A Question on Adventism

[Joe67]

Wes,

When a person has the same attitude and spirit of mind toward SdAsm/EGW as historic SdAsm had toward the RCC/popery, then they would have the same spiritual problem as the one they condemn.

SdAsm is organized on the same centralized authority process as RCC. The doctrine of Justification and Sanctification is the same.

Romans 2 makes it clear that you are of the same quality as the one you judge/condemn. This is the way God has made it to be. This is how conviction for sin comes to us. First we pass condemnation on to another, then the Lord shows us our greater wickedness. After Paul reproved Peter to his face, then Paul saw his own wickedness even more. King David had this experience. So did Job and Judah.

Joe

 

[VictorC]

okay, do you mind elaborating on what "freedom from lawkeeping" looks like? If the law says, "Do not steal," are we free to now steal? If not, then what exactly does freedom from keeping the law of "Don't steal" look like?

I think that I had elaborated on this topic for you. My conclusion was that freedom from the law describes our redemption from the law (see Galatians 4:5), which is a component of the Gospel of God's salvation.

Are you free to steal in the absence of the law? That would be a difficult expression of your love for one another, don't you think? That is a new testament commandment that is quoted in 1 John 3:23.

From the legal perspective you have already been concluded a thief as well as a murderer, and James 2:10 makes this clear enough: "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all". If you aren't freed from the law's conclusion as a transgressor, you testify that you remain within the law's jurisdiction, and that legal disposition charges you as a lawbreaker: "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God" (Romans 3:19). Unless you are freed from the law, it renders you guilty and unreconciled before a Holy God.

Note that I removed your quote that we both agreed was attributed to me by mistake. I waited for you to edit your post, and that didn't happen.

In any event, if you are going to quote texts that appear to do away with lawkeeping, what do you do with other texts that appear to say the opposite? Texts such as:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17

Jesus fulfilled the law, completing its requirements and its thirst for blood by His atonement. Notice in this quote the use of "until":

17 ¶ "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Jesus stated that instead of dismissing the law and the prophets, He was to finish what they had demanded and prophesied. The appearance of verbal tenses in this quote are such that the law needs to be fulfilled before their will ever be a new heaven and earth, and not the opposite as many opine this passage to indicate. Jesus assured us that He would perform as the law and the prophets stated He would, and He didn't dismiss the prophecies concerning His coming advent any more than He dismissed the law's demand for blood atonement. When the law and the prophets are fulfilled, then they are finished and lose their jurisdiction. This is the meaning of His propitiation as explained in Romans 3:24-26.

(For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. Romans 2:10

This is where Paul lays out the problem facing those who were given the law, before he explains the solution late in the following chapter. Only the doers of the law would be justified, and no one met that requirement, "As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one"..."

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:20

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28

As I explained before, this is where Paul presents the solution after concluding that no one is justified by the law, because there isn't anyone who kept the law. Remember what I wrote before?
"Don't kid yourself. There are no lawkeepers. There is God's adoption as His sons and daughters, and there are those He doesn't know."
Your quote supports my conclusion.

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Romans 3:31

This statement is found sandwiched between others concluding "we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" and "if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect". And if you were to vist the context Romans 3:31 appears in, it would have told you what law the author established. Remember that the writings of Moses were all called "the law", from Genesis through Deuteronomy. The law that is established is identified by a quote from it:

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

That quote from the law appears in Genesis 15:6, showing that the law Paul established is the historical record found in Genesis, and not the covenant mediated by Moses. It is that reference Paul uses to show "the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith". Romans 3:31 doesn't affirm "lawkeeping" in complete deference to the context it appears in.

What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Romans 7:7

Add context:

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."

This is a consistent legal package referred to in this text. "You shall not covet" appears in only two places in the law, quoted in Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21. That shows us from the previous verse that we have been delivered from the ten commandments.

Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Romans 7:12

Look at the context.
The law that is "holy and just and good" is lethal to those who are not "holy and just and good". Paul places himself in the camp of those needing to be delivered from the law when he states "I am carnal, sold under sin" in verse 14.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.1 John 3:4

Sin also transgresses the law, and remember that Paul wrote in Romans 3:20 "by the law is the knowledge of sin".
The law renders those under it guilty before God, as Romans 3:19 states. It doesn't contain a mechanism to forgive, lacking that attribute God retained to Himself. The law defines transgressions that reveal sin that existed long before the law did, and it is the charge of transgressions that demanded propitiation by the Blood of Jesus to relieve us of the charge of transgressions. "The law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15).

If, as you say, the covenant is the 10C, and that lawkeeping has been done away with, what do you do with the above texts?

Saying that the covenant dictated at Sinai was the ten commandments isn't my doing - that is exactly how Moses referred to it in several places in the law. The clearest place that is found is in Deuteronomy 4, when Moses recites the experience for the generation that was to enter into the promised land:

11 "Then you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
12 "And the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice.
13 "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
14 "And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess.

We do not have a license to change the definition of the Sinai covenant that Moses used. Quit attributing that claim to me.

As you can see, the proper response to the passages you brought to my attention is returning to the context, which in most cases leads to a conclusion that isn't supported by the verse in isolation.

At this point I am going to break this response into two parts, as it is getting to be too long.

 

[k4c]

I think that I had elaborated on this topic for you. My conclusion was that freedom from the law describes our redemption from the law (see Galatians 4:5), which is a component of the Gospel of God's salvation.

Are you free to steal in the absence of the law? That would be a difficult expression of your love for one another, don't you think? That is a new testament commandment that is quoted in 1 John 3:23.

From the legal perspective you have already been concluded a thief as well as a murderer, and James 2:10 makes this clear enough: "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all". If you aren't freed from the law's conclusion as a transgressor, you testify that you remain within the law's jurisdiction, and that legal disposition charges you as a lawbreaker: "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God" (Romans 3:19). Unless you are freed from the law, it renders you guilty and unreconciled before a Holy God.

Note that I removed your quote that we both agreed was attributed to me by mistake. I waited for you to edit your post, and that didn't happen.

Jesus fulfilled the law, completing its requirements and its thirst for blood by His atonement. Notice in this quote the use of "until":

17 ¶ "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Jesus stated that instead of dismissing the law and the prophets, He was to finish what they had demanded and prophesied. The appearance of verbal tenses in this quote are such that the law needs to be fulfilled before their will ever be a new heaven and earth, and not the opposite as many opine this passage to indicate. Jesus assured us that He would perform as the law and the prophets stated He would, and He didn't dismiss the prophecies concerning His coming advent any more than He dismissed the law's demand for blood atonement. When the law and the prophets are fulfilled, then they are finished and lose their jurisdiction. This is the meaning of His propitiation as explained in Romans 3:24-26.

This is where Paul lays out the problem facing those who were given the law, before he explains the solution late in the following chapter. Only the doers of the law would be justified, and no one met that requirement, "As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one"..."

As I explained before, this is where Paul presents the solution after concluding that no one is justified by the law, because there isn't anyone who kept the law. Remember what I wrote before?
"Don't kid yourself. There are no lawkeepers. There is God's adoption as His sons and daughters, and there are those He doesn't know."
Your quote supports my conclusion.

This statement is found sandwiched between others concluding "we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" and "if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect". And if you were to vist the context Romans 3:31 appears in, it would have told you what law the author established. Remember that the writings of Moses were all called "the law", from Genesis through Deuteronomy. The law that is established is identified by a quote from it:

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

That quote from the law appears in Genesis 15:6, showing that the law Paul established is the historical record found in Genesis, and not the covenant mediated by Moses. It is that reference Paul uses to show "the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith". Romans 3:31 doesn't affirm "lawkeeping" in complete deference to the context it appears in.

Add context:

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."

This is a consistent legal package referred to in this text. "You shall not covet" appears in only two places in the law, quoted in Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21. That shows us from the previous verse that we have been delivered from the ten commandments.

Look at the context.
The law that is "holy and just and good" is lethal to those who are not "holy and just and good". Paul places himself in the camp of those needing to be delivered from the law when he states "I am carnal, sold under sin" in verse 14.

Sin also transgresses the law, and remember that Paul wrote in Romans 3:20 "by the law is the knowledge of sin".
The law renders those under it guilty before God, as Romans 3:19 states. It doesn't contain a mechanism to forgive, lacking that attribute God retained to Himself. The law defines transgressions that reveal sin that existed long before the law did, and it is the charge of transgressions that demanded propitiation by the Blood of Jesus to relieve us of the charge of transgressions. "The law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15).

Saying that the covenant dictated at Sinai was the ten commandments isn't my doing - that is exactly how Moses referred to it in several places in the law. The clearest place that is found is in Deuteronomy 4, when Moses recites the experience for the generation that was to enter into the promised land:

11 "Then you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
12 "And the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of the words, but saw no form; you only heard a voice.
13 "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
14 "And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess.

We do not have a license to change the definition of the Sinai covenant that Moses used. Quit attributing that claim to me.

As you can see, the proper response to the passages you brought to my attention is returning to the context, which in most cases leads to a conclusion that isn't supported by the verse in isolation.

At this point I am going to break this response into two parts, as it is getting to be too long.

Antinomianism at its best...

 

[Norbert L]

I understand your discourse that recognizes the realm of endless possibilities of the child's belief system when he/she grows up. However, it doesn't address what the parents should do, and I would like to take you from the realm of speculation into the realm of practical application. In a nutshell, how would you reconcile your views with Proverbs 22:6 telling us "Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it"?

For the sake of making this a tangible comparison, should the parents take a stance of reasonable protectionism to shelter their children if Grandma was a Jehovah's Witness, who considered her daughter an "outsider" because of her "error" of trusting in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the inherent Authority He has "to redeem those who were under the law" (Galatians 4:5)? Grandma wants to take her grandchildren to Kingdom Hall to teach them a belief system entirely incompatible with Christianity. Should the parents allow this while their children are so young that they simply sponge up what they're taught without the ability to discern the contradiction they're faced with?

Hopefully anything I wrote won't be mistaken to address what the parents should do or to the extreme level of me telling them exactly what they should do.... I don't even want to go there.

It just gives some insights into options, they maybe totally and completely irrelevant to their situation. Ultimately he and his wife will have to decide.

"Where there is no counsel, the people fall; But in the multitude of counselors there is safety." (Pro 11:14)

However it should also be concidered (another idea as an option relevant or not) what kind of freedom a particular church is teaching. Your church and the other persons church. Are the doors open to anyone who wishes to leave?

I believe the faith of Christ is not a faith of compelling and forcing other's to believe. That is one of the things I would try to teach and "Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6)

 

[VictorC]

note your own words here, "covenant OF the law." If the covenant is OF the law, then the covenant is not itself the law. It is an agreement made ABOUT or OF the law. You are conflating the two, the law and the agreement about the law, and in not understanding what that conflation can mean, you are arriving at an incorrect conclusion.

I referred to the covenant of the law to specify which covenant I was addressing. There are several covenants presented in the Bible:

• The covenant of circumcision, given through Abraham
• The covenant of the law, given through Moses
• The covenant of adoption, given through Jesus

My previous post contained the quote from Deuteronomy 4, where Moses specified the covenant given at Sinai as the ten commandments. We don't have a license to change the definition he gave.

the law has a promise or agreement wrapped up in it, and that covenant or agreement is the same covenant given to Abraham (indeed given back in the garden of Eden) and given anew at Sinai and maintained on down through history. God has always promised to keep His law within us. The old covenant from Sinai is the agreement that the Israelites made regarding the law. They promised (or covenanted) that "All that the Lord says, we will do." That promise is the bondwoman and her son. Not the law.

Abraham received a covenant of circumcision 430 years before the law was given through Moses, and a contention that the law existed while he lived contradicts Moses when he testified in Deuteronomy 5:2-3 that the Sinai covenant (ten commandments) didn't exist prior to his own generation.

And, you have no license to change how Paul defined the bondwoman in Galatians 4:24: "...For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar...".

And, you have no license to claim that the Sinai covenant is maintained on down through history, as Hebrews 10:9 addresses Sinai as the first covenant when it state "He takes away the first that He may establish the second". The new covenant in His Blood isn't compatible with the first covenant dictated at Sinai; they do not coexist.

yes! we are free from the condemnation that comes through law breaking, not free from keeping the law itself. Jesus is well able to give us victory over sin (lawbreaking), thus we are no longer under its condemnation.

You affirm that the law has lost its jurisdiction over us, as I do.

Look at it this way. You jump off a cliff and the law of gravity takes over. You are under the condemnation of sure death or injury when you break the law of gravity. But what if, while falling, your cry for help is answered by the swift intervention of a helicopter that plucks you into the air before you can hit the ground. Then you are no longer under the condemnation of the law of gravity (death) because you have avoided hitting bottom. It is as good as if you had kept the law of gravity and never jumped, as far as the results are concerned. You had victory over the consequences of breaking that law, not due to your own efforts, but to the intervention of someone more capable than you. The law of gravity, meanwhile, has not been done away with. You simply have experienced victory over it by the intervention of another.

If you presented this legal argument before a magistrate in court, it will not stick. There is no such thing as a law of gravity contained in the entire Torah. The only "intervention" contained in the law is atonement by blood, the purpose of which is defined in the new covenant" "He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance" (Hebrews 9:15). After this atonement made at Calvary, Hebrews 10:14 concludes "by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified", and claiming that the law remains (your transgressions under it haven't been redeemed) requires a continued atonement. It doesn't exist; atonement was a specific rite authorized by the law given through Moses, and a "second and final phase of atonement" as suggested by SDA Fundamental Belief #24 is utter fiction.

So, again, do you believe that you can freely kill your brother while covered with Christ's righteousness?

Remember that David and Paul were both murderers.
Are they now clothed with God's righteousness, or their own works of disobedience? That should be intuitive. Are we to be led by the law that condemned everyone remaining under it, or are we to be led by God's Spirit that He gave us after He redeemed us from the law?

I don't think the lesson was about taxes, either, but neither was it about not having to keep God's moral law. It was about render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. It was about how to relate to earthly governments. Peter forgot that Jesus' kingdom was above that of Caesar's and thus He did not have to pay taxes, but nevertheless Jesus gave Peter an example of how to relate to earthly authorities. If you read beyond the verses you quoted, Jesus says: "Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee."

Jesus used the opportunity to teach a lesson to Peter. Using that same lesson as He gave it, do you suppose Caesar's own children paid him taxes? Or that Caesar paid taxes? No. The lawgiver is superior to his law and enjoys sovereignty over it, and he conveys that same sovereignty to his children. Why did Jesus teach this to Peter? I submit the same sovereignty applies to God's adopted children. Galatians 4:1-7 picks up on this very same theme, calling on the "the heir...is master of all" as it shows how adoption changes our legal status from servants under the law to sons and daughters adopted by God.

and remember again, that there is another way to interpret "bondwoman." Your interpretation is not necessarily the correct one. "Bondwoman" is the promise of the flesh to keep God's law. An impossibility.

I exercise no interpretation whatsoever to change Paul's definition of the bondwoman as the covenant from Sinai. You also have no license to exert a private interpretation over the passage.

We have freedom from trying to keep the law on our own. We are free from salvation by our own works. Wonderful news. The Gospel!.

Isn't that what I have been telling you all along? The law has lost its jurisdiction and hence its ability to charge infractions as transgressions. Did you read Galatians 5:1 as I suggested in a title used in a previous post? Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. That comes 2 verses after Paul instructs us to cast off the bondwoman, which he defined as the covenant from Sinai: "the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage".

And here I would like to quote from the much maligned EGW:

"As a people, we have preached the law until we are as dry as the hills of Gilboa. We must preach Christ in the law, and there will be sap and nourishment in the preaching that will be as food to the famishing flock of God. (1888 Materials, p. 560)

or

"let the law take care of itself. We have been at work on the law until we get as dry as the hills of Gilboa ... Let us trust in the merits of Jesus." (1888 Materials, p. 557)

Enough then about lawkeeping, which turns us into legalistic, judgmental, sour-faced people, and turn towards the sunshine of our Friend and Saviour -- Jesus Christ.

Ellen White produced a stack of material 6 feet tall, and in that collection of her works she contradicts herself a number of times. You can't reconcile these claims with her assertion "It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord" that is found in {6T 356.4}. SDA scholar, librarian, and contributing editor of the SDA Bible Commentary Dr. Raymond Cottrell noted how Ellen White contradicts herself over a course of her own history, and this quote comes from Dr. Cottrell's presentation before the Jesus Institute Forum a few years before his death entitled The Sanctuary Doctrine - asset or liability?:

It is also vital to remember that in Ellen White's 47,000 or so citations of Scripture she makes use of the Bible in two distinct ways: (1) to quote the Bible when narrating the Bible story in its own context, and (2) to apply Bible principles in her counsel to the church today---out of its biblical context.

A clear illustration of this two-fold use of the Bible is her series of comments on Galatians 3:24: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." (1) In 1856 she identified that law as the ceremonial law system of ancient times, and specifically not the Ten Commandments. (2) In 1883 she again identified that "law" as "the obsolete ceremonies of Judaism." (3) In 1896 she wrote: "In this Scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle is speaking especially of the moral law." (4) In 1900 she wrote: "I am asked concerning the law in Galatians. ... I answer: both the ceremonial and moral code of Ten Commandments." (5) In 1911 she again identified the law in Galatians as exclusively "the obsolete ceremonies of Judaism."

Someone who backpeddles as Ellen White did should not be relied upon as an authority. And yet you as a SDA are bound to, as her authority was codified in SDA Fundamental Belief #18.

 

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by Laodicean

okay, do you mind elaborating on what "freedom from lawkeeping" looks like? If the law says, "Do not steal," are we free to now steal? If not, then what exactly does freedom from keeping the law of "Don't steal" look like?
​

Are you free to steal in the absence of the law? That would be a difficult expression of your love for one another, don't you think? That is a new testament commandment that is quoted in 1 John 3:23.

yes, I agree. How do you know how to love one another if you did not know that the commandment to love one another includes not stealing from each other?

Note that I removed your quote that we both agreed was attributed to me by mistake. I waited for you to edit your post, and that didn't happen.

be patient, Victor. I just logged back in and edited the post. I am not ignoring your request. Indeed, if I ask for your forgiveness, I'd better do something concrete to correct it, not presume that your grace covers my mistake and that there is no need for me to clear it up. Right?

Originally Posted by Laodicean

In any event, if you are going to quote texts that appear to do away with lawkeeping, what do you do with other texts that appear to say the opposite? Texts such as:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17
​

Jesus fulfilled the law, completing its requirements and its thirst for blood by His atonement. Notice in this quote the use of "until":

17 ¶ "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Jesus stated that instead of dismissing the law and the prophets, He was to finish what they had demanded and prophesied. The appearance of verbal tenses in this quote are such that the law needs to be fulfilled before their will ever be a new heaven and earth, and not the opposite as many opine this passage to indicate. Jesus assured us that He would perform as the law and the prophets stated He would, and He didn't dismiss the prophecies concerning His coming advent any more than He dismissed the law's demand for blood atonement. When the law and the prophets are fulfilled, then they are finished and lose their jurisdiction. This is the meaning of His propitiation as explained in Romans 3:24-26.

that's an interesting approach to the interpretation of that text, Victor. You do think deeply, and I appreciate that. Let me mull over this approach before answering.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

(For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. Romans 2:10
​

This is where Paul lays out the problem facing those who were given the law, before he explains the solution late in the following chapter. Only the doers of the law would be justified, and no one met that requirement, "As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one"..."

I'm going to need more time to think through your answers. And the real world is calling .....

Originally Posted by Laodicean

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:20

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28
​

As I explained before, this is where Paul presents the solution after concluding that no one is justified by the law, because there isn't anyone who kept the law. Remember what I wrote before?
"Don't kid yourself. There are no lawkeepers. There is God's adoption as His sons and daughters, and there are those He doesn't know."
Your quote supports my conclusion.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Romans 3:31
​

This statement is found sandwiched between others concluding "we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" and "if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect". And if you were to vist the context Romans 3:31 appears in, it would have told you what law the author established. Remember that the writings of Moses were all called "the law", from Genesis through Deuteronomy. The law that is established is identified by a quote from it:

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

That quote from the law appears in Genesis 15:6, showing that the law Paul established is the historical record found in Genesis, and not the covenant mediated by Moses. It is that reference Paul uses to show "the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith". Romans 3:31 doesn't affirm "lawkeeping" in complete deference to the context it appears in.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Romans 7:7
​

Add context:

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."

This is a consistent legal package referred to in this text. "You shall not covet" appears in only two places in the law, quoted in Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21. That shows us from the previous verse that we have been delivered from the ten commandments.

why does "You shall not covet" appearing in only two places in the law show us that we have been delivered from the ten commandments. That is not a good reason, I don't think, to proffer as to why we are delivered from the 10 commandments. If anything, v. 6, if interpreted to mean that the law is done away with, will contradict v. 7, that says that the law is needed in order to identify sins such as "You shall not covet." And my position is that the Bible really does not contradict itself, if rightly understood.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Romans 7:12
​

Look at the context.
The law that is "holy and just and good" is lethal to those who are not "holy and just and good". Paul places himself in the camp of those needing to be delivered from the law when he states "I am carnal, sold under sin" in verse 14.

but if I keep on reading, Paul, after describing what it is like to be carnal, sold under sin, eventually says that he is delivered through Jesus. If delivered, he can no longer be sold under sin, can he?

Originally Posted by Laodicean

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.1 John 3:4
​

Sin also transgresses the law, and remember that Paul wrote in Romans 3:20 "by the law is the knowledge of sin".
The law renders those under it guilty before God, as Romans 3:19 states. It doesn't contain a mechanism to forgive, lacking that attribute God retained to Himself. The law defines transgressions that reveal sin that existed long before the law did, and it is the charge of transgressions that demanded propitiation by the Blood of Jesus to relieve us of the charge of transgressions. "The law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15).

where there is no law, there is no sin. You do agree with that, right? So when you say that sin existed long before the law did, that does not compute, to me. Maybe you meant that sin existed before the principles of the law (which always existed) was clarified in terms that we could understand (10C), at Mt. Sinai?

I'm going to have to log off -- real world calls -- so will get back to your post later...

 

[VictorC]

yes, I agree. How do you know how to love one another if you did not know that the commandment to love one another includes not stealing from each other?

Jesus said in Matthew 7:22 "whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets" - and yet this instruction is nowhere to be found in the law and the prophets. Reliance on the law isn't necessary to love one another.

be patient, Victor. I just logged back in and edited the post. I am not ignoring your request. Indeed, if I ask for your forgiveness, I'd better do something concrete to correct it, not presume that your grace covers my mistake and that there is no need for me to clear it up. Right?

Apparently your rendition of forgiveness doesn't include forgetting about it. Fortunately, we have a better promise from God, Who stated "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more".

why does "You shall not covet" appearing in only two places in the law show us that we have been delivered from the ten commandments. That is not a good reason, I don't think, to proffer as to why we are delivered from the 10 commandments. If anything, v. 6, if interpreted to mean that the law is done away with, will contradict v. 7, that says that the law is needed in order to identify sins such as "You shall not covet." And my position is that the Bible really does not contradict itself, if rightly understood.

The Biblical texts inspired from a common Source do not contradict themselves. The law we have been delivered from was identified by quoting the law itself, and that identification exists only in the body of the ten commandments in the two locations it is documented. That is entirely consistent with other texts in the new testament explaining the disposition of the former covenant from Sinai necessary to establish a new covenant, a message filling several chapters in Hebrews.

but if I keep on reading, Paul, after describing what it is like to be carnal, sold under sin, eventually says that he is delivered through Jesus. If delivered, he can no longer be sold under sin, can he?

That rendering isn't consistent with Paul using verbiage in the present tense to describe his status. You're inserting your own thoughts into the text that weren't placed there by the author.

where there is no law, there is no sin. You do agree with that, right?

No, I don't - "where there is no law there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). The origin of sin entering the world is documented in Romans 5 with Adam, listing his transgression unlike ours. Adam was commanded to leave a certain tree's fruit alone (don't eat it), and that one commandment was violated. There exists no such commandment in the entire law that was given through Moses.

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.
13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

You have a roughly 2500 year span between sin's origin and the law.

So when you say that sin existed long before the law did, that does not compute, to me. Maybe you meant that sin existed before the principles of the law (which always existed) was clarified in terms that we could understand (10C), at Mt. Sinai?

It does not compute, but what I wrote is what the testimony of Scripture tells us. Even Galatians 3:17 specifies that Abraham received the promise by which the Gentiles would receive salvation 430 years before the law existed. I submit that with good information you will compute (process) the information just fine. This is why I strongly encourage an approach of sola Scriptura - if the Bible doesn't support a thesis, then the thesis either contradicts the documentation or else speculates on a topic the Bible is silent about. In this case, the thesis contradicts the documentation.

I'm going to have to log off -- real world calls -- so will get back to your post later...

I quite understand. I should do something productive myself.

By the way, I marked a part of Romans 5:13 quoted above in brilliant red to make it stand out. Our justification before God comes from His imputed righteousness, and is not based on our rather pathetic performance. Romans 4, preceeding where that statement is found, explains how Abraham was accounted righteousness because He believed God, and that occurred even before he was circumcised. That is the basis of our salvation!

"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."

 

[k4c]

Praise God our righteousness is based on the work of Jesus Christ. When we stand before God it won't be based on how we were able to keep the Ten Commandments but it will be based on how we managed our relationships with each other. If we love God and love one another we will fulfill the Ten Commandments because the essence of the Ten Commandments is love and relationships.

Romans 13:8-10 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery,'' "You shall not murder,'' "You shall not steal,'' "You shall not bear false witness,'' "You shall not covet,'' and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'' Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

It's all so very simple.

 

[Cribstyl]

Praise God our righteousness is based on the work of Jesus Christ. When we stand before God it won't be based on how I was able to keep the Ten Commandments but it will be based on how we managed our relationships with each other. If we love God and love one another we will fullfill the Ten Commandments because the essence of the Ten Commandments is love and relationship.

Romans 13:8-10 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery,'' "You shall not murder,'' "You shall not steal,'' "You shall not bear false witness,'' "You shall not covet,'' and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'' Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

It's all so very simple.

That almost sounds scriptual. but it's not.
The scriptures declares the Gospel we should teach......
Rom 1:16¶For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Our righteousness is based on faith. Faith in what God declares about Jesus, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
You're right to say; that it wont be based on how you're able to keep the ten commandments" ..but it wont be based on our relationship with each other either. How we treat each other will be the result (fruit) of our faith, andthat we can judge who may be walking the walk.

The rich young ruler claimed he kept all the commandments and loved his neighbor, why did'nt Jesus say he was good enough?

Mat 19:16¶And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

Some people may say that "giving to the poor is the act of righteousness he lacked."
The most important thing is that God wants us to follow Him.

The big question is; How do we follow Jesus?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

only in the sense that I don't go around wishing nonSDAs "Happy Sabbath"

Please don't worry about that for my sake.

nor do I discuss theology with my nonSDA friends unless they seem interested.

I'm interested.

When I don't or can't open up my deepest SDA interests to nonSDAs ("the world" by your definition) then there is clearly a dividing line between their interests and mine, and, sadly, we can't be as close as I would like....that's all.

No, I truly do not define non-SDAs as "the world." I had picked up that you may view us in this manner. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

What would prevent you from opening up to non-SDAs?

I'm not sure whether there is a dividing line between our interests; there may be. Only through more dialogue will I better understand that. I would imagine that we have much in common.

This is not about cutting off "the world" as you phrase it. This is about family. And "Happy Sabbath" is a distinctly family greeting.

I would hope that we could view all believers as family (and perhaps unbelievers as well). You and I are not from a different species. At most, we have a different perspective on some points of theology.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

When there is a mixing of faiths, which can be any faiths, some learn to live peaceably and others do not. In essence it could be said your whole family is caught between a rock and a hard place.

I agree. I would add that the difficulty that you describe isn't limited to discussions of theology. Family divisions occur around so many different topics, often relating to issues where one family member wishes to impose his/her will on another. Most of us reach a point in our lives where we realize a need to create boundaries with a family member for the purpose of protecting the relationship and allowing for continued positive interaction on less volatile subjects. Wes seems to be contemplating which boundaries are appropriate. These are difficult and personal decisions that are complicated by the fact that there are children involved. My heart goes out to Wes.

BFA

 

[Cribstyl]

Hello, my name is Wes. I, presently, am not affiliated with any denomination, but consider myself a conservative Christian. I came upon your site and I would like to ask for your advice. I believe that the Progressive movement in the SDA church is the only rational way for Adventists to go. I believe all of you are true Christians but the influence of Ellen White must be abolished. I am married to a woman who was brought up in a Fundamental SDA Church. She no longer is a participant, but her Mother is a devout SDA. She treats my wife (her daughter) like an outsider and seems to feel like life is glum, morose, and painful. We are trying to make peace with my wife's mother, but there always appears to be some obstacle that we can't overcome. We have twin three year old boys that are being infused into her life, but I have let it be known that they are not going to be members of her church. However, my wife and I have allowed the twins to go to church with her several times because this is when she spends time with them. My question to you is should we allow this? If so, what would be an appropriate age to permanently remove them from this Church? Do the members of fundamental SDA churches attempt to indoctrinate young children? Please, any advice would be greatly appreciated. God Bless.

After reading your OP and all the replies, my advice to you is this; You should accompany your children when your mother inlaw want to take them. You need to hear the messages that your children are being exposed to, it's not alway bad.
It is a shame that some people cannot accept it when their children dont follow in their footsteps, they misinterpret it as a rejection of their lifelong purpose and directions. You should look for ways to show and reenforce love for the health of your whole family.
Not allowing them to go with her can cause further dammage to your family, so you should go along for your family's sake.

My wife is a SDA elder..... my 3 and 5yr old are growing up as SDA (they're not baptised)..... I am opposed but it's in God's hands.

We often find ourselves in situations based on decisions that we've made, then we look for easy solutions to get out of it.
Love is the only way, because most wars are base on religion.

I agree from my firstnhand expiriences that childen are being taught SDA doctrines with workbooks that twist the word of God.
These young kids are taught about the law and the ten commandments through the OT bible character who lived under the law.
If you ask a child who is Paul, they wont know. They will know about Daniel, The three Hebrew boys, etc.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Not allowing them to go with her can cause further dammage to your family, so you should go along for your family's sake.

Hi, Crib. Thanks for offering one possible solution that may be the best one in certain situations. I can particularly see how this is a wise solution in your situation. My situation (and perhaps Wes' as well) differs in that neither my wife nor I consider ourselves SDA and do not attend an SDA church.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that love should be our motivation as we relate to one another, especially when we relate to those who have a very different perspective on important matters.

I agree from my firstnhand expiriences that childen are being taught SDA doctrines with workbooks that twist the word of God. These young kids are taught about the law and the ten commandments through the OT bible character who lived under the law. If you ask a child who is Paul, they wont know. They will know about Daniel, The three Hebrew boys, etc.

I've seen this as well.

BFA

 

[k4c]

That almost sounds scriptual. but it's not.
The scriptures declares the Gospel we should teach......
Rom 1:16¶For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Our righteousness is based on faith. Faith in what God declares about Jesus, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
You're right to say; that it wont be based on how you're able to keep the ten commandments" ..but it wont be based on our relationship with each other either. How we treat each other will be the result (fruit) of our faith, andthat we can judge who may be walking the walk.

The rich young ruler claimed he kept all the commandments and loved his neighbor, why did'nt Jesus say he was good enough?

Mat 19:16¶And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

Some people may say that "giving to the poor is the act of righteousness he lacked."
The most important thing is that God wants us to follow Him.

The big question is; How do we follow Jesus?

Keeping the Ten Commandments will manifest in our lives as righteousness and love. Sometimes the love part is missing as seen in the Pharasees and the rich young ruler. Jesus tested the young ruler in both areas by asking him about the Ten Commandments. The young rule failed the love side of the Ten Commandements because how can anyone, who has so much money, seeing all the need around them do nothing to help and say they love their neighbor.

1 John 3:16-17 By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?

The faith that brings righteousness is comes from Jesus. As we read His word we apply it to our lives and we walk by it.

Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

There is a life to live after the gospel that is has it's roots in the Ten Commandments and it's power from love, which God fills us with His Spirit. Love is the missing ingredient.

Romans 5:5 And, hope never disappoints us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

 

[VictorC]

Keeping the Ten Commandments will manifest in our lives as righteousness and love.

Don't you see that this becomes a problem for you, once you consider God's conclusion that no one has kept the law during its entire tenure? A consistent part of your testimony is that you still have to perform under the Sinai covenant, and you don't show any interest in God's new covenant that has the greater glory than the former covenant, as 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 tells us.

7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

 

[k4c]

Don't you see that this becomes a problem for you, once you consider God's conclusion that no one has kept the law during its entire tenure? A consistent part of your testimony is that you still have to perform under the Sinai covenant, and you don't show any interest in God's new covenant that has the greater glory than the former covenant, as 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 tells us.

7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

I bet you believe in eternal security.

 

[VictorC]

I bet you believe in eternal security.

I don't want you to avert the subject you introduced. Is it your contention that you're unable to love anyone because you haven't complied with the Sinai covenant?

 

[k4c]

I don't want you to avert the subject you introduced. Is it your contention that you're unable to love anyone because you haven't complied with the Sinai covenant?

Words produce thought, thought produce action, action done over and over become habit, habit determines character.

You cannot love with a godly love without the Ten Commandments for they define what godly love is but they in themselves do not produce love, they only define love.

If a man and a woman have a sexual relationship, outside of the covenant of marriage, because they love each other their love is ungodly no matter how much they love each other. Why, because the seventh commandment tells us it's ungodly.

 

[VictorC]

Words produce thought, thought produce action, action done over and over become habit, habit determines character.

You cannot love with a godly love without the Ten Commandments for they define what godly love is but they in themselves do not produce love, they only define love.

Your explanation leads me to believe that you're telling me you're incapable of godly love. If you were to review the earlier posts in this thread, you will find that by your responses your concession that you have violated two of the ten commandments. You haven't complied with the ten commandments, and you link that as a requisite to love. You haven't complied with that requisite yourself.

If a man and a woman have a sexual relationship, outside of the covenant of marriage, because they love each other their love is ungodly no matter how much they love each other. Why, because the seventh commandment tells us it's ungodly.

This is an excellent example that Paul draws on himself in Romans 7.

1 ¶ Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?
2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.
4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another----to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.

Paul equates marriage to the law at the same time as marriage to Jesus Christ with adultery. It has been your consistent testimony that you're still bound to the first covenant dictated at Sinai, all the while making the claim that you also belong to Jesus Christ. This is adultery.

In the immediate verses following this quote, Paul tells us that we have been delivered from the law, and then identified that law as the ten commandments using the quote "You shall not covet" found nowhere else in the law. Instead of abiding by the eight commandments, you have now reduced them to seven. You prove over and over that you are no better than everyone else that God has concluded disobedient to the first covenant when Romans 11:32 states "God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all".

1 John 4:19 states that "We love him, because he first loved us". John doesn't make the first covenant a requisite to love god, as you have.

 

[StormyOne]

Must every thread end up obsessing about "the law?"