Seventh-day "Evangelical" Adventist chruch doctrinal platform

[RND]

So, if "love God with all your mind, heart and soul" and "love your neighbor as yourself" are part of both the old and new covenants then nothings changed right?

If one is not doing both then that person is in violation of the commandments Jesus laid down right?

Agreed - the new covenant is adoption and sealing with His Spirit as His purchased possession (Ephesians 1:13-14). For those who have been redeemed from the law mediated by Moses (Galatians 4:4-5), the guidance of the law as a schoolmaster has been retired (Galatians 3:23-25). Those justified by Christ have no further need for the cage of the law (1 Timothy 1:8-9).

The ten commandments were more than just a part of the Mosaic covenant - they were the Mosaic covenant, upon which the mitzvot were attached to amplify and express the penalties for noncompliance to the covenant.

Galatians 2:21
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Hebrews 7:18-28
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.
...
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Victor

 

[VictorC]

So, if "love God with all your mind, heart and soul" and "love your neighbor as yourself" are part of both the old and new covenants then nothings changed right?

Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 are neither one carried into the new covenant. In fact, Jesus replaced one of these with a new commandment in John 13:34 to love one another, since Leviticus wasn't relied on anymore.

I believe you have Matthew 22:35-40 in mind - go back and read that passage, and see who was asking the question, and where the answer came from. No where did Jesus carry these into the new covenant.

If one is not doing both then that person is in violation of the commandments Jesus laid down right?

Previously, you quoted from John's gospel account. Wouldn't it be reasonable that he would know what His commandments are?
Sure!
He recorded them in 1 John 3:23:
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

Victor

 

[VictorC]

But you said we'd have to dump 18 of the 28 if we got rid of EGW. Apparently you miscounted or were mistaken.

... I see holes in 19 of those 28 fundamentals.

So I erred. To err is human. What I said is perhaps 2/3 of the fundies contain language dependent on Ellen White.
Now you have to dump 19 of them to pave the way to sola Scriptura.

Victor

 

[RND]

Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 are neither one carried into the new covenant. In fact, Jesus replaced one of these with a new commandment in John 13:34 to love one another, since Leviticus wasn't relied on anymore.

I believe you have Matthew 22:35-40 in mind - go back and read that passage, and see who was asking the question, and where the answer came from. No where did Jesus carry these into the new covenant.

He never got rid of them Victor, the are part of the new covenant. That nis very clear.

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Jam 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

How much more plain do the Apostle have to make it?

Previously, you quoted from John's gospel account. Wouldn't it be reasonable that he would know what His commandments are?
Sure!
He recorded them in 1 John 3:23:
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

Victor, loving one another and loving you neighbor as yourself are the same two commandments.

John 13:34-35
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Can't be the light of the world if you are hatin' on your brethren or your neighbor. You can't just love your brothers, the heathen do that.

Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

The "hearers" of the law are not justified but the "doers".......

Luk 6:49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

 

[mva1985]

Jeremiah 31:33 (NIV)

33 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.


I wonder who this "house of Israel" is?
Exactly what law is He going to put into our minds and write on our hearts?

 

[ricker]

John 14:15
"If you love me, keep my commandments."

I agree wholeheartedly!
Does Jesus say here our salvation depends on keeping the ten commandments? Did He or anyone command Sabbath observance of Christians after Christ's death and resurrection?
God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

I agree wholeheartedly!Does Jesus say here our salvation depends on keeping the ten commandments?

Does He say it doesn't?

Did He or anyone command Sabbath observance of Christians after Christ's death and resurrection?

Did He or anyone else say NOT to observe the sabbath?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

And where did Jesus say that there were NOT purple Elephants. When comments become like those of RND above we know that that that person has lost their ability to argue reasonably.

 

[RND]

And where did Jesus say that there were NOT purple Elephants.

And where did He say there were purple elephants?

When comments become like those of RND above we know that that that person has lost their ability to argue reasonably.

How so? By pointing out the fallacy of Rickers argument? RC, does Jesus ever say that salvation ISN'T dependent on keeping His commandments? Did He ever say NOT to observe the Sabbath? Hmmmmm?

 

[VictorC]

He never got rid of them Victor, the are part of the new covenant. That nis very clear.

Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Jam 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

How much more plain do the Apostle have to make it?

It is very plain, and a detail that you dismiss is that the entire mitzvot is fulfilled -done away- in one commandment that was replaced by Jesus in John 13:34. That, too, is very plain.
Jesus became our Mediator after the expiration of the law (Hebrews 7:28), and Leviticus isn't a part of the new covenant.

Why didn't you answer my comment concerning Matthew 22:35-40?

Victor, loving one another and loving you neighbor as yourself are the same two commandments.

Then why did Jesus replace the law in Leviticus?

The "hearers" of the law are not justified but the "doers".......

Romans 2:13 made that comment in conjunction with the Gentiles, who didn't even have the covenant law. The previous verse declared their disposition: perish without the law. Follow along in this epistle and see for yourself that no one had ever kept the law (for all have sinned) and this is verified by Jesus (John 7:19) and Paul in this same epistle (Romans 11:32).

Victor

 

[sentipente]

RND, according to your logic anything that we can think of is relevant as long as Jesus never addressed it. You may be on to something here.

 

[VictorC]

Jeremiah 31:33 (NIV)

33 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.


I wonder who this "house of Israel" is?

You're kidding, right?

Exactly what law is He going to put into our minds and write on our hearts?

You can gain a lot toward determining what His law is, that causes the recipient to know Him without need for further instruction, by first determining what this law isn't.
That is contained in the very previous verse.
Jeremiah 31:31-32
31: Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD.

The very first specification is that this law isn't from Sinai. It isn't the covenant made at that time and mediated by Moses - it isn't the ten commandments.
I wrote more about this in God replaces the schoolmaster

Victor

 

[RND]

RND, according to your logic anything that we can think of is relevant as long as Jesus never addressed it. You may be on to something here.

Jesus never said anything about tornadoes, yet they are very relevant.

It seems to be that people are quick to say that the sabbath or ten commandments are no longer relevant and have to be observed because there is no mention of them in the New Testament. But that's a ridiculous argument because there is equally no proof that they have been done away with or don't have to be observed.

There is more proof that both the Sabbath and ten commandments are still relative in the NT and there is to say that they have been changed or taken away.

 

[VictorC]

It seems to be that people are quick to say that the sabbath or ten commandments are no longer relevant and have to be observed because there is no mention of them in the New Testament. But that's a ridiculous argument because there is equally no proof that they have been done away with or don't have to be observed.

There is more proof that both the Sabbath and ten commandments are still relative in the NT and there is to say that they have been changed or taken away.

I think something needs to be clarified.
What, exactly, is the title referencing the tables of stone with the ten commandments?

 

[ricker]

Originally Posted by ricker

I agree wholeheartedly!Does Jesus say here our salvation depends on keeping the ten commandments?
​

Does He say it doesn't?

Did He or anyone command Sabbath observance of Christians after Christ's death and resurrection?

Did He or anyone else say NOT to observe the sabbath?

It was you, RND, who qouted John 14:15
"If you love me, keep my commandments.", I presume to show we have to keep the Sabbath to be saved.

Let's move on. Do you believe there are errors in any of Mrs. White's teachings?
Thanks, Ricker

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

And where did He say there were purple elephants?



How so? By pointing out the fallacy of Rickers argument? RC, does Jesus ever say that salvation ISN'T dependent on keeping His commandments? Did He ever say NOT to observe the Sabbath? Hmmmmm?

You are not pointing out fallacies you are using fallacies. Instead of asking for where Jesus said something was not as in "salvation ISN"T dependent on" see what Jesus says about Salvation. Otherwise you have an infantile argument where you can insert anything you want. As in Does Jesus ever say that salvation ISN'T dependent upon snake handling. Therefore to be saved we must be snake handlers. You can insert whatever foolish notion you want into such a technique.

 

[RND]

You are not pointing out fallacies you are using fallacies. Instead of asking for where Jesus said something was not as in "salvation ISN"T dependent on" see what Jesus says about Salvation.

I have. Do people involved in sin such as bank robbery, murder, adultery, etc. reflect the desires of Jesus RC? Are they demonstrating their "salvation" in Christ by continuing in sin? Paul says just the opposite, So does Jesus.

Give me a break.

Otherwise you have an infantile argument where you can insert anything you want. As in Does Jesus ever say that salvation ISN'T dependent upon snake handling. Therefore to be saved we must be snake handlers. You can insert whatever foolish notion you want into such a technique.

That's true. But that more a reflection people insisting the opposite is true from what is actually demonstrated in scripture. The sabbath is a great example. The ones that love to say we don't have to follow it are always the first to use the "...but it's not reiterated in scripture..." argument while at the same time ignoring the fact that if God was going to change His laws He might have done it emphatically. The inconsistency in the argument is what proves it to be fallacious.

For example, no where in the NT does it say anything about using the Lord's name in vain in so many words. It alludes to it, but doesn't straight out condemn it. It's the same argument people make regarding Acts 15. At the council they didn't say anyone had to keep the sabbath. So? Maybe it never crossed their mind that anyone wouldn't. They also didn't tell anyone not to murder, steal, lie, etc. Does that mean those things are ok?

 

[RND]

Originally Posted by ricker

I agree wholeheartedly!Does Jesus say here our salvation depends on keeping the ten commandments?
​

It was you, RND, who qouted John 14:15
"If you love me, keep my commandments.", I presume to show we have to keep the Sabbath to be saved.

Nope. To demonstrate that we are required first to love.

Let's move on. Do you believe there are errors in any of Mrs. White's teachings?

Errors? In what sense? Do I believe she was human and made mistakes? Yes. Do I believe Moses was a human and made mistakes? Yes. Do I believe David was a human and made mistakes? Yes. Yes. Do I believe Daniel was a human and made mistakes? Yes. Do I believe she's an honest to goodness prophetess? Not in the sense that a prophet can't or doesn't make mistakes.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

If they would pitch EGW being infallible, and the IJ, and the idea our salvation is dependent on keeping the Sabbath, I would rejoin...

Ditto that but add to it also getting rid of any and all notion that lawkeeping of any type bes in any way a REQUIREMENT for salvation, either to obtain salvation or to retain hold of one's salvation. Salvation comes from the grace of God manifest in Jesus Christ alone, and not even the good works the Holy Spirit does THROUGH us once we enter a saving relationship with God can merit one molecule of our salvation. It bes ALL Christ's work, start to finish, and none of man's.

Moriah would not even mind meeting on Saturday for Sabbath so long as this bes not touted as some mandatory 10-commandment-observance required for salvation.

The essential oeuvre of SDA eschatology has a great deal of Protestant soundness to it -- just get rid of making one institutionally-designated group the central focus and shift it to an unknown group determined by the reality of God's Holy Spirit at work in their hearts and lives regardless which church they hail from. The idea of God's true children being persecuted at the end can stay, just don't say they all must be card-carrying members of Church X.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Romans 13:10. Love is the fulfillment of the Law. Same difference.

Sorry, but no. Once again an active, binding law bes getting conflated with its fulfillment!!!

Love bes the FULFILLMENT of the Law. That does not equate to some undefined "law of love" meaning the name which the SDAs traditionally give to the 10 Commandments in order to conflate love with law so they may feel justified in using a codified behavioral standard as the relational dynamic referential rather than the fuzzier components of actual relationship.