The scripture is good but the commentary is just man-made quasi-logic.
Everyone has a right to their opinions. The results of the opinions I have formulated over the last 25 years of the critical study of Adventism's doctrines are what I write.
Sideburns? Jots? Tittles? 613? Refuse to believe? I cannot have it both ways? Do you actually deny that there were moral, civil, and ceremonial laws, distinct from one another, even if there was slight overlap in some cases?
All part of the words of the covenant God gave to Israel. Break any one of them was sin. Jews do not group laws so why should I? All of God's laws are moral as related to immoral.
Cannot be governed by two covenants at one time?
Well, can we?
Weren't the heathen nations destroyed and driven out presicely because they would not keep God's Law?
If you are referring to the laws of the Sinai covenant the answer is no, a big no.
Wouldn't that make them obligated just as was Israel?
According to Jewish scholars, the Gentile nations were subject to the Noahide laws.
Are covenants and laws one and the same or not? (Are you then allowed to "have it both ways?")
Would you like to restate that question so that even I can understand what you are trying to ask?
The "old covenant" was so impotent as to not be worthy of the designation, because it was based entirely on the promises of barbarians.
Oh?? Are you wiser than God? Apparently, God didn't share your views.
Sorry; I've been distracted and sidetracked by life, in general, since I was involved in this conversation.
No problem, take your time. We all get caught up in important things. God is patiently waiting on all of us to accept the real truth.
In John, ch. 15, The Savior makes no mention of or even so much as an allusion to any "old covenant." He does refer, in part, to the Law as expressed in the two great commandments (Deu. 6:5, 10:12 and Lev. 19:18, 34). However, He knows that He is among friends (John 15:14, 15) who will not turn His words back upon Him to justify disobedience, and therefore need not guard His speech as he had to in Matthew 22:37-39, when He was being tempted by the established clergy. And clearly, judging from the location of the scripture from whence it came, "Christ's Law" originated in the age of the "old covenant."
He did say He kept the Father's commands. Where were the Father's commands located? Actually, the new covenant was formulated as part of the plan of salvation which was formulated before the foundation of the Earth. The plan of salvation is not a seat of pants as you go formulation.
And clearly, judging from the location of the scripture from whence it came, "Christ's Law" originated in the age of the "old covenant."
I would not teach such a thing. Jesus said that He was giving a new command about love. Did He lie to us? I say an emphatic NO! Loving others as I have loved you cannot be found in the Old Testament.
Discussion of covenants tends to make my head hurt since, these days, I no longer have a single dispensationalist bone in my body.
I would submit to you that if you understood the real facts about the covenants you wouldn't have become a SDA. It was not until I left Adventism that I finally realized I was not grounded in that part of my Christian faith. The laws of the Old Covenant had nothing to do with salvation. The covenant was all about how Israel was to live in the desert and later in the land of Canaan. The Abrahamic covenant was about salvation as well as the New Covenant. Where does the SDA church get the idea that if I do not keep the Sabbath given only to Israel I will not receive my eternal reward? That is ludicrous. The church claims the same thing if I don't pay tithe to the church.
I'm not being facetious, here--I actually am so accustomed to focusing on the everlasting Gospel cited in Rev. 14:6 that I genuinely have trouble wrapping my head around these matters, at times. I grew up mildly influenced by a Baptist atmosphere that was obsessed with a perceived disparity between the Old and New Testaments. King James Version Bibles, with Scofield study notes included, were everywhere.
I don't believe there is any disparity. The old paved the way for the new. It is all part of the plan of salvation. As far as Rev 14 and Adventism's take on the chapter is concerned I believe their take on the verses is entirely wrong. You have been programmed to believe all outside of your church are part of Babylon because we do not hold the Sabbath of the now-defunct Sinai covenant holy we are the beast and the image of the beast. Worshipping God on Sunday makes us somehow Babylon.
I truly believe it is dangerous to hone in on words, such as "law," "sin," "fulfill," "covenant," etc. "Saved" is one we really love to wear the tread off of.
Yes, it is a true shame that your church teaches you to never say you are saved. You cannot believe in the promises like Jn 5:24 and Jn 3:16. SDAs mouth the words of Jude1:24-25, but don't really believe He can keep us from falling.
I'm gonna stop there before I get in trouble.
Why stop now? You have already made it clear that you denounce certain things. Believe what you will and allow me to use Saved, Sideburns, Jots, Tittles, 613 and Refuse to believe? Those are things you need to focus on and not that the remainder of Christianity are going to miss the boat.
I cannot have it both ways?
We strive over such words and terms until we have forgotten the Object of their utility.
Then instead of belittling for using words you may not like give us the reason for your beliefs.It seemed to me when I was an Adventist we were focused on nothing but Sabbath, a works-oriented belief system. Everything revolved around Sabbath in place of Jesus.
Anyway, I'm not sure what or if you were asking something of me, but if you don't mind restating in the simplest terms you can manage, I'll be more than happy to respond.
You posted your thoughts and I responded. You seem to dislike the terms I used and the fact that we are not under the commands of the Sinai Covenant. You debunked my thoughts by using the term Quasi-logic, but offered little to explain where. This, after all, is a debate forum.
Since this is a very general Christian forum (bordering on pluralist/ecumenical--from a non-derogatory spirit on my part, of course), I can't always assume I know where a participant is coming from, dogmatically speaking. I get a feeling we may be talking about the mystery attached to the pre-advent existence of Christ here, a subject which many are not comfortable discussing at all, since the Bible seems to them to be perhaps cautiously quiet upon. I have no such reservations, being an avid student of the triune Godhead, but I respect and even admire the concerns of those who tread lightly upon the subject.
As far as covenants and fulfillment are concerned, I have a narrow view. I know the devil loves to invent minors for us to major in. There can be no doubt that there is a fine line between keeping the main thing the main thing and vain repetition. And certainly, God wants us to dig into scripture as for hid treasure. But in the end, the Gospel is best expressed in the simplest of ways:
Wow! a lot there my friend. The subject of the thread is:
Do Sabbath Keepers Keep the Sabbath?I digressed as did others. If you are interested in further debate on that issue I would be happy to give you my two cents worth.
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (
Romans 5:8)
But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes, we are healed. (
Isaiah 53:5)
Amen!
I've only been an Adventist for a little over half my life but when it found me, it was an easy sell, because it explained perfectly my bewilderment as to why modern Christendom is so obsessed with justifying sin and ever looking to slip through a crack of a pearly gate somehow.
Had Israelites been able to save themselves by keeping the rules of the covenant Jesus would have never had to come to this Earth and become the Sacrifice for Israel and all mankind. The fact is that the Law could only point out their sins. I do not believe Christians are justifying sin. We know we are sinners saved by Grace not by what we do. Perhaps you are dwelling on a false premise or were worshipping with the wrong group.
I still don't understand why people want to jettison God's Law so that they don't have to be bothered with just one commandment. Sadly, as the Bible predicted, the other nine are slowly toppling like dominoes.
The nine have not toppled. They are a part of the command Jesus gave us to love others as He loves us. How much does Jesus love us? He gave up Heaven to come to lost sinners to die so that we might have life eternal as it was supposed to be from the beginning.
Now I would like to contend to the one commandment that is not considered one of morality and id defined as being ritual. The covenant Jesus came to instill is about love. The covenant the new replaced was about law and duty. I take the writings of Paul with upmost respect as they came from Jesus. If you will
read study Jesus words through the writings of Paul we will take verses like 2Cor3:7-11 to heart. Paul writes there that the 10 commandments have been replaced by the Holy Spirit as our guide. The King James version tell us that the 10 commandments have been done away. They were temporary laws he tells us. That should be enough to start you thinking if we are really under the Sabbath law of the Old Covenant. It surely did me. Then I discovered that in 1Jn3:19-24 what laws we are commanded to observe. I pray that this helps you to get a better understanding of all of Chriatianity
Masterful deception, seems like. A hundred years ago, Christians revered and kept Sunday as the Holy Sabbath day. The wholesale antinomianism that prevails today couldn't be given away with movie tickets. My grandmother literally would not allow anyone to do unnecessary work on her property on Sunday.
I believe I covered that in a statement above.
I almost hate to fire this off. I don't condemn anyone, personally, as clichéd as that seems, and often is. It's just not possible to handle truth without ruffling feathers.
You can never ruffle my feathers friend. I love to discuss what I now believe is the simple truth. God Bless you.
Discussion of covenants tends to make my head hurt since, these days, I no longer have a single dispensationalist bone in my body. I'm not being facetious, here--I actually am so accustomed to focusing on the everlasting Gospel cited in Rev. 14:6 that I genuinely have trouble wrapping my head around these matters, at times. I grew up mildly influenced by a Baptist atmosphere that was obsessed with a perceived disparity between the Old and New Testaments. King James Version Bibles, with Scofield study notes included, were everywhere.
I truly believe it is dangerous to hone in on words, such as "law," "sin," "fulfill," "covenant," etc. "Saved" is one we really love to wear the tread off of. I'm gonna stop there before I get in trouble. We strive over such words and terms until we have forgotten the Object of their utility.
Anyway, I'm not sure what or if you were asking something of me, but if you don't mind restating in the simplest terms you can manage, I'll be more than happy to respond.
Since this is a very general Christian forum (bordering on pluralist/ecumenical--from a non-derogatory spirit on my part, of course), I can't always assume I know where a participant is coming from, dogmatically speaking. I get a feeling we may be talking about the mystery attached to the pre-advent existence of Christ here, a subject which many are not comfortable discussing at all, since the Bible seems to them to be perhaps cautiously quiet upon. I have no such reservations, being an avid student of the triune Godhead, but I respect and even admire the concerns of those who tread lightly upon the subject.
As far as covenants and fulfillment are concerned, I have a narrow view. I know the devil loves to invent minors for us to major in. There can be no doubt that there is a fine line between keeping the main thing the main thing and vain repetition. And certainly, God wants us to dig into scripture as for hid treasure. But in the end, the Gospel is best expressed in the simplest of ways:
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)
But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes, we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)
I've only been an Adventist for a little over half my life but when it found me, it was an easy sell, because it explained perfectly my bewilderment as to why modern Christendom is so obsessed with justifying sin and ever looking to slip through a crack of a pearly gate somehow. I still don't understand why people want to jettison God's Law so that they don't have to be bothered with just one commandment. Sadly, as the Bible predicted, the other nine are slowly toppling like dominoes. Masterful deception, seems like. A hundred years ago, Christians revered and kept Sunday as the Holy Sabbath day. The wholesale antinomianism that prevails today couldn't be given away with movie tickets. My grandmother literally would not allow anyone to do unnecessary work on her property on Sunday.
I almost hate to fire this off. I don't condemn anyone, personally, as clichéd as that seems, and often is. It's just not possible to handle truth without ruffling feathers.