Adventist and Former Adventist Dialogue

[DarylFawcett]

Things would be less complicated here in this topic, if you all stuck to one thing at a time, instead of jumping all over the place.

 

[freeindeed2]

Things would be less complicated here in this topic, if you all stuck to one thing at a time, instead of jumping all over the place.

You're right! We can't start individual threads for different topics! This will get harry and confusing. Even if we handle one topic at a time, it will only grow and grow in length.

 

[Adventtruth]

Amen Jim.

Unfortunately, the devil wants us at either extreme; no law altogether, or reliance on law fully.

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law...Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." Romans 3:31

Jon

And how do you establish the law Jon?

AT

 

[Adventtruth]

This is the main theme and attack from all formers or ex-adventists and that is to attack the 7th day Sabbath observance and the ten commandments in general.

I guess all law dealers feel that way.

However, I think your questions above are skewed and irrelevant. This is like saying ok, since a certain percentage of folks shack up and comit adultery that part of the ten commandments has got to be out of force.

Well how do you deal with Romans 4:15 (KJV) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Whether anyone has ever kept the 7th day holy is between them and their creator and whether they do or not should never determine the validity of the 7th day's holy sanctity set aside at creation. The question to me in this issue is to determine if the ten commandments are still in effect.

Once again, kindly explain Rom 4:15.

To answer that we only need to go to the new testament and read that it was Christ's custom to worship on the 7th day Sabbath i.e. Luke 4:16. Additionally, it's very clear from the scripture that Christ supported and quoted nearly all of the other ten commandments. Since we are admonished in scripture to live as Christ lived and do as He did, it becomes apparent the ten commandment law is still binding and in effect.

So what does this mean to you Jim. 1 Timothy 1:9-10 (KJV) 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

AT

 

[Adventtruth]

One of the major problems I have encountered in my study of the law in the Pauline epistles is Paul never diffferentiated between the two laws i.e. the ceremonial laws and the ten commandment laws. You have to study the context to see which law he is specifying each time. For instance in Col 2:14 the context tells us it is not the ten commandment laws because Paul specifically speaks of "the hand writings of ordinances that was against us" and then in verse 16 he mentions "holidays, new moons and sabbath days". Here we see Paul is clearly mentioning the Levitical laws and customs associated with the ceremonial law of Moses not the ten commandments.

This is wrong Jim. The context shows that he is speaking of the ten words and all law. There was a time I thought the hand writings spoken here was not the ten words but the context wont support anything other than the ten words. In verse 16 Paul refers to things contained in Mosaic law and calls them shadows. The Sabbath is ceremonial. Heres a definition of Ceremonial

a system of ceremonies, rites, or formalities prescribed for or observed on any particular occasion; a rite. (DIctionary.com)

AT

 

[Sophia7]

You're right! We can't start individual threads for different topics! This will get harry and confusing. Even if we handle one topic at a time, it will only grow and grow in length.

Well, you could start other threads for different topics.

 

[tall73]

You're right! We can't start individual threads for different topics! This will get harry and confusing. Even if we handle one topic at a time, it will only grow and grow in length.

Actually you can if you like in this forum. I just started this to get the ball rolling.

 

[Adventtruth]

My personal beliefs have nothing to do with whether the 7th day Sabbath should be kept holy or not. You're trying to make an issue out of how SDA's keep the Sabbath to denigrate it's significance or to make a point that no one has ever kept it.

And have you kept it perfectly Jim .


I'll tell you that fact true or not does not matter one iotta on the sanctity of the Sabbath. God made the Sabbath at the end of creation week and He's the one who made it holy. Nothing man can do or say will change that. The Bible tells us how to keep and observe the holy hours in Ex 20:8-11 and Isa . 58:13 to name a few.

I see He also gave them to the nation of Israel under a different covanant. So why are you acting like you are of a different covanant? You know you can't do the law perfectly don't you?

This is not totally accurate and the insinuations are disingenuous to say the least. The components of a seal are found within the 4th commandment but to say Sabbath itself is the seal of God is stretching the truth.

Well if you feel that way about it, why don't you question the EGW estates and the GC? THey also say the Sabbath is the seal of God and Sunday is the Mark of the Beast.

As I said above the Bible lays out the way we are to keep the Sabbath. Whether SDA's or anyone else is doing that or not is irrelevant to the truth of the scriptures and doesn't change the requirements of God.

In Ezek 20:12 the Bible makes it clear that Sabbath observance is a sign between God and His people.

Lets see.

Ezekiel 20:10-13 (KJV) 10 Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. 11 And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them. 12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them. 13 But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in the wilderness, to consume them.

Looks to me that He gave it to Israel under the Mosaic law which was under the Old Covanant. You need to study Covanant theology, maybe you would get a better understanding.

AT

 

[freeindeed2]

Actually you can if you like in this forum. I just started this to get the ball rolling.

I believe I should still have 'newbie' by my name. I'll admit a bit of ignorance on my part. The way things are done here are different from what I've been used to. A LOT more rules (which I'm NOT complaining about!).

God bless!

 

[tall73]

I believe I should still have 'newbie' by my name. I'll admit a bit of ignorance on my part. The way things are done here are different from what I've been used to. A LOT more rules (which I'm NOT complaining about!).

God bless!

No problem
Here is a Sabbath thread I started :

http://www.christianforums.com/t4808217-seventh-day-adventist-view-of-the-sabbath.html#post31830442



We can leave this one for general thoughts or discussion of sin.

 

[OntheDL]

Hi Freeindeed - I read this in one of your posts:

"Christ's death on the cross is the core of the Gospel."

I feel I must respectfully disagree. It is not Christ's death on the cross that is the core - rather, His resurrection.

"and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith is also in vain....and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17

Scripture also supports the fact that the events at and after the Cross are the beginning of our journey to the Father, through Christ's sacrifice:

"Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in the newness of life...knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin....But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life....[for] the one who endures to the end, he will be saved." Romans 6:4,6,22, Mark 13:13

Jon

Hi Jon,

That's correct. The resurrection constituted the entire outer court and the holy place in the light of the sanctuary. So it covers the justification and sanctification.

Freeindeed and the popular christianity only embrace the cross because they want no part of the sanctification, make holy, keeping the whole law of God. That's why they are stuck at the cross. Because the majority of the christiandom does not honour the sabbath commandment, therefore they must deny the sanctification process (keeping all 10 commandments by the power of the holy spirit).

The cross is wonderful. Without Christ's atoning sacrifice, there'd have been no possibility of salvation. By bringing a lamb every day to the foot of the cross is no real christian experience. That's why the bible says it's better to obey than to sacrifice.

 

[Adventtruth]

I see you are afraid of answering FreeIndeed ontheDL.

Freeindeed and the popular christianity only embrace the cross because they want no part of the sanctification, make holy, keeping the whole law of God. That's why they are stuck at the cross. Because the majority of the christiandom does not honour the sabbath commandment, therefore they must deny the sanctification process (keeping all 10 commandments by the power of the holy spirit).

Ha...thats not true. Justified believers have their fruit unto holiness. (Rom 6:22) Their fruit is proof they are connected to the vine as a branch. Don't you know that justification is the foundation of sanctification? Infact Jesus has perfected us forever, those who are being sanctified. You keep external but have no clue the goal of the law. Is it possible to observe the law and not reach the goal of the law ontheDL? Now is it possible to reach the goal of the law and not keep the law? what do you think?

And what is the goal of Sabbath keeping ontheDL? What underscores it? Because the Israel nation observed the day but never entered Gods rest.

Do you have answers for these, are or you going to avoid them, or hide behind Jon?

At

 

[Jon0388g]

Hi Jon,

That's correct. The resurrection constituted the entire outer court and the holy place in the light of the sanctuary. So it covers the justification and sanctification.

Freeindeed and the popular christianity only embrace the cross because they want no part of the sanctification, make holy, keeping the whole law of God. That's why they are stuck at the cross. Because the majority of the christiandom does not honour the sabbath commandment, therefore they must deny the sanctification process (keeping all 10 commandments by the power of the holy spirit).

The cross is wonderful. Without Christ's atoning sacrifice, there'd have been no possibility of salvation. By bringing a lamb every day to the foot of the cross is no real christian experience. That's why the bible says it's better to obey than to sacrifice.

Thanks DL.

This is all closely related to an interesting fact I discovered a couple of months ago. Christiandom is 'stuck' at the Cross of Calvary. Have you noticed, that Catholic crosses are (mostly) different to Protestant ones, in that they depict Christ suffering on the Cross?

We have empty crosses for a reason.....

Another point to note: I think Paul sums it up best when he declares we must 'die daily.' If we are OSAS (as this New Theology basically is - I don't care who denies it), then there surely is no need to die daily to sin. Those who deny the need for a conscious choice and effort on our part in accordance to the Law of God, seem to have a false sense of security.

Jon

 

[freeindeed2]

Thanks DL.

This is all closely related to an interesting fact I discovered a couple of months ago. Christiandom is 'stuck' at the Cross of Calvary. Have you noticed, that Catholic crosses are (mostly) different to Protestant ones, in that they depict Christ suffering on the Cross?

We have empty crosses for a reason.....

Another point to note: I think Paul sums it up best when he declares we must 'die daily.' If we are OSAS (as this New Theology basically is - I don't care who denies it), then there surely is no need to die daily to sin. Those who deny the need for a conscious choice and effort on our part in accordance to the Law of God, seem to have a false sense of security.

Jon

Jon, you must have missed this in the original post I made on this topic!

This is the core of the Gospel message, that the Lamb of God became sin for sinful man, laid down his life, and shed his blood in order to make perfect and complete atonement for us so that through Jesus, we might be saved! Jesus life, death, and resurrection are salvation to sinners!

If I'm going to be stuck somewhere, let it be at the foot of the empty cross, where Jesus paid in full the price for ALL my sin! I'm with Paul, "God forbid that I should boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."
​

Clearly I have acknowledged all aspects of the Good News about Jesus and the salvations he has provided for us by doing for us what we could not do for ourselves.

 

[Jon0388g]

Jon, you must have missed this in the original post I made on this topic!

This is the core of the Gospel message, that the Lamb of God became sin for sinful man, laid down his life, and shed his blood in order to make perfect and complete atonement for us so that through Jesus, we might be saved! Jesus life, death, and resurrection are salvation to sinners!​

If I'm going to be stuck somewhere, let it be at the foot of the empty cross, where Jesus paid in full the price for ALL my sin! I'm with Paul, "God forbid that I should boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."​

Clearly I have acknowledged all aspects of the Good News about Jesus and the salvations he has provided for us by doing for us what we could not do for ourselves.

I didn't miss what you said. It seemed to me that the emphasis of your post was on the Crucifixtion itself, and not the Resurrection:

freeindeed (proudly boasting about the cross of Christ!)

Just wanting to know how you would address the importance Paul placed on the cross as the core of the Gospel offering salvation for sinners?

Thanks!

This was mainly what I was disagreeing with. If you embrace the full concept of Calvary, particularly the Resurrection, then I apologise for the misunderstanding.

Can you imagine if the Gospel ended with Christ being buried. There is no Good News in that.

The very core of the Gospel is Christ's victorious Resurrection from the dead, the "firstborn from the dead," that I rejoice over.


Jon

 

[freeindeed2]

I didn't miss what you said. It seemed to me that the emphasis of your post was on the Crucifixtion itself, and not the Resurrection:



This was mainly what I was disagreeing with. If you embrace the full concept of Calvary, particularly the Resurrection, then I apologise for the misunderstanding.

Can you imagine if the Gospel ended with Christ being buried. There is no Good News in that.

The very core of the Gospel is Christ's victorious Resurrection from the dead, the "firstborn from the dead," that I rejoice over.


Jon

Of course I embrace the full Gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes the resurrection. Where we differ (maybe only a bit) is that the remission of sin came from Christ's blood being shed. Sin demanded death, and Jesus took on death on our behalf. The empty cross and the empty tomb means that the sacrifice was complete and man (the Spiritually dead) has a guarantee of being raised also.

I posted many verses that focus on the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross on behalf of sinners. I see Paul say, "God forbid that I should boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

I don't see Paul saying, "God forbid that I should boast about anything except the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Not that it wasn't important, but atonement took place when the penalty for our sin was paid at the cross.

UNDERSTAND!!! I'm not denying or belittling the resurrection, as it is part of the Gospel too! Don't miss this part and only quote a snip from above!!!

 

[Jon0388g]

Of course I embrace the full Gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes the resurrection. Where we differ (maybe only a bit) is that the remission of sin came from Christ's blood being shed. Sin demanded death, and Jesus took on death on our behalf. The empty cross and the empty tomb means that the sacrifice was complete and man (the Spiritually dead) has a guarantee of being raised also.

I posted many verses that focus on the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross on behalf of sinners. I see Paul say, "God forbid that I should boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

I don't see Paul saying, "God forbid that I should boast about anything except the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Not that it wasn't important, but atonement took place when the penalty for our sin was paid at the cross.

UNDERSTAND!!! I'm not denying or belittling the resurrection, as it is part of the Gospel too! Don't miss this part and only quote a snip from above!!!

Good.

You are correct in saying that the remission of sin came from the blood of Christ being shed.

But the important factor is that, the Resurrection is the root of the remission of this sin - because if Christ had not risen, then it wouldn't have mattered that His blood had been offered in the first place. The sacrifice would not have been sufficient, as a blameless substitute is required.

I think we can move on now.

Jon

 

[freeindeed2]

Good.

You are correct in saying that the remission of sin came from the blood of Christ being shed.

But the important factor is that, the Resurrection is the root of the remission of this sin - because if Christ had not risen, then it wouldn't have mattered that His blood had been offered in the first place. The sacrifice would not have been sufficient, as a blameless substitute is required.

I think we can move on now.

Jon

There was no chance of him not being the blameless substitute. It was God's perfect plan of salvation for sinful man, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves. They're both part of the Gospel, but don't put the cart before the horse.

 

[tall73]

On the sin issue, and we will be covering this to some degree in the Sabbath thread as well, can we all agree that the obedience that is called for in the new covenant is worked out by the Spirit in us?

That would be a starting point. Then we can go on to definitions, what constitutes the law on the heart etc.

 

[freeindeed2]

On the sin issue, and we will be covering this to some degree in the Sabbath thread as well, can we all agree that the obedience that is called for in the new covenant is worked out by the Spirit in us?

That would be a starting point. Then we can go on to definitions, what constitutes the law on the heart etc.

I can live with that for now. I like the fact that you said "IN US" instead of "THROUGH US" (as if WE were the ones 'obeying' with the 'help' of the Holy Spirit). It is completely accomplished by GOD (Holy Spirit) on behalf of sinners and not the other way around.