Love and Self control

[VictorC]

I hope you don't mind that I remove all the fluff from your posts.

I do mind.
Make an effort to address the major points you introduce, and you don't respond in like character.

Romans 7:10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.

The commandments were to bring life but instead they brought death.

Why is this?

Because of sin.

Take away the sin through Christ and behold...life from what use to bring death.

Just as sin existed before the law levied transgressions against us, sin continues to exist after we have been redeemed from the law. The law incurs a death sentence for transgressions, and not sin. As long as the law retains jurisdiction over a person, they are rendered "guilty before God" just as Romans 3:19 concludes.

Matthew 19:17 But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.''

Spoken during the tenure of the first covenant, compliant with the tenor the first covenant was dictated by Moses in Deuteronomy 30:15-16; compliance was a requisite to live - and there is no one compliant, as God concluded when He "committed them all to disobedience".
There is no exception to God's conclusion, and no appeal against it.

The commandments of God are part of the new covenant, which I have showed you time and time again. They go from stone in the old covenant to the heart in the new covenant through love.

I conclude that you haven't made any attempt to determine what God's "My law" is, that He stated was not according to Sinai. You simply repeat Ellen White's error by claiming that Sinai was transferred into your heart, and then you can't reconcile that when Sinai was taken away, as Hebrews 10:9 states. God did not move the former covenant into you just to rip it back out seconds later.

1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

By telling us that Sinai is nothing, it begs you to locate God's commandments outside of that covenant that is determined to be "nothing".

The commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus is what the new covenant is all about.

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

This same author documented the commandments of God, and it isn't what the SDA church has taught you they are.

I don't think we're going to go anywhere with this so we might as well just part ways because I will say they are the commandments that God wrote on stone and then transfers them to the heart and you will say no they are not.

Yet you cannot reconcile this assertion with Scripture, you haven't made any attempt to, and this is a thread you initiated for a purpose only you know. I came to discussion forums of this nature because I have found that it provides an accelerated learning curve that a university setting would be embarrassed by, as those who rely on Scripture press others for answers that we need to scramble for. Many times we discover in the process that beliefs we held dear to ourselves are foreign to what the Bible teaches.

That is a benefit a discussion forum offers to you. You have been pressed to find where answers are to be found in Scripture, and you leave when you can't - because the beliefs you continue to hold dear aren't Biblical, and those beliefs are more precious to you than the Gospel the Bible describes.

Go in peace if you must.

 

[Kira Light]

This is a pretty epic battle. Just from an outsiders perspective, I might recommend taking it just 1 verse at a time.

For example, couldn't you just take Matthew 19:17 and try to look at it in context? It seems like you never sit and address a single verse, but instead keep running off to 20 others. It just keeps going in an endless circle.

 

[k4c]

VictorC;53945117: Just as sin existed before the law levied transgressions against us, sin continues to exist after we have been redeemed from the law. The law incurs a death sentence for transgressions, and not sin. As long as the law retains jurisdiction over a person, they are rendered "guilty before God" just as Romans 3:19 concludes.

If sin existed before the law on stone then the law must of had another expression. I would have to say it was part of us because we are made in God's image. God will recreate us with the law that was not, (prior to stone) and was (on stone) and now is again (on the heart). God's law is eternal because it reflects His eternal and unchanging character.

Psalm 111:7-8 "The works of His hands are verity and judgment; all His commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness."

Spoken during the tenure of the first covenant, compliant with the tenor the first covenant was dictated by Moses in Deuteronomy 30:15-16; compliance was a requisite to live - and there is no one compliant, as God concluded when He "committed them all to disobedience". There is no exception to God's conclusion, and no appeal against it.

John 12:48 "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

I conclude that you haven't made any attempt to determine what God's "My law" is, that He stated was not according to Sinai. You simply repeat Ellen White's error by claiming that Sinai was transferred into your heart, and then you can't reconcile that when Sinai was taken away, as Hebrews 10:9 states. God did not move the former covenant into you just to rip it back out seconds later.

There is a difference between not giving you an answer and you not receiving what is given.

Sinai represents fear and punishment ie: old covenant. The new covenant represents grace and mercy. Same law different attitudes and relationships.

By telling us that Sinai is nothing, it begs you to locate God's commandments outside of that covenant that is determined to be "nothing".

Circumcision was not given at Sinai.

 

[k4c]

This is a pretty epic battle. Just from an outsiders perspective, I might recommend taking it just 1 verse at a time.

For example, couldn't you just take Matthew 19:17 and try to look at it in context? It seems like you never sit and address a single verse, but instead keep running off to 20 others. It just keeps going in an endless circle.

Hi KL,

It's important to use Scripture to interpret Scripture. If you just quote one verse without showing that it's a biblical principle found throughout the whole Bible you run the risk of believing something that is not supported by Scripture as a whole.

It's all very simple. In the old covenant God wrote His commandments on stone. They controlled the actions of man throgh fear of punishment. Under the new covenant God writes His commandments on our hearts. He takes away the fear of punishment and replaces it with grace and mercy. This will inspire us to keep His commandments because we love Him. Not only that He will fill us with His Spirit to help us keep His commandments.

Ezekiel 36:26-27 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

Jeremiah 31:33 "But this is the new covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, says the Lord, I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Hebrews 8:10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days,'' says the Lord, "I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

 

[k4c]

VictorC; Several times I have requested that you make the effort to identify what -or, rather Who- God's "My law" refers to, and you haven't made any attempt to identify this reference. Remember, Jeremiah was specific when God stated that "My law" was not according to Sinai, and the author of Hebrews capilalized on that by stating that a new covenant makes the former covenant obsolete. Moving the location of the former obsolete covenant does not make it new, any more than moving a chair across the room makes the chair new.

The old covenant is that the chair is on one side of the room and the new covenant is that the chair is moved to the other side of the room.

The old covenant is that the law is written of stone and the new covenant is the law written on the heart.

Pretty simple...

 

[freeindeed2]

This is a pretty epic battle. Just from an outsiders perspective, I might recommend taking it just 1 verse at a time.

For example, couldn't you just take Matthew 19:17 and try to look at it in context? It seems like you never sit and address a single verse, but instead keep running off to 20 others. It just keeps going in an endless circle.

What a great suggestion!!! That would be a responsible way to deal with scripture.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

This is a pretty epic battle. Just from an outsiders perspective, I might recommend taking it just 1 verse at a time.

For example, couldn't you just take Matthew 19:17 and try to look at it in context? It seems like you never sit and address a single verse, but instead keep running off to 20 others. It just keeps going in an endless circle.

-- BFA momentarily withdraws from lurker mode --

Kira, you've offered an excellent suggestion! I hope that your suggestion is not quickly brushed aside. Since you recommended that a verse be picked and that the context of that verse be considered, I suspect that you aren't suggesting that K4C limit his comments to one single verse. Rather, you seem to be asking everyone to consider one verse and the immediate context surrounding that verse. Is that accurate?

K4C, please don't brush aside Kira's suggestion so quickly. Perhaps you might like to pick one chapter to be discussed? Perhaps that discussion could be moved to a new thread that clearly identifies that the scope of the discussion will be limited to one chapter? Are you willing?

-- BFA apologizes for butting in and returns to lurker mode --

 

[k4c]

Byfaithalone1;53945902: K4C, please don't brush aside Kira's suggestion so quickly. Perhaps you might like to pick one chapter to be discussed? Perhaps that discussion could be moved to a new thread that clearly identifies that the scope of the discussion will be limited to one chapter? Are you willing?

Okay BFA why don't you lead and show us how the context of Matthew 19:17 does away with the commandments of God written on the heart.

 

[freeindeed2]

Okay BFA why don't you lead and show us how the context of Matthew 19:17 does away with the commandments of God written on the heart.

Why won't you answer a direct question?

 

[Kira Light]

-- BFA momentarily withdraws from lurker mode --

Kira, you've offered an excellent suggestion! I hope that your suggestion is not quickly brushed aside. Since you recommended that a verse be picked and that the context of that verse be considered, I suspect that you aren't suggesting that K4C limit his comments to one single verse. Rather, you seem to be asking everyone to consider one verse and the immediate context surrounding that verse. Is that accurate?

K4C, please don't brush aside Kira's suggestion so quickly. Perhaps you might like to pick one chapter to be discussed? Perhaps that discussion could be moved to a new thread that clearly identifies that the scope of the discussion will be limited to one chapter? Are you willing?

-- BFA apologizes for butting in and returns to lurker mode --

This is pretty much it. I am not saying that you can't use other verses to make your case, but it would be nice to REALLY limit this to only verses that DIRECTLY relate to the one in question.

It would be nice to just figure out where the actual disagreement lies in the context of each verse.

Say for Matthew 19:17, it is probably as simple as the SDA's claiming this is part of the new covenant, and the rest of the Christians saying no this is old covenant. (I really don't know for sure, but it's just an example)

Going verse by verse and just defining and agreeing on what the disagreement is would just be a lot more productive.

 

[freeindeed2]

This is pretty much it. I am not saying that you can't use other verses to make your case, but it would be nice to REALLY limit this to only verses that DIRECTLY relate to the one in question.

It would be nice to just figure out where the actual disagreement lies in the context of each verse.

Say for Matthew 19:17, it is probably as simple as the SDA's claiming this is part of the new covenant, and the rest of the Christians saying no this is old covenant. (I really don't know for sure, but it's just an example)

Going verse by verse and just defining and agreeing on what the disagreement is would just be a lot more productive.

Verse by verse allows the reader to actually learn what God said through the writer who wrote. It's responsible, and in the directives to the church (which is most relevant to us...the CHURCH) those present were read the whole letter, not just a one-liner out of context.

A verse here and a verse there is not a good method as the one doing so can manipulate the Bible to say what it does not by simply jumping to different verses. The moment they get called on one misuse they are on to misusing another.

In Christ alone...

 

[Kira Light]

Verse by verse allows the reader to actually learn what God said through the writer who wrote. It's responsible, and in the directives to the church (which is most relevant to us...the CHURCH) those present were read the whole letter, not just a one-liner out of context.

A verse here and a verse there is not a good method as the one doing so can manipulate the Bible to say what it does not by simply jumping to different verses. The moment they get called on one misuse they are on to misusing another.

In Christ alone...

It seems to me that k4c has 30 or 40 verses that he believes put us all under the 10 commandments. When you go in depth to explain 1, you get another 10 as a reply. It seems it would be more productive to examine each one in context and see where the disagreement lies before moving on to the next ones.

I'm just trying to figure out a way to make this all more useful and informative.

 

[VictorC]

The old covenant is that the chair is on one side of the room and the new covenant is that the chair is moved to the other side of the room.

Since we're using a familiar noun, we can remain with it for a while.

Hebrews 8 describes the old chair:

• The old chair is faulty: if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
• The old chair was violated, i.e. broken: they did not continue in My covenant.
• The old chair is obsolete: In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete.
• The old chair is ready for disposal: Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Both Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 contain a narrative of God making a new covenant, or a new chair, that is not according to the pattern of the old chair: I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah - not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.

While you assert that moving the chair across the room somehow made it new (which is ubsurd), the narrative you're confronted with tells a entirely different story: the old chair is disposed, and God made a new chair of an entirely different design.

The old covenant is that the law is written of stone and the new covenant is the law written on the heart.

Pretty simple...

I don't believe that I'm the first to break the news to you: Sinai is according to Sinai, and God's promise is that He would write His "My law" into His redeemed that isn't according to Sinai.

Until you make this distinction that what (or rather, Who) has entered into us isn't from Sinai, you aren't going to make the smallest effort to determine what Scripture is telling us in its plain language.

 

[VictorC]

-- BFA apologizes for butting in and returns to lurker mode --

I like your posts, as you aren't as blunt as I am. Make as many comments here as you like!

 

[VictorC]

If sin existed before the law on stone then the law must of had another expression.

The first sentence in your post calls Scripture into question.
There is no "if" - sin existed long before the law did.

The origin of sin was over 2500 years before the law mediated by Moses existed:

Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Not only did sin enter the world through Adam, but death did as well. Adam's transgression was eating of the fruit that he was forbidden to, and that ordinance isn't contained anywhere in the law dictated to Moses.

The Biblical record is further summarized in Galatians 3:

16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

There was a 430 year span between the promise to Abraham that in his Seed the nations would be blessed and the law that was dictated to Moses. This is again confirmed by the testimony that Moses gave in Deuteronomy 5, when he stated that the ten commandments didn't exist prior to his own generation.

In all of these, the same message is confirmed by the Biblical record: sin existed long before the law did, and as such exists as an entity separate from the law. The same condition exists now, where sin continues to exist - making God's promise to remember our sins no more after our redemption from the law. The law had a very limited time span, and sin exists either side of its tenure.

The rest of your post seems to capitalize on the error you made, when you fail to distinguish sin apart from transgressions of the law that knows no mercy. Having a faulty foundation leads to a house of cards, and hence I don't see a reason to address the cards that will fall down once the foundation is fixed.

Oh, and yes - circumcision is a part of the law mediated by Moses. The everlasting covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 17:13 ended when that ordinance was imported into Leviticus 12:1-3, and this was confirmed by Jesus in John 7:22 when He stated Moses gave them circumcision; circumcision is contained in the book of the law and is part of the covenant ordained at Sinai.

 

[k4c]

This is pretty much it. I am not saying that you can't use other verses to make your case, but it would be nice to REALLY limit this to only verses that DIRECTLY relate to the one in question.

It would be nice to just figure out where the actual disagreement lies in the context of each verse.

Say for Matthew 19:17, it is probably as simple as the SDA's claiming this is part of the new covenant, and the rest of the Christians saying no this is old covenant. (I really don't know for sure, but it's just an example)

Going verse by verse and just defining and agreeing on what the disagreement is would just be a lot more productive.

Since it doesn't seem like there are any takers I'll explain Matthew 19:17 for you.

Matthew 19:16-22 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?'' So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.'' He said to Him, "Which ones?'' Jesus said, " 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' `Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' ''The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?'' Jesus said to him, "If you want to be complete, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.'' But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

As you read these verses you will find Jesus establishing new covenant theology.

The first thing we notice is how the rich guy asked Jesus what he must he do to have eternal life. The first words out of Jesus' mouth is, "Keep the commandments". Jesus then goes on to identify the Ten Commandments. After Jesus names the commandments the rich guy tells Jesus he has kept them from his youth. Amen, he passed the old covenant requirement so now Jesus leads him into the new covenant, which is the spirit of the law when He tells the guy to sell his posessions and help the poor and needy then you will be complete. The guy was not complete so he failed the test. He was not complete because he was missing the spirit of the law, which is love for neighbor as himself.

The new covenant is not just keeping the law for the sake of keeping the law it's keeping the law in light of the spirit of the law, which is love. He kept all the commandments from his youth but he didn't love his neighbor as himself, which is the spirit of the commandments Jesus named.

Romans 13:9-10 For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery,'' "You shall not murder,'' "You shall not steal,'' "You shall not bear false witness,'' "You shall not covet,'' and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'' Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

 

[k4c]

The first sentence in your post calls Scripture into question.
There is no "if" - sin existed long before the law did.

The origin of sin was over 2500 years before the law mediated by Moses existed:

Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Not only did sin enter the world through Adam, but death did as well. Adam's transgression was eating of the fruit that he was forbidden to, and that ordinance isn't contained anywhere in the law dictated to Moses.

The Biblical record is further summarized in Galatians 3:

16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

There was a 430 year span between the promise to Abraham that in his Seed the nations would be blessed and the law that was dictated to Moses. This is again confirmed by the testimony that Moses gave in Deuteronomy 5, when he stated that the ten commandments didn't exist prior to his own generation.

In all of these, the same message is confirmed by the Biblical record: sin existed long before the law did, and as such exists as an entity separate from the law. The same condition exists now, where sin continues to exist - making God's promise to remember our sins no more after our redemption from the law. The law had a very limited time span, and sin exists either side of its tenure.

The rest of your post seems to capitalize on the error you made, when you fail to distinguish sin apart from transgressions of the law that knows no mercy. Having a faulty foundation leads to a house of cards, and hence I don't see a reason to address the cards that will fall down once the foundation is fixed.

Oh, and yes - circumcision is a part of the law mediated by Moses. The everlasting covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 17:13 ended when that ordinance was imported into Leviticus 12:1-3, and this was confirmed by Jesus in John 7:22 when He stated Moses gave them circumcision; circumcision is contained in the book of the law and is part of the covenant ordained at Sinai.

My (if) was in response to your reply because I know there was sin before the law on stone was given.

The Bible says the law was given because of transgression, which means before the law on stone was given the people were breaking it already. The law on stone is God's way of leaving no doubt in our mind as to what He expects from His people. The new covenant will be that He writes those words in our heart through love. Amen...When He does this it will be hard for a born again believer to not keep the commandments.

VictorC: Since we're using a familiar noun, we can remain with it for a while.

Hebrews 8 describes the old chair:

The old chair is faulty: if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

• The old chair was violated, i.e. broken: they did not continue in My covenant.
• The old chair is obsolete: In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete.
• The old chair is ready for disposal: Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The chair to me are the commandments, of which are perfect.

Psalms 19:7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;

If you read the verses carefully you will find that there was nothing wrong with the chair. The problem was with the moving company.

Hebrews 8:7-8 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming,'' says the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Here is a simpler version.

Hebrews 8:7-8 If nothing had been wrong with the first agreement, then there would have been no room for the second agreement. But God found something wrong with the people. He said: 'Listen! The Lord says, "The time is coming when I will make a new agreement with the family of Israel and the family of Judah.

 

[VictorC]

The Bible says the law was given because of transgression, which means before the law on stone was given the people were breaking it already.

Your interpretation contradicts what Scripture tells us, as I had pointed out in my previous post.

The law on stone is God's way of leaving no doubt in our mind as to what He expects from His people. The new covenant will be that He writes those words in our heart through love.

We have another thread in which this claim has been revealed as false and contradictory to Scripture.

Amen...When He does this it will be hard for a born again believer to not keep the commandments.

This too contradicts Scripture, and this has been pointed out to you. Nowhere have you found any exception to God's conclusion calling all the first covenant's receipients disobedient.

The chair to me are the commandments, of which are perfect.

This too contradicts Scripture, as I pointed out for you:

Since we're using a familiar noun, we can remain with it for a while.

Hebrews 8 describes the old chair:

• The old chair is faulty: if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
• The old chair was violated, i.e. broken: they did not continue in My covenant.
• The old chair is obsolete: In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete.
• The old chair is ready for disposal: Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Both Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 contain a narrative of God making a new covenant, or a new chair, that is not according to the pattern of the old chair: I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah - not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.

While you assert that moving the chair across the room somehow made it new (which is ubsurd), the narrative you're confronted with tells a entirely different story: the old chair is disposed, and God made a new chair of an entirely different design.

Here is a simpler version.

What is this unBiblical paraphrase that you call "simpler"?

 

[k4c]

Your interpretation contradicts what Scripture tells us, as I had pointed out in my previous post.

We have another thread in which this claim has been revealed as false and contradictory to Scripture.

This too contradicts Scripture, and this has been pointed out to you. Nowhere have you found any exception to God's conclusion calling all the first covenant's receipients disobedient.

This too contradicts Scripture, as I pointed out for you:

What is this unBiblical paraphrase that you call "simpler"?

All you do is deny, accuse and reject when I've given clear and convincing evidence with dozens upon dozens of irrefutable Scripture.

When I say God's law is eternal, you say no.

When I say in the new covenant God will write His law on our heart, you say no.

When I say we will keep the commandments if we love God, you say no.

When I say the new covenant will consist of the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus, you say no.

When I say the spirit of the law is love, you say no.

Do you just deny for the sake of denying?

2 Timothy 3:7 Always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[VictorC]

All you do is deny, accuse and reject when I've given clear and convincing evidence with dozens upon dozens of irrefutable Scripture.

What you claim isn't what you've produced - in the vast majority of your posts you contradict Scripture with more violence than I see from most other members. And, no, I don't merely deny or accuse you of doing this, but rather I have documented how you have done so. Using Scripture that you haven't responded to, by the way.

When I say God's law is eternal, you say no.

Because you call God a liar when you claim His created law was eternal, and He gave us the means to document the time it began and the time it ended.

When I say in the new covenant God will write His law on our heart, you say no.

False.
I say God will write His law into us, that isn't according to Sinai. You claim that God is a liar, and has resorted to the former covenant He already identified as broken and faulty.

When I say we will keep the commandments if we love God, you say no.

False.
I claim that we already abide by the commandments of God, while you have replaced the commandments of God with the first covenant that He concluded all disobedient to, with no exceptions.

When I say the new covenant will consist of the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus, you say no.

False.
Again you have replaced the commandments of God with the first covenant that He has called obsolete.

When I say the spirit of the law is love, you say no.

That's because there isn't any such thing, and you can't document it.

Do you just deny for the sake of denying?

No.
I wrote about my motivation to you earlier:

I came to discussion forums of this nature because I have found that it provides an accelerated learning curve that a university setting would be embarrassed by, as those who rely on Scripture press others for answers that we need to scramble for. Many times we discover in the process that beliefs we held dear to ourselves are foreign to what the Bible teaches.

That is a benefit a discussion forum offers to you. You have been pressed to find where answers are to be found in Scripture, and you leave when you can't - because the beliefs you continue to hold dear aren't Biblical, and those beliefs are more precious to you than the Gospel the Bible describes.

When I find the unBiblical posts you write, I respond in character in order to invoke the learning curve you have neglected to nurture. It would seem that you have no interest in learning anything, because your security blanket may get taken away and you might just be compelled to become a Christian.

2 Timothy 3:7 Always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The truth is contained in that Bible you claim has the truth, but as Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 3:14 concerning unsaved Israel:

Their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ

Adventism's mission statement seeks to vindicate the first covenant, the ten commandments.
This is why you haven't been taught what the new covenant is.