Confused about the commandment that was "abolished." (2)

[tall73]

Looks like her vision was right.

it looks like you failed to address the post I made.

I assume you mean Ellen White talking about those who left the Advent movement being among its harshest critics.

Newsflash. That was hardly prophetic. They were already doing it in her day because some of the doctrines didn't add up.

However, am I your enemy because I am discussing the Scriptures with you? Did I not say I am still studying it? I was willing to change my views before, and if convinced will again.

 

[MoreCoffee]

1,222 posts ... have we reached any kind of consensus yet?

 

[tall73]

Looks like her vision was right.

Perhaps so I can know how you approach things, can you look at this statement of Ellen White, and respond to a simple question.

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's Word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar of the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {MR760 19.2}

If someone comes to you with an objection to an Adventist pillar doctrine and they present Scriptures for you to look over, do you entertain their arguments, and examine the Scriptures, to see if they could be true? Or do you follow her advice and not receive them?

 

[astein]

Yes in God is perfection. That is why I asked the question. Have you kept them completely? Never broke a one?

Mercy is a good thing. Do you agree? That doesn't mean Gods own are careless and desiring to break the commandments.

How come one would argue against the commandments, when they are good? Paul doesn't disagree with Gods commandments, Paul disagrees with worldly mankinds definition, as we read in the gospels. If one disagree's with the gospels, they aren't actually believing in God.

 

[astein]

The idea of Gentile Christians violating the 10 commandments is akin to saying that we should court marshal civilians for breaking navy laws.

Serving sin is akin to being a thorn bush instead of a fruitful tree.
The 10 commandments are good. Who serves wickedness?

 

[Stryder06]

You seem happy but what are you rejoicing about?

That the man found freedom in the law of God. That's kind of the way it works when you do it right.

 

[Cribstyl]

Ok, that is helpful. Thank you.

In the Commandment itself [Exodus 20:8-11], why would God also include animals and "the stranger", (vs 10) if it is not also to include the gentiles?

Was Moses a prophet to the Gentiles? Being strangers means that God did not speak to them.
Is it not clear that if borders was established, then the rest of world was not extended this law?

Why would God say that there was to be "one Law"?

One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. Exodus 12:49

The context of Ex12 proves what commandments God required the stranger to keep while being with the COI as they departed from Egypt (passover feast and circumcision).
Sabbath was not commanded as yet, it was not an option.
Moses required circumcision on the sabbath day because it preceded the sabbath command.
Jesus confirmed that Moses required circumcision on the sabbath because it was passed down from the fathers. This prove that sabbath was not passed down from Abraham.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That the man found freedom in the law of God. That's kind of the way it works when you do it right.

May you always find freedom in the right use of the law.

 

[tzadik]

Was Moses a prophet to the Gentiles? Being strangers means that God did not speak to them.
Is it not clear that if borders was established, then the rest of world was not extended this law?

The context of Ex12 proves what commandments God required the stranger to keep while being with the COI as they departed from Egypt (passover feast and circumcision).
Sabbath was not commanded as yet, it was not an option.
Moses required circumcision on the sabbath day because it preceded the sabbath command.
Jesus confirmed that Moses required circumcision on the sabbath because it was passed down from the fathers. This prove that sabbath was not passed down from Abraham.

When WAS the Sabbath "passed" down according to your understanding?

 

[bugkiller]

1,222 posts ... have we reached any kind of consensus yet?

It will never be settled because the record on the scoreboard does not show them to have won. They are sore losers throwing a fit. They have not in 6 years I have been here made their point. The fact is all they can do is make noise.

bugkiller

 

[MoreCoffee]

It will never be settled because the record on the scoreboard does not show them to have won. They are sore losers throwing a fit. They have not in 6 years I have been here made their point. The fact is all they can do is make noise.

bugkiller

I was just wondering ... after 1231 posts this thread must be getting longer than the bible. You'd think that either

• everything that ought to be said has already been said in here or
• folk just like to repeat themselves a whole lot so they post the same ideas with slightly different words over and over and over again.

Still ... one can hope that some kind of consensus might be reachable, after all, if this thread is longer than the bible one might hope it has achieved at least as much clarity as the bible has on the question of sabbath keeping.

 

[Stryder06]

<snip> Still ... one can hope that some kind of consensus might be reachable, after all, if this thread is longer than the bible one might hope it has achieved at least as much clarity as the bible has on the question of sabbath keeping.

If I may, the bible is crystal clear about the sabbath. It's mans usage of the sacred text that is the issue.

 

[bugkiller]

Serving sin is akin to being a thorn bush instead of a fruitful tree.
The 10 commandments are good. Who serves wickedness?

So is not observing the 4th commandment wicked behaviour? And for who.

bugkiller

 

[MoreCoffee]

If I may, the bible is crystal clear about the sabbath. It's mans usage of the sacred text that is the issue.

I see, but since you're a man and so are your interlocutors (speaking generically) how can anybody ever know what it's crystal clear words mean if we're all doing the "man's usage of the sacred text" thing?

 

[tzadik]

I was just wondering ... after 1231 posts this thread must be getting longer than the bible. You'd think that either

• everything that ought to be said has already been said in here or
• folk just like to repeat themselves a whole lot so they post the same ideas with slightly different words over and over and over again.

Still ... one can hope that some kind of consensus might be reachable, after all, if this thread is longer than the bible one might hope it has achieved at least as much clarity as the bible has on the question of sabbath keeping.

I find it quite interesting that God would take the time to emphasize "REMEMBER the Sabbath day"... when He issued the instructions regarding His Holy day...

It almost seems prophetic.
As if He KNEW that many would try to make His people FORGET or (change) His Holy Day...

He was up to something for sure
--

This makes even more sense when you look at Daniel 7:25 where Daniel describes the Anti-Messiah as someone who will come to specifically do 4 things."(1)He will speak out against the Most High and (2)wear down the saints of the Highest One, and (3)he will intend to make alterations in times and in (4)Law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time."

 

[bugkiller]

Praise God

Kind of reminds me of that line from The Ten Commandments.

Moses - "THERE IS NO FREEDOM WITHOUT THE LAW"

The law gives no freedom. The law restrains and punishes its violation.

Restraint is no freedom.

bugkiller

 

[tzadik]

The law gives no freedom. The law restrains and punishes its violation.

Restraint is no freedom.

bugkiller

It's all about the correct perspective buggy...to you they might seem like "restraints"


"And I will walk at liberty, for I seek Your precepts."
David knew what was up

 

[bugkiller]

In other words you refuse to answer a very simply question.

Please state that you have read those Scriptures and present some kind of proof as in disscussion of them.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

It's all about the correct perspective buggy...to you they might seem like "restraints"


"And I will walk at liberty, for I seek Your precepts."
David knew what was up

Is thou shalt not restarint or freedom?

bugkiller

 

[tzadik]

The law gives no freedom. The law restrains and punishes its violation.

Restraint is no freedom.

bugkiller

It's all about the correct perspective buggy...to you they might seem like "restraints"


"And I will walk at liberty, for I seek Your precepts."
David knew what was up

1. How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers!
2. But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and in His law he meditates day and night.
3. He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in its season and its leaf does not wither; and in whatever he does, he prospers.
4. The wicked are not so, but they are like chaff which the wind drives away.
5. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6. For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

Psalm 1 single-handedly disproves your above post.