Am I saved?

[bugkiller]

Thanks!
I tend to agree with all of the statements you contributed. Each of us has a differing emphasis, and mine is driven by an observation made many years ago. I didn't come to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ until fairly late, and one of the first things I noticed is that His body lacks the unity that Scripture encourages as our goal. We see that goal mentioned a number of times in Ephesians 4:

1 ¶ I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called,
2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love,
3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift.
8 Therefore He says: "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men."
9 (Now this, "He ascended" ----what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,
13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,
15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head----Christ----
16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

If the administration of a discussion forum were left up to me, I would be seriously tempted to have only one area where everyone was dropped into the same basket to hash out their differences until we actually attained the unity we're to aspire to. Pragmatism doesn't allow that, of course. I perceive the reason denominations exist is because of human pride that exalts their differences above the unity that would prevent us from succumbing to "every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting".

Those are my thoughts as I read through your post, when I see your observation of the mess denominations have made of our faith in Jesus Christ.

May I second that motion on administration. And take this opporunity to also welcome Stephen to CF.

bugkiller

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I perceive the reason denominations exist is because of human pride that exalts their differences above the unity that would prevent us from succumbing to "every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting".

I agree. I had hoped to make a similar point in a separate thread, but I failed miserably.

BFA

 

[Stephen Kendall]

Thanks!
I tend to agree with all of the statements you contributed. Each of us has a differing emphasis, and mine is driven by an observation made many years ago. I didn't come to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ until fairly late, and one of the first things I noticed is that His body lacks the unity that Scripture encourages as our goal. We see that goal mentioned a number of times in Ephesians 4:

1 ¶ I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called,
2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love,
3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift.
8 Therefore He says: "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men."
9 (Now this, "He ascended" ----what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,
13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,
15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head----Christ----
16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

If the administration of a discussion forum were left up to me, I would be seriously tempted to have only one area where everyone was dropped into the same basket to hash out their differences until we actually attained the unity we're to aspire to. Pragmatism doesn't allow that, of course. I perceive the reason denominations exist is because of human pride that exalts their differences above the unity that would prevent us from succumbing to "every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting".

Those are my thoughts as I read through your post, when I see your observation of the mess denominations have made of our faith in Jesus Christ.

Thank you again. I believe that you are correct. The wedge that constantly gets between us and God's will is our pride. It is interesting that Apostle Paul wrote these words to Christians:

Philippians 2

1 If there is therefore any exhortation in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions,
2 make full my joy, that ye be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind;
3 doing nothing through faction or through vainglory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself;
4 not looking each of you to his own things, but each of you also to the things of others.


I feel that we are all walking in a mine field, full of pride & selfishness. These mines do not affect those who are innocent in Christ, obeying his teachings and thus our Father's will, but woe to those who don't.

I wish my brothers and sisters would gently help me when I slip, as I hope to see & help them along their way. It is so easy for my 4 year old son to be innocent & selfish at the same time. I love him and guide him towards maturity. Being in God's family with the same Spirit, we should be of such love and to kindly help each other while we are here. We should realize that our own 4 year olds can easily see our mistakes, so we need listen to them. We need to be lowly in mind, loving each other and obeying the will of God through his son's teachings. It really is a beautiful picture. Be determined to obey Christ in this anti-God world. Jesus' message is light and can fill us with his peace.

Why is this so simple (loving each other and our Father in Heaven) and yet rejected by the world, especially by its spirit of pride? We are given all things, yet it is human nature to take what isn't their's (for it is forever impatient and lusts with an appetite that can't be filled). Pride is the answer. It is in control of the lost. They can't see to become like nobody, being humble and caring for others over themselves. Jesus said to give up all and follow him. That really is the requirement to get rid of this world spirit from us and to be low enough to love others over ourselves. Things can be done slowly or fast, but the command is to love God above all, and proof is our love for our neighbor, brothers & sisters and enemies. In loving in this way, one has given up all, but in not loving, one hasn't given up all, though they may have given up their possessions to the poor and themselves to persecution. The lesser commands & teachings of Christ point towards the ultimate result, being a loving soul, like Christ, obeying his Father in Heaven.

Enjoyed our fellowship here. Have a great day.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

May I second that motion on administration. And take this opporunity to also welcome Stephen to CF.

bugkiller

Thank you.

 

[sdadoug]

I'll take a stab at your question. If depends on which covenant you are under. One can not violate a covenant that has no jusirdiction or dominion over them...

However the Christian is not part of Israel or spiritual Israel and is not obligated to any part of the covenant issued at Sinai. Jesus said come to Him not Israel. The NT clearly shows a new (different) covenant with different content in the covenant. The NT clearly show the Mt Sinai covenant is dead and the Christian is not obligated to it... (ten commandments).
So the answer to your question for the Christian is a very loud resounding YES the Christian can disregard the ten commandments, they have no jurisdiction or dominion over us! There can be no violation for the Christian violating the ten commandments specifically the 4th. The other commandments have a reference in the NC and violation of those similar commands would be sin.

So have I answered your trap question? I think so.

bugkiller

Thank you for finally being honest with respect to your belief in the Doctrine of Lawlessness. The Sabbath is found all throughout the NT. First, in all 4 gospels; Jesus modeled it's proper spirit, objective and purpose. It's found in the book of Acts as all the apostles kept it in the "new covenant times" long after Christ's death and resurrection. It is referenced in many of the letters and in the book of Revelation. It is clearly not just the Sabbath commandment you hate but all righteousness as defined by God in His law of morality, the Ten Commandments. This is the attitude of “Christians” who Paul warns the church to avoid in 2 Tim. Chapter3:1-4:4. I for one, am not interested in diluting the gospel message of freedom from sin for the sake of “unity”(to remain in our sins).

It is my hope you will allow God to open your eyes to this deception so you can start living the Gospel and not just talking about it. We do not want to be found as lawless tares among the wheat as defined by Our Lord in Matt. 13:41 when His angels begin their final work. Better to be counted as among the saved referenced in Rev. 14:12; who both keep His commandments and have the Testimony of Jesus.

But the choice is ours to make. We can accept that God’s law is pure and holy and true and eternal and right and just and a reflection of His character; We can ask Him to help us to allow Him to change us into His image and live according to His laws to the best of our ability through faith in Christ or… we can simply ignore His law and say it is no longer in effect, rely on our own righteousness and understanding and suffer the consequences of rejecting God’s calls for obedience and the power to overcome the world.

 

[bugkiller]

Thank you for finally being honest with respect to your belief in the Doctrine of Lawlessness. The Sabbath is found all throughout the NT. First, in all 4 gospels; Jesus modeled it's proper spirit, objective and purpose. It's found in the book of Acts as all the apostles kept it in the "new covenant times" long after Christ's death and resurrection. It is referenced in many of the letters and in the book of Revelation. It is clearly not just the Sabbath commandment you hate but all righteousness as defined by God in His law of morality, the Ten Commandments. This is the attitude of “Christians” who Paul warns the church to avoid in 2 Tim. Chapter3:1-4:4. I for one, am not interested in diluting the gospel message of freedom from sin for the sake of “unity”(to remain in our sins).

It is my hope you will allow God to open your eyes to this deception so you can start living the Gospel and not just talking about it. We do not want to be found as lawless tares among the wheat as defined by Our Lord in Matt. 13:41 when His angels begin their final work. Better to be counted as among the saved referenced in Rev. 14:12; who both keep His commandments and have the Testimony of Jesus.

But the choice is ours to make. We can accept that God’s law is pure and holy and true and eternal and right and just and a reflection of His character; We can ask Him to help us to allow Him to change us into His image and live according to His laws to the best of our ability through faith in Christ or… we can simply ignore His law and say it is no longer in effect, rely on our own righteousness and understanding and suffer the consequences of rejecting God’s calls for obedience and the power to overcome the world.

I don't quite know where to place the type of response you have made. Should it be called outright fraud, slight dishonesty, denial, or maybe outright deception? I really don't know, but I do know that you have purposely misquoted me at the least. I take misrepresentation as bearing false witness, commonly called lying. This violates number nine on the line, doesn't it? I did not promote lawlessness or a doctrine there of. As you did quote me it depends on which covenant one is obligated to. You can not violate something you are not obligated to. I did not quote Gal 5:16-21 in the post you quoted from. It relates sin to the lust of the flesh and if you are led by the Spirit you do not do those things. You can not say that Gal 5:16-21 is a reference to the law or a quote there from. I have no hate for the sabbath commandment. I have something the sabbath can not provide. Jesus offered it to people who were observing the sabbath. Mat 11:28-30.

First in all four Gospels Jesus is under the law as a Jew and is obligated to the Covenant issued at Sinai. This is one reason we find Jesus following the law. If Jesus does not follow the law He can not be the Messiah/Redeemer.

Second what do you mean the Apostles kept the sabbath? That is not what the record bears out. Yes you can cite Paul being in the synagogue on the sabbath. You promote the idea that he was there for worship. The scripture indicates the purpose of Paul being in the synagogue was to evangelize the Jew, not worship. It seems as though you believe that sabbath observance is church attendance. Under the law the Jew is only required to worship 3 times a year. You have no scripture mandating the Jew to be in the synagogue or worship on a weekly basis. Even if you did by the way you view the law all sabbath regulations were nailed to the cross and are no more. You are in denial about the situation of the early church.

You refer to II Tim 3:1-4:4 as I am one you are to avoid. This is exactly why I am not SDA. I think your reference applies more to you than is does to me. Your last sentence in your paragraph 2 is a prime example. Your only real beef with me is that I do not keep the sabbath. I wish that my only beef with you is that you keep the sabbath. I find that to be no beef with me. It doesn't matter per Col 2:16 and Romans 14. Where does the gospel message include the sabbath as an obligation. It is not one of the necessary things listed in Acts 15.

I think you need to quit trying to marry two opposing covenants and accept the new covenant.

bugkiller

 

[VictorC]

Thank you for finally being honest with respect to your belief in the Doctrine of Lawlessness. The Sabbath is found all throughout the NT. First, in all 4 gospels; Jesus modeled it's proper spirit, objective and purpose. It's found in the book of Acts as all the apostles kept it in the "new covenant times" long after Christ's death and resurrection. It is referenced in many of the letters and in the book of Revelation. It is clearly not just the Sabbath commandment you hate but all righteousness as defined by God in His law of morality, the Ten Commandments. This is the attitude of “Christians” who Paul warns the church to avoid in 2 Tim. Chapter3:1-4:4. I for one, am not interested in diluting the gospel message of freedom from sin for the sake of “unity”(to remain in our sins).

It is my hope you will allow God to open your eyes to this deception so you can start living the Gospel and not just talking about it. We do not want to be found as lawless tares among the wheat as defined by Our Lord in Matt. 13:41 when His angels begin their final work. Better to be counted as among the saved referenced in Rev. 14:12; who both keep His commandments and have the Testimony of Jesus.

But the choice is ours to make. We can accept that God’s law is pure and holy and true and eternal and right and just and a reflection of His character; We can ask Him to help us to allow Him to change us into His image and live according to His laws to the best of our ability through faith in Christ or… we can simply ignore His law and say it is no longer in effect, rely on our own righteousness and understanding and suffer the consequences of rejecting God’s calls for obedience and the power to overcome the world.

Using the same criteria that others have found to be unBiblical doesn't make your view Biblical all of a sudden. Several items above have been questioned, and you haven't responded to the critique of these items. You are expected to provide support for the several attributes you gave to the law that Scripture doesn't support.

Paul showed how those who place their reliance on the law as the ones "being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God". You reversed this relationship without a license to do so, and in the same manner of those Paul found worthy of condemnation in Romans 3:8 you chose to levy your judgment on a believer who has placed his trust in Jesus Christ.

 

[bugkiller]

Using the same criteria that others have found to be unBiblical doesn't make your view Biblical all of a sudden. Several items above have been questioned, and you haven't responded to the critique of these items. You are expected to provide support for the several attributes you gave to the law that Scripture doesn't support.

He probably doesn't offer any because there is none.

Paul showed how those who place their reliance on the law as the ones "being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God". You reversed this relationship without a license to do so, and levied your judgment on a believer who has placed his trust in Jesus Christ in the same manner of those Paul found worthy of condemnation in Romans 3:8.

Thanks for the back up. I'll accept anytime.

bugkiller

 

[sdadoug]

I don't quite know where to place the type of response you have made. Should it be called outright fraud, slight dishonesty, denial, or maybe outright deception? I really don't know, but I do know that you have purposely misquoted me at the least. I take misrepresentation as bearing false witness, commonly called lying. This violates number nine on the line, doesn't it? I did not promote lawlessness or a doctrine there of. As you did quote me it depends on which covenant one is obligated to. You can not violate something you are not obligated to. I did not quote Gal 5:16-21 in the post you quoted from. It relates sin to the lust of the flesh and if you are led by the Spirit you do not do those things. You can not say that Gal 5:16-21 is a reference to the law or a quote there from. I have no hate for the sabbath commandment. I have something the sabbath can not provide. Jesus offered it to people who were observing the sabbath. Mat 11:28-30.

I’m not sure how you can accuse me of misquoting you when I simply responded with the forum’s own automatic quote button in my response. Those were your words not mine. But let’s say that somehow I was ‘guilty’ of “bearing false witness”. That was a law given to the Jews and according to your logic, I am not under any such law and am not ‘guilty’ of anything.

First in all four Gospels Jesus is under the law as a Jew and is obligated to the Covenant issued at Sinai. This is one reason we find Jesus following the law. If Jesus does not follow the law He can not be the Messiah/Redeemer.

Second what do you mean the Apostles kept the sabbath? That is not what the record bears out. Yes you can cite Paul being in the synagogue on the sabbath. You promote the idea that he was there for worship. The scripture indicates the purpose of Paul being in the synagogue was to evangelize the Jew, not worship. It seems as though you believe that sabbath observance is church attendance. Under the law the Jew is only required to worship 3 times a year. You have no scripture mandating the Jew to be in the synagogue or worship on a weekly basis. Even if you did by the way you view the law all sabbath regulations were nailed to the cross and are no more. You are in denial about the situation of the early church.

If Jesus did not expect the church to be keeping the weekly Sabbath why would he encourage them to pray their flight would not have to take place on the Sabbath 70 years later Matt 24:20? Furthermore, not only did the apostles and the church keep the Sabbath for at least 300 years after the resurrection, It will be kept throughout eternity as well see Isa. 66:23.


You refer to II Tim 3:1-4:4 as I am one you are to avoid. This is exactly why I am not SDA. I think your reference applies more to you than is does to me. Your last sentence in your paragraph 2 is a prime example. Your only real beef with me is that I do not keep the sabbath. I wish that my only beef with you is that you keep the sabbath. I find that to be no beef with me. It doesn't matter per Col 2:16 and Romans 14. Where does the gospel message include the sabbath as an obligation. It is not one of the necessary things listed in Acts 15.

My last sentence in paragraph 2 is worth repeating so I will: Better to be counted as among the saved referenced in Rev. 14:12; who both keep His commandments and have the Testimony of Jesus. Whatever “beef” you have is not with me or the Sabbath it is with God’s Word and the simple truth
The reason you are not an SDA is that, by your own admission, you do not believe in the most fundamental teachings in the bible, specifically, the Ten Commandments. I meet honest Christians who just have not heard of the Sabbath and most accept it readily once they study it. I was a born-again Christian for 15 years before I heard about the Sabbath. You however, choose to perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to excuse yourself from keeping it. Which is fine and your choice to make if that is your want. If you were to repent of your pride and accept the simple truth you would want to be an SDA and would be welcomed as an SDA. As it is you are welcome to worship pretty much everywhere else.

I think you need to quit trying to marry two opposing covenants and accept the new covenant.

It is clear that the ceremonial laws written by Moses that included animal sacrifices were nailed to the cross as they were replaced by the True Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But to say that the Ten Commandment moral Laws that govern all Heaven and creation, The laws God wrote twice with His own finger on stone and that Christ, The Word who Is from the Beginning, died in our place to pay the penalty for breaking are no longer valid is just illogical at best if not dishonest.
You tend to simply ignore every honest question I ask and when I try to tactfully point out possible errors in your logic, you take offense. So I’ll let you have the last word here in your reply. Sorry we could not have an honest conversation about bible truth and church history. db

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Thank you for finally being honest with respect to your belief in the Doctrine of Lawlessness.

Ouch! So much condemnation. So little love.

BFA

 

[bugkiller]

I don't quite know where to place the type of response you have made. Should it be called outright fraud, slight dishonesty, denial, or maybe outright deception? I really don't know, but I do know that you have purposely misquoted me at the least. I take misrepresentation as bearing false witness, commonly called lying. This violates number nine on the line, doesn't it? I did not promote lawlessness or a doctrine there of. As you did quote me it depends on which covenant one is obligated to. You can not violate something you are not obligated to. I did not quote Gal 5:16-21 in the post you quoted from. It relates sin to the lust of the flesh and if you are led by the Spirit you do not do those things. You can not say that Gal 5:16-21 is a reference to the law or a quote there from. I have no hate for the sabbath commandment. I have something the sabbath can not provide. Jesus offered it to people who were observing the sabbath. Mat 11:28-30.

I’m not sure how you can accuse me of misquoting you when I simply responded with the forum’s own automatic quote button in my response. Those were your words not mine. But let’s say that somehow I was ‘guilty’ of “bearing false witness”. That was a law given to the Jews and according to your logic, I am not under any such law and am not ‘guilty’ of anything.

Pretty simple really. If you had merely used the quote buton and not deleted part of my post for your purpose I would agree. I had to go back and look at what I said to respond. The misquote is that you twisted what I said by leaving out some of it and the providing of your comentary.

First in all four Gospels Jesus is under the law as a Jew and is obligated to the Covenant issued at Sinai. This is one reason we find Jesus following the law. If Jesus does not follow the law He can not be the Messiah/Redeemer.

Second what do you mean the Apostles kept the sabbath? That is not what the record bears out. Yes you can cite Paul being in the synagogue on the sabbath. You promote the idea that he was there for worship. The scripture indicates the purpose of Paul being in the synagogue was to evangelize the Jew, not worship. It seems as though you believe that sabbath observance is church attendance. Under the law the Jew is only required to worship 3 times a year. You have no scripture mandating the Jew to be in the synagogue or worship on a weekly basis. Even if you did by the way you view the law all sabbath regulations were nailed to the cross and are no more. You are in denial about the situation of the early church.

If Jesus did not expect the church to be keeping the weekly Sabbath why would he encourage them to pray their flight would not have to take place on the Sabbath 70 years later Matt 24:20? Furthermore, not only did the apostles and the church keep the Sabbath for at least 300 years after the resurrection, It will be kept throughout eternity as well see Isa. 66:23.

Jesus' words were not instruction to flee. This was a prophecy as what would happen in the future and a word to the wise. Question for you: How are you going to flee with all the exits blocked anyway. Jesus understood the Jew and the situation. A devout Jew can not go more that a mile (sabbath days journey) on the sabbath. Jesus is expressing pity towards certian women. You are taking things out of context. You must include verses 15 to 20 for proper understanding. But if you consider the next verse the picture changes drastically.

You refer to II Tim 3:1-4:4 as I am one you are to avoid. This is exactly why I am not SDA. I think your reference applies more to you than is does to me. Your last sentence in your paragraph 2 is a prime example. Your only real beef with me is that I do not keep the sabbath. I wish that my only beef with you is that you keep the sabbath. I find that to be no beef with me. It doesn't matter per Col 2:16 and Romans 14. Where does the gospel message include the sabbath as an obligation. It is not one of the necessary things listed in Acts 15.

My last sentence in paragraph 2 is worth repeating so I will: Better to be counted as among the saved referenced in Rev. 14:12; who both keep His commandments and have the Testimony of Jesus. Whatever “beef” you have is not with me or the Sabbath it is with God’s Word and the simple truth
The reason you are not an SDA is that, by your own admission, you do not believe in the most fundamental teachings in the bible, specifically, the Ten Commandments. I meet honest Christians who just have not heard of the Sabbath and most accept it readily once they study it. I was a born-again Christian for 15 years before I heard about the Sabbath. You however, choose to perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to excuse yourself from keeping it. Which is fine and your choice to make if that is your want. If you were to repent of your pride and accept the simple truth you would want to be an SDA and would be welcomed as an SDA. As it is you are welcome to worship pretty much everywhere else.

I think you need to quit trying to marry two opposing covenants and accept the new covenant.

It is clear that the ceremonial laws written by Moses that included animal sacrifices were nailed to the cross as they were replaced by the True Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But to say that the Ten Commandment moral Laws that govern all Heaven and creation, The laws God wrote twice with His own finger on stone and that Christ, The Word who Is from the Beginning, died in our place to pay the penalty for breaking are no longer valid is just illogical at best if not dishonest.
You tend to simply ignore every honest question I ask and when I try to tactfully point out possible errors in your logic, you take offense. So I’ll let you have the last word here in your reply. Sorry we could not have an honest conversation about bible truth and church history. db

No all the law was nailed to the cross. No it is not dishonest or illogical to say that the ten commandments were nailed to the cross. Jer 31:31-34 states there will be a new covenant which will not be like the one already in force. I realize this does not fit your paradigmatic view. I am sorry if I missed some of your points. I thought I had given attention to all of them. If you would be so kind as to ask or the ones you feel I missed, I will try to respond about and to them.

bugkiller

 

[sdadoug]

Ouch! So much condemnation. So little love.

BFA

This is the same allegation we find homosexuals making when when they insist they are not breaking any of God's laws either.

 

[VictorC]

My last sentence in paragraph 2 is worth repeating so I will: Better to be counted as among the saved referenced in Rev. 14:12; who both keep His commandments and have the Testimony of Jesus. Whatever “beef” you have is not with me or the Sabbath it is with God’s Word and the simple truth

This is a curious accusation coming from someone who does not know what the commandments of God are.

The reason you are not an SDA is that, by your own admission, you do not believe in the most fundamental teachings in the bible, specifically, the Ten Commandments.

This is another curious statement coming from someone who doesn't know the origin of the ten commandments, nor what the ten commandments was.

• It was the covenant from Mount Sinai, and Deuteronomy 4:12-13 clarifies this if you question it.
• It was the same covenant we are instructed to cast off according to Galatians 4:24-30.
• It was the same law we were delivered from, according to Romans 7:6-7.
• It was the same covenant called "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, and taken away according to Hebrews 10:9.

I meet honest Christians who just have not heard of the Sabbath and most accept it readily once they study it. I was a born-again Christian for 15 years before I heard about the Sabbath. You however, choose to perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to excuse yourself from keeping it. Which is fine and your choice to make if that is your want. If you were to repent of your pride and accept the simple truth you would want to be an SDA and would be welcomed as an SDA. As it is you are welcome to worship pretty much everywhere else.

I've met a number of Adventists who leave the SDA church once they learn what the sabbath was, although the most common reason Adventists stop being Adventists is because they have come to realize that "the foundation and central pillar of the advent faith" built around 1844 is nothing more than a fictional face-saving farce that erected doctrines harmful to the Gospel. Once opinions garnered from experience is replaced with a yearning for Biblical truth, the mental gymnastics come to an end and redemption is sought in Jesus Christ. God has concluded everyone "lawless", the very reason He gave us His promise "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more".

It is clear that the ceremonial laws written by Moses that included animal sacrifices were nailed to the cross as they were replaced by the True Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

You don't perceive that this very statement calls an end to the sabbath, for it demanded burnt offerings of two lambs according to Numbers 28:9-10.

9 `And on the Sabbath day two lambs in their first year, without blemish, and two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour as a grain offering, mixed with oil, with its drink offering--
10 `this is the burnt offering for every Sabbath, besides the regular burnt offering with its drink offering.

These burnt offerings are tied to the reason God hated the sabbaths in Isaiah 1:13-14. They are also tied to the reason God took away the first covenant that contained the sabbath, according to Hebrews 10:1-9. Unless you complied with these burnt offerings, you have never kept the commandment to keep the sabbath holy.

the Ten Commandment moral Laws that govern all Heaven and creation

This is abject fiction found nowhere in Scripture.

You have made the sabbath a litmus test of one's salvation, along the same vien of thought Ellen White used when she wrote "It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord" in {6T 356.4}. This nonsense can't be reconciled with the Gospel that affirms our redemption from the law and adoption as His sons and daughters, justified apart from any works we have feigned. And, this seems a good place to remind you of a post you wrote much earlier in this thread:

There is much discussion on what It means to be saved. The question is Am I saved if I don't observe the Sabbath? Do you have any scripture to back up your idea? I can't debate here. So I can't argue, but may have some additional questions.

bugkiller

Is this really where such a question should be directed? Who on on this forum could say anything that would either affirm or negate your current belief as to whether or not you are "saved"?

You questioned the salvation of this individual the moment he agreed with God's conclusion that we are not bound to the covenant from Mount Sinai, nor the sabbath contained therein. Bugkiller was honest and accurate, and you have been unable to respond in like tenor to serious questions and points presented to your attention. Your response is an insult to injury:

You tend to simply ignore every honest question I ask and when I try to tactfully point out possible errors in your logic, you take offense. So I’ll let you have the last word here in your reply. Sorry we could not have an honest conversation about bible truth and church history. db

You haven't answered the content in any of my posts, instead resorting to argumentum ad hominem by labelling me as "peculiar" and "bizzare". It appears an honest conversation wasn't your intent, and you resorted to condemnation of another once your frustration wore on you.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

This is the same allegation we find homosexuals making when when they insist they are not breaking any of God's laws either.

If a homosexual were to say to me "so much condemnation; so little love," I would:

1. Be deeply convicted by His words;
2. Take responsibility for my sin;
3. Ask for the homosexual's forgiveness;
4. Ask for God's forgiveness; and
5. Seek a different course.
​

If I have prophecy and have all knowledge but I do not have love, I am nothing.

BFA

 

[sdadoug]

If a homosexual were to say to me "so much condemnation; so little love," I would:

1. Be deeply convicted by His words;
2. Take responsibility for my sin;
3. Ask for the homosexual's forgiveness;
4. Ask for God's forgiveness; and
5. Seek a different course.
​

If I have prophecy and have all knowledge but I do not have love, I am nothing.

BFA

Suppose that same homosexual raped your 13 year old son at boy scout camp. Same course of action?

 

[bugkiller]

Suppose that same homosexual raped your 13 year old son at boy scout camp. Same course of action?

You have now changed the question from faith to crime and a different course of action should be taken.

bugkiller

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Suppose that same homosexual raped your 13 year old son at boy scout camp. Same course of action?

I sure would hope so. Love is the course of action to which I have been called. Although I would certainly cooperate with a state-initiated prosecution, I would also pursue love and forgivess. If the Spirit is living in me, my words will portray love and forgiveness to the homosexual, not condemnation. After all, I have been forgiven very much.

Now, let's be open and honest about the comparison that you have made. You seem to be comparing those of us who have a different viewpoint to a homosexual who raped your son at Boy Scout Camp. You have revealed more than you intended with respect to the way you view non-SDAs. This gets to the very heart of my point. Too often, our pet subjects become meaningless (and even harmful) if we don't have love.

BFA

 

[bugkiller]

I sure would hope so. Love is the course of action to which I have been called. Although I would certainly cooperate with a state-initiated prosecution, I would also pursue love and forgivess. If the Spirit is living in me, my words will portray love and forgiveness to the homosexual, not condemnation. After all, I have been forgiven very much.

Now, let's be open and honest about the comparison that you have made. You seem to be comparing those of us who have a different viewpoint to a homosexual who raped your son at Boy Scout Camp. You have revealed more than you intended with respect to the way you view non-SDAs. This gets to the very heart of my point. Too often, our pet subjects become meaningless (and even harmful) if we don't have love.

BFA

SDAdoug is not calling or comparing non SDA to homosexuals, or is he?

bugkiller

 

[Byfaithalone1]

SDAdoug is not calling or comparing non SDA to homosexuals, or is he?

bugkiller

It certainly appears that he is seeking to make a comparison. Perhaps he will be willing to articulate exactly what it is that he wishes to compare.

BFA

 

[VictorC]

It certainly appears that he is seeking to make a comparison. Perhaps he will be willing to articulate exactly what it is that he wishes to compare.

BFA

Allow me to give my impression: sdadoug equated your comment with that of a homosexual, equating you with a homosexual.