejecting the Law itself, when Moses testified the Ten Commandment didn't exist prior to his own generation.
You don't have the Mosaic covenant, and the truth is you don't accept the Gospel's message of redemption either.

 

[VictorC]

Grace means that it is a give that I can not achieve. If there is no law what do I need grace for? But for those who would see: with the law which all will confess we can not keep on our own, grace is given that we may be saved. The blood of Christ is presented on our behave because in our living we violate the law and would be guilty before God without Christ and Grace.
Romans 5:20 verifies that Grace abounds because of violating of the law. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Did you think I wouldn't notice that you aren't responding to content?

You have confirmed the observations of two of us to be true. The Cross of Christ means nothing to you, as your intent is to replace the righteousness of God with your own righteousness.
Which is as filthy rags in the sight of God, I might add.

In this post of yours, you admitted that you don't keep the Law. We knew that already. I hope you learned something in this exercise.

 

[Elder 111]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

Originally Posted by BornAgainBrian God commands the Sabbath in the Mosaic Law too, but you are fine separating it out from there.
Originally Posted by Elder 111

We have the authority to usurp God?

​

There is no straw man! God put the Ten together we can see fit to keep 9 and discard one. Is that not usurping/eliminating God as God? It is God that did it not man. What right have we to choose what we would and would not do. God says do it!
If God did not want the whole of the ten would he not have said so? Heb. 4:8.
​

God gave the ten to a specific people. The same to whom He gave the Law. He never mentioned a separation or that either was for gentiles

Not according to Heb 4. I can not reject the word of God.

 

[VictorC]

God gave the ten to a specific people. The same to whom He gave the Law. He never mentioned a separation or that either was for gentiles

Not according to Heb 4. I can not reject the word of God.

BornAgainBrian is correct. A feigned appeal to Hebrews 4 is nothing more than a desparate movement on your part to reject the Law.

 

[Elder 111]

that doesn't speak to the plurality mentioned before, nor why it must be one and not the weekly one you try to enslave Christians with

I JUST MENTION ONE, THERE IS MORE THAN ONE. You don't know and yet you want to make others follow you blindly? Enslave in what? Going to church on any of the six days of the week for as long as we like is not slavery but if it is done on the day that God mentions it is slavery? The only day that God calls for is slavery? Marvelous indeed!!

 

[Elder 111]

You have not demonstrated that the ten commandments as a whole are for everyone while the law, given to the same people at near the same time, is for Israel.

it also is not what YOU see... And since God doesn't require this, there is no issue there

What did God have attached to the ten commandments? Do you mean that when God gave them written with His own hand twice that He still forgot that they were not finished. A pity!

 

[VictorC]

I JUST MENTION ONE, THERE IS MORE THAN ONE. You don't know and yet you want to make others follow you blindly? Enslave in what? Going to church on any of the six days of the week for as long as we like is not slavery but if it is done on the day that God mentions it is slavery? The only day that God calls for is slavery? Marvelous indeed!!

Bottom line: when faced with nouns in the plural tense, you lose all control. You've already been confronted with Israel's charge to abide by God's Sabbaths, and the Gospel's description of these same Sabbaths as shadows fulfilled in Christ. In the former you rejected the plural to insist it refers to only the weekly Sabbath, and in the latter you rejected the plural to insist it refers only to the annual Sabbaths. Your hyprocrisy is easily seen through.

Remember too that God doesn't call for the Sabbath anymore. You're living 2000 years in the past and identifying with a covenant people you aren't a member of. Slavery? That's what Adventism promotes, isn't it?

Galatians 4
4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.​

Here's the shortest summary of the entire Gospel.
Does the past tense of a key verb also cause you to lose all control?

 

[Elder 111]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

God never commandmed Peter to eat unclean foods. NEVER!!!!!
​

Originally Posted by BornAgainBrian
And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” - Acts 10:13-14 __________________
Elder111
Is that all that you read? Did you not read that it had nothing to do with meat but people!!!
28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Please give God a chance!

 

[VictorC]

You have not demonstrated that the ten commandments as a whole are for everyone while the law, given to the same people at near the same time, is for Israel.

it also is not what YOU see... And since God doesn't require this, there is no issue there

What did God have attached to the ten commandments? Do you mean that when God gave them written with His own hand twice that He still forgot that they were not finished. A pity!

Others are looking through your hypocrisy with utter transparency. Shouldn't you do something other than question Scripture as a response?

 

[Elder 111]

If you are saved by your own amazing works of the law, what need is there for grace?

There is no removal but fulfillment... except that even you have admitted to requirement to keep it all.

That is the biggest lie! There is no promotion of being save by ones own works!! There is the fact that because we are saved we do as God required which is shown in His Holy Ten Commandments law.

 

[VictorC]

That is the biggest lie! There is no promotion of being save by ones own works!! There is the fact that because we are saved we do as God required which is shown in His Holy Ten Commandments law.

In this short post you openly contradict yourself when concluding your salvation is based on your own performance of compliance to the old covenant from Mount Sinai. The Memory Hole confirms this soteriology you appeal to:

Salvation by grace through faith requires the keeping of the 10 C"s.

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

Philippians 3
7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.​

 

[Sophrosyne]

In this short post you openly contradict yourself when concluding your salvation is based on your own performance of compliance to the old covenant from Mount Sinai. Old-covenant "christianity" is a oxymoron that doesn't exist in reality.

Philippians 3
7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.​

In other words Paul is calling the keeping of the law as rubbish.

 

[listed]

That is the biggest lie! There is no promotion of being save by ones own works!! There is the fact that because we are saved we do as God required which is shown in His Holy Ten Commandments law.

You are much to late with such a statement. Both you and your prophetess have already been quoted making you self contradictory.

 

[listed]

Originally Posted by Elder 111

Originally Posted by BornAgainBrian God commands the Sabbath in the Mosaic Law too, but you are fine separating it out from there.
Originally Posted by Elder 111

We have the authority to usurp God?

​

There is no straw man! God put the Ten together we can see fit to keep 9 and discard one. Is that not usurping/eliminating God as God? It is God that did it not man. What right have we to choose what we would and would not do. God says do it!
If God did not want the whole of the ten would he not have said so? Heb. 4:8.
​

Not according to Heb 4. I can not reject the word of God.

How many commandments did you say were on the stones?

 

[listed]

I JUST MENTION ONE, THERE IS MORE THAN ONE. You don't know and yet you want to make others follow you blindly? Enslave in what? Going to church on any of the six days of the week for as long as we like is not slavery but if it is done on the day that God mentions it is slavery? The only day that God calls for is slavery? Marvelous indeed!!

Falsely making it a requirement of God is enslavement by your religion.

 

[listed]

You have no idea of what you are talking about. For the law spoken of here in Galatians is that concerning the earthly Sanctuary and sacrifices for sin etc. But with Christ there is no need of the sanctuary for Christ is the real thing. The high Priest and minster of the true sanctuary. Hebrews 7-10.
The law of the ten commandments could not be referred to Here for the same Hebrews 11 speaks of faith being in existence from the beginning even with Abel. The bible also demonstrates that the Ten commandments ever existed also.
It is great to know the truth indeed it sets you free! Not burdensome but free.

Nothing but unsupported and unprovable conjecture.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

That is the biggest lie! There is no promotion of being save by ones own works!! There is the fact that because we are saved we do as God required which is shown in His Holy Ten Commandments law.

Once again... where in Scripture is the ten commandment law held to Christians while the mosaic law is not? Where is your proof of this fact?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Once again... where in Scripture is the ten commandment law held to Christians while the mosaic law is not? Where is your proof of this fact?

Just wait till you see their gymnastics to both explain away obligation to but the 10 and at the same time bind people to dietary laws.