St. Patrick kept the 7th Day Sabbath!

Status
Not open for further replies.

listed

are you?
May 14, 2011
9,126
1,817
✟53,797.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I would like to stress that true Adventists believe we are saved by faith alone, without the works of the law. But neither are we saved in disobedience to the law.

Without the works of the law means that the believer cannot offer his obedience to God in exchange for salvation, yet the sinner cannot be saved in rebellion and disobedience. All sin must be repented of, confessed, and forsaken before the believer is accepted in Christ. We must show our faith by our good works. Faith without works is dead (James 2:17,18,24,26) and whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23).

All of God's commandments can only be kept by faith. No human being that makes it to heaven will have been saved by any works they did. Only by faith. Even at Sinai and after. This is precisely why the Old Covenant failed, they were attempting to keep God's commandments by works, not by faith.

This proves that whether the law is written on paper or not, it still has to be written in the heart. It was never God's intent that Israel would attain righteousness by works. It is the faith of Abraham that they had forgotten.

Not all laws need to be written on paper for them to be in our heart, but God wants us to read the Bible, and the Bible identifies sins we never knew about. We can only have written in our hearts what we know about, and that is limited. James 4:17 says to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. But Hosea 4:6 also tells us that God will reject us if we willfully reject knowledge. Therefore, if we have the opportunity, and our hearts are right with God, we will take advantage that we have access to God's written word, and we will open it and we will read it to find out what more is sin so that we can put it out of our lives.

If we purposely avoid reading God's laws and finding out what sin is, then that reveals that our hearts are not really where they ought to be, and that we are not really too anxious to put sin out of our lives.
Then true adventist don't listen to EGW. Frogster would go bahaha gaga baha ^_^^_^:D:D
 
Upvote 0

listed

are you?
May 14, 2011
9,126
1,817
✟53,797.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
An Assumption: That the Testimony in Heaven is "Different":

It is an assumption that just because the testimony or covenant is different, that the laws must read different. I would argue that a new covenant has nothing to do with the moral law changing. I believe it has to do with a change of location, from tables of stone to the tables of your heart. These Ten Commandments must be written in our hearts, and that is the New Covenant promise to all those who love Jesus and surrender their lives to Him. Once that happens, these laws will be manifested in the character in an untold number of ways--for which Christ greatly elaborated upon.

Are we to suggest that heaven's testimony reads "This is the Law of Love"? May I ask what that means?

What does "love" mean? and how does "love" translate? How is it "manifested"? There has to be a foundation. Picture Jesus the embodiment of love. On his right hand hangs Table 1 (love to God), and on his left hand hangs Table 2 (love to man). From these 2 principles of love, hang ALL the law and the prophets (Matt. 22:40). Or picture Jesus the "chief cornerstone", holding up the foundation (Tables of Stone), and the great principles of love, embodied in His Temple, the Church or God's people, built on that foundation. :)

The Ten Commandments, out of the 613 laws, were seared in solid stone--to impress an indelible reminder concerning their perpetual and eternal nature. All of Christ's laws were extensions, or magnifications rather (Isaiah 42:21) of this sacred law, for which Paul said was "holy", "just", and "good" (Rom. 7:12).

Keeping the commandments is going to be an automatic fruitage and revelation of love. Love is revealed and translated in how we treat one another, and how we treat God. When we break the Sabbath, we are showing disrespect to God. God put the Sabbath there as a test for Christians, just like he put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil for Adam and Eve. Those who fail the test will exchange eternal life for eternal death.

But it doesn't end there. Jesus wants to go BEYOND the elementary basics of the Ten Commandments.

Jesus gave two examples of what it means to be living in the New Covenant:

Example 1:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:21,22)
As we can see, Jesus is in no way negating the law. In just 3 verses earlier, he said "till heaven and earth pass" not one jot or tittle will pass away from the law, then He goes on to give examples of what it means to live out that law in your life. He shows here that it is more than just "not killing". It also has to do with the intents of the heart---beyond not killing, don't even be ANGRY with your brother! Is it possible to kill your brother, yet not be angry with him? Of course not. The spirit never erases the letter. But if it is done only in letter, it means nothing for the soul.

Example 2:
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:27,28 )
As we can see, Jesus is not "negating" or "replacing" the "commandment of old" to not commit adultery. But He is AMPLIFYING it. Is it possible to commit adultery yet not lust after another woman? Of course not. Jesus is talking about our thoughts. These were principles that the Jewish nation had lost sight of. They didn't understand that God's law was to be kept from the heart. There were few men, however, that did. David's Psalms and Solomon's Proverb's are two examples.
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 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: 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." (Jeremiah 31:31-33)
As we can see, Israel broke the covenant because they relied on their own strength (see Exodus 24:7), their own human weakness to keep God's laws, but it was not the Lord working in and through them to give them strength (see Phil 2:13), because they kept it out of legalism. Not out of love. The New Covenant promise is where God will take those SAME moral laws (not new moral laws), and write them in their hearts. :)

Paul repeats the words of Jeremiah in Hebrews:
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." (Hebrews 8:7-10)

"Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (Hebrews 10:15-17)
We see how Israel broke their end of the covenant, their "agreement". We see then why it became absolutely necessary to make a new covenant. God never broke the covenant, but Israel did. The covenant became faulty, but God's law is always perfect (Psalm 19:7). Therefore, it was a new covenant that needed to be made, not a new law. The covenant became imperfect when Israel broke it, and this is why God said he found fault with "them" (Israel), not the law. This is why the old covenant had to "vanish", because it was based on legalism, and trying to attain the law of righteousness by works, and not by faith. (See Romans 9:31,32). New Covenant Christians keep God's commandments by faith, not by works. Works has to do with a wrong motive, by trying to earn a ticket to salvation, and save ourselves. It has nothing to do with a heart-felt motive where faith is exercised that works by love and purifies the soul. When those same laws are implanted in the heart, it springs forth in our soul into good fruit! :)
This is simply not what God said through Jeremiah.
 
Upvote 0

Lysimachus

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
Dec 21, 2010
1,762
41
✟9,605.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Private
Listed,

Don't you think you're a little too stressed out? I know I'm not a good example, because I used to really allow people's comments to irritate me, but I've prayed to God over the last few months on this issue, and He has helped me calm down quite a bit. Perhaps you have not seen my past posts on this site. ;)

At any rate, my encouragement to you is to meditate on all arguments presented. Let's not be so quick to react. Let's zoom out and look at the "big picture" rather than zooming in to get snagged on technicalities.
 
Upvote 0

listed

are you?
May 14, 2011
9,126
1,817
✟53,797.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I never said the Ark was opened. Or perhaps I misunderstand you? What does this have to do with anything?

The point is, the Temple of God was opened in heaven, and in it was seen the Ark of His Testament. Just what it says.
If John saw the stone tablets in heaven the Ark of the Covenant had to be opened. It simply wasn't and John didn't see the stone tablets and neither did EGW.
 
Upvote 0

Lysimachus

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
Dec 21, 2010
1,762
41
✟9,605.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Private
If John saw the stone tablets in heaven the Ark of the Covenant had to be opened. It simply wasn't and John didn't see the stone tablets and neither did EGW.

I never said John saw the stone tables. He saw the Ark of the Testament. But the Ark was "evidence" that the Testament was inside of it. Otherwise, it would be an oxymoron to call it the "Ark of His Testament" if His Testament (or tables of the covenant) are not inside it. Whether one can see the tables in the Ark or not is not the point. God already recorded what's in it in Exodus 20, so we don't need to see what it reads in heaven. God didn't make the earthly sanctuary a "pattern after nothing". He made it a pattern of the heavenly. We should just take His Word for it.

Asking God to open up the Ark of the Covenant in heaven for you so that you can see exactly what the Tables of the Testimony read is like an atheist asking God to show Himself so that he might believe.

Whether Ellen White had a vision on this subject or not does not deter from what the text says.
 
Upvote 0

listed

are you?
May 14, 2011
9,126
1,817
✟53,797.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Listed,

Don't you think you're a little too stressed out? I know I'm not a good example, because I used to really allow people's comments to irritate me, but I've prayed to God over the last few months on this issue, and He has helped me calm down quite a bit. Perhaps you have not seen my past posts on this site. ;)

At any rate, my encouragement to you is to meditate on all arguments presented. Let's not be so quick to react. Let's zoom out and look at the "big picture" rather than zooming in to get snagged on technicalities.
Whatz z matta can't handle the heat? Get out of the kitchen. Don't tell me to let your stuff go unrebutted for any length of time.
 
Upvote 0

listed

are you?
May 14, 2011
9,126
1,817
✟53,797.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I never said John saw the stone tables. He saw the Ark of the Testament. But the Ark was "evidence" that the Testament was inside of it. Otherwise, it would be an oxymoron to call it the "Ark of His Testament" if His Testament (or tables of the covenant) are not inside it. Whether one can see the tables in the Ark or not is not the point. God already recorded what's in it in Exodus 20, so we don't need to see what it reads in heaven. God didn't make the earthly sanctuary a "pattern after nothing". He made it a pattern of the heavenly. We should just take His Word for it.

Asking God to open up the Ark of the Covenant in heaven for you so that you can see exactly what the Tables of the Testimony read is like an atheist asking God to show Himself so that he might believe.
No I want and only will accept sight of the tablets. Moses didn't see them in heaven and neither did John. You're going on nothing more that assumption for lack of evidence to establish a nonexistant varifiable fact for the purpose of establishing a false doctrine.

What did Moses see in heaven? The Ark or the Ark of the Covenant? Aren't both referring to what Moses saw in heaven? Or did it become a house only after being inhabited?

What you're arguing for is the stone tablets are in heaven and have no proof. You apparently need this to prove obligation to the law and invalidate the NC. I certianly understand.
 
Upvote 0

Lysimachus

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
Dec 21, 2010
1,762
41
✟9,605.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Private
No I want and only will accept sight of the tablets. Moses didn't see them in heaven and neither did John. You're going on nothing more that assumption for lack of evidence to establish a nonexistant varifiable fact for the purpose of establishing a false doctrine.

What did Moses see in heaven? The Ark or the Ark of the Covenant? Aren't both referring to what Moses saw in heaven? Or did it become a house only after being inhabited?

What you're arguing for is the stone tablets are in heaven and have no proof. You apparently need this to prove obligation to the law and invalidate the NC. I certianly understand.

Then I'm sorry, as this is where we must part ways in our disagreement. Hebrews is clear that the earthly sanctuary was patterned after the heavenly. If you can't accept that the earthly tables read the same as the heavenly, then that is your problem. Not mine.

You can manipulate "proof" so that it no longer sounds as proof. If it is not "proof" to you, then so be it. It certainly is proof for me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Upvote 0

listed

are you?
May 14, 2011
9,126
1,817
✟53,797.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Then I'm sorry, as this is where we must part ways in our disagreement. Hebrews is clear that the earthly sanctuary was patterned after the heavenly. If you can't accept that the earthly tables read the same as the heavenly, then that is your problem. Not mine.

You can manipulate "proof" so that it no longer sounds as proof. If it is not "proof" to you, then so be it. It certainly is proof for me.
So you're saying that the stone tablets were made as part of the Tabernacle. No way Jose. They were brought into the Tabernacle and they were also removed from the Tabernacle. According to what you say they would also be removed from heaven if you can even prove they are there. The stone tablets aren't part and parcel of the Tabernacle.

Look you need the stone tablets to prove one is obligated to the law. I don't need them with the administration of mercy by Grace. Then we have the differences of the covenants which violate each other even if you could produce the stone tablets. You will never prove a superceded law (covenant) has authority over its replacement. I send you back to Jeremiah. It says very plainly not according to. It says nothing about moving that covenant into the heart. It says very plainly make a new covenant. Sorry. I like Regan's statement on communism, We win, they lose.
 
Upvote 0

listed

are you?
May 14, 2011
9,126
1,817
✟53,797.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
which one of you 2 is which ;)
Interesting statement seeing you have witnessed previous exchanges Lysimachus has had with others. Of course I'm assuming you read all the law and sabbath threads here at CF and have been around much longer than either one of us. I've done my research and know what I'm dealing with.
 
Upvote 0

Lysimachus

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
Dec 21, 2010
1,762
41
✟9,605.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Private
So you're saying that the stone tablets were made as part of the Tabernacle. No way Jose. They were brought into the Tabernacle and they were also removed from the Tabernacle. According to what you say they would also be removed from heaven if you can even prove they are there. The stone tablets aren't part and parcel of the Tabernacle.

In that case, what John would have seen is the "Ark", not "Ark of the Testament". If there is no covenant inside it, it cannot be called the "Ark OF the Covenant".

Now take a look at what the author of Hebrews identifies as those items that are a "figure" of the true:
Hebrews
8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore [it is] of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, [that] thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount.

9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
9:2 For there was a tabernacle made [Note: he now goes on to explain what "consists" of this "tabernacle"]; the first, wherein [was] the candlestick, and the table, and the showbread; which is called the sanctuary.
9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
9:4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein [was] the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.
9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service [of God].
9:7 But into the second [went] the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and [for] the errors of the people:
9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9:9 Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience

9:10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.
9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

9:23 [It was] therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us
Keep in mind that in verses 1-5, Paul is taking the meticulous time to describe the earthly sanctuary, and provides all the items, including the tables of the covenant. Then Paul goes on to explain how this entire "sanctuary" (which consists of all the items) is patterned after the true. Thus we see that the Tables of the Covenant are located inside the heavenly ark. :)

Look you need the stone tablets to prove one is obligated to the law. I don't need them with the administration of mercy by Grace. Then we have the differences of the covenants which violate each other even if you could produce the stone tablets. You will never prove a superceded law (covenant) has authority over its replacement. I send you back to Jeremiah. It says very plainly not according to. It says nothing about moving that covenant into the heart. It says very plainly make a new covenant. Sorry. I like Regan's statement on communism, We win, they lose.

I just did prove it. :) I would encourage all to avoid at all cost playing semantic jugglery, theological hopscotch, ring around the rosy, and dancing between the raindrops. Let's do the right thing and handle the scriptures responsibly.

I've dealt with the toughest anti-Law proponents now for the last 15 years, and I'm not convinced any of their arguments hold water. Please be informed, I am well familiar with argument you will possibly bring up. I've worshiped and fellowshiped with evangelicals of every kind, sometimes debating them 1-v-5.

If you want to know what the anti-Ten-Commandments proponents are up against, I invite you to listen to the 5-part audio/radio shows entitled:

85 Stupid Questions Presented to Sabbatarians Series:

85 Stupid Questions Presented to Sabbatarians - Part 1


85 Stupid Questions Presented to Sabbatarians - Part 2

85 Stupid Questions Presented to Sabbatarians - Part 3


85 Stupid Questions Presented to Sabbatarians - Part 4


85 Stupid Questions Presented to Sabbatarians - Part 5

I suggest you become well acquinted with these arguments in these radio shows, so that before you pose challenges to us, you already know our answers to them.

They should load in M3U streaming format, in your default media player. They are each about 1 hour long.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sophia7

Tall73's Wife
Supporter
Sep 24, 2005
12,364
455
✟59,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You just exposed your basis for doctrine, basically you can do whatever you want regardless of the 10 Commandments or the example of Jesus! That is the same mindset that secular people have, they just do whatever they wish ignoring the will of God.

So you believe that it is a sin to attend church on Sunday? Do you disagree with 3AM that gatherings on any day are not against Scripture?

Gatherings on any day are not against scripture, hence prayer meetings, Bible studies, choir, on any day; etc., yet none of those things replaces the need to obey God in the 4th Commandment.

What if a person were doing both? Do you think it would be wrong to observe the Sabbath and attend church on Sunday?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sophia7

Tall73's Wife
Supporter
Sep 24, 2005
12,364
455
✟59,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is nothing wrong to assemble for worship on Sundays, only if it is being done as a "meeting", but not regular "Church Service" in place of the Sabbath. But the Sabbath is God's Holy Day of rest where we are to distinguish it from the other days. If you treat Sunday sacred just like you do the Sabbath, you are trying to sanctify another day that God never made Holy.

That is exactly the point. Sunday is not sacred, and it is not the "Christian Sabbath." Going to church on that day does not make it so, and it is not a sin to do so. That is a separate issue from that of whether Sabbath observance is a universal moral commandment by virtue of its inclusion in the Decalogue.
 
Upvote 0

Sophia7

Tall73's Wife
Supporter
Sep 24, 2005
12,364
455
✟59,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Cheap Grace" is what we see commonly practiced in North American. For example, Evangelicals claim to love God, but even on Sunday you will millions watching the Super Bowl on Sunday, which if they really believe was a holy day, they should give that day reverence, but for the most Sunday is not even kept as a "sabbath", let alone the 7th day Sabbath.

That's because Sunday is not "the Sabbath," and many Christians who go to church on that day understand that.
 
Upvote 0

Harry3142

Regular Member
Apr 9, 2006
3,749
259
Ohio
✟20,229.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Lysimachus-

I must disagree with the SDA's teaching that we Christians are to show our faith through the keeping of OT laws and commandments. But it's because our conduct is to far outdistance that of anyone who is bound by any set of laws and commandments:

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)

In the first paragraph of this passage, is it Moses or The Spirit that we are to be led by in order to no longer be under the law? It's the Spirit, of course. And is the Spirit greater or lesser than Moses? He is greater.

And in the third paragraph of this passage what does it say concerning those who have the fruit of the Spirit implanted within us? It says that against such things there is no law. And why would it say that? It's because in those 'fruit' lies the core of everything that God truly wants of us. If we have them as our guiding force then we can succeed in doing what God wants of us. But without them all the ritualism, traditionalism, legalism, pietism, and even elitism in the world will not make our words or actions appear any closer to what God would have of us than a caricature.
 
Upvote 0

Lysimachus

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
Dec 21, 2010
1,762
41
✟9,605.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Private
Lysimachus-

I must disagree with the SDA's teaching that we Christians are to show our faith through the keeping of OT laws and commandments. But it's because our conduct is to far outdistance that of anyone who is bound by any set of laws and commandments:

I don't know what you mean. Adventists do not keep any OT laws. While the Ten Commandments were given in the OT time, they are New Covenant laws. They transcend the Old Covenant, as they were given before the ratification of the Old Covenant. The Sabbath, and all the OT laws were in force before the OT existed, and they are intrinsically tied to the Everlasting Covenant which encompasses all the covenants. It is the covenant between the Father and the Son. The only laws that were done away with at the cross were the ceremonial laws---circumcision, priesthood, sacrifices, festivals, shadow sabbaths (there were 11 of them--not associated with the 4th Commandment Sabbath of Creation--which was the "Sabbath of the Lord", not "her sabbaths", meaning "Israel's sabbaths"), meat offerings, drink offerings, etc. All that was done away with. Not the Ten Commandments which resided in the Ark of the Covenant. These stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.

So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:16-26,NIV)

In the first paragraph of this passage, is it Moses or The Spirit that we are to be led by in order to no longer be under the law? It's the Spirit, of course. And is the Spirit greater or lesser than Moses? He is greater.

And in the third paragraph of this passage what does it say concerning those who have the fruit of the Spirit implanted within us? It says that against such things there is no law. And why would it say that? It's because in those 'fruit' lies the core of everything that God truly wants of us. If we have them as our guiding force then we can succeed in doing what God wants of us. But without them all the ritualism, traditionalism, legalism, pietism, and even elitism in the world will not make our words or actions appear any closer to what God would have of us than a caricature.

The Ten Commandments are not the laws of Moses. Read 2 Corinthians 3, and you will see what it means to be in the Spirit. The Spirit is where the law is written in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and you obey otu of love, not out of your own selves.

Notice that Paul quotes from the second table of the Ten Commandments:
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.
Are only laws that Paul does not quote ones that you say are not "OT" laws? You know that even the commandment to love your neighbor and love God are also "OT" laws? Check out Leviticus 19:18; Deut 6:5.

I guess we better not keep these laws Harry, because these laws were also OT laws.

Scriptures are very clear that the Sabbath is also in force in the New Covenant. See Matthew 24:20; Luke 23:56; Acts 13:42-44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4.

Isaiah 66:22,23 tells us that all flesh will be worshiping God from one Sabbath to another, and from one month to another.

This is way after the New Covenant.

It is only a matter of simple logic. If the Sabbath was instituted in the Old Creation, and it will be kept after the New Creation, then wouldn't you think we keep the Sabbath in between, in honor of the Old Creation, and as a memorial pointing forward to the New Creation?

Most certainly.

Also, the words in Psalms are too clear:
"The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They STAND FAST FOR EVER AND EVER, and are done in truth and uprightness. He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever." (Psalms 111:7-10)
You can't get around the clear language. This covenant that is "for ever" is talking about the Everlasting Covenant, and God's commandments, which are the very original Ten in heaven, were given as a copy to Moses, but have always existed.

The Ten Commandments are NOT THE LAWS OF MOSES.

They are the Laws of God!

And I'll prove it to you:

It seems quite obvious that one would effectively do away with the “Ten Commandments” by mingling them with ninety or a hundred others and calling them “ordinances” instead of commandments. Such a radical effort has been made to dilute the force of the only words of the Bible which God wrote with His own hand. Furthermore, the claim has been advanced that since the Ten Commandments were a part of the mosaic law of ordinances which ended at the cross, we are no more obligated to obey the decalogue than we are to offer lambs in sacrifice.

Is there proof positive in the Scriptures that there was no such blending of the ceremonial and moral law into one? Can it be shown that the Ten Commandments were of a permanent, perpetual nature while the ceremonial law of statutes and ordinances came to an end when Jesus died? Indeed there is abundance of evidence to answer these questions with a resounding yes!

God made known this distinction to His servant Moses, and Moses explained it to the people at Mt. Horeb.

“And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it” (Deuteronomy 4:13, 14).
Please notice how Moses clearly separated the Ten Commandments, which “he commanded you,” from the statutes which “he commanded me” to give the people. The big question now is whether those statutes and judgments, which Moses passed on to the people, were designated as a separate and distinct “law.”

God answers that important question in such a way that no doubt can remain.

“Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them” (2 Kings 21:8).
Here we are assured that the statutes which Moses gave the people were called a “law.” Any child can discern that two different laws are being described. God speaks of the law “I commanded” and also the “law ... Moses commanded.” Unless this truth is understood properly, limitless confusion will result.

Daniel was inspired to make the same careful distinction when he prayed for the desolated sanctuary of his scattered nation.

“Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him” (Daniel 9:11).
Once more we see “thy law” and “the law of Moses,” and this time the two are recognized as different in content. There are no curses recorded in the Ten Commandments that God wrote, but the law which Moses wrote contained an abundance of such curses and judgments.

The major point of difference between the law of God and the law of Moses, though, lies in the way they were recorded and preserved. We have already cited Moses’ statement that God “wrote them (the Ten Commandments) upon two tables of stone” (Deuteronomy 4:13). Compare that with Exodus 31:18, “two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.”

No one can confuse this writing with the way the mosaic law was produced. “And Moses wrote this law ... And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee” (Deuteronomy 31:9, 24-26). This book of statutes and judgments which Moses wrote in a book was placed in a pocket on the side of the ark. In contrast, the law written by God on tables of stone was placed inside the ark of the covenant. “And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee” (Exodus 25:16).


At this point we can note several distinctions in the two laws. They had different authors, were written on different material, were placed in different locations and had totally different content.


In closing....

There is only one time that God ever spoke His law with His lips in an audible format to all of God's people at one time. And the only law God ever spoke with His lips to the people was the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai. See Exodus 20 and Dueteronomy 5.

This is the covenant which He spoke from His own lips.

What does God say concerning this covenant?

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips." (Psalms 89:34)
There! It's final!

There is really only ONE covenant. That is, the Everlasting Covenant which began at Creation.

How is it possible to say that when Christ died on the Cross, it was the blood of the New Covenant, yet in Hebrews 13:20, Jesus' blood was the "blood of the Everlasting Covenant"?

Didn't the Everlasting Covenant begin way back in Genesis 9:16, long before the Old Covenant was ratified?

In a nutshell, I believe the following sums up how to look at this "covenants" perplexity. How can there be so many covenants, yet only one covenant at the same time?


The answer to this is that the Old Covenant originally given at Sinai was the Everlasting Covenant broken by the poor promises of Israel, which rested in their own merits, and not the merits of the Lord working in and through them. The New Covenant was the Everlasting Covenant recaptured, restored, and made better by the blood of Christ. This is why in Daniel 9:27, we are told that "he", meaning Christ, "made strong the covenant with many for 1 week". In other words, during the last week of the 70 weeks, from A.D. 27 to A.D. 34, Christ "strengthened" the Everlasting Covenant with God's people by introducing a New Covenant.

(Continued...)




 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lysimachus

Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
Dec 21, 2010
1,762
41
✟9,605.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Private
Because the Everlasting Covenant was broken by Israel's poor promises, that covenant at Sinai became "old". This is why the Old Covenant was never labeled "OLD" in the Old Testament. It was only known, or termed, the "covenant" or "everlasting covenant" or "perpetual covenant". But it "became" old through Israel's disobedience. A COMPLETELY NEW Covenant became ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY!

Now we begin to understand Romans 9:31,32 when it says:

  • "But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness,hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone." (Romans 9:31,32)
And this is precisely the reason why the "first covenant" was found to be "faulty". Because the "fault" was with "them" (Israel) (See Hebrews 8:7,8 ). Because they "continued not in my covenant" (vs. 9), "which my covenant they brake" (Jer. 31:32). Thus we see, that it was God's original plan from the beginning that Israel exercised the faith of Abraham! He NEVER wanted them to seek the law of righteousness by works. This is why the Old Covenant became a "covenant of works", not because God made it that way, but because ancient Israel made it that way!

While millions of Israelites lived in the Old Covenant time frame, not one that is going to heaven will have been saved by virtue of the Old Covenant. Every Israelite that was saved, was saved by the virtues of the New Covenant. It has to do with more than just time frames. More directly, the Old and New Covenants have to do with an "experience" with the heart.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.