Why is the day of worship controversial?

[mmksparbud]

Your understanding of what is entailed to obey the ten commandments is not clear, it is shallow

By all means---deepen it. I thought Jesus did a pretty good job, but if you can do better...……….

 

[Timothy416]

Why do you select only SDA's? A persons thoughts is what the God of the universe does read. They reveal the true heart. A person who has his mind of Jesus doesn't have to worry about his thoughts.
And it is not us who say break one you break them all, Jesus did.:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Our righteousness far exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees, for it is the righteousness of Jesus that is accounted to us.
Mat_19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mar_9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

We do not serve a weak, puny God.
Heb_7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

But sda members I have chatted to only believe they have righteousness/can remain in a righteous state if they obey the letter of the Ten Commandments. The letter kills, it kills sda members the same as it kills anyone else.
Now it is true, that not only sda members believe righteousness hinges on obeying the ten commandments, but in my experience(ands I can only go by personal experience) they are the most earnest of people I have met who hinge their righteousness on obedience to the letter neither they or anyone else can fully obey. It is an errant belief I am afraid.

 

[Timothy416]

By all means---deepen it. I thought Jesus did a pretty good job, but if you can do better...……….

I already previously have

 

[mmksparbud]

I must surrender to a nap attack for now. I'll read your in depth explanation later.

But sda members I have chatted to only believe they have righteousness/can remain in a righteous state if they obey the letter of the Ten Commandments. The letter kills, it kills sda members the same as it kills anyone else.
Now it is true, that not only sda members believe righteousness hinges on obeying the ten commandments, but in my experience(ands I can only go by personal experience) they are the most earnest of people I have met who hinge their righteousness on obedience to the letter neither they or anyone else can fully obey. It is an errant belief I am afraid.

Jesus and I both explained the spirit of the law---but you keep on about the letter of the law without explaining exactly what your explanation of the spirit of the law means. Again:

Mar_10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Isa_26:3 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.

 

[Timothy416]

I must surrender to a nap attack for now. I'll read your in depth explanation later.



Jesus and I both explained the spirit of the law---but you keep on about the letter of the law without explaining exactly what your explanation of the spirit of the law means. Again:

Mar_10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Isa_26:3 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.

It is sda members on this site that continually state the letter of the law must be fully upheld, break one of the ten commandments you break them all. I am just reiterating their views

 

[Timothy416]

Jesus and I both explained the spirit of the law---but you keep on about the letter of the law without explaining exactly what your explanation of the spirit of the law means. Again:

OK. The letter of the law is inflexible and must be fully obeyed. Any deflection from full obedience to that letter makes you guilty, of breaking the entire law and under condemnation, as from what you have previously written I guess you agree. IE Thou shalt not covet. It does not say: You may covet occasionally and if you do, that is ok, for you are only human, it says: Thou shalt not covet. No wiggle room at all. Perfect obedience of the letter or you are guilty of breaking the Ten Commandments. And as you say, break one you break them all. Another way of putting it is. Be perfect in your flesh or you are guilty of breaking the entire law(James2:10) That is the letter of the law that kills, for no one is perfect in their flesh

The Spirit of the law

You in your heart want to obey God, for that is where his laws have been placed under the new covenant. But though that is what you want, in your humanity you never will perfectly obey the law. But as long as you are looking to your saviour and in your heart wanting to live an evermore Christlike like, you are following after the Spirit of the law in your life. Though whilst you follow after the Spirit of the law, you will inevitably break the letter of the Ten Commandments.

Therefore, to say you must obey the ten commandments to enter heaven/remain in a righteous state is going to mean you flip flop all the time between being in a saved and unsaved state. I could go much further than that, but not now.

 

[BobRyan]

OK. The letter of the law is inflexible and must be fully obeyed. Any deflection from full obedience to that letter makes you guilty, of breaking the entire law and under condemnation,

in the NT "Sin is transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4.
And under the Gospel "these things I write to you that you sin not" 1 John 2:1
And under the Gospel "IF anyone does sin we have an advocate with the Father" 1 John 2:1

However all the lost and unsaved world are "under the LAW" Romans 3:19-21 to this very day - that is how the lost "are lost" -- under the condemnation of the Law.

I guess you agree. IE Thou shalt not covet. It does not say: You may covet occasionally and if you do, that is ok, for you are only human,

True. Just as it says "you hall not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7. It does not say "except occasionally as you feel the urge of the moment - then that is ok" or "Except if you are a born again Christian - and then taking God's name in vain is ok"

No wiggle room at all. Perfect obedience of the letter or you are guilty of breaking the Ten Commandments.

As James 2 says "break one .. you are breaking them all".

so then you are stuck with "no taking God's name in vain"... is that a problem?

Romans 8 says it is a problem for the lost in Rom 8:4-10 "they do not subject themselves to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they" as contrasted to the saints "who KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

 

[Timothy416]

in the NT "Sin is transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4.
And under the Gospel "these things I write to you that you sin not" 1 John 2:1
And under the Gospel "IF anyone does sin we have an advocate with the Father" 1 John 2:1

However all the lost and unsaved world are "under the LAW" Romans 3:19-21 to this very day - that is how the lost "are lost" -- under the condemnation of the Law.



True. Just as it says "you hall not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7. It does not say "except occasionally as you feel the urge of the moment - then that is ok" or "Except if you are a born again Christian - and then taking God's name in vain is ok"



As James 2 says "break one .. you are breaking them all".

so then you are stuck with "no taking God's name in vain"... is that a problem?

Romans 8 says it is a problem for the lost in Rom 8:4-10 "they do not subject themselves to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they" as contrasted to the saints "who KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

Thanks for the above. I understand now you believe your thoughts can send you to hell, for you can break the command not to covet in thought alone. And as you say, break one of the ten commandments and you break them all. Hope all sda members are as happy with this as you appear to be

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks for the above. I understand now you believe your thoughts can send you to hell, for you can break the command not to covet in thought alone.

Did you read my post?? Not even the 1 John 2 section? it was just a few verses at that point?

Or are you just trying to make the case that taking God's name in vain should not be a sin for Christians?

And as you say, break one of the ten commandments and you break them all.[ Hope all sda members are as happy

You are posting "as if" SDAs wrote James 2... have you thought that through?

 

[Timothy416]

Did you read my post?? Not even the 1 John 2 section? it was just a few verses at that point?

Or are you just trying to make the case that taking God's name in vain should not be a sin for Christians?



You are posting "as if" SDAs wrote James 2... have you thought that through?

Not at all. You wrote believers must obey the ten commandments, not partially but in whole. I simply pointed out that includes in your mind too, for you may break the ten commandments in thought alone. Therefore, if you break the tenth one in your mind, you break them all and are as heathen, for you are not obeying them are you. Why are you simply not agreeing with me here? Is that not your belief?

 

[ace of hearts]

So you do deny the fact that the new covenant is that the law is written in the heart?

Here you are:

Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
"Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

How does this change what the new covenant says which is: I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

You have said this yourself--it is written in the heart today, not on stone you said. So now you don't believe this? Did you change your mind or not believe it to begin with??

Not as much as you refuse to believe Jer 31:31, 32 and 33.

I've never said the covenant given to Israel is written on the heart.

Your problem is the interchange of words.

 

[ace of hearts]

How is quoting what Jesus Himself said obligating Him?? Revelation is
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Believing in the words and promises of Jesus is not putting Him iunder obligation---they are His promises. Don't you believe in them?

If you don't keep the sabbath commandment, do you have the right to eat from the tree of life (Rev 22:14)? Yes or no.

 

[ace of hearts]

I've not been inconsistent. I make a distinction, as does God, between the priestly commandments, and the 10. The laws pertaining to the sacrificial ceremonious that all pointed to Jesus are the ones that are no longer needed---that should be glaringly obvious as Jesus is now our sacrificial Lamb and our High Priest. Once gain--the 10 are the only ones written by God Himself, and the only ones that were kept in the Ark.

It should be strongly glaring by Mat 11:28-30 the sabbath is a ceremonial shadow of Jesus, Who give rest those who keep and those who kept the law don't have.

 

[BobRyan]

OK. The letter of the law is inflexible and must be fully obeyed. Any deflection from full obedience to that letter makes you guilty, of breaking the entire law and under condemnation,

in the NT "Sin is transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4.
And under the Gospel "these things I write to you that you sin not" 1 John 2:1
And under the Gospel "IF anyone does sin we have an advocate with the Father" 1 John 2:1

However all the lost and unsaved world are "under the LAW" Romans 3:19-21 to this very day - that is how the lost "are lost" -- under the condemnation of the Law.

I guess you agree. IE Thou shalt not covet. It does not say: You may covet occasionally and if you do, that is ok, for you are only human,

True. Just as it says "you hall not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7. It does not say "except occasionally as you feel the urge of the moment - then that is ok" or "Except if you are a born again Christian - and then taking God's name in vain is ok"

No wiggle room at all. Perfect obedience of the letter or you are guilty of breaking the Ten Commandments.

As James 2 says "break one .. you are breaking them all".

so then you are stuck with "no taking God's name in vain"... is that a problem?

Romans 8 says it is a problem for the lost in Rom 8:4-10 "they do not subject themselves to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they" as contrasted to the saints "who KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

You wrote believers must obey the ten commandments, not partially but in whole.

Did I say that like this "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19 where the commandments of God are the ones where "the 5th commandment is the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2???

Or are you saying I wrote it like this ?

James 2 says "break one .. you are breaking them all".

or this

so then you are stuck with "no taking God's name in vain"... is that a problem?


In other words do you view "me" as the author of scripture??

 

[ace of hearts]

That is not my opinion. That is the opinion of the scriptures and if you read Hebrews, it makes it very clear. the priesthood ceremonies were no longer relevant for Jesus fulfilled those--or do you wish to be still sacrificing animals in spite of the fact the Jesus is the Lamb and the High Priest--or do you not believe that? I do not in any way brag about anything--do you? You are, of course, free to believe whatever you wish and if you want to keep the 600 also--that's your choice. Tattoos and homosexuality are not part of the laws pertaining to the sacrifices pointing to Jesus. I have no idea what is so very difficult to comprehend about the sacrificial laws that were pertaining to the priesthood and to the sacrifice of Jesus were done away with at the cross. What is so difficult about it?? It is stated all over Hebrews---Jesus is our High Priest--no earthly priestly rituals are needed any longer. It doesn't take a college education to get it.

The evidence is you don't believe -

LK 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

nor

Jn 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Evidently you read The law of sacrifices and the prophets were until John...

And the law was given by Jesus...

 

[Timothy416]

in the NT "Sin is transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4.
And under the Gospel "these things I write to you that you sin not" 1 John 2:1
And under the Gospel "IF anyone does sin we have an advocate with the Father" 1 John 2:1

However all the lost and unsaved world are "under the LAW" Romans 3:19-21 to this very day - that is how the lost "are lost" -- under the condemnation of the Law.



True. Just as it says "you hall not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7. It does not say "except occasionally as you feel the urge of the moment - then that is ok" or "Except if you are a born again Christian - and then taking God's name in vain is ok"



As James 2 says "break one .. you are breaking them all".

so then you are stuck with "no taking God's name in vain"... is that a problem?

Romans 8 says it is a problem for the lost in Rom 8:4-10 "they do not subject themselves to the LAW of God neither indeed CAN they" as contrasted to the saints "who KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12



Did I say that like this "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19 where the commandments of God are the ones where "the 5th commandment is the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2???

Or are you saying I wrote it like this ?

James 2 says "break one .. you are breaking them all".

or this

so then you are stuck with "no taking God's name in vain"... is that a problem?


In other words do you view "me" as the author of scripture??

So I repeat, if you break the tenth commandment in your thoughts you break them all, as that is your belief. Therefore your thoughts can send you to hell

 

[ace of hearts]

Few will get in apparently.

Mat_7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

There are even fewer who believe that with Jesus anything is possible or that it is Jesus working in us that does it.

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

my God is able.

Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Most likely you're on the grid consuming utilities which is all that's necessary to prove you don't keep the 4th as it's written all the while condemning those to hell that provide your convenience.

 

[ace of hearts]

Not at all it is GOD'S WORD and GOD'S WORD says the SABBATH cannot be a SHADOW of anything as it is a part of God's ETERNAL LAW (10 Commandments) that give is the KNOWLEDGE of what sin is if broken *ROMANS 3:20; ROMANS 7:7; 1 JOHN 3:4. It was also a part of the FINISHED work of creation BEFORE SIN and God's plan of salvation was given to mankind.

I can't be guilty as you try to prove if I've been delivered from the law. Please note I didn't say part of the law like you believe even though you say you believe Mat 5:18 saying not a jot or title of the law can pass.

 

[ace of hearts]

Jesus taught all the law and the prophets and expounded on them from the OLD TESTAMENT in the NEW TESTAMENT he did not come to abolish them but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17-19). The MOSAIC BOOK of the law pointed to JESUS and were fulfilled in him (no more animal sacrifices after his death). While he obeyed God's LAW (10 Commandments) perfectly in order to be our perfect sacrifice for sin. Jesus taught LOVE is the fulfilling of God's LAW and on these two great commandments of LOVE hang all the law and the prophets *MATTHEW 22:36-40. However, even here Jesus is quoting the OLD TESTAMENT scriptures of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 of LOVE to GOD and LOVE to our neighbore and states ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS HANG ALL THE LAW and the prophets *MATTEW 22:36-40. It is clear JESUS is not referring to God's ETERNAL LAW (10 commandments) being ABOLISHED as he teaches them from the inside out in MATTHEW 5:19-28. Perhaps you should re-read MATTHEW 5.

Hope this helps.

Is "but I say... the same thing as what precedes all those statements?

 

[ace of hearts]

Did you read my post?? Not even the 1 John 2 section? it was just a few verses at that point?

Or are you just trying to make the case that taking God's name in vain should not be a sin for Christians?



You are posting "as if" SDAs wrote James 2... have you thought that through?

Are you trying to say that not taking God's name in vain is obedience to the law? If so how do you deal with the fact many unregenerate people are in compliance with that the way you mean it?