Seventh Day Adventists

[woobadooba]

Eila,

You are running into the same logical problems as before when you argued that every single word in the Bible is God's actual word, as in each word was dictated by God Himself.

You were wrong about that one, and you are wrong here too.

In all honesty, if you would stop trying to usurp authority over me, you might learn something.

I'm done with this.

 

[Eila]

So what part of the Ten Commandments has nothing to do with what Jesus Christ expects of us?

All of it. It doesn't relate to what He expects of us. We are dead to the law.

Romans 7 "1Or do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
4Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit."



I like how this version puts it:

Romans 10 " 4For Christ is the end of the Law [the limit at which it ceases to be, for the Law leads up to Him Who is the fulfillment of its types, and in Him the purpose which it was designed to accomplish is fulfilled. That is, the purpose of the Law is fulfilled in Him] as the means of righteousness (right relationship to God) for everyone who trusts in and adheres to and relies on Him."

The 'Law' condemns the sinner; but manifests itself within the lives of those who truly belong to Christ.

Where does the Bible say that the 10 commandments manifest themselves in the lives of those who truly belong to Christ?

 

[Eila]

Why are you avoiding my question?

Again:

What aspect of the Ten Commandments has nothing to do with love for God?

I guess you didn't realized I answered your question.

Love WAS commanded in the old covenant as demonstrated in the laws of the old covenant.

 

[Eila]

In all honesty, if you would stop trying to usurp authority over me, you might learn something.

You have no authority over me so therefore there is no authority to usurp. You are not Christ and you are not my husband.

 

[woobadooba]

You have no authority over me so therefore there is no authority to usurp. You are not Christ and you are not my husband.

You are right in saying I am not your husband; but you are not my appointed teacher. So don't act like you are.

If you wish to teach me something about God, then at least learn how to rightly divide the Scriptures first.

And by the way, it is a Biblical truth that no woman is to have authority over a man. Paul was speaking within the context of men in general, not just a husband.

And since you believe every single word written in the Bible was dictated by God, you should have no problem accepting this.

To those who might find these words offensive, there is a history behind them. Eila and I have had discussions over other matters, and each time she has sought to usurp authority over me as a teacher would with a student. I don't mind receiving instruction from a woman; but if a woman is going to speak authoritatively to me, she better at least speak the truth. I don't see that happening here. There is some truth to what Eila is saying, but there is also error.

 

[Eila]

You are right in saying I am not your husband; but you are not my appointed teacher. So don't act like you are.

If you wish to teach me something about God, then at least learn how to rightly divide the Scriptures first.

And by the way, it is a Biblical truth that no woman is to have authority over a man. Paul was speaking within the context of men in general, not just a husband.

And since you believe every single word written in the Bible was dictated by God, you should have no problem accepting this.

To those who might find these words offensive, there is a history behind them. Eila and I have had discussions over other matters, and each time she has sought to usurp authority over me as a teacher would with a student. I don't mind receiving instruction from a woman; but if a woman is going to speak authoritatively to me, she better at least speak the truth. I don't see that happening here. There is some truth to what Eila is saying, but there is also error.

If you are wanting me to agree with you - I don't. If you think that expressing my beliefs and supporting it with Scripture is usurping authority over you then you have the right to believe whatever you want. If I am not speaking truth then you would need to show me from the Bible where I have expressed my beliefs wrongly.

And yes I believe the Bible is inspired in the original languages and woman in 1 Timothy can also be translated as wife according to Strongs Dictionary:

a woman
New Testament Greek Definition:
1135 gune {goo-nay'}
probably from the base of 1096; TDNT - 1:776,134; n f
AV - women 129, wife 92; 221
1) a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow
2) a wife
2a) of a betrothed woman

and the man as husband:

over the man
New Testament Greek Definition:
435 aner {an'-ayr}
a primary word cf 444; TDNT - 1:360,59; n m
AV - man 156, husband 50, sir 6, fellow 1, not tr 2; 215
1) with reference to sex
1a) of a male
1b) of a husband
1c) of a betrothed or future husband
2) with reference to age, and to distinguish an adult man from a boy
3) any male
4) used generically of a group of both men and women

 

[woobadooba]

If I am not speaking truth then you would need to show me from the Bible where I have expressed my beliefs wrongly.

I have tried to, but you refuse to listen.

In fact, my dealings with you have proven that you are not open to correction. Even others that I know have had this problem with you too. So it's not just me.

And yes I believe the Bible is inspired in the original languages and woman in 1 Timothy can also be translated as wife according to Strongs Dictionary:

a woman
New Testament Greek Definition:
1135 gune {goo-nay'}
probably from the base of 1096; TDNT - 1:776,134; n f
AV - women 129, wife 92; 221
1) a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow
2) a wife
2a) of a betrothed woman

and the man as husband:

over the man
New Testament Greek Definition:
435 aner {an'-ayr}
a primary word cf 444; TDNT - 1:360,59; n m
AV - man 156, husband 50, sir 6, fellow 1, not tr 2; 215
1) with reference to sex
1a) of a male
1b) of a husband
1c) of a betrothed or future husband
2) with reference to age, and to distinguish an adult man from a boy
3) any male
4) used generically of a group of both men and women

This is precisely my point! You are imposing meaning on the text that the context does not fully support. Yes, Paul was speaking of it as being wrong for a woman to usurp authority over her husband, but he was also referring to women and men in general.

The context supports both scenarios.

Of course, you won't see this unless you are open to correction.

I will say this however, your way of looking at it is quite new to me. You are the first person that I have encountered that has tried to explain Paul's instruction to women away like this.

Nevertheless, if you look at the history of the manner in which women were regarded by men during Biblical times, it should become quite evident that Paul was speaking of the roles of women and men in general, not just married couples.

 

[Eila]

I have tried to, but you refuse to listen.

In fact, my dealings with you have proven that you are not open to correction. Even others that I know have had this problem with you too. So it's not just me.

We can discuss things here, but you or anyone else here are not my appointed teachers - the Holy Spirit is. If you have Scripture that will thoroughly back up what you say then you should do so. If you do then it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict me and one of the ways He does is through the Word of God.

You have shown me texts that mention a law is written on our hearts, but nothing to suggest that the 10 commandments are written on our heart. You have said that 1 John is talking about the 10 commandments, but there is no Scripture you gave to support that.

Because I will not agree with you does not mean I am not open to correction. I do not agree with the notion that I am under the old covenant and I will not agree with that unless you can show me from the Bible that I am under the old covenant and the Holy Spirit convicts me on that issue.

This is precisely my point! You are imposing meaning on the text that the context does not fully support. Yes, Paul was speaking of it as being wrong for a woman to usurp authority over her husband, but he was also referring to women and men in general.

The context supports both scenarios.

Of course, you won't see this unless you are open to correction.

Adam and Eve were not men and women in general and the versus in question are relating to Adam and Eve. Notice the verses before were referring to plural "women" and the versus regarding submission and teaching were referring to singular. Even YLT refers to the man as a husband.

1 Timothy 2 " 9in like manner also the women, in becoming apparel, with modesty and sobriety to adorn themselves, not in braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or garments of great price, 10but -- which becometh women professing godly piety -- through good works.
11Let a woman in quietness learn in all subjection,
12and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,
13for Adam was first formed, then Eve,
14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came"

Saying that women in general cannot teach men goes against other portions of Scripture.

 

[woobadooba]

Saying that women in general cannot teach men goes against other portions of Scripture.

I never said a woman can't teach a man. A woman can teach a man many things, but as to being a spiritual leader over a man, or a teacher as such, it is not Biblical.

Your point of contention is not with me, but with Paul.

Again, to really understand what Paul meant one only needs to look at the culture of Paul's time, to determine how a woman was regarded by a man, and the role that she played in a man's life.

Granted, there were women that were teachers during his time. But their role was to teach the women, not the men. Do a cultural study on this when you get a chance. You will find that what I am saying is true.

As to discussing this further, I don't care to. If you feel a need to get the last word in, that is fine. Do what you will, but I am done here.

 

[freeindeed2]

Free,

I am not even going to waste my time responding to your post in detail, because anyone can clearly see what the Holy Word of God has to say about commandment keeping, and you are obviously denying what God's word has to say about it.

On the contrary. God's word does not direct new covenant Christians to go back to the old covenant.

Why should anyone bother arguing with you over this?

Then don't argue. Discuss. Show me that you keep what you say you keep. Otherwise, stop making claims that aren't true.

Furthermore, you don't even take what people say at face value. Instead, you read meaning into what they say, and thus bear false witness against them (this is obvious in your response to me).

Do you or do you not break the 10 commandments you claim can be kept? How is this 'reading into' what you said?

I can tell you that I don't believe we are made righteous by human works until I am blue in the face. But you will still insist that I am saying we are made righteous by works simply because I believe God has the power to deliver us from sin.

How you arrive at this conclusion makes absolutely no sense at all, and that is why it is futile to discuss such things with you.

Your own words arrive at this conclusion. You claim to not be saved by works/law-keeping, then claim that you can be lost by works/law-breaking. You claim the 10 commandments can be kept, but when I ask you if you break them you say it's 'futile to discuss such things with me'. You're statements are at contradiction with each other.

Not only does God 'have' the power to deliver us from our sin (sin-nature), he has already done so, and all who, by faith, believe in Jesus for their salvation have already had sin destroyed for them.

"But now God has shown us a different way of being right in his sight--not by obeying the law but by the way promised in the Scriptures long ago. We are made right in God's sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we have done.

For all have sinned; all fall short of God's glorious standard. Yet now God in his gracious kindness declares us not guilty. He has done this through Christ Jesus, who has freed us by taking away our sins. For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us. God was being entirely fair and just when he did not punish those who sinned in former times. And he is entirely fair and just in this present time when he declares sinners to be right in his sight because they believe in Jesus.

Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on our good deeds. It is based on our faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law." Rom 3:21, 28

"So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus. For the power of the life-giving Spirit has freed you through Christ Jesus from the power of sin that leads to death. The law of Moses could not save us, because of our sinful nature. But God put into effect a different plan to save us. He sent his own Son in a human body like ours, except that ours are sinful. God destroyed sin's control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins. He did this so that the requirement of the law would be fully accomplished for us who no longer follow our sinful nature but instead follow the Spirit." Rom 8:1-4

If you weren't a former SDA pastor I would be more patient with you.

Why? What does that have to do with anything?

But you ought to know better than to speak of the Ten Commandments and the Old Covenant as though they are one and the same (meaning you should have been taught how to properly exegete scripture).

I was taught in the SDA school system, and I agree, I should have been taught better. They don't teach it right, which is how false doctrines are formed in the first place.

Eila has already clearly shown that the covenant made with Israel (not gentiles) was the 10 commandments, which were kept in the ark of the 'COVENANT'. The Bible tells us this in many places. I know why you wish to deny this, also because I was taught it in the SDA school system.

Moreover, you ought to know better than to deny the fact that the NT makes it very clear that God's people are still required to keep His commandments. There is plenty of evidence in the NT for this. You just simply choose to ignore it.

I used to believe that John was referring to the 10 commandments too (it's how SDA's teach it). But you will not be able to show this because it's simply not in the text. If it were we wouldn't be having this discussion. You must make many assumptions to arrive at this conclusion, the first of which is that Jesus did not do what he said he would, fulfill the law. You also assume that John is speaking of the 10 while ignoring the fact that he identifies the commands he's referring to in the very same book.

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hi Freeindeed2,

In your last post you said:

"I was taught in the SDA school system, and I agree, I should have been taught better. They don't teach it right, which is how false doctrines are formed in the first place.

Eila has already clearly shown that the covenant made with Israel (not gentiles) was the 10 commandments, which were kept in the ark of the 'COVENANT'. The Bible tells us this in many places. I know why you wish to deny this, also because I was taught it in the SDA school system."

May I suggest that you go to the General Topics Forum and read a thread titled; "When ask The Ten Commandments still binding?" As usual, when the subject of the Ten Commanments is broached, the Law, the Covenants, and the Sabbath are quickly added. In that thread I believe that what I have already posted there addresses those points and refutes the highlighted portions of your post. If you see it differently, please feel free to make your point/points when I have finished my curent dialogue.

As an aside, what difference does it make where you got your education? However, perhaps you are right when you say, "I should have been taught better."

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[freeindeed2]

Hi Freeindeed2,

In your last post you said:

May I suggest that you go to the General Topics Forum and read a thread titled; "When ask The Ten Commandments still binding?" As usual, when the subject of the Ten Commanments is broached, the Law, the Covenants, and the Sabbath are quickly added. In that thread I believe that what I have already posted there addresses those points and refutes the highlighted portions of your post. If you see it differently, please feel free to make your point/points when I have finished my curent dialogue.

As an aside, what difference does it make where you got your education? However, perhaps you are right when you say, "I should have been taught better."

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

I will check it out. I spent a lot of time studying this very topic, so I'm not optimistic about seeing any 'progressive truth' or 'present truth' on the topic. There is no doubt that Scripture identifies (at least) the 10 commandments to be the covenant God made with Israel at Mt. Sinai. It was stored in ark of the 'covenant', and certainly nothing else in the ark of the covenant could have been the covenant (manna--no, Aaron's rod--no...). The Bible goes on to show that breaking one of the 10 commandments was breaking the covenant, so there isn't much wiggle room to try and say the covenant God made with Israel was something else. Even the 'book of the law' stored on or 'beside' the ark of the covenant contained a copy of the 10 commandments.

But I will check it out. Would you mind providing a link for ease of navigation?

 

[Loveaboveall]

freeindeed,

I am curious...

Are you still able to sin today after you have accepted Christ as your savior and He has completely covered you with His righteousness?

 

[thecountrydoc]

Hi Freeindeed2,

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you but here is the link you requested. You will find that all questions and answers come directly from the Bible, and nothing from EGW. You will notice that this is the second thread opened since the first had reached 1000 post. I waited quite a while before jumping into the fray.

I should also mention that any second year law studend would have a field day with the arguments presented here.

The link: http://www.christianforums.com/t5381190-when-asked-if-10-commandments-still-binding-2.html

Enjoy,
Doc

 

[djconklin]

I should also mention that any second year law studend would have a field day with the arguments presented here.

And a first year logic student!