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.
Only because I don't like pain. I have certainly understood His comments may need to be taken literally despite the fact that the context was metaphorical, and symbolic (not literal.) That is clear to see, and it would be less than honest to suggest Christ meant to convey someone literally cut their arm off if it offends them. We should know He meant to purge one's self - to cut off the things that lead to the offense.
Yet, and still, people do "cut" themselves for reason of righteousness. I have thought about chemical castration, and vasectomy myself.
And, the follow up would be if owing the Law is not necessary, why would Christ make such a statement anyway - to be taken metaphorically or literally? Why is that law to be followed over others - pertaining to sin? How is sin defined if God's Laws are not accounted for?
I bet you believe what your church teaches over the Scripture. Your church teaches Jesus came to show it was indeed possible to obey the law perfectly instead of Jesus is our Redeemer. This remains a constant with every SDA individual I have ever talked with. Another alarming thing your church teaches is Jesus is just another prophet with Heb 1. We simply do not have the same Jesus.
Wow, just wow.
You better stop while your behind.
Certainly not obligation to the law for the purposes of salvation. Out of all the exam at ions I have seen on here, supporters of footing the law have never seemed to insinuate following the Law was a matter of salvation at all. Quite the contrary, in fact, under some circumstances.
I have explicitly said that following the law is about obedience, not salvation. So, it would be disingenuous to continue to accuse me of saying I think someone must follow the Law to be saved, for example.
A promise made to Abraham applies to both Jew and Gentile alike. The first covenant made with Israel is exclusive and locks out the Gentile. The second covenant made with Israel includes the Gentile. Both must appropriate it to be effective. This can be proven with Scripture.No, which is why I asked how one would know they are a Hebrew or not definitively, and why I asked why Hebrews would have to follow the law, and gentiles don't - yet both receive the same "reward."
Bingo!!! We have a winner!!! This can be verified with the Gospel of John.So the literal living Word of God AKA Christ did not give us the standard to be judged by a righteous Judge, and still stand?
Such a thing would not change a heart. It would only prevent certain fruits from occurring.Only because I don't like pain. I have certainly understood His comments may need to be taken literally despite the fact that the context was metaphorical, and symbolic (not literal.) That is clear to see, and it would be less than honest to suggest Christ meant to convey someone literally cut their arm off if it offends them. We should know He meant to purge one's self - to cut off the things that lead to the offense.
Yet, and still, people do "cut" themselves for reason of righteousness. I have thought about chemical castration, and vasectomy myself.
And, the follow up would be if owing the Law is not necessary, why would Christ make such a statement anyway - to be taken metaphorically or literally? Why is that law to be followed over others - pertaining to sin? How is sin defined if God's Laws are not accounted for?
What do you have to say about these quotes taken from
SDA sources -
"Thus the distinction is drawn between the loyal and the disloyal. Those who desire to have the seal of God in their foreheads must keep the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Thus they are distinguished from the disloyal, who have accepted a manmade institution in place of the true Sabbath. The observance of God's rest day is a mark of distinction between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not."
Ellen White, Review & Herald, April 23, 1901.
No one is saved who is a transgressor of the law of God, which is the foundation of his government in heaven and in earth. {RH June 17, 1890, par. 8}
It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." 1 Samuel 2:30. {6T 356.4}
But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4}
No one who disregards the fourth commandment, after becoming enlightened in regard to the claims of the Sabbath, can be held guiltless in the sight of God. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 14}
All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light.{HS 234.3}
As persons become convinced from the Scriptures that the claims of the fourth commandment are still binding, the question is often raised, Is it necessary in order to secure salvation that we keep the Sabbath? This is a question of grave importance. If the light has shone from the word of God, if the message has been presented to men, as it was to Pharaoh, and they refuse to heed that message, if they reject the light, they refuse to obey God, and cannot be saved in their disobedience. {RH, January 5, 1886 par. 2}
Do you still wish to say the law is not necessary for salvation?
Elder has stated here in this sub forum keeping the Sabbath is required for salvation. Can dig up the post for proof if requested. If it has been deleted some here have copied the post and can provide it.
You do not much follow what they are posting. Their common post is Mat 19. At least 2 of them notably repost from the chapter. I think I can easily come up with a quote by Elder. I will look for it.No commandment of God is more important the the next, so saying the 4th commandment must be followed over the others - especially for salvation reasons - does not resonate with me. We are required to be perfect as God - from the Word of God Himself. That means following All of God's Laws.
But, I am not a seven day adventist.
This is true; any transgressors of the Law is deserving of death, and God wills not to be in the presence of sin - which is that very transgression. But, thanks be to Christ that He laid down His live for the remission of sins, and so that we could boldly approach the throne of God to supplement our faith with a real relationship with our creator - without the fear of judgment. Through faith in Christ (and the works to substantiate that faith i.e. obedience,) we are justified before God.
Again, however, I am not a seven-day-adventist.
Absolutely, but man is not justified by works alone, but faith in Christ. Faith and obedience work symbiotically - in union. God will honor who He will honor, but Christ was given for the remission of sins.
This is not only true of the fourth commandment, but anyone who claims to love God and does not follow His commandments. It is written that we be perfect as our Father in heaven. We are to be like Christ - who obeyed and entertained every detail of God's command... even unto death. Salvation is in Christ, yet even Christ demands perfection from us. And, when we fail in that perfection, He is presented to the Father as a token for the remission of our sin should we approach God with an honest and repentant heart. He demanded of us that we forgive our brothers 7x70=490 times; certainly God assures us He is more long-suffering that man. And, He has told us He would forgive our transgressions if we repent of our sins.
But, I am not a seven day adventist.
This is true if one refuses to repent, and recognize that the commandments are good for instruction, and still in effect. Thus is also true for all transgression of the law of God. But, thanks be to God that He gave us a redeemer who is an advocate for us in our favor before God.
But, I am not a seven day adventist.
Even Paul says those that have tasted the validity of Salvation and the Kingdom have no salvation in later rejecting it. Anyone who has the "(en)light(enment)" of God, and rejects it in favor of sin is certainly in more of a wretch than one who doesn't know God and transgresses. This should be common sense - and applies to all of God's commandments. Yet, Christ provides salvation for the absolute wretched of wretches should they repent and place their faith in Him.
But, I am not a seven day adventist.
This is true. No one who transgresses the law can be saved from death unless the person is a repentant and faithful believer in Christ. In order to be repentant, you have to know that transgression of any of God's law is a sin - otherwise the efforts and contexts of repentance are mute. Active and constant reject or of God's law - devoid of repentance - will consequence in damnation, especially when a faithful and exploitive foundation in Christ is neglected.
But, I am not a seven day adventist.
Adherence and following the Law of God is not an issue of salvation; it is an issue of obedience. But, it is a partner of faith - a necessary show and activity of faith - through works that matter to God. I have said exactly what I meant to say.
I would like to see where Elder sad keeping the Sabbath is necessary for salvationwithout any other implied context. The way he, and others who align with him have been bombarded with posts would leave plenty of context to be desired. I don't think anyone on this forum - even SDA - actually think obedience to the Law is the only and/or main criterion for salvation. I have personally never seen that argument ever made on these forums - ever.
If you say so.And, I kept saying I was not a SDA not to be messy, but to point to out my individuality in faith, and to destroy the temptation to connect anything I believe with SDA, and vice versa. Even inter-denomination persons are individuals.
I have never heard of Ellen White until I was accused of being a follow of her on these forums, mainly because I believed the Sabbath should be honored, and despite my "non-denominational" faith icon. That is the reason I don't bother with one today: people will accuse no matter what your word is.
The problem is in both defining what IS "commandments" when spoken of in the New Testament. There are plenty of "commandments" that were given that were not the 10 commandments and yet the pro law crowd ignore these as "commandments" when the word is spoken and substitute the 10 commandments in place of them. They also ignore the FACT that Jesus and the Apostles spoke many times of a commandment to "love your neighbor" and equated this as essentially "replacing" the 10 commandments in that if one "loves their neighbor" they are seen as in compliance for purposes of those who ARE equating the Law as needful. What we have is the following:At this instance, I am not trying to pick sides.
But, when I had the same conflicts as this thread I always seem to come to the same question:
What separates a believer and doer in Christ from someone who is a good person, knows of Christ and values life if we don't have to obey any of the commandments God put before us - whether seemingly directed toward gentile or Hebrew? I always think of the demons - Legion especially - that knew Christ better than the disciples, but yet were demons. What is the distinction between those of us that claim to love God and do not do His commandments, and secularists who know of God and Christ (or, even fallen angels: after all, I am inclined to believe they love the Father, just not His creation i.e. us")?
It can't be belief alone, because Christ said, "even the demons believe, and tremble." There has to be something else that distinguishes the believer.
It's not that any of us claim one commandment us more or less important than another. I say that none of the ten commandments are required simply because they were in the ten commandments given to the Israelites as part of their covenant. If Christ taught similar things to some of them as part of a new covenant, that does not automatically re-enact the old one.
Well, I am sure we agree to disagree.
But we also agree on another thing: I do not think any commandment of God is more, or less important than any others. Whatever began with, "And the Lord said," or, "And the Lord God commanded," and/or, "And Christ said" is a commandment.
For that reason, I am non-denominational. You will not find me heralding the 4th commandment over the 6th, or the second commandment over the ninth. All of them are of equal merit to me, because if I unrepentantly break any of them, the temperature of the hell fire is the same in degrees and celcius.
But, I also do not think sole obedience to the law gains one salvation. That is a mistake of the pharisees.
If that doesn't clear things up, then any more words I present - especially in addition to the other words I have said - WI be futility, and a possible stumbling block or antagonizing sore to you and others.
I mean exactly what I say, and have said.
Fair enough. Your position is as clear as I could ask for.
You did not notice the "ark of the testimony"? Only the ten were called such and only the ten were in the ark.Thanks for writing your opinion.
I honestly don't find it convincing evidence that the commandments are separated from the law. The law is what provided for the use of the tabernacle. God placed the words on the tablets and they were handled by the Israelites according to Israelite law.
The tabernacle allowed priests to approach the presence of God. However Christ said that He is now the only way and that our bodies are now the temples.
Revelation shows the presence of lightning and voices, but never said that the ten commandments were separated from the law within the old covenant. That's why it's called the ark of the covenant. It was the central item of that particular covenant. It is not central in the new covenant. Neither is Matthew saying "ten commandments" but "law" and "prophets"
It is clear that your stumbling block is the Sabbath. If you read Exodus 16 you will find that that is the test of obedience. That is the only command that is challenged and God knew that. Ex 16:I agree. We have instructions from Christ to obey. No doubt about it. It is not the existence of instruction, but which instruction it is, that is being debated. There is enough Scripture to show me that all days can now be equal and that no man should be judged based on sabbaths to convince me that it cannot be the entirety of a set of rules which includes the mandatory sabbath that Scripture says is now a matter of liberty: in other words, we are free from it!
Jesus does not share your claim. Mat 7:"Just" believing is distinguishing enough for God. Thank God it's His job to weed out the tares from the wheat.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?