A Question on Adventism

[Sophia7]

wow, what a blunder I've made! I just got through reading this thread and realize that I totally misjudged the nature of this particular forum. I've embarrassied myself and it's all my fault. I should have read more extensively before jumping in with my first post. Indeed, I should have recognized the signals in the responses I was getting.

And y'all were polite enough not to point out my faux pas. Really, I had chosen to post to the Progressive/Moderate Adventists forum, thinking that, hey, here I can relax a bit, I'm coming home to a family of SDA believers. Ouch. Not so at all! I think I've spent too much time around non-SDAs to the point that I've lost touch with what's happening in the SDA world and its peripheries. The SDA title can cover a LOT more territory than I have taken the time to learn about!

Really, folks, I truly thought that any forum that bore the name SDA must be the equivalent of family, and I felt that, for a change, I could relax and share like beliefs and/or fresh insights peculiar to my background. What a mistake. I kinda wish that this forum had been labeled more correctly as maybe Disappointed ex-SDAs, or Annoyed ex-SDAs, or Disillusioned SDAs, or some other title that would better describe what this forum is all about.

Instead I came skipping cluelessly in among you guys, wishing everyone a Happy Sabbath. I should have read this forum a little longer before opening my big mouth -- er I mean, my big keyboard -- ouch ouch ouch.

Oh, well, so I have not "come home" after all. I feel that I'm right back out in the world, from whence I've come, and now I will no longer take things for granted. But still, I'm sure there's much we can talk about, just in a different context, is all.

Well, I've had a long, hard day and am turning in now. Maybe I will be able to share my experiences in the church tomorrow or come Sabbath -- or would that be Saturday to you-all? Yikes....

Not everyone here is a former or disillusioned Adventist. I am no longer a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but Adventism will always be a part of my identity that I couldn't discard even if I wanted to. I feel that I have some things in common with people here due to our backgrounds--things that people of other backgrounds might not understand. I disagree with some Adventist teachings, but I post here for fellowship, and I think this is a good place for that even though people disagree with each other sometimes. I think you'll also find that "fellowship" is viewed more broadly in this forum than in some of the other forums at CF, so disagreement may be a part of that, but disagreement doesn't have to be disagreeable.

Some people who post in this forum are quite happy to be Adventists; they're just not traditional Adventists. "Progressive Adventist" is a label that carries certain meanings, but not everyone has been exposed to Progressive Adventism, so I'm sure that it would be a shock to expect one thing and get another. I personally don't like labels and never wanted to be categorized as any particular type of Adventist when I was still a member of the SDA Church. I much prefer talking to people as individuals and learning about their beliefs rather than assuming things about them based on their labels.

I hope you'll stick around because I'm sure that there is much you could contribute to the discussions even if it's in a different context than you were expecting.

 

[Sophia7]

It might even be good to label this forum differently.

The label was intended to distinguish this from the Traditional Adventist forum, where people are more united around the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. However, I realize that it could be confusing if people are expecting one Adventist forum--or one type of Adventist forum--and are not aware that there are two.

 

[BigRedBus]

The SDA title can cover a LOT more territory...

Very true, and I think it's all the better for that.

I felt that, for a change, I could relax and share like beliefs and/or fresh insights peculiar to my background.

I'm sorry you got the wrong impression... but please don't go away. Keep sharing. This is a discussion forum where I wouldn't expect everyone to agree all the time. Your perspective can add to it.

I'm sure there's much we can talk about...

So am I... stick around, and don't change your style to something you think suits us better.

 

[k4c]

Many of the things you guys are discediting is spoken of in the Bible such as how our relationship changes with those who turn away from the truth. This is not an easy thing to fit into our lives but the Bible does speak about mothers against daughters, fathers against sons and so on. I never speak agaisnt these serious things but I try to understand them in the light of godly love and the righteousness of God found in the words and life of Jesus.

As far as ex-sda's go, how do you now interpret all the prophecies that speak of the a beast kingdom and how this kingdom would change God's Law, persecute the saints, speak pompus words against God and so on?

How do you discard the fact that the whole Bible, as well as, Jesus Himself spoke of the Sabbath as a litteral day?

The Law of God is the only solid and stable thing in this wicked and perverse world. To change what God has written in unchangable stone with His very own finger will open up all things in God's word to change such as marriage.

The Ten Commandments are the only standard in God's creation that defines godly love and righteousness and was magnified in the life and words of Jesus of whom is our example.

For those who have ears to hear and want to know the whole truth about these things visit here http://exposingantichrist.com/

Have a blessed day...

 

[Joe67]

Whatever group in which we participate, it is valuable to remember as we process with that group, that there is a history behind all the attitudes and expressed beliefs of the group in its official statement(s) and the members personal thoughts and feelings.

Many have little understanding as to how their group came to be. They just believe that their group is good for them. Otherwise they would not have begun or continue to participate in it.

The living spirit of God has 4 faces. There are 4 streams of thought that flow from the garden of God. Christ is, of God, made unto us 4 distinct revealed qualities. Each come in their order. Until we are brought to all 4, we will fight with our own body of believers, some fight openly like Peter, others fight with ridicule like Judas; yet we all quarrel as to who is the greatest or who will be accounted the greatest, just as the disciples quarreled. We may deny that we quarrel, as Sarah denied that she laughed, but we all have quarreled and do quarrel, be it ever so sublimely and hidden in the secret intents of our hearts.

The Lord will deliver us from this quarreling spirit in his own time and way, be it ever so painful and humiliating. Then the body will be gathered unto him in one spirit. Then his prayer for us, his body, as recorded in John 17 will be fulfilled.

Joe

 

[Avonia]

Really, folks, I truly thought that any forum that bore the name SDA must be the equivalent of family, and I felt that, for a change, I could relax and share like beliefs and/or fresh insights peculiar to my background.

Deepening a relationship with "family" does not require sharing the same beliefs. This is one of the first conversations you had - about your son.

There are many SDAs on this sub-forum who are active in the church - and some who are leaders in the church. And care deeply about the community. However, this forum is not about purifying voices to make traditionals more comfortable. It's about sharing so everyone may learn from everyone. There is a Traditional SDA forum on CF, and the conversations are more controlled.

Having said all of that, you've contributed nicely to many conversations, and in a kind spirit. And yes, there are several people currently on this forum who are not challenging SDA doctrine with a very sage or respectful approach - but this is more a matter of maturity than bad intention.

Laodicean, you should hang out where you are called, but know you are welcome here.

 

[Sophia7]

Many of the things you guys are discediting is spoken of in the Bible such as how our relationship changes with those who turn away from the truth. This is not an easy thing to fit into our lives but the Bible does speak about mothers against daughters, fathers against sons and so on. I never speak agaisnt these serious things but I try to understand them in the light of godly love and the righteousness of God found in the words and life of Jesus.

This is what Jesus actually said:

Matthew 10:32 "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.
33 "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.
37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
39 "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.
​

Jesus wasn't talking about how relationships change with people who turn away from "the truth" (and He wasn't referring to Adventist beliefs) but about loving Him more than even our biological families. When people become Christians, it often causes divisions in families. I'm still a Christian, k4c, and I desire to follow whatever Jesus asks me to do; however, I no longer believe that that includes observance of the seventh-day Sabbath.

As far as ex-sda's go, how do you now interpret all the prophecies that speak of the a beast kingdom and how this kingdom would change God's Law, persecute the saints, speak pompus words against God and so on?

Daniel 7:25 doesn't say that the little horn will change "God's Law" or that it will change the ten commandments (which I assume is what you mean by "God's Law"), so you're starting off with a faulty premise. Thus, whatever you build on it will be faulty as well.

How do you discard the fact that the whole Bible, as well as, Jesus Himself spoke of the Sabbath as a litteral day?

The Sabbath was a literal day, but the Bible never presents it as an eternal, universal moral obligation, and it was never given as a commandment to Gentile Christians.

The Law of God is the only solid and stable thing in this wicked and perverse world. To change what God has written in unchangable stone with His very own finger will open up all things in God's word to change such as marriage.

The Ten Commandments are the only standard in God's creation that defines godly love and righteousness and was magnified in the life and words of Jesus of whom is our example.

God is unchanging. The ten commandments and the rest of the law are not. The Bible does not say that the ten commandments were written in "unchang[e]able stone." In fact, it says quite the opposite:

2 Corinthians 3:5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God,
6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was,
8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?
9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory.
10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it.
11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
12 Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech,
13 and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away.
14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.
15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;
16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
​

The ten commandments are not our standard of righteousness or morality. The Holy Spirit living in us is.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Lao, I appreciate the transparency. That can be hard to find in an online forum.

wow, what a blunder I've made! I just got through reading this thread and realize that I totally misjudged the nature of this particular forum. I've embarrassied myself and it's all my fault. I should have read more extensively before jumping in with my first post. Indeed, I should have recognized the signals in the responses I was getting.

I see no reason for you to be embarassed; you've conducted yourself well in this forum.

As I understand it, the Progressive SDA forum is a place where anyone who has had a relationship with SDAism can come and engage in open dialogue. The majority of the posters here are members of the SDA denomination. A small minority of us aren't. All of us who post here have had some relationship with sabbatarianism and/or SDAism.

And y'all were polite enough not to point out my faux pas. Really, I had chosen to post to the Progressive/Moderate Adventists forum, thinking that, hey, here I can relax a bit, I'm coming home to a family of SDA believers.

Should your family of believers be limited according to denominational lines? Aren't we all part of the body of Christ? This forum is much more open and welcoming than many others I've visited; I hope you have an opportunity to experience that.

Really, folks, I truly thought that any forum that bore the name SDA must be the equivalent of family, and I felt that, for a change, I could relax and share like beliefs and/or fresh insights peculiar to my background.

You do make a valid point in the sense that the name of this forum is a bit misleading. Once upon a time the name was "Progressive Moderate & Former SDAs." The name "former" has been dropped and formers are no longer considered members of this forum. Even so, the progressives are kind and allow us to post here--not to proselytize, but to fellowship (unfortunately, proselytizing does occur on occasion).

What a mistake. I kinda wish that this forum had been labeled more correctly as maybe Disappointed ex-SDAs, or Annoyed ex-SDAs, or Disillusioned SDAs, or some other title that would better describe what this forum is all about.

I wonder how much value there is in such labels. I don't think that any of those labels fits me very well. I worship the same God that you worship and I have real feelings and needs just as you do.

I did not leave SDAism because I was hurt. On the contrary, I was employed by the denomination and enjoyed wide esteem. I grew up in its schools and provided leadership in its churches. The hurt that I experienced took place after I left. That hurt has largely healed. I continue to have a connection to SDAism and I love its people.

SDAism is a group of humans like all other churches and denominations. I am a former SDA who has had real encounters with real people. My experience is in some ways unique but in many ways very similar to that of other believers. We can focus only on the ways in which we are different, or we can also consider the ways in which we are the same.

Oh, well, so I have not "come home" after all. I feel that I'm right back out in the world, from whence I've come, and now I will no longer take things for granted.

You seem to be equating "former SDAs" with "the world." Can you explain?

But still, I'm sure there's much we can talk about, just in a different context, is all.

I'm sure that's true. I hope that you are open to dialogue, not because I want you to believe as I do but because I find value in the sharing of ideas.

Well, I've had a long, hard day and am turning in now. Maybe I will be able to share my experiences in the church tomorrow or come Sabbath -- or would that be Saturday to you-all? Yikes....

As far as I know, every person in this forum has once called the seventh day "the sabbath." I doubt that any of us are offended if you refer to it in that manner or if you wish people a "happy sabbath." If you were to say that to me, I would respond with a "happy sabbath" myself. I am not here to try and encourage you to stop doing what you do on the seventh day. I understand that sabbath practices are beneficial to some folks. I would never seek to rob you of that blessing.

God bless,
BFA

 

[VictorC]

Many of the things you guys are discediting is spoken of in the Bible such as how our relationship changes with those who turn away from the truth.

Aren't you able to discern yet that "you guys" are eager to embrace the truth of Scripture, and find that your continual claim of "truth" isn't true?

As far as ex-sda's go, how do you now interpret all the prophecies that speak of the a beast kingdom and how this kingdom would change God's Law, persecute the saints, speak pompus words against God and so on?

Some of us haven't addressed the topic of eschatology, mainly for the reason that it isn't germane to the continuing topic of salvation that I for one deem more important. Suffice to say for now that the end-time package you inherited has some problems.

How do you discard the fact that the whole Bible, as well as, Jesus Himself spoke of the Sabbath as a litteral day?

It was.
So was God's rest that originated in the Genesis account.
Jesus delineated the two as separate subjects in Mark 2:27, and Moses did the same in the law.

The Law of God is the only solid and stable thing in this wicked and perverse world. To change what God has written in unchangable stone with His very own finger will open up all things in God's word to change such as marriage.

It seems you don't accept God's sovereignty over the law He created, even though Jesus spoke of the sovereignty the King has over His law in Matthew 17:24-26, and how the King conveys that same sovereignty to His children. This was accomplished in His redemption, when we changed our legal status from the servants bound to the law (that condemns all under it, Romans 3:19) to God's adopted children. Galatians 4:1-7 recognizes this same sovereignty that the Heir to the King has:

1 ¶ Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all,
2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.
4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Notice that verse 5 addressed God's adopted children as being under the law in the past tense. God came to redeem His own from the law He created, no longer desiring them to be estranged and comdemned by that law.

The Ten Commandments are the only standard in God's creation that defines godly love and righteousness and was magnified in the life and words of Jesus of whom is our example.

I doubt I'm the only one who finds your conclusion to be speculation contrary to Scripture's narrative describing the Gospel.

Have a blessed day...

Thank you!

 

[Byfaithalone1]

If there's one thing that's clear from my time on this forum, it's that some of us had quite different experiences than others in Adventism. I wonder if this gap is getting bigger or smaller. Interesting.

It's a great question. As the years go by, I have less and less information that I can use to form an opinion.

Sophia and BFA, I view my child's religious education (SDA) as a very small part of "spiritual education" - for lack of a better phrase. So, having participated in a great variety of things, there are clearly some aspects of every philosophical/religious system I am personally more in resonance with than others. Adventism and Christianity are no exceptions - as my posts have probably suggested.

Having said that, my family travels a lot and participates in many varied circles - something that other children in our church do not as much. So, if the only "input" was SDA, I would probably pause a bit more than I currently am. For the reasons you've stated.

I struggled with whether to consider Adventist education, but ultimately went that way because of some really good teachers I knew well.

I don't know how long my child will participate in the Adventist community. And I don't know how long I will either. So, I'm pretty far from a SDA zealot and may error on the side of assuming others are pretty far away as well. Which, as both of you point out, may not be the case.

I've indicated before that I sense that there are no one size fits all answers to these questions. From our conversations, I suspect that you are a parent whose openness is very evident to your kids. If so, you've given your child an incredible gift.

I would probably have moments of cringing if I was actually sitting in on the class.

From our conversations, I suspect that you would (especially in the specific SDA church that I attended).

BFA

 

[VictorC]

I kinda wish that this forum had been labeled more correctly as maybe Disappointed ex-SDAs, or Annoyed ex-SDAs, or Disillusioned SDAs, or some other title that would better describe what this forum is all about.

I noticed that you don't regard those in the various stages of transition from Adventism as having found something you haven't.

2 Corinthians 3
16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

 

[StormyOne]

Laodicean.... are we not all brothers and sisters? Even those that some categorize as being "in the world" belong to the Creator... Sorry though that you didn't realize how progressive some progressive sda's could be.... hope though that you stick around, you add flavor to the discussion...

 

[k4c]

Sophia7;This is what Jesus actually said:

Matthew 10:32 "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. 33 "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. 34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. 37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

Jesus wasn't talking about how relationships change with people who turn away from "the truth" (and He wasn't referring to Adventist beliefs) but about loving Him more than even our biological families. When people become Christians, it often causes divisions in families. I'm still a Christian, k4c, and I desire to follow whatever Jesus asks me to do; however, I no longer believe that that includes observance of the seventh-day Sabbath.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

The sword is the word and with the name of Jesus comes the truth He represented and stands for, which is the will of the Father found in the words of Jesus.

John 12:50 "And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.''

John 3:34 God sent Jesus. Jesus speaks the words of God, because God gave him the Spirit without limit.

It's the authority in words of truth from God that bring people to turn on each other and it's our love for Jesus who spoke these words that allow us to endure to the end. It's these things that bring people to turn against each other and the Devil to attack, not just a name Jesus. I know a few people named Jesus, as a matter of fact, I once arrested a man named Jesus for drunk driving.

The Bible does teach there is a diffence in fellowship with a brother/sister who is not living up to the standard of truth.

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner not even to eat with such a person.
Where did the sin of covetous come from? It came from the Ten Commandments.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."

The Ten Commandments are like a chain with ten links, you break one, you've broken them all.

James 2:10-11 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, "Do not commit adultery,'' also said, "Do not murder.'' Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. ''

If you continue to break the one you become one who practices lawlessness.

Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. "Many will say to Me in that day, `Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Daniel 7:25 doesn't say that the little horn will change "God's Law" or that it will change the ten commandments (which I assume is what you mean by "God's Law"), so you're starting off with a faulty premise. Thus, whatever you build on it will be faulty as well.

Oh okay, I thought it did, thanks for telling me this. I guess I can now throw out the hundreds of years of fulfilled Bible prophecy because you say it didn't, thanks for clearing this up for me.

The Sabbath was a literal day, but the Bible never presents it as an eternal, universal moral obligation, and it was never given as a commandment to Gentile Christians.

Isaiah 56:6-7 As for the Gentiles, the outsiders who join the people of the Lord and serve him and love his name, and are his servants and don't desecrate the Sabbath, and have accepted his covenant and promises, I will bring them also to my holy mountain of Jerusalem, and make them full of joy within my House of Prayer.I will accept their sacrifices and offerings, for my Temple shall be called "A House of Prayer for All People''!

God is unchanging. The ten commandments and the rest of the law are not. The Bible does not say that the ten commandments were written in "unchang[e]able stone." In fact, it says quite the opposite:

2 Corinthians 3:5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. 12 Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, 13 and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. 14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

The Law did not change, only it's location. It went from being written on stone in the Old Covenant to being written on the heart in the New Covenant through the Spirit.

Ezekiel 36:26-27 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

Jeremiah 31:33 "But this is the new covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, says the Lord, I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Hebrews 8:10 "For this is the new covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days,'' says the Lord, "I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

The ten commandments are not our standard of righteousness or morality. The Holy Spirit living in us is.

The Holy Spirit convicts of sin and righteousness of which the Law defines both.

Once you allow Satan to open the door to change you give in to his plan to change everything that God calls holy, including the Old Covenant principle of marriage.​

MINNEAPOLIS, Aug. 21 (UPI) - The largest U.S. Lutheran group voted Friday to allow homosexuals in committed relationships to become ministers. Delegates to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America convention voted 559 to 451, The Washington Post reported.

Reporting from Los Angeles and Riverside - The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles on Saturday elected the first openly gay bishop since the national church lifted a ban that kept gays out of its highest ordained ministry.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

The word is called, God.

Don't fall for Satan's devices....

Ezekiel 22:26 "Her priests have violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.

Matthew 24:11-13 "Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. "And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. "But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

2 Timothy 3:1-4 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. "Many will say to Me in that day, `Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Click here for truth...index

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Where did the sin of covetous come from? It came from the Ten Commandments. Romans 7:7

Exactly. This is the same source that is described in the preceding six verses.

The Law did not change, only it's location.

If Hebrews 8 is persuasive, we might conclude that the new covenant is not like the old.

It went from being written on stone in the Old Covenant to being written on the heart in the New Covenant through the Spirit.

The letters engraved on stones are the ministry that brings death. The ministry of the Spirit brings life. These are two separate ministries; they are not one and the same.

The Holy Spirit convicts of sin and righteousness of which the Law defines both.

Are you suggesting that, without Law, the Spirit (who is God) would not know what sin is? If so, what does this tell us about your view of the omniscience of God?

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Hi Wes 2010! Are you still with us? I hope we haven't scared you away!!

BFA

 

[k4c]

Exactly. This is the same source that is described in the preceding six verses.

If Hebrews 8 is persuasive, we might conclude that the new covenant is not like the old.

The letters engraved on stones are the ministry that brings death. The ministry of the Spirit brings life. These are two separate ministries; they are not one and the same.

Are you suggesting that, without Law, the Spirit (who is God) would not know what sin is? If so, what does this tell us about your view of the omniscience of God?

BFA

Are you saying adultery, lying, stealing, murder, idol worship, forgetting the Sabbath, having other Gods, coveting and so on is now okay? You must have some pretty wild church services.

If you read the whole thing you will see that it was suppose to bring life and it will when the Spirit writes it on our hearts.

Everything you said is built on sand and has no substance. You are chasing the wind my friend.

 

[VictorC]

I know a few people named Jesus, as a matter of fact, I once arrested a man named Jesus for drunk driving.

What law had this man named Jesus transgressed? If there had been no law codified by a body politic regarding the operation of a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, you would not have had grounds to arrest him. There would have been no difference in the man's actions - only a change in his legal status from stupid to criminal. And, there is no law that concludes stupidity a transgression.

The same is true of sin, which existed long before the law. As Romans 4:15 states, "the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression". Sin still exists even without the law, but the law does not have the capability to forgive transgressions against it - it requires atonement by blood for reconciliation (Leviticus 4 contains the rites, Leviticus 17:11 shows the reason). In the absence of the law's jurisdiction over us, we are no longer charged with trasngressions, and God has the legal liberty to issue this promise to us: "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more".

Where did the sin of covetous come from? It came from the Ten Commandments.

That's where the transgression came from: "where there is no law there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). And your citation reveals exactly what body of law we have been delivered from.

Romans 7
6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."

That quote is from Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21, showing that the law we have been delivered from (that held us in the past tense) was the ten commandments.

The Ten Commandments are like a chain with ten links, you break one, you've broken them all.

James 2:10-11 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, "Do not commit adultery,'' also said, "Do not murder.'' Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. ''

If you continue to break the one you become one who practices lawlessness.

There isn't anyone who doesn't practice lawlessness - the very reason God promised to remember our sin and our lawless deeds no more (Hebrews 10:17). As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one..."

Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. "Many will say to Me in that day, `Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

What made the difference between those doing deeds of righteousness and the other group that didn't even claim to perform deeds of righteousness in the passage you drew this from? Jesus didn't know them. He remembered their lawless deeds, though - showing that they didn't receive His promise "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more". The group claiming righteousness by their deeds were the ones found no more compliant than those redeemed from the law. Jesus could have called every single person in attendance "lawless", because there isn't anyone who has been lawful. As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one..."

Isaiah 56:6-7 As for the Gentiles, the outsiders who join the people of the Lord and serve him and love his name, and are his servants and don't desecrate the Sabbath, and have accepted his covenant and promises, I will bring them also to my holy mountain of Jerusalem, and make them full of joy within my House of Prayer.I will accept their sacrifices and offerings, for my Temple shall be called "A House of Prayer for All People''!

Which covenant does this passage refer to? Sinai. Did this prophecy ever come true during the tenure of Sinai? No.

The Law did not change, only it's location. It went from being written on stone in the Old Covenant to being written on the heart in the New Covenant through the Spirit.

Do you remember this discourse we shared in the past?

The old covenant is that the chair is on one side of the room and the new covenant is that the chair is moved to the other side of the room.

Since we're using a familiar noun, we can remain with it for a while.

Hebrews 8 describes the old chair:

• The old chair is faulty: if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
• The old chair was violated, i.e. broken: they did not continue in My covenant.
• The old chair is obsolete: In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete.
• The old chair is ready for disposal: Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Both Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 contain a narrative of God making a new covenant, or a new chair, that is not according to the pattern of the old chair: 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.

While you assert that moving the chair across the room somehow made it new (which is ubsurd), the narrative you're confronted with tells a entirely different story: the old chair is disposed, and God made a new chair of an entirely different design.

The old covenant is that the law is written of stone and the new covenant is the law written on the heart.

Pretty simple...

I don't believe that I'm the first to break the news to you: Sinai is according to Sinai, and God's promise is that He would write His "My law" into His redeemed that isn't according to Sinai.

Until you make this distinction that what (or rather, Who) has entered into us isn't from Sinai, you aren't going to make the smallest effort to determine what Scripture is telling us in its plain language.

It is evident that you have not changed your conclusion regarding the Person God's "My law" refers to, Who causes a personal knowledge of God to enter into us. While you claimed in the past that none of your ideas come from Ellen White, you remain the sole steadfast defendent of her unBiblical theology on this forum.

Click here for truth...

I have no interest in your personal website. It does not promote the truth.

 

[k4c]

What law had this man named Jesus transgressed? If there had been no law codified by a body politic regarding the operation of a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, you would not have had grounds to arrest him. There would have been no difference in the man's actions - only a change in his legal status from stupid to criminal. And, there is no law that concludes stupidity a transgression.

The same is true of sin, which existed long before the law. As Romans 4:15 states, "the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression". Sin still exists even without the law, but the law does not have the capability to forgive transgressions against it - it requires atonement by blood for reconciliation (Leviticus 4 contains the rites, Leviticus 17:11 shows the reason). In the absence of the law's jurisdiction over us, we are no longer charged with trasngressions, and God has the legal liberty to issue this promise to us: "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more".

That's where the transgression came from: "where there is no law there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). And your citation reveals exactly what body of law we have been delivered from.

Romans 7
6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 ¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."

That quote is from Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21, showing that the law we have been delivered from (that held us in the past tense) was the ten commandments.

There isn't anyone who doesn't practice lawlessness - the very reason God promised to remember our sin and our lawless deeds no more (Hebrews 10:17). As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one..."

What made the difference between those doing deeds of righteousness and the other group that didn't even claim to perform deeds of righteousness in the passage you drew this from? Jesus didn't know them. He remembered their lawless deeds, though - showing that they didn't receive His promise "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more". The group claiming righteousness by their deeds were the ones found no more compliant than those redeemed from the law. Jesus could have called every single person in attendance "lawless", because there isn't anyone who has been lawful. As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one..."

Which covenant does this passage refer to? Sinai. Did this prophecy ever come true during the tenure of Sinai? No.

Do you remember this discourse we shared in the past?

It is evident that you have not changed your conclusion regarding the Person God's "My law" refers to, Who causes a personal knowledge of God to enter into us. While you claimed in the past that none of your ideas come from Ellen White, you remain the sole steadfast defendent of her unBiblical theology on this forum.

I have no interest in your personal website. It does not promote the truth.

Before the Law on stone, sin was still sin, and man was punished for it. Now that the Law has been written in stone there is no excuse for anyone.

At one time there was no law against drunk driving but now we see the problem and how wrong it is so a law was instituted, but it was wrong before the criminal law was instututed and under civil law you would pay dearly for death or damage as a result of drunk driving, even without a criminal law because it's wrong. God's Law is eternal and has always been. Before Cain murdered his brother that sin was at his door already. Remember, the Law on stone was added because of transgression, in other words, they were breaking it and were guilty. Why? Because it's part of God's creation.

Let me rephrase your statement to make it more accrate.

"I have no interest in truth so I won't promote your website." ...

Party on Oh lawless one...

 

[VictorC]

Before the Law on stone, sin was still sin, and man was punished for it. Now that the Law has been written in stone there is no excuse for anyone.

In this, you don't acknowledge the Scriptural description regarding our redemption from the law that condems all those under it, which was the essence of what I had posted. I wonder if you even read it. It is your steadfast conclusion that forgiveness for sin doesn't exist, as you conclude that "there is no excuse for anyone".

At one time there was no law against drunk driving but now we see the problem and how wrong it is so a law was instituted, but it was wrong before the criminal law was instututed and under civil law you would pay dearly for death or damage as a result of drunk driving, even without a criminal law because it's wrong.

Hence you recognize that in the absence of a codified law that makes drunk driving a criminal offense you could have arrested someone for, the alleged transgression would have been a civil suit over property and personal damages only. No charge of drunk driving could be made without said criminal law.

God's Law is eternal and has always been.

We can document when that law (the Sinai covenant, the ten commandments) began, who it retained jurisdiction over, and when it ended. These qualities are the very antithesis of an entity that was "eternal".

Before Cain murdered his brother that sin was at his door already.

You can search the law from cover to cover, and never find the penalty of having the ground cursed as Cain was penalized with (Genesis 4:12). The law defining that transgression didn't yet exist.

Remember, the Law on stone was added because of transgression, in other words, they were breaking it and were guilty. Why? Because it's part of God's creation.

You admit that the law was added, and the passage you allude to specifies that that addition didn't happen until 430 years after the promise was given to Abraham, which is where our claim to salvation comes from.

Let me rephrase your statement to make it more accrate.
"I have no interest in truth so I won't promote your website." ...

Here's what I had written:
"I have no interest in your personal website. It does not promote the truth."
Quite a difference, don't you think? Your editorial license isn't more accurate at all. My comments are driven by your continual promotion of yourself, and not Jesus.

Party on Oh lawless one...

Paul had encountered this same attitude from those promoting the law that condemns them:

Romans 3
7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?
8 And why not say, "Let us do evil that good may come"? ----as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one..."

You continue to falsely equate God's redemption with a license to "party on". This in itself constitutes a lie that you promote, and you are just as lawless as those who recognize we are; God's conclusion does not contain any exclusions: "God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all" (Romans 11:32).
Paul considered your actions worthy of condemnation.
He also admits that there isn't anyone better than you.
This is how he leads up to the solution found in God's propitiation and redemption, the essence of the Gospel.

That Gospel isn't to be found on your personal website. It doesn't promote the truth, as I had opined before.

 

[VictorC]

Hi Wes 2010! Are you still with us? I hope we haven't scared you away!!

BFA

Indeed, I hope we see more from Wes. This is his thread, after all, and he approached us concerning a very difficult situation he is faced with.