Respectfully for the Doc

[Idol Breaker]

Thanks, Idol Breaker. I'm am just trying to point out the passage speaks of both what we would consider moral and ceremonial laws in reference to the jots and tittles. This would make this particular passage shaky ground to prove Sabbath observance is still required.

Personally I think there is more to the "Moral" laws then what most people think. After all, Jesus did not come to abolish them, from what I can tell when he expounded upon them he actually magnified them, made them stronger. Think about it, before Jesus came the interpretation was that one could plan something in their heart or mind, murder, adultery (as long as the person the were "lusting" after wasn't married, covetousness ya know) and as long as it wasn't carried out there was no sin. But, now Jesus reveals to all what the Law really means or what God intended it to mean, of course that was laid out when he told the Isrealites that they were to love their neighbor as themselves, long before Jesus stated it. Reread the account wherein God tells Moses the Laws.

The point I was making is that, although the sacrifices of the Old System are no longer valid today, we still have sacrifical observances today within the Church. Reread what I wrote, even though this may not have been what you meant, I believe it is still supported by what Jesus said concerning the jots and the tittles.

Thank you for considering me as part of the family of God! I honestly feel the Sabbath is a perfectly fine day to worship God on. Occasionally I feel the need to "double dip" and attend my local SDA church along with my normal Lutheran one.

Gods bless! Ricker

Ricker, who are we to judge who and who isn't a member of God's family, when all is said and done God will weed those out who aren't, until then I'll consider all who claim the fellowship to be such until such time as they themselves prove otherwise.

 

[ricker]

[=Idol Breaker;50975811]Personally I think there is more to the "Moral" laws then what most people think. After all, Jesus did not come to abolish them, from what I can tell when he expounded upon them he actually magnified them, made them stronger. Think about it, before Jesus came the interpretation was that one could plan something in their heart or mind, murder, adultery (as long as the person the were "lusting" after wasn't married, covetousness ya know) and as long as it wasn't carried out there was no sin. But, now Jesus reveals to all what the Law really means or what God intended it to mean, of course that was laid out when he told the Isrealites that they were to love their neighbor as themselves, long before Jesus stated it. Reread the account wherein God tells Moses the Laws.

Yes. there are certainly moral directives that are admirable for us to follow, with God's help, as a result of the Spirit living in us. These of course are not in anyway the means to salvation, I think we would both agree.
I think at least part of the sermon on the mount's purpose was to smash to bits the pharisees conception that heaven could be gained by keeping the law by expanding it, showing no one could keep it. This showed that everybody is in dire need of the Saviour. As I understand it the pharisees were quite proud of how well they kept the law.

The point I was making is that, although the sacrifices of the Old System are no longer valid today, we still have sacrifical observances today within the Church. Reread what I wrote, even though this may not have been what you meant, I believe it is still supported by what Jesus said concerning the jots and the tittles.

I see that you propose that certain things may have now been substituted for things previously commanded. Would this be a change in the jots and tittles or not?
The COI had both sacrifices and tithe to deal with.

Ricker, who are we to judge who and who isn't a member of God's family, when all is said and done God will weed those out who aren't, until then I'll consider all who claim the fellowship to be such until such time as they themselves prove otherwise. ]

Thank you, and I believe many Adventists are in the family of God, also! It's not what you know, but Who you know!

"If anybody comes and tells you the Good News and it doesn't sound like good news, then it's not the Good News." - Michael D. Bridges

 

[woobadooba]

It's not what you know, but Who you know!

But if you don't have the 'what' right, where it matters most (in obedience to God), then you don't know Him; and you will be judged according to how you have responded to the light that has been given to you.

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' (Matthew 7:21-23 NKJV)

 

[ricker]

But if you don't have the 'what' right, where it matters most (in obedience to God), then you don't know Him; and you will be judged according to how you have responded to the light that has been given to you.

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' (Matthew 7:21-23 NKJV)

This is in the context of false prophets.

15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are)ravenous wolves.

16"You will )know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
19"(Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20"So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

16"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.


28Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" 29Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.


I don't ever think I have advocated not doing the will of the Father. I just sometimes question what you may think God's will is.

 

[Idol Breaker]

This is in the context of false prophets.

16"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.


28Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" 29Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.


I don't ever think I have advocated not doing the will of the Father. I just sometimes question what you may think God's will is.

We can know what God's will is through the Law, summed up in "Love God with all your heart and with all your mind" and also "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." These are the two greatest of the commandments. These summarize the totality of the Moral Law. It is God's will that we are once again reconciled to him. This is done through Christ his Son, by his blood are we redeemed. Through his Grace we are given his righteousness. But, we must remember, as with the Isrealites, there are things that we must do in obedience, for by obedience do we show our love and appreciation of what was done for us on the cross. Without love these mean nothing and Christ's death was in vain. Heaven forbid this should ever be. To many professed Christians take what Christ did for us for granted, thinking the the Grace that now covers them allows them to continue in their sins. This is a lie perpetrated by none other than Satan himself. Many believe that the New Testament writers first mention loving God by being obedient to his Law, but if you look in Exodus 20 you will find that the Second commandment is the first place where "Those who love me and keep may commandments" appears. This statement is also in conjunction with a curse against those who break this vital commandment, a commandment, I believe, that has been neglected for far too long by even SDAs.

 

[RND]

We can know what God's will is through the Law, summed up in "Love God with all your heart and with all your mind" and also "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." These are the two greatest of the commandments. These summarize the totality of the Moral Law. It is God's will that we are once again reconciled to him. This is done through Christ his Son, by his blood are we redeemed. Through his Grace we are given his righteousness. But, we must remember, as with the Isrealites, there are things that we must do in obedience, for by obedience do we show our love and appreciation of what was done for us on the cross. Without love these mean nothing and Christ's death was in vain. Heaven forbid this should ever be. To many professed Christians take what Christ did for us for granted, thinking the the Grace that now covers them allows them to continue in their sins. This is a lie perpetrated by none other than Satan himself. Many believe that the New Testament writers first mention loving God by being obedient to his Law, but if you look in Exodus 20 you will find that the Second commandment is the first place where "Those who love me and keep may commandments" appears. This statement is also in conjunction with a curse against those who break this vital commandment, a commandment, I believe, that has been neglected for far too long by even SDAs.

Idol Breaker....I think the best we can do for Ricker is just simply pray.

Hsa 4:17 Ephraim [is] joined to idols: let him alone.

 

[ricker]

Idol Breaker....I think the best we can do for Ricker is just simply pray.

Hsa 4:17 Ephraim [is] joined to idols: let him alone.

I am always thankful for prayers.

I thought Idol Breaker had some interesting perspectives.

I'm glad I'm not from the tribe of Ephraim.

 

[woobadooba]

...duplicate post...

 

[woobadooba]

Ricker,

Jesus is essentially speaking in general terms here as He is speaking against the practice of 'lawlessness', which is why the words "not everyone" are used. In other words, He isn't just referring to false prophets; He is referring to people in general who have a superficial faith in Him.

Think about it, if it isn't good for a prophet to be lawless, then would it not also be bad for you and me and anyone else for that matter, to be lawless?

By the way, if there is no law then why would He use the word 'lawlessness'? What this implies is that to do the will of God is to be lawful!

The bottom line here is that because you are telling us that we no longer need to observe the 4th commandment you are instructing us to be lawless on this point, which means you aren't following God's will because Jesus made it very clear that not one jot or tittle would be changed from the law until heaven and earth pass away.

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-18 NKJV)
​

Obviously Jesus is referring to the moral law here.

Furthermore, you have no biblical grounds to support your rejection of the 4th commandment. In fact, you've been shown that it isn't even reasonable to adhere to such a view. Yet, you continue to reject logic on this matter.

We have shown you repeatedly that you are in error; yet, you continue to strive with us and are even trying to get us to reject the 4th commandment too. Or at the very least, you are endeavoring to get us to look upon it lightly.

Do you honestly believe God has led you to do this?

Keep in mind that you are in our house (forum). So you are essentially trying to push your view onto us, which means you are endeavoring to give us instruction. So that would make you a teacher. But are you a false teacher?

If the Bible doesn't support your teaching, then you are a false teacher. And to me it is obvious that your teaching does not agree with the Bible. Therefore, I reject it.

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hello once again Friends,

It's taking a bit longer than anticipated to be able to sit at my desk or make notes. However I haven't forgotten about this or the points you all have raised. I do have quite a bit to share and will, hopefuly, get back fairly quickly with my response. I should also mention that I no longer recieve notifications or CF e-mails. If anyone wants to reach me directly you may do so at; thecountrydoc@cox.net

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[ricker]

Ricker,

Jesus is essentially speaking in general terms here as He is speaking against the practice of 'lawlessness', which is why the words "not everyone" are used. In other words, He isn't just referring to false prophets; He is referring to people in general who have a superficial faith in Him.

Think about it, if it isn't good for a prophet to be lawless, then would it not also be bad for you and me and anyone else for that matter, to be lawless?

By the way, if there is no law then why would He use the word 'lawlessness'? What this implies is that to do the will of God is to be lawful!

The bottom line here is that because you are telling us that we no longer need to observe the 4th commandment you are instructing us to be lawless on this point, which means you aren't following God's will because Jesus made it very clear that not one jot or tittle would be changed from the law until heaven and earth pass away.

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-18 NKJV)
​

Obviously Jesus is referring to the moral law here.

Furthermore, you have no biblical grounds to support your rejection of the 4th commandment. In fact, you've been shown that it isn't even reasonable to adhere to such a view. Yet, you continue to reject logic on this matter.

We have shown you repeatedly that you are in error; yet, you continue to strive with us and are even trying to get us to reject the 4th commandment too. Or at the very least, you are endeavoring to get us to look upon it lightly.

Do you honestly believe God has led you to do this?

Keep in mind that you are in our house (forum). So you are essentially trying to push your view onto us, which means you are endeavoring to give us instruction. So that would make you a teacher. But are you a false teacher?

If the Bible doesn't support your teaching, then you are a false teacher. And to me it is obvious that your teaching does not agree with the Bible. Therefore, I reject it.

Points taken. Thank you

 

[Idol Breaker]

Yes. there are certainly moral directives that are admirable for us to follow, with God's help, as a result of the Spirit living in us. These of course are not in anyway the means to salvation, I think we would both agree.

Absolutely, we are not save by the Law, but let me remind you, we are most definately (sic) not going to enter the kingdom breaking them either.

I think at least part of the sermon on the mount's purpose was to smash to bits the pharisees conception that heaven could be gained by keeping the law by expanding it, showing no one could keep it. This showed that everybody is in dire need of the Saviour. As I understand it the pharisees were quite proud of how well they kept the law.

Actually it was to expose the "Traditions" of man that had crept into the observances. We see these things happening today in many of the denominations, including the SDA.

I see that you propose that certain things may have now been substituted for things previously commanded. Would this be a change in the jots and tittles or not?

No, the jots and the tittles refer to the Moral Law, the Decalogue.

The COI had both sacrifices and tithe to deal with.

Sacrifices being ceremonial (which were completed when Christ was sacrificed on the cross) and tithes were the only support that the Levites were given to continue in their preistly functions. I suggest you read the instructions given to Moses by God concerning exactly why this was required of the whole of the COI. It's probably the best and fairest system when it comes to funding an activity of any kind. Too bad our government doesn't implement it instead of the graduated tax system, they'd garner more if they did.

Thank you, and I believe many Adventists are in the family of God, also! It's not what you know, but Who you know!

Hey, I believe we're all here to learn the truth and we can only do that by opening God's word and discussing it together.

 

[ricker]

[=Idol Breaker;51052369]

Sacrifices being ceremonial (which were completed when Christ was sacrificed on the cross) and tithes were the only support that the Levites were given to continue in their preistly functions. I suggest you read the instructions given to Moses by God concerning exactly why this was required of the whole of the COI. It's probably the best and fairest system when it comes to funding an activity of any kind. Too bad our government doesn't implement it instead of the graduated tax system, they'd garner more if they did.

Thanks IB. When I posted my comment about the COI it was in reference to your statement:

Any way, if you think about this thuroughly you will find that we still do sacrifice or observe sacrifice in many ways. Firstly there is the tithe, is this not a sacrifice? Does tithing bring forth a blessing when we do it obediently and with love? Was that not the purpose of the original sacrifices?

I didn't intend my statement to mean we shouldn't tithe.
God bless! Ricker

 

[Idol Breaker]

Thanks IB. When I posted my comment about the COI it was in reference to your statement:

I didn't intend my statement to mean we shouldn't tithe.
God bless! Ricker

Nor did I think you intended such. I was only pointing out that even in the Christian world do we still have sacrifices and tithing is but one.

 

[Mudburn]

Why did you skip some verses in Matt. 5?

23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

These are obviously not speaking of the ten commandments, but of sacrifices we probably agree were fulfilled at the cross. You can't have it both ways. Either the jots and tittles were fulfilled or not.

I don't plan on debating everything you have written. This just happened to jump out at me.

God bless! Ricker

I'm new on this forum, and I'm also not SDA. However, I've read this thread with interest and appreciation. Something that jumped out to me in reading the point you try to make, Ricker, is that verses 23 and 24 are not a change of the subject of which the Messiah was speaking. He is illustrating his statement in verses 21 and 22 that hating your brother is a violation of the commandment. How can you truly bring an offering to God if you have something against your brother, if you are not living the way God desires? It's another form of hypocrisy and reveals that one is not walking according the faith he/she professes. The principle of his words are very applicable today to you and me and jive completely with the law which Jesus encapsulated in "Love the Lord your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (both of these are written in the law, BTW).

There is no "having it both ways" contradiction for one to say that "not one jot or tittle will pass away" and to not address specifically verses 23-24. Jesus wasn't making a case for animal sacrifices/offerings but illustrating the principle of loving your neighbor as yourself. One of the difficulties that arises here is in trying to delineate between moral and ceremonial law. If we don't do that, even if just for the sake of argument at this point, we can determine that the laws regarding the sacrifices/offerings aren't changed but were fulfilled. We still call upon our Messiah's sacrifice, bringing it before the throne of God in repentance, but we don't kills lambs and bulls, not because the law is changed, but because it is fulfilled (the subject of the letter to the Hebrews). In this light, Jesus' explanation is not contradictory or even referring to a different law, but it is referring to the Torah or instruction of God. If we are trying to fulfill any of the things appropriate for Christians but aren't loving our brother as we should, our worship/obedience is faulty.

Mudburn

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hello Mudburn,

Thank you for taking the time to read "Should Christians Keep the Sabbath."

I haven't forgotten about this thread needing a reply but I haven't been physicaly up to sitting at the computer due to some health problems. (You may have noticed that I seldom make short post, or post that are not bassed on Scripture.) However I must say that you have given a very good response. As soon as I'm able I will return with some additional comments.

Rspectfully, your friend and brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[BobRyan]

I'm new on this forum, and I'm also not SDA. However, I've read this thread with interest and appreciation. Something that jumped out to me in reading the point you try to make, Ricker, is that verses 23 and 24 are not a change of the subject of which the Messiah was speaking. He is illustrating his statement in verses 21 and 22 that hating your brother is a violation of the commandment. How can you truly bring an offering to God if you have something against your brother, if you are not living the way God desires? It's another form of hypocrisy and reveals that one is not walking according the faith he/she professes. The principle of his words are very applicable today to you and me and jive completely with the law which Jesus encapsulated in "Love the Lord your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (both of these are written in the law, BTW).

There is no "having it both ways" contradiction for one to say that "not one jot or tittle will pass away" and to not address specifically verses 23-24. Jesus wasn't making a case for animal sacrifices/offerings but illustrating the principle of loving your neighbor as yourself.

That is a great point Mudburn. Christ is the God of the OT and of the NT -- because in fact He was "With God and He WAS GOD" as the 2nd person of the trinity. He is the author of Scripture in that case.

While living before the cross "scripture" said that the offerings including sacrifices were in full effect. Christ was not preaching a Gospel message contrary to scripture.

Laws can be of various types - some are predictive and prescriptive -- others are only prescriptive.

The 65 MPH speed limit law is not predictive -- it is only prescriptive. It directs us to "fulfill" it's deman or else we are subject to ticket. But because this is not predictive -- it can not be "ended" as soon as someone comes along that actually goes 65 MPH.

The yearly (annual feasts and Sabbaths) of Lev 23 were "predictive" pointing forward to Christ. If you are not the antitype then you must comply with those predictive laws -- they are for you "prescriptive" until the one predicted (the antitype) comes along and finally does whatever they predict will one day be done.

"Christ our Passover has been slain" 1Cor 5.

Which is why Hebrews makes the point that "He takes away the first to establish the second" when it comes to the ceremonial laws and the Priesthood of earthly priests and animal sacrifices -- vs the High Priesthood of Christ in heaven and the blood of Christ which ALONE serves to cleanse from sin.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

One thing is for sure -- when it comes to the predictive Law of God - only God can declare it to be fulfilled. And this He did with ceremonial sacrificial law in Hebrews 10.

in Christ,

bob

 

[ricker]

I'm new on this forum, and I'm also not SDA. However, I've read this thread with interest and appreciation. Something that jumped out to me in reading the point you try to make, Ricker, is that verses 23 and 24 are not a change of the subject of which the Messiah was speaking. He is illustrating his statement in verses 21 and 22 that hating your brother is a violation of the commandment. How can you truly bring an offering to God if you have something against your brother, if you are not living the way God desires? It's another form of hypocrisy and reveals that one is not walking according the faith he/she professes. The principle of his words are very applicable today to you and me and jive completely with the law which Jesus encapsulated in "Love the Lord your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" (both of these are written in the law, BTW).

There is no "having it both ways" contradiction for one to say that "not one jot or tittle will pass away" and to not address specifically verses 23-24. Jesus wasn't making a case for animal sacrifices/offerings but illustrating the principle of loving your neighbor as yourself. One of the difficulties that arises here is in trying to delineate between moral and ceremonial law. If we don't do that, even if just for the sake of argument at this point, we can determine that the laws regarding the sacrifices/offerings aren't changed but were fulfilled. We still call upon our Messiah's sacrifice, bringing it before the throne of God in repentance, but we don't kills lambs and bulls, not because the law is changed, but because it is fulfilled (the subject of the letter to the Hebrews). In this light, Jesus' explanation is not contradictory or even referring to a different law, but it is referring to the Torah or instruction of God. If we are trying to fulfill any of the things appropriate for Christians but aren't loving our brother as we should, our worship/obedience is faulty.

Mudburn

Thank you for you well thought out response.
I guess we are back to a "conversation" I had with RND a while back, where it was postulated we need to take context into consideration everytime the word "law" is used, to determine if it is the moral or ceremonial law being referred to. Do you agree with this?

 

[thecountrydoc]

You are all to be complimented for giving the OP by Ricker as well as "Should Christians Kerep the Sabbath" in the main forum some serious thought. I must say however that I feel as though I'm playing tennis with a 20 year old when I look at all the additional points that have been brought up. Please understand that every single point, if covered in depth, in a scholarly study, could easly fill a book.

For the moment I'll confine my comments to Ricker's OP and a couple of additional points that have been brought up.

Ricker's OP

"Why did you skip some verses in Matt. 5?

23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

These are obviously not speaking of the ten commandments, but of sacrifices we probably agree were fulfilled at the cross. You can't have it both ways. Either the jots and tittles were fulfilled or not.

I don't plan on debating everything you have written. This just happened to jump out at me.

God bless! Ricker

Then we have post #'s 12 by Woobadooba and post #13 by Ricker:

"First of all, the context suggests that when Jesus was speaking of the 'Law' (capital L) He was referring to the Moral Law, that is, the Ten Commandments. The references to the 'commandments' in v. 19 and to murder and adultery in verses 21 and 27 further validate this point."
Post #13 by Ricker: "Through all this are you saying that the jots and tittles Jesus spoke of mean only in the moral law, and the ceremonial laws having to do with sacricices are fulfilled?

In addition there is one question that has been raised that will need some clarification and that is, how do we differrntiate between the Ten Comandments and what is called the Law of Moses? I will attempt to retrieve something I prepared quite sometime ago that I believe may shed some additional light on this question. For that I'll come back later.

For the moment let's take a look at Matt. 5:19-20.

18. For [verily] I say unto you, [Till heaven and earth pass,] one [jot] or one [tittle] shall [in no wise] pass from the law, till all be [fulfilled]. 19. Whosoever therefore shall [break] one of these [least commandments], and shall [teach men so], he shall be [called the least] in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20. For I say unto you, That except [your righteousness] shall [exceed the righteousness] of the [scribes and Pharisees], ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. 21. [Ye have heard] that [it was said] [of them of old time,] [Thou shalt not kill]; and whosoever shall kill shall be in [danger of the judgment]:

You will notice that I have underlined and bracketed some of the above text. It is my belief that with an understanding of these portions it should become clear which Law Christ was reffering to.

I am going to go ahead and post the above and then add the explinations for these words and phrases. Be back later.

Your brother in Christ,
Doc