what post are you referencing from?Obedience
Are you saying you can blatantly break the commandments and be saved?
Not what post you're referencing from............
That question needs context to give a propper answer.......I asked you a simple question based on what I quoted from you. It's really a yes or no question.
If we cant then you and I are in deep trouble.Stryder said:Are you saying you can blatantly break the commandments and be saved?
That question needs context to give a propper answer.......
Did David kill, commit adultery?
Did Moses kill?
Did Paul bare false witness against Stephen?
All men sin and come short.....
Every man breaks the law......
The fact is, you're setting the stage by reasoning without sciptures to imply how badly we need the ten commandments as a standard.
Some key details on the doctrine of faith and whether the law is attached is clearly written in Rom 3:18-31 and Rom ch 6.
If we cant then you and I are in deep trouble.
I'm not saying that we should sin. I'm saying that SIN is SIN.
The law only labels sin and and gives the death penalty.
To make sense of this confusion. I'll give you a simple NO, because you want to establish everyone as being under the law. A person who continues in sin cannot have faith unto salvation by continuing in unrighteousness, so a simple NO is my final answer.Forgive me for not expanding the question to make it simpler for you. I just assumed you'd understand what I was saying. I know that whenever you sin it's a blatant sin. That goes without saying. No one sins on accident. The question isn't about that, but about someone who continues in breaking of the law, with no remorse and no desire to stop. Does that help? And I don't know where you came from with faith. I wasn't talking about faith. So again, can someone blatantly (i.e continue in the breaking of the law without remorse or a desire to stop) break the law and be saved?
To make sense of this confusion. I'll give you a simple NO, because you want to establish everyone as being under the law. A person who continues in sin cannot have faith unto salvation by continuing in unrighteousness, so a simple NO is my final answer.
I'm not surprised that you dont see where faith comes in the picture.
Faith is what Christ commands, and the law is not of faith.
We have a theological divide on what sin is Stryder. You automatically link sin to trangression of the law citing 1John 3:4. The context is not dealing with a view from creation. The statement is only true after the law came.
Paul explained it in more details saying : "before the law, sin was in the world." Both apostles are correct if we consider their contexts. SDA rather ignor that Paul was talking about from Adam to Moses.
Cool then , case closed.Crib please, I didn't say that I don't know where faith comes into the picture. I simply was looking for an answer, which you gave me.
Well, I did'nt say they oppose each other did I? Slight deviation from what is taught lead to error. Would you say I am off base to say, the Jews were the ones present false doctrines to the new Christians at Galatia? Gal 3:1 What do you think they were teaching in error? Gal 3:2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?I know the law isn't of faith, but I don't think that the law and faith are opposed to each other.
First of all Stryder, the propper transliteration of the Greek in that passage means "sin is lawlessness" not "sin is trangression of the law." That's a game changer on what is actually meant vs the premise it's used for. (I'm sorry)And it's funny that you say that 1 John 3:4 is talking about after the law came.
Since we know that Abraham's father served other Gods, we know that circumcision was given as a law given to Abraham. Law by definition requires a people to follow it. You're good at taking over dialog without having to prove anything you say as facts.God said that Abraham kept His law. So whether you think that law was the 10c's or not is irrelevant. There was some law in existence that Abraham kept. And SDA's aren't ignoring anything.
The law of God was on man's heart before sin. Sin is breaking God's law or rather, going against the word of God. It's always been wrong to murder, lie, cheat, worship other gods, etc, etc. At no time in existence of the universe has it been ok to do those things. God didn't need to write them down until the Exodus.
You should really go back and take a look at the sanctuary. The law of God is in the ark of the covenant for a reason. It was placed in the Holiest for a reason.
The actual problem here is that you look at the new testament and work backwards. I look at the old testament and move forward.
Stryder,
by running me through the loop about law from creation, I get to reject everything you present because you know it's all debatable.
I get the ugly reputation and you get to be the hero from bringing up those familair SDA soundbites that are not clear truths at all.
The big question is what can you prove is the truth from the scriptures.
Works of the law? When I read that I don't think Paul is talking about the ten commandments. Why? Because the first commandment says "Thou shalt have no other god's before Me". Somehow I doubt Paul was saying that keeping that commandment was a bad idea. Second, the jews had turned the sacrifical system into a means by which one could attain salvation. That, along with circumcision was probably what they were pressing on the Galatians.Well, I did'nt say they oppose each other did I? Slight deviation from what is taught lead to error. Would you say I am off base to say, the Jews were the ones present false doctrines to the new Christians at Galatia? Gal 3:1 What do you think they were teaching in error? Gal 3:2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
I believe they were teaching that they had to be circumcized and keep the law. What do you think?
Lawlessness = the absence of law right? It's not a game changer for me. for you maybe but not for meFirst of all Stryder, the propper transliteration of the Greek in that passage means "sin is lawlessness" not "sin is trangression of the law." That's a game changer on what is actually meant vs the premise it's used for. (I'm sorry)
Since we know that Abraham's father served other Gods, we know that circumcision was given as a law given to Abraham. Law by definition requires a people to follow it. You're good at taking over dialog without having to prove anything you say as facts.
It's funny that when I use scripture it's "Isolated text" but when you use it it's being provided in the full context of which it out to be understood.I've been for this ride through isolated text many times but I cannot ignor what is written to hold on to what is reasoned in error.
I don't care that you call it commentary, I just don't like the fact that you don't consider what you say as "commentary". If I say something about scripture, its commentary. If you say something about scripture, it's not? How does that work? I don't think it's necessary to post scripture every five seconds just for the fun of it. If you don't know the text I'm referring to, I'll be more then happy to provide it. When I talk on here I'm speaking from what I already understand from the scriptures that I've studied myself.I know you hate me to calll it commentary, but you dont even care to post text anymore.
Stryder said:Are you saying you can blatantly break the commandments and be saved?
Stryder said:I asked you a simple question based on what I quoted from you. It's really a yes or no question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------That question needs context to give a propper answer.......
Did David kill, commit adultery?
Did Moses kill?
Did Paul bare false witness against Stephen?
All men sin and come short.....
Every man breaks the law......
The fact is, you're setting the stage by reasoning without scriptures to imply how badly we need the ten commandments as a standard.
Some key details on the doctrine of faith and whether the law is attached is clearly written in Rom 3:18-31 and Rom ch 6.
Originally Posted by Stryder
Are you saying you can blatantly break the commandments and be saved?If we cant then you and I are in deep trouble.
I'm not saying that we should sin. I'm saying that SIN is SIN.
The law only labels sin and and gives the death penalty.
Stryder said:Forgive me for not expanding the question to make it simpler for you.......
Apperently you just want to tell me your truths without bible evidence of responding to my findings.Stryder said:The law of God was on man's heart before sin. Sin is breaking God's law or rather, going against the word of God. It's always been wrong to murder, lie, cheat, worship other gods, etc, etc. At no time in existence of the universe has it been ok to do those things. God didn't need to write them down until the Exodus.
You front me with 101 issues at once and you dont care to directly tackle my rebuttals......The truth is still out their if you have not proven anything.Not to sound rude, but what you think is debatable is irrelevant......
Stryder..... Whenever you post, it seem like you're sending me on a wild goose chase, rather than to fellowship and to edify God's word. You act as you're intelegent and I am ignorant about what the scriptures say.
I love the hunt, so I engage with you. I'm not going accept being constantly disrespected for my efforts to find answers to your questions. As in most of our dialogs you end up going away frustrated because I see no biblical truths, but rather just questions and commentary.
Let's talk again when we can reason together like Christian men should.
The only reason why Adventists today have the understanding of scripture that they do is because the pioneers "measured the sanctuary" as the book of Revelations prophesied that they would. Seriously, take a walk through the sanctuary from the door to the Most Holy Place and I guarantee you'll see what it is that we see. The eternal nature of God's law is revealed there, that why I know the law was around before creation. It may not have existed in the form that it does now but the very principles of the law have always been there.
What are you saying? Can you repost a question that you've answered from me? You've asked all the questions so far Stryder, you've posted no text. I have to figure where to find what you're saying.Crib, the problem is that every answer I give you is commentary. I don't try to send you on wild goose chases. I told you that all of this, and I do mean all of it, could be cleared up if you studied the sancatuary. You said essentially said "not gonna happen". The only reason why Adventists today have the understanding of scripture that they do is because the pioneers "measured the sanctuary" as the book of Revelations prophesied that they would. Seriously, take a walk through the sanctuary from the door to the Most Holy Place and I guarantee you'll see what it is that we see. The eternal nature of God's law is revealed there, that why I know the law was around before creation. It may not have existed in the form that it does now but the very principles of the law have always been there.
I've read the bible from front to rear many times over to be able to asked of you, please dont substitute what had fading glory for what have eternal glory. Please dont put the finger on stone above the blood on the cross.The law of God was on man's heart before sin.
Sin is breaking God's law or rather, going against the word of God.
It's always been wrong to murder, lie, cheat, worship other gods, etc, etc.
At no time in existence of the universe has it been ok to do those things.
God didn't need to write them down until the Exodus.
I've read the bible from front to rear many times over to be able to asked of you, please dont substitute what had fading glory for what have eternal glory. Please dont put the finger on stone above the blood on the cross.
The sanctuary to me reprensents the time when the glory and presence of God was on earth, when God came to dwell with His chosen people.
Yes the ark of the covenant contained His law, was put under the mercy seat, which was in the most Holy place.
The glory that you want me to see about His law, does not compare to what happen when the curtain that seperate the holy from the most holy was rent. We now have access to the Holy of Holy and to the presence of God. We are now His dwelling place.
I'm not saying we should ignore anything from the gospels. But the gospels don't teach that the ten commandments were done away with after being fulfilled.Should we ignore what the gospel teach about when the law came why the law came and when the law ends because of fulfillment?
It seem that leadership patches are given out for raising these historical talking points that hints sabbath and the law before Moses. Some of the topics are; Sabbath at creation, Adam's sin=law is present, Able's right sacrifice, Cain knew murder was wrong, Noah clean animals, Joseph knew adultery was wrong, Abraham kept God's law and others.
No one seem to care that these are historical arguments that does not stand squarely on scriptures alone. They only want to establish a traceable link to appear to substantuate a creation instituted sabbath and ten commandments.
Crib, when you said "the sanctuary to me represents..." you've made it relative. I'm not trying to compare the "glory" of the law to the "glory" of the cross. For me the two go hand in hand and it is altogether glorious. What I'm hoping you will see is the symbolism contained within the sanctuary. Scripture tells us that the earthly sanctuary was fashioned after the pattern. given Moses by God. If the earthly one was made according to a pattern, that means it was a shadow, so to speak, of the actual sanctuary which is in heaven. Have you considered that?
I'm not saying we should ignore anything from the gospels. But the gospels don't teach that the ten commandments were done away with after being fulfilled.
They do stand on scripture alone. God said plainly that Abraham kept His law, commandments, and statutes. God told Moses, before Sinai, that He was going to test the Israelites to see if they would keep His sabbath. The character of God is revealed in scripture, enough so that we can see that He is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. The problem is that, as I said before, you look at the NT first then back at the OT. That's like trying to assemble a house walls and roof first before laying the foundation.
We both know that commandments 1-3 and 5-10 still are enforce. So to say that the law as a total whole is done away with is foolish. Our only point of contention is the sabbath law. The fourth commandment is paraphrased by God in Exodus 16 and then spelled out in Exodus 20. The OT is full of passages from God pleading for His people to keep His day holy, but all of this becomes of no relevance once you get to the NT? I can't follow that logic.
I must admit after so many years of adventism and in the end being disappointed with it I am no longer certain about the sabbath. Maybe I will return one day to keeping it but as for now I am not sure...
Maybe God has ceased to care about the sabbath because He realized that people were not able to keep it...??
I must admit after so many years of adventism and in the end being disappointed with it I am no longer certain about the sabbath. Maybe I will return one day to keeping it but as for now I am not sure...
Maybe God has ceased to care about the sabbath because He realized that people were not able to keep it...??
Why is so much said in SDA about the church at large but many SDA members seem to create a void between the church and Adventism?13. Remnant and Its Mission:
The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ, but in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent. This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; it coincides with the work of judgment in heaven and results in a work of repentance and reform on earth. Every believer is called to have a personal part in this worldwide witness. (Rev. 12:17; 14:6-12; 18:1-4; 2 Cor. 5:10; Jude 3, 14; 1 Peter 1:16-19; 2 Peter 3:10-14; Rev. 21:1-14.)
14. Unity in the Body of Christ:
The church is one body with many members, called from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. In Christ we are a new creation; distinctions of race, culture, learning, and nationality, and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation. Through the revelation of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures we share the same faith and hope, and reach out in one witness to all. This unity has its source in the oneness of the triune God, who has adopted us as His children. (Rom. 12:4, 5; 1 Cor. 12:12-14; Matt. 28:19, 20; Ps. 133:1; 2 Cor. 5:16, 17; Acts 17:26, 27; Gal. 3:27, 29; Col. 3:10-15; Eph. 4:14-16; 4:1-6; John 17:20-23.)
Within the 27fun beliefs are two statements that seem to legitimized the mission of other denominations.
Why is so much said in SDA about the church at large but many SDA members seem to create a void between the church and Adventism?
it's stated that a remnant was called out from the church..Does that mean that the church failed or no longer God's people?
God is a covenant God. The New Covenant is sealed with the blood of Jesus Christ. Did God abbandon His covenant?
Is the adoption as His Children invalidate by not joining the SDA church?
Is God the author of this devison??
Thanks for posting OntheDLHere is a quote that I think will give you the best answer that also sums up what we believe.
'The church is God's fortress. His city of refuge, which He holds in a revolted world. Any betrayal of the church is treachery to Him who has bought mankind with the blood of His only-begotten Son. From the beginning, faithful souls have constituted the church on earth. In every age the Lord has had His watchmen, who have borne a faithful testimony to the generation in which they lived. These sentinels gave the message of warning; and when they were called to lay off their armor, others took up the work. God brought these witnesses into covenant relation with Himself, uniting the church on earth with the church in heaven. He has sent forth His angels to minister to His church, and the gates of hell have not been able to prevail against His people.
Through centuries of persecution, conflict, and darkness, God has sustained His church. Not one cloud has fallen upon it that He has not prepared for; not one opposing force has risen to counterwork His work, that He has not foreseen. All has taken place as He predicted. He has not left His church forsaken, but has traced in prophetic declarations what would occur, and that which His Spirit inspired the prophets to foretell has been brought about. All His purposes will be fulfilled. His law is linked with His throne, and no power of evil can destroy it. Truth is inspired and guarded by God; and it will triumph over all opposition.'
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?