• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Am I saved?

Status
Not open for further replies.

VictorC

Jesus - that's my final answer
Mar 25, 2008
5,228
479
Northern Colorado
✟29,537.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Now that's an opinion...
This isn't: You haven't offered anything to rectify your contradiction of retaining Sinai while discarding Sinai, and you again make a claim in total deference concerning Whom God has written into our hearts and minds.

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  • The old chair is obsolete: In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete.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.
 
Upvote 0

Stephen Kendall

believer of Jesus Christ
Sep 28, 2008
1,387
112
USA
✟17,173.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is all good but where's the beef?

I believe in the new covenant God writes His Law in our hearts and minds and gives us His Spirit to empower us to obey them through love we will keep the commandments and they won't be a burden, this includes the literal Sabbath day of the fourth commandment.

What sayeth thou...?

I pretty much like it without the beef. I love my veggies.

If you agree with what I wrote, then that is great. I seldom find people that I agree with, for they all seem to lack an understanding of God's will through Jesus Christ. I must be in that group as well, but haven't yet identified myself as such. Maybe you can see me better than I. I know that God has no trouble with sight.

The beef. You have this with the fourth commandment. Others have it with the ancient Holy names of God. Some have it with the laws of Moses included with their Christian faith. The list goes on and on, with around 37,000 different denominations today. I know that everything is possible with God, but I am concerned with the many different types of Christians today not being able to obey Christ with so much unhealthy meat in their guts. It is so easy to obey the teachings of the son of God and son of man, Jesus Christ, and his commands without all that meat. I would be more concerned with obeying the teachings of reconciliation, love, stop sinning and for us to spread the Gospel of Christ's to the ends of the world.

I don't judge other Christians, but I can not help but to be concerned with their knowledge of God's will as given by Christ's teachings and sacrifice, when they are correcting each other without respect or compassion (failing to believe under grace). Weaker Christians that don't have it right are to be loved and care about. The Holy Spirit is sufficient in their lives to lead them into all truths. They also must obey the teachings of Jesus and love others who think differently than themselves. I am puzzled as to why there are so few who accept Christ as I do.
 
Upvote 0

k4c

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2003
4,278
39
Rhode Island
✟4,820.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This isn't: You haven't offered anything to rectify your contradiction of retaining Sinai while discarding Sinai, and you again make a claim in total deference concerning Whom God has written into our hearts and minds.

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.

God said He will be our God and we will be His people in the old covenant. Is that done away too?

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.

God said we His people would be a special treasure, a kingdom of priest, a holy nation. Is that done away too.

Exodus 19:5-6 'Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 'And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.''

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

If you take some time to read the Bible you will see that there are many things transfered from the old covenant into the new covenant.

Matthew 13:52 Then Jesus added, "Those experts in the law who are now my disciples have double treasures--from the Old Testament as well as from the New!''.
 
Upvote 0

VictorC

Jesus - that's my final answer
Mar 25, 2008
5,228
479
Northern Colorado
✟29,537.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
God said He will be our God and we will be His people in the old covenant. Is that done away too?
It was you who attached a soteriology of works to being God's people, and yet God's promises are without repentence, even in light of His committing everyone to disobedience.
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.
Both Jeremiah 31:32 and Hebrews 8:9 use specific language to disqualify the former covenant from being God's My law", and this has been pointed out to you a number of times. Repeating the same error without responding to what Scripture tells us shows a devotion to error you aren't willing to discuss. This is a discussion forum, in case you haven't noticed that by now.
God said we His people would be a special treasure, a kingdom of priest, a holy nation. Is that done away too.
It was you who attached a soteriology of works to being God's people, and yet God's promises are without repentence, even in light of His committing everyone to disobedience. "For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect" (Romans 4:14).
Exodus 19:5-6 'Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 'And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.''
Did Israel comply with that covenant? The answer is a resounding "NO", and that was the very reason God made a new covenant unlike the old covenant from Mount Sinai.

Hebrews 8
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.

The former covenant from Mount Sinai was already violated and broken, like the broken chair you claim is "new" by moving it across the room.
1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
You just proved my point that Israel didn't manage this stature under the former covenant.
If you take some time to read the Bible you will see that there are many things transfered from the old covenant into the new covenant.

Matthew 13:52 Then Jesus added, "Those experts in the law who are now my disciples have double treasures--from the Old Testament as well as from the New!''.
But you can't find any of these things, and you still promote a soteriology of works that is a failure.

Hebrews 7
18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,
19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is thebringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.


We who have entered into God's "My rest" have acquired this superior means to Him. Those in the former covenant have not, "for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman" and have no claim to eternal life.
 
Upvote 0

k4c

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2003
4,278
39
Rhode Island
✟4,820.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It was you who attached a soteriology of works to being God's people, and yet God's promises are without repentence, even in light of His committing everyone to disobedience.

Both Jeremiah 31:32 and Hebrews 8:9 use specific language to disqualify the former covenant from being God's My law", and this has been pointed out to you a number of times. Repeating the same error without responding to what Scripture tells us shows a devotion to error you aren't willing to discuss. This is a discussion forum, in case you haven't noticed that by now.

It was you who attached a soteriology of works to being God's people, and yet God's promises are without repentence, even in light of His committing everyone to disobedience. "For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect" (Romans 4:14).

Did Israel comply with that covenant? The answer is a resounding "NO", and that was the very reason God made a new covenant unlike the old covenant from Mount Sinai.

Hebrews 8
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.

The former covenant from Mount Sinai was already violated and broken, like the broken chair you claim is "new" by moving it across the room.

You just proved my point that Israel didn't manage this stature under the former covenant.

But you can't find any of these things, and you still promote a soteriology of works that is a failure.

Hebrews 7
18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,
19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is thebringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

We who have entered into God's "My rest" have acquired this superior means to Him. Those in the former covenant have not, "for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman" and have no claim to eternal life.

Just because there is a new agreement does not mean we do away with the Ten Commandments because you can't deny all the verses that support the Ten Commandments are part of the new covenant. Even Paul himself quote from the Ten Commandments including the promise attacted to obeying it.

Ephesians 6:1-3 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother,'' which is the first commandment with promise: "that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.''
 
Upvote 0

VictorC

Jesus - that's my final answer
Mar 25, 2008
5,228
479
Northern Colorado
✟29,537.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Just because there is a new agreement does not mean we do away with the Ten Commandments because you can't deny all the verses that support the Ten Commandments are part of the new covenant.
Doing this once only demonstrates a lack of understanding. Repeating the error after it has been shown to you suggests incompetence or deceit.
 
Upvote 0

bugkiller

Well-Known Member
May 16, 2015
17,773
2,629
✟95,400.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Doing this once only demonstrates a lack of understanding. Repeating the error after it has been shown to you suggests incompetence or deceit.
:amen:Couldn'thave said it better.

bugkiller
927154.gif
 
Upvote 0

bugkiller

Well-Known Member
May 16, 2015
17,773
2,629
✟95,400.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Just because there is a new agreement does not mean we do away with the Ten Commandments because you can't deny all the verses that support the Ten Commandments are part of the new covenant. Even Paul himself quote from the Ten Commandments including the promise attacted to obeying it.

Ephesians 6:1-3 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother,'' which is the first commandment with promise: "that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.''
What don't you like the new agreement?

It appears that you require a reason to do what is right. Recognizing that something is wrong is not enought for you. I really like the way the leading of the Spirit works in me. When tempted to do wrong, I recognize it is as harmful and turn away. It is kinda like auto pilot. I am even getting better at being obedient to the Spirit's leading - doing the living in me. It is restful and peaceful. In short it is easy just as Jesus said in Mat 11:28-30.

bugkiller
927154.gif
 
Upvote 0

k4c

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2003
4,278
39
Rhode Island
✟4,820.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What don't you like the new agreement?

It appears that you require a reason to do what is right. Recognizing that something is wrong is not enought for you. I really like the way the leading of the Spirit works in me. When tempted to do wrong, I recognize it is as harmful and turn away. It is kinda like auto pilot. I am even getting better at being obedient to the Spirit's leading - doing the living in me. It is restful and peaceful. In short it is easy just as Jesus said in Mat 11:28-30.

bugkiller
927154.gif

How do you know what is sin?

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

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."

Romans 7:12-13 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. ''

The Spirit of God brings things back to remembrance.

Do you think this changes because you have the Spirit of God?

Sin is sin...
 
Upvote 0

bugkiller

Well-Known Member
May 16, 2015
17,773
2,629
✟95,400.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
How do you know what is sin?

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

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."

Romans 7:12-13 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. ''

The Spirit of God brings things back to remembrance.

Do you think this changes because you have the Spirit of God?

Sin is sin...
I know what sin is by the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

When is the law good? I Tim 1:8. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

Who is the law made for? I Tim 1:9. It is made for for the lawless, disobedient and ungodly.

What was the law used for? Gal 3:24. To bring us to Christ. I read that the law was, not is.

If you demand that we are still under the schoolmaster, don't you also demand that we are always going to be a child? It seems that Jesus said to be perfect (complete and mature) as your Father in heaven is. Mat 5:48.

bugkiller
927154.gif
 
Upvote 0

Joe67

Newbie
Sep 8, 2008
1,266
7
✟23,977.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
bugkiller,

The maturity/completeness in Christ is a worthy goal. This is not attained when we are first justified. Completeness is attained by grace through tribulations and the earnest of the Spirit that seals us. Therein our Lord brings us to a repentance and a salvation that does not need repentance.

Even the thief on the cross was given tribulations as they broke his legs. Thus his faith matured in hope as he was given to forgive his tormentors and the love of God was shed abroad in his heart by the holy Spirit that was given to him.

Col 1:27-29
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

29 Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily. KJV

Joe
 
Upvote 0

sdadoug

Newbie
Sep 1, 2006
69
2
✟15,199.00
Faith
SDA
If this is all there was to it, why couldn't we experience this during other days of the week as well? Doesn't Biblical sabbath keeping involve an abstinence from travel, kindling fires and carrying loads? Doesn't Biblical sabbath keeping involve special animal sacrifices? Aren't these the components that set the seventh-day apart for the Israelites?

The reason we cannot expect the same blessing on the other six days of the week is because we have no authority to bless one day (or anything else we did not create)over another. It’s the same reason Eve could not truthfully expect to receive a blessing by eating from the only tree, in a garden full of trees, that God did not bless and expressly prohibited. The choice is ours, do with it as you will.


wonder whether anyone today keeps any day the way that God commanded the Israelites to keep the seventh-day sabbath.

I wouldn't want to speculate; What is your point?


you really believe that you resist the devil?

Suggest you read James 4:7 and modify the question. db


Fair enough. So, if this is true, I would assume that you have not adopted the following SDA teachings:
1. The mark of the beast will one day be applied to non-sabbatarians;
2. The seal of God will one day be applied only to sabbatarians;
3. The sabbath will become the great final test that represents a dividing wall between those who are of God and those who aren't.
4. A national Sunday law is coming and sabbatarians will be persecuted.
At the heart of these teachings is a belief that the sabbath is a means to salvation.

Q: If you did not follow sabbath behavior during any sabbath day for the rest of 2010, would you still be eligible for salvation?


No, the heart of these beliefs is that the bible gives clear evidence in Daniel and Revelation 14 that we are living in the time of the end. Sabbath may be the last, but only one, of many tests Christ will use determine who is really on His side. Other tests include every abomination in Chapter 3 of 2Tim, parable of the Sheep and the Goats, parable of the 10 virgins and so on. Keeping the commandments of God include everything not from hating our brother to not shutting our ears to the cries of the afflicted and much more.

I am baffled by those who say they want everything Jesus has for them but dismiss the weekly Sabbath rest He gifted to us at the foundation of this world. He describes it an indicating sign to us that we are His children who are allowing Him to change us into His image.cf EXO.ch.31, EZK.Ch.20.

Furthermore, why would you assume to comprehend my motives for keeping Sabbath based on whether or not I adhere to or even understand SDA teaching? Why do you assume SDA teaches this one question is the standard for God's acceptance? This question may say more about your beliefs than anything my answer would reveal about myself.
 
Upvote 0

bugkiller

Well-Known Member
May 16, 2015
17,773
2,629
✟95,400.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
If this is all there was to it, why couldn't we experience this during other days of the week as well? Doesn't Biblical sabbath keeping involve an abstinence from travel, kindling fires and carrying loads? Doesn't Biblical sabbath keeping involve special animal sacrifices? Aren't these the components that set the seventh-day apart for the Israelites?

The reason we cannot expect the same blessing on the other six days of the week is because we have no authority to bless one day (or anything else we did not create)over another. It’s the same reason Eve could not truthfully expect to receive a blessing by eating from the only tree, in a garden full of trees, that God did not bless and expressly prohibited. The choice is ours, do with it as you will.


wonder whether anyone today keeps any day the way that God commanded the Israelites to keep the seventh-day sabbath.

I wouldn't want to speculate; What is your point?


you really believe that you resist the devil?

Suggest you read James 4:7 and modify the question. db


Fair enough. So, if this is true, I would assume that you have not adopted the following SDA teachings:
1. The mark of the beast will one day be applied to non-sabbatarians;
2. The seal of God will one day be applied only to sabbatarians;
3. The sabbath will become the great final test that represents a dividing wall between those who are of God and those who aren't.
4. A national Sunday law is coming and sabbatarians will be persecuted.
At the heart of these teachings is a belief that the sabbath is a means to salvation.

Q: If you did not follow sabbath behavior during any sabbath day for the rest of 2010, would you still be eligible for salvation?

No, the heart of these beliefs is that the bible gives clear evidence in Daniel and Revelation 14 that we are living in the time of the end. Sabbath may be the last, but only one, of many tests Christ will use determine who is really on His side. Other tests include every abomination in Chapter 3 of 2Tim, parable of the Sheep and the Goats, parable of the 10 virgins and so on. Keeping the commandments of God include everything not from hating our brother to not shutting our ears to the cries of the afflicted and much more.

I am baffled by those who say they want everything Jesus has for them but dismiss the weekly Sabbath rest He gifted to us at the foundation of this world. He describes it an indicating sign to us that we are His children who are allowing Him to change us into His image.cf EXO.ch.31, EZK.Ch.20.

Furthermore, why would you assume to comprehend my motives for keeping Sabbath based on whether or not I adhere to or even understand SDA teaching? Why do you assume SDA teaches this one question is the standard for God's acceptance? This question may say more about your beliefs than anything my answer would reveal about myself.
I take it that keeping the sabbath is required for salvation by your response. Is that correct?

bugkiller
927154.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

sdadoug

Newbie
Sep 1, 2006
69
2
✟15,199.00
Faith
SDA
Doug, you quoted only Romans 10:2-4 from my post, and the first question that comes to my mind is why the logic of this passage in Scripture eludes you.

Answer: Those points have already been addressed to you by others in earlier posts on this thread.

second question that comes to my mind is why do you assume the 10 commandments is "eternal", when that covenant from Mount Sinai had a documented time it came into existence, and a documented time when the Hand of God took it away. Between these two events that covenant had a limited jurisdiction over only one group of people. These are all attributes that are antithetical to your assumption of it being eternal.

Please show me where the "Hand of God took away the 10 commandments. I will be the first to go back to the old life I left if this can be proven. Not because I liked my old life better, but because I can have and do whatever I want; Not only now, but for all of eternity and do it in the presence of an All HOLY GOD without any shame or remorse. If the Law is not eternal why did Christ, the Eternal Son of God, have to pay the price for our breaking the Law? This thinking concludes that His eternal sacrifice was not really necessary. Eventually, the price could be paid by ourselves, some other person, or another method. Is that really the position you want to take with regards to Salvation?



third question that comes to my mind is why you claim the ten commandments wasn't among the ordinances that were against us as Gentiles, who were deprived a relationship with God during the entire tenure of the covenant from Mount Sinai, which was the ten commandments. You assume that I don't know what was nailed to the cross of Christ, while you ascribe attributes to a temporal covenant that are not supported by Scripture.

So, sadly, it is your understanding that the from the time of Sinai until the resurrection of Christ that the Jews were the ONLY people who had any hope of having a relationship with God? I assume nothing as to what you believe was nailed to the cross, you have plainly stated in your own words that it was the Moral Law of God as enumerated in the Ten Commandments. Of course, you have yet to produce any scripture or line of logic to back such an assertion.

is plain in describing those who won't submit to God's redemption from the covenant mediated in the hands of Moses as those attempting to establish their own righteousness. This is the tenor of your actions by reversing God's redemption into submission to the Sinai covenant, all the while not actually in compliance with the law that ordained the sabbath. That form of submission doesn't provide the righteousness of God acceptable to Himself, as Jesus testified that "unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20), and you're appealing to the same failed method the scribes and Pharisees employed.

Indeed, so it is your position that since we cannot exceed the outward righteousness of the pharisees, there is no point in even attempting to keep any of the 10 commandments whether from fear, a human sense of duty or converted heart? This is the call of an unrepentant heart or an anarchist. I don't think you are either of those so you should rethink your position
 
Upvote 0

VictorC

Jesus - that's my final answer
Mar 25, 2008
5,228
479
Northern Colorado
✟29,537.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Please show me where the "Hand of God took away the 10 commandments. I will be the first to go back to the old life I left if this can be proven. Not because I liked my old life better, but because I can have and do whatever I want; Not only now, but for all of eternity and do it in the presence of an All HOLY GOD without any shame or remorse. If the Law is not eternal why did Christ, the Eternal Son of God, have to pay the price for our breaking the Law? This thinking concludes that His eternal sacrifice was not really necessary. Eventually, the price could be paid by ourselves, some other person, or another method. Is that really the position you want to take with regards to Salvation?
The times the covenant from Mount Sinai (the ten commandments) began and ended are well documented.
  • Moses received it from God, and the during the second issue of the tables of stone God referred to the previous tables of stone Moses received with the Words of the covenant as the "first" (Exodus 34:1). Before the first issue that Moses broke, there was no ten commandments, and Moses testified in Deuteronomy 5:2-3 that prior to his own generation, the ten commandments didn't exist. The ten commandments originated when they were spoken from Mount Sinai and handed to Moses.
  • Hebrews 8:13 states that the new covenant made the first covenant obsolete, and Hebrews 10:9 tells us that Jesus Christ took the first covenant away to establish the new covenant.
A covenant made with only one group of people (the children of Israel, Deuteronomy 4:8), with a documented beginning and end is not "eternal".

It appears that your whole argument is that the death of Jesus Christ accomplished nothing. You have not perceived His redemption that was caused by that event that established the new covenant.

Hebrews 9
13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,
14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this reason 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.
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.


Christ's death fulfilled the law and completed it, and by His death redeemed us from the law. Romans 7:6-7 supports this when it states that we have been delivered from the law, which is identified by quoting it: "You shall not covet". That is a quote from Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21, found only in the ten commandments.
So, sadly, it is your understanding that the from the time of Sinai until the resurrection of Christ that the Jews were the ONLY people who had any hope of having a relationship with God? I assume nothing as to what you believe was nailed to the cross, you have plainly stated in your own words that it was the Moral Law of God as enumerated in the Ten Commandments. Of course, you have yet to produce any scripture or line of logic to back such an assertion.
Really.
My post contains 18 citations or quotes from Scripture, and you provided nothing to support your view.

Ephesians 2
11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands—
12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.


Being an alien from the promises of God without hope during the tenure of a covenant conveys a certain demise, and that is confirmed as the Gentile's status prior to the Gospel in Romans 2:12: "For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law". While we're on the topic of covenants, why do you suppose we're instructed to cast off the bondwoman in Galatians 4:30, which was defined as the covenant from Mount Sinai in verse 24 of this same chapter?

The only covenant that came from Mount Sinai was the ten commandments, and Moses confirms that in Deuteronomy 4:12-13.
Indeed, so it is your position that since we cannot exceed the outward righteousness of the pharisees, there is no point in even attempting to keep any of the 10 commandments whether from fear, a human sense of duty or converted heart? This is the call of an unrepentant heart or an anarchist. I don't think you are either of those so you should rethink your position
God has not only concluded everyone to be disbedient, but God has committed everyone to disobedience as a condition of receiving His mercy in Romans 11:32: "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all".

Perhaps instead of asking others to re-think their position, you should learn what the Bible actually explains the Gospel to be.

Galatians 4
4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born[a] of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.


This is the shortest summary of the Gospel in Scripture, and it places God's adopted children's jurisdiction under the law in the past tense. That is the former entity that held us in the past tense (Romans 7:6, Galatians 3:23) until faith in our redeemer came.

Galatians 3
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sdadoug

Newbie
Sep 1, 2006
69
2
✟15,199.00
Faith
SDA
The ten commandments originated when they were spoken from Mount Sinai and handed to Moses.

Really, so before Sinai there was no law either? Anything goes not only, now, after the cross but before Sinai as well? Your position is more peculiar than I can follow but at least it is consistently bizarre.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

VictorC

Jesus - that's my final answer
Mar 25, 2008
5,228
479
Northern Colorado
✟29,537.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The ten commandments originated when they were spoken from Mount Sinai and handed to Moses
Really, so before Sinai there was no law either? Anything goes not only, now, after the cross but before Sinai as well? Your position is more peculiar than I can follow but at least it is consistently bizarre.
Really.

Romans 5
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.


Sin's origin was before the law ordained at Sinai existed, and was a result of Adam's transgression - which was eating of the forbidden fruit of a certain tree. That commandment isn't found in the law, by the way.

Galatians 3
15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it.
16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect.
18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.


Abraham received the promise "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed" (Genesis 22:18) that is the basis of mankind's salvation 430 years before the law existed.

I submit that you aren't familiar with the Bible's historical account, which is probably why the Gospel seems "peculiar" and "bizzare" to you.

Your argument based on your alleged criminal tendencies is also familiar to Paul's experience, as he addressed it in Romans 3:7-8. I highly recommend you make yourself familar with that passage before you engage in your "anything goes" argument again, as Paul's conclusion of those employing it as deserving condemnation is very stern.

Also, I'm patiently awaiting your response concerning your apparent conclusion that the death of Jesus Christ accomplished nothing, and we aren't redeemed from the law Paul called the "ministry of death, written and engraved on stone" in 2 Corinthians 3:7. That chapter reads like a commentary on Exodus 34, when Moses received the second pair of tables of stone with the Words of the covenant from Mount Sinai on it. I recommend you read the account from Exodus before 2 Corinthians 3, and that will help the pieces drop into place in your comprehension.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

k4c

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2003
4,278
39
Rhode Island
✟4,820.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I know what sin is by the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

When is the law good? I Tim 1:8. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

Who is the law made for? I Tim 1:9. It is made for for the lawless, disobedient and ungodly.

What was the law used for? Gal 3:24. To bring us to Christ. I read that the law was, not is.

If you demand that we are still under the schoolmaster, don't you also demand that we are always going to be a child? It seems that Jesus said to be perfect (complete and mature) as your Father in heaven is. Mat 5:48.

bugkiller
927154.gif

Who is the law made for? I Tim 1:9. It is made for for the lawless, disobedient and ungodly.

Are you not disobedient when you sin?
 
Upvote 0

bugkiller

Well-Known Member
May 16, 2015
17,773
2,629
✟95,400.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Are you not disobedient when you sin?
My citing I Tim 1:9 is clearly talking about life style as in habitual practice. Occasional wrong doing (sinning) is not practicing lawlessness, nor does it make one ungodly. If it did then Paul was ungodly per his confession in Romans 7. This does not lend permission to sin at any time. The flesh is ungodly and is not redeemed and has recieved its unappealable sentence. The soul is redeemed. The soul is what recieves the rest Jesus talked about which is not provided for in sabbath observance. Mat 11:28-30. If Jesus was offering something they already had there is plenty reason to say He was mad (insane and unstable).

It seems to me that your response is a confession that you are one or more of those in the list of I Tim 1:9. Considering your overall participation on this site, I think that would or could very easily be arrived at. I do think there are some even SDA think (sense) that something is wrong. They just can't put their finger on it. There is a context if you will concerning what you say. You are just like a book and are read. I certaily respond mostly in context to the overall presence when posting to you or in response to you. As you have motivation (reason to act) so do I. There is nothing you do or say that does not point to legal law keeping. Even the SDA don't participate very well here on thier own board because everything returns to the law. You only relate to the law. The law brings death as you demonstrate. Look at this board. One begins to wonder if that is not your purpose. You are obviously not a progressive or moderate SDA. You have killed your own traditional side of the SDA board.

bugkiller
927154.gif
 
Upvote 0

k4c

Well-Known Member
Nov 3, 2003
4,278
39
Rhode Island
✟4,820.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My citing I Tim 1:9 is clearly talking about life style as in habitual practice. Occasional wrong doing (sinning) is not practicing lawlessness, nor does it make one ungodly. If it did then Paul was ungodly per his confession in Romans 7. This does not lend permission to sin at any time. The flesh is ungodly and is not redeemed and has recieved its unappealable sentence. The soul is redeemed. The soul is what recieves the rest Jesus talked about which is not provided for in sabbath observance. Mat 11:28-30. If Jesus was offering something they already had there is plenty reason to say He was mad (insane and unstable).

It seems to me that your response is a confession that you are one or more of those in the list of I Tim 1:9. Considering your overall participation on this site, I think that would or could very easily be arrived at. I do think there are some even SDA think (sense) that something is wrong. They just can't put their finger on it. There is a context if you will concerning what you say. You are just like a book and are read. I certaily respond mostly in context to the overall presence when posting to you or in response to you. As you have motivation (reason to act) so do I. There is nothing you do or say that does not point to legal law keeping. Even the SDA don't participate very well here on thier own board because everything returns to the law. You only relate to the law. The law brings death as you demonstrate. Look at this board. One begins to wonder if that is not your purpose. You are obviously not a progressive or moderate SDA. You have killed your own traditional side of the SDA board.

bugkiller
927154.gif

There is a lot of fluff here that I will cut through to get to the main point.

Here is what you said.

bugkiller: I know what sin is by the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

When is the law good? I Tim 1:8. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

Who is the law made for? I Tim 1:9. It is made for for the lawless, disobedient and ungodly.

If sin is the transgression of the Law and the Spirit convicts of sin it goes without saying that the Spirit uses the Law as a foundation of what sin is.

All throughout the new testament God says He will write His Law in our hearts and minds. This is how the Spirit is able to convict and change the inward man. Paul understood this when he said he rejoyced in the Law according to the inward man. We will never be without sin until Jesus comes back this is why God says 1 John 1:9.

The Law was meant to bring life but instead it brought death because of sin. Take away the sin through the work of Jesus and you too will rejoyce in the Law.

When God writes His Law in our hearts and minds it will manifest in out lives as love for God and love for neighbor.

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.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.