An attempt to eliminate God.

[listed]

NO!!!!
That is you misrepresenting the word of God in stating so. Romans 7 for example.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

You paint Paul as a doubled tongued liar and fraud. The law of God is not the same thing as the law. No I did not say the 10 Cs are not God's law. I base my phraseology on Jer 31. Further more Paul is contrasting righteousness with sin.

 

[listed]

Agreed.

His latest contribution provides a quote whereby he overlooks his appeal to serve "with the flesh the law of sin" in v.7:25. That's the same as v.7:5's past-tense mention of "when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law" expressing the condition of the Law's recipients prior to the Gospel of redemption, providing God's solution.

I'm not sure if we're dealing with someone who has comprehensive skills exceeding a few words at a time. The narrative of Romans 7 has no value to someone selecting sound bites extracted from context.

We are dealing with staunch and devout member of a religious organization.

 

[VictorC]

The perversion of scripture is being projected as being intelligent while the "thus saith the Lord" is of ignorance?

Whenever you're confronted with the essence of Romans 7's message, "we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by", you have consistently concluded it to be "perversion" and not Scripture written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Thus saith the Lord has been dropped into your lap and rejected repeatedly.

Paul in no way make reference to the condition of the "recipients of the law before the gospel". For he, himself, who had already received the gospel was still in the same group!!
18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Okay, you confirmed that you remain ignorant of the narrative of Romans 7. It has been quoted, cited and explained, parsed, and diagrammed for you, and you still want to play adultery with the Law God delivered those trusting in Him from.

Now look at your quote above. You know that motions of the flesh indwells nothing of value. And yet knowing this, you continue to rely on your motions of the flesh as your righteousness, ignoring the righteousness of God as has been shown to you from this same epistle (Romans 3 and Romans 10 have also been dropped into your lap, only to be rejected).

Can not defeat the truth make to presenter of truth look like a fool, it seems.

Do you remember the 'Great Controversy' thread More Coffee started maybe a year ago?
I do.
Ellen White was exposed as a pathological liar who attributed the Gospel of God's redemption to satan.
A couple of your peers reenforced Ellen White's perversion on that thread.
On the other hand...
The Bible contains the truth of God. You can't handle the truth as long as you can't recognize Ellen White for what she was.

 

[listed]

Is this the sabbath or something? This place died. Where is everybody?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Is this the sabbath or something? This place died. Where is everybody?

dunno... usually when one person gets the "time out" here someone else mysteriously shows up to take their place.

 

[listed]

dunno... usually when one person gets the "time out" here someone else mysteriously shows up to take their place.

Did everyone get time out? Surely did not Elder take the Fundementalist's advice?

It looks like they left. I could not find them anywhere, even the SDA forums.

 

[VictorC]

Is this the sabbath or something? This place died. Where is everybody?

dunno... usually when one person gets the "time out" here someone else mysteriously shows up to take their place.

Patience is a virtue that awards those who wait.
The last number of posts have been of a personal nature, initiated by the usual response of denial of content. Instead of confronting contradictions with Scripture, the response has been to initiate another thread - where lying by omission has been employed to repeat the same contradictions with Scripture that Adventism is dependent on. I think the emperor has been exposed as naked, and I don't see a reason to beat the dead horse that can't discuss content.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Patience is a virtue that awards those who wait.
The last number of posts have been of a personal nature, initiated by the usual response of denial of content. Instead of confronting contradictions with Scripture, the response has been to initiate another thread - where lying by omission has been employed to repeat the same contradictions with Scripture that Adventism is dependent on. I think the emperor has been exposed as naked, and I don't see a reason to beat the dead horse that can't discuss content.

It would be sad to see them go as destroying their arguments only helps those who were looking in on the threads to realize the truth about adventism and groups such as the SDA and what Christianity truly is.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Feeding bad theology threads is counter-productive.

[sign] feedeth thou not the naughty theology beasties! [/sign]

 

[VictorC]

It would be sad to see them go as destroying their arguments only helps those who were looking in on the threads to realize the truth about adventism and groups such as the SDA and what Christianity truly is.

Feeding bad theology threads is counter-productive.

[sign] feedeth thou not the naughty theology beasties! [/sign]

Both of you have valid points.
Discussion of actual content and being pressed to reconcile one's beliefs with Scripture brings about the learning curve that rewards the honest participant. That, I assert, is the intent a discussion forum such as this one that eventually brings about the unity of the faith we're encouraged to attain. I will share my experience in brevity: once upon a time, long ago and >15,000 posts in the distant past, I was a Sabbatarian (not Adventist). It was inquiry on another discussion forum that led me out of that error, and I was invited onto CF by a former Adventist pastor (and his wife; you who have been here long enough know who they are) because he liked my observations.

The honest led by the Spirit of God, asking the right questions, learn from the experience here. The alternate exposes the reality Jesus described a long time ago to be true.

John 3
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”​

 

[Sophrosyne]

Feeding bad theology threads is counter-productive.

[sign] feedeth thou not the naughty theology beasties! [/sign]

It is good to expose bad theology so those who have fallen or will fall prey to it have knowledge to see it coming and make a more educated choice in the matter. I've found you will never change the mind of most people who are pushing their theology they themselves have to realize they are wrong often you are just akin to making a spiritual callous on them such that over time they don't "feel" anything at all.

 

[Elder 111]

The Commandments are not for Christians, they say. Somebody must to tell Paul.

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

 

[Sophrosyne]

The Commandments are not for Christians, they say. Somebody must to tell Paul.

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

We've been here... and you ignore some commandments of God that disagree with your theology so therefore you aren't keeping the commandments of God by keeping the 10 any better than we are by not trying because according to James one slip up negates ALL your work and puts you EVEN with those who never even tried in the first place.

 

[VictorC]

The Commandments are not for Christians, they say. Somebody must to tell Paul.

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Why then do you revert to the tenets of Judaism that demand the prerequisite of circumcision to comply with, and violate the commandments of God?

 

[Elder 111]

Why then do you revert to the tenets of Judaism that demand the prerequisite of circumcision to comply with, and violate the commandments of God?

Why do you go where I never went?

 

[VictorC]

Why do you go where I never went?

We already discussed the verse you used. You deny the commandments of God, having replaced them with the Mosaic covenant you never received. Your choice of verse also says circumcision is nothing, which is a prerequisite for keeping the Sabbaths of the Mosaic covenant. Looking at your post time confirms that you don't abide by the Sabbaths of the old covenant on two counts. Ignorance of the Law's demands isn't an excuse, especially after having them explained to you.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

The Commandments are not for Christians, they say. Somebody must to tell Paul.

1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Yup... the commandments spoken of here are not necessarily the Ten you advocate for.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Yup... the commandments spoken of here are not necessarily the Ten you advocate for.

Yup... like God didn't command people to only wear certain fabrics and do rituals for uncleanliness and so on but yet somehow he did mention dietary commandments? Seems like an anomaly type situation where all but one commandment was IGNORED and IGNORED I will say with a level of blind ruthlessness that IMO equates the rest of the Law as Unholy, UnJust, and Cruel if it isn't good enough to keep also.

 

[BornAgainBrian]

I agree it's an all or nothing gig. How people think they can choose their favorite parts is completely beyond me

 

[Sophrosyne]

I agree it's an all or nothing gig. How people think they can choose their favorite parts is completely beyond me

It is because of sin that people want to believe other than what is written. I had a hard time believing a lot of what Paul wrote it took me years to get through it all and then reread it and consider more and more and I'm still learning about what Paul meant. Peter himself said he didn't completely understand Paul but trusted in his writings totally. I think what we have is in a sense a lack of trust in God's chosen people for dead people who wrote stuff that tickled the ears of folks in her day that is still infecting people worldwide with this desire to replace Grace with the Law.