Seventh-day Adventists and the Torah on the heart.

[tall73]

Tall, I completely understand your position on this subject, but you did ask what the SDA position is as well, so that's what I'm trying to present.

It was not okay for Cain to murder Abel, long before there was law on stone. Would it have been okay for Abraham to murder?

Sodom and Gomorrah had grievous SINS. Would it have been okay for Abraham to have those same grievous sins?

God spoke directly to those men, and yet His will appears to always be the same, before any of it was written on stone.

The atonement for the sins has changed, I do not deny that for a second. But did what MAKES a person a sinner change?

You seem to be confusing having the same Torah as Moses had with having laws at all.

Murder was always wrong, etc. That does not mean Abraham had the torah of Moses or Paul would be lying. Now if some non-Sabbath keeping christians are antinomian take that up with them. That is not my argument. And I don't have to defend all non-Sabbath keeping Christian any more than you have to defend all Adventists. You only have to defend your own position, and I only have to defend mine.

 

[VictorC]

We are not under the law of Moses as Gentiles.

And we as Gentiles never received the covenant mediated by Moses at any time. In fact, that covenant denied salvation of the Gentiles as long as it remained in force, as explained in Ephesians 2:11-16:

11 ¶ Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh----who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands----
12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 ¶ For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

All one needs to do is consider the rhetorical questions of Deuteronomy 4 that Moses declared: And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? (verse 8)

No other nation received the covenant Moses Mediated:
And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. (verse 13)

The Gentiles were complete strangers to this covenant.
Victor

 

[TrustAndObey]

Sorry, I don't have to answer for all of Sabbath-rejecting Christianity. That is a red herring.

We are given commandments in the NT. We are not under the law of Moses as Gentiles.


You have a new testament. You can read the imperatives.

I don't think there is any confusion on that point. The commands given in the NT to gentiles are the ones for gentiles to keep. The church said that they did not have to keep the whole law of Moses.

Red herring again.

He came to fulfill the books of Moses and nothing would be removed from them until He did. But not everything in the book of Moses concerned him.

That does not mean everything else is left to do or you would be keeping a whole lot more laws than you are.

What was the point? Jesus didn't come to destroy Moses, but to fulfill His words.

Now you can argue with Acts 15 if you want. It clearly says Gentiles are not under the law of Moses. They were never given the feasts. They don't have to keep them.


The division you first made was non-Sabbatarian Christians, ,not just Adventists.

And since the division you have made is about those who accept Sabbath and those who don't that would definitionally have to be true would it not? So I don't see that you have proved anything.
"Those who agree with spanking are all agreed on spanking, so they are unified." What does that prove? All those who are agreed on any topic agree with each other on that point, or else you couldn't refer to them as a group.

And as to Adventists, actually no. Don't forget the progressives. Nor do they all agree on what should or should not be done on Sabbath. And it is not just Adventists. It is all the Sabbatarians you are lumped in with, just as you say I am with all the non-Sabbatarians. Even Old Sage is not on the same page as you. He says that the torah is optional for gentiles.

But again your argument is a red herring. It doesn't matter who holds a view. It matters if it is right.



So far I have argued only about the feasts. That is in reference to the Sabbath. And I don't see gentiles keeping the Sabbath there.

I never mentioned EGW in that statement.

Now, as to the feast of tabernacles I believe it is yet to be fulfilled though the sacrifice of it was fulfilled in Christ already.

I also believe that it was never something imposed upon gentiles and that Acts says they don't have to keep it.

Some of the Progessives don't even think the scriptures were inspired by God. Do I align myself with them? No, I do not.

If they said that in their churches would they be disfellowshipped? I think so, don't you?

The doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist church says that the scriptures ARE inspired by God and are the supreme authority....which the scriptures say too.

The New Covenant was sealed in Jesus' blood. Yet after He shed His blood for our sins, His own mother kept the Sabbath commandment.

"She was a Jew" you'll say....really, was she?

Jew is a bloodline and a belief system. The practicing Jews of today either believe in Christ or they don't, and the ones that do, like Mary did, are CHRISTIANS.

Are we not all ONE in Christ Jesus? Regardless of our bloodline, when we are followers of Christ, we are ONE.

Christ only has one church, His body of believers.

I don't see you argue against any of the other commandments on stone Tall, just this one. Same goes for Victor and Adventtruth.

Did Christ's death make anything unholy, holy? Did it make anything unrighteous, righteous? Did anything that was deemed sinful become holy through His blood?

What makes a person a sinner? Has that ever changed, or did the atonement for their sins change?

As far as oldsage goes, he marches to his own drummer...lol...but I love him for it. He is the epitome of disagreeing while displaying grace and dignity and there's not an ounce of "fight" in him that he doesn't feel deep in his heart. He's my eternal Luna Tick.

Does he ever judge me for my beliefs? Never. Do I judge him for his? Never. Does he think I'm always right? No way (thwack). Do I think he is? No way.

If something is "optional" to Gentiles, then I have an option. How I choose is up to me but I will do ALL I do to the glory of God.

For the record, I have never eaten anything offered to pagan idols. I don't roll like that. I've never been circumcised either. :Þ

Gotta go gentleman, the dog pile is suffocating me.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Tall, the only reason I lump all of the ex-Adventists together is because MOST (not all) say they studied their way out or that the Holy Spirit LED them out.

People need to compare notes.

That's confusing to me I must say, since He appears to have abandoned them after the leading....into confusion.

Either it was a unified calling out or it wasn't. That's how I see it anyway.

 

[VictorC]

I don't see you argue against any of the other commandments on stone Tall, just this one. Same goes for Victor and Adventtruth.

Perhaps you have forgotten the primary text this thread was started from, in seeking to identify the contents of the new covenant mentioned in Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31.

Anytime you like, you can address the text of Hebrews 10:9:
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

The epistle to the Hebrews explains the change in covenants to those who had received the first, apart from the Gentile nations.

What was the "first"?
What was the disposition of the "first"?
What was the reason of that disposition of the "first"?

The text from Hebrews 7:18-19 ought to make this task simple:

18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

I'll give you the bottom line: this epistle waves bye-bye to the tables of stone that are elsewhere referred to as the "ministration of death" (2 Corinthians 3:7).

Victor

 

[VictorC]

Tall, the only reason I lump all of the ex-Adventists together is because MOST (not all) say they studied their way out or that the Holy Spirit LED them out.
People need to compare notes.
That's confusing to me I must say, since He appears to have abandoned them after the leading....into confusion.
Either it was a unified calling out or it wasn't. That's how I see it anyway.

How do you account for the fact that the ex-Adventists have arrived to the same Gospel that I espouse along with all of orthodox Christianity?

For one reason: We have the same goal given to us by His Spirit and the teachers He has ordained for us.

Ephesians 4:13-15
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.

Victor

 

[TrustAndObey]

Hey Victor, Tall said that in order to be forgiven of sins we need to confess them in order to be cleansed of unrighteousness.

Do you agree with that?

 

[tall73]

Some of the Progessives don't even think the scriptures were inspired by God. Do I align myself with them? No, I do not.

If they said that in their churches would they be disfellowshipped? I think so, don't you?

Actually in some of their churches they would not. Some do say it in their churches.

Now, if you don't want to be lumped in with some folks why do you lump us together?

The whole thing is a distraction from the issue. Adventists are not monolithic. Neither are non-Adventists.

The New Covenant was sealed in Jesus' blood. Yet after He shed His blood for our sins, His own mother kept the Sabbath commandment.

"She was a Jew" you'll say....really, was she?

Jew is a bloodline and a belief system. The practicing Jews of today either believe in Christ or they don't, and the ones that do, like Mary did, are CHRISTIANS.

Are we not all ONE in Christ Jesus? Regardless of our bloodline, when we are followers of Christ, we are ONE.

Tell that to James. Look at what he said regarding Gentiles in Acts 21. He did not want the Jews being led from zealousness to the law. Nor did he demand the Gentiles keep it.

In Acts 15 again we see that the GENTILES were not required to keep the law.

But there was no indication that the Jews planned to not keep it. James says they were zealous for it.

Now you also seem to be missing the point that Jesus' mother, etc. thought Jesus was dead and did not realize the new covenant had even started yet.

Christ only has one church, His body of believers.

Doesn't change the statements that the gentiles are not required to keep the law of Moses.

I don't see you argue against any of the other commandments on stone Tall, just this one. Same goes for Victor and Adventtruth.

Did Christ's death make anything unholy, holy? Did it make anything unrighteous, righteous? Did anything that was deemed sinful become holy through His blood?

What makes a person a sinner? Has that ever changed, or did the atonement for their sins change?

I argue for all those command iterated in the NT. And I argue that the church plainly said the gentiles don't have to keep the law of Moses. Those laws reiterated for gentiles have no REASON to be opposed.

As far as oldsage goes, he marches to his own drummer...lol...but I love him for it. He is the epitome of disagreeing while displaying grace and dignity and there's not an ounce of "fight" in him that he doesn't feel deep in his heart. He's my eternal Luna Tick.

I think Oldsage is a great guy. But you admit that not all Sabbatarians see it the same. So drop that argument and just address the Scriptures.

Does he ever judge me for my beliefs? Never. Do I judge him for his? Never. Does he think I'm always right? No way (thwack). Do I think he is? No way.

Great, and neither do Victor or I etc. always think each other is right. So you can drop that argument.

If something is "optional" to Gentiles, then I have an option. How I choose is up to me but I will do ALL I do to the glory of God.

That is great. I agree completely. But then you need to apply that to all that is said in Col. 2. They are all optional. They are all not to be judged on. The gentiles were not required to keep the the law of Moses.

For the record, I have never eaten anything offered to pagan idols. I don't roll like that. I've never been circumcised either. :Þ

Gotta go gentleman, the dog pile is suffocating me.

Since I do not agree with Victor etc. on everything it is not a dogpile. It is me giving my view, him giving his view etc.

 

[tall73]

Tall, the only reason I lump all of the ex-Adventists together is because MOST (not all) say they studied their way out or that the Holy Spirit LED them out.

People need to compare notes.

That's confusing to me I must say, since He appears to have abandoned them after the leading....into confusion.

Either it was a unified calling out or it wasn't. That's how I see it anyway.

And Adventists claim to call people out of babylon but they don't agree either.

You can drop that argument. It does nothing for you. We all must compare notes to get at what fits the evidence.

 

[TrustAndObey]

How do you account for the fact that the ex-Adventists have arrived to the same Gospel that I espouse along with all of orthodox Christianity?

For one reason: We have the same goal given to us by His Spirit and the teachers He has ordained for us.

They haven't come to the same Gospel, Victor, that's the problem.

Some think that John 3:16-17 IS the Gospel yet they can't explain why they think the wicked receive eternal life too, even though that certainly wasn't the promise.

They think John 3:16-17 IS the Gospel yet they won't obey the verses where Jesus Himself said "Whosoever believeth in Me....."

They think John 3:16-17 IS the Gospel while at the same time completely ignoring the fact that God gave His only begotten Son...a Son that said Himself that He could do NOTHING of His Own Self, but that He came to speak the words of His Father, His God and our God.

Ephesians 4:13-15
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ. Victor

I will never be unified in your faith. Without the law I don't need grace. I have one Judge, and to Him I serve.

 

[TrustAndObey]

And Adventists claim to call people out of babylon but they don't agree either.

You can drop that argument. It does nothing for you. We all must compare notes to get at what fits the evidence.

I don't think you'll ever "get" it that I won't be bullied by you.

You asked for the Adventist perspective on this subject, not oldsage's or anyone else's.

You and Sophia label some things "non-salvific", and on those sorts of things I'd say that not all Adventists agree, no.

But the big stuff, like the Bible being the inspired Word of God, you bet we do.

The Seventh-day Adventist church determines who is and who isn't an Adventist. I'm sorry, I don't believe you that some walk into those churches and proclaim they DON'T believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and REMAIN a member afterwards.

That is just simply not true. The TRUTH is that they DON'T say it in their churches, and that's WHY they're still members.

 

[tall73]

I don't think you'll ever "get" it that I won't be bullied by you.

You asked for the Adventist perspective on this subject, not oldsage's or anyone else's.

It is not bullying to point out that your argument is misdirected.

And you spoke of all anti-sabbath Christians. What would be the opposite of that? Those who keep the Sabbath. Therefore you introduced the groups in your argument, and I commented on them in saying that your argument is a red herring. That is not bullying. That is arguing the merits of statements, which is 100 percent allowed here. It is not a personal attack either. It is a commentary on your argument.

Now we are getting at least one Adventist view of this. That would be yours. Doc seemed to take a different approach saying the whole question was wrong. Maybe other Adventists will join in. We will see.

But we are in fact discussing the Adventist view and your particular take on it. Nowhere in my thread title did I say we would AGREE with the Adventist view because you gave it. It is to examine the view that we are discussing in the first place.

You and Sophia label some things "non-salvific", and on those sorts of things I'd say that not all Adventists agree, no.

But the big stuff, like the Bible being the inspired Word of God, you bet we do.

Now, the facts are I also agree with the Bible being the inspired word of God.

So?

I am objecting to your argument that formers disagree on things but Adventists don't. They clearly both do.

The Seventh-day Adventist church determines who is and who isn't an Adventist. I'm sorry, I don't believe you that some walk into those churches and proclaim they DON'T believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and REMAIN a member afterwards.

Apparently some do.

But that is your issue, not mine. And it is your argument that led to it. No group is monolithic in their beliefs. And your argument is a red herring. It does not prove your view. It merely points out that there are many views on both sides of the Sabbath keeping aisle.

That is just simply not true. The TRUTH is that they DON'T say it in their churches, and that's WHY they're still members.

According to the progressives they say what they say here in church.

Nor do all reject the Scriptures, though some do. It seems as though you do not want to be associated with all Adventists. So why are you making the argument that we must all be associated with the views of all non-sabbatarians?

It is a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is the text and which view of it is correct.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I don't consider all people that claim the name Adventist to be Adventist, no, I sure don't. No more than I consider all that claim the name Christian to be Christian.

"Not everyone that says to Me "Lord, Lord"....."

I consider this asked and answered honestly. You guys just don't like the answer, and it's starting to spill over into personal attacks, which is typical.

Hosea 4:6 MY people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Not just any people, HIS people.

Bye all.

 

[tall73]

I don't consider all people that claim the name Adventist to be Adventist, no, I sure don't. No more than I consider all that claim the name Christian to be Christian.

"Not everyone that says to Me "Lord, Lord"....."

I consider this asked and answered honestly. You guys just don't like the answer, and it's starting to spill over into personal attacks, which is typical.

I did not personally attack you. I attacked your argument regarding the disagreement of formers. Adventists are in the same boat, not all agreeing on every point. And the argument does nothing to prove either position on the scriptures.

Nor did I say your answer was dishonest, etc. In fact my whole point is that you do not feel all Adventists are on-board with your view. Nor are all non-Sabbatarians on-board with me on all details.

So I need not answer for every non-Sabbatarian and you need not answer for every Adventist or sabbatarin. Now we can get down to what the text says instead of dealing with red herring arguments.

Hosea 4:6 MY people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Not just any people, HIS people.

Bye all.

Indeed, and which people was that? Isreal at the time. and those who joined themselves to it.

Now does Acts say that Gentiles need to keep the law of Moses? No. It says they do not.

 

[tall73]

Now when we realize from Acts 15, the meeting of the church together in council, that feast keeping, etc. was not required then the text in Col. 2 makes perfect sense.

Don't let anyone judge you on these matters. If Gentiles wanted to keep them great. If they did not, great. They are shadows. They point to a reality. But they are not the reality.

And the church already weighed in on the question saying Gentiles did not have to keep the law of Moses. So no one need judge them one way or the other on such issues.

 

[VictorC]

They haven't come to the same Gospel, Victor, that's the problem.

Actually, we have all come to the common redemption that is found in Jesus Christ - and we all share the same perception of what it was we were redeemed from. It is that redemption that is summarized so simply in Galatians 4:4-5 that I have placed before you, and you refuse constantly to acknowledge:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

This is the genuine Gospel Adventism has rejected, so that they can claim a fictitious vindication of God that is nowhere to be found in Scripture, rather than to accept His righteousness imputed on us.

They think John 3:16-17 IS the Gospel yet they won't obey the verses where Jesus Himself said "Whosoever believeth in Me....."

The words that follow are what Adventists refuse to abide by: they insist on abiding in Moses, rather than follow His (Jesus) commandments.

I will never be unified in your faith. Without the law I don't need grace. I have one Judge, and to Him I serve.

You have never explained the obvious antithesis that law and grace contrast.

John 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Victor

 

[VictorC]

I consider this asked and answered honestly. You guys just don't like the answer, and it's starting to spill over into personal attacks, which is typical.

Personal attacks are not permitted on this or the other forum I participate on, and I don't engage in ad hominem fallacies. I have responded firmly to yet another attempt you have made in derailing discussion, rather than answer the growing list of questions I have asked you; questions that have no attempt of reply from you.

So, when you find yourself reduced to frustration, you reported a post of mine that any moderator is going to see as a legitimate response to another attempt to derail discussion that you engage in constantly.

It is dishonest, Lainie.
Moderators see hurt feelings, frustration, and real infractions of rules all the time.
They also see people abuse the moderation process instead of using honest approaches that members should, which doesn't allow the constant distractions away from the topic that I see you using over and over.

There is nothing dishonest about walking away from a topic you're not proficient in. You should consider this in lieu of the practices you use.

Victor

 

[Cribstyl]

Now when we realize from Acts 15, the meeting of the church together in council, that feast keeping, etc. was not required then the text in Col. 2 makes perfect sense.

Don't let anyone judge you on these matters. If Gentiles wanted to keep them great. If they did not, great. They are shadows. They point to a reality. But they are not the reality.

And the church already weighed in on the question saying Gentiles did not have to keep the law of Moses. So no one need judge them one way or the other on such issues.

..I approve of this message. (and thanks for your timely reply to my question.)
CRIB

 

[TrustAndObey]

Now when we realize from Acts 15, the meeting of the church together in council, that feast keeping, etc. was not required then the text in Col. 2 makes perfect sense.

Don't let anyone judge you on these matters. If Gentiles wanted to keep them great. If they did not, great. They are shadows. They point to a reality. But they are not the reality.

And the church already weighed in on the question saying Gentiles did not have to keep the law of Moses. So no one need judge them one way or the other on such issues.

The part you're neglecting to mention is that the JUDGING by our fellow man was in the Law of Moses, stoning each other, etc. We can't judge each other and stone each other anymore.

Food is a shadow of things to come....does that mean we don't NEED it? Just because men can't judge us for what we eat, do we not need TO eat?

The Sabbath was written on stone. Do you really think Paul would use one verse to tell the Colossians that they don't have to keep God's holy day anymore?

Were their (the Colossians) consequences the same as the children of Israel if they broke the commandments? No way, Christ paid the debt of sin and it is no longer punishable by our OWN deaths, through each other.

I could go gather sticks on the Sabbath and I'm pretty sure no one would stone me for it, but it doesn't mean I didn't break a commandment of God.

 

[TrustAndObey]

The fact that Paul still called it the Sabbath ought to tell people something! It's as sure as the necessity for food and the surety of a new moon.