The Seventh Day is the SABBATH of the Lord thy God Exodus 20:10

[BobRyan]

All well and good. We are also told in 2Cor3 that the 10 commandments went away

No we weren't which means it is "STILL" wrong to take God's name in vain. As we both know.

And as I pointed out - this is a Bible detail so obvious that Bible scholars on both sides of the issue admit that the TEN commandments are STILL included in the moral law of God.

2 Corinthians 3 says nothing at all about it being now ok to take God's name in vain

because they were temporary, so along with the feast days, new moons and the weekly Sabbath of the 10 commandments all are void for Christians

That is not true of the TEN commandments.

Here is a great example of text that does NOT say that the TEN commandments do not apply - or that it is now ok to take God's name in vain.

7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

The moral law of God - the TEN Commandments on stone -- under the OLD covenant - is written on the "Tablets of the human heart" in the NEW covenant as 2 Cor 3 points out.

The old covenant was temporary - but it cannot be spun into "the prohibition against taking God's name in vain was just temporary" - it is the SAME LAW - the same moral LAW that defined sin in the Old Covenant - that is written on heart and mind under the NEW Covenant.

So then it is STILL a sin to take God's name in vain.

Why do you deny what is written so plainly?
What in all the Bible was engraved on stone?

The same law that is engraved on the tablets of the human heart under the NEW Covenant as Jeremiah states in Jeremiah 31:31-33.

We've been over this point a few dozen times already.

What did Moses hold before the Israelites that made his face glow so bright that the people couldn't look at him?
What was "transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?" mean to you?

As already stated a few dozen times - it means that the moral law of God with things like "Do not take God's name in vain" was not done away - but rather is written on the tablets of the human heart under the Jeremiah 31:31-33 NEW Covenant .. under the Old Covenant the rule is "Obey and live" -- under the new Covenant we have the born again experience , forgiveness of sins - the LAW of God written on the heart.. same LAW -- different context for it.

as has been stated a few dozen times to you in our posts back and forth

I knew if you ever tried to answer that issue you would fall flat on your face. You cannot admit it says what it says

I find your logic "illusive"

 

[BobRyan]

I now have the Holy Spirit, along with most of the Gifts of the Spirit. Like EGW, I've had visions,

1. The Bible is the product of the Holy Spirit - 2 Peter 1:19-21
2. Acts 17:11 all claimed visions are to be tested "sola scriptura" Gal 1:6-9 to see "IF" those things are so.. to see if they pass the test of scripture.

I think we would both agree to that.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Romans 14 "inserts" the word "alike" by the translators - so then sticking with what Paul actually wrote. "one man observes one day above another - while another man observes every day... he who observes the day observes it for the lord"

Paul is referencing the Bible approved annual holy days of Lev 23... he is not referencing the Bible-condemned pagan days of Gal 4 where Paul flatly condemns the observance of such days and he does not use the term "Sabbath" at all - so not at all recommending breaking one of the Ten Commandments.

I was about to reply when I got an alert. I see it is you, so I will wait.

 

[1stcenturylady]

1. The Bible is the product of the Holy Spirit - 2 Peter 1:19-21
2. Acts 17:11 all claimed visions are to be tested "sola scriptura" Gal 1:6-9 to see "IF" those things are so.. to see if they pass the test of scripture.

I think we would both agree to that.

I read it where you seemed to question my visions possibly. I don't know. Of course. God has never said anything to me that contradicts anything in His written Word.

I'm hoping there will be a reply to the two Covenants of Galatians 4:21-31, and why The Ten Commandments given on Mt. Sinai was referred to as Ishmael, Abraham's son by Hagar. (Exodus 34:28) You say that Paul was only referring to their pagan background of days, weeks and years. But the whole book up to chapter four is about those Judaizers trying to make the Gentile Galatian Christians add those things from the law to be saved.

Also, how can the 4th commandment be written on our hearts? It can't. Only the commandments having to do with loving our fellow man and parents. This is why the commandments are now to "believe on His Son Jesus Christ, AND to love your neighbor as yourself. "Many denominations in the Church only preach the first half, saying the second half is works. That is perverted grace and an abomination. Personally, I would rather someone honor God by keeping the law, though not a full understanding of grace, than having no morals at all!

Why do we need a law telling us not to kill? Only a psychopath would kill and not think there was anything wrong with it. I'm not saying the law is bad. If you do wrong, you come under the judgment of God according to the standard of the law. However, we are dead to sin, by the POWER of the Holy Spirit. We are not UNDER the law; through Christ we are ABOVE the law and its judgments. Not to do what our flesh wants. No! With our new power, we DON'T WANT TO do wrong toward our neighbor. We don't need a law to tell us NOT TO DO something that is now abhorrent to us to do. But we could do none of that if it wasn't for Jesus living in us. He not only took our punishment for our sins, but gave us His strength to be perfect. He is the CENTER of the law. He is what is Holy. No longer a day representing Jesus, but He Himself!. He is our Sabbath rest as we rest in Him, trust in Him, and love Him. How? By keeping His own commandments to us with the same zeal that He kept His Father's Commandments that He was born under, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons, being like Jesus full of love.

 

[listed]

No we weren't which means it is "STILL" wrong to take God's name in vain. As we both know.

And as I pointed out - this is a Bible detail so obvious that Bible scholars on both sides of the issue admit that the TEN commandments are STILL included in the moral law of God.

2 Corinthians 3 says nothing at all about it being now ok to take God's name in vain



That is not true of the TEN commandments.

Here is a great example of text that does NOT say that the TEN commandments do not apply - or that it is now ok to take God's name in vain.

7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

The moral law of God - the TEN Commandments on stone -- under the OLD covenant - is written on the "Tablets of the human heart" in the NEW covenant as 2 Cor 3 points out.

The old covenant was temporary - but it cannot be spun into "the prohibition against taking God's name in vain was just temporary" - it is the SAME LAW - the same moral LAW that defined sin in the Old Covenant - that is written on heart and mind under the NEW Covenant.

So then it is STILL a sin to take God's name in vain.



The same law that is engraved on the tablets of the human heart under the NEW Covenant as Jeremiah states in Jeremiah 31:31-33.

We've been over this point a few dozen times already.




As already stated a few dozen times - it means that the moral law of God with things like "Do not take God's name in vain" was not done away - but rather is written on the tablets of the human heart under the Jeremiah 31:31-33 NEW Covenant .. under the Old Covenant the rule is "Obey and live" -- under the new Covenant we have the born again experience , forgiveness of sins - the LAW of God written on the heart.. same LAW -- different context for it.

as has been stated a few dozen times to you in our posts back and forth



I find your logic "illusive"

What was transitory?

 

[listed]

If you realize Ellen was not giving us the straight story or she was completely wrong then she was a false prophet. She wrote that the plan of salvation came after the fall of man. She wrote that the Tower of Babel was built to save man in case of another flood. She said people alive in 1856 would be translated at the 2nd coming of Jesus. (Testimonies, V1, p 131,132). She wrote in Testimonies for the Church, Volume 1, p. 259, that the United States would be "...humbled into the dust" by England during the Civil War. Which of what she wrote is the real truth? Should we have to track down everything Ellen wrote to see if it is true?


I don't either. She plagiarized much of what she wrote from those in Babylon yet she wrote that not one word she wrote was her own thoughts. Her accompanying angel told her everything to write. Yep, Her accompanying angel told her all about the plan of Salvation.

Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost ... I saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded His Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with the Father.... Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father, His person could be seen.... He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself ... Jesus bade the heavenly host be reconciled to the plan that His Father had accepted... Early Writings, pp. 149-151. While Moses was shut in the mount with God, the plan of salvation, dating from the fall of Adam, was revealed to him in a most forcible manner. Selected Messages, Bk. 1, pp. 231-232. The kingdom of grace was instituted immediately after the fall of man, when a plan was devised for the redemption of the guilty race. The Great Controversy, p. 347.

Isn't "accompanying angel" enough for the knowledgeable to understand what is going on?

 

[1stcenturylady]

Isn't "accompanying angel" enough for the knowledgeable to understand what is going on?

If you are going straight to demonic, don't even go there. That is not true.

 

[Bob S]

If you are going straight to demonic, don't even go there. That is not true.

Right, I think she was delusional because of her severe head injury when she was a child. What ever caused her to become a prolific writer she, at an early age, made false claims and it lead to her becoming a false prophet. What is more concerning is that many similar to Ellen have done the same thing and draw a group of people that buy in hook, line and sinker.

 

[Bob S]

What was transitory?

Paul wrote in 2Cor 3 that the 10 commandments were transitory.

The KJV puts it this way:
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

 

[BobRyan]

I read it where you seemed to question my visions possibly. I don't know. Of course. God has never said anything to me that contradicts anything in His written Word.

I'm hoping there will be a reply to the two Covenants of Galatians 4:21-31, and why The Ten Commandments given on Mt. Sinai was referred to as Ishmael, Abraham's son by Hagar. (Exodus 34:28)

Well it is not because 'Do not take God's name in vain" was only applicable to Ishmael - I think we both agree on that.

As I have been saying - the New Covenant is defined explicitly in Jeremiah 31:31-33 - and it says that the LAW known to Jeremiah is written on the heart and mind under the NEW Covenant.

It is pretty hard to argue that Jeremiah did not know about the TEN commandments or did not know about "Do not take God's name in vain".

So then taking this one step at a time - can we agree to this basic Bible detail? Or is this where we stop and focus on what might be some differences?

You say that Paul was only referring to their pagan background of days, weeks and years. But the whole book up to chapter four is about those Judaizers trying to make the Gentile Galatian Christians add those things from the law to be saved.

As you can see from that thread that focuses just on Galatians 4 and Romans 14... the church in Galatia is gentile. they were pagans who converted to Christianity. Paul details this in Galatians 4 - as that thread on Galatians 4 points out.

Paul refers them back to when they were pagans, who did not know the one true God and where worshipping false gods. This is very clear in Chapter 4:1-10

8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthles selemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

Paul is clearly saying that if they observe even one of those pagan holy days - they are to be condemned even to the point of saying his entire labor over them - to convert them to Christianity - is wasted in such a case.


Now compare that to Romans 14 - where NO condemnation at all is allowed for someone observing one of the Bible approved holy days in Lev 23.

In your post you have chosen to focus on Gal 4:21 instead. That is a good topic but the reason for Gal 4 in connection with your Romans 14 comment is that Gal 4:1-10 specifically points to the issue of observing days - as does Romans 14. But in Gal 4 it is pagan days for which the christian is condemned for observing even one of them. By contrast to the Romans 14 context for Bible-approved holy days.

Just sticking with the topic that you introduced with your Romans 14 reference.

 

[BobRyan]

What was transitory?

The old covenant with the law that defines sin - only condemning the lost sinner and pointing to his need of the Gospel -- just as Romans 3:19-21 points out.

But the saved-saint context of the law that defines sin (1 John 3:4) - is the one Paul addresses in 1Cor 7:19 and Romans 8:4-9 ... a context some on this board refuse to allow.

 

[BobRyan]

Also, how can the 4th commandment be written on our hearts?

How could it not be - if Jeremiah 31:31-33 definition for the NEW Covenant is true - just as Hebrew 8:6-10 claims?

It can't. Only the commandments having to do with loving our fellow man and parents.

Not according to John in 1 John 5:2-3 - there we are told that LOVE for God is shown by obeying his Word -- "His Commandments".

Your argument is of the form "only if the Commandment is love God - if it is just do not take God's name in vain or honor God's Sabbath -- well that is not part of loving God" - but John does not allow such slicing and dicing of the point.

This is why the commandments are now to "believe on His Son Jesus Christ, AND to love your neighbor as yourself.

Not according to Paul.

In Eph 6:2 Paul specifically pulls in the entire unit of TEN - saying that the 5th commandment is to be obeyed in that it is the "FIRST commandment with a promise" in that still-valid "unit of Ten". That is the only unit of Law in which that statement is even true.

And as I keep saying - this is not an "SDA point" rather this is a point about the continued TEN Commandments in the moral law of God under the NEW Covenant that Bible scholars on BOTH sides freely admit to.

Lot's of debates in Christianity - but when you get to a Bible detail where BOTH sides agree... well.. it just does not get any easier than that.

"Many denominations in the Church only preach the first half, saying the second half is works. That is perverted grace

True - but notice section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" as edited by C.H. Spurgeon.
And also section 19 of the "Westminster Confession of Faith" as affirmed by a number of other Protestant denominations.

(Free online)

They freely admit to the TEN Commandments in the moral law of God - given to mankind in Eden and fully consistent with grace and the Gospel.

Adventists could hardly justify taking a step backwards to a level of Bible acceptance that is less than what these other groups already admit to - about God's TEN Commandments.

I think you can see this point -

 

[bugkiller]

No we weren't which means it is "STILL" wrong to take God's name in vain. As we both know.

Did the 10Cs create sin?

And as I pointed out - this is a Bible detail so obvious that Bible scholars on both sides of the issue admit that the TEN commandments are STILL included in the moral law of God.

2 Corinthians 3 says nothing at all about it being now ok to take God's name in vain

Yes it does via stone tablets.

That is not true of the TEN commandments.

Here is a great example of text that does NOT say that the TEN commandments do not apply - or that it is now ok to take God's name in vain.

7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

The moral law of God - the TEN Commandments on stone -- under the OLD covenant - is written on the "Tablets of the human heart" in the NEW covenant as 2 Cor 3 points out.

Not in your quoted verse.

The old covenant was temporary - but it cannot be spun into "the prohibition against taking God's name in vain was just temporary" - it is the SAME LAW - the same moral LAW that defined sin in the Old Covenant - that is written on heart and mind under the NEW Covenant.

You are the only one suggesting such.

bugkiller

 

[BobRyan]

Why do we need a law telling us not to kill? Only a psychopath would kill and not think there was anything wrong with it. I'm not saying the law is bad. If you do wrong, you come under the judgment of God according to the standard of the law.

Cain killed Able - and yet Cain's parents were the same as Able's and were created sinless and perfect. The sinful nature as defined in Romans 3 - would drive everyone to such actions were it not for the work of the Holy Spirit as we see in John 16 "convicting the world of sin and righteousness and judgment".

However, we are dead to sin, by the POWER of the Holy Spirit. We are not UNDER the law;

Romans 6 - we are not under the condemnation of the LAW - but we are told that even in the NT -- even for the saint "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4.

And the "Saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

Notice that in Romans 8:4-9 it is the lost that claim they "do not submit to the Law of God neither indeed CAN they"

The Gospel solution is not to delete the command against taking God's name in vain - so it is not a sin. That is not the solution. The solution is the new birth.. payment of our debt of sin. New Creation. Law of God known to Jeremiah - written on heart and mind. Etc.

Christ never says "I am your Sabbath - there are now only nine commandments left". And in Isaiah 66:23 we have ALL Mankind "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" for all eternity AFTER the cross in the New Earth of Revelation 21.

Instead of "For all eternity there are no more Sabbath cycles for I will be your Sabbath" or something of that nature.

 

[BobRyan]

Did the 10Cs create sin?Yes it does via stone tablets.Not in your quoted verse.You are the only one suggesting such.

bugkiller

Adam and Eve sinned before the Ten Commandments were written on stone - They simply had to "Go against the Word of God"

-- something a few people say is "loving" as long as the Word of God one is in rebellion against is not something like "do not murder".

 

[bugkiller]

There is nothing wrong with keeping the Sabbath on Friday night to Saturday night if that is what he believes. Anymore than there is anything wrong with me keeping Jesus everyday, as I'm sure he does too.

Where did he say we are unregenerate if we don't keep the Sabbath? What is the post #?

Unfortunately you do not know much about the SDA organization and its people. I could quote Ellen for you.

Sorry that you seem to think I am against Sabbath keeping.

bugkiller

 

[1stcenturylady]

Well it is not because 'Do not take God's name in vain" was only applicable to Ishmael - I think we both agree on that.

As I have been saying - the New Covenant is defined explicitly in Jeremiah 31:31-33 - and it says that the LAW known to Jeremiah is written on the heart and mind under the NEW Covenant.

It is pretty hard to argue that Jeremiah did not know about the TEN commandments or did not know about "Do not take God's name in vain".

So then taking this one step at a time - can we agree to this basic Bible detail? Or is this where we stop and focus on what might be some differences?



As you can see from that thread that focuses just on Galatians 4 and Romans 14... the church in Galatia is gentile. they were pagans who converted to Christianity. Paul details this in Galatians 4 - as that thread on Galatians 4 points out.

Paul refers them back to when they were pagans, who did not know the one true God and where worshipping false gods. This is very clear in Chapter 4:1-10

8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthles selemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

Paul is clearly saying that if they observe even one of those pagan holy days - they are to be condemned even to the point of saying his entire labor over them - to convert them to Christianity - is wasted in such a case.


Now compare that to Romans 14 - where NO condemnation at all is allowed for someone observing one of the Bible approved holy days in Lev 23.

In your post you have chosen to focus on Gal 4:21 instead. That is a good topic but the reason for Gal 4 in connection with your Romans 14 comment is that Gal 4:1-10 specifically points to the issue of observing days - as does Romans 14. But in Gal 4 it is pagan days for which the christian is condemned for observing even one of them. By contrast to the Romans 14 context for Bible-approved holy days.

Just sticking with the topic that you introduced with your Romans 14 reference.

Yes, I agree that small section is about their pagan background. But up to that point when it talked of the law it was not pagan laws, but the Ten Commandments, Galatians 4:21 is clear about that.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Unfortunately you do not know much about the SDA organization and its people. I could quote Ellen for you.

Sorry that you seem to think I am against Sabbath keeping.

bugkiller

I was raised SDA. I know all about their belief that Sunday is the mark of the beast, the Spirit of Prophecy/EGW, and the Ten Commandments of which they revere the Sabbath above all. But why are you trying to be hurtful. Were you once SDA?

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, I agree that small section is about their pagan background. But up to that point when it talked of the law it was not pagan laws, but the Ten Commandments, Galatians 4:21 is clear about that.

Gal 4 is not arguing that the Ten Commandments are abolished -- one could understand the Hebrew 10 statement that animal sacrifices are abolished - but the idea that "do not take God's name in vain" is abolished... or just for Ishmael.. or does not apply to Christians etc.. is not anywhere in Galatians 4. Rather the section in Gal 4:21 compares Ishmael to Isaac. It is the children of Isaac...not Ishmael - that are at Mt. Sinai.

Hagar and Ishmael - vs Sarah and Isaac.
New Jerusalem - vs Old Jerusalem where Jews had recently rejected their own Messiah
Two Covenants - New vs Old... with the Old Covenant at Sinai.

Jeremiah and Hebrews 8 have explicit details on exactly what the Bible says the New Covenant is claiming... and of course those details do not help the view of those who reject the idea of the LAW known to Jeremiah written on heart and mind.

The Old Covenant DOES have the TEN Commandments - just as does the NEW. See Christ affirming them "Still" in Matthew 19:16-21 and Mark 7:6-13.

But under the New Covenant those TEN commandments are written on the heart and mind - and not merely external "on stone".

Thus in the NT sin is "still" defined as "transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4
Thus it is "still" a sin to take God's name in vain.
Thus Paul in the NT - "still" appeals to the unit of TEN in Ephesians 6:2 to make his case for the 5th commandment.
Thus it is the NT writers "still" report that Christ affirms the TEN Commandments as in Mark 7:6-13
And thus it is that in Isaiah 66:23 - for all eternity AFTER the cross in the New Earth - "ALL mankind" is to gather for worship on the Sabbath cycle that still exists "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship"

 

[bugkiller]

No we weren't which means it is "STILL" wrong to take God's name in vain. As we both know.

Did the 10Cs create sin?

And as I pointed out - this is a Bible detail so obvious that Bible scholars on both sides of the issue admit that the TEN commandments are STILL included in the moral law of God.

2 Corinthians 3 says nothing at all about it being now ok to take God's name in vain

Yes it does via stone tablets. Even your quot below says - "engraved in letters of stone." It is unmistakable.

That is not true of the TEN commandments.

Yes it is according o Jeremiah alone.

Here is a great example of text that does NOT say that the TEN commandments do not apply - or that it is now ok to take God's name in vain.

7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

The moral law of God - the TEN Commandments on stone -- under the OLD covenant - is written on the "Tablets of the human heart" in the NEW covenant as 2 Cor 3 points out.

Not found in your quoted passage.

The old covenant was temporary - but it cannot be spun into "the prohibition against taking God's name in vain was just temporary" - it is the SAME LAW - the same moral LAW that defined sin in the Old Covenant - that is written on heart and mind under the NEW Covenant.

Rom 5:13, 14.

bugkiller