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.
Exactly. Those who are full of Jesus, live lives of love, which means they fulfill THE MORAL CODE OF MOSES! The righteousness of THE LAW is fulfilled in us.Sure. If you love your neighbor, are you going to steal from him, kill him, commit adultery with their spouse, covet everything, dishonor your parents? It would never occur to you to do so, why do we need a law to tell us NOT to do something you are not even thinking of?
Exactly. Those who are full of Jesus, live lives of love, which means they fulfill THE MORAL CODE OF MOSES! The righteousness of THE LAW is fulfilled in us.
See? Same law. Not done away. Only fulfilled.
Not only in Christ, but also in US who are in Him.
But, if you don't see that the Ten Commandments was the First Covenant, and the sign of that covenant, the Sabbath, was done away, you are going to have confused believers trying to keep the Sabbath, making whole denominations who believe any non-Sabbath keeper is damned, that Sunday is the mark of the beast, and all sorts of heresies, when it doesn't exist. Jesus does! You don't even have to believe that Saturday is the Sabbath. How many Protestant denominations, and maybe the Catholics who believe that Sunday is now the Sabbath and all the same rules apply? No! We need to teach TRUTH.
Remember my background...as yours was Mennonite, mine was Seventh-day Adventist. Both Christian denominations, but arrogant and elitists, at least mine was.
What was passing away was the glory of the old covenant. The ministration of death--which was the condemnation that still comes upon those who disobey. But for us who are in Christ, condemnation is lifted. The glory of the old is surpassed by the glory of Christ Himself, who is the perfect fulfillment of the righteousness encoded in ALL of the Law. Which means, He Himself agrees with the moral code of the Old Testament.2 Corinthians 3:
7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.
I don't think the Mennonites are arrogant. They major on humility and forgiveness... but elitists, yes.
Hebrews says this about the first covenant:
Hebrews 9:10 "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."
The moral code of right and wrong was not "meats and drinks, divers washings, and carnal ordinances."
Those were the ceremonies. The types and shadows that pointed forward to Christ Himself.
THOSE were the things that were done away, in Christ.
But the moral code cannot change. It stands forever.
What was once holy, will forever be holy to God.
What was once evil, will forever remain evil to God.
Otherwise, God Himself would have had to change in moral character.
That's why the moral code about divorce and remarriage still stands.
The emphasis of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit. That is the biggest difference. If you walk in the Spirit, you will NOT fulfill the lust of the flesh.
Polly, the eternal law of God is forever, whereas the Ten Commandments was passing away. That is the only moral code we need. Can you tell me what that law says? I've repeated it enough. It's your turn. LOL
Exactly. Those who are full of Jesus, live lives of love, which means they fulfill THE MORAL CODE OF MOSES! The righteousness of THE LAW is fulfilled in us.
See? Same law. Not done away. Only fulfilled.
Not only in Christ, but also in US who are in Him.
I think your upbringing among the false teachings of the SDA's is coloring the way you see the Law.The Ten Commandments are not called the laws of Moses.
I think your upbringing among the false teachings of the SDA's is coloring the way you see the Law.
Since you were so heavily taught that the Sabbath is the key to the entire Old Covenant, you may feel you need to find a way that the entire thing is gone--including God's moral code, revealed in the Law.
But the law of love is not enough.The emphasis of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit. That is the biggest difference. If you walk in the Spirit, you will NOT fulfill the lust of the flesh.
Polly, the eternal law of God is forever. That is the only moral code we need. Can you tell me what that law says? I've repeated it enough. It's your turn. LOL
Pretty simple.1Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
But the law of love is not enough.
The world--and modern Christianity today--says that if we love each other, there is no right or wrong anymore. But even you, I am sure, will point to certain parts of the Old Testament, to show what God considers right and wrong.
For instance, pacifism. Is national defense right, in God's eyes? Is there any New Testament verse you can point to, to say that? Is it right or wrong, for God's people to take part in war?
What about marrying your close relative, such as your sister?
What about men wearing clothing designed for women?
There are no injunctions in the NT against these things.
But they are still wrong, for society.
As Paul said...
Pretty simple.
It still stands, as God's perfect standard of right and wrong.
I think your upbringing among the false teachings of the SDA's is coloring the way you see the Law.
Since you were so heavily taught that the Sabbath is the key to the entire Old Covenant, you may feel you need to find a way that the entire thing is gone--including God's moral code, revealed in the Law.
What was passing away was the glory of the old covenant. The ministration of death--which was the condemnation that still comes upon those who disobey. But for us who are in Christ, condemnation is lifted. The glory of the old is surpassed by the glory of Christ Himself, who is the perfect fulfillment of the righteousness encoded in ALL of the Law. Which means, He Himself agrees with the moral code of the Old Testament.
There are several Scriptures telling us that those who are in Christ are not under condemnation of the Law. I can think of these right off the top of my head:Expand on your statement: "who are in Christ, condemnation is lifted." Quote the scripture. I want to see if we are on the same page.
1) when is it right to call a person an unbeliever? I refer to our Lord in Matthew 7:16 and Matthew 7:21. Someone can say all day long that they believe in Christ, but if their works don't line up, they aren't believers.While I want to follow that interesting interaction between 1stcenturylady and pollyjetix, let me just tell what my sleep has brought me, or rather what the debate yesterday brought me
1) I would not (if I became a minister) advocate that a divorced woman has to be open at all times to take her unbelieving husband back. This is a difficult one, because really how far does the principle of peace extend? and when is it right to call a person an unbeliever?
2) Point taken, it can not be proven from the immediate context without the shadow of doubt that the "unmarried" in 7:9 does not include divorced people.
3) however, I do not take the 4-division of chapter 7 proposed. If it were a right understanding, then category 3 could not be "the rest". Then Paul would have had to line up like this: (1) the virgins (2) the unmarried and widows (3) the married (4) the rest. So I stick to my understanding that the discussion of the virgins in 7:25-39 does not refer back to the first part of chapter 7.
OK, let me guide you through this, do you recall what you asked me to prove? And if so, what was it?
Also, do you think one can commit adultery as in the adultery Christ was talking about by remarrying after divorce, (accept for the fornication) and still go to heaven?
lol at this point I don't even recall. You'll have to scroll back, sorryI really would like to read what you guys are referring to, but Kenny didn't give us your whole quote to back-track (I wish he would stop doing that!). Could you give me the # of the post he was responding to?
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?